Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear...." That not actually what she said at all, not that I’m an Ann Widdecombe fan. She is simply stating that where we once thought the capability of changing sex was impossible, who is to say science won’t find an ‘answer’ (not cure) to enable someone to choose their sexuality/sexual preferences, the inference is should they wish not that anyone gay should not be, in fact any such scientific answer would similarly be able to alter hetero sexuality preferences to bi or gay. Having said that, I’m unclear her intentions in saying it and she doesn’t appear to explicitly clarify the inferences to ensure they’re not misinterpreted. To suggest that it would be an answer in terms of the “correct” answer and only to be thinking of it in terms of conversion to heterosexuality is reprehensible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... That not actually what she said at all, not that I’m an Ann Widdecombe fan. She is simply stating that where we once thought the capability of changing sex was impossible, who is to say science won’t find an ‘answer’ (not cure) to enable someone to choose their sexuality/sexual preferences, the inference is should they wish not that anyone gay should not be, in fact any such scientific answer would similarly be able to alter hetero sexuality preferences to bi or gay. Having said that, I’m unclear her intentions in saying it and she doesn’t appear to explicitly clarify the inferences to ensure they’re not misinterpreted. To suggest that it would be an answer in terms of the “correct” answer and only to be thinking of it in terms of conversion to heterosexuality is reprehensible." I think that's interesting. I found this: ' During the interview on the Ridge on Sunday programme, Ms Widdecombe, 71, was asked whether people would want to share a platform with her due to her views on homosexuality. After referencing the scientific progress in gender reassignment, she added: "The fact that we now think it is quite impossible for people to switch sexuality doesn't mean that science may not yet produce an answer at some stage." Pushed by the presenter on whether she thought it was a real possibility, Ms Widdecombe replied: "I don't know any more than people once knew whether it was possible for men to become women." The MEP said she had "never claimed that such science already exists" to change someone's sexuality. But she added: "If you simply rule out the possibility of it, you are denying people who are confused about their sexuality or discontented with it, the chances that you do give to people who want to change gender." ' She hasn't answered the question here - statement as on the BBC news site. I think her point that it may help people who don't want to be gay, is fair enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... That not actually what she said at all, not that I’m an Ann Widdecombe fan. She is simply stating that where we once thought the capability of changing sex was impossible, who is to say science won’t find an ‘answer’ (not cure) to enable someone to choose their sexuality/sexual preferences, the inference is should they wish not that anyone gay should not be, in fact any such scientific answer would similarly be able to alter hetero sexuality preferences to bi or gay. Having said that, I’m unclear her intentions in saying it and she doesn’t appear to explicitly clarify the inferences to ensure they’re not misinterpreted. To suggest that it would be an answer in terms of the “correct” answer and only to be thinking of it in terms of conversion to heterosexuality is reprehensible. I think that's interesting. I found this: ' During the interview on the Ridge on Sunday programme, Ms Widdecombe, 71, was asked whether people would want to share a platform with her due to her views on homosexuality. After referencing the scientific progress in gender reassignment, she added: "The fact that we now think it is quite impossible for people to switch sexuality doesn't mean that science may not yet produce an answer at some stage." Pushed by the presenter on whether she thought it was a real possibility, Ms Widdecombe replied: "I don't know any more than people once knew whether it was possible for men to become women." The MEP said she had "never claimed that such science already exists" to change someone's sexuality. But she added: "If you simply rule out the possibility of it, you are denying people who are confused about their sexuality or discontented with it, the chances that you do give to people who want to change gender." ' She hasn't answered the question here - statement as on the BBC news site. I think her point that it may help people who don't want to be gay, is fair enough. " Yes, but... This was my reason for posting the clarification and it’s important that how we infer what her reasons were are simply that, an inference. She could also have been inferring exactly what the OP suggests that it wasn’t to help. We don’t know, she doesn’t clarify (although her views on homosexuality aren’t hugely inclusive so...) My concern is given inequalities that still exist, that the possibility that people who aren’t comfortable with their sexuality may be uncomfortable due to the social pressure that it’s not okay. I’d be more comfortable with concentrating on the positives of choices if I felt reassured that there was also full equality and acceptance of what *all* those choices are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... That not actually what she said at all, not that I’m an Ann Widdecombe fan. She is simply stating that where we once thought the capability of changing sex was impossible, who is to say science won’t find an ‘answer’ (not cure) to enable someone to choose their sexuality/sexual preferences, the inference is should they wish not that anyone gay should not be, in fact any such scientific answer would similarly be able to alter hetero sexuality preferences to bi or gay. Having said that, I’m unclear her intentions in saying it and she doesn’t appear to explicitly clarify the inferences to ensure they’re not misinterpreted. To suggest that it would be an answer in terms of the “correct” answer and only to be thinking of it in terms of conversion to heterosexuality is reprehensible. I think that's interesting. I found this: ' During the interview on the Ridge on Sunday programme, Ms Widdecombe, 71, was asked whether people would want to share a platform with her due to her views on homosexuality. After referencing the scientific progress in gender reassignment, she added: "The fact that we now think it is quite impossible for people to switch sexuality doesn't mean that science may not yet produce an answer at some stage." Pushed by the presenter on whether she thought it was a real possibility, Ms Widdecombe replied: "I don't know any more than people once knew whether it was possible for men to become women." The MEP said she had "never claimed that such science already exists" to change someone's sexuality. But she added: "If you simply rule out the possibility of it, you are denying people who are confused about their sexuality or discontented with it, the chances that you do give to people who want to change gender." ' She hasn't answered the question here - statement as on the BBC news site. I think her point that it may help people who don't want to be gay, is fair enough. Yes, but... This was my reason for posting the clarification and it’s important that how we infer what her reasons were are simply that, an inference. She could also have been inferring exactly what the OP suggests that it wasn’t to help. We don’t know, she doesn’t clarify (although her views on homosexuality aren’t hugely inclusive so...) My concern is given inequalities that still exist, that the possibility that people who aren’t comfortable with their sexuality may be uncomfortable due to the social pressure that it’s not okay. I’d be more comfortable with concentrating on the positives of choices if I felt reassured that there was also full equality and acceptance of what *all* those choices are." I agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does there need to be a cure? That's as stupid as like trying to cure people of having pointy ears, pointless." Some people don't want to be gay or bi. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does there need to be a cure? That's as stupid as like trying to cure people of having pointy ears, pointless. Some people don't want to be gay or bi. " Not when it's seen as dirty or reprehensible by so many in society, no. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... That not actually what she said at all, not that I’m an Ann Widdecombe fan. She is simply stating that where we once thought the capability of changing sex was impossible, who is to say science won’t find an ‘answer’ (not cure) to enable someone to choose their sexuality/sexual preferences, the inference is should they wish not that anyone gay should not be, in fact any such scientific answer would similarly be able to alter hetero sexuality preferences to bi or gay. Having said that, I’m unclear her intentions in saying it and she doesn’t appear to explicitly clarify the inferences to ensure they’re not misinterpreted. To suggest that it would be an answer in terms of the “correct” answer and only to be thinking of it in terms of conversion to heterosexuality is reprehensible." Exactly this. I don’t have any time for her either, but reducing what she said to ‘science might find a cure for homosexuality’ was a gross misinterpretation of what she actually said. If a woman finds herself pregnant, science has provided a way for that to be changed, if the woman freely chooses to. If someone wants to change their sex, science has provided a way for that to be changed, if the person freely chooses to. Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does there need to be a cure? That's as stupid as like trying to cure people of having pointy ears, pointless. Some people don't want to be gay or bi. " Some people don't want to be lots of things, but they are. Who has the right to decided we can make a cure for that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... That not actually what she said at all, not that I’m an Ann Widdecombe fan. She is simply stating that where we once thought the capability of changing sex was impossible, who is to say science won’t find an ‘answer’ (not cure) to enable someone to choose their sexuality/sexual preferences, the inference is should they wish not that anyone gay should not be, in fact any such scientific answer would similarly be able to alter hetero sexuality preferences to bi or gay. Having said that, I’m unclear her intentions in saying it and she doesn’t appear to explicitly clarify the inferences to ensure they’re not misinterpreted. To suggest that it would be an answer in terms of the “correct” answer and only to be thinking of it in terms of conversion to heterosexuality is reprehensible. Exactly this. I don’t have any time for her either, but reducing what she said to ‘science might find a cure for homosexuality’ was a gross misinterpretation of what she actually said. If a woman finds herself pregnant, science has provided a way for that to be changed, if the woman freely chooses to. If someone wants to change their sex, science has provided a way for that to be changed, if the person freely chooses to. Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does there need to be a cure? That's as stupid as like trying to cure people of having pointy ears, pointless." Except plastic surgery had been commonplace for decades. Again, it’s not a cure anyway, any more than a sex change or an abortion is a cure. If it was to be anything, it would be a choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial." This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. " That sounds like you putting words in her mouth to be honest. She was very clear about the context and what she meant. So no, that isn’t clear at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. That sounds like you putting words in her mouth to be honest. She was very clear about the context and what she meant. So no, that isn’t clear at all. " I don’t think she was overtly clear at all. But I also think it’s important to be conscious of the probable (given her form) intent but at the same time to not put words in her mouth but state the extrapolation ourselves of what aspect of it would and what would not be acceptable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. That sounds like you putting words in her mouth to be honest. She was very clear about the context and what she meant. So no, that isn’t clear at all. " No, she's stating her own out dated agenda, but twisting it in a way to try and make it an acceptable thing to say in today's liberal climate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. That sounds like you putting words in her mouth to be honest. She was very clear about the context and what she meant. So no, that isn’t clear at all. I don’t think she was overtly clear at all. But I also think it’s important to be conscious of the probable (given her form) intent but at the same time to not put words in her mouth but state the extrapolation ourselves of what aspect of it would and what would not be acceptable. " She was clear enough to compare it to someone choosing to have a sex change, rather than someone wanting to be cured of cancer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. That sounds like you putting words in her mouth to be honest. She was very clear about the context and what she meant. So no, that isn’t clear at all. No, she's stating her own out dated agenda, but twisting it in a way to try and make it an acceptable thing to say in today's liberal climate." To be honest, that sounds more like you twisting it in a way to try and make it an unacceptable thing to say in today’s liberal climate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. That sounds like you putting words in her mouth to be honest. She was very clear about the context and what she meant. So no, that isn’t clear at all. I don’t think she was overtly clear at all. But I also think it’s important to be conscious of the probable (given her form) intent but at the same time to not put words in her mouth but state the extrapolation ourselves of what aspect of it would and what would not be acceptable. She was clear enough to compare it to someone choosing to have a sex change, rather than someone wanting to be cured of cancer." Absolutely, that doesn’t mean the extrapolated inference one way or the other is correct. Hence not overt. And she’s got form. I’m consciously not choosing to put words in her mouth either way, but I’m very, very wary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. That sounds like you putting words in her mouth to be honest. She was very clear about the context and what she meant. So no, that isn’t clear at all. I don’t think she was overtly clear at all. But I also think it’s important to be conscious of the probable (given her form) intent but at the same time to not put words in her mouth but state the extrapolation ourselves of what aspect of it would and what would not be acceptable. She was clear enough to compare it to someone choosing to have a sex change, rather than someone wanting to be cured of cancer. Absolutely, that doesn’t mean the extrapolated inference one way or the other is correct. Hence not overt. And she’s got form. I’m consciously not choosing to put words in her mouth either way, but I’m very, very wary." I guess perhaps, to me, one way makes some reasonable sense in context, and the other is just so abhorrent that it’s hard to imagine anyone in 2019 seriously suggesting it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. That sounds like you putting words in her mouth to be honest. She was very clear about the context and what she meant. So no, that isn’t clear at all. I don’t think she was overtly clear at all. But I also think it’s important to be conscious of the probable (given her form) intent but at the same time to not put words in her mouth but state the extrapolation ourselves of what aspect of it would and what would not be acceptable. She was clear enough to compare it to someone choosing to have a sex change, rather than someone wanting to be cured of cancer. Absolutely, that doesn’t mean the extrapolated inference one way or the other is correct. Hence not overt. And she’s got form. I’m consciously not choosing to put words in her mouth either way, but I’m very, very wary. I guess perhaps, to me, one way makes some reasonable sense in context, and the other is just so abhorrent that it’s hard to imagine anyone in 2019 seriously suggesting it." Which I totally get. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... That not actually what she said at all, not that I’m an Ann Widdecombe fan. She is simply stating that where we once thought the capability of changing sex was impossible, who is to say science won’t find an ‘answer’ (not cure) to enable someone to choose their sexuality/sexual preferences, the inference is should they wish not that anyone gay should not be, in fact any such scientific answer would similarly be able to alter hetero sexuality preferences to bi or gay. Having said that, I’m unclear her intentions in saying it and she doesn’t appear to explicitly clarify the inferences to ensure they’re not misinterpreted. To suggest that it would be an answer in terms of the “correct” answer and only to be thinking of it in terms of conversion to heterosexuality is reprehensible." That's a really fair and balanced assessment. I agree completely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual?" She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s not try to paint her as a homophobe. In fact she seems quite comfortable being around homosexuals considering her friendship with Craig Revel Horwood. " Did you just deliver the “some of her best friends are gay” line?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. " So was Hitler | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. So was Hitler" And I don’t like either of them.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. " Perhaps she wants the 'cure' for herself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. Perhaps she wants the 'cure' for herself. " Who knows? Perhaps. She’s got (or has expressed) some rather abhorrent views (or abhorrent to me) in my opinion. I don’t lose much sleep over the fact she’s getting a bit of a roasting over this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. Perhaps she wants the 'cure' for herself. " That may be true , and she may well have spent her whole life unhappy with her sexuality . Let’s say that we all agree that we can’t choose our sexuality , we are born the way we are . And a gay person isn’t happy at being gay , they would rather be heterosexual . They should be just as entitled as anyone else to therapy shouldn’t they? Seems pretty simple to me , so why the fuss ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. Perhaps she wants the 'cure' for herself. That may be true , and she may well have spent her whole life unhappy with her sexuality . Let’s say that we all agree that we can’t choose our sexuality , we are born the way we are . And a gay person isn’t happy at being gay , they would rather be heterosexual . They should be just as entitled as anyone else to therapy shouldn’t they? Seems pretty simple to me , so why the fuss ? " Is she also advocating a 'cure' for straight people who are unhappy about not being gay? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. Perhaps she wants the 'cure' for herself. That may be true , and she may well have spent her whole life unhappy with her sexuality . Let’s say that we all agree that we can’t choose our sexuality , we are born the way we are . And a gay person isn’t happy at being gay , they would rather be heterosexual . They should be just as entitled as anyone else to therapy shouldn’t they? Seems pretty simple to me , so why the fuss ? " I agree with you, if it was as simple as that. Because you have to also in your “let’s say starting point” ensure we are starting in a world where non-heteronormativity is as accepted as heteronormativity, so we can ensure that anyone not happy with their sexuality is doing so not under pressure from societal frameworks that discriminate and stigmatise anyone not hetero. If that’s all in hand, and then if science does find a magic pill so people can freely choose, then all good. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. Perhaps she wants the 'cure' for herself. That may be true , and she may well have spent her whole life unhappy with her sexuality . Let’s say that we all agree that we can’t choose our sexuality , we are born the way we are . And a gay person isn’t happy at being gay , they would rather be heterosexual . They should be just as entitled as anyone else to therapy shouldn’t they? Seems pretty simple to me , so why the fuss ? Is she also advocating a 'cure' for straight people who are unhappy about not being gay?" There are plenty of straight guys who happily meet TVs , it’s called being fab straight 
So the moral is that it’s not so difficult t be ‘ cured ‘ of being straight is it ?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. Perhaps she wants the 'cure' for herself. That may be true , and she may well have spent her whole life unhappy with her sexuality . Let’s say that we all agree that we can’t choose our sexuality , we are born the way we are . And a gay person isn’t happy at being gay , they would rather be heterosexual . They should be just as entitled as anyone else to therapy shouldn’t they? Seems pretty simple to me , so why the fuss ? Is she also advocating a 'cure' for straight people who are unhappy about not being gay?" Probably not. I can see where you’re going with that, but to be fair why would they be, if straight people aren’t subject to the same intolerance as the LGBT community can be? As said above, if there’s an issue it’s with parts of society and a lack of tolerance and understanding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. Perhaps she wants the 'cure' for herself. That may be true , and she may well have spent her whole life unhappy with her sexuality . Let’s say that we all agree that we can’t choose our sexuality , we are born the way we are . And a gay person isn’t happy at being gay , they would rather be heterosexual . They should be just as entitled as anyone else to therapy shouldn’t they? Seems pretty simple to me , so why the fuss ? " Yes I think if they want therapy they should be able to have it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Suggesting that science may similarly, at some point, provide a way for people to freely choose to change their sexuality in that same context shouldn’t be that controversial. This is phenomenally naive, I'm sorry. Look at the context. Widdicombe's politics are very very clear. The idea that she is just casually chatting about what some sci-fi future might hold is daft. She clearly is trying to chisel out a space to suggest that people can be educated/treated out of being gay. Wise up. That sounds like you putting words in her mouth to be honest. She was very clear about the context and what she meant. So no, that isn’t clear at all. In the context should include IMO her view on homosexuality which are agin it. We search for cures generally to irradiate the malaise. Again IMO a train of thought which could lead us to dangerous territory" I was trying to be clever, a vain attempt for irradiate read irradicate  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is she heterosexual? She’s been a public defender of gay conversion therapy. She’s not known to be pro gay. So was Hitler And I don’t like either of them. "At least Hitler was better dressed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s not try to paint her as a homophobe. In fact she seems quite comfortable being around homosexuals considering her friendship with Craig Revel Horwood. Did you just deliver the “some of her best friends are gay” line? "That made me laugh! I must of been tired last night as I hadn’t thought about it that way! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is Ann not aloud to think ?" Australian rugby player Israel Folau tweeted his religious beliefs on homosexuality and had his contract terminated. Should the old testament not then be banned as hate speech? Re: Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 Should people who read the old testament out loud be punished? Are politicians ALLOWED to have views and sports people not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is Ann not aloud to think ? Australian rugby player Israel Folau tweeted his religious beliefs on homosexuality and had his contract terminated. Should the old testament not then be banned as hate speech? Re: Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 Should people who read the old testament out loud be punished? Are politicians ALLOWED to have views and sports people not?" That’s a whole free speech argument. Rugby Australia would say that that Falou's views were incompatible with their values and therefore they’ve terminated his contract. They’re a commercial organisation so I suppose you can see their view. Ann Widdecombe is answerable to the ballot box, and it’s up to us as voters as to whether we terminate her contract. I suppose it brings us onto the old question of can you have true free speech, if there are consequences? In an ideal world, views should be aired and challenged with reasoned argument. In reality that can’t happen because views have to be hidden. Is that healthier for society? I’m not sure. Part of me feels that Brexit, Trump and the rise of the far right has been enabled through generally reasonable, tolerant people feeling they can’t speak and discuss their fears. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is Ann not aloud to think ? Australian rugby player Israel Folau tweeted his religious beliefs on homosexuality and had his contract terminated. Should the old testament not then be banned as hate speech? Re: Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 Should people who read the old testament out loud be punished? Are politicians ALLOWED to have views and sports people not? That’s a whole free speech argument. Rugby Australia would say that that Falou's views were incompatible with their values and therefore they’ve terminated his contract. They’re a commercial organisation so I suppose you can see their view. Ann Widdecombe is answerable to the ballot box, and it’s up to us as voters as to whether we terminate her contract. I suppose it brings us onto the old question of can you have true free speech, if there are consequences? In an ideal world, views should be aired and challenged with reasoned argument. In reality that can’t happen because views have to be hidden. Is that healthier for society? I’m not sure. Part of me feels that Brexit, Trump and the rise of the far right has been enabled through generally reasonable, tolerant people feeling they can’t speak and discuss their fears." Actually he is just preaching the word of the bible as is commanded in the bible. If it is contrary to the views of Australian rugby. Is that to say that they do not believe in the bible? It's not a case of freedom of speech it's more like religious persecution. I don't agree with what Falau tweets. It's complete bullshit so far as I'm concerned. But at the same time I can respect another man's belief even if it differs from my own. So will Australian cricket boycott countries who believe in the persecution of gay people? Will the Australian government refuse to buy oil from nations who excute gay people? Will Australians stop going on holiday to places under Islamic law? I don't see any consistency here.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... That not actually what she said at all, not that I’m an Ann Widdecombe fan. She is simply stating that where we once thought the capability of changing sex was impossible, who is to say science won’t find an ‘answer’ (not cure) to enable someone to choose their sexuality/sexual preferences, the inference is should they wish not that anyone gay should not be, in fact any such scientific answer would similarly be able to alter hetero sexuality preferences to bi or gay. Having said that, I’m unclear her intentions in saying it and she doesn’t appear to explicitly clarify the inferences to ensure they’re not misinterpreted. To suggest that it would be an answer in terms of the “correct” answer and only to be thinking of it in terms of conversion to heterosexuality is reprehensible." Well done for accurately representing her comments. While reading the posts I was planning my response to accurately reflect her comments as opposed to the jumping in a bandwagon type of hysterical comments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is Ann not aloud to think ?" Why do you say that? She clearly is allowed to think and express her views. That is how we have been able to discuss them. Perhaps you really mean are people not allowed to disagree with her views? It seems that people often confused “freedom of speech” with “having the freedom to say anything they like unchallenged”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is Ann not aloud to think ? Australian rugby player Israel Folau tweeted his religious beliefs on homosexuality and had his contract terminated. Should the old testament not then be banned as hate speech? Re: Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 Should people who read the old testament out loud be punished? Are politicians ALLOWED to have views and sports people not? That’s a whole free speech argument. Rugby Australia would say that that Falou's views were incompatible with their values and therefore they’ve terminated his contract. They’re a commercial organisation so I suppose you can see their view. Ann Widdecombe is answerable to the ballot box, and it’s up to us as voters as to whether we terminate her contract. I suppose it brings us onto the old question of can you have true free speech, if there are consequences? In an ideal world, views should be aired and challenged with reasoned argument. In reality that can’t happen because views have to be hidden. Is that healthier for society? I’m not sure. Part of me feels that Brexit, Trump and the rise of the far right has been enabled through generally reasonable, tolerant people feeling they can’t speak and discuss their fears. Actually he is just preaching the word of the bible as is commanded in the bible. If it is contrary to the views of Australian rugby. Is that to say that they do not believe in the bible? It's not a case of freedom of speech it's more like religious persecution. I don't agree with what Falau tweets. It's complete bullshit so far as I'm concerned. But at the same time I can respect another man's belief even if it differs from my own. So will Australian cricket boycott countries who believe in the persecution of gay people? Will the Australian government refuse to buy oil from nations who excute gay people? Will Australians stop going on holiday to places under Islamic law? I don't see any consistency here...." Rugby Australia is a completely separate entity to the cricket board and government. Inconsistency would be if another rugby player tweeted similar and wasn’t dropped. When he signed on the dotted line to play at international level, I imagine his contract mentioned about not bringing the game into disrepute. He will also be aware that as an intentional player he will be in the spotlight. Religious persecution? They have no problems with his being a Christian, they just don’t want to be associated with views that are incompatible with the modern world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is Ann not aloud to think ? Australian rugby player Israel Folau tweeted his religious beliefs on homosexuality and had his contract terminated. Should the old testament not then be banned as hate speech? Re: Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 Should people who read the old testament out loud be punished? Are politicians ALLOWED to have views and sports people not? That’s a whole free speech argument. Rugby Australia would say that that Falou's views were incompatible with their values and therefore they’ve terminated his contract. They’re a commercial organisation so I suppose you can see their view. Ann Widdecombe is answerable to the ballot box, and it’s up to us as voters as to whether we terminate her contract. I suppose it brings us onto the old question of can you have true free speech, if there are consequences? In an ideal world, views should be aired and challenged with reasoned argument. In reality that can’t happen because views have to be hidden. Is that healthier for society? I’m not sure. Part of me feels that Brexit, Trump and the rise of the far right has been enabled through generally reasonable, tolerant people feeling they can’t speak and discuss their fears. Actually he is just preaching the word of the bible as is commanded in the bible. If it is contrary to the views of Australian rugby. Is that to say that they do not believe in the bible? It's not a case of freedom of speech it's more like religious persecution. I don't agree with what Falau tweets. It's complete bullshit so far as I'm concerned. But at the same time I can respect another man's belief even if it differs from my own. So will Australian cricket boycott countries who believe in the persecution of gay people? Will the Australian government refuse to buy oil from nations who excute gay people? Will Australians stop going on holiday to places under Islamic law? I don't see any consistency here...." There’s no inconsistency. As already said Rugby Australia felt he did not reflect their views, so terminated his contract as they didn’t feel it was appropriate for anyone representing them to publicly air those views. Other countries do not however represent Rugby Australia, so they could respect their views without feeling that they reflected on the views of Rugby Australia. I don’t know too much about the state of LGBT tolerance in countries like India or Pakistan, but presumably better than that in Middle East countries who aren’t big on cricket anyway. Not as Rigby Australia really responsible for the action of the Australian government or Australians generally regarding their holiday destination choices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is Ann not aloud to think ? Australian rugby player Israel Folau tweeted his religious beliefs on homosexuality and had his contract terminated. Should the old testament not then be banned as hate speech? Re: Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 Should people who read the old testament out loud be punished? Are politicians ALLOWED to have views and sports people not? That’s a whole free speech argument. Rugby Australia would say that that Falou's views were incompatible with their values and therefore they’ve terminated his contract. They’re a commercial organisation so I suppose you can see their view. Ann Widdecombe is answerable to the ballot box, and it’s up to us as voters as to whether we terminate her contract. I suppose it brings us onto the old question of can you have true free speech, if there are consequences? In an ideal world, views should be aired and challenged with reasoned argument. In reality that can’t happen because views have to be hidden. Is that healthier for society? I’m not sure. Part of me feels that Brexit, Trump and the rise of the far right has been enabled through generally reasonable, tolerant people feeling they can’t speak and discuss their fears. Actually he is just preaching the word of the bible as is commanded in the bible. If it is contrary to the views of Australian rugby. Is that to say that they do not believe in the bible? It's not a case of freedom of speech it's more like religious persecution. I don't agree with what Falau tweets. It's complete bullshit so far as I'm concerned. But at the same time I can respect another man's belief even if it differs from my own. So will Australian cricket boycott countries who believe in the persecution of gay people? Will the Australian government refuse to buy oil from nations who excute gay people? Will Australians stop going on holiday to places under Islamic law? I don't see any consistency here.... There’s no inconsistency. As already said Rugby Australia felt he did not reflect their views, so terminated his contract as they didn’t feel it was appropriate for anyone representing them to publicly air those views. Other countries do not however represent Rugby Australia, so they could respect their views without feeling that they reflected on the views of Rugby Australia. I don’t know too much about the state of LGBT tolerance in countries like India or Pakistan, but presumably better than that in Middle East countries who aren’t big on cricket anyway. Not as Rigby Australia really responsible for the action of the Australian government or Australians generally regarding their holiday destination choices." Actually I was thinking of Afghanistan where being gay carries the death penalty. But they are still welcomed to play sport.... As for bringing a sport into disrepute, I very much doubt that Israel Folau ever thought spreading the word of the bible was disreputable. I think a great many of us on fab would lose our jobs if it ever came out that we were swingers. And that would be because we brought our employers into disrepute. As to freedom of speech. Well if a rugby player can be castigated for publicity staying what they believe why should a politician not be castigated for the same thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Continue as before my darlings.....!
Steve x  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I was a kid one of my friends got the shit beaten out of him by his dad because his dad caught him playing with dolls. His dad genuinely believed he was 'curing' his son by beating it out of him before homosexuality set in. OK so that was 40 years ago and since then we have come to except sexual orientation as something one is not a disease one catches. It is of little surprise that it is someone from the same era who is trying to bring the old mentality back. What if some dad out there listens to Ann and decides to practice good old fashioned aversion therapy on his kid? I don't think that kid will think too much of Ann." If that's what she said, yes.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I was a kid one of my friends got the shit beaten out of him by his dad because his dad caught him playing with dolls. His dad genuinely believed he was 'curing' his son by beating it out of him before homosexuality set in. OK so that was 40 years ago and since then we have come to except sexual orientation as something one is not a disease one catches. It is of little surprise that it is someone from the same era who is trying to bring the old mentality back. What if some dad out there listens to Ann and decides to practice good old fashioned aversion therapy on his kid? I don't think that kid will think too much of Ann. If that's what she said, yes.... "Otherwise, I'd say the dad would have to accept responsibility as a child abuser for beating his kid.....
Seriously, what's wrong with ppl..... Smh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I was a kid one of my friends got the shit beaten out of him by his dad because his dad caught him playing with dolls. His dad genuinely believed he was 'curing' his son by beating it out of him before homosexuality set in. OK so that was 40 years ago and since then we have come to except sexual orientation as something one is not a disease one catches. It is of little surprise that it is someone from the same era who is trying to bring the old mentality back. What if some dad out there listens to Ann and decides to practice good old fashioned aversion therapy on his kid? I don't think that kid will think too much of Ann. If that's what she said, yes....
Otherwise, I'd say the dad would have to accept responsibility as a child abuser for beating his kid.....
Seriously, what's wrong with ppl..... Smh "Part two of the story is that the son was then bought a "cowboys and indians" playset where he could adopt a more "manly" mindset of cowboys killing Native Americans. Like I say this was over 40 years ago. Some people refer to this time as the good old days but personally I don't want to see them returning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I was a kid one of my friends got the shit beaten out of him by his dad because his dad caught him playing with dolls. His dad genuinely believed he was 'curing' his son by beating it out of him before homosexuality set in. OK so that was 40 years ago and since then we have come to except sexual orientation as something one is not a disease one catches. It is of little surprise that it is someone from the same era who is trying to bring the old mentality back. What if some dad out there listens to Ann and decides to practice good old fashioned aversion therapy on his kid? I don't think that kid will think too much of Ann. If that's what she said, yes....
Otherwise, I'd say the dad would have to accept responsibility as a child abuser for beating his kid.....
Seriously, what's wrong with ppl..... Smh
Part two of the story is that the son was then bought a "cowboys and indians" playset where he could adopt a more "manly" mindset of cowboys killing Native Americans.
Like I say this was over 40 years ago. Some people refer to this time as the good old days but personally I don't want to see them returning. "That just made me think of the Village People. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I was a kid one of my friends got the shit beaten out of him by his dad because his dad caught him playing with dolls. His dad genuinely believed he was 'curing' his son by beating it out of him before homosexuality set in. OK so that was 40 years ago and since then we have come to except sexual orientation as something one is not a disease one catches. It is of little surprise that it is someone from the same era who is trying to bring the old mentality back. What if some dad out there listens to Ann and decides to practice good old fashioned aversion therapy on his kid? I don't think that kid will think too much of Ann. If that's what she said, yes....
Otherwise, I'd say the dad would have to accept responsibility as a child abuser for beating his kid.....
Seriously, what's wrong with ppl..... Smh
Part two of the story is that the son was then bought a "cowboys and indians" playset where he could adopt a more "manly" mindset of cowboys killing Native Americans.
Like I say this was over 40 years ago. Some people refer to this time as the good old days but personally I don't want to see them returning. "I don't see a problem with any type of outfit for any sex of child tbh. Why shouldn't a girl OR boy be a cowboy/cowgirl? I was just tapping in to your point that a dad beating his own child might somehow be the fault of Ann W... Seemed a bit sensationalist to me. When Ann actually goes on TV and tells ppl to beat their kids to change their sexuality, then imho that's when I'd accuse her of it. But when she says we don't know the science of the mind fully, I'd say she's just a shit politician for now who's got a lot of ppls backs up with an ill thought comment... Stop reading facecake posts for a bit, innit... It's just news, not a story..... X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I was a kid one of my friends got the shit beaten out of him by his dad because his dad caught him playing with dolls. His dad genuinely believed he was 'curing' his son by beating it out of him before homosexuality set in. OK so that was 40 years ago and since then we have come to except sexual orientation as something one is not a disease one catches. It is of little surprise that it is someone from the same era who is trying to bring the old mentality back. What if some dad out there listens to Ann and decides to practice good old fashioned aversion therapy on his kid? I don't think that kid will think too much of Ann. If that's what she said, yes....
Otherwise, I'd say the dad would have to accept responsibility as a child abuser for beating his kid.....
Seriously, what's wrong with ppl..... Smh
Part two of the story is that the son was then bought a "cowboys and indians" playset where he could adopt a more "manly" mindset of cowboys killing Native Americans.
Like I say this was over 40 years ago. Some people refer to this time as the good old days but personally I don't want to see them returning.
That just made me think of the Village People. "Love the VP! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear...." If there's a pill, I'll take it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I was a kid one of my friends got the shit beaten out of him by his dad because his dad caught him playing with dolls. His dad genuinely believed he was 'curing' his son by beating it out of him before homosexuality set in. OK so that was 40 years ago and since then we have come to except sexual orientation as something one is not a disease one catches. It is of little surprise that it is someone from the same era who is trying to bring the old mentality back. What if some dad out there listens to Ann and decides to practice good old fashioned aversion therapy on his kid? I don't think that kid will think too much of Ann. If that's what she said, yes....
Otherwise, I'd say the dad would have to accept responsibility as a child abuser for beating his kid.....
Seriously, what's wrong with ppl..... Smh
Part two of the story is that the son was then bought a "cowboys and indians" playset where he could adopt a more "manly" mindset of cowboys killing Native Americans.
Like I say this was over 40 years ago. Some people refer to this time as the good old days but personally I don't want to see them returning.
I don't see a problem with any type of outfit for any sex of child tbh. Why shouldn't a girl OR boy be a cowboy/cowgirl? I was just tapping in to your point that a dad beating his own child might somehow be the fault of Ann W... Seemed a bit sensationalist to me. When Ann actually goes on TV and tells ppl to beat their kids to change their sexuality, then imho that's when I'd accuse her of it. But when she says we don't know the science of the mind fully, I'd say she's just a shit politician for now who's got a lot of ppls backs up with an ill thought comment...
Stop reading facecake posts for a bit, innit... It's just news, not a story.....
X "The parent doesn't have to beat up their kid for this to be wrong. Some people are going to read this story and think 'hey I can stop my son from being gay'. I don't see any positive outcomes from this. My point is that there is a lot of misery in this world caused by people's old fashioned, narrow minded and uneducated view of homosexuality. Anns statements do nothing to help. Innit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The thought of sex with Anne Widdecombe would "cure" most of humanity of their sexuality, I suspect. " How so? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many of the replies here make me super sad. Everyone trying to shut down one another with their existing knowledge rather than thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little. Burn the witch with her funny hair! No burn the gays! No burn the witch! NO, maybe think for a smarter solution and realise we don't know it all, our individual experiences are just that, individual, and we all share a fuck load more than a difference of opinion on a single subject, innit.... It's coz the blonde one haz arrived to sw the queen I'm guessing.... Peace
Continue as before my darlings.....!
Steve x "Hi Steve, Your comment confuses me a little. I agree there’s a fair number that haven’t read her actual comments and that of course should be done. But you talk of how people should be “thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little” - from who? Who polices who is delivering what you feel is the correctly acceptable comment in order for people to learn a little? And what’s the thinking for a clever solution? Surely everyone that has posted has the right to post however they have and others will interact with those posts? Whilst I’m sure it’s meant with goodwill, given it’s hard to actually decipher what you mean this does appear to be a bit of a strange post, as you don’t actually give us any traction to understand your view on what she said? Just my thoughts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable?" You mean like "gay conversion therapy"? Widdecombe is a big fan. People shown images of same-sex relationships and given vomit-inducing charges of electricity through their body to "cure" their urges. Or how about chemical castration? Alan Turing could tell you all about that. If only he was here to do so. I'm sorry to to say straight people have an abysmal record when it comes to deciding what is good for non-straight people. Widdecombe is no different. Her ignorance is appalling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I was a kid one of my friends got the shit beaten out of him by his dad because his dad caught him playing with dolls. His dad genuinely believed he was 'curing' his son by beating it out of him before homosexuality set in. OK so that was 40 years ago and since then we have come to except sexual orientation as something one is not a disease one catches. It is of little surprise that it is someone from the same era who is trying to bring the old mentality back. What if some dad out there listens to Ann and decides to practice good old fashioned aversion therapy on his kid? I don't think that kid will think too much of Ann. If that's what she said, yes....
Otherwise, I'd say the dad would have to accept responsibility as a child abuser for beating his kid.....
Seriously, what's wrong with ppl..... Smh
Part two of the story is that the son was then bought a "cowboys and indians" playset where he could adopt a more "manly" mindset of cowboys killing Native Americans.
Like I say this was over 40 years ago. Some people refer to this time as the good old days but personally I don't want to see them returning.
That just made me think of the Village People.
Love the VP! "It's a slippery slope... before you know it you'll be wearing pink and admiring Elton John.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable?" Like I said in a previous post, if the proposed solution was for people unhappy with their sexual orientation regardless of which direction that goes I'd be fine with this whole thing. But it's not. Gender reassignment is for men who want to be women AND women who want yo be men. It goes both ways. Secondly society puts no pressure on men to be women or women to be men. It does however, put pressure on non-hetrosexual people to be hetrosexual. This poses the question as to whether a person who is unhappy about their sexual orientation actually wishes otherwise or is just made unhappy by society's unfortunate unacceptance. I would venture that a vast majority of cases would be the latter. If science is going to alter human consciousness should we not start with more pressing issues like murders, rapists, paedophiles etc. Homosexuality might be the worst aspect of humanity for Ann Widdecombe's world but quite frankly I think there are more pressing issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable?" The start difference between your chosen 2 options is that one of them - gender dysphoria, is a recognised condition, whereas sexual orientation is a recognised characteristic of what it means to be human and not a medical, psychological or other disorder. This does not mean that every person has or will always be accepting of their sexual orientation, which may vary over time, just as not all people are content with physical, psychological or personality traits that they may have: if they're just attributes, such as penis size, or mental acumen, then the sensible, healthy approach is to be accepting and to live the life that someone wants, based upon the gifts that they have. There are certain apsects of changing individuals or society, that potentially are revolting. We understand some of the earlier tests and practices that some people and governments undertook - think of Mengele and his atrocious experiments; thousands of US citizens were sterilised in the last century too. During Hitler's reign, people who had same sex attraction were amongst those who had the highest likelihood of death, via the holocaust. Whilst there are many reasons to have great research, including medical research, it is generally better if it's driven by ethical propositions, rather than potentially re-tracing steps that have already been somewhat taken. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable? The start difference between your chosen 2 options is that one of them - gender dysphoria, is a recognised condition, whereas sexual orientation is a recognised characteristic of what it means to be human and not a medical, psychological or other disorder. This does not mean that every person has or will always be accepting of their sexual orientation, which may vary over time, just as not all people are content with physical, psychological or personality traits that they may have: if they're just attributes, such as penis size, or mental acumen, then the sensible, healthy approach is to be accepting and to live the life that someone wants, based upon the gifts that they have. There are certain apsects of changing individuals or society, that potentially are revolting. We understand some of the earlier tests and practices that some people and governments undertook - think of Mengele and his atrocious experiments; thousands of US citizens were sterilised in the last century too. During Hitler's reign, people who had same sex attraction were amongst those who had the highest likelihood of death, via the holocaust. Whilst there are many reasons to have great research, including medical research, it is generally better if it's driven by ethical propositions, rather than potentially re-tracing steps that have already been somewhat taken. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable? You mean like "gay conversion therapy"? Widdecombe is a big fan. People shown images of same-sex relationships and given vomit-inducing charges of electricity through their body to "cure" their urges. Or how about chemical castration? Alan Turing could tell you all about that. If only he was here to do so. I'm sorry to to say straight people have an abysmal record when it comes to deciding what is good for non-straight people. Widdecombe is no different. Her ignorance is appalling. " I see you've ignored most of my posts on this subject in the politics forum, but you come here to respond to the same posts with sensationalist comparisons and suggestions. The fact is, nobody knows for sure what it is in the brain that decides gender. It's entirely possible that there are more than two genders. Also, you, and other posters here have a very insular Western attitude. I know of homosexual people in Third World countries who are desperately miserable and suicidal because of how they are. There are horrific punishments and equally horrific experiments that are still being carried out by some governments and organisations for being homosexual. It's trite to say that the preferable option is to change the attitudes and cultures of the societies they live in - not only could that take hundreds of years, but what right does the West have to tell other cultures how to be? Yes, the end result of any research carried out could be used for harm, but it could also be used for good. This is true of thousands, possibly millions of things invented or created by humans. Attitudes of the West may be cut and dried, but cultures of Asia and Africa have in-built homophobia that has existed since their religious story books were written. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable? You mean like "gay conversion therapy"? Widdecombe is a big fan. People shown images of same-sex relationships and given vomit-inducing charges of electricity through their body to "cure" their urges. Or how about chemical castration? Alan Turing could tell you all about that. If only he was here to do so. I'm sorry to to say straight people have an abysmal record when it comes to deciding what is good for non-straight people. Widdecombe is no different. Her ignorance is appalling. I see you've ignored most of my posts on this subject in the politics forum, but you come here to respond to the same posts with sensationalist comparisons and suggestions. The fact is, nobody knows for sure what it is in the brain that decides gender. It's entirely possible that there are more than two genders. Also, you, and other posters here have a very insular Western attitude. I know of homosexual people in Third World countries who are desperately miserable and suicidal because of how they are. There are horrific punishments and equally horrific experiments that are still being carried out by some governments and organisations for being homosexual. It's trite to say that the preferable option is to change the attitudes and cultures of the societies they live in - not only could that take hundreds of years, but what right does the West have to tell other cultures how to be? Yes, the end result of any research carried out could be used for harm, but it could also be used for good. This is true of thousands, possibly millions of things invented or created by humans. Attitudes of the West may be cut and dried, but cultures of Asia and Africa have in-built homophobia that has existed since their religious story books were written. " I agree with you. The solution is to send Ann Widdecombe to Africa! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable? You mean like "gay conversion therapy"? Widdecombe is a big fan. People shown images of same-sex relationships and given vomit-inducing charges of electricity through their body to "cure" their urges. Or how about chemical castration? Alan Turing could tell you all about that. If only he was here to do so. I'm sorry to to say straight people have an abysmal record when it comes to deciding what is good for non-straight people. Widdecombe is no different. Her ignorance is appalling. I see you've ignored most of my posts on this subject in the politics forum, but you come here to respond to the same posts with sensationalist comparisons and suggestions. The fact is, nobody knows for sure what it is in the brain that decides gender. It's entirely possible that there are more than two genders. Also, you, and other posters here have a very insular Western attitude. I know of homosexual people in Third World countries who are desperately miserable and suicidal because of how they are. There are horrific punishments and equally horrific experiments that are still being carried out by some governments and organisations for being homosexual. It's trite to say that the preferable option is to change the attitudes and cultures of the societies they live in - not only could that take hundreds of years, but what right does the West have to tell other cultures how to be? Yes, the end result of any research carried out could be used for harm, but it could also be used for good. This is true of thousands, possibly millions of things invented or created by humans. Attitudes of the West may be cut and dried, but cultures of Asia and Africa have in-built homophobia that has existed since their religious story books were written. " So your solution to resolving Apartheid would have been to make everyone white? In Nazi Germany your solution would have been for everyone to be Aryan Christians? If a government or society is wrongfully persercuting people you believe the solution is to remove the reason for their persecution? Apart from the fact you're proposing to not fix things where they are wrong. Suggesting that African leaders are going to invest millions or that the people themselves will be able to afford treatment is naive. Medical science is driven by profits. The market in the western world is too small. The market in Africa is too poor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable? You mean like "gay conversion therapy"? Widdecombe is a big fan. People shown images of same-sex relationships and given vomit-inducing charges of electricity through their body to "cure" their urges. Or how about chemical castration? Alan Turing could tell you all about that. If only he was here to do so. I'm sorry to to say straight people have an abysmal record when it comes to deciding what is good for non-straight people. Widdecombe is no different. Her ignorance is appalling. I see you've ignored most of my posts on this subject in the politics forum, but you come here to respond to the same posts with sensationalist comparisons and suggestions. The fact is, nobody knows for sure what it is in the brain that decides gender. It's entirely possible that there are more than two genders. Also, you, and other posters here have a very insular Western attitude. I know of homosexual people in Third World countries who are desperately miserable and suicidal because of how they are. There are horrific punishments and equally horrific experiments that are still being carried out by some governments and organisations for being homosexual. It's trite to say that the preferable option is to change the attitudes and cultures of the societies they live in - not only could that take hundreds of years, but what right does the West have to tell other cultures how to be? Yes, the end result of any research carried out could be used for harm, but it could also be used for good. This is true of thousands, possibly millions of things invented or created by humans. Attitudes of the West may be cut and dried, but cultures of Asia and Africa have in-built homophobia that has existed since their religious story books were written. So your solution to resolving Apartheid would have been to make everyone white? In Nazi Germany your solution would have been for everyone to be Aryan Christians? If a government or society is wrongfully persercuting people you believe the solution is to remove the reason for their persecution? Apart from the fact you're proposing to not fix things where they are wrong. Suggesting that African leaders are going to invest millions or that the people themselves will be able to afford treatment is naive. Medical science is driven by profits. The market in the western world is too small. The market in Africa is too poor." Why the sensationalising with the Nazi thing? You need to get past your Western need to equate everything that you think might be bad with the Nazis to make it sound worse. How do you get from what I posted that my solution to resolving Apartheid would have been to make everyone white? That's just a ridiculous, and frankly immature comparison. None of what I have said involves forcing any kind of treatment on anybody. Having it available as a choice is quite different. Why would you want human beings to suffer persecution and physical punishment just because you're selfishly uncomfortable with the end results? You sound the type of person who would deny cancer patients radiotherapy because certain procedures involving radiotherapy were created and perfected by the Nazis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's somewhat disappointing, too, that on site born from sexual liberation there are still voices trying to pull people away from discovering the truth about their own sexuality. " And to be honest, your voice is the loudest. You're entirely unable to accept the possibility that not everyone is happy with the sexuality they are. In the same way not everybody is happy with the gender they are. If there is a possibility that the first of those groups can be helped, why deny them that chance? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I was a kid one of my friends got the shit beaten out of him by his dad because his dad caught him playing with dolls. His dad genuinely believed he was 'curing' his son by beating it out of him before homosexuality set in. OK so that was 40 years ago and since then we have come to except sexual orientation as something one is not a disease one catches. It is of little surprise that it is someone from the same era who is trying to bring the old mentality back. What if some dad out there listens to Ann and decides to practice good old fashioned aversion therapy on his kid? I don't think that kid will think too much of Ann. If that's what she said, yes....
Otherwise, I'd say the dad would have to accept responsibility as a child abuser for beating his kid.....
Seriously, what's wrong with ppl..... Smh
Part two of the story is that the son was then bought a "cowboys and indians" playset where he could adopt a more "manly" mindset of cowboys killing Native Americans.
Like I say this was over 40 years ago. Some people refer to this time as the good old days but personally I don't want to see them returning.
That just made me think of the Village People.
Love the VP!
It's a slippery slope... before you know it you'll be wearing pink and admiring Elton John. "Who's to say I don't already....  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You're entirely unable to accept the possibility that not everyone is happy with the sexuality they are. " Read it again and you will see that is exactly what I said. Usually accompanied by wailing and screaming about how un-natural it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many of the replies here make me super sad. Everyone trying to shut down one another with their existing knowledge rather than thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little. Burn the witch with her funny hair! No burn the gays! No burn the witch! NO, maybe think for a smarter solution and realise we don't know it all, our individual experiences are just that, individual, and we all share a fuck load more than a difference of opinion on a single subject, innit.... It's coz the blonde one haz arrived to sw the queen I'm guessing.... Peace
Continue as before my darlings.....!
Steve x
Hi Steve,
Your comment confuses me a little.
I agree there’s a fair number that haven’t read her actual comments and that of course should be done.
But you talk of how people should be “thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little” - from who? Who polices who is delivering what you feel is the correctly acceptable comment in order for people to learn a little? And what’s the thinking for a clever solution?
Surely everyone that has posted has the right to post however they have and others will interact with those posts?
Whilst I’m sure it’s meant with goodwill, given it’s hard to actually decipher what you mean this does appear to be a bit of a strange post, as you don’t actually give us any traction to understand your view on what she said?
Just my thoughts. "Ohhhh.... I'd just say think a little on it my love. It was about being kind, redpectful,thoughtful, constructive and being willing to learn from others, not just teach them stale knowledge and abuse Anns "odd" appearance to gain "status". I wasn't trying to tell ppl anything other than to consider staying open. Imo ppl basically saying fuck you to everyone else and forming tribes never usually gets us very far as a bigger society... Everyone is free to not listen to me as much or more than they don't listen to anyone else.... Free word innit.... Peace etc
Steve x
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable? You mean like "gay conversion therapy"? Widdecombe is a big fan. People shown images of same-sex relationships and given vomit-inducing charges of electricity through their body to "cure" their urges. Or how about chemical castration? Alan Turing could tell you all about that. If only he was here to do so. I'm sorry to to say straight people have an abysmal record when it comes to deciding what is good for non-straight people. Widdecombe is no different. Her ignorance is appalling. I see you've ignored most of my posts on this subject in the politics forum, but you come here to respond to the same posts with sensationalist comparisons and suggestions. The fact is, nobody knows for sure what it is in the brain that decides gender. It's entirely possible that there are more than two genders. Also, you, and other posters here have a very insular Western attitude. I know of homosexual people in Third World countries who are desperately miserable and suicidal because of how they are. There are horrific punishments and equally horrific experiments that are still being carried out by some governments and organisations for being homosexual. It's trite to say that the preferable option is to change the attitudes and cultures of the societies they live in - not only could that take hundreds of years, but what right does the West have to tell other cultures how to be? Yes, the end result of any research carried out could be used for harm, but it could also be used for good. This is true of thousands, possibly millions of things invented or created by humans. Attitudes of the West may be cut and dried, but cultures of Asia and Africa have in-built homophobia that has existed since their religious story books were written. So your solution to resolving Apartheid would have been to make everyone white? In Nazi Germany your solution would have been for everyone to be Aryan Christians? If a government or society is wrongfully persercuting people you believe the solution is to remove the reason for their persecution? Apart from the fact you're proposing to not fix things where they are wrong. Suggesting that African leaders are going to invest millions or that the people themselves will be able to afford treatment is naive. Medical science is driven by profits. The market in the western world is too small. The market in Africa is too poor. Why the sensationalising with the Nazi thing? You need to get past your Western need to equate everything that you think might be bad with the Nazis to make it sound worse. How do you get from what I posted that my solution to resolving Apartheid would have been to make everyone white? That's just a ridiculous, and frankly immature comparison. None of what I have said involves forcing any kind of treatment on anybody. Having it available as a choice is quite different. Why would you want human beings to suffer persecution and physical punishment just because you're selfishly uncomfortable with the end results? You sound the type of person who would deny cancer patients radiotherapy because certain procedures involving radiotherapy were created and perfected by the Nazis." If you have a suitable counter argument I'd be happy to hear it. If you wish to attack me personally then perhaps it is your own maturity that is questionable. I am from Africa and can tell you that African nations can't afford to combat the HIV pandemic never mind sexual orientation reversal. So much for my "Western thinking". As for changing society taking hundreds of years. We have gone from homsexuality being outlawed to gay pride in less than 50 years. Apartheid was invented and dismantled in more or less the same time period. Suggesting that homosexuality should be 'cured' rather than changing society's views on homosexuality is as equally a redicilous suggestion in my book. Oh and bad news. Some people have lives outside of fab forums. So maybe the fact that not everyone has read every single posting on the forums is more about them not discussing politics on a sex site. Perhaps you're not as important as you think you are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many of the replies here make me super sad. Everyone trying to shut down one another with their existing knowledge rather than thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little. Burn the witch with her funny hair! No burn the gays! No burn the witch! NO, maybe think for a smarter solution and realise we don't know it all, our individual experiences are just that, individual, and we all share a fuck load more than a difference of opinion on a single subject, innit.... It's coz the blonde one haz arrived to sw the queen I'm guessing.... Peace
Continue as before my darlings.....!
Steve x
Hi Steve,
Your comment confuses me a little.
I agree there’s a fair number that haven’t read her actual comments and that of course should be done.
But you talk of how people should be “thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little” - from who? Who polices who is delivering what you feel is the correctly acceptable comment in order for people to learn a little? And what’s the thinking for a clever solution?
Surely everyone that has posted has the right to post however they have and others will interact with those posts?
Whilst I’m sure it’s meant with goodwill, given it’s hard to actually decipher what you mean this does appear to be a bit of a strange post, as you don’t actually give us any traction to understand your view on what she said?
Just my thoughts.
Ohhhh....
I'd just say think a little on it my love. It was about being kind, redpectful,thoughtful, constructive and being willing to learn from others, not just teach them stale knowledge and abuse Anns "odd" appearance to gain "status". I wasn't trying to tell ppl anything other than to consider staying open. Imo ppl basically saying fuck you to everyone else and forming tribes never usually gets us very far as a bigger society...
Everyone is free to not listen to me as much or more than they don't listen to anyone else.... Free word innit....
Peace etc
Steve x
"Oh, right. It was just a peace and love jizz. Gotcha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many of the replies here make me super sad. Everyone trying to shut down one another with their existing knowledge rather than thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little. Burn the witch with her funny hair! No burn the gays! No burn the witch! NO, maybe think for a smarter solution and realise we don't know it all, our individual experiences are just that, individual, and we all share a fuck load more than a difference of opinion on a single subject, innit.... It's coz the blonde one haz arrived to sw the queen I'm guessing.... Peace
Continue as before my darlings.....!
Steve x
Hi Steve,
Your comment confuses me a little.
I agree there’s a fair number that haven’t read her actual comments and that of course should be done.
But you talk of how people should be “thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little” - from who? Who polices who is delivering what you feel is the correctly acceptable comment in order for people to learn a little? And what’s the thinking for a clever solution?
Surely everyone that has posted has the right to post however they have and others will interact with those posts?
Whilst I’m sure it’s meant with goodwill, given it’s hard to actually decipher what you mean this does appear to be a bit of a strange post, as you don’t actually give us any traction to understand your view on what she said?
Just my thoughts.
Ohhhh....
I'd just say think a little on it my love. It was about being kind, redpectful,thoughtful, constructive and being willing to learn from others, not just teach them stale knowledge and abuse Anns "odd" appearance to gain "status". I wasn't trying to tell ppl anything other than to consider staying open. Imo ppl basically saying fuck you to everyone else and forming tribes never usually gets us very far as a bigger society...
Everyone is free to not listen to me as much or more than they don't listen to anyone else.... Free word innit....
Peace etc
Steve x
Oh, right. It was just a peace and love jizz. Gotcha "Lololol I'm always about the peace and love jizz! I know I can be confusing, challenging and frustrating at times but I rarely post any nasty jizz. Whenever I post something confusing I can guarantee someone will think it's about them personally and take offence. Its kinda why I stopped posting for a bit, scared to offend, still not sure tbh... I'm lucky I have Saff who actually gets the wiring of my thoughts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many of the replies here make me super sad. Everyone trying to shut down one another with their existing knowledge rather than thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little. Burn the witch with her funny hair! No burn the gays! No burn the witch! NO, maybe think for a smarter solution and realise we don't know it all, our individual experiences are just that, individual, and we all share a fuck load more than a difference of opinion on a single subject, innit.... It's coz the blonde one haz arrived to sw the queen I'm guessing.... Peace
Continue as before my darlings.....!
Steve x
Hi Steve,
Your comment confuses me a little.
I agree there’s a fair number that haven’t read her actual comments and that of course should be done.
But you talk of how people should be “thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little” - from who? Who polices who is delivering what you feel is the correctly acceptable comment in order for people to learn a little? And what’s the thinking for a clever solution?
Surely everyone that has posted has the right to post however they have and others will interact with those posts?
Whilst I’m sure it’s meant with goodwill, given it’s hard to actually decipher what you mean this does appear to be a bit of a strange post, as you don’t actually give us any traction to understand your view on what she said?
Just my thoughts.
Ohhhh....
I'd just say think a little on it my love. It was about being kind, redpectful,thoughtful, constructive and being willing to learn from others, not just teach them stale knowledge and abuse Anns "odd" appearance to gain "status". I wasn't trying to tell ppl anything other than to consider staying open. Imo ppl basically saying fuck you to everyone else and forming tribes never usually gets us very far as a bigger society...
Everyone is free to not listen to me as much or more than they don't listen to anyone else.... Free word innit....
Peace etc
Steve x
Oh, right. It was just a peace and love jizz. Gotcha
Lololol I'm always about the peace and love jizz! I know I can be confusing, challenging and frustrating at times but I rarely post any nasty jizz. Whenever I post something confusing I can guarantee someone will think it's about them personally and take offence. Its kinda why I stopped posting for a bit, scared to offend, still not sure tbh...
I'm lucky I have Saff who actually gets the wiring of my thoughts "Oh I took zero offence at all. It genuinely didn’t make any logical sense to me and when I don’t understand what someone is trying to say, I ask. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many of the replies here make me super sad. Everyone trying to shut down one another with their existing knowledge rather than thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little. Burn the witch with her funny hair! No burn the gays! No burn the witch! NO, maybe think for a smarter solution and realise we don't know it all, our individual experiences are just that, individual, and we all share a fuck load more than a difference of opinion on a single subject, innit.... It's coz the blonde one haz arrived to sw the queen I'm guessing.... Peace
Continue as before my darlings.....!
Steve x
Hi Steve,
Your comment confuses me a little.
I agree there’s a fair number that haven’t read her actual comments and that of course should be done.
But you talk of how people should be “thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little” - from who? Who polices who is delivering what you feel is the correctly acceptable comment in order for people to learn a little? And what’s the thinking for a clever solution?
Surely everyone that has posted has the right to post however they have and others will interact with those posts?
Whilst I’m sure it’s meant with goodwill, given it’s hard to actually decipher what you mean this does appear to be a bit of a strange post, as you don’t actually give us any traction to understand your view on what she said?
Just my thoughts.
Ohhhh....
I'd just say think a little on it my love. It was about being kind, redpectful,thoughtful, constructive and being willing to learn from others, not just teach them stale knowledge and abuse Anns "odd" appearance to gain "status". I wasn't trying to tell ppl anything other than to consider staying open. Imo ppl basically saying fuck you to everyone else and forming tribes never usually gets us very far as a bigger society...
Everyone is free to not listen to me as much or more than they don't listen to anyone else.... Free word innit....
Peace etc
Steve x
Oh, right. It was just a peace and love jizz. Gotcha
Lololol I'm always about the peace and love jizz! I know I can be confusing, challenging and frustrating at times but I rarely post any nasty jizz. Whenever I post something confusing I can guarantee someone will think it's about them personally and take offence. Its kinda why I stopped posting for a bit, scared to offend, still not sure tbh...
I'm lucky I have Saff who actually gets the wiring of my thoughts
Oh I took zero offence at all. It genuinely didn’t make any logical sense to me and when I don’t understand what someone is trying to say, I ask. "I didn’t get it either and still don’t  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many of the replies here make me super sad. Everyone trying to shut down one another with their existing knowledge rather than thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little. Burn the witch with her funny hair! No burn the gays! No burn the witch! NO, maybe think for a smarter solution and realise we don't know it all, our individual experiences are just that, individual, and we all share a fuck load more than a difference of opinion on a single subject, innit.... It's coz the blonde one haz arrived to sw the queen I'm guessing.... Peace
Continue as before my darlings.....!
Steve x
Hi Steve,
Your comment confuses me a little.
I agree there’s a fair number that haven’t read her actual comments and that of course should be done.
But you talk of how people should be “thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little” - from who? Who polices who is delivering what you feel is the correctly acceptable comment in order for people to learn a little? And what’s the thinking for a clever solution?
Surely everyone that has posted has the right to post however they have and others will interact with those posts?
Whilst I’m sure it’s meant with goodwill, given it’s hard to actually decipher what you mean this does appear to be a bit of a strange post, as you don’t actually give us any traction to understand your view on what she said?
Just my thoughts.
Ohhhh....
I'd just say think a little on it my love. It was about being kind, redpectful,thoughtful, constructive and being willing to learn from others, not just teach them stale knowledge and abuse Anns "odd" appearance to gain "status". I wasn't trying to tell ppl anything other than to consider staying open. Imo ppl basically saying fuck you to everyone else and forming tribes never usually gets us very far as a bigger society...
Everyone is free to not listen to me as much or more than they don't listen to anyone else.... Free word innit....
Peace etc
Steve x
Oh, right. It was just a peace and love jizz. Gotcha
Lololol I'm always about the peace and love jizz! I know I can be confusing, challenging and frustrating at times but I rarely post any nasty jizz. Whenever I post something confusing I can guarantee someone will think it's about them personally and take offence. Its kinda why I stopped posting for a bit, scared to offend, still not sure tbh...
I'm lucky I have Saff who actually gets the wiring of my thoughts
Oh I took zero offence at all. It genuinely didn’t make any logical sense to me and when I don’t understand what someone is trying to say, I ask.
I didn’t get it either and still don’t "I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. " Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment! "But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many of the replies here make me super sad. Everyone trying to shut down one another with their existing knowledge rather than thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little. Burn the witch with her funny hair! No burn the gays! No burn the witch! NO, maybe think for a smarter solution and realise we don't know it all, our individual experiences are just that, individual, and we all share a fuck load more than a difference of opinion on a single subject, innit.... It's coz the blonde one haz arrived to sw the queen I'm guessing.... Peace
Continue as before my darlings.....!
Steve x
Hi Steve,
Your comment confuses me a little.
I agree there’s a fair number that haven’t read her actual comments and that of course should be done.
But you talk of how people should be “thinking for a clever solution, staying open minded, avoiding butt hurtedness and maybe learning a little” - from who? Who polices who is delivering what you feel is the correctly acceptable comment in order for people to learn a little? And what’s the thinking for a clever solution?
Surely everyone that has posted has the right to post however they have and others will interact with those posts?
Whilst I’m sure it’s meant with goodwill, given it’s hard to actually decipher what you mean this does appear to be a bit of a strange post, as you don’t actually give us any traction to understand your view on what she said?
Just my thoughts.
Ohhhh....
I'd just say think a little on it my love. It was about being kind, redpectful,thoughtful, constructive and being willing to learn from others, not just teach them stale knowledge and abuse Anns "odd" appearance to gain "status". I wasn't trying to tell ppl anything other than to consider staying open. Imo ppl basically saying fuck you to everyone else and forming tribes never usually gets us very far as a bigger society...
Everyone is free to not listen to me as much or more than they don't listen to anyone else.... Free word innit....
Peace etc
Steve x
Oh, right. It was just a peace and love jizz. Gotcha
Lololol I'm always about the peace and love jizz! I know I can be confusing, challenging and frustrating at times but I rarely post any nasty jizz. Whenever I post something confusing I can guarantee someone will think it's about them personally and take offence. Its kinda why I stopped posting for a bit, scared to offend, still not sure tbh...
I'm lucky I have Saff who actually gets the wiring of my thoughts
Oh I took zero offence at all. It genuinely didn’t make any logical sense to me and when I don’t understand what someone is trying to say, I ask.
I didn’t get it either and still don’t
I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour?
It's a fair comment. "It's the wonder of text isn't it - ppl see what they see and it's not necessarily the same as what the next person sees....
Keeps the forums interesting! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie."The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids. The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive. I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better""I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it. "I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it.
I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too "Do you think there would be plenty of heterosexual people who would? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it.
I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too
Do you think there would be plenty of heterosexual people who would?"I wouldn't change my sexuality for anything in the world. My OH and I attended every bi night we can. Why? Simply because we have found bi nights to be some of the best parties around. I know straight people who go to bi nights purely for the vibe. I wouldn't go so far as to say they wish they were bi, but probably feel a bit left out on the night. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify. "Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally..... Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it.
I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too
Do you think there would be plenty of heterosexual people who would?"The reason I say bi people is this . We used to go dogging a lot and met so many bi guys who invariably were out to satisfy an itch . And the itch would be scratched with bi fun for them , behind their female partners back . Many of these guys never played with women at all , as in some weird way they felt it was ok to play with guys as it wasn’t ‘ proper’ cheating ! Anyway , if they didn’t have the urge to play with those of the same sex , they wouldn’t feel the need to go out looking for same sex fun . As I said earlier in the thread , plenty of straight men play with guys and TVs on here , and plenty of straight women play with other women on here too , so there’s no need for them to take the pill is there ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x "Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it.
I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too
Do you think there would be plenty of heterosexual people who would?
The reason I say bi people is this .
We used to go dogging a lot and met so many bi guys who invariably were out to satisfy an itch . And the itch would be scratched with bi fun for them , behind their female partners back . Many of these guys never played with women at all , as in some weird way they felt it was ok to play with guys as it wasn’t ‘ proper’ cheating !
Anyway , if they didn’t have the urge to play with those of the same sex , they wouldn’t feel the need to go out looking for same sex fun .
As I said earlier in the thread , plenty of straight men play with guys and TVs on here , and plenty of straight women play with other women on here too , so there’s no need for them to take the pill is there ? "I totally get your point. I was just wondering about my question, whether we imagine anyone hetero would want a pill to be other than, and if not - why not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Millions of people around the world believe that they are "born into the wrong body", ie men believing they should be women, and women believing they should be men. Drugs and procedures have been developed to assist them to transition into the sex of their choice. I think it's naive to believe that there aren't similar cases of people being born homosexual who believe that they should be heterosexual and spend a lifetime of misery because they can't be who they want to be. If a treatment was researched and created, does anybody believe that nobody in the world would avail themselves of this treatment? Is it wrong to not research it just because it's not currently fashionable? You mean like "gay conversion therapy"? Widdecombe is a big fan. People shown images of same-sex relationships and given vomit-inducing charges of electricity through their body to "cure" their urges. Or how about chemical castration? Alan Turing could tell you all about that. If only he was here to do so. I'm sorry to to say straight people have an abysmal record when it comes to deciding what is good for non-straight people. Widdecombe is no different. Her ignorance is appalling. I see you've ignored most of my posts on this subject in the politics forum, but you come here to respond to the same posts with sensationalist comparisons and suggestions. The fact is, nobody knows for sure what it is in the brain that decides gender. It's entirely possible that there are more than two genders. Also, you, and other posters here have a very insular Western attitude. I know of homosexual people in Third World countries who are desperately miserable and suicidal because of how they are. There are horrific punishments and equally horrific experiments that are still being carried out by some governments and organisations for being homosexual. It's trite to say that the preferable option is to change the attitudes and cultures of the societies they live in - not only could that take hundreds of years, but what right does the West have to tell other cultures how to be? Yes, the end result of any research carried out could be used for harm, but it could also be used for good. This is true of thousands, possibly millions of things invented or created by humans. Attitudes of the West may be cut and dried, but cultures of Asia and Africa have in-built homophobia that has existed since their religious story books were written. So your solution to resolving Apartheid would have been to make everyone white? In Nazi Germany your solution would have been for everyone to be Aryan Christians? If a government or society is wrongfully persercuting people you believe the solution is to remove the reason for their persecution? Apart from the fact you're proposing to not fix things where they are wrong. Suggesting that African leaders are going to invest millions or that the people themselves will be able to afford treatment is naive. Medical science is driven by profits. The market in the western world is too small. The market in Africa is too poor. Why the sensationalising with the Nazi thing? You need to get past your Western need to equate everything that you think might be bad with the Nazis to make it sound worse. How do you get from what I posted that my solution to resolving Apartheid would have been to make everyone white? That's just a ridiculous, and frankly immature comparison. None of what I have said involves forcing any kind of treatment on anybody. Having it available as a choice is quite different. Why would you want human beings to suffer persecution and physical punishment just because you're selfishly uncomfortable with the end results? You sound the type of person who would deny cancer patients radiotherapy because certain procedures involving radiotherapy were created and perfected by the Nazis. If you have a suitable counter argument I'd be happy to hear it. If you wish to attack me personally then perhaps it is your own maturity that is questionable. I am from Africa and can tell you that African nations can't afford to combat the HIV pandemic never mind sexual orientation reversal. So much for my "Western thinking". As for changing society taking hundreds of years. We have gone from homsexuality being outlawed to gay pride in less than 50 years. Apartheid was invented and dismantled in more or less the same time period. Suggesting that homosexuality should be 'cured' rather than changing society's views on homosexuality is as equally a redicilous suggestion in my book. Oh and bad news. Some people have lives outside of fab forums. So maybe the fact that not everyone has read every single posting on the forums is more about them not discussing politics on a sex site. Perhaps you're not as important as you think you are." Nowhere have I suggested that homosexuality has to be "cured". I'm suggesting that the research should not be shied away from merely because it's unpalatable to those who haven't experienced the problems gay people in Third World countries experience. Your assertion that Africa could not possibly afford any possible outcome of that research is without grounds - you have no idea what the cost may be and are again using a sensationalist argument. People should always have the choice on how they live their lives. You seem to be in favour of restricting that choice. Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay "Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha".... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it.
I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too
Do you think there would be plenty of heterosexual people who would?
The reason I say bi people is this .
We used to go dogging a lot and met so many bi guys who invariably were out to satisfy an itch . And the itch would be scratched with bi fun for them , behind their female partners back . Many of these guys never played with women at all , as in some weird way they felt it was ok to play with guys as it wasn’t ‘ proper’ cheating !
Anyway , if they didn’t have the urge to play with those of the same sex , they wouldn’t feel the need to go out looking for same sex fun .
As I said earlier in the thread , plenty of straight men play with guys and TVs on here , and plenty of straight women play with other women on here too , so there’s no need for them to take the pill is there ?
I totally get your point.
I was just wondering about my question, whether we imagine anyone hetero would want a pill to be other than, and if not - why not?"Yes! Me! If I woke up tomorrow and was hetrosexual I would want a pill that made me bi again. Some people say bi people are greedy..... and they are right! I enjoy sex in most of the flavours it comes in and wouldn't change the variety offered by bisexuality for anything in the world. I will take all the negativity, the prejudice etc. Because it's worth it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it.
I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too
Do you think there would be plenty of heterosexual people who would?
The reason I say bi people is this .
We used to go dogging a lot and met so many bi guys who invariably were out to satisfy an itch . And the itch would be scratched with bi fun for them , behind their female partners back . Many of these guys never played with women at all , as in some weird way they felt it was ok to play with guys as it wasn’t ‘ proper’ cheating !
Anyway , if they didn’t have the urge to play with those of the same sex , they wouldn’t feel the need to go out looking for same sex fun .
As I said earlier in the thread , plenty of straight men play with guys and TVs on here , and plenty of straight women play with other women on here too , so there’s no need for them to take the pill is there ?
I totally get your point.
I was just wondering about my question, whether we imagine anyone hetero would want a pill to be other than, and if not - why not?"Well as the full nuts guy says , he would as he loves the variety being bi offers . But outside of the swinging world we frequent , there are so many women who would be horrified to find their husbands / partners were bi and playing with men behind their backs . So I don’t think many straight men in relationships would want to take a pill that may open themselves up to the potential issues that will inevitably manifest from becoming bi . Single guys might , since it would double their chances of pulling when they go out looking for fun though . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha".... "Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it.
I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too
Do you think there would be plenty of heterosexual people who would?
The reason I say bi people is this .
We used to go dogging a lot and met so many bi guys who invariably were out to satisfy an itch . And the itch would be scratched with bi fun for them , behind their female partners back . Many of these guys never played with women at all , as in some weird way they felt it was ok to play with guys as it wasn’t ‘ proper’ cheating !
Anyway , if they didn’t have the urge to play with those of the same sex , they wouldn’t feel the need to go out looking for same sex fun .
As I said earlier in the thread , plenty of straight men play with guys and TVs on here , and plenty of straight women play with other women on here too , so there’s no need for them to take the pill is there ?
I totally get your point.
I was just wondering about my question, whether we imagine anyone hetero would want a pill to be other than, and if not - why not?
Well as the full nuts guy says , he would as he loves the variety being bi offers .
But outside of the swinging world we frequent , there are so many women who would be horrified to find their husbands / partners were bi and playing with men behind their backs .
So I don’t think many straight men in relationships would want to take a pill that may open themselves up to the potential issues that will inevitably manifest from becoming bi . Single guys might , since it would double their chances of pulling when they go out looking for fun though ."Ahh but I’m meaning those that are straight *now* - that’s the premise we’re making with everyone else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha"....
Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha"....
Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd.
"Away to your kennel Steve | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha"....
Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd.
Away to your kennel Steve " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it.
I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too
Do you think there would be plenty of heterosexual people who would?
The reason I say bi people is this .
We used to go dogging a lot and met so many bi guys who invariably were out to satisfy an itch . And the itch would be scratched with bi fun for them , behind their female partners back . Many of these guys never played with women at all , as in some weird way they felt it was ok to play with guys as it wasn’t ‘ proper’ cheating !
Anyway , if they didn’t have the urge to play with those of the same sex , they wouldn’t feel the need to go out looking for same sex fun .
As I said earlier in the thread , plenty of straight men play with guys and TVs on here , and plenty of straight women play with other women on here too , so there’s no need for them to take the pill is there ?
I totally get your point.
I was just wondering about my question, whether we imagine anyone hetero would want a pill to be other than, and if not - why not?
Well as the full nuts guy says , he would as he loves the variety being bi offers .
But outside of the swinging world we frequent , there are so many women who would be horrified to find their husbands / partners were bi and playing with men behind their backs .
So I don’t think many straight men in relationships would want to take a pill that may open themselves up to the potential issues that will inevitably manifest from becoming bi . Single guys might , since it would double their chances of pulling when they go out looking for fun though .
Ahh but I’m meaning those that are straight *now* - that’s the premise we’re making with everyone else."Your point re single men may have traction. What about ladies? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha"....
Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd.
Away to your kennel Steve
"By your own logic, this must mean you fancy *me* - that makes me very uncomfortable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She reckons there is a cure for sexuality. Oh dear.... If there's a pill, I'll take it.
I truly believe there would be plenty of bi people who would happily take it too
Do you think there would be plenty of heterosexual people who would?
The reason I say bi people is this .
We used to go dogging a lot and met so many bi guys who invariably were out to satisfy an itch . And the itch would be scratched with bi fun for them , behind their female partners back . Many of these guys never played with women at all , as in some weird way they felt it was ok to play with guys as it wasn’t ‘ proper’ cheating !
Anyway , if they didn’t have the urge to play with those of the same sex , they wouldn’t feel the need to go out looking for same sex fun .
As I said earlier in the thread , plenty of straight men play with guys and TVs on here , and plenty of straight women play with other women on here too , so there’s no need for them to take the pill is there ?
I totally get your point.
I was just wondering about my question, whether we imagine anyone hetero would want a pill to be other than, and if not - why not?
Well as the full nuts guy says , he would as he loves the variety being bi offers .
But outside of the swinging world we frequent , there are so many women who would be horrified to find their husbands / partners were bi and playing with men behind their backs .
So I don’t think many straight men in relationships would want to take a pill that may open themselves up to the potential issues that will inevitably manifest from becoming bi . Single guys might , since it would double their chances of pulling when they go out looking for fun though ." That all makes sense to me. Including your previous post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha"....
Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd.
Away to your kennel Steve
By your own logic, this must mean you fancy *me* - that makes me very uncomfortable. "I can relate to that awkwardness..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha"....
Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd.
Away to your kennel Steve
By your own logic, this must mean you fancy *me* - that makes me very uncomfortable.
I can relate to that awkwardness..... "you could cut the sexual tension with a knife ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha"....
Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd.
Away to your kennel Steve
By your own logic, this must mean you fancy *me* - that makes me very uncomfortable.
I can relate to that awkwardness.....
you could cut the sexual tension with a knife !"Oh lord don’t you start! I’m never going to get the intelligent men if people think I’m turned on by nonsensical waffle. Gerraway! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha"....
Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd.
Away to your kennel Steve
By your own logic, this must mean you fancy *me* - that makes me very uncomfortable.
I can relate to that awkwardness.....
you could cut the sexual tension with a knife !
Oh lord don’t you start! I’m never going to get the intelligent men if people think I’m turned on by nonsensical waffle. Gerraway!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get it. Steve if I understand you correctly you are saying that one newspaper story isn't going to affect someone's behaviour? It's a fair comment. Behaviour of who? Ann? Each poster? Which poster? Eh? What’s the “smarter solution we should be thinking for?” It’s even more open to subjective inference that may be completely incorrect as Ann’s comment!
But it doesn’t matter, I asked and was given more tangential something. It’s no biggie.
The behaviour of people who read these readlines like 'Ann Widdecombe claims science may cure homosexuality' and then go home and try to home 'cure' their kids.
The way I read Steve's post is that the negativity surrounding the controversy isn't constructive.
I'm much more fond of the story about Joe Root's comeback on homophobic comments
It's just a news story right? But here's a quote from the Independent ...
"Thank you, Joe Root – you have just made the lives of thousands of gay teenagers immeasurably better"
I think Steve’s just pointed out his comment is open to interpretation, rather than clarify.
Lolol, leave me out of it now, we're ruining the OP. Estella, I'd just refer you to the post I made yesterday called 'friendliness' - all about not jumping on comments, taking time to work ppl out and giving folk the BOTD occasionally.....
Admittedly I broke my own advice by whinging about the negativity, but how else can you turn it to something positive? OP at least seems to get the sentiment in my comments even if I'm a confusing mofo...
Chill, innit my love
Steve x
Sorry, Steve I just asked you a question. It’s okay it’s clear you don’t want to answer. I’m not sure what giving you the BOTD is about if I simply asked for clarification. Apologies if *you* took offence. I’m chilled thanks, but unsure how being evasive to a question allows anyone to work anyone out. But you know, it’s okay
Heel! ....and drop that bone! I've no wish to clarify further if that's OK with you. I thought we had it solved at "gotcha"....
Then why come and rejoin the conversation I was having with someone else re comments on the thread? Very odd.
Away to your kennel Steve
By your own logic, this must mean you fancy *me* - that makes me very uncomfortable.
I can relate to that awkwardness.....
you could cut the sexual tension with a knife !
Oh lord don’t you start! I’m never going to get the intelligent men if people think I’m turned on by nonsensical waffle. Gerraway!
"Don’t you start flirting with me now too! *in the voice of Michael Caine* I only asked a bloody question!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
