musicman Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Lots of pot calling the kettle black over here, but the main point:that someone must make a case for being who they are in order to be accepted as equals, are you sure you want to go that route? That's the call of bigots, every minority is guilty of being unequal and lower class until proven innocent.bigots never learn in school that everyone is born free and equal.and if someone calls themself unequal and lower class, what does that make them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 How sad it must be to live your life accusing others of ignorance, when clearly, it is you yourself that is ignorant. You tell everyone how they need to just accept you and you were born the way you are, yet you give no reasonable explanation or proof of either statement. Instead you point fingers at everyone else and make assumptions about a topic you know absolutely nothing about. Give me at least something factual to debate, something more concrete than your attitude, because that doesn't give you any credibility whatsoever. It only makes you look foolish. Only when you do the same I have already stated that I don't know if someone is born gay or not. I know I was attracted to the opposite sex and I have chosen that hetero lifestyle as a result. If you were attracted to the same sex I am not judging you for it because it is not my place to judge someone's actions when those actions do not impact me in anyway. But regardless of whether one feels gay or not, every person chooses his/her sexual behaviour. We choose to have sex with folks from the same gender or from the opposite gender. I could also choose monogamy, or to have multiple partners, etc. Unless someone puts a gun to your head every time you do your thing, you too are choosing your sexual behaviour and the gender of your partner. I am not telling you that is horrible, or that you are 2nd rate as result, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralo Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 I was just assuming when you made the above broad and unsubstantiated statement you had the inside skinny on what everyone chooses. Again, I have never-ever-heard anyone say they choose their sexual orientation except Parrot-and she was vague as to the when and how, casual and nonchalant about what you would think would be a memorable event-and I've been around for more than half a century. You'd think I would have gotten a straight answer by now...dude, it's time to move on to another topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 dude, it's time to move on to another topic.It's time for HtownWxBoy to remove his stupid avatar school children do research on this site! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 It's time for HtownWxBoy to remove his stupid avatar school children do research on this site! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 I am not offended by it i could care less like i said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 I am not offended by it i could care less like i said...I never said I thought you were offended by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 If i had that avatar i would get digitally delicate flower slap in a heartbeat and deserving so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 If i had that avatar i would get digitally delicate flower slap in a heartbeat and deserving so! What's wrong w/ my avatar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 What's wrong w/ my avatar? This is a architecture forum not a porn site grow up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 This is a architecture forum not a porn site grow up! Please explain to me how it's pornographic?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 This is a architecture forum not a porn site grow up! Didn't think u could... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Please explain to me how it's pornographic?? i agree it's not pornographic, however some parents might find it offensive, particularly if they knew their children were using this site for research purposes. most adults are totally fine with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 dude, it's time to move on to another topic.Ummm...the topic is gays and genetics. I just thought you could answer my questions with more than a tingle defense. Guess not.It's time for HtownWxBoy to remove his stupid avatar school children do research on this site!Should Trae remove his as well? Or is it OK because it's more oriented to straights...or lesbians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Should Trae remove his as well? Or is it OK because it's more oriented to straights...or lesbians?i would say that with respect to children, it is inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralo Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Yawn. ^^^...and that was an edit! I get you, Ralo...you just arn't up to the challange. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Please explain to me how it's pornographic?? To me, it looks like two nude males pressing their genetalia together. Soft-core, yes, grey area, perhaps, but I do think that it would qualify as pornography, even if the scene is cropped off at waist-level. In any case, it is poor taste for an architectural forum, as the intent seems to be to shock those with opinions counter to HtownWxBoy's, and not merely a comment on aesthetics. In contrast, Trae's avatar shows a clothed woman not engaged in physical contact with anyone or even undertaking a sexually suggestive activity. She's wearing jeans and no skin is shown. Let's compare: clothed woman in walking in public vs. nude men engaged in physical contact of the genital region, presumably in private or else they'd be arrested for public indecency (as would any couple doing this, straight/gay/lesbian). Seems pretty straightforward to me that it isn't suitable to HAIF. ...having said that, I know that he's just trying to make a statement through art, and I do recognize this as a respectable form of art--but it is also pornography. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 To me, it looks like two nude males pressing their genetalia together.My, aren't you optimistic! ("Oh, Dr. Rorschach! Could you interpret these results for us, please?")I'd love to hear your commentary on a football game. Hike, indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 My, aren't you optimistic! ("Oh, Dr. Rorschach! Could you interpret these results for us, please?")I'd love to hear your commentary on a football game. Hike, indeed!If they aren't nude down past the waist, the photographer's implication remains perfectly clear.Football ain't my thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Looks like it took The Pedant ten lines of text to tell us it looks like two guys pressing their genetalia together-even though the shot is from the waste up.Who would have thought yet another of the topics he seems to think he has some expertise in is gay porn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Well... I think what hate crime laws are supposed to do is try to deter people from committing a crime against someone solely b/c that person was born a certain way... like black or gay. Htown, let me ask you this, if a gay person commits a crime on a straight person the same hate crime laws should apply correct ? When a group of black men beats up a white man, it is not considered a "hate crime". It's just a violent crime. A college fraternity, dresses up like gang members from South Central, and throw a party and take pictures as they are in "costume" they are considered "hatemongers" and "racists". How is dressing up in baggy clothes and putting grills in your mouth RACIST ? Would the same be said if a black fraternity dressed up in Polo and Tommy Hilfiger and wore Khakis and combed their hair a certain way, and had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with macaroni and cheese party, would THEY be considered "racists"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 i agree it's not pornographic, however some parents might find it offensive, particularly if they knew their children were using this site for research purposes. most adults are totally fine with it. Well I get icked out when I see straight people macking in public... but I am not about to call it offensive. If parents find it offensive, that's not my problem. There's NOTHING pornographic about it... no more than if it was a guy and a girl (girl w/ a shirt on of course). If it was a guy and a girl nobody would say anything. Should Trae remove his as well? Or is it OK because it's more oriented to straights...or lesbians? My thoughts exactly... funny nobody brought that up. Thanks nmainguy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Well I get icked out when I see straight people macking in public... but I am not about to call it offensive. If parents find it offensive, that's not my problem. There's NOTHING pornographic about it... no more than if it was a guy and a girl (girl w/ a shirt on of course). If it was a guy and a girl nobody would say anything.They would if the girl had her shirt off. Your photo is definately full of innuendo. I don't find it offensive at all, it might ick me out a little. If I saw 2 guys with their shirts off in public embracing like that photo and about to mugdown, I know I would tell them to get a room, just like I would tell a guy and a girl (w/her shirt on) in public. Nobody wants to see THAT, kids or no kids around. It's great that they are "in love", go climb the highest mountain and tell it to the world, but keep all your googely eyeing and tongue groping behind closed doors. What are people like that trying to prove and who are you trying to prove it to ? Hooray, Hooray, you're gay, YES, YES, we get it, it's ok, Yes, we KNOW that you are LOUD and you are PROUD ! I don't even know why the "Genetic FIX" is an issue, you aren't against abortion are you Htown ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 To me, it looks like two nude males pressing their genetalia together. Soft-core, yes, grey area, perhaps, but I do think that it would qualify as pornography, even if the scene is cropped off at waist-level. In any case, it is poor taste for an architectural forum, as the intent seems to be to shock those with opinions counter to HtownWxBoy's, and not merely a comment on aesthetics. In contrast, Trae's avatar shows a clothed woman not engaged in physical contact with anyone or even undertaking a sexually suggestive activity. She's wearing jeans and no skin is shown.Let's compare: clothed woman in walking in public vs. nude men engaged in physical contact of the genital region, presumably in private or else they'd be arrested for public indecency (as would any couple doing this, straight/gay/lesbian). Seems pretty straightforward to me that it isn't suitable to HAIF. ...having said that, I know that he's just trying to make a statement through art, and I do recognize this as a respectable form of art--but it is also pornography. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive IMO. You can think it looks like whatever you want... doesn't mean that's what it is. Two people holding each other is hardly "soft-core"... if it were a guy and girl would it still be "soft-core"? Something tells me you wouldn't think so. Last time I checked a guy having his shirt off was not considered x-rated... even if he's hugging another guy. I see guys w/ their shirts off at the pool and the beach all the time. And guess what... THERE ARE KIDS AROUND!! You are just assuming the guys have no pants on... something I never assumed when I found the picture. That's your problem, not mine. Again, if it was a shirtless guy and a girl, say, in a bathing suit doing the same exact thing... nobody would say anything. Thanks for reminding me why I am so PROUD to be gay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 There's NOTHING pornographic about it... no more than if it was a guy and a girl (girl w/ a shirt on of course). If it was a guy and a girl nobody would say anything. Actually, that's a double standard that I do have a problem with. What's the problem with female breasts? In all seriousness. And even more broadly, I dispute that there is any problem at all with nudity in any form. ...but public indecency is another matter altogether. It doesn't belong on the streets and it shouldn't belong on HAIF IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 They would if the girl had her shirt off. Your photo is definately full of innuendo. I don't find it offensive at all, it might ick me out a little. If I saw 2 guys with their shirts off in public embracing like that photo and about to mugdown, I know I would tell them to get a room, just like I would a guy and a girl (w/her shirt on) in public. Nobody wants to see THAT, kids or no kids around. It's great that they are "in love", go climb the highest mountain and tell it to the world, but keep all your googely eyeing and tongue groping behind closed doors. What are people like that trying to prove and who are you trying to prove it to ? A girl having a shirt off and nothing underneath is not the same as a guy having his shirt off. Again, I see guys w/ their shirts off all the time at the beach, at the pool, or just walking down the street on a hot day. If you see two guys in public embracing, you can say whatever you want, doesn't mean they have to listen. I know my boyfriend and I wouldn't listen... we would just laugh at you. If straight people can do things in public... so can gay people... nothing more nothing less. The days of hiding behind clothes doors are over... sorry! Actually, that's a double standard that I do have a problem with. What's the problem with female breasts? In all seriousness. And even more broadly, I dispute that there is any problem at all with nudity in any form....but public indecency is another matter altogether. It doesn't belong on the streets and it shouldn't belong on HAIF IMO. I see nothing wrong w/ the female breast. If a woman wanted to walk down the road w/ her shirt off I could care less. Heck, walk around nude... that's how God made us. Hugging is not "public indecency"... sorry, try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 You can think it looks like whatever you want... doesn't mean that's what it is. Two people holding each other is hardly "soft-core"... if it were a guy and girl would it still be "soft-core"? Yes, it would still be soft-core, so long as there wasn't an act of penetration. Of course, that's just my interpretation. "Soft-core" is not a technical descriptor to my knowledge. You are just assuming the guys have no pants on... something I never assumed when I found the picture. That's your problem, not mine. So you mean to say that it is accidental or just random that the photographer chose to frame/crop the photo where it was? You think that it is by mere chance that any hint of there being clothing was not revealed? Come on. You aren't naive. You should be able to recognize the implicit message. Thanks for reminding me why I am so PROUD to be gay! This is what I don't like about many gay people. If you're gay, fine. Doesn't make you special. You have nothing at all to be proud of. Neither do I. You are what you are, and that's just fine. If someone else doesn't like it, well that's just fine too, not something to be proud (or ashamed) of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 Hooray, Hooray, you're gay, YES, YES, we get it, it's ok. I know it's ok... don't have to tell me that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Hugging is not "public indecency"... sorry, try again. Its all about context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.