h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When did you choose? Was it a difficult decision?

I'm sorry I know I shouldn't be posting this, that nothing good will come of it and that you'll probably just ignore it. However, my self-restraint went out of the window with Christmas and I can't get it back.

Why do you believe anyone would choose to be gay? Is it simple ignorance of how difficult life can be as a gay man or woman? Lets quickly review the negative things:

Overwhelming prejudice, even in developed and liberal nations such as the UK or NZ, and from just about every other major group in society.

Fear, of what might happen if people find out, or of simply being 'different'

Threats, both physical and emotional and also simple outright blackmail.

Discrimination. Thankfully this is almost at an end in the UK, but there are still some things that are unequal. In other nations there is massive discrimination in jobs, in legal status, in health care, in human rights, in housing and social security, in the provision of goods and services etc ad nauseam.

Alienation from the people you love or the society you believed yourself to be a part of.

Lower life expectancy. Sad but true, gay men and women live shorter lives and are more heavily afflicted by natural and social diseases (especially smoking and alcohol related conditions)

All of these and more lead to one of the highest (possibly *the* highest in the UK, I haven't checked the figures in a while) depression and suicide rates out of any social group in any country where figures are recorded.

All of this because of sexual orientation? I'll say to you what I say to all of those who claim it is a choice - the sex isn't that good. Not worth it by a long shot.

I've had a relatively benign life when it comes to my sexuality, very few people have given me any serious grief about it (there are times when being 6ft 4 and built like a tank comes in handy) and I still wouldn't choose to be gay, it just isn't worth the hassle. Try tellling someone who has had a tough time that they chose it and see what their response is.

Also, just because you can find one or two gay people who'll say its a choice, doesn't mean that it isn't. I'm sure if I wanted to I could find people who would say that the world is flat, or that George W Bush is a genius. There's a word for those people. Idiots (or if I'm feeling more generous, misguided and misinformed fools).

I hope you have a nice Christmas and a happy New Year
Iago

<>

I'll answer this, because I have to say that, although you say it's a minority of gays who say it's a choice - I know it's a substantial one. You would know a lot more about numbers than I do, obviously, but even so, I've come across as many who say it's a choice, as who say otherwise.

I don't insist on this point, to upset anyone, but because I truly believe that to be the case. Oddly, I did think long and hard about the issue (of sexual orientation) as a teen, and I did pretty much decide that lesbianity was not for me, after experimenting a little... So, you could say I did choose.

<>

You *have* to say this, Della? Well then, how exactly do you know it's a substantial number?

<>

How many would this be? Heaps?

<>

What's odd is that you think a little 'experimenting' (oooo, do tell! ) or even a few same sex sexual experiences are indicative of possibly being homosexual. So you did not *choose* to be - or remain - heterosexual. It's what you always were.

Do you honestly think you could choose to be homosexual?


az



*waves to Iago* Enjoy your holidays!

Apologies for the incredibly belated response.

>>I've come across as many who say it's a choice, as who say otherwise<<

To be honest, I don't know anything about numbers, I don't know if there even are statistics for this sort of thing. All I'm going off is people I know and the only gay people I know who believe it to be a choice are religious people (not just Christians, there are a few Muslims, Jews and Buddhists who say this as well) Every single atheist and agnostic believes it to be something they had no control over.

So when you were in your teens, and forgive me if I'm being a bit too vulgar here, was the deciding thing that women didn't excite you as much as men when you experimented, or was it something else? I know I'm asking quite personal questions here and I'm not going to be offended if you don't answer them, but it'd be cool if you did.

Iago

It was mostly that women didn't excite me the way men (not boys) did... and a large chunk of it was that the idea of being gay was one I found singularly repellent. And although azahar and BB have chosen not to believe me about this, it remains true that I did not grow up in a religious family.

The thing is, straight is the default, the norm if you like, and doesn't *have* to be chosen. Like it or not, that's how it is. Don't try to equate it with having black skin, or brown eyes, or being left-handed because 'gay' is a behaviour, not an essential characteristic. The first woman who came on to me, was someone I met at a school holiday job, and I didn't even know what she was driving at - but I was, to use my little sister's expression, "grossed back to the Stone Age" by what she was doing (once I realised what it was, that is.)

Blicky will come along to bang on about animals acting in a homosexual manner, but that's not a legitimate argument, because studies have shown that animals behave that way only in abnormal situations of captivity and/or population stress.

>>It was mostly that women didn't excite me the way men (not boys) did<<

Well, was it truly a choice? If you weren't sexually excited by women, how could you be gay or bi? You are straight because you experimented with a woman, and found it didn't do anything for you, whereas men did. You lacked the basic sexual attraction.

If I wanted to I could easily pass myself off as a straight guy, but I couldn't be straight as women do absolutely nothing for me. I doubt I'd be able to perform.

>>'gay' is a behaviour, not an essential characteristic<<

How about a syndrome like ADHD (hyperactivity) which only manifests itself behaviourally? Is this a choice because it only manifests itself through the behaviour of a sufferer?

There is the case that sufferers of ADHD often suffer from characteristic problems like dyslexia, meaning that there is something else to ADHD, more than behaviour, but there is an increased number of second children (an essential characteristic) who are gay. This increased number is too large to be accidental and shows that there is a slight correlation between being a second child and being gay. Something about being a second child slightly increases the chances of being gay. Now to me that's getting into essential characteristic territory.

Are instincts behavioural or essential? It seems wrong to say that they are behavioural because, by definition, they are beyond the control of a person, they act on a more basic, unevolved level. They are also a constant of human behaviour, we all have instinctive responses of one kind or another and to varying degrees. Both these points, I think, put instincts into the category of essential characteristics. My sexual attraction to men is instinctive, it operates beyond behaviour and beyond reason. I have no control over those basic sexual urges. I do have control over whether I act upon them, but I cannot stop myself from getting these urges in the first place. It isn't the choosing to act on my urges in appropriate settings that defines me as gay, it's the fact that I get these urges in the first place, which is beyond my control.

And if being gay is a behaviour, how is being straight not? In what sense are they different?

And Della, I'm not going to bring az or blicky into this, as far as I'm concerned this is a conversation between me and you, anything I say is what I personally think. If you don't want them brought into it, don't bring them in.

I'll answer this first: <>

It has been my experience that they bring themselves in, I certainly don't want them in this conversation, and won't bring them!

It seems to me, that whatever I say, I can't 'win', because if I say I wasn't attracted to girls/women, you've got me admitting it's a characteristic beyond control. If I say I was (and I was a bit) then I'm a hypocrite for not acting on it. I have to say the attraction didn't survive the attempt at practice... because sex requires a level of self-forgetting to be able to do, and the requisite absorption in the being of the other perosn wasn't there...

It's all much more complicated than I can express. But what it comes down to, to me, is that straight is the default, like it or not. You say you can control whether you act on the impulse, and that the nub of the matter. We all can (and do) and so sex is not like any other need/desire/appette - not like needing to drink, or eat or sleep for instance.

Which is why sex is unique among appetites in having moral and ethical issues attached to it.

>>If I say I was (and I was a bit) then I'm a hypocrite for not acting on it<<

I'll never say that. I have a friend who is a bit attracted to men, but much more attracted to women. To my knowledge he hasn't had a male sexual partner for several years and has no intention to get himself one. While he enjoyed his brief experiences and is still occasionally attracted to men, he considers himself straight. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, he is straight. He also doesn't consider it to be a choice, his hetrosexual feelings are that much stronger than his homosexual feelings. Sexual preference and the way we define it is so personal, it's not my business to tell anyone else what they are, or make commentary. I'm also not saying that this is the case for you, it was just a rough analogy

>>I have to say the attraction didn't survive the attempt at practice... because sex requires a level of self-forgetting to be able to do, and the requisite absorption in the being of the other perosn wasn't there...<<

And what's wrong with that? Sexual preference isn't just about who you choose to bump uglies with (to steal a Buffy phrase) and some reactions we have during sex, we have no control over. There are some guys who, while I've been attracted to them, I've found it doesn't work in the bedroom, despite me wanting it to, and if I found that this was the case with all men, I might question my sexuality. I'd probably be pretty miserable too, not attracted to women, can't perform with men, I'd imagine that wouldn't be fun.

To some extent we can control our desire for food, drink or sleep. If not I'd be the size of a house and always asleep. There are just limits to how much we can deny ourselves. I don't know, this might be different for the fairer sex, but there are limits to how long I can deny myself some sexual stimulation and if there isn't a willing person around when I reach these limits I have to resort to my own devices, so to speak. But I don't count this as sex, probably why I didn't think of it yesterday, sex involves someone else.

>>But what it comes down to, to me, is that straight is the default, like it or not<<

Yes, but couldn't that be simply because you are straight? For me gay is the default, I genuinely don't understand why, biology aside, someone would want to have sex with a woman (I guess on that count we're pretty similar )

F58051?thread=617354&post=23093215#p23093215




az

Oh dear. I almost wish I hadn't checked out that link.

Della, as the old saying goes, there is none so blind as those who refuse to see. I refuse to speak to a person who spouts such ignorant, bigoted and prejudiced nonsense, as I cannot be certain to keep a civil tongue (I sure as heck haven't got a civil mind right now) and here in the real world I was taught to use manners at all times and to treat people with decency and respect.

You might want to join me in this world. You might find that you enjoy it and that you have far fewer people arguing with you. It'd also take you out of that sad, bigoted, insular little rut that seems to pass as an existence for you. I pity you for as long as you're there.

Told you I wasn't sure about the civility.

Iago

Well, I am about to check out that link, and find out what has got you so angry with me! (I told you az and her wee friends would be along, didn't I?)

Okay, that has been my experience of the gay people I know. (I am not saying it's true of all gay people, as I told Ste earlier on in that thread, I haven't met all gay people, and so I refute his accusation that I dislike/hate/denigrate them all... )

I have a problem right now, talking of sex in general, in that I am 'in lust'* with someone, and he is engaged to someone else, and I have to meet him regularly (I work with him). Sometimes I catch my breath just to try to get over the feeling - and I don't believe he knows or reciprocates. So, for the first time in a long time, I know what you mean.

* Maybe love, it's possible, but I doubt it...
Difficult, but well bearable...

>>I told you az and her wee friends would be along<<

Quite funny, I sent az an email predicting you'd say something along those lines. I'd hate to be so predictable. Take responsibility for your own actions, you wrote something that most decent folk would consider to be hideously offensive and the chances are I'd have come across it lurking anyway.

Why would I find it so offensive? Perhaps because I don't like being told by someone 12,000 miles away, who hasn't the first idea about me, that I'm incapable of forming a relationship, just because I enjoy sleeping with men (newsflash Della, so do you. Does this make you inherently promiscuous?)

So you've got a thing for an engaged man - not really a moral lust is it? You might wanna come down from that high horse of yours, you're not looking too stable up there.

Iago

P.S I'm not angry with you. I pity you and I rail against your ignorence, but I'm not angry with you. I tend to only get angry with people who are capable of defending themselves and giving a fair fight. Whatever you might think Della, you are incapable of arguing on my level, it's beyond you. Therefore no anger.

This makes me very sad. I saw the thread where you and az discussed me and she said that I had no humanity, but by telling you about the situation I was trying to fake it.. After that, I don't really know what to say!

You said you didn't want az and co in this thread, then you *invited* her to join it! So, what do you want?

There's no way on you really want to know what I think, and I should have realised that, but at the beginning of this thread, I took you at face value, and answered honestly.

As regards your comment on my attempt to confide something personal (which believe me, I will never do again on h2) lust isn't moral, that's the whole point! I wanted to say why I understood what you'd said, but well, az decided I was just trying to mess with your head, and that's fine if you think that.

This discussion is at an end. As I say, I thought you were interested in getting across the chasm of understanding that seems to exist between me and 'gay' people. But it would appear you're not. I'm sorry to hear it.

I disagreed with what az said and told her so in an email, I thought it was bang out of line.

I honestly did want to know what you thought, I'd hoped that what you thought was out of simple ignorance. While it might still be simple, I've come to realise that there is something more nasty than plain ignorance at work and there's no point in trying to challenge that. As much as it pains me to say it, attitudes like yours will never die out. Thankfully they'll diminish over time, but there'll always be a core of people, so isolated and insecure in their own positions that they need a scapegoat. I've tried fighting against this before and lost every time. I don't like losing so, as long as I'm not physically bothered, I choose to leave it alone.

As for the confidence, I do feel some sympathy, I'm sorry I didn't even try to make that clear, but honestly it's not much. If I told you of my current romantic situation, I sincerely doubt I would get any sort of sympathetic reaction and I'm not the sort of person who is inclined to give sympathy when none would be recieved.

And I know you think az is behind this (I know this because she emailed me the thread that has now been removed from her PS) and I just want you to know that my words are my words. They come from my head. The only person who dictates what I say to you is you. When the Della Wars flared up majorly, I stayed on the sidelines, heck, I even tried to mediate and bring them to an end. Despite the fact that my natural sympathies lie with az, Alfster, SoRB and that lot, I defended you in an attempt to end the stupid, pointless and destructive b*tch-fest that unfortunately seems to be flaring up once more. As far as I'm concerned, the dispute between you and az and the 'Dirty Angels' is entirely separate from the dispute between me and you, though the two may tread similar ground.

What caused this conversation to end were your disgusting comments and I feel that I cannot engage in reasoned debate with someone who holds such hateful opinions. If you were to retract or apologise for those comments, I'd reconsider, but I don't see that happening.

As I said, I feel sorry for you (my one concession of sympathy) and I hope you find some more happiness in life, it seems that you need it, and as a basic, ordinary, human being, you deserve it

Iago

What can I say? You have made up your mind about me, and what I feel, and how I think. Obviously, it suits you to believe that I represent some sort of 'opposition', and to believe that I am therefore evil. It occurred to me the other night, that you *need* on some level, approval from the 'opposition' - and believe me, approval, you are not going to get.

Simple fellow feeling, empathy, appreciation simply as a human being, yes, you *could* have had that, but you have actually shown that you're not interested in anything other than whole-hearted capitulation and acceptance and approval of your superior right to exist, set the terms of discourse, and determine who is moral, ethical and so on not just on H2 but in the world.

You're going to take this as the kind of hate-filled rant azahar will assure you it is, when you go to her. You really can't afford to see it any other way. Did it ever occur to you to ask why I had so many gay friends, why I still do? Because I relate to them as human beings - as you and yours (including the fine lady az, who's so insecure she yikeses every message I leave on her space) will not relate to me!

Truly, and sadly, I give up. I wanted to actually converse with you as a friend, but you want me to grovel, and I won't do that. You refuse to understand, though I *thin* Ste does, that I do not hate gay people, do not wish them ill, would not have them lose any civil rights - all the accusations are absurd. But like az, you just go right on and believe whatever you want.

>>Obviously, it suits you to believe that I represent some sort of 'opposition', and to believe that I am therefore evil<<

Yes, because everyone who opposes me is evil. That must make the only non-evil person on the planet

Seriously, I thrive on opposition, I love it, I choose friends who disagree with me on big issues. It's the only way to truly get to know things. That isn't the issue.

I don't think you hate me, I think hate is far too strong a word. I know what it is to truly hate someone and it takes a lot of work, a lot more than you could be bothered putting in for someone you don't know. And the reverse is true.

The issue is some of the things you say and I'm sorry, it might make me a bad liberal, but I cannot tolerate, it's just so offensive to have the same old b*llocks repeated over and over again by people who really don't have a clue.

>>superior right to exist<<

Where have I said anywhere that I believe myself to have a *superior* right to exist. I do say it to my friends, but that's mostly in jest. But I'd be more than happy to take equal right to exist, something which you profess to be opposed to by advocating that gays be denied such equality. Which implicitly claims that you believe yourself to have a superior right to exist. How ironic. Ain't language fun?

You don't want gay people to lose any gay rights. Well that's very magnanimous of you, you don't want us to be reduced to a more unequal position. However, you have explicitly stated your opposition to gay people not getting full and equal rights. Can you truly not see why that might be an issue for me?

Capitulation and surrender? There's a term for that, bunker mentality. You consider yourself to be under attack all the time and that just solidifies your determination to keep your views, which is known as a martyr complex. Have you ever considered why it's az vs you, or me vs you, or the Dirty Angels vs you. In my time on Hootoo (now in my third year as a hootooizen) I've only seen three other people cause anything like as much trouble or disputes: Lord Wolfden, aka and Saturnine.

The rest of hootoo seems to get on just fine, doesn't have flame wars, might have rowdy debates, but the sort of grief that appears/ed with yourself or the other three. With that in mind, I'd take a good hard look at myself

Sorry, that last sentance should have read:

"The rest of hootoo seems to get on just fine, doesn't have flame wars, might have rowdy debates, but the sort of grief that appears/ed with yourself or the other three is on a whole different level. With that in mind, if I were you, I'd be taking a long hard look at myself"

<<"The rest of hootoo seems to get on just fine, doesn't have flame wars, might have rowdy debates, but the sort of grief that appears/ed with yourself or the other three is on a whole different level. With that in mind, if I were you, I'd be taking a long hard look at myself">>

Nonsense, Iago! Complete and utter balderdash. I joined in June 2001, and my son in about March or earlier in 2001.There was no trouble, no flame wars, no threats such as TPTB are sending me now... None of it. So, I don't understand - or rather I do, but I can't say. I've been sent emails telling me I will be perma-banned if I do.

Suffice it to say, that I'll know who's responsible, and I *know* it ain't me!

Of course I don't hate you, how many 1000s of times do I have to say it? I am sick and tired of saying it, and you don't want to believe it. As I said, you want either grovelling approval, or failing that, to be able to write me off as 'vile' to use azahar's term. So, this discussion is more than usualy pointless.

Stop pretending I'm az's little minion, as amusing as it is, it's beginning to get tiresome. Not called you vile, have no intention of doing so.

Don't want submission either. I'd just hoped that I could perhaps show you the error of some of your opinions.

And as I said, martytr complex. It isn't everyone else's fault Della.

Iago.

Just wanted to say, Della, that my post on Iago's thread on my PS - quote. . .

<<...talking about her love life in order to make her seem more human/less vile, and using being in love/lust as an excuse for not being able to talk comfortably about sex...>>

. . . was not as clearly written as it should have been. And I apologise for that. I should have written "talking about her love life in order to make her COMMENTS seem more human/less vile ..."

Because I was thinking about your comments when I wrote that, not you as a person. Though I can see how that was misunderstood and, again, I hope you will accept my apologies for that misunderstanding. And I accept that the misunderstanding was *my fault* for not writing more clearly.

I didn't mean to upset you, Della. I do not think *you* are vile at all, though some of your comments strike me in that manner.

Also, I yikes'd the thread you started on my PS the other day because I thought it was something written in anger and was best not to have that stay on h2g2 for 'public viewing'. But this was the only post of yours I have ever yikes'd. I did this to prevent other people seeing it and perhaps starting yet another flame war.

For the record - I have no interest whatsoever in seeing you banned or even put back on premod. Yes, we disagree about many things, and yes, I do tease you about the Della Technique™. But I also remember that we have had some very nice chats together. And I try to bear in mind what you told me once - that the stuff you and I end up disagreeing about isn't *all of you*. Because I am quite sure that it isn't. You are a single mother working hard to keep your head above water, working to help Jimmy get through university, all that stuff.

Meanwhile, I am not being 'two-faced' just because we can chat on my PS about family, cats, books, etc, but then when you say something I totally disagree with elsewhere I call you on it.

Re: the az cabal stuff. Yes, I can see how some of it might seem hurtful. But again, it's all simply a humourous response to some of the things you say - how you present yourself on many threads. Like it or not, you have made yourself somewhat famous - if not infamous - here on hootoo with your posts.

In any case, I am not your enemy or nemesis or any such thing. I'm still always happy to chat with you, if you ever want to return to our chat thread.




az