More DeSantis agenda

[BootmanLA]

15 hours ago, ErosWired said:

So Trump bears no responsibility for what transpired at the capitol on January 6? Try again.

Talk about simplifying and distorting arguments: this one takes the cake. I did NOT say "nothing that transpires while a given individual holds power is directly attributable to him." I said - as you quoted, but may not have comprehended, "pretending that anything that transpires while a given official holds power is directly attributable to him, is silliness." Sometimes things are attributable to the official in power; sometimes they aren't. I certainly would hold Trump accountable for his actions on January 6. But the point you seem to be missing is that mere temporal proximity - "this" happened while "he" was in power, thus "he" caused "this" - is silly. 

Specifically, you're saying that because Lincoln made some political compromises that went against his moral compass in order to try to achieve what he considered a bigger goal - that is, keeping the Union intact - his moral compass is meaningless and we can't give him any credit for it.  The world is a bit more complex than that.

You seem to grasp this concept when it comes to FEMA responses or gas prices - that the person at the top can't control all the variables - but you seem completely blind to the variables Lincoln was facing trying to square his personal opposition to slavery (even if he was, in fact, not a believer in racial equality) with the political reality of keeping the nation whole.

15 hours ago, ErosWired said:

The individual doesn’t but the collective does - how does that work, exactly? Because the collective is nothing but the sum of its individual parts, and if all those individual parts individually take no responsibility, the collective has no will to do so.

Oh, maybe by the collective - through our elected representatives - finally doing something to eradicate the entrenched racism that is at the heart of so many of our pathologies in this country? There are all sorts of "collective" actions the government can take that none of us, as individuals, can. We just lack the political will to force our government to do the right thing.

15 hours ago, ErosWired said:

That said, I have now spent absolutely all the time I’m prepared to spend debating this on a site for bareback assfucking.

"I've said MY piece and made MY provocative arguments and now I'm going to flounce out of here and pretend this thing I spent so much energy and effort on isn't worth my precious time any more"

[BootmanLA]

12 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

I'm against confusing children about any concept, and especially gender. Many concepts are ambiguous and that may include gender. I say "may" because it's never been confusing to me.

Take the concepts of "door" and "window" which at first glance they seem simple. A door is to go in and out of a room, and a window is to let light and fresh air come into a room. That's what children learn by observation. But it turns out that a window can also be a door and a door can sometimes be a window, but not because of that we teach two-year old children the nuances of concepts like window and door. Children learn about the nuances of windows and doors with experience. 

Here's the problem with your perspective (which may be because you're not, as you acknowledge, American.

The way laws get written here, they ordinarily don't get "names" unless someone is trying to get cutsey with an acronym - and the name doesn't matter. What matters is what the law DOES. And the Florida law in question prohibits ANY reference to sexual orientation in public elementary schools. Sounds simple, right? But what is a "mention" of sexual orientation?

If a straight married female teacher makes a reference to "my husband" (or an unmarried one makes a reference to "my boyfriend" or "my fiance"), nobody is going to say that's discussing sexual orientation.

But if a gay male teacher says "my husband", you can bet your ass he's going to be hauled into some administrative office somewhere and berated for discussing sexual orientation - and very possibly fired for it.

Because heterosexuality is so pervasive in culture that no one even NOTICES when people make references that clearly indicate a (hetero) sexual orientation. It's baked into the environment; it's the air that people breathe. It's only when the "sexual orientation" is NOT hetero that suddenly people start to notice and say children shouldn't be exposed to that.

And when pressed for why, we're told that children that age are too young to learn about sex. But again, Mrs. Heterosexual can mention her husband - which is just as much teaching about sex as Mr. Gay mentioning HIS husband.

Hell, pregnant women are allowed to teach - shocker! - and if that doesn't tell little kids something about the fact that sex exists, then how does a man mentioning his husband? 

And THAT'S why it's called "Don't say gay" - because it's only the people who make reference to an LGBTQ orientation, not those who outright flaunt their hetero orientation, who will be restricted under the law. It's a very accurate way to describe that law.

[hungry_hole]

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

If a straight married female teacher makes a reference to "my husband" (or an unmarried one makes a reference to "my boyfriend" or "my fiance"), nobody is going to say that's discussing sexual orientation.

I would like to take a step back and think of why a professional doing their job has to share with the clients, children in this case, details of their personal life. When I went to school I never knew anything about the personal life of my teachers, and looking back I wasn't interested. Teachers were there to teach subjects that were considered to help children in their future careers, like Math, Grammar, Science, public speaking, and many other useful subjects.

15 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Here's the problem with your perspective (which may be because you're not, as you acknowledge, American.

Regarding the reference to sexual orientation:

15 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Because heterosexuality is so pervasive in culture...

But heterosexuality is pervasive in all cultures, and it has been for millennia, therefore there must be something about the conditions and the dynamics of heterosexuality that it is favoured among all cultures.

One reason I can think about why most men favour heterosexual intimacy over male intimacy is that most likely their experiences of intimacy have been with a woman, their mother, rarely with a father or any male friends.

15 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

And the Florida law in question prohibits ANY reference to sexual orientation in public elementary schools. Sounds simple, right? But what is a "mention" of sexual orientation?

I disagree with presenting children with a concept that segregates them based on a need for intimacy. As BootmanLA says "[Heterosexuality] is baked into the environment; it's the air that people breathe" which creates a power imbalance with homosexuality at the bottom of the scale.

Heterosexuality is so baked into the environment that there have been several cases of Canadian Junior players using some young woman in gang-bang, just to be able to say that they are straight. If I were the judge my sentence would be to repeat the scene but this time instead of the young woman being gang-rape, they all have to take turns being the slut.

Instead of telling teenage boys about the gay identity, they should be told things that are real and concrete, like "Look boys, you have a cock, it gets hard, and it feels good touching it, but it would feel better if I sucked it, but I can't". You tell them that for some boys the next best thing to sucking your own cock is to suck a buddy's cock, and maybe later switch. If one keeps the "gay" out of the needs for intimacy with other boys, boys are more likely accept same-sex intimacy themselves. One of the most intimate things two boys can do, something they cannot do with girls, is compare their cocks, in size shape, etc. But for two boys to compare their cocks they have to feel aroused, which within sexual orientation perspective would mean that two straight boys cannot compare cocks, because doing it makes them gay.

[BootmanLA]

On 3/10/2023 at 10:20 AM, hungry_hole said:

I would like to take a step back and think of why a professional doing their job has to share with the clients, children in this case, details of their personal life. When I went to school I never knew anything about the personal life of my teachers, and looking back I wasn't interested.

Your experiences and mine - and those of most people I know - are different. Even something so innocuous as a teacher having a picture of his/her family on her desk is an announcement about his or her family structure. Beyond that, the principal made a public announcement one year that a (female) teacher's husband had been killed in a car accident and asked for a moment of silence in his honor. I had (hetero) teachers who were married to each other, and everyone knew that Mr. Smith was married to Mrs. Smith. Even more telling, Mrs. Smith got pregnant one year, so it was abundantly clear to everyone that Mrs. Smith was sexually active. More than one female teacher I knew got married during the school year or between school years, and took her husband's name at marriage, so it was patently clear what their "orientation" was.

As I said: heterosexuality is so pervasive that you don't even notice it, or think of it as "sexual orientation". But it's always there and right in front of you. It's only noticeable when it's something other than heterosexuality. But the bigots can't come out and say "straight good, gay bad" - so they say we can't talk about it at all. Except, as noted, we do, all the time, for straights.

On 3/10/2023 at 10:20 AM, hungry_hole said:

But heterosexuality is pervasive in all cultures, and it has been for millennia, therefore there must be something about the conditions and the dynamics of heterosexuality that it is favoured among all cultures.

One reason I can think about why most men favour heterosexual intimacy over male intimacy is that most likely their experiences of intimacy have been with a woman, their mother, rarely with a father or any male friends.

I think most men favor heterosexual intimacy because that's how they're wired. If you think straightness in culture is because women take care of kids, you seriously, seriously need to do some research.

On 3/10/2023 at 10:20 AM, hungry_hole said:

Instead of telling teenage boys about the gay identity, they should be told things that are real and concrete, like "Look boys, you have a cock, it gets hard, and it feels good touching it, but it would feel better if I sucked it, but I can't". You tell them that for some boys the next best thing to sucking your own cock is to suck a buddy's cock, and maybe later switch. If one keeps the "gay" out of the needs for intimacy with other boys, boys are more likely accept same-sex intimacy themselves. One of the most intimate things two boys can do, something they cannot do with girls, is compare their cocks, in size shape, etc. But for two boys to compare their cocks they have to feel aroused, which within sexual orientation perspective would mean that two straight boys cannot compare cocks, because doing it makes them gay.

So basically you want to teach them the mechanics of gay sex but nothing about actually being attracted to someone, romantically, of the same sex. That's about as fucked up as I can imagine - it reduces gay people (and in your formulation, gay men especially) into purely sexual beings, ones who fuck men because it's convenient and feels good, not because that's how they're wired. That's... fucked up. Seriously.

[hungry_hole]

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I had (hetero) teachers who were married to each other, and everyone knew that Mr. Smith was married to Mrs. Smith. Even more telling, Mrs. Smith got pregnant one year, so it was abundantly clear to everyone that Mrs. Smith was sexually active. .....As I said: heterosexuality is so pervasive

Societies depend and have depended for ever on heterosexuality not because people have been "socialized" to favour it, but because children have been part of a male-female couples, so heterosexuality is here to stay. Children have grandparents, they meet the parents of other children, most in male-female couple.

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

But the bigots can't come out and say "straight good, gay bad" - so they say we can't talk about it at all. Except, as noted, we do, all the time, for straights.

Again, I think that the mistake is to focus on identities, gay and straight in this case. First of all, if people want to talk about socially constructed concepts, instead of talking about gender, gay and straight are better examples. I say this because sexual orientation does not have any biological markers. If the body or blood of a person is found, it would be impossible to determine the sexual orientation of that person, because sexual orientation is a fictitious construct.

I'm opposed to referring to same-sex marriage as  "gay marriage" because then it would imply that only gay men and lesbians can marry each other. In my opinion the insistence in having to be gay in order to engage in same-sex marriage is pervasive. Nothing stops two men to marry each other without "being gay".

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I think most men favor heterosexual intimacy because that's how they're wired.

I totally disagree with this "wired" reference because it would mean that some men have no interest in anything male and only focused on women. And we all know that it's not true, because we live in a male-dominated society where most men prefer men to women.

Why do you think guys watch MMA fights? They enjoy watching masculine and muscular bodies, mind you fighting, because otherwise it would be gay. They even have these stupid silly women announcing the rounds that nobody cares about because the men are there to watch the men.

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

But the bigots can't come out and say "straight good, gay bad" - so they say we can't talk about it at all.

Yes, the men who in the back of their minds sees the potential to get turned on by men, are opposed to "gay stuff" because it may ruffle their feathers.

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

So basically you want to teach them the mechanics of gay sex but nothing about actually being attracted to someone, romantically, of the same sex.

From observing girls and women same-sex intimacy I think there's a lesson to learn and that maybe men are frustrated by the censoring of same-sex intimacy and that the only way to achieve it is by "being gay". Why can't boys and men be allowed to share intimacy, physical and emotional, without being labelled "different"?

The problem with the concept of "gay" is that it will always be of a lower social status simply because for women, a so-called "straight" male will always have more value that a gay one. Everybody's heard comments from women who say "the guy next door is so cute, but too bad, he's gay". And this will never change. Or do you think it will come a time when women won't care if the guy they are interested is gay or not.

The solution is to get rid of the gay and straight identities because that will be the only way to get rid of discrimination. And focus instead of what are the needs that boys and men need from other boys and men.

Here is one example. Wanting to suck cock is seen as an indication that a man is gay. But this need to suck cock would be interpreted as men wanting to suck it's own cock but because a man can't really suck it, he needs to suck another guy's cock.

Boys should first have fun with each other, suck cock, fuck each other, play all kinds of sexual games, without any women. Then, as they grow older into manhood men can decide to relate sexually to women. That way men can resolve any fetishes they may have among each other, and then go to women.

[BootmanLA]

11 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

Societies depend and have depended for ever on heterosexuality not because people have been "socialized" to favour it, but because children have been part of a male-female couples, so heterosexuality is here to stay. Children have grandparents, they meet the parents of other children, most in male-female couple.

Children have also been raised since eternity by single mothers. Or by entire villages, where children of a tribe are considered the responsibility of the entire tribe. Children have been raised by other relatives and by adoptive parents, both married and single, for enternity as well.  Regardless, this is 2021, and in western societies at least, same-sex couples and openly LGBT people have been around for decades, in public. There's no excuse at this point for legislation that *in effect* treats us differently under the law. Period.

11 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

because sexual orientation is a fictitious construct.

Bullshit.

11 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

Why can't boys and men be allowed to share intimacy, physical and emotional, without being labelled "different"?

I don't label them "different". But I do label things as accurately as possible because labels, aka "nouns", are how we identify things. Other labels, aka "adjectives", are how we describe things. We need words for things in order to communicate about those things.

12 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

The problem with the concept of "gay" is that it will always be of a lower social status simply because for women, a so-called "straight" male will always have more value that a gay one. Everybody's heard comments from women who say "the guy next door is so cute, but too bad, he's gay". And this will never change. Or do you think it will come a time when women won't care if the guy they are interested is gay or not.

Of course heterosexual women care if a man in whom they are interested is gay or straight. But that doesn't mean they think he's of "lower social status". I'm starting to get the idea you may be, ethnically speaking, from a culture that demeans homosexuals. If so, then your ideas, however quaint and primitive, are meaningless to me, and certainly shouldn't be dictating how a first-world society treats its people.

12 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

The solution is to get rid of the gay and straight identities because that will be the only way to get rid of discrimination. And focus instead of what are the needs that boys and men need from other boys and men.

Here's the thing: the only "boys and men" who need things from "other boys and men" - that is, other than friendship - are the gay ones. You seem to be suggesting that if we just stop calling gay people "gay" that nobody will care if boys fuck boys and men fuck men. I assure you, that is not the case. Maybe in some nation that officially denigrates gay people but doesn't care if men are fucking men night and day, just don't talk about it - but not in a more enlightened place.

12 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

Here is one example. Wanting to suck cock is seen as an indication that a man is gay. But this need to suck cock would be interpreted as men wanting to suck it's own cock but because a man can't really suck it, he needs to suck another guy's cock.

That is just stupid. It's categorically stupid. In fact, the very definition of "gay" is "a man who is interested in sexual interactions with other men." That's what the fucking word MEANS. Now yeah, in some places, that's considered a horrible thing - that is, admitting that's what you like. In such places, men who want sex with men are supposed to pretend they want women - they even marry them, sometimes fuck them (or not), but then they go right on fucking men or getting fucked by men discreetly, on the side. Well, some of us have matured beyond  that kind of game-playing deceit. If that's what floats your boat, fine - but don't try to impose that bullshit idea of life on western society.

12 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

Boys should first have fun with each other, suck cock, fuck each other, play all kinds of sexual games, without any women. Then, as they grow older into manhood men can decide to relate sexually to women. That way men can resolve any fetishes they may have among each other, and then go to women.

Jesus Fucking Christ - you really do seem to think that boys can "get it out of their system" and then marry women. News flash: men did that for centuries. IT    DOES    NOT   WORK.   Period. 

[hungry_hole]

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Jesus Fucking Christ -

First, why are you so angry with me when all I'm trying to say is that all men would benefit from same-sex intimacy being part of masculinity, the way same-sex intimacy is an important part of femininity.

Men's bodies are different from women especially when it comes to erotic life because we have the cock that gets hard and it unconsciously interferes with intimacy. So obviously the way same-sex intimacy will take place will be different. Two girls can compare breast size without sex being part of the interaction, but two boys who want to compare cock size and shape, they both need to be horny to be able to make the comparison. I already asked, can then only "gay boys" compare cocks?

Obviously all boys would like to compare cocks so they should have games that boys play with their cocks and hard-ons. But because society has decided to marginalize boys and men who demonstrate any interest in same-sex intimacy, boys are reluctant to experience same-sex intimacy for fear of being part of a special group of boys and men. Girls don't think of other girls as lesbians because they want to go together to the washroom or share some piece of clothing.

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Bullshit.

"Gay" is an identity and as such is ambiguous. For some men, a man is gay when he bottoms anally. I once read that a man is gay only if he falls in-love with a man, but having sex with men doesn't "make" him gay.

Sexual Orientation has no biological markers so it's a good candidate for a socially constructed concept. So-called "straight men" are very reassured by "being straight" because they never have to contemplate the idea that sex with men may be fun. But the same elements that "gay men" love in porn, hard cocks and cum, are present in straight porn, just with some women to calm down the straight men.

10 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

We need words for things in order to communicate about those things.

Everybody here is probably familiar with the Kinsey Scale, and you probably have it wrong. The Kinsey Scale never intended to categorize identities, but instead the proportions of hetero and homo sex. Kinsey said it clearly, that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" should be used to refer to sexual encounters, and not for people. A sexual act can be heterosexual or homosexual, but not the people. It's a small detail that means a lot.

10 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

But that doesn't mean they think he's of "lower social status".

Just look at the disappointment in a woman's face who is anxious to find a man but discovers that the cute guy next door lives with his lover. A boy watching the scene will get the message that the guy next door is not a regular man. 

10 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

That is just stupid. It's categorically stupid. In fact, the very definition of "gay" is "a man who is interested in sexual interactions with other men." That's what the fucking word MEANS.

I don't see the "stupid". I know what gay mean to most people and if I were saying the same thing that everybody says or thinks about gay men, I wouldn't have bother writing anything.

I am sure that if men could comfortably suck their own cock, gloryholes and cock sucking would not be as popular among men as it is now. Gloryholes provide men with a "disembodied" cock that one can appropriate as  your own, and pretend you are sucking your own.

10 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Jesus Fucking Christ - you really do seem to think that boys can "get it out of their system" and then marry women. News flash: men did that for centuries. IT    DOES    NOT   WORK.   Period. 

I've never said that boys can get it out of their system. What I'm saying is that most likely all the stuff we now attribute to "being gay" is actually something common to all boys and men.

[BootmanLA]

On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, hungry_hole said:

First, why are you so angry with me when all I'm trying to say is that all men would benefit from same-sex intimacy being part of masculinity, the way same-sex intimacy is an important part of femininity.

I think a whole lot of women would argue that no, "same-sex intimacy" (in the form of sexual encounters) between women is NOT an important part of femininity, or even a part of it at all for many women.

On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, hungry_hole said:

Men's bodies are different from women especially when it comes to erotic life because we have the cock that gets hard and it unconsciously interferes with intimacy. So obviously the way same-sex intimacy will take place will be different. Two girls can compare breast size without sex being part of the interaction, but two boys who want to compare cock size and shape, they both need to be horny to be able to make the comparison. I already asked, can then only "gay boys" compare cocks?

No, and you're being silly with this example. A straight boy can think about a girl to get hard, and then compare with another boy, and neither one of them has to have the slightest inclination towards wanting any sexual encounter with another male to do that. They just have to be aroused, and how they GET aroused doesn't have to be anything same-sex-oriented.

On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, hungry_hole said:

Obviously all boys would like to compare cocks so they should have games that boys play with their cocks and hard-ons.

Not all boys want to compare cocks. It's not "obviously" anything of the sort. And even if they do, it does not logically follow that they should have "games that [they] play with their cocks". You're trying to turn every expression of curiosity about differences between body A and body B into sex games.

On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, hungry_hole said:

Girls don't think of other girls as lesbians because they want to go together to the washroom or share some piece of clothing.

Girls don't (as far as I know) go into washrooms together in order to look at each other's breasts or vaginas. In fact, women are just as likely to view that sort of interest by another woman as a sign of lesbianism. You seem to think girls can just strip down and poke and prod each other and not have it be sexualized at all - which is bullshit.

On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, hungry_hole said:

"Gay" is an identity and as such is ambiguous. For some men, a man is gay when he bottoms anally. I once read that a man is gay only if he falls in-love with a man, but having sex with men doesn't "make" him gay.

Maybe some uninformed straight guys think "gay" equals "anal bottom". If they're that poorly informed, that's not my problem. As for what you once read... well, bless your heart, maybe you should try reading something a little more enlightened? In western culture - and I'm becoming more convinced than ever that it's not YOUR native culture - "gay" has long been recognized as men who are sexually interested in other men  (and not women). "Love" has nothing to do with that. Again, I suspect that wherever your ancestry lies, it's in a country that ignores men fucking men and pretends that's just "situational", and it's only "gay" (and very likely, a problem) if there are emotions involved. That's not how western culture views it.

On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, hungry_hole said:

Sexual Orientation has no biological markers so it's a good candidate for a socially constructed concept. So-called "straight men" are very reassured by "being straight" because they never have to contemplate the idea that sex with men may be fun. But the same elements that "gay men" love in porn, hard cocks and cum, are present in straight porn, just with some women to calm down the straight men.

I'll just leave that there for the laughs.

On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, hungry_hole said:

Everybody here is probably familiar with the Kinsey Scale, and you probably have it wrong. The Kinsey Scale never intended to categorize identities, but instead the proportions of hetero and homo sex. Kinsey said it clearly, that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" should be used to refer to sexual encounters, and not for people. A sexual act can be heterosexual or homosexual, but not the people. It's a small detail that means a lot.

From the Kinsey Institute website: "Instead of assigning people to three categories—heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual—the team used a seven-point scale. It ranges from 0 to 6 with an additional category of “X.”" In other words, they used the scale for *people* - exactly the opposite of what you say here.

The Kinsey site goes on to say: "People at “0” report exclusively heterosexual / opposite sex behavior or attraction. Those at “6” report exclusively homosexual / same-sex behavior or attraction. Ratings 1–5 are for those who report varying levels of attraction or sexual activity with either sex. In the original Kinsey Report studies, the X category designated the group who reported no socio-sexual contacts or reactions in their interviews."

That is as clear a statement that the scale refers both to what people DO AND what people ARE - that is, the gender to whom they're attracted. I get that for some weird reason you don't want to give someone who's a Kinsey 6 the label "gay" but that's what we, societally speaking, do. On this point you are categorically wrong.

On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, hungry_hole said:

Just look at the disappointment in a woman's face who is anxious to find a man but discovers that the cute guy next door lives with his lover. A boy watching the scene will get the message that the guy next door is not a regular man. 

Only if (as apparently is the case in your culture) gay men are viewed dismissively. That's increasingly not the case in this society, and I'm sorry if you are from one that denigrates the value and status of gay men. Must suck.

On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, hungry_hole said:

I am sure that if men could comfortably suck their own cock, gloryholes and cock sucking would not be as popular among men as it is now. Gloryholes provide men with a "disembodied" cock that one can appropriate as  your own, and pretend you are sucking your own.

You can be "sure" if you want, but I'm not so sure. Of course some guys would do that. But an awful lot of men who have sex with men want a lot more than a mouth at a glory hole. And gloryhole sex is a tiny fraction of the actual sex men have with each other (again, at least in western society).

Gloryholes are especially popular among two types of men - gay men who love sucking cock and know that there are some men who will only allow it to happen with the anonymity a glory hole provides (and that there are lots of others who don't need the anonymity but get off on that). And straight-ish identifying men who would never admit to being interested in sex with a man, but who will get their cock sucked in a gloryhole because they don't have to acknowledge it's a man on the other side.

Those are far from a substantial portion of gay men. If they're most of the men you know, I'd suggest broadening your social circles a bit.