Homosexuality

[OrphanPip]

I always preferred the Roman way of thought upon the matter. Rather it was not being attracted to one sex or another, but being a penetrator or being a penetratee. As long as you were doing the penetrating it was considered manly, and straight, which makes sense, as I fail to see the lack of manliness in sodomizing another guy, it seems far more manly than penetrating a woman. But for the romans, if you allowed yourself to be penetrated that was considered effeminate, for obvious reasons, but mainly for the willing act of submission.

Did you get that definition of gay from Larry Craig or something?

I mean I have had the desire to do other guys, but never to be penetrated by another guy. So for me the Roman way of thinking just makes more sense. Because there is no such thing as gay or straight as most people have varying levels of attraction to the same and opposite sex.

I don't believe projection makes for universal truths. A lot of empirical studies have demonstrated that gay men don't react physiologically to the opposite sex. To say that there is no such thing as gay or straight is about as logically consistent as saying there is no such thing as blue or red because there are discreet intermediaries between each extreme. The alternative is that everyone be born a universal bisexual, a la Freud, but this idea has been debunked not only by empirical evidence but also the majority of personal testimony.

And then there is the lack of functionality or reflection of identity categories that your definition provides. There are men probably far more masculine than you who bottom, and there are nelly queens who are exclusive tops. And then there's the problem that a large percentage of gay men are versatile, or relationships between two tops that compromise sexually for the sake of the relationship, or gays who are only into frot or other forms of "equal" sex, or gay virgins who might not know what kind of sex they prefer, or couples that flip flop (are they jumping from being straight to gay and back by acting like that?).

Then there is the issue of culture or the homosexual as "species" as Foucault put it. Being gay comes not only with sexual preferences but a set of cultural spaces, traditions, and history that are distinct from the mainstream culture.

The Roman beliefs derive entirely from sexist assumptions that are as outdated as their approval of pedophilia directed towards slaves.

[Monamy]

I always love when someone will say, "Oh, gays can have a 'gay bar,' but straight people can't have a 'straight bar.'" I always want to yell, "There are 'straight bars,' they're called EVERY OTHER BAR THAT EXISTS!" Seriously, the ignorance of some people is just so infuriating.

I think people who say that are generally sarcastic, hinting the 'bar' for another thing. Don't mind those people much.

[miyako73]

For some reason, I find frottage (male-on-male nonpenetrative sex) hot. Watching two hot guys rubbing and touching each other makes me want to buy the biggest toy. The question: is frottage gay? A lot of erotic stories have shown straight boys or men rubbing and masturbating each other.

[Babyguile]

I always preferred the Roman way of thought upon the matter. Rather it was not being attracted to one sex or another, but being a penetrator or being a penetratee. As long as you were doing the penetrating it was considered manly, and straight, which makes sense.

That's a misconception.

[Alexander III]

Did you get that definition of gay from Larry Craig or something?

Im usually quite good with American pop culture refernces but this one flew over my head.

I don't believe projection makes for universal truths. A lot of empirical studies have demonstrated that gay men don't react physiologically to the opposite sex. To say that there is no such thing as gay or straight is about as logically consistent as saying there is no such thing as blue or red because there are discreet intermediaries between each extreme. The alternative is that everyone be born a universal bisexual, a la Freud, but this idea has been debunked not only by empirical evidence but also the majority of personal testimony.

You are right, what I meant to say was the majority of people are malleable when it comes to sexual attraction. Sure some guys are grossed out by women, and some guys are grossed out by men and could never do anything with that sex - but this is a minority. Most people have leeway, proof in point, nowadays when lets face it, homosexuality is frowned upon by the majority of people, only about 1/10 guys is gay, if I recall the statistics correctly. But then if we look at societies of the past such as The ancient Thebeans and Spartans, or heck even the avant-grade circles of Elizabethan england where Marlowe famously said that "anyone who does not enjoy tobacco and young boys is a fool" and it seemed many of the Aristocracy of the times were in agreement with him - now that either means that during select times of history there was an overflow of homosexuality in genes, or that the majority of people are sexually malleable, and the norms of the times reflect upon it. In Ancient Sparta where it was expected that men have relationships with each other, most men did, which shows that in truth the normal human being is sexually malleable, and a man or woman who lacks sexual malleability is a minority not the norm.

And then there is the lack of functionality or reflection of identity categories that your definition provides.

Why? Me and my university friends all admitted that we would do a handsome guy, all of us were open about it, but no one said he wanted to be the bottom, we all wanted to be the top. Why? Because being the top would give us pleasure, being the bottom did not sexually attract us. So like I said in my orginal post, for me the penetrator/penetratee dichotomy makes more sense. Also neither am I saying that one is effeminate and the other masculine, I merely said that is what the Romans believed, I don't believe that, I merely believe that human beings get sexual pleasure in a variety of ways, some prefer to penetrate, some prefer to be penetrated and some like both equally. And this too me makes more sense that defining people either gay/straight. Besides the word gays carries with it many connotations which have to do with a specific culture which is in no way representative of the majority of homosexual men.

There are men probably far more masculine than you who bottom, and there are nelly queens who are exclusive tops. And then there's the problem that a large percentage of gay men are versatile, or relationships between two tops that compromise sexually for the sake of the relationship, or gays who are only into frot or other forms of "equal" sex, or gay virgins who might not know what kind of sex they prefer, or couples that flip flop (are they jumping from being straight to gay and back by acting like that?).

As I said before the masculine/effeminate thing is not my belief I was merely elucidating what the Romans felt, which is hardly supposing considering that it was a society based upon Masculinity.

There is a gay friend of mine at uni, who told me that he only likes being bottom, and he said most guys usually have a preference of whether they like being bottom or top. I would naturally assume that there would be plenty of guys who would enjoy both. I fail to see how merely because there is a large segment of men who enjoy both being penetrators and penetratees, that would mean that that divide would be false, as following your same logic, the Homosexual/ Heterosexual divide should be equally false as there are plenty of people who identify themselves as bi.

Then there is the issue of culture or the homosexual as "species" as Foucault put it. Being gay comes not only with sexual preferences but a set of cultural spaces, traditions, and history that are distinct from the mainstream culture.

No, no it does not. being gay comes with being attracted to other men. End of story, it does not come with anything else unless one chooses it. What do the ancient Spartan and modern gay pride dancer have in common besides being attracted to men? If you wish to make being gay out as belonging to some kind of separate culture that is fine. But to me it sounds like bull****.

The Roman beliefs derive entirely from sexist assumptions that are as outdated as their approval of pedophilia directed towards slaves.

Because our beliefs stem from a culture which has a healthy relationship with sexuality, am I right? I mean I am quite sure that the majority of Americans still believes that God shall condemn homosexuals to hell. Sure The Romans were sexist and had their own issues, but our modern understanding of sex, stems from a system which is no less corrupted and warped that that of the Romans. Also sure the Romans were sexist, but there were certain periods during the empire phase where woman had rights which were identical to male in Law and Finance, and it took Europe 1900 years to reach the same level of equality as Woman had in the empire. Also the pedophilia thing is wrong, much like the greeks sex was only allowed with post-pubesant boys, in fact there was a Roman law banning sex between an adult and a minor. Legally pedophilia could be practiced on a boy slave, as slaves were not considered people but property so the Law prohibit sex with minors did not apply, but it was not legal, it was a grey area which certainly was not approved, but scorned by society. That would be like saying that Canadian society approved of marijuana use merely because it is de-criminalized. Come on all you had to do was google it to find that out, so either you could not be bothered to check your facts or your purposely lied, either way such things do not reflect well upon you, especially when you would use statistics in one hand and with the other speck of erroneous facts.

Why is it that we must subject human sexuality to the Procrustean bed, why must we amputate limbs and stretch out joints; better to sleep on uncertain grass that force oneself on that bed, and yet we continue to subject human sexuality to Procrusteanism. Who is the fool who would use common sense when we have other methods of inquiry.

That's a misconception.

How so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...n_ancient_Rome

[OrphanPip]

Im usually quite good with American pop culture refernces but this one flew over my head.

American Republican who insisted he was not gay despite being caught having sex in a bathroom stall with a man.

You are right, what I meant to say was the majority of people are malleable when it comes to sexual attraction. Sure some guys are grossed out by women, and some guys are grossed out by men and could never do anything with that sex - but this is a minority. Most people have leeway, proof in point, nowadays when lets face it, homosexuality is frowned upon by the majority of people, only about 1/10 guys is gay, if I recall the statistics correctly. But then if we look at societies of the past such as The ancient Thebeans and Spartans, or heck even the avant-grade circles of Elizabethan england where Marlowe famously said that "anyone who does not enjoy tobacco and young boys is a fool" and it seemed many of the Aristocracy of the times were in agreement with him - now that either means that during select times of history there was an overflow of homosexuality in genes, or that the majority of people are sexually malleable, and the norms of the times reflect upon it. In Ancient Sparta where it was expected that men have relationships with each other, most men did, which shows that in truth the normal human being is sexually malleable, and a man or woman who lacks sexual malleability is a minority not the norm.

But being open to different sexual acts does not suggest that people have malleable sexual orientations. Using someone's body as a masturbatory aid does not mean you are attracted to them. Most gay men have historically had wives and tried women, it didn't mean they were ever attracted to the person they were with.

Why? Me and my university friends all admitted that we would do a handsome guy, all of us were open about it, but no one said he wanted to be the bottom, we all wanted to be the top. Why? Because being the top would give us pleasure, being the bottom did not sexually attract us. So like I said in my orginal post, for me the penetrator/penetratee dichotomy makes more sense. Also neither am I saying that one is effeminate and the other masculine, I merely said that is what the Romans believed, I don't believe that, I merely believe that human beings get sexual pleasure in a variety of ways, some prefer to penetrate, some prefer to be penetrated and some like both equally. And this too me makes more sense that defining people either gay/straight. Besides the word gays carries with it many connotations which have to do with a specific culture which is in no way representative of the majority of homosexual men.

Yes, clearly its your opinion, that's irrelevant to what I was saying though. I was saying your opinion isn't reflective of how most people seem to feel about their sexuality, and there is a lot of problems with reducing sexuality to simply to active/passive roles. How is that even a moderately useful definition, take a second to actually think about the definition of sexuality you're putting forward, it's just useless. In what sense do exclusive gay tops and straight men have something in common in terms of their sexuality? Do they date the same kinds of people, no; do they hang out in the same places, no; do they watch the same kind of porn, no. At the same time you could say yes for a comparison between gay tops and gay bottoms. And frankly the only exclusive tops who have never bottomed are probably closet cases.

As I said before the masculine/effeminate thing is not my belief I was merely elucidating what the Romans felt, which is hardly supposing considering that it was a society based upon Masculinity.

No, you actually said quite clearly with respect to the Roman viewpoint on the gendering of the positions: "which makes sense, as I fail to see the lack of manliness in sodomizing another guy." You affirmed their viewpoint.

There is a gay friend of mine at uni, who told me that he only likes being bottom, and he said most guys usually have a preference of whether they like being bottom or top. I would naturally assume that there would be plenty of guys who would enjoy both. I fail to see how merely because there is a large segment of men who enjoy both being penetrators and penetratees, that would mean that that divide would be false, as following your same logic, the Homosexual/ Heterosexual divide should be equally false as there are plenty of people who identify themselves as bi.

Sure, if I bought into your initial premise, which I don't. One of the points of the example was a form of argumentum ad absurdum to continue on the ridiculousness of the strict dichotomy you presented earlier in the post. The other is that it creates divisions in identity categories that are already unified by similar experiences, histories, and cultural spaces. For no other reason than it seems to appeal to the bar room musings of a group of young men who have no real connections to the gay community, so they want to invent new useless categorization so they can feel cool and different.

No, no it does not. being gay comes with being attracted to other men. End of story, it does not come with anything else unless one chooses it. What do the ancient Spartan and modern gay pride dancer have in common besides being attracted to men? If you wish to make being gay out as belonging to some kind of separate culture that is fine. But to me it sounds like bull****.

No it doesn't. Being gay is different than being attracted to other men, or else we would see homosexuality manifest itself identically everywhere. And unfortunately, you don't get to choose everything that comes with it because society has this nice way of defining you no matter how you define yourself. I would say the Spartan was not gay, he would not have understood himself as being different from other men who were having sex with women, and he was probably having sex with women himself (a man who had exclusive interest in men would not have fit in with the Ancient Greek society).

Because our beliefs stem from a culture which has a healthy relationship with sexuality, am I right? I mean I am quite sure that the majority of Americans still believes that God shall condemn homosexuals to hell. Sure The Romans were sexist and had their own issues, but our modern understanding of sex, stems from a system which is no less corrupted and warped that that of the Romans. Also sure the Romans were sexist, but there were certain periods during the empire phase where woman had rights which were identical to male in Law and Finance, and it took Europe 1900 years to reach the same level of equality as Woman had in the empire. Also the pedophilia thing is wrong, much like the greeks sex was only allowed with post-pubesant boys, in fact there was a Roman law banning sex between an adult and a minor. Legally pedophilia could be practiced on a boy slave, as slaves were not considered people but property so the Law prohibit sex with minors did not apply, but it was not legal, it was a grey area which certainly was not approved, but scorned by society. That would be like saying that Canadian society approved of marijuana use merely because it is de-criminalized. Come on all you had to do was google it to find that out, so either you could not be bothered to check your facts or your purposely lied, either way such things do not reflect well upon you, especially when you would use statistics in one hand and with the other speck of erroneous facts.

This is all irrelevant blather, pointing out the inadequacies of Roman perspectives does not require our society to be better by comparison.

And besides, if you wanted to use the Roman view of homosexuality as part of an argument (where it also was not legal for a citizen to be the bottom), then you should realize that it's the same logic that they used to justify abusive paedophilic relationships to boy slaves, who were often castrated to keep their pre-pubescent characteristics a bit longer. There was nothing dishonest, or out of left field in my inclusion of it, because pedophilia and sexism were both parts of the penetrator/penetratee perspective on sexuality used by the Romans.

Why is it that we must subject human sexuality to the Procrustean bed, why must we amputate limbs and stretch out joints; better to sleep on uncertain grass that force oneself on that bed, and yet we continue to subject human sexuality to Procrusteanism. Who is the fool who would use common sense when we have other methods of inquiry.

Why do you think you have the right to redefine the ties that bring a community together? Especially when you seem to have little knowledge about the subject.

[miyako73]

I think Alex is correct with the penetrator-and-penetratee dichotomy in classical or ancient homosexuality, but it was only one of the homosexual relationships that existed then. It involved class and status. Masters penetrated slaves, and clients, male prostitutes. Alexander's relationship with Bagoas, a Persian eunuch, falls under this classification. Homosexual relationships between gladiators, between senators, between generals were also different. They were akin to bisexual bromance-brotherly romance where participants were equal in class and status and in sexual pleasure. Alexander and Hephaestion's is a good example. Another relationship-between teacher and student or artist and model-was homosexual and, sometimes, pedophilic and more on lustful appreciation of youthful beauty and body.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think people who say that are generally sarcastic, hinting the 'bar' for another thing. Don't mind those people much.

The ones I've talked to are definitely not. They're dead serious--gay culture is being constantly shoved in their faces.

And I find this whole idea of doing a guy, being the penetrator, pretty strange. I guess I feel I must say this as a precursor to what I'm about to say--I'm pro gay marriage, pro gay rights, all that. I think a gay couple should be just as free to make out in public as a starlight couple is (I find both equally annoying). Having said that, the thought of having sex with another man just completely grosses me out (and, honestly, anal sex with a woman seems kinda gross, though I wouldnt be above trying it if she wanted to). I don't think it would be possible for me because I don't think I'd be able to get aroused (and I don't plan on testing that theory). Maybe it's because I'm American and the culture around me has influenced me so much no matter why I believe, but to think a group of random guys would all be into having sex with another dude seems not only weird, but quite unlikely. Maube it's an Italian thing.

Here's something weird, though. While I think it extremely unlikely that a bunch of guys would never want to have sex with another guy, I don't think the same way when it comes to women. Maybe it's because of how "girlfriends" act around each other, being much willing to hug and what-not (though, the "bro-hug" is becoming more and more popular). And I'm sure my own fantasies probably have something to with my thinking.

[Buh4Bee]

When it comes to homosexuality, I have the distinct misfortune of living in the US, where, depending on the poll you're looking at, the majority of people don't think gay couple should be able to get married. It makes me sick.

There's this new mentality among conservatives that homosexuality is being "shoved down their throat," as if everywhere they look homosexuals are making out and challenging them, when the opposite is true. This mentality has been borne mostly from TV shows that center on homosexuality, gay pride parades and festivals, gay bars, etc. Apparently, that gays have become more comfortable with themselves in public is a very big threat to them, though if queried, they can never give a cogent reason why this is the case.

I always love when someone will say, "Oh, gays can have a 'gay bar,' but straight people can't have a 'straight bar.'" I always want to yell, "There are 'straight bars,' they're called EVERY OTHER BAR THAT EXISTS!" Seriously, the ignorance of some people is just so infuriating.

[tonywalt]

The ones I've talked to are definitely not. They're dead serious--gay culture is being constantly shoved in their faces.

And I find this whole idea of doing a guy, being the penetrator, pretty strange. I guess I feel I must say this as a precursor to what I'm about to say--I'm pro gay marriage, pro gay rights, all that. I think a gay couple should be just as free to make out in public as a starlight couple is (I find both equally annoying). Having said that, the thought of having sex with another man just completely grosses me out (and, honestly, anal sex with a woman seems kinda gross, though I wouldnt be above trying it if she wanted to). I don't think it would be possible for me because I don't think I'd be able to get aroused (and I don't plan on testing that theory). Maybe it's because I'm American and the culture around me has influenced me so much no matter why I believe, but to think a group of random guys would all be into having sex with another dude seems not only weird, but quite unlikely. Maube it's an Italian thing.

Here's something weird, though. While I think it extremely unlikely that a bunch of guys would never want to have sex with another guy, I don't think the same way when it comes to women. Maybe it's because of how "girlfriends" act around each other, being much willing to hug and what-not (though, the "bro-hug" is becoming more and more popular). And I'm sure my own fantasies probably have something to with my thinking.

I think it is, as you suggest, social conditioning. My first boss was gay and we remain good friends. He went to gay bars quite often, some of them quite cruisy. Initially the openly sexual behaviour was uncomfortable to see, but a dozen years later, it does not bother me. It's a true cliche to say that just about anything can become normal and benign with a certain amount of exposure.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Even though this sounds stupid to say (because it's usually said by someone obviously homophobic/racist/etc.), but I have gay friends, and I'm perfectly fine around them. And I seeing gay people interact doesn't bother me either. It's the thought of myself being involved in those activities that turns me completely off.

[miyako73]

Just repeating what I've heard before. Can you really say chitlins are nasty without trying them?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Can you say being shot won't hurt unless you try it? Can you say drinking a a glass of rotten, coagulated milk won't taste horrible? Can I say I wouldn't be into having sex with a man? I guess one can't be a 100% certain on any of those questions unless one actually gets shot, drinks rotten milk, or has sex with a man. That being said, I'll follow my gut instinct and say no to all three, and take the risk of missing out.

[Alexander III]

American Republican who insisted he was not gay despite being caught having sex in a bathroom stall with a man.

Yea I know, I hate when people catch me in a bathroom stall doing another guy. Happens all the damn time.

But being open to different sexual acts does not suggest that people have malleable sexual orientations. Using someone's body as a masturbatory aid does not mean you are attracted to them. Most gay men have historically had wives and tried women, it didn't mean they were ever attracted to the person they were with.

1) Most straight guys often use women as masturbatory aids, that does not mean they are gay.

2) you did not bother to reply to the whole crux of my argument, which is how would you explain that throughout history there have been various societies were the majority of men indulged in homosexual behavior?

Yes, clearly its your opinion, that's irrelevant to what I was saying though. I was saying your opinion isn't reflective of how most people seem to feel about their sexuality

It's reflective of how I feel about my sexuality. It's reflective about how my university companions feel about their sexuality. And are we really going to discuss how most people feel about their sexuality? Most people think that being attracted to another man is against the law of God and effeminate. Does this in anyway reflect reality?

and there is a lot of problems with reducing sexuality to simply to active/passive roles. How is that even a moderately useful definition, take a second to actually think about the definition of sexuality you're putting forward, it's just useless.

I never said it was flawless, but gay/straight is just as flawed.

In what sense do exclusive gay tops and straight men have something in common in terms of their sexuality?

They both appreciate a nice piece of ***.

Do they date the same kinds of people, no; do they hang out in the same places, no; do they watch the same kind of porn, no.

This could be said about anyone though. You can use these questions to make two straight men seem utterly different. For instance take straight guy A, the scion of a wealthy family. And straight guy B, the 6th son of a poor family in the gettho. They are both 100% straight. Do they date the same kinds of people? No. Do they hang out in the same kind of places? No. Do they watch the same kind of porn. Actually probably yes. But still you see how the questions you ask are influenced by a myriad of variables and thus kind of useless.

At the same time you could say yes for a comparison between gay tops and gay bottoms. And frankly the only exclusive tops who have never bottomed are probably closet cases.

Once again the only thing they will have in common will be the Porn.

No, you actually said quite clearly with respect to the Roman viewpoint on the gendering of the positions: "which makes sense, as I fail to see the lack of manliness in sodomizing another guy." You affirmed their viewpoint.

I was affirming a viewpoint, not all of them. Are you in disagreement on this, do you believe that doing another guy is effeminate?

Sure, if I bought into your initial premise, which I don't. One of the points of the example was a form of argumentum ad absurdum to continue on the ridiculousness of the strict dichotomy you presented earlier in the post.

So you don't agree with me, ergo I must be wrong?

The other is that it creates divisions in identity categories that are already unified by similar experiences, histories, and cultural spaces.

Tell me what a gay chinese man and a gay canadian man have in common? They are gay. Nothing else. You are making being gay out to be a culture, almost sect like. I fail to see how being attracted to other men means that automatically you belong to something greater. Once again you and a straight canadian will have far more in common that you and a gay American.

For no other reason than it seems to appeal to the bar room musings of a group of young men who have no real connections to the gay community, so they want to invent new useless categorization so they can feel cool and different.

1) did not invent anything, merely re appropriated a definition which was used for almost a thousand years...

2) You are right we have no connection to the gay community. But that would mean that unlike people who define themselves as part of the gay community - we can think about our sexual interests both homo and hetero sexual in a much less biased way, as we merely use what attracts us, not what society thinks of us, not what we are told we should be like, neither what we would like to be like, we just use of simple method, does that turn me on? yes or no.

No it doesn't. Being gay is different than being attracted to other men, or else we would see homosexuality manifest itself identically everywhere. And unfortunately, you don't get to choose everything that comes with it because society has this nice way of defining you no matter how you define yourself. I would say the Spartan was not gay, he would not have understood himself as being different from other men who were having sex with women, and he was probably having sex with women himself (a man who had exclusive interest in men would not have fit in with the Ancient Greek society).

Actually there are many documented cases in greek society of men who had exclusive interests in men. And this was ok, except that they had to force themselves to father a child because it was every mans duty to make a heir. Alexander the great had not interest in women. He married for political reasons and everyone was fine with that as long as he made sure he mad e a son. The emphasis amongst the greeks was the duty of child making, no one cared if your were attracted to women or not. in fact the Spartans thought that a love between a man and a woman was inherently inferior than a love between a man and a man.

Also the way spartans were homosexual is not liked by you, so they are not gay, because being gay automatically means it must fit into your narrow definition of it? Procrustean bed, you are doing it.

This is all irrelevant blather, pointing out the inadequacies of Roman perspectives does not require our society to be better by comparison.

No it does not, but from the way you said it it sounded like you were assuming that our society had a healthier relationship to sex than Roman society. If I was mistaken I am sorry.

And besides, if you wanted to use the Roman view of homosexuality as part of an argument (where it also was not legal for a citizen to be the bottom), then you should realize that it's the same logic that they used to justify abusive paedophilic relationships to boy slaves, who were often castrated to keep their pre-pubescent characteristics a bit longer. There was nothing dishonest, or out of left field in my inclusion of it, because pedophilia and sexism were both parts of the penetrator/penetratee perspective on sexuality used by the Romans.

Were are you getting your facts from?

It was perfectly legal for a citizen to be bottom, it was just frowned upon and considered effeminate. By often castrated also you must mean a few rare cases, namely Nero. following your logic it was common for roman sons to kill their mothers too, because Nero did it. One swallow does not make spring. Pedophile was illegal, and like I said before slaves were property and so not subject to roman law, a man could kill his slave and that would be legal, and following your logic you would say that in Roman society it was normal to kill your slaves. You are usually a logical guy, but with this your making huge leaps without reason or rhyme.

Why do you think you have the right to redefine the ties that bring a community together? Especially when you seem to have little knowledge about the subject.

Like I said before, I am not redefining anything I am merely presenting a view which to me makes more sense. Would you have me tried for blasphemy for saying that which you do not agree with?

[cacian]

Interesting that any conversation geared towards a sexual nature turns physical in details.