FLAMBOYANT MEN=THE REASON MEN STAY ON THE ""DL&quo

Talks about guys that are nellie.

Moderators: selective_soldier, Lesley R. Charles, batty

ARE FLAMBOYANT QUEENS THE REASON MEN CHOOSE TO STAY ON THE DL

Poll ended at Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:52 am

Yes it is
3
21%
No it isnt,it is other things
8
57%
It is very possible
3
21%
Not sure,but i certainly would not be surprised
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 14

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:03 pm

Brandon wrote:So I guess picking you up in a red Ferrari and taking you to a Fabulous restaurant would be to "obvious", huh?

:(


:lol: :lol: Of course not,hell it could be a business meeting for all anyones concerned lol.PICK ME UP IN THAT FERRARI OH YEA :lol:
Guest
 

Postby Brandon » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:13 pm

Why even care what others think? For all you know, the folks could be jealous that you are dating someone with a Ferrari.....

What is the benefit of having your orientation such a secret? Don't misunderstand me - you don't need to wave a banner either.... but what about a balance?

I'm straight-acting ( I really hate that term!), and when I am asked where my girlfriend/wife is, I look them in the eye, tell them I am gay and ask if they have an available brother to date. I always laugh afterwards and they usually laugh right along with me. I don't get bashed, I don't get ridiculed, and if they are secure enough, usually buy me a drink and tell me how cool it is to be open about myself.

Different strokes......
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:24 pm

Brandon wrote:Why even care what others think? For all you know, the folks could be jealous that you are dating someone with a Ferrari.....

What is the benefit of having your orientation such a secret? Don't misunderstand me - you don't need to wave a banner either.... but what about a balance?

I'm straight-acting ( I really hate that term!), and when I am asked where my girlfriend/wife is, I look them in the eye, tell them I am gay and ask if they have an available brother to date. I always laugh afterwards and they usually laugh right along with me. I don't get bashed, I don't get ridiculed, and if they are secure enough, usually buy me a drink and tell me how cool it is to be open about myself.

Different strokes......
Who said i care what anyone thinks,I am perfectly content with no one knowing my sexuality and i am out to prove nothing to no one by telling them.Why would i tell them?? to prove what? I am the type that wants no one in my business and theres not a thing wrong with that.Different strokes for different folks,you may not get bashed or ridiculed yet it could still happen if you feel the need to tell anyone who questions your sexuality the truth, knowing we live in such a society that is so against homosexuality,especially effeminate men and transexuals.I do not change my way of life to please anyone ,i am content with how i am now,and you have chosen your way to go about things and i have chosen mine

DIFFERENT STROKES INDEED. :wink:

I WILL BE READY AT 8,, :lol:
Guest
 

Postby tigakub » Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:57 am

Your not making sense at all.The meaning of flamboyancy itself explains expressing at greater lengths,a choice,There is no such things as natural flamboyant behavior and if you can prove there is,Then do so,I THINK your problem is you are in denial,How can flamboyancy be natural when the meaning itself is to express at greater lengths and to fabricate ,highly elaborate.That is not an assumption.Its simply you speaking without having any facts links or references to back your statements up.

Beavers fabricate very elaborate dams. Are they unnatural? No.

I am not trying to define what is natural but just trying to get you to see that "natural" is a relative term and has no absolute definition. Therefore, you cannot say that flamboyancy is "by definition" unnatural, because "natural" itself has no concrete definition. I suggest you read up on moral relativism.

Once again it seems you think one who beats someone up always has insecurities.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. If you had read my post in more detail you would have realized that I cite insecurity as the reason that some people feel a need to beat others down. However, that is not the same as saying that people who beat others down are ALL suffering from insecurity. Please pay more attention to the causality in my arguments.

When people were innate to believe to beat up homosexuals and to believe they are doing GOD a good deed by beating up homosexuals because they were innate to believe they truly are the scums of the earth. One who was innate to believe in something just may have no insecurity in being brought up to hate a certain group because of his religious beliefs or what his parents taught him.

DL, where does hate come from? Why do people hate? Do you honestly think that people hate for no reason?

I think you are the type that would like to think insecurity is always the answer,without considering any other possibilities,thats an assumption,rather than a "'fact"" AND STILL,PHOBIA EQUALS FEAR.

Again, I never said that insecurity is always the answer. I don't make generalizations like that. "Phobia" does not equal "fear." Phobia means "irrational fear." That is a SIGNIFICANT difference. Please look it up.

mentally many effeminate men actually feel inferior and below heterosexuals and masculine men

Now that is an assumption and a sweeping generalization.

Oh and me calling you""kid""was a urban term i used thats equivalent to ""dude""or""man""Do not take offense,it was not to belittle you.I f you felt that way i do apologize.

I understand, kid.

Huh? Who said that? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they don't care about homophobia. I have heard the argument, however, that it's no one's business what gays do in their private lives and straights shouldn't concern themselves over the lives of others.

If i were not mistaken you stated ,no one cares about WHAT DL MEN DO AND THERE HATE FOR THIS OR THAT?? if not please correct me.

I was responding to your suggestion (or what I believe was your suggestion, I may have misinterpreted) that gays take a "No one cares" attitude to homophobia. My response was that I have never heard anyone say that, but that I have heard people say that no one should care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

Well i personally do not call it phobia,I think the term is equivalent to a dislike of a certion group,Like for example arachorphobia or however you say it,means a fear of spiders am i right?? It also means a dislike of spiders.I think sissyphobia is equivalent to societys dislike of effeminate men,rather then some actual fear or inferiority complex,which many effeminate men have when it comes to masculine males and heterosexuals

I think that it is imprecise to equate "fear" and "dislike." For instance, I can dislike something, yet not be afraid of it. So being afraid, includes dislike, but necessarily entails more than mere dislike. "Phobia" very specifically refers to "irrational fear." So to have a phobia means not only to have fear, but in addition, it means that the fear is not reasonable, that it is disproportionate to the actual danger. If you mean "dislike," then perhaps you should just use "dislike."

Even if you restrict your meaning to "dislike" it is STILL necessary to analyse whether the dislike is justified. If I have tried coffee, and dislike it, then my dislike of it is completely justified, i.e., I have enough information on which to make that determination. But when someone dislikes LGBT people without really knowing about them, that is not justified and is more appropriately called "prejudice."

I think that you might want to refine your definition of fear. Simplistically, fear is the emotion which makes you want to run away. But on a more analytical level, fear is the emotion which makes you want to protect yourself; one way to protect yourself is to run, but another is to fight off the danger. Fighting against a threat need not be restricted to the physical, it can also be verbal.

Ummm if you read carefully,i stated i do not consider that a lie to myself.I stated that lying to yourself is were the problem is at.When one accepts what they are to themselves then they really do not owe an explanation to anybody.Though morally society has decided that in marriage comes with truth and honesty as well as relationships with partners you are faithful with.

Actually, if you read me more carefully, you'd see that I acknowledge that you do not consider it a lie. However, I consider it a lie. When you tell people that you are not bisexual, this is a falsehood. If you deliberately give others information that is false, that is a lie. Otherwise, you and I have radically different definitions of the word "lie." Please note, however, that I impose no moral judgement on lying.

Admitting to being bisexual or gay is not an explanation. It is just an admission. And it is true that you owes no one an explanation for, or even an admission of, one's sexuality. But a lie is still a lie. If the lie serves a good purpose, then by all means, lie.

Whats wrong with saying yes?? ... Because telling the truth to some unknown stranger whose state of mind is unknown,about your sexuality could result in your death or you putting yourself in grave danger. At least be very considerate of yourself and your life when responding to unknown individuals or people who are just nosey and may just want to have some gossip on you.Too much pride can kill you

Yes! That was the answer I was looking for. You say "no" out of fear. Good. Fear is healthy because it serves to protect. It is a very natural defensive signal which tells you that danger is near. It is by no means a negative reflection on your maturity or manhood. In fact, I feel that the most mature people can readily admit to their fear.

And i ask have you ever considered any other possibilities rather than just given yourself a rational explanation to why someone chose to go against you and your sexuality??

Actually, I try not to "guess" other people's motives. If there is something puzzling about someone's behavior, I ask them. That is why I started this dialog with you. I want to know how you think.

If someone is confrontational, or disrespectful, my experience is that they feel threatened. My understanding that they have an insecurity (which is only human and is not at all shameful) allows me not to take his insults personally and not become angered. That way it increases my chance of reacting rationally and in my own best interests, and the interests of all concerned.

Lest you think me a saint, I readily admit to having my own insecurities which lead me to become angry. I'm not perfect because I'm human. But I try to catch myself before I let my insecurities make me angry.

For instance, when you called me "kid," my first reaction was to be insulted. If I had given in to my anger and called you a name in response, then our exchange may have descended into an exchange of name-calling and we would not be having this interesting conversation. Instead, I just asked you to clarify and then found out that you did not intend to insult me at all, and I learned something new in the process.

The upshot of what I'm saying is that if I say that someone is insecure as a way of trying to understand him, that might not be a bad thing. If I call someone insecure as a way of putting them down, however, that is indeed because I myself am insecure and need to put someone else down in order to make myself feel superior. And that is bad.

Ok and just because you feel it is wrong does not make it untrue.There are men out there who have this mentality,which makes my statement true,regardless of how wrong or right you think it is.

Actually it is not a generalization.A generalization is stating that ""ALL"" of a certain groups acts this way or has this mentality.If there are grown men who do whatever they want,when they want out there in this world then yes there are GROWN MEN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT,WHEN THEY WANT.that statement is true.

Ok. As long as you refrain from using "all."

Your definition?? How ignorant!= meaning unaware and uninformed,of you.

Now, now, no need to be insulting.

How can you have your definition to a word that already has a definition to it.If your definition does not fit the original definition to the word that already has a defined meaning.Then your definition simply is not under the label that already has a defined meaning to it.I simply stated by reading the dictionary(which takes you to the true source of a meaning of a word) the word mature has meaning that peopled interpret different.So please stop telling me your interpretations as if everyone feels the same way you do.And i did not tell you what to do.I asked you.

Words are redefined all the time. Definition is relative. Just because you've gleaned a definition from a dictionary does not make it the only and final definition. You, yourself, have redefined the meanings of "phobia," "DL" and "lie" to suit your arguments in this very post.

Many words carry many, many complex connotations which are too numerous to be completely listed in a dictionary. It is very dangerous to base your arguments on dictionary definition alone. In my experience, dictionaries are mainly useful only to verify the spellings of words, and useful for superficial definitions of all but the most basic words.

And maturity is just such a complex notion, such that I would trust my definition far more than the simplistic definition found in any dictionary. Perhaps if you gave me a definition that you had read in a book on sociology, anthropology, psychology, or even parenting, I may have put more credence in it.

GOD,man the term DL is a oxymoron

Actually, an oxymoron is a phrase in which two concepts which are opposite or incompatible are placed together. So for example, "a legal criminal" is an oxymoron. "Extraordinary mediocrity" is another. "An open-minded republican" is another (I'm joking).

the correct term is discreet.The meaning of downlow simply is equivalent to DISCREET.And i am saying the consequences of contracting an STD or HIV and spreading it to your wife can happen if your wife is aware you are cheating or not.That is not a consequence of being DL,it is consequence of making poor choices and being very inconsiderate.

Then your definition of DL differs from mine, and from many people I've talked to. My understanding of "discreet" is "not obvious" or "politely unobtrusive." My understanding of DL is that men who are DL have sex with men without the knowledge of their wives. You might see this kind of secrect as discretion which carries positive connotations, but to me being DL also carries an element of dishonesty, which carries a negative connotation. So I don't think that DL can accurately be equated with discretion.

If a DL man contracts an STD because he was having unprotected sex, and then his wife contracted STD from him because she did not know of his extra-marital behavior, this is partly a consequence of the man having unprotected sex, but is ALSO partly a consequence of the man LYING to her about his sexual faithfulness to her.

It is of course your choice to call yourself DL, but in my opinion (and I realize that it is just MY OPINION) that most people DO have negative ideas about being DL, and that you having admitted to your wife about your sexuality, are NOT DL, but are simply bisexual, and quite honestly so.

it does not matter what you agree with or not.FAITH MEANS WISHFUL THINKING

((((faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at

=WISHFUL THINKING.like it or not

You do not need to quote the dictionary to me. I have one.

There is a difference between having faith, and being faithful. Please look it up.

Having faith is indeed as you have defined. But being faithful to one's spouse means "never having a sexual relationship with anyone else."

i believe it is inferior complexes and misery that one homosexual does not understand he has anytime he always acknowledges the bisexual male having sex with men only excluding the other side of him that has sex with women.to come to a conclusion of the same action that is relative to him =selfish thoughted

I am not confident that I understood what you meant here. But I must tell you that as a gay man who has tried once to be with a woman and has come to the conclusion that men are way, way, WAY, WAY, WAY more appealing (so much so that I have absolutely no regrets about never, ever being with another woman), I kind of resent your claim that I have an inferiority complex and am miserable. I am very happy in my relation with my hubby.

I do not understand straight or bisexual attraction to women, but I don't denigrate them. Were I ignorant, I could accuse you of being unable to commit to one sex or the other. But I'm not ignorant.
t.kub
tigakub
Newbie
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:50 am

Postby tigakub » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:08 am

DL wrote:this term in the closet,,irks me ,because if one acknowledges what he is to himself,what closet is he in...


The term "in the closet" applies to homosexual men who keep their sexuality a secret from others. It does not necessarily mean that he denies his sexuality to himself. Gay men sometimes keep their sexuality secret because they are afraid that "coming out" will have undesirable consequences which include (but are not limited to) bodily harm, job insecurity, and family conflict. Sometimes this fear is justified.

A homosexual man who denies his sexuality even to himself indeed has issues. If he denies it because he thinks that homosexuality is shameful or sinful, then he has taken homophobia and internalized it -- thus the term "internalized homophobia."
t.kub
tigakub
Newbie
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:50 am

Postby TomMichigan » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:09 am

Texas_Thang said:
They want it both ways and have to live a closeted, "down low" life because of it. They get to have their cake, eat it too, and then have the indigestion of living a lie.


That's what it is, period.

I understand this young man having the concerns/issues he has.
In most cultures and sub-cultures, gender a-typical behavior is severelly frowned upon. And most straight people have the misguided notion that if you are male, and homosexual, that you are going to behave in a manner that is not considered manly. So as long as the truly masculine homosexual men stay hidden, the only homosexuals they will actually see are the flamers. It's too bad, but it's the way it is.
This young man needs to understand that he's ok how he is, and that he alone can pick and choose who he hangs around with. In the community/culture in which he lives, he's finding that flamers/queens are not accepted, and masculine men are accepted, so like anybody, especially a young person just coming into their own skin, he wants to be accepted, and not turned away because of his homosexuality.
He's just confused and angry about it right now.
As they say, "This too, shall pass"
TomMichigan
Newbie
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:19 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:20 am

TomMichigan wrote:Texas_Thang said:
They want it both ways and have to live a closeted, "down low" life because of it. They get to have their cake, eat it too, and then have the indigestion of living a lie.


That's what it is, period.

I understand this young man having the concerns/issues he has.
In most cultures and sub-cultures, gender a-typical behavior is severelly frowned upon. And most straight people have the misguided notion that if you are male, and homosexual, that you are going to behave in a manner that is not considered manly. So as long as the truly masculine homosexual men stay hidden, the only homosexuals they will actually see are the flamers. It's too bad, but it's the way it is.
This young man needs to understand that he's ok how he is, and that he alone can pick and choose who he hangs around with. In the community/culture in which he lives, he's finding that flamers/queens are not accepted, and masculine men are accepted, so like anybody, especially a young person just coming into their own skin, he wants to be accepted, and not turned away because of his homosexuality.
He's just confused and angry about it right now.
As they say, "This too, shall pass"


What young man??Look at this miserable being just run off the mouth not knowing what he speaks

criticizing others because there lifestyle is not like yours how ignorant

THIS OLD man cannot come to ters with realizing pride is within yourself and alongs you know what you are to yourself you do not owe an explanation to anyone

THIS OLD MAN cannot grasp on to the reality that ""coming out""is not an answer to everyones pride and security and he has not realize tha his lifestyle is not more right or wrong than anyone elses lifestyle

This old man man fails to realize i never not once said i hate effeminate men or stated i am DL because of what society has said about DL men or homosexuals period

This old man is like the typical ignorant homosexual making up rational explanations and trying to put I in a catergory of the confused in denial homo(when im really bi)that will soon come to terms with homosexuality and become open and lie life like his.When i already came to terms with my bisexuality to myself and can still voice an fact from my experiences about the behaviors of flames and feminine men,which he cannot accept

This old man who calls me young not even opening his mind up to ask to realize Young has absolutely not a thing to do with wisdom and knowledge when you OBSERVE,READ,STUDY,AND SPEAK TO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE OLDER THAN THIS OLD MAN FROM MICHIGAN

This old man needs help with his ignorant uninformed mentality that he has and sop saying to himself THIS TOO SHALL PASS,which is what he tells himself in hopes ,I one day think like him and live life like him

Maybe he needs to come to terms and realize there a hidden misery inside of him and his closemind and jumping the gun assumptions that allow him to become angry when he cannot accept the facts or opinions of others..

This old man has issues he needs to come to terms with.
Guest
 

Postby blu » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:34 am

:roll: you people are still arguing with this phony in a 6 page theard.

JR dont make me posst your pictures.
User avatar
blu
Newbie
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:09 am
Location: Philly

Postby Brandon » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:01 am

Who's JR?

Are they "interesting" pics? <EG> If so, please post!

:)
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:15 am

tigakub wrote:
Your not making sense at all.The meaning of flamboyancy itself explains expressing at greater lengths,a choice,There is no such things as natural flamboyant behavior and if you can prove there is,Then do so,I THINK your problem is you are in denial,How can flamboyancy be natural when the meaning itself is to express at greater lengths and to fabricate ,highly elaborate.That is not an assumption.Its simply you speaking without having any facts links or references to back your statements up.

Beavers fabricate very elaborate dams. Are they unnatural? No.

I am not trying to define what is natural but just trying to get you to see that "natural" is a relative term and has no absolute definition. Therefore, you cannot say that flamboyancy is "by definition" unnatural, because "natural" itself has no concrete definition. I suggest you read up on moral relativism.

Once again it seems you think one who beats someone up always has insecurities.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. If you had read my post in more detail you would have realized that I cite insecurity as the reason that some people feel a need to beat others down. However, that is not the same as saying that people who beat others down are ALL suffering from insecurity. Please pay more attention to the causality in my arguments.

When people were innate to believe to beat up homosexuals and to believe they are doing GOD a good deed by beating up homosexuals because they were innate to believe they truly are the scums of the earth. One who was innate to believe in something just may have no insecurity in being brought up to hate a certain group because of his religious beliefs or what his parents taught him.

DL, where does hate come from? Why do people hate? Do you honestly think that people hate for no reason?

I think you are the type that would like to think insecurity is always the answer,without considering any other possibilities,thats an assumption,rather than a "'fact"" AND STILL,PHOBIA EQUALS FEAR.

Again, I never said that insecurity is always the answer. I don't make generalizations like that. "Phobia" does not equal "fear." Phobia means "irrational fear." That is a SIGNIFICANT difference. Please look it up.

mentally many effeminate men actually feel inferior and below heterosexuals and masculine men

Now that is an assumption and a sweeping generalization.

Oh and me calling you""kid""was a urban term i used thats equivalent to ""dude""or""man""Do not take offense,it was not to belittle you.I f you felt that way i do apologize.

I understand, kid.

Huh? Who said that? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they don't care about homophobia. I have heard the argument, however, that it's no one's business what gays do in their private lives and straights shouldn't concern themselves over the lives of others.

If i were not mistaken you stated ,no one cares about WHAT DL MEN DO AND THERE HATE FOR THIS OR THAT?? if not please correct me.

I was responding to your suggestion (or what I believe was your suggestion, I may have misinterpreted) that gays take a "No one cares" attitude to homophobia. My response was that I have never heard anyone say that, but that I have heard people say that no one should care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

Well i personally do not call it phobia,I think the term is equivalent to a dislike of a certion group,Like for example arachorphobia or however you say it,means a fear of spiders am i right?? It also means a dislike of spiders.I think sissyphobia is equivalent to societys dislike of effeminate men,rather then some actual fear or inferiority complex,which many effeminate men have when it comes to masculine males and heterosexuals

I think that it is imprecise to equate "fear" and "dislike." For instance, I can dislike something, yet not be afraid of it. So being afraid, includes dislike, but necessarily entails more than mere dislike. "Phobia" very specifically refers to "irrational fear." So to have a phobia means not only to have fear, but in addition, it means that the fear is not reasonable, that it is disproportionate to the actual danger. If you mean "dislike," then perhaps you should just use "dislike."

Even if you restrict your meaning to "dislike" it is STILL necessary to analyse whether the dislike is justified. If I have tried coffee, and dislike it, then my dislike of it is completely justified, i.e., I have enough information on which to make that determination. But when someone dislikes LGBT people without really knowing about them, that is not justified and is more appropriately called "prejudice."

I think that you might want to refine your definition of fear. Simplistically, fear is the emotion which makes you want to run away. But on a more analytical level, fear is the emotion which makes you want to protect yourself; one way to protect yourself is to run, but another is to fight off the danger. Fighting against a threat need not be restricted to the physical, it can also be verbal.

Ummm if you read carefully,i stated i do not consider that a lie to myself.I stated that lying to yourself is were the problem is at.When one accepts what they are to themselves then they really do not owe an explanation to anybody.Though morally society has decided that in marriage comes with truth and honesty as well as relationships with partners you are faithful with.

Actually, if you read me more carefully, you'd see that I acknowledge that you do not consider it a lie. However, I consider it a lie. When you tell people that you are not bisexual, this is a falsehood. If you deliberately give others information that is false, that is a lie. Otherwise, you and I have radically different definitions of the word "lie." Please note, however, that I impose no moral judgement on lying.

Admitting to being bisexual or gay is not an explanation. It is just an admission. And it is true that you owes no one an explanation for, or even an admission of, one's sexuality. But a lie is still a lie. If the lie serves a good purpose, then by all means, lie.

Whats wrong with saying yes?? ... Because telling the truth to some unknown stranger whose state of mind is unknown,about your sexuality could result in your death or you putting yourself in grave danger. At least be very considerate of yourself and your life when responding to unknown individuals or people who are just nosey and may just want to have some gossip on you.Too much pride can kill you

Yes! That was the answer I was looking for. You say "no" out of fear. Good. Fear is healthy because it serves to protect. It is a very natural defensive signal which tells you that danger is near. It is by no means a negative reflection on your maturity or manhood. In fact, I feel that the most mature people can readily admit to their fear.

And i ask have you ever considered any other possibilities rather than just given yourself a rational explanation to why someone chose to go against you and your sexuality??

Actually, I try not to "guess" other people's motives. If there is something puzzling about someone's behavior, I ask them. That is why I started this dialog with you. I want to know how you think.

If someone is confrontational, or disrespectful, my experience is that they feel threatened. My understanding that they have an insecurity (which is only human and is not at all shameful) allows me not to take his insults personally and not become angered. That way it increases my chance of reacting rationally and in my own best interests, and the interests of all concerned.

Lest you think me a saint, I readily admit to having my own insecurities which lead me to become angry. I'm not perfect because I'm human. But I try to catch myself before I let my insecurities make me angry.

For instance, when you called me "kid," my first reaction was to be insulted. If I had given in to my anger and called you a name in response, then our exchange may have descended into an exchange of name-calling and we would not be having this interesting conversation. Instead, I just asked you to clarify and then found out that you did not intend to insult me at all, and I learned something new in the process.

The upshot of what I'm saying is that if I say that someone is insecure as a way of trying to understand him, that might not be a bad thing. If I call someone insecure as a way of putting them down, however, that is indeed because I myself am insecure and need to put someone else down in order to make myself feel superior. And that is bad.

Ok and just because you feel it is wrong does not make it untrue.There are men out there who have this mentality,which makes my statement true,regardless of how wrong or right you think it is.

Actually it is not a generalization.A generalization is stating that ""ALL"" of a certain groups acts this way or has this mentality.If there are grown men who do whatever they want,when they want out there in this world then yes there are GROWN MEN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT,WHEN THEY WANT.that statement is true.

Ok. As long as you refrain from using "all."

Your definition?? How ignorant!= meaning unaware and uninformed,of you.

Now, now, no need to be insulting.

How can you have your definition to a word that already has a definition to it.If your definition does not fit the original definition to the word that already has a defined meaning.Then your definition simply is not under the label that already has a defined meaning to it.I simply stated by reading the dictionary(which takes you to the true source of a meaning of a word) the word mature has meaning that peopled interpret different.So please stop telling me your interpretations as if everyone feels the same way you do.And i did not tell you what to do.I asked you.

Words are redefined all the time. Definition is relative. Just because you've gleaned a definition from a dictionary does not make it the only and final definition. You, yourself, have redefined the meanings of "phobia," "DL" and "lie" to suit your arguments in this very post.

Many words carry many, many complex connotations which are too numerous to be completely listed in a dictionary. It is very dangerous to base your arguments on dictionary definition alone. In my experience, dictionaries are mainly useful only to verify the spellings of words, and useful for superficial definitions of all but the most basic words.

And maturity is just such a complex notion, such that I would trust my definition far more than the simplistic definition found in any dictionary. Perhaps if you gave me a definition that you had read in a book on sociology, anthropology, psychology, or even parenting, I may have put more credence in it.

GOD,man the term DL is a oxymoron

Actually, an oxymoron is a phrase in which two concepts which are opposite or incompatible are placed together. So for example, "a legal criminal" is an oxymoron. "Extraordinary mediocrity" is another. "An open-minded republican" is another (I'm joking).

the correct term is discreet.The meaning of downlow simply is equivalent to DISCREET.And i am saying the consequences of contracting an STD or HIV and spreading it to your wife can happen if your wife is aware you are cheating or not.That is not a consequence of being DL,it is consequence of making poor choices and being very inconsiderate.

Then your definition of DL differs from mine, and from many people I've talked to. My understanding of "discreet" is "not obvious" or "politely unobtrusive." My understanding of DL is that men who are DL have sex with men without the knowledge of their wives. You might see this kind of secrect as discretion which carries positive connotations, but to me being DL also carries an element of dishonesty, which carries a negative connotation. So I don't think that DL can accurately be equated with discretion.

If a DL man contracts an STD because he was having unprotected sex, and then his wife contracted STD from him because she did not know of his extra-marital behavior, this is partly a consequence of the man having unprotected sex, but is ALSO partly a consequence of the man LYING to her about his sexual faithfulness to her.

It is of course your choice to call yourself DL, but in my opinion (and I realize that it is just MY OPINION) that most people DO have negative ideas about being DL, and that you having admitted to your wife about your sexuality, are NOT DL, but are simply bisexual, and quite honestly so.

it does not matter what you agree with or not.FAITH MEANS WISHFUL THINKING

((((faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at

=WISHFUL THINKING.like it or not

You do not need to quote the dictionary to me. I have one.

There is a difference between having faith, and being faithful. Please look it up.

Having faith is indeed as you have defined. But being faithful to one's spouse means "never having a sexual relationship with anyone else."

i believe it is inferior complexes and misery that one homosexual does not understand he has anytime he always acknowledges the bisexual male having sex with men only excluding the other side of him that has sex with women.to come to a conclusion of the same action that is relative to him =selfish thoughted

I am not confident that I understood what you meant here. But I must tell you that as a gay man who has tried once to be with a woman and has come to the conclusion that men are way, way, WAY, WAY, WAY more appealing (so much so that I have absolutely no regrets about never, ever being with another woman), I kind of resent your claim that I have an inferiority complex and am miserable. I am very happy in my relation with my hubby.

I do not understand straight or bisexual attraction to women, but I don't denigrate them. Were I ignorant, I could accuse you of being unable to commit to one sex or the other. But I'm not ignorant.



Beavers fabricate very elaborate dams. Are they unnatural? No.

I am not trying to define what is natural but just trying to get you to see that "natural" is a relative term and has no absolute definition. Therefore, you cannot say that flamboyancy is "by definition" unnatural, because "natural" itself has no concrete definition. I suggest you read up on moral relativism.


Omg you are so lost it is not funny.It is in a beavers nature to build dams to live in.It is not in a humans nature to be naturally flamboyant.There are not female chromosomes that support the act of flamboyancy which is exaggerated effeminate traits.Most humans are naturally masculine or feminine.Not naturally flamboyant.Most humans also act on how they were raised to be.No mother in there right mind and especially father will raise there son or daughter to walk around TWITCHING WITH 60 DEGREES EXTRA ADDED ON TO IT THAN THE AVERAGE FEMALE,LOUD,AND OBNOXIOUS,SCREAMING HONEY CHILE BOO,,HONEY CHILE THIS,,GIIRRRLL THAT.You yourself acknowledged that these men made""CHOICES""to act that way,meaning you also acknowledged that it was not natural.Anytime you must choose a certain way to act,rather than it be natural.Than it is not natural.You did not come out your mother acting worse than the average female.Or snapping your fingers screaming HEY MAMA,HOW YOU DOING GIRL.Please stop while your ahead.You contradict your statements much.



I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. If you had read my post in more detail you would have realized that I cite insecurity as the reason that some people feel a need to beat others down. However, that is not the same as saying that people who beat others down are ALL suffering from insecurity. Please pay more attention to the causality in my arguments.


Thats funy because you say some,yet your every response to someone who dislikes a certain group is INSECURITY,INSECURITY.Maybe you should pay attention to this

ASK YOURSELF,ARE YOU MAKING UP RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS TO YOURSELF ABOUT WHOSE INSECURE,THAT YOU WANT TO BE INSECURE TO TELL YOURSELF TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL BETTER.



DL, where does hate come from? Why do people hate? Do you honestly think that people hate for no reason


Your not understanding me.Many people were brought up to hate certain groups or actions because of biblical beliefs.There are humans that hate homosexuals based on there religious beliefs and feel by bashing them or criticizing them,they truly feel they are doing God a good deed.And they are not insecure,they were innate to believe what they believe in.Accept it and stop using insecurity has always the answer to why SOMEONE WOULD BEAT UP A HOMOSEXUAL OR A FLAMING GAY OR TRANSEXUAL.



Again, I never said that insecurity is always the answer. I don't make generalizations like that. "Phobia" does not equal "fear." Phobia means "irrational fear." That is a SIGNIFICANT difference. Please look it up.
WILL DO SO.




Now that is an assumption and a sweeping generalization.


That is not a generalization.A generalization is statin that all groups of the came catergory act a certain way.Please look it up

I think that you might want to refine your definition of fear. Simplistically, fear is the emotion which makes you want to run away. But on a more analytical level, fear is the emotion which makes you want to protect yourself; one way to protect yourself is to run, but another is to fight off the danger. Fighting against a threat need not be restricted to the physical, it can also be verbal.

This still is not making sense to me.A threat to what,what threat do effeminate men oppose to the heterosexuals or IN denial homos and bisexuals that run everything against them??.Protect themselves from what.when it is effeminate men who must protect themselves from being bashed from heterosexuals or stay on alert.Hell that is many homosexual men period.i need more clarification.



Admitting to being bisexual or gay is not an explanation. It is just an admission. And it is true that you owes no one an explanation for, or even an admission of, one's sexuality. But a lie is still a lie. If the lie serves a good purpose, then by all means, lie.


And if you read carefully even more you'd realize that I also consider it a LIE and stated that SO WHAT? people lie all the time.Society has made it to were LYING is always negative.When lying has its positive effects by much.

Yes! That was the answer I was looking for. You say "no" out of fear. Good. Fear is healthy because it serves to protect. It is a very natural defensive signal which tells you that danger is near. It is by no means a negative reflection on your maturity or manhood. In fact, I feel that the most mature people can readily admit to their fear.


Why of course.Most humans have fear and fear does indeed protect because too much pride can kill you along with no fear at all.Say if i asked for your social security number,you refused to give it to me,WHY?,out of fear what i can possibly do to your credit.And that fear certainly protects you and there is not a thing wrong with it.

Actually, I try not to "guess" other people's motives. If there is something puzzling about someone's behavior, I ask them. That is why I started this dialog with you. I want to know how you think.

If someone is confrontational, or disrespectful, my experience is that they feel threatened. My understanding that they have an insecurity (which is only human and is not at all shameful) allows me not to take his insults personally and not become angered. That way it increases my chance of reacting rationally and in my own best interests, and the interests of all concerned.

Lest you think me a saint, I readily admit to having my own insecurities which lead me to become angry. I'm not perfect because I'm human. But I try to catch myself before I let my insecurities make me angry.

For instance, when you called me "kid," my first reaction was to be insulted. If I had given in to my anger and called you a name in response, then our exchange may have descended into an exchange of name-calling and we would not be having this interesting conversation. Instead, I just asked you to clarify and then found out that you did not intend to insult me at all, and I learned something new in the process.

The upshot of what I'm saying is that if I say that someone is insecure as a way of trying to understand him, that might not be a bad thing. If I call someone insecure as a way of putting them down, however, that is indeed because I myself am insecure and need to put someone else down in order to make myself feel superior. And that is bad.
\\

And i try to get you to open your mind up to realize the many other truths and possibilities that are the cause for why a ceetain groups hates another group and realizing that insecurity is not always the answer.

I have an insecurity.I am 5 foot 6 and just now started to accept it and deal with it.I used to hate being short and had always hit the defense mode if i felt someone was taking advantage of me or trying to itimidate me because of my small size.I have beaten many of people up because of it.But i realize i was also responding in defense to people whose intents were not to insult me,or tak advantage of me,they were rather joking and my older cousin helped me realize that it was INSECURITY and i felt inferior to taller people which is why i react so violently or in defense to everyone i felt came at me the wrong way.


For instance, when you called me "kid," my first reaction was to be insulted. If I had given in to my anger and called you a name in response, then our exchange may have descended into an exchange of name-calling and we would not be having this interesting conversation. Instead, I just asked you to clarify and then found out that you did not intend to insult me at all, and I learned something new in the process.

Maybe you were angry,yet it is understandable.You are not a kid,therefore i was in the wrong for calling you a ""KID"".The same applies to the homosexual male who called me ""GIRL""".I do not become angry though,i at least ask not be called a girl because i am not a girl and i find it disrespectful.One homosexual told me i should take it as an endearment and move on with it and i responded by telling him.No i will not take anyone calling me a ""GIRL""as an endearment ,because other homosexuals do.I am a leader not a follower.And if a homosexual continues to call me ""girl""i walk away realizing there ignorance.Before i strike them,not out of anger.Out of the failure to respect me.

Ok. As long as you refrain from using "all."
\\
I am glad you realize what generalization means.

Now, now, no need to be insulting.


You took that as an insult??.The funny thing i find about society is they take the meaning of ignorant and think it means STUPID OR DUMBASS AND BECOME GREATLY OFFENDED.When it means uninformed and unaware.We all have ignorances to subjects and things we do not know about.I have a ignorance to how a washing machine is built.Because i am unaware how it is built.

Words are redefined all the time. Definition is relative. Just because you've gleaned a definition from a dictionary does not make it the only and final definition. You, yourself, have redefined the meanings of "phobia," "DL" and "lie" to suit your arguments in this very post.

Many words carry many, many complex connotations which are too numerous to be completely listed in a dictionary. It is very dangerous to base your arguments on dictionary definition alone. In my experience, dictionaries are mainly useful only to verify the spellings of words, and useful for superficial definitions of all but the most basic words.

And maturity is just such a complex notion, such that I would trust my definition far more than the simplistic definition found in any dictionary. Perhaps if you gave me a definition that you had read in a book on sociology, anthropology, psychology, or even parenting, I may have put more credence in it.


Friend.a dictionary goes straight to the only meaning of a word and how the word was created and used.Not only that, refer to the encyclopedia on the history of the word and societies different interpretations of the word.Only a dumbass can read the actual meaning of the definition of a word and take his interpretation or so called DEFINITION and realize it does not fit the actual meaning of it.For example ,the meaning of pride states that it is within you/If you definition of pride is COMING OUT ADMITTING IT,always telling others without fear or caring what they feel.Then that is not pride.Many may think it is but then one may question those who really have pride do not strive out there way to prove anything to anyone.Interpretations are what you and society have that are different and even them are far from a long shot to the exact meaning of the word in a dictionary.Society has a problem with making up there own definition and interpretations to fit what they want the meaning to be.Instead of realizing how it really is.Which may go against what they want.

And maturity is just such a complex notion, such that I would trust my definition far more than the simplistic definition found in any dictionary. Perhaps if you gave me a definition that you had read in a book on sociology, anthropology, psychology, or even parenting, I may have put more credence in it.


You do not have a definition to a word that already has a defined meaning to it man.Even the encyclopedia will tell you in many cases were the word originated from and why it was created and what it was originally used to describe.If this meaning you have does not fit the original meaning that was already gaven to the word.Then your definition is not of the label that already has a defined meaning.Wikipedia.com gives you information on the birth of words,in what year,what it was primarily used to describe,why,and societies different interpretations of it.and using it to describe different things like

THE WORD FAGGOT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED TO DESSCRIBE A BUNDLE OF STICKS.Yet society in the far past also started using the word ""FAGGOT""to describe the effeminate homosexual or unmanly male.Yet the original meaning of a FAGGOT is a bundle of sticks.And the original meaning of the way society uses it as,is to insult the effeminate ,unmanly male.



Actually, an oxymoron is a phrase in which two concepts which are opposite or incompatible are placed together. So for example, "a legal criminal" is an oxymoron. "Extraordinary mediocrity" is another. "An open-minded republican" is another (I'm joking).


:lol: :lol: DEAD@openminded republican.And i would not argue this with you.Because republicans on an average tend to be conservative ,and when one is always or mostly conservative.They do not open there minds up to go about things different that may have a better effect on them and there life.Even if they realize it ,yet still deny it.LOL.





Then your definition of DL differs from mine, and from many people I've talked to. My understanding of "discreet" is "not obvious" or "politely unobtrusive." My understanding of DL is that men who are DL have sex with men without the knowledge of their wives. You might see this kind of secrect as discretion which carries positive connotations, but to me being DL also carries an element of dishonesty, which carries a negative connotation. So I don't think that DL can accurately be equated with discretion.

Because downlow in the dictionary cannot be found.Go to wikipedia and itr may give you an incite on most of societys meaning of downlow when it comes to the discreet homosexual or bisexual brother.The meaning is different to many different people.There is no right or wrong meaning to the DOWNLOW brother.Except the one that is actually open with his sexuality lol



If a DL man contracts an STD because he was having unprotected sex, and then his wife contracted STD from him because she did not know of his extra-marital behavior, this is partly a consequence of the man having unprotected sex, but is ALSO partly a consequence of the man LYING to her about his sexual faithfulness to her.


It could be,but certainly not always,because the male who cheats on his wife and she is aware of his behavior in many cases they choose to remain with there husband and engage in unprotected sex with him because she takes on the mentality that alongs the money is coming in,I could care less,(and many women natural mentality is indeed that)Or because she feels he is no longer a cheater,and he infects her with an STD and HIV,is not a consequence from her not knowing what he does.She indeed knows and knew of his past and not only the consequence came from HIM making the wrong choices,it also came from her responding the incorrect way,which lead to her infection of AN STD AND HIV.

MAYBE FAITH THAT WISHFUL THINKING AND WISHFUL HOPE,FAILED HER AND GOT HER INFECTED :lol: :lol:

It is of course your choice to call yourself DL, but in my opinion (and I realize that it is just MY OPINION) that most people DO have negative ideas about being DL, and that you having admitted to your wife about your sexuality, are NOT DL, but are simply bisexual, and quite honestly so.

Well i think DL it all relative to DISCREET,no many how people interpret it differently,that is why i call myself discreet.

You do not need to quote the dictionary to me. I have one.

There is a difference between having faith, and being faithful. Please look it up.

Having faith is indeed as you have defined. But being faithful to one's spouse means "never having a sexual relationship with anyone else."


Faithful and loyal both suggest undeviating attachment, though loyal applies more often to political allegiance: a faithful employee; a loyal citizen.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faithful

I find this interesting.


I am not confident that I understood what you meant here. But I must tell you that as a gay man who has tried once to be with a woman and has come to the conclusion that men are way, way, WAY, WAY, WAY more appealing (so much so that I have absolutely no regrets about never, ever being with another woman), I kind of resent your claim that I have an inferiority complex and am miserable. I am very happy in my relation with my hubby.

I do not understand straight or bisexual attraction to women, but I don't denigrate them. Were I ignorant, I could accuse you of being unable to commit to one sex or the other. But I'm not ignorant.


Once again,i never stated that you were inferior.I stated the reaction of many homosexual men spells inferior complex
Last edited by Guest on Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:17 am

Brandon wrote:Who's JR?

Are they "interesting" pics? <EG> If so, please post!

:)


WHO IS JR?? I DONT KNOW WHO HE IS
HE PROBABLY IS SOME HETEROSEXUAL WHO A BUNCH OF HOMOS WOULD LIKE TO THINK IS HOMOSEXUAL,,AND I BET YOU THIS,,THE PICS HE POST OF THIS ""JR ""CHARACTER IS SOME ATTRACTIVE BLACK DUDE WHO PROBABLY IS NOT EVEN HOMOSEXUAL,YET THAT IS WHAT HIM OR SOME OTHER HOMOS MADE HIM OUT TO BE,BECAUSE HE PROBABLY INSULTED THEM AND THEY FOUND HIM SO ATTRACTIVE,YET SO ANGRY AT HIM INSULTING THEM,THEY PLACES THE ATTRACTIVE CHARACTER IN THERE BEING A HOMOSEXUAL WORLD,BECAUSE THEY ARE MISERABLE,OR JUST WANT EVERY GOOD LOOKING PERSON TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL

TRUST ME,I HAVE STUDIED THE BEHAVIOR AND RESPONSES OF EFFEMINATE MEN AND FLAMERS WHO ARE IGNORANT.WATCH WHAT I AM TELLING YOU BRANDON :lol:

I HOPE THIS ANNOYING PEST LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE WITHOUT POSTING FAKE PICTURES CLAIMING IT IS ME :? :?

THIS BLU CHARACTER IS OBVIOUSLY A EFFEMINATE HOMOSEXUAL TRYING HIS HARDEST TO MAKE ME OUT TO BE SOMEONE WHO IS PHONY BECAUSE HE CANNOT ACCEPT WHAT I STATED OR SAID.MANY HOMOSEXUAL MEN,RESPOND IN SUCH WAY
Guest
 

Postby Brandon » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:30 am

Hell, I'd still like to see the pics....


LOL

God, this site is so amusing and entertaining...... I just love you guys!
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:44 am

Brandon wrote:Hell, I'd still like to see the pics....


LOL

God, this site is so amusing and entertaining...... I just love you guys!


i typed in caps,,,oops lol and i find this sh*t amusing also
Guest
 

Postby Brandon » Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:06 am

Yeah, we can all tell that you are enjoying this....
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:22 am

Brandon wrote:Yeah, we can all tell that you are enjoying this....
:lol: :lol:
Guest
 

Postby tigakub » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:20 am

It is in a beavers nature to build dams to live in.

I never said it wasn't.

It is not in a humans nature to be naturally flamboyant.

And I maintain that you are not an authority on what is natural or not. And no, neither is your dictionary.

There are not female chromosomes that support the act of flamboyancy which is exaggerated effeminate traits.

Please cite a reference to a scientific journal or text to support your claim.

Most humans are naturally masculine or feminine.

Yes, and some men are naturally effeminate, and some women are naturally masculine.

No mother in there right mind and especially father will raise there son or daughter to walk around TWITCHING WITH 60 DEGREES EXTRA ADDED ON TO IT THAN THE AVERAGE FEMALE,LOUD,AND OBNOXIOUS,SCREAMING HONEY CHILE BOO,,HONEY CHILE THIS,,GIIRRRLL THAT.

By your standard, which is YOUR standard, not everyone's standard.

You yourself acknowledged that these men made""CHOICES""to act that way,meaning you also acknowledged that it was not natural. Anytime you must choose a certain way to act,rather than it be natural.Than it is not natural.

Choice is not unnatural. I choose to walk left, I choose to walk right. My dog chooses to eat Pedigree instead of Iams. How is that unnatural in any way? You have not provided any logical links between flamboyancy and unnaturalness whatsoever.

You did not come out your mother acting worse than the average female.

"Worse?" I'm afraid that I would have to call that statement misogynist.

You contradict your statements much.

Unfounded. I challenge you to point out precisely where I contradict myself.

ASK YOURSELF,ARE YOU MAKING UP RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS TO YOURSELF ABOUT WHOSE INSECURE,THAT YOU WANT TO BE INSECURE TO TELL YOURSELF TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL BETTER.

I have responded to this already. Making up rational explanations is better than making up irrational explanations.

And they are not insecure,they were innate to believe what they believe in.Accept it and stop using insecurity has always the answer to why SOMEONE WOULD BEAT UP A HOMOSEXUAL OR A FLAMING GAY OR TRANSEXUAL.

Don't tell me what to do. And there is no evidence in my posts to support your assumption that I "always" use insecurity as the explanation for violence. I will continue to use insecurity if I think it's appropriate.

This still is not making sense to me.A threat to what,what threat do effeminate men oppose to the heterosexuals or IN denial homos and bisexuals that run everything against them??.Protect themselves from what.when it is effeminate men who must protect themselves from being bashed from heterosexuals or stay on alert.Hell that is many homosexual men period.i need more clarification.

Sigh. Why do you insist on limiting threat to the physical? A person can feal threatened by all kinds of things. As you point out later in your post, you felt threatened when people called you short. People feel threatened when they think others perceive them to be weak. I don't know how I can put this more simply.

And i try to get you to open your mind up to realize the many other truths and possibilities that are the cause for why a ceetain groups hates another group and realizing that insecurity is not always the answer.

I don't need you to tell me that people hate others for many different reasons. I am trying to make you see that when people who hate others for no good reason, their hate is irrational, and that irrationality is based on insecurity.

The funny thing i find about society is they take the meaning of ignorant and think it means STUPID OR DUMBASS AND BECOME GREATLY OFFENDED.

I didn't say I was offended. I just said that you were being insulting. I'm afraid that you are incapable of making me become greatly offended.

Friend.a dictionary goes straight to the only meaning of a word and how the word was created and used.

Your trust in the dictionary is quite endearing, but quite misplaced and naive. If a dictionary definition "goes straight to the only meaning of a word" as you claim, then why are there so many different dictionaries? Why is it necessary to publish updated editions of dictionaries? If all you needed were a dictionary to define the meanings of words, then we wouldn't need any other books, would we? Yet we have libraries full of books. Are these simply superfluous? You amuse me. Open your eyes, DL. Dictionaries were written by people who try to compile the meanings of words by referring to those meanings most commonly used by the majority of society. And therefore, the meaning in a dictionary is an interpretation of society's definition of a word, and NOT the other way around. It is NOT a divine text. Those who compile dictionaries are just as open to misinterpretation and omission as you or I. Restricting your understanding of a word to the simplistic definitions in a dictionary is no different from taking the Bible at face value.

You do not have a definition to a word that already has a defined meaning to it man.

I assume you mean that I cannot have my own definition of a word that is already defined in the dictionary. And my reply is: of course I can. But on a more subtle level, I can have a more refined definition of a word than provided in the dictionary because I have either read books which discuss the meaning of the word in more detail, and have thought at more length about the meaning of the word. That does not mean that the dictionary is wrong, just that it isn't enough.

Do you honestly believe that you can get by in life with just the definitions in the dictionary?!? Then PLEASE explain to me why there is the need for ANY OTHER KIND OF BOOK. If you could win debates simply by quoting definitions from a dictionary, then why do we have libraries?!? That's just ludicrous. You could memorize a dictionary from A to Z and you wouldn't have the slightest idea how to construct a sentence. Why? Because language is much more than just the meanings of individual words. If you want to understand "gay pride" and "transsexuality" why don't you pick up some books on the subjects rather than applying your own interpretations of these subjects based on stunted dictionary definitions?

Even the encyclopedia will tell you in many cases were the word originated from and why it was created and what it was originally used to describe. If this meaning you have does not fit the original meaning that was already gaven to the word.Then your definition is not of the label that already has a defined meaning.

THE WORD FAGGOT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED TO DESSCRIBE A BUNDLE OF STICKS.Yet society in the far past also started using the word ""FAGGOT""to describe the effeminate homosexual or unmanly male.Yet the original meaning of a FAGGOT is a bundle of sticks.And the original meaning of the way society uses it as,is to insult the effeminate ,unmanly male.

You've just contradicted yourself. If the "original" meaning of faggot was a bundle of sticks, then the word "faggot" cannot be appropriated by society to mean homosexual. That is, according to your idea of what a dictionary is.

Because downlow in the dictionary cannot be found.Go to wikipedia and itr may give you an incite on most of societys meaning of downlow when it comes to the discreet homosexual or bisexual brother.

I already quoted wikipedia about the down low phenomenon. Here it is again:

Among some sectors of African-American male sub-culture (called "men on the DL" or "down-low"), same-sex sexual behavior is sometimes viewed as solely for physical pleasure. Men on the "down-low" may engage in regular (though often covert) sex acts with other men while continuing sexual and romantic relationships with women. These men often shun the more commonly-known "gay" as a term applying to stereotypically flamboyant and effeminate men of European ancestry, a group from which some may wish to distance themselves.

One possible explanation for "being on the down-low" concerns the fact that, in traditionally masculine societies, the difficulties encountered by homosexuals are not necessarily moral, but rather based on a view that men should never be passive. The rejection of the label "gay" by the down-low culture is thus seen as a rejection of the perceived effeminacy of the homosexual community, and an effort at preserving the masculine nature of men who engage in activities "on the down-low".

AGAIN, I draw your attention to the word "covert" which I have highlighted in red. Being down low is NOT the same as being discreet.

The meaning is different to many different people.There is no right or wrong meaning to the DOWNLOW brother.Except the one that is actually open with his sexuality

You are contradicting yourself again. How can the meaning be different to many different people if there is only one meaning to each word as defined by the dictionary? Oh, because it isn't in the dictionary. And how, prey tell, do words get into the dictionary, and where did meaning come from before they got into the dictionary?

Here's a FACT for you. Meaning does not end with the definition in the dictionary. The dictionary was created to collect the meanings of words as a reference. Over the years, as language changes, and new meanings of words come into common usage, dictionaries have to be updated to reflect those changes. So it is quite evident that dictionary definitions are not final definitions. But beyond that, even if you assume that a dictionary definition is up-to-date, you cannot assume that it is comprehensive. Why? Because there simply is NOT ENOUGH SPACE in a dictionary to provide the complete meanings for many words which have very complex connotations. In addition, dictionaries often do not provide definitions for phrases (such as internalized homophobia). They also often do not provide adequate definitions for technical terms which may have esoteric meanings within certain special contexts like science, mathematics, philosophy, theology, sociology and sexuality.

In other words, you will NOT be able to understand internalized homophobia by simply looking up the word "internalized" and the word "homophobia" in a dictionary.

It could be,but certainly not always,because the male who cheats on his wife and she is aware of his behavior in many cases they choose to remain with there husband and engage in unprotected sex with him because she takes on the mentality that alongs the money is coming in,I could care less,(and many women natural mentality is indeed that)Or because she feels he is no longer a cheater,and he infects her with an STD and HIV,is not a consequence from her not knowing what he does.She indeed knows and knew of his past and not only the consequence came from HIM making the wrong choices,it also came from her responding the incorrect way,which lead to her infection of AN STD AND HIV.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the wife compounds the problem by being irresponsible in her own right, does not somehow justify the man's transgressions. Her culpability in contracting an STD is a completely separate issue from that man's culpability for trying to deceive his wife (whether successful or not). Just because a man did not succeed in unethical behavior does not suddenly make him ethical.
t.kub
tigakub
Newbie
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:50 am

Postby edu999 » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:26 am

The reason for this so-called down low phenomenon is simple: people want to have their cake and eat it, too.
User avatar
edu999
Moderator
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:31 am
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Postby tigakub » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:42 am

edu999 wrote:The reason for this so-called down low phenomenon is simple: people want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Simply put, yes. But what I'm trying to get through to DL is that it's more than that.

I'm trying to say that you can't understand DL until you examine why it is that DL men want to hide their homosexual tendencies.

The one-sided explanation might be that they enjoy the appearance of being straight. But can it be said that they really don't care if people found out otherwise? I doubt it.

In my discussions with DL we've arrived at the conclusion that one reason that someone may want to hide his homosexual desires is social stigma attached to being homosexual prevalent in the African American community. Fear of violence, ridicule, persecution and ostracism are legitimate reasons for remaining in the closet.

A separate issue is the morality/ethics of engaging in man on man sex behind your wife's back. I maintain that morality and ethics are relative. While I may personally believe that it is unfair to the wife, I concede that it may not be considered so in certain cultures. Some people believe that cheating on your wife with another woman is wrong, but the same people may believe that cheating on your wife with a man is not because the man can provide something that women cannot. I personally don't agree, but again, that's just my opinion.
t.kub
tigakub
Newbie
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:50 am

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:58 am

tigakub wrote:
It is in a beavers nature to build dams to live in.

I never said it wasn't.

It is not in a humans nature to be naturally flamboyant.

And I maintain that you are not an authority on what is natural or not. And no, neither is your dictionary.

There are not female chromosomes that support the act of flamboyancy which is exaggerated effeminate traits.

Please cite a reference to a scientific journal or text to support your claim.

Most humans are naturally masculine or feminine.

Yes, and some men are naturally effeminate, and some women are naturally masculine.

No mother in there right mind and especially father will raise there son or daughter to walk around TWITCHING WITH 60 DEGREES EXTRA ADDED ON TO IT THAN THE AVERAGE FEMALE,LOUD,AND OBNOXIOUS,SCREAMING HONEY CHILE BOO,,HONEY CHILE THIS,,GIIRRRLL THAT.

By your standard, which is YOUR standard, not everyone's standard.

You yourself acknowledged that these men made""CHOICES""to act that way,meaning you also acknowledged that it was not natural. Anytime you must choose a certain way to act,rather than it be natural.Than it is not natural.

Choice is not unnatural. I choose to walk left, I choose to walk right. My dog chooses to eat Pedigree instead of Iams. How is that unnatural in any way? You have not provided any logical links between flamboyancy and unnaturalness whatsoever.

You did not come out your mother acting worse than the average female.

"Worse?" I'm afraid that I would have to call that statement misogynist.

You contradict your statements much.

Unfounded. I challenge you to point out precisely where I contradict myself.

ASK YOURSELF,ARE YOU MAKING UP RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS TO YOURSELF ABOUT WHOSE INSECURE,THAT YOU WANT TO BE INSECURE TO TELL YOURSELF TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL BETTER.

I have responded to this already. Making up rational explanations is better than making up irrational explanations.

And they are not insecure,they were innate to believe what they believe in.Accept it and stop using insecurity has always the answer to why SOMEONE WOULD BEAT UP A HOMOSEXUAL OR A FLAMING GAY OR TRANSEXUAL.

Don't tell me what to do. And there is no evidence in my posts to support your assumption that I "always" use insecurity as the explanation for violence. I will continue to use insecurity if I think it's appropriate.

This still is not making sense to me.A threat to what,what threat do effeminate men oppose to the heterosexuals or IN denial homos and bisexuals that run everything against them??.Protect themselves from what.when it is effeminate men who must protect themselves from being bashed from heterosexuals or stay on alert.Hell that is many homosexual men period.i need more clarification.

Sigh. Why do you insist on limiting threat to the physical? A person can feal threatened by all kinds of things. As you point out later in your post, you felt threatened when people called you short. People feel threatened when they think others perceive them to be weak. I don't know how I can put this more simply.

And i try to get you to open your mind up to realize the many other truths and possibilities that are the cause for why a ceetain groups hates another group and realizing that insecurity is not always the answer.

I don't need you to tell me that people hate others for many different reasons. I am trying to make you see that when people who hate others for no good reason, their hate is irrational, and that irrationality is based on insecurity.

The funny thing i find about society is they take the meaning of ignorant and think it means STUPID OR DUMBASS AND BECOME GREATLY OFFENDED.

I didn't say I was offended. I just said that you were being insulting. I'm afraid that you are incapable of making me become greatly offended.

Friend.a dictionary goes straight to the only meaning of a word and how the word was created and used.

Your trust in the dictionary is quite endearing, but quite misplaced and naive. If a dictionary definition "goes straight to the only meaning of a word" as you claim, then why are there so many different dictionaries? Why is it necessary to publish updated editions of dictionaries? If all you needed were a dictionary to define the meanings of words, then we wouldn't need any other books, would we? Yet we have libraries full of books. Are these simply superfluous? You amuse me. Open your eyes, DL. Dictionaries were written by people who try to compile the meanings of words by referring to those meanings most commonly used by the majority of society. And therefore, the meaning in a dictionary is an interpretation of society's definition of a word, and NOT the other way around. It is NOT a divine text. Those who compile dictionaries are just as open to misinterpretation and omission as you or I. Restricting your understanding of a word to the simplistic definitions in a dictionary is no different from taking the Bible at face value.

You do not have a definition to a word that already has a defined meaning to it man.

I assume you mean that I cannot have my own definition of a word that is already defined in the dictionary. And my reply is: of course I can. But on a more subtle level, I can have a more refined definition of a word than provided in the dictionary because I have either read books which discuss the meaning of the word in more detail, and have thought at more length about the meaning of the word. That does not mean that the dictionary is wrong, just that it isn't enough.

Do you honestly believe that you can get by in life with just the definitions in the dictionary?!? Then PLEASE explain to me why there is the need for ANY OTHER KIND OF BOOK. If you could win debates simply by quoting definitions from a dictionary, then why do we have libraries?!? That's just ludicrous. You could memorize a dictionary from A to Z and you wouldn't have the slightest idea how to construct a sentence. Why? Because language is much more than just the meanings of individual words. If you want to understand "gay pride" and "transsexuality" why don't you pick up some books on the subjects rather than applying your own interpretations of these subjects based on stunted dictionary definitions?

Even the encyclopedia will tell you in many cases were the word originated from and why it was created and what it was originally used to describe. If this meaning you have does not fit the original meaning that was already gaven to the word.Then your definition is not of the label that already has a defined meaning.

THE WORD FAGGOT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED TO DESSCRIBE A BUNDLE OF STICKS.Yet society in the far past also started using the word ""FAGGOT""to describe the effeminate homosexual or unmanly male.Yet the original meaning of a FAGGOT is a bundle of sticks.And the original meaning of the way society uses it as,is to insult the effeminate ,unmanly male.

You've just contradicted yourself. If the "original" meaning of faggot was a bundle of sticks, then the word "faggot" cannot be appropriated by society to mean homosexual. That is, according to your idea of what a dictionary is.

Because downlow in the dictionary cannot be found.Go to wikipedia and itr may give you an incite on most of societys meaning of downlow when it comes to the discreet homosexual or bisexual brother.

I already quoted wikipedia about the down low phenomenon. Here it is again:

Among some sectors of African-American male sub-culture (called "men on the DL" or "down-low"), same-sex sexual behavior is sometimes viewed as solely for physical pleasure. Men on the "down-low" may engage in regular (though often covert) sex acts with other men while continuing sexual and romantic relationships with women. These men often shun the more commonly-known "gay" as a term applying to stereotypically flamboyant and effeminate men of European ancestry, a group from which some may wish to distance themselves.

One possible explanation for "being on the down-low" concerns the fact that, in traditionally masculine societies, the difficulties encountered by homosexuals are not necessarily moral, but rather based on a view that men should never be passive. The rejection of the label "gay" by the down-low culture is thus seen as a rejection of the perceived effeminacy of the homosexual community, and an effort at preserving the masculine nature of men who engage in activities "on the down-low".

AGAIN, I draw your attention to the word "covert" which I have highlighted in red. Being down low is NOT the same as being discreet.

The meaning is different to many different people.There is no right or wrong meaning to the DOWNLOW brother.Except the one that is actually open with his sexuality

You are contradicting yourself again. How can the meaning be different to many different people if there is only one meaning to each word as defined by the dictionary? Oh, because it isn't in the dictionary. And how, prey tell, do words get into the dictionary, and where did meaning come from before they got into the dictionary?

Here's a FACT for you. Meaning does not end with the definition in the dictionary. The dictionary was created to collect the meanings of words as a reference. Over the years, as language changes, and new meanings of words come into common usage, dictionaries have to be updated to reflect those changes. So it is quite evident that dictionary definitions are not final definitions. But beyond that, even if you assume that a dictionary definition is up-to-date, you cannot assume that it is comprehensive. Why? Because there simply is NOT ENOUGH SPACE in a dictionary to provide the complete meanings for many words which have very complex connotations. In addition, dictionaries often do not provide definitions for phrases (such as internalized homophobia). They also often do not provide adequate definitions for technical terms which may have esoteric meanings within certain special contexts like science, mathematics, philosophy, theology, sociology and sexuality.

In other words, you will NOT be able to understand internalized homophobia by simply looking up the word "internalized" and the word "homophobia" in a dictionary.

It could be,but certainly not always,because the male who cheats on his wife and she is aware of his behavior in many cases they choose to remain with there husband and engage in unprotected sex with him because she takes on the mentality that alongs the money is coming in,I could care less,(and many women natural mentality is indeed that)Or because she feels he is no longer a cheater,and he infects her with an STD and HIV,is not a consequence from her not knowing what he does.She indeed knows and knew of his past and not only the consequence came from HIM making the wrong choices,it also came from her responding the incorrect way,which lead to her infection of AN STD AND HIV.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the wife compounds the problem by being irresponsible in her own right, does not somehow justify the man's transgressions. Her culpability in contracting an STD is a completely separate issue from that man's culpability for trying to deceive his wife (whether successful or not). Just because a man did not succeed in unethical behavior does not suddenly make him ethical.



It is not in a humans nature to be naturally flamboyant.

And I maintain that you are not an authority on what is natural or not. And no, neither is your dictionary[/quote]

FLAMBOYANCY IS NOT NATURAL,THERE IS NO SCIENCE TO PROVE IT IS AND NEVER WILL BE,BECAUSE IT IS A CHOICE WHICH EVEN YOU ACKNOWLEDGED.

By your standard, which is YOUR standard, not everyone's standard.


No,kid that is flamboyant feminine behavior.there are no standards to it.Take the way a female acts and exaggerate it 80 times and then it becomes flamboyancy.

just stop

Choice is not unnatural. I choose to walk left, I choose to walk right. My dog chooses to eat Pedigree instead of Iams. How is that unnatural in any way? You have not provided any logical links between flamboyancy and unnaturalness whatsoever.


Choice is something you chosen,choosen to act flamboyant is a choice.Not natural for you to act flamboyant.AND YOU WILL NEVER FIND ANY LINKS BETWEEN FLAMBOYANCY BEING NATURAL.BECAUSE YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT.BECAUSE IT IS NOT.

I have responded to this already. Making up rational explanations is better than making up irrational explanations.
Making up anything to make yourself feel better without evidence or even knowing it certainly may not be true is LAME.

Don't tell me what to do. And there is no evidence in my posts to support your assumption that I "always" use insecurity as the explanation for violence. I will continue to use insecurity if I think it's appropriate.


Do what you want to do.Continue to be ignorant and there is much evidence that alot of times you use insecurity to explain violence and your previous post are indeed it.

Sigh. Why do you insist on limiting threat to the physical? A person can feal threatened by all kinds of things. As you point out later in your post, you felt threatened when people called you short. People feel threatened when they think others perceive them to be weak. I don't know how I can put this more simply.


You assumed i am talking about physical..SIGHS its pointless with you,let it go ,.

I don't need you to tell me that people hate others for many different reasons. I am trying to make you see that when people who hate others for no good reason, their hate is irrational, and that irrationality is based on insecurity.


You cannot make me see anything that i know is very untrue.Your just a stubborn individual who just looks to be right no matter what and cannot accept the facts he is wrong or can prove his arguments like i can using your previous post as evidence to your ignorant thinking.It seems you always try and find someway to escape it.And you contradict yourself alot.I know that when people hate others for no reason the answer is not always insecurity.No matter what you think or know.I tried getting you to realize this and open your mind to this possibility.BUT NO! you rather just continue to give yourself rational explanations,which certainly may not be true about an individual that hates you,to make yourself feel better

I didn't say I was offended. I just said that you were being insulting. I'm afraid that you are incapable of making me become greatly offended.


And i said it was not an insult.If you felt i was ,than that is your problem,Ignorant simply unaware and uninformed.
Your trust in the dictionary is quite endearing, but quite misplaced and naive. If a dictionary definition "goes straight to the only meaning of a word" as you claim, then why are there so many different dictionaries? Why is it necessary to publish updated editions of dictionaries? If all you needed were a dictionary to define the meanings of words, then we wouldn't need any other books, would we? Yet we have libraries full of books. Are these simply superfluous? You amuse me. Open your eyes, DL. Dictionaries were written by people who try to compile the meanings of words by referring to those meanings most commonly used by the majority of society. And therefore, the meaning in a dictionary is an interpretation of society's definition of a word, and NOT the other way around. It is NOT a divine text. Those who compile dictionaries are just as open to misinterpretation and omission as you or I. Restricting your understanding of a word to the simplistic definitions in a dictionary is no different from taking the Bible at face value.


GOD!!!!! you are not understanding me.The dictionary gives the true meaning of the word.The encyclopedia goes to the ROOT of the meaning of the word and how people interpret them differently.Updated dictionaries gives insight on how society uses these words to mean other things that are not relative to the original meaning of the word that already has a meaning.In a way society still manages to rape the label of a word that already has a ORIGINAL meaning from say 1902 when the word was ORIGINALLY CREATED TO DESCRIBE SOMETHING

FOR EXAMPLE FAGGOT ORIGINALLY MEANS:BUNDLE OF STICKS

SOCIETY NOW USES FAGGOT TO INSULT FEMININE MEN AND HOMOSEXUAL MEN

the two labels are the same,yet the meaning is not related at all.

If the definition of IMMATURE is ignorant mind and your definition is childlike mind.They are relative to each,yet interpreted differently.because a child has a ignorant mind to much because ignorant means unaware and uninformed.Yet if your definition to IMMATURE is totally not relative to the original definition.Then it does not mean IMMATURE.because it already has a meaning to it.Yet even society uses these words to describe different things and manages to rape the label from the original meaning to describe other things that are not relative to the original meaning......

EXAMPLE::FAGGOT!


GIVE IT UP!


I assume you mean that I cannot have my own definition of a word that is already defined in the dictionary. And my reply is: of course I can. But on a more subtle level, I can have a more refined definition of a word than provided in the dictionary because I have either read books which discuss the meaning of the word in more detail, and have thought at more length about the meaning of the word. That does not mean that the dictionary is wrong, just that it isn't enough.

Do you honestly believe that you can get by in life with just the definitions in the dictionary?!? Then PLEASE explain to me why there is the need for ANY OTHER KIND OF BOOK. If you could win debates simply by quoting definitions from a dictionary, then why do we have libraries?!? That's just ludicrous. You could memorize a dictionary from A to Z and you wouldn't have the slightest idea how to construct a sentence. Why? Because language is much more than just the meanings of individual words. If you want to understand "gay pride" and "transsexuality" why don't you pick up some books on the subjects rather than applying your own interpretations of these subjects based on stunted dictionary definitions?


SIGHS! libraries offer books that go into detail about the meanings of the original meanings of the word.How it is used among society and the originality of it.Your defintions for these words are not even relative to the original definitions to these words at all.So do not sit here and tell me you research it in more detail ,because your response to the meanings of these definitions are simple NOT even related to the original meaning at all.
It is like you telling me.You went into detail and researched the original meaning of the word IGNORANT.meaning unaware and uninformed

yet your telling me your definition of ignorant is one who is confused and one who is sad and angry ,which has no relation to the original meaning at all

And stop trying to win debates with me.By insisting on thinking i am trying to win with you.Which just tells me you see this as a battle to sees whose right and whose wrong without coming to a conclusion we both can agree on.This is why you lose and i will always respond correcting you.Because the most unintelligent action is trying to battle intelligence with someone elses.When this is done,one begins to respond in defense and feels that what they have believed in for so long is being jeopardized by some other opinion or theory or fact that they are unable to admit is true to them or correct.Which makes you angry and a person that only wants to be RIGHT.no matter what is said and jump to speculations and all kinds of things because he cannot face what is or is not the truth.

If you continue to have this BATTLE ME mentality,I will stop conversing with you.Oh and please do not ask me to support evidence because your actions of constantly contradicting yourself,admitting you were indeed wrong about what generalization means,jumping to conclusions and admitting it,assumptions and misreading and interpreting what i said totally different from what my intention was or what not.EXPLAINS THIS ACTIONS

When one focuses on responding in defense,he therefore closes his mind to seeing both sides of an argument.

You've just contradicted yourself. If the "original" meaning of faggot was a bundle of sticks, then the word "faggot" cannot be appropriated by society to mean homosexual. That is, according to your idea of what a dictionary is.


I did not contradict myself.The dictionary gives meaning to the original definition of """faggot"" and how society raped the label away from its natural meaning to totally mean something else.An action that you have performed,but cannot admit too.

AGAIN, I draw your attention to the word "covert" which I have highlighted in red. Being down low is NOT the same as being discreet.


Being downlow is so the same as being discreet.If you went deep into how the word DOWNLOW was relative to homosexual men or bisexual men.You will discover the term was popularized by R and B singer R kelly in his song song.KEEP IT ON THE DOWNLOW.which talks about his discreet relationship with another mans woman.His saying keep it on the DOWNLOW is saying keep it discreet.No one has to know.Instead of letting it show.Keep what me and this woman has ON THA LOW.!low as relative to a low amount of people only knowing what they have together and in that case that low amount of people being him and HER.in other cases it could still be a low amount of individuals with more than just two people being aware of it.

Thank you.




You are contradicting yourself again. How can the meaning be different to many different people if there is only one meaning to each word as defined by the dictionary? Oh, because it isn't in the dictionary. And how, prey tell, do words get into the dictionary, and where did meaning come from before they got into the dictionary?

Here's a FACT for you. Meaning does not end with the definition in the dictionary. The dictionary was created to collect the meanings of words as a reference. Over the years, as language changes, and new meanings of words come into common usage, dictionaries have to be updated to reflect those changes. So it is quite evident that dictionary definitions are not final definitions. But beyond that, even if you assume that a dictionary definition is up-to-date, you cannot assume that it is comprehensive. Why? Because there simply is NOT ENOUGH SPACE in a dictionary to provide the complete meanings for many words which have very complex connotations. In addition, dictionaries often do not provide definitions for phrases (such as internalized homophobia). They also often do not provide adequate definitions for technical terms which may have esoteric meanings within certain special contexts like science, mathematics, philosophy, theology, sociology and sexuality.


OH MY GOD.you are not simply understanding.The word DOWNLOW cannot be found in the english dictionary.There is an urban dictionary.com that describes societys depiction on new meaning to words that already have meaning ,And it depicts compound words put together like DOWN and then LOW to mean something.Much similar to what R kelly did with it meaning discreet.

Maybe in the future,the dictionary will recognize downlow as a word created by society much as any other label to describe DISCREETNESS and men who keep there sexualities to themselves.Thats if there is not a dictionary that has already done so.

Internalized homophobia is a new meaning created by certain members of society that has not yet reached the dictionary to meaning a concrete thing.Say if it does in 2 years,Society may find a way to use internalized homophobia to meaning A FEMININE MALE WHO HATES RAP MUSIC lol.and it has no relation to the original meaning at all

Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the wife compounds the problem by being irresponsible in her own right, does not somehow justify the man's transgressions. Her culpability in contracting an STD is a completely separate issue from that man's culpability for trying to deceive his wife (whether successful or not). Just because a man did not succeed in unethical behavior does not suddenly make him ethical.


Regardless,it still stimulates from MAKING THE WRONG CHOICES!.Not being DL.Because one could be open and still spread diseases.DL DOES transmit HIV OR STD,making the wrong choices does.Being inconsiderate with that does.

I think we should end here.It is obvious you are by far lost on these subjects and the type of individual that wants to BATTLE.It seems you will not be happy until someone agrees with you and until you are RIGHT.one minute you have accepted much constructive criticism in little things much more than i have,Because i have hardly said anything incorrect because i am far more into knowing about these things than you obviously.Then when you are about something big,it seems you just put more and more speculation and opinion and jumping the gun into it,Either because your incapable to open your mind to understand the truth or my standpoint,or your simply just in denial.Because like alot of homosexual men and humans period

YOU JUST WANT TO BE RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:01 pm

tigakub wrote:
edu999 wrote:The reason for this so-called down low phenomenon is simple: people want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Simply put, yes. But what I'm trying to get through to DL is that it's more than that.

I'm trying to say that you can't understand DL until you examine why it is that DL men want to hide their homosexual tendencies.

The one-sided explanation might be that they enjoy the appearance of being straight. But can it be said that they really don't care if people found out otherwise? I doubt it.

In my discussions with DL we've arrived at the conclusion that one reason that someone may want to hide his homosexual desires is social stigma attached to being homosexual prevalent in the African American community. Fear of violence, ridicule, persecution and ostracism are legitimate reasons for remaining in the closet.

A separate issue is the morality/ethics of engaging in man on man sex behind your wife's back. I maintain that morality and ethics are relative. While I may personally believe that it is unfair to the wife, I concede that it may not be considered so in certain cultures. Some people believe that cheating on your wife with another woman is wrong, but the same people may believe that cheating on your wife with a man is not because the man can provide something that women cannot. I personally don't agree, but again, that's just my opinion.


This proves my point of an individual who cannot comprehend well or just reads half of what i typed,instead of it all,which is evidence and proof to you just wanting to be RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT

I already am aware,the reason many DL men are dl is because of this.Yet also i am aware that even within the many dl men ,that are dl because of this,and those that are not dl because of this.Still do not want any association with the HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY AT ALL.Because of effeminate and flamboyant men and Transexuals.

SIGHS
Last edited by Guest on Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guest
 

Postby TomMichigan » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:07 pm

DL_WILL_REMAIN wrote:
tigakub wrote:
edu999 wrote:The reason for this so-called down low phenomenon is simple: people want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Simply put, yes. But what I'm trying to get through to DL is that it's more than that.

I'm trying to say that you can't understand DL until you examine why it is that DL men want to hide their homosexual tendencies.

The one-sided explanation might be that they enjoy the appearance of being straight. But can it be said that they really don't care if people found out otherwise? I doubt it.

In my discussions with DL we've arrived at the conclusion that one reason that someone may want to hide his homosexual desires is social stigma attached to being homosexual prevalent in the African American community. Fear of violence, ridicule, persecution and ostracism are legitimate reasons for remaining in the closet.

A separate issue is the morality/ethics of engaging in man on man sex behind your wife's back. I maintain that morality and ethics are relative. While I may personally believe that it is unfair to the wife, I concede that it may not be considered so in certain cultures. Some people believe that cheating on your wife with another woman is wrong, but the same people may believe that cheating on your wife with a man is not because the man can provide something that women cannot. I personally don't agree, but again, that's just my opinion.


This proves my point of an individual who cannot comprehend well or just reads half of what i typed,instead of it all,which is evidence and proof to you just wanting to be RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT

I already am aware,the reason many DL men are dl is because of this.Yet also i am aware that even within the many dl men that are dl because of this those that are dl because of this and many that are not dl because of this.Still do not want any association with the HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY AT ALL.Because of effeminate and flamboyant men and Transexuals.

SIGHS


Maybe you should get out of the house a little more> :roll:
TomMichigan
Newbie
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:19 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:13 pm

TomMichigan wrote:
DL_WILL_REMAIN wrote:
tigakub wrote:
edu999 wrote:The reason for this so-called down low phenomenon is simple: people want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Simply put, yes. But what I'm trying to get through to DL is that it's more than that.

I'm trying to say that you can't understand DL until you examine why it is that DL men want to hide their homosexual tendencies.

The one-sided explanation might be that they enjoy the appearance of being straight. But can it be said that they really don't care if people found out otherwise? I doubt it.

In my discussions with DL we've arrived at the conclusion that one reason that someone may want to hide his homosexual desires is social stigma attached to being homosexual prevalent in the African American community. Fear of violence, ridicule, persecution and ostracism are legitimate reasons for remaining in the closet.

A separate issue is the morality/ethics of engaging in man on man sex behind your wife's back. I maintain that morality and ethics are relative. While I may personally believe that it is unfair to the wife, I concede that it may not be considered so in certain cultures. Some people believe that cheating on your wife with another woman is wrong, but the same people may believe that cheating on your wife with a man is not because the man can provide something that women cannot. I personally don't agree, but again, that's just my opinion.


This proves my point of an individual who cannot comprehend well or just reads half of what i typed,instead of it all,which is evidence and proof to you just wanting to be RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT

I already am aware,the reason many DL men are dl is because of this.Yet also i am aware that even within the many dl men that are dl because of this those that are dl because of this and many that are not dl because of this.Still do not want any association with the HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY AT ALL.Because of effeminate and flamboyant men and Transexuals.

SIGHS


Maybe you should get out of the house a little more> :roll:
Maybe you should just shut the fukk up and stop acting as if i am wrong and just accept that this is truth no matter what you think.I asked your ignorant a.s.s not to say anything to me.Are you hard of reading or do you need a prescription to get some glasses from pearle vision.
Guest
 

Postby foxeyes2 » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:16 pm


Moderator Note:

Personal attacks are against the terms of service you agreed upon when joining this site. Please do not do it again.


Moderator Note
We are all one tribe. We are all one people.
Reduce Reuse Recycle
foxeyes2
Moderator
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:51 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby TomMichigan » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:18 pm

Our friend said:
Maybe you should just shut the fukk up and stop acting as if i am wrong and just accept that this is truth no matter what you think.Maybe you should just shut the fukk up and stop acting as if i am wrong and just accept that this is truth no matter what you think.I asked your ignorant a.s.s not to say anything to me.Are you hard of reading or do you need a prescription to get some glasses from pearle vision.


I get it now, he's right, everybody else is wrong, and we just need to accept that fact :!: :idea:


I asked your ignorant a.s.s not to say anything to me.Are you hard of reading or do you need a prescription to get some glasses from pearle vision.

I'll say anything I want to say, and you won't be able to do anything about it. Like that big bad-ass DL boi ?
TomMichigan
Newbie
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:19 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Guest » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:32 pm

TomMichigan wrote:Our friend said:
Maybe you should just shut the fukk up and stop acting as if i am wrong and just accept that this is truth no matter what you think.Maybe you should just shut the fukk up and stop acting as if i am wrong and just accept that this is truth no matter what you think.I asked your ignorant a.s.s not to say anything to me.Are you hard of reading or do you need a prescription to get some glasses from pearle vision.


I get it now, he's right, everybody else is wrong, and we just need to accept that fact :!: :idea:


I asked your ignorant a.s.s not to say anything to me.Are you hard of reading or do you need a prescription to get some glasses from pearle vision.

I'll say anything I want to say, and you won't be able to do anything about it. Like that big bad-ass DL boi ?


Do you feel inferior to me being a big bad ass DL boy,it is usually old buzzards like you that scream this yet get pussy as hell and scared when some DL boy or thug is beating your face into the ground because you have to pride in being the homoqueen you are,Or the same one scared shitless in your sisters panties when your standing in the elevator next to someone dressed like a big bad thug or dl boy scared of the possibility that they may just rob you for your bath and body works spray to give to your girlfriends , :lol: :lol:
Guest
 

PreviousNext

Return to Effeminate Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron