Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Captain Cranks

Brett Kavanaugh

Regarding BK's testimony on Thursday  

237 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The Brett Kavanaugh thread seems pretty active today.  I think I'll stop by and see how things ar WHAT THE #### IS GOING ON IN HERE????>?

as much as it took things off topic, we did learn something very important about the mentality of one of the busiest members on the political forum . It explains a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to be the only one that can't get past the question of "why were other people pushing Brett Kavanaugh's penis around?"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I seem to be the only one that can't get past the question of "why were other people pushing Brett Kavanaugh's penis around?"  

It's legless?

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

as much as it took things off topic, we did learn something very important about the mentality of one of the busiest members on the political forum . It explains a lot.

I have shared this opinion many times before in this forum so either you weren't paying attention or you are politically trying to make it more than it really is.  This seems to be the Democrat theme lately so I will go with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I seem to be the only one that can't get past the question of "why were other people pushing Brett Kavanaugh's penis around?"  

1. No.  I mentioned this earlier in the thread;

2. I believe the interpretation @parasaurolophus is going with - and it's not unreasonable - is that Bart the Boofer was naked and she was in front of him and his buddies thought it would be funny to push him so that his penis came in contact with the young woman in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

I have shared this opinion many times before in this forum so either you weren't paying attention or you are politically trying to make it more than it really is.  This seems to be the Democrat theme lately so I will go with that.

Are you a politician?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears my theological exchange with Don't Noonan has been deleted. Admittedly, I don't entirely understand why given that the question I posed is a very current, valid, and topical question* getting to the heart of the issue of sexuality as a choice. When I was involved with the Catholic church my answer to my question would have been "no" because that's what I was taught to believe. I was curious to whether Noonan, a current practicing Catholic, was taught the same belief. 

 

*I recognize not necessarily topical to Brett Kavanaugh but it seemed to be a fair tangential issue to the conversion therapy topic. 

Edited by Zow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Yes, a current Senator in South Carolina and Chair of the Senate Committee.  :rolleyes:

Ah, that makes sense.  I was wondering how anyone could use this conversation politically, but of course that would qualify. Thanks.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I seem to be the only one that can't get past the question of "why were other people pushing Brett Kavanaugh's penis around?"  

"It's not gonna push itself!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

I seem to be the only one that can't get past the question of "why were other people pushing Brett Kavanaugh's penis around?"  

It's like a Yale version of the game Hot Potato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baby no you can't look at my one eye

Yeah that's my belt buckle girl

Stop pushin' my...

Stop pushin' my...

Stop pushin' my penis around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

I seem to be the only one that can't get past the question of "why were other people pushing Brett Kavanaugh's penis around?"  

Because pulling it could have had undesirable consequences on the level of Antonio Brown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The Brett Kavanaugh thread seems pretty active today.  I think I'll stop by and see how things ar WHAT THE #### IS GOING ON IN HERE????>?

I'm glad I got in before the censorship took place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zow said:

It appears my theological exchange with Don't Noonan has been deleted. Admittedly, I don't entirely understand why given that the question I posed is a very current, valid, and topical question* getting to the heart of the issue of sexuality as a choice. When I was involved with the Catholic church my answer to my question would have been "no" because that's what I was taught to believe. I was curious to whether Noonan, a current practicing Catholic, was taught the same belief. 

 

*I recognize not necessarily topical to Brett Kavanaugh but it seemed to be a fair tangential issue to the conversion therapy topic. 

Yeah that’s strange.  In thought it was relevant and Noonan answered questions directly and didn’t seem offended (unless of course something happened after what I saw).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

1. No.  I mentioned this earlier in the thread;

2. I believe the interpretation @parasaurolophus is going with - and it's not unreasonable - is that Bart the Boofer was naked and she was in front of him and his buddies thought it would be funny to push him so that his penis came in contact with the young woman in question.

I suppose it could have been poorly written, but that's not how it was presented.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, timschochet said:

I am going to guess that you are a heterosexual. Do you think it’s possible that you could become a gay man at some future date? 

If you believe Kinsey and probably the most extensive research on the subject, the answer is absolutely.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I suppose it could have been poorly written, but that's not how it was presented.  

I agree, but even still - standing naked in front of a woman close enough that if your buddies give you a shove you'll contact her with your penis is no way to go through life.  And also not strictly speaking legal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I suppose it could have been poorly written, but that's not how it was presented.  

Quote

A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.

There is no specificity at all. Was he teabagging her and his friends yanked on the joystick? Was he mooning the crowd? Was he showing her the bird bath? Did the friends also yank his pants down? Was he actually wearing any pants? Wouldn't that hurt if they were tugging him around by it? Into the back of her hand? Did they trick her into grabbing a hot dog like in tom hanks bachelor party? Was he getting a massage from her and his friends flipped him sunny side up? 

Maybe the above bolded "his" actually refers to Max Stier's penis and he just happen to also see kavanaugh at this party? Maybe they were having a duel. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrisy: Right-Wingers Who Love It When The Babylon Bee Makes Stuff Up Suddenly Get Mad When The NYT Does It

Quote

When confronted with the hypocrisy, right-wingers tried to explain away the difference in the reaction. “It just seems wrong when the New York Times makes things up,” said angry conservative Darrel Cross. “Though I guess I also don’t like it when either makes up bad things about Trump.”

:lmao:

Edited by parasaurolophus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

If you believe Kinsey and probably the most extensive research on the subject, the answer is absolutely.   

Kinsey’s research from 1946? Do you reject all science on the issue from that point forward? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SaintsInDome2006 Enough excerpts are floating around now from the book that shed a lot of light on the 7 people.

Quote

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.

I already mentioned the mother not actually knowing anything about the incident but being told a couple years later br Debbie that "something happened" .

But now we also have the other accounts. One is an anonymous claim that she had heard about the incident some time in the 90's. One was Richard Oh who claims to have heard a story, from somebody he cant remember, about an unknown girl getting a penis shoved in her face. Chad Ludington and James Roche claim to remember that they heard something had happened to Ramirez at yale. 

Ken Appold claims to have been told a couple days later (by somebody he cant remember) about the ramirez incident. Says somebody else was there too when he was told, but he also cant remember who that person was.

The last was a guy, Michael Westone,  that claims sometime in grad school that Ken Appold relayed a story to him about it.

That's the 7. 

Edited by parasaurolophus
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

@SaintsInDome2006 Enough excerpts are floating around now from the book that shed a lot of light on the 7 people.

I already mentioned the mother not actually knowing anything about the incident but being told a couple years later br Debbie that "something happened" .

But now we also have the other accounts. One is an anonymous claim that she had heard about the incident some time in the 90's. One was Richard Oh who claims to have heard a story, from somebody he cant remember, about an unknown girl getting a penis shoved in her face. Chad Ludington and James Roche claim to remember that they heard something had happened to Ramirez at yale. 

Ken Appold claims to have been told a couple days later (by somebody he cant remember) about the ramirez incident. Says somebody else was there too when he was told, but he also cant remember who that person was.

The last was a guy, Michael Westone,  that claims sometime in grad school that Ken Appold relayed a story to him about it.

That's the 7. 

In other news, Ferris passed out at 31 Flavors last night.  I guess it’s pretty serious.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Kinsey’s research from 1946? Do you reject all science on the issue from that point forward? 

That is probably the most recent study he can come up with to support his position. And while it is has been years since I have read anything from the Kinsey Report findings, I don't believe it supports Mr mx's contention that one can choose one's sexual orientation like one can choose which fast food place they will eat at tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

If you believe Kinsey and probably the most extensive research on the subject, the answer is absolutely.   

Most of the current "extensive research" shows that orientation emerges from childhood to early adolescence. Most of the occurrences when people "change" later in live are really the result of suppressing feelings earlier due to social pressures. If not impossible, the chance that you would become gay is probably so remote and unusual that it isn't worth even considering.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

@SaintsInDome2006 Enough excerpts are floating around now from the book that shed a lot of light on the 7 people.

I already mentioned the mother not actually knowing anything about the incident but being told a couple years later br Debbie that "something happened" .

But now we also have the other accounts. One is an anonymous claim that she had heard about the incident some time in the 90's. One was Richard Oh who claims to have heard a story, from somebody he cant remember, about an unknown girl getting a penis shoved in her face. Chad Ludington and James Roche claim to remember that they heard something had happened to Ramirez at yale. 

Ken Appold claims to have been told a couple days later (by somebody he cant remember) about the ramirez incident. Says somebody else was there too when he was told, but he also cant remember who that person was.

The last was a guy, Michael Westone,  that claims sometime in grad school that Ken Appold relayed a story to him about it.

That's the 7. 

Thanks, I haven't seen/read this stuff yet but seeing what you have here (the mother, an anon, Oh, Ludington, Roche, Appold, Westone)...

  • The mother
  • The 2 bolded above. ("Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred").
  • Plus 4 who heard about it 'on campus'. (If Westone was on campus later at grad school...).
  • And then I guess there's another (supposedly) group of 18 who would corroborate the corroborators.

- Note I'm not trying to prove this thing happened to Kavanaugh, just that his only response to it to a GOP Senator - under oath - was that if there had been such an incident it surely would have been talked about around campus would seem to be confirmed in that it was actually discussed around campus.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Thanks, I haven't seen/read this stuff yet but seeing what you have here (the mother, an anon, Oh, Ludington, Roche, Appold, Westone)...

  • The mother
  • The 2 bolded above. ("Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred").
  • Plus 4 who heard about it 'on campus'. (If Westone was on campus later at grad school...).
  • And then I guess there's another (supposedly) group of 18 who would corroborate the corroborators.

- Note I'm not trying to prove this thing happened to Kavanaugh, just that his only response to it to a GOP Senator - under oath - was that if there had been such an incident it surely would have been talked about around campus would seem to be confirmed in that it was actually discussed around campus.

I think he said it would have been the talk of the campus. Thats a very big difference and these "witnesses" can barely scrape together one account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I think he said it would have been the talk of the campus. Thats a very big difference and these "witnesses" can barely scrape together one account. 

Well that's Ludington, Roche, Oh & Appold, at least, who said they heard it right after. That's 4 people from the time. Plus two more who heard it retold around campus later.

- The woman who heard it still floating around in the 90s? That's a story with legs wouldn't ya say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I think he said it would have been the talk of the campus. Thats a very big difference and these "witnesses" can barely scrape together one account. 

Why are we taking his word that it would have been the talk of campus?  There’s a lot of stuff going on at Yale. Not sure that some frat boy’s wiener being in someone’s face or hand would have caused much of a stir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Why are we taking his word that it would have been the talk of campus?  There’s a lot of stuff going on at Yale. Not sure that some frat boy’s wiener being in someone’s face or hand would have caused much of a stir.

We arent. This conversation started because i criticized the reporters for making the statement that it was the talk of the campus. 

The 7 people they list to prove that assertion are junk, especially after talking to like 75 students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Kinsey’s research from 1946? Do you reject all science on the issue from that point forward? 

You mean the billion of failed attempts to find the gay gene?  

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Kinsey’s research from 1946? Do you reject all science on the issue from that point forward? 

How about a 2006 study (abstract below)which shows the fluidity of sexuality from youth into adulthood.  Only 57 percent of gays and lesbians did not change.  While most do remain the same identity there are still millions who don't.  Hardly rare by any stretch.  

 

A longitudinal report of 156 gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths examined changes in sexual identity over time. Fifty-seven percent of the youths remained consistently self-identified as gay/lesbian, 18% transited from bisexual to gay/lesbian, and 15% consistently identified as bisexual over time. Although youths who consistently identified as gay/lesbian did not differ from other youths on time since experiencing sexual developmental milestones, they reported current sexual orientation and sexual behaviors that were more same-sex centered and they scored higher on aspects of the identity integration process (e.g., more certain, comfortable, and accepting of their same-sex sexuality, more involved in gay-related social activities, more possessing of positive attitudes toward homosexuality, and more comfortable with others knowing about their sexuality) than youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity and youths who consistently identified as bisexual. Contrary to the hypothesis that females are more sexually fluid than males, female youths were less likely to change identities than male youths. The finding that youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity differed from consistently gay/lesbian youths suggests that identity integration continues after the adoption of a gay/lesbian sexual identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

How about a 2006 study (abstract below)which shows the fluidity of sexuality from youth into adulthood.  Only 57 percent of gays and lesbians did not change.  While most do remain the same identity there are still millions who don't.  Hardly rare by any stretch.  

 

A longitudinal report of 156 gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths examined changes in sexual identity over time. Fifty-seven percent of the youths remained consistently self-identified as gay/lesbian, 18% transited from bisexual to gay/lesbian, and 15% consistently identified as bisexual over time. Although youths who consistently identified as gay/lesbian did not differ from other youths on time since experiencing sexual developmental milestones, they reported current sexual orientation and sexual behaviors that were more same-sex centered and they scored higher on aspects of the identity integration process (e.g., more certain, comfortable, and accepting of their same-sex sexuality, more involved in gay-related social activities, more possessing of positive attitudes toward homosexuality, and more comfortable with others knowing about their sexuality) than youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity and youths who consistently identified as bisexual. Contrary to the hypothesis that females are more sexually fluid than males, female youths were less likely to change identities than male youths. The finding that youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity differed from consistently gay/lesbian youths suggests that identity integration continues after the adoption of a gay/lesbian sexual identity.

What does this have to do with the likelihood that you would turn gay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Juxtatarot said:

What does this have to do with the likelihood that you would turn gay?

There are two theories.  The politically correct theory, which has very little scientific support although widely accepted, that sexuality is hard wired and does not change.  Or the reality, that sexuality may has some genetic component but is driven by a combination of things and is fluid and changes with experience and other environmental influences. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

How about a 2006 study (abstract below)which shows the fluidity of sexuality from youth into adulthood.  Only 57 percent of gays and lesbians did not change.  While most do remain the same identity there are still millions who don't.  Hardly rare by any stretch.  

 

A longitudinal report of 156 gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths examined changes in sexual identity over time. Fifty-seven percent of the youths remained consistently self-identified as gay/lesbian, 18% transited from bisexual to gay/lesbian, and 15% consistently identified as bisexual over time. Although youths who consistently identified as gay/lesbian did not differ from other youths on time since experiencing sexual developmental milestones, they reported current sexual orientation and sexual behaviors that were more same-sex centered and they scored higher on aspects of the identity integration process (e.g., more certain, comfortable, and accepting of their same-sex sexuality, more involved in gay-related social activities, more possessing of positive attitudes toward homosexuality, and more comfortable with others knowing about their sexuality) than youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity and youths who consistently identified as bisexual. Contrary to the hypothesis that females are more sexually fluid than males, female youths were less likely to change identities than male youths. The finding that youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity differed from consistently gay/lesbian youths suggests that identity integration continues after the adoption of a gay/lesbian sexual identity.

This is the best you could come up with since the Kinsey Report? Seriously?

A study of 156 "youths" is too small a sample size to be significant to extrapolate to millions of LGBT+ people in this country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Chad Ludington and James Roche claim to remember that they heard something had happened to Ramirez at yale. 

Just another note about this.

From Kavanaugh's testimony:

Quote

 

KLOBUCHAR: OK. ... So most people have done some drinking in high school and college, and many people even struggle with alcoholism and binge drinking. My own dad struggled with alcoholism most of his life, and he got in trouble for it, and there were consequences. He is still in A.A. at age 90, and he’s sober, and in his words, he was pursued by grace, and that’s how he got through this.

So in your case, you have said, here and other places, that you never drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened. But yet, we have heard — not under oath, but we have heard your college roommate say that you did drink frequently. These are in news reports. That you would sometimes be belligerent. Another classmate said it’s not credible for you to say you didn’t have memory lapses. So drinking is one thing.

KAVANAUGH: I don’t think — I — I actually don’t think that’s — the second quote’s correct. On the first quote, if you wanted, I provided some material that’s still redacted about the situation with the freshman year roommate, and I don’t really want to repeat that in a public hearing, but just so you know, there were three people in a room, Dave White, Jamie Roach (ph) and me, and it was a contentious situation where Jamie did not like Dave White. I was — at all, and I’m in this… ... So Dave — so Dave White came back from — from home one weekend, and Jamie Roach had moved all his furniture…  … out into the — out into the courtyard.And so he walks in, and so that’s your source on that, so there’s some old… ... There — and there’s much more. Look at the redacted portion of what I said. I don’t want to repeat that in a public hearing.

... KLOBUCHAR: Could I just ask one question? ...  OK. Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness, and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?

KAVANAUGH: No, I — no. I remember what happened, and I think you’ve probably had beers, Senator, and — and so I…

KLOBUCHAR: So you’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.

KAVANAUGH: It’s — you’re asking about, you know, blackout. I don’t know. ...

- Roche was Kavanaugh's roommate, right?

And Ludington was Kavanaugh's drinking buddy, right?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I agree, but even still - standing naked in front of a woman close enough that if your buddies give you a shove you'll contact her with your penis is no way to go through life.  And also not strictly speaking legal.  

One thing I thought interesting to emerge from this was revisiting Ford's testimony about her incident in light of what has been reported about the Ramirez and Stier incidents.

- Ford said that she came upstairs to use the bathroom, but before she could get there she was shoved into a bedroom by surprise from behind and that Mike Judge was in the room with them and he was at first alternately yelling at Kavanaugh to stop but also egging them on, and yet they were both laughing hysterically, and then Mike Judge jumped up on the bed with them and started jumping up and own. - It just seems or sounds similar. All three incidents a buddy or multiple pals are in the room and Kavanaugh is being egged on.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

One thing I thought interesting to emerge from this was revisiting Ford's testimony about her incident in light of what has been reported about the Ramirez and Stier incidents.

- Ford said that she came upstairs to use the bathroom, but before she could get there she was shoved into a bedroom by surprise from behind and that Mike Judge was in the room with them and he was at first alternately yelling at Kavanaugh to stop but also egging them on, and yet they were both laughing hysterically, and then Mike Judge jumped up on the bed with them and started jumping up and own. - It just seems or sounds similar. All three incidents a buddy or multiple pals are in the room and Kavanaugh is being egged on.

Wouldn’t be the first or last judge to be a weak willed alcoholic without scruples, even if that were indicative of his character. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Just another note about this.

From Kavanaugh's testimony:

- Roche was Kavanaugh's roommate, right?

And Ludington was Kavanaugh's drinking buddy, right?

Roche was his roommate yes. I dont know about ludington, that was the first I heard his name.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Roche was his roommate yes. I dont know about ludington, that was the first I heard his name.

 

So Kavanaugh’s roommate at the least says he heard about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, squistion said:

This is the best you could come up with since the Kinsey Report? Seriously?

A study of 156 "youths" is too small a sample size to be significant to extrapolate to millions of LGBT+ people in this country.

The study was published in a major journal and is very typical of the sample size is used for such studies.  The point was not to get a percise percent and extroapolate to a specific number.  The point was to get a general idea of sexual identy and how it changes.  Considering there are 30 plus million gays and lesbians, any significant percent of those as indicated by the study would in fact mean there are millions who have changed.  But you will continue to argue just for the sake of arguing, so this is a waste of time.

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are very fluid sexually, hence the confusion of this debate. People experiment with the same sex quite a bit and find it's not for them or that they want to lead a more normalized life. Sure, there are some people born gay and gay only, but sexuality is rather fluid, or so goes the modern mantra. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The study was published in a major journal and is very typical of the sample size is used for such studies.  The point was not to get a percise percent and extroapolate to a specific number.  The point was to get a general idea of sexual identy and how it changes.  Considering there are 30 plus million gays and lesbians, any significant percent of those as indicated by the study would in fact mean there are millions who have changed.  But you will continue to argue just for the sake of arguing, so this is a waste of time.

And not ever replicated anywhere else by a larger study or you would have linked that instead of pointing to this obvious outlier as the last word. To say one single study of 156 kids definitely proves that most people's sexual orientation is not hard wired is absurd, but from you not surprising.

Almost every LGBT person I have ever met have said they were born that way. Yes there are exceptions but you have to look hard to find them. If sexual orientation was easily changeable as you insist,, then gay conversion therapy would be a  runaway success, but it is not, it has a dismal track record.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockaction said:

People are very fluid sexually, hence the confusion of this debate. People experiment with the same sex quite a bit and find it's not for them or that they want to lead a more normalized life. Sure, there are some people born gay and gay only, but sexuality is rather fluid, or so goes the modern mantra. 

My experience is that almost all of the “fluidity” you speak of comes from people who don’t want to admit to themselves that they’re gay because there’s still too many who regard it as a sin or mental illness. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

My experience is that almost all of the “fluidity” you speak of comes from people who don’t want to admit to themselves that they’re gay because there’s still too many who regard it as a sin or mental illness. 

My experience with that is that they're tepidly experimental and don't really get off on it. My lesbian friends talk about this phenomenon all the time. She did it, she just wasn't into it, goes the refrain. It's why confusing books like "The Straight Girl's Guide For Sleeping With Chicks" are in existence and published.

Sex is strange. People are very plastic. They're born that way, likely, but fluid and plastic regardless of social norms. And they certainly choose to act one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, squistion said:

And not ever replicated anywhere else by a larger study or you would have linked that instead of pointing to this obvious outlier as the last word. To say one single study of 156 kids definitely proves that most people's sexual orientation is not hard wired is absurd, but from you not surprising.

Almost every LGBT person I have ever met have said they were born that way. Yes there are exceptions but you have to look hard to find them. If sexual orientation was easily changeable as you insist,, then gay conversion therapy would be a  runaway success, but it is not, it has a dismal track record.

I am not writting a thesis for my doctorate, I am posting on a fantasy football discussion forum.  And even more ridiculously, after you criticize me for quoting a published study, you counter it with some personal anadoctal  BS.  :lmao:

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.