Homosexual Experience - Page 3 - OzChess

**Iconoclast** · 02-04-2008, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by MichaelBaron

1) If you find that using words like "WTF" and "s...it" acceptable on a public forum...no comment....

WTF. It is a free ranging informal public forum. Ordinary common expression must be OK.[/quote]2)When a teacher goes into a classroom, he is not there to teach his subject matter only - he is also there to educate kids in a broader sense. For example I do not think a school teacher should be using 'F" or "s..it" words when discussing woodwork

with students.[/quote]Agreed.

I went out for coffee with a group of 7 friends today and we had interesting discussion/arguments about everything under the sun. Somehow, i can not recall any of us using some of the words you are so keen to advocate.

Wow, that is definitely abnormal and deeply distrurbing.

We are expressing our views on "whether same sex couples are entitled to express their feelings publicly or not" and my answer is Yes!

Being entitled to "express their feelings" does not extend to swapping bodily fluids by giving each other's teeth a clean with their tongues while on a metro bus.

**Iconoclast** · 02-04-2008, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

I don't like where this thread is going.

...

I think on a deteriorating thread like this its time to offer a last rite of reply. So, FF, WE, Icono, MB, and anyone else - one last post in this thread and then I am going to close it (hopefully without objections).

I object.

It would be difficult to underestimate how strongly I object. The closing of threads by a moderator because they "don't like where this thread is going" is exactly what ChessChat does. It must not happen here.

I trust the members here to keep each other in line. If I get a few more than just two members - W/E and The Baron - objecting to my language, then I will have to give much more weight to their objections.

**Just2Good** · 02-04-2008, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I object.

It would be difficult to underestimate how strongly I object. The closing of threads by a moderator because they "don't like where this thread is going" is exactly what ChessChat does. It must not happen here.

Good point. The thread will remain open upon consideration of your post.

The language, however, needs to improve. Everyone must remember that we have young minors like Ziah and others who are members at this forum.

**MOZ** · 02-04-2008, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I object.

It would be difficult to underestimate how strongly I object. The closing of threads by a moderator because they "don't like where this thread is going" is exactly what ChessChat does. It must not happen here.

I trust the members here to keep each other in line. If I get a few more than just two members - W/E and The Baron - objecting to my language, then I will have to give much more weight to their objections.

fg7's advice was good.
W/E and The Baron have some valid points.
I have been more specific in a PM.
Not all black and white.

MOZ*

**Iconoclast** · 02-04-2008, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by WhiteElephant

It is never meant simply as a description but as something deliberately crass and offensive. I would imagine that such words would carry much greater negative weight when being used by a straight person in reference to gay sex.

I agree. But remember, I have ONLY been referring to homosexual sexual acts, NOT to homosexuals as human beings. I used the term "trough monkey" specifically because I can think of few practices as revolting.

Iconoclast, can you please give us some background about your knowledge of what goes on 'socially in the gay communtiy'. How do you know all this? Have you read about it? Seen it on the net? Do you actually know any gay people?

I had to think carefully about my reply.

I had one close relative who was homosexual. He is now dead.
I have one more distant relative who is gay.
I have a few good friends who have "tried it."
I have some fine equaintences who are gay couples.
I have accidently found my self in a couple of gay bars, didn't stay long.
I have read gay mags.
I have read on gay culture.

I think I have enough connection with various parts of society to be permitted to comment on it.

You have now brought up several times that you think I am revolted by gay sex. What makes you believe this?

Because you don't like imagery - phrases, words - that describe homosexual sex acts. I believe the images that pop into your head revolt you.

Why? Because when we contemplate other people's actions we see them through the prism of out own world. We imagine ourselves in that position so that we might feel sympathy/empathy for their experience.

I respect anyone's lifestyle choice so long as it does not negatively impact on mine.

Don't you mean "directly and negatively?" Because homosexuals (and heterosexuals!) who do not "produce" the next generation will take your share of the intergenerational social contract in your old age.

I find the sight of a naked male a turn off. In the same way I find the practice of bondage between heterosexuals a turn off. I do not find it revolting. I respect an individual's right to do whatever he or she wants with their body. If you think that makes me bisexual then you are entitled to your opinion.

Well. I am stumped. How can the sight of a naked man be a turn-off while the image of a bloke nobbing another bloke not be revolting. I don't get it. For me, a naked bloke is not a turn off, or a turn on, it is nothing at all. A naked woman (or two!) on the other hand ...

You seem to think that you have caught me out in something here. I am not sure what you are getting at.

As I said above. Because you don't like imagery - phrases, words - that describe homosexual sex acts. I believe the images that pop into your head revolt you. Then you say you say that the thought of homosexual sexual acts does not revolt you. There is an inconstancy. If I am wrong, show me how.

**Iconoclast** · 02-04-2008, 07:32 PM

I have had a third member say that some words are "impolite." One more might do it.

**MichaelBaron** · 02-04-2008, 07:39 PM

1) To me, "WTF" is not a normal expression on a public forum it tells me something about the person who is using it...
2) I understand you do not like people "exchaging bodily fluids on a bus". I assume you have the same attitude towards a boy and a girl kissing publicly

**Iconoclast** · 02-04-2008, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by MichaelBaron

1) To me, "WTF" is not a normal expression on a public forum it tells me something about the person who is using it...
2) I understand you do not like people "exchaging bodily fluids on a bus". I assume you have the same attitude towards a boy and a girl kissing publicly

The word "****" is used on public board cast TV. So, why is it not OK on an obscure bulletin board inhabited by odd balls.

Correct. A bf/gf bus snogfest is also poor form. Hence the common call, "GET A ROOM!"

**MichaelBaron** · 02-05-2008, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

The word "****" is used on public board cast TV. So, why is it not OK on an obscure bulletin board inhabited by odd balls.

Correct. A bf/gf bus snogfest is also poor form. Hence the common call, "GET A ROOM!"

Why the word "f..." is not Ok on a bulletin board? For the same reason i do not use this word when i talk to friends..or strangers...or...anyone

. Or well..may be i am failing to realise this word is part of the "australian culture" that i am yet to embrace

Agreed...whether its 2 guys or bf+gf - its no real difference - If you think that such behaviour is equally unacceptable irrespectively of sex orientation...its loooks like we are in full agreement on this matter

.

**Just2Good** · 02-05-2008, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I agree. But remember, I have ONLY been referring to homosexual sexual acts, NOT to homosexuals as human beings. I used the term "trough monkey" specifically because I can think of few practices as revolting.

Sorry mate, this doesn't wash (at least not prima facie).

You've already advocated the case of bestiality in the Animal Lovers thread. I would definitely place bestiality in a more vile and repulsive category than any human sexual act with other humans, regardless of the gender of those humans. But to clear the record please answer this one question:

Do you think bestiality is more revolting than homosexuality?

Best

AO

**Iconoclast** · 02-05-2008, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Do you think bestiality is more revolting than homosexuality?

So, the question is, "You have to choose either a man or a dog with which to engage in oral sex and sodomy." First, I would have to ask "Who is the man, and what breed of dog?" [joke]

I would definitely choose choose the man, and then kill my self before I had to get my kit off - or better still try to set the other man up with the dog.

**MichaelBaron** · 02-05-2008, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

So, the question is, "You have to choose either a man or a dog with which to engage in oral sex and sodomy." First, I would have to ask "Who is the man, and what breed of dog?" [joke]

I would definitely choose choose the man, and then kill my self before I had to get my kit off - or better still try to set the other man up with the dog.

In the light of this post. I am withdrawing from further discussions in this thread. I know it is intended as a "joke" but i did not find it funny...so i leave this thread to people with a "better" sence of humour.

**Iconoclast** · 02-05-2008, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by MichaelBaron

... so i leave this thread to people with a "better" sence of humour.

LOL now that's funny.

**KiD** · 02-06-2008, 11:24 AM

I'm just adding my name to the list of those who find some of the words and phrases Iconoclast used and continues to use in this thread objectionable.

I do not have a strong opinion on the topic, but I believe that he could have been as effective in arguing the points he raised using more acceptable language to everyone.

It is possible that his sensibilities may just not be as sensitive as some of the other posters here, but I believe he should have at least shown some restraint and consideration when he read the first objection. The fact that he continues to persist shows, to me, contempt and disrespect to those forum posters that he knows he is offending.

And the fact that he is a part owner and moderator of this forum is, to put it mildly, quite disturbing.

**Iconoclast** · 02-06-2008, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by KiD

I'm just adding my name to the list of those who find some of the words and phrases Iconoclast used and continues to use in this thread objectionable.

OK. I will tone it down to faux Sunday School levels of delicacy.

An artificial cottonwool environment deprived of the full palate, regulated by drab grey sub-cultural norms, OzChess will be deprived of diversity. You pack of tiny fragile flowers are kindred spirits with the Politically Correct Brigade, whining and bawling at any interaction that does not sit square with cucumber sandwich picnics at your great aunt's bungalow. You all call your selves men, but I would not trust you to back me up in a fight. Weak as water, hopelessly nieve, and bathed in your own sanctamonius aura, you have taken me to the cusp of leaving is disgust.

I want a debate on language.

KiD, first you start with,

I do not have a strong opinion on the topic,

and then say,

contempt and disrespect to those forum posters that he knows he is offending.
And the fact that he is a part owner and moderator of this forum is, to put it mildly, quite disturbing.

"[No] strong opinion" to "quite disturbing," within a few lines. You appear to be so full of contradictions I could use you as a random postulate generator.

BTW,
1. I am not an owner but I do contribute very substantially to the cost of this site.
2. I have moderator powers, but as a free-speecher, I never moderate/edit other posters' posts.

02-04-2008, 05:35 PM	#31 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by MichaelBaron 1) If you find that using words like "WTF" and "s...it" acceptable on a public forum...no comment.... WTF. It is a free ranging informal public forum. Ordinary common expression must be OK.[/quote]2)When a teacher goes into a classroom, he is not there to teach his subject matter only - he is also there to educate kids in a broader sense. For example I do not think a school teacher should be using 'F" or "s..it" words when discussing woodwork with students.[/quote]Agreed. I went out for coffee with a group of 7 friends today and we had interesting discussion/arguments about everything under the sun. Somehow, i can not recall any of us using some of the words you are so keen to advocate. Wow, that is definitely abnormal and deeply distrurbing. We are expressing our views on "whether same sex couples are entitled to express their feelings publicly or not" and my answer is Yes! Being entitled to "express their feelings" does not extend to swapping bodily fluids by giving each other's teeth a clean with their tongues while on a metro bus. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

02-04-2008, 05:44 PM	#32 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One I don't like where this thread is going. ... I think on a deteriorating thread like this its time to offer a last rite of reply. So, FF, WE, Icono, MB, and anyone else - one last post in this thread and then I am going to close it (hopefully without objections). I object. It would be difficult to underestimate how strongly I object. The closing of threads by a moderator because they "don't like where this thread is going" is exactly what ChessChat does. It must not happen here. I trust the members here to keep each other in line. If I get a few more than just two members - W/E and The Baron - objecting to my language, then I will have to give much more weight to their objections. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

02-04-2008, 06:21 PM	#33 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Thread to Stay Open Originally Posted by Iconoclast I object. It would be difficult to underestimate how strongly I object. The closing of threads by a moderator because they "don't like where this thread is going" is exactly what ChessChat does. It must not happen here. Good point. The thread will remain open upon consideration of your post. The language, however, needs to improve. Everyone must remember that we have young minors like Ziah and others who are members at this forum. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

02-04-2008, 06:47 PM	#34 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	Sweeney can be impolite and unseemly, on occasions. Originally Posted by Iconoclast I object. It would be difficult to underestimate how strongly I object. The closing of threads by a moderator because they "don't like where this thread is going" is exactly what ChessChat does. It must not happen here. I trust the members here to keep each other in line. If I get a few more than just two members - W/E and The Baron - objecting to my language, then I will have to give much more weight to their objections. fg7's advice was good. W/E and The Baron have some valid points. I have been more specific in a PM. Not all black and white. MOZ* __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

02-04-2008, 07:27 PM	#35 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by WhiteElephant It is never meant simply as a description but as something deliberately crass and offensive. I would imagine that such words would carry much greater negative weight when being used by a straight person in reference to gay sex. I agree. But remember, I have ONLY been referring to homosexual sexual acts, NOT to homosexuals as human beings. I used the term "trough monkey" specifically because I can think of few practices as revolting. Iconoclast, can you please give us some background about your knowledge of what goes on 'socially in the gay communtiy'. How do you know all this? Have you read about it? Seen it on the net? Do you actually know any gay people? I had to think carefully about my reply. I had one close relative who was homosexual. He is now dead. I have one more distant relative who is gay. I have a few good friends who have "tried it." I have some fine equaintences who are gay couples. I have accidently found my self in a couple of gay bars, didn't stay long. I have read gay mags. I have read on gay culture. I think I have enough connection with various parts of society to be permitted to comment on it. You have now brought up several times that you think I am revolted by gay sex. What makes you believe this? Because you don't like imagery - phrases, words - that describe homosexual sex acts. I believe the images that pop into your head revolt you. Why? Because when we contemplate other people's actions we see them through the prism of out own world. We imagine ourselves in that position so that we might feel sympathy/empathy for their experience. I respect anyone's lifestyle choice so long as it does not negatively impact on mine. Don't you mean "directly and negatively?" Because homosexuals (and heterosexuals!) who do not "produce" the next generation will take your share of the intergenerational social contract in your old age. I find the sight of a naked male a turn off. In the same way I find the practice of bondage between heterosexuals a turn off. I do not find it revolting. I respect an individual's right to do whatever he or she wants with their body. If you think that makes me bisexual then you are entitled to your opinion. Well. I am stumped. How can the sight of a naked man be a turn-off while the image of a bloke nobbing another bloke not be revolting. I don't get it. For me, a naked bloke is not a turn off, or a turn on, it is nothing at all. A naked woman (or two!) on the other hand ... You seem to think that you have caught me out in something here. I am not sure what you are getting at. As I said above. Because you don't like imagery - phrases, words - that describe homosexual sex acts. I believe the images that pop into your head revolt you. Then you say you say that the thought of homosexual sexual acts does not revolt you. There is an inconstancy. If I am wrong, show me how. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

02-04-2008, 07:32 PM	#36 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	I have had a third member say that some words are "impolite." One more might do it. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

02-04-2008, 07:39 PM	#37 (permalink)
MichaelBaron Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 136	1) To me, "WTF" is not a normal expression on a public forum it tells me something about the person who is using it... 2) I understand you do not like people "exchaging bodily fluids on a bus". I assume you have the same attitude towards a boy and a girl kissing publicly

02-04-2008, 07:47 PM	#38 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by MichaelBaron 1) To me, "WTF" is not a normal expression on a public forum it tells me something about the person who is using it... 2) I understand you do not like people "exchaging bodily fluids on a bus". I assume you have the same attitude towards a boy and a girl kissing publicly The word "****" is used on public board cast TV. So, why is it not OK on an obscure bulletin board inhabited by odd balls. Correct. A bf/gf bus snogfest is also poor form. Hence the common call, "GET A ROOM!" __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

02-05-2008, 03:24 AM	#39 (permalink)
MichaelBaron Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 136	Originally Posted by Iconoclast The word "****" is used on public board cast TV. So, why is it not OK on an obscure bulletin board inhabited by odd balls. Correct. A bf/gf bus snogfest is also poor form. Hence the common call, "GET A ROOM!" Why the word "f..." is not Ok on a bulletin board? For the same reason i do not use this word when i talk to friends..or strangers...or...anyone . Or well..may be i am failing to realise this word is part of the "australian culture" that i am yet to embrace Agreed...whether its 2 guys or bf+gf - its no real difference - If you think that such behaviour is equally unacceptable irrespectively of sex orientation...its loooks like we are in full agreement on this matter .

02-05-2008, 10:06 AM	#40 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Are you Joking? Originally Posted by Iconoclast I agree. But remember, I have ONLY been referring to homosexual sexual acts, NOT to homosexuals as human beings. I used the term "trough monkey" specifically because I can think of few practices as revolting. Sorry mate, this doesn't wash (at least not prima facie). You've already advocated the case of bestiality in the Animal Lovers thread. I would definitely place bestiality in a more vile and repulsive category than any human sexual act with other humans, regardless of the gender of those humans. But to clear the record please answer this one question: Do you think bestiality is more revolting than homosexuality? Best AO __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

02-05-2008, 04:41 PM	#41 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Do you think bestiality is more revolting than homosexuality? So, the question is, "You have to choose either a man or a dog with which to engage in oral sex and sodomy." First, I would have to ask "Who is the man, and what breed of dog?" [joke] I would definitely choose choose the man, and then kill my self before I had to get my kit off - or better still try to set the other man up with the dog. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

02-05-2008, 06:44 PM	#42 (permalink)
MichaelBaron Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 136	Originally Posted by Iconoclast So, the question is, "You have to choose either a man or a dog with which to engage in oral sex and sodomy." First, I would have to ask "Who is the man, and what breed of dog?" [joke] I would definitely choose choose the man, and then kill my self before I had to get my kit off - or better still try to set the other man up with the dog. In the light of this post. I am withdrawing from further discussions in this thread. I know it is intended as a "joke" but i did not find it funny...so i leave this thread to people with a "better" sence of humour.

02-05-2008, 09:38 PM	#43 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by MichaelBaron ... so i leave this thread to people with a "better" sence of humour. LOL now that's funny. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

02-06-2008, 11:24 AM	#44 (permalink)
KiD Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 84	I'm just adding my name to the list of those who find some of the words and phrases Iconoclast used and continues to use in this thread objectionable. I do not have a strong opinion on the topic, but I believe that he could have been as effective in arguing the points he raised using more acceptable language to everyone. It is possible that his sensibilities may just not be as sensitive as some of the other posters here, but I believe he should have at least shown some restraint and consideration when he read the first objection. The fact that he continues to persist shows, to me, contempt and disrespect to those forum posters that he knows he is offending. And the fact that he is a part owner and moderator of this forum is, to put it mildly, quite disturbing.

02-06-2008, 04:33 PM	#45 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by KiD I'm just adding my name to the list of those who find some of the words and phrases Iconoclast used and continues to use in this thread objectionable. OK. I will tone it down to faux Sunday School levels of delicacy. An artificial cottonwool environment deprived of the full palate, regulated by drab grey sub-cultural norms, OzChess will be deprived of diversity. You pack of tiny fragile flowers are kindred spirits with the Politically Correct Brigade, whining and bawling at any interaction that does not sit square with cucumber sandwich picnics at your great aunt's bungalow. You all call your selves men, but I would not trust you to back me up in a fight. Weak as water, hopelessly nieve, and bathed in your own sanctamonius aura, you have taken me to the cusp of leaving is disgust. I want a debate on language. KiD, first you start with, I do not have a strong opinion on the topic, and then say, contempt and disrespect to those forum posters that he knows he is offending. And the fact that he is a part owner and moderator of this forum is, to put it mildly, quite disturbing. "[No] strong opinion" to "quite disturbing," within a few lines. You appear to be so full of contradictions I could use you as a random postulate generator. BTW, 1. I am not an owner but I do contribute very substantially to the cost of this site. 2. I have moderator powers, but as a free-speecher, I never moderate/edit other posters' posts. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: