If you put words in my mouth one more time, esp ones that suggest I share your homophobic views, I will ban you. Period.

no, i think there is a big difference between showing fully errect male sex organs and naked women. I think you know it is different and why it is way different. why do you think those pictures would have been banned in the US? think about it. it's because it would make people who got raped re-experience traumatas i.e. it's because male do rapes and not women. etc etc. testosterone.

go ahead, then I will go one step up and expose your wrong call.

tell me then please, why did you cancel this discussion? why can't I share what happened to me???

I'm out for now. peace
BUT thing about it.

The US has always had very strict, puritanical standards irt nudity. When I was stationed in Europe, major newspapers had sections where they would have a pic of a topless woman. Women went topless on every beach I went to. It was considered no big deal. In the states, no newspaper could print those pictures. To this day most US beaches will have topless woman ticketed or arrested. Hell, people freak out at the sight of a breastfeeding woman.

And social media companies set their own standards as to what can or cant be posted. If something is considered obscene, then its obscene. But in that case, it doesnt matter if the subject is a gay man or a straight man. Why did you choose to post these pics in 5he transgender thread. Why the connection with gay men. Wouldnt the erection of a straight makes be just as triggering( if you believe that) to a rape victim as a gay man's? Same with the "what about the kids" excuse.

If your issue is the posting of porno on FB, why didnt you post pics from straight porno? Plenty of erections in a straight porno mag. But you chose to put it in a thread about transgender issues. It's not a transgender issue at all. And in fact, why are you posting those pics here at all? If you just want to address that porn is available on FB, or reditt, or wherever, you could have just said that. There was no need for the pics at all.

you're competent misinterpreting my whole mo. talk about putting word into mouths. this is a joke.

I will terminate my whole account because this is so wrong on so many levels. your completely twisting every word I said.

have a nice life!
I tried to be veeery kind but you wouldnt let me or rather you didn't understand anything I said.

Washoe you should take a break and let it go.

I didn't cancel a discussion. I brought an end to your fear mongering about a threat to the whole society from gay men that simply does not exist, and you breathlessly describing as out of control the very same sexual activities that straight men also engage in. Then the totally offtopic pics of male oriented magazine covers.

If you felt you had seen an inappropriate pic in your FB feed, and that FB shouldnt allow those types of pics to shock people, why in the world would you think it would then be appropriate to post those pics on here, committing the very offense you are complaining about? You didnt think that if you posted "wow, I had a pic of a guy with an erection show up on my FB feed" that no one here could imagine what that looked like?

Im sorry browser, Im on a terrible downswing now for about a month. f poker.

why would I show you here? I showed you a censored version so you understand what Im talking about. I dont think thats the same offense. I said that now for the third time, I think. Somehow I have to show you what Im talking about- . how would you be able to know? ok I could have wrote a buch of words, but a picture speaks a thousand words. I get that might be have been inappropiate too, so I get you.
I just dont think it was nice that you threatened me, I kindly said that I think I understood where you are coming from and that you must have a felt the same way. thats a kind assumption, which you misread. and then you did the very same offense you accused me of, which is putting words into my mouth. just a thousand times worse! you were questioning my sexuality and put words into my mouth which is bottom line harressment and insinutation. that I had negative bottomline evil intentions. nothing could have been farther from the truth! I really dont want to question your authority just make you think. you coulnd have been more insulting even if you tried. You completely misread what I meant by saying everything I said.

I want the trans and gay community to be safe and sound, just as I want us to be the same. We are sitting all in the same boat afterall. But for that we have to look at causes, cause and effect, you know? nothing else was my intention.

anyways you are a great mod, and I dont really know if I should be mad at you, probably not. you dont have do anything here,

this ship sails itself btw.

You did not question my sexuality, sorry, I misread that.

No threat to society? tell that to my friends sister and my friend, whos sister lives with HIV.

My intentions, if you care to know, were to point out a real threat everyone is scared of.

Staight people are driving this trend down, its gay and trans and only them who drive it up, which then affects everyone.
which I pointed out here:

"Globally, from 2010 to 2019, HIV diagnoses increased by 25% among gay and bisexual men, even as infections in other groups declined.6 In the United States, gay and bisexual men make up nearly 70% of all new HIV diagnoses each year; among them 31% are Black and 25% are Latinx.7"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8493153/

and I dont think genital herpes is anywhere nearly as dangerous and bad. ask anyone what they take over the other.
Plus you can see it, which you cant in HIV, whch makes infection nearly impossible, only if you are drunk or blind.

Please take this homophobic fearmongering to some other forum.

This will probably be washoe's swan song. I knew he would get banned eventually, but I didn't expect him to choose this hill to die on.

guys let's chill on the ban talk for a poster simply expressing a common view held by millions

it's ironic how most of the "this place isn't what it to be" posts were largely steered about overmodding where dissenting voices were silenced and banned

and yet now the problem you guys have is people like washoe having a dissenting viewpoint

if we want an echo chamber then it's better to just cut out the middle man and have a circle jerk - in which case we should ban washoe because he'd certainly object to that



you may not like or disagree his views, but it's important to be represented here because it's not a fringe belief by any means

also, while homosexuals have used HIV used as a cultural weapon against them, which is an incredible shame and it's very sad how little attention it got in the early days when it was in a more controllable setting, but you're not doing any favors to anyone by pretending that the disease impacts gays and straights equally - that's a bit too much of a reversal from backing off the bigotry attached to aids policy to pretending that it has no special correlation to homosexuality

take lagtight for instance, i did not get along with him at all, he said a lot of terrible things, he even had many insults thrown directly towards me, his favorite response was to call me a pervert when I'd challenge him on his belief that gays were bad/evil and god frowned upon them - yet i find it regrettable he was banned because he represented a very common belief system that typically only engages with like minded groups behind closed doors and it was interesting to see his perspective and debate him on it

He's not banned now

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like literally everone who got banned is just posting here under a different name. I don't imagine anyone who posts everyday all day will ever go away.

Is it, though?

What?

lmao well played

Everyone is not scared or panicing abiut the threat of catching HIV. It's almost like you are describing the environment in the 80s and 90s when the virus transmission means were not well defined, and few if any drug treatments were available, and many infected people progressed to AIDS and died. But that was 30 years ago.

Now the transmission vectors are well known, education programs have informed the most at risk populations of preventative measures, and drug treatments not just reduce the number of cases progressing to IDS but can actually reduce the viral load to undetectable levels. Being HIV positive today is far from the death sentence it was considered 30-40 years ago.

In the US the new infection rate among gay men has dropped over 10% in the last few years, while other groups remained stable. So it is not a case of sex crazed uncontrolled infected gay men wrecking havoc and threatening the entire society. HIV is difficult to catch. If you are not having male with male sex, or are an intravenous drug user sharing needles with others, your chance of getting the HIV virus is miniscule.

That's why, in the US at least, no straight people are walking around worried about somehow catching the virus through casual contact with an infected person. Covid is much easier to catch than the HIV virus and few even worry about that. And so there is no threat to society from sex crazed gay men running out of control. And certainly no need for some sort of government driven monitoring or control activities directed at gay men.

If comparing "control" of straight and gay men, in terms of not using precautions, consider this stat. There were about 40,000 new HIV infections in gay men in 2020; so lets assume all of those represent a gay man not exercising proper control by not using precautions. By comparison there were around 600,000 abortions, each representing an unwanted pregnancy by a straight man failing to to exercise proper control by ensuring proper precautions were used.

Considering a good part of the country considers abortion to be murder, how can that not be considered a huge threat to society that requires control and monitoring of straight mens sexual activities? Where is the outrage over straight men who have unprotected sex with multiple women?

So the problem with the posts you have made is that you have denigrated gay men as a group by suggesting there is an impending huge threat to society as a whole and it is being driven by the uncontrolled sexual activity of gay men. You cite outlier examples of gay men with huge numbers of sex partners while ignoring the fact that the exact same people exist on the straight side. You imply that gay men must be subject to some sort of monitoring by the government because they represent such an extreme public health risk. But that's not true either.

Then, with no connection to anything to do with HIV rates, you just post two covers of Boner magazine as an example of something so disgusting that we all needed to be warned about it. And talk about how filthy the idea of gay porn is. But you still posted it on our site. Yet again, no condemnation of the straight porn magazines, or the "girly" magazines showing naked women. You again portrayed gay related things as a great threat while ignoring thecsame threat from analogous straight material.

So whether you consciously set out to denigrate the gay men community, you in fact did, warning of an impending doom caused by out of control gay men. And talking how offended and disgusted you are by the sight of naked men who are aroused. But that simply is another attack on gay men who may find sexually oriented make material interesting,just as straight men enjoy looking at a Hustler magazine or other material.

That is a pure attack on the gay men community. It's not a political position for discussion.

I hope you can look back at your posts and see how they would be perceived by a gay man or anyone who feels that they have the same rights as straight men to pursue their sexual activities or enjoy sexually oriented material free from being called disgusting or offensive, or being accused of threatening the well being of society as a whole.

I appreciate the time you put into your posting in this forum. You drive a lot of conversations, often with some controversial views. But imo you crossed a line on this one and however well meaning you may have thought you were being, you ended up posting gratuitous attacks on gay men that I simply could not overlook.

There is a difference between allowing dissenting political positions and allowing attacks on minority groups. There is no political component to saying you find pictures of naked men disgusting and offensive. It is not appropriate to claim that gay men aa a group are about to unleash a huge threat on society and they need to be monitored and controlled. It is fear mongering.

We don't allow posters to come on here and state that you need to hide the white women from a black man because they cant control themselves. Or say the world's woes are all the fault of the Jews. It doesn't matter how many people may believe that. It's an attack on an entire group of people not simply a difference of opinion.

Debating political opinions is welcome. Simply denigrating a category of people is not a purpose of this forum.

I'm not exactly into pictures of naked men myself, honestly. I don't think that should qualify as being homophobic. I have no problem with men wearing clothes regardless of their sexual orientation.

So I was reading a post earlier today about f**ching and a certain commercial for cadbury cream eggs. I actually might be a bit squeamish about writing my personal thoughts on that, but I would preface any post on that issue by saying the confusion starts with a lack of respect for alternate sexualities and alternate gender expression and identities.

You can't really discuss these issues if you have zero respect for any sexuality besides your own. That is a problem a lot of people have, including lgbt people themselves sometimes.
Like , in a lot of people's minds if some guy talked to a cute blonde 20 year old woman for an hour and they both agreed to go into his bedroom and he reached into her pants and gently stroked her vagina and they did it, that guy is an aspirational kind of james bond with an amazing story that shows talent and perceptiveness etc etc
But if some guy talked a cute 20 year old guy for an hour and they both agreed to go into his bedroom and he reached into his pants and stroked his penis and they did it, not only do they think it's gross and a possible sign of mental illness and perversion, they can't even see the sexuality there- because it's not their own preference it's a kind of humorless weird story devoid of any sexuality at best comedic in nature.

Because they don't respect others sexualities they don't exist, even though there are many sexualities. What kinsey's work did was first and foremost highlight the importance of women's own sexuality which is also historically not considered valid.

in my earlier post, I wanted to point out that although stds are a big problem in the gay community and you should practice safe sex, the problem is overblown out of proportion into this idea( which I was scared of for a while) that if you have gay relations you'll die.
And also I am proud of my relationships with men , not ashamed of it.

But like, would I rather look at pictures of naked men or eat capers? I would choose the men.

While I might not be into it, capers actually are disgusting.

Not being into it isn't homophobic. Posting some and then saying it is disgusting and offensive and shouldn't be allowed is.

Mmm Cadburys cream egg.

Sometimes all you can do is take a break.

You're not doing yourself any favours here at the moment. Get some fresh air and clear your head.

I didn't say he was.