stammer476
Refugee
paxetaurora said:
This has been one of my favorite threads on FYM since I've been here, and I'd hate to see it close down. My apologies. I think I may have started this tangent.
Ask the Homo
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
This has been one of my favorite threads on FYM since I've been here, and I'd hate to see it close down. My apologies. I think I may have started this tangent.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
No problem. We're just going to get it back on track now.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
seankirkland said:
pax, I agree this thread shouldn't turn into an argument but you gotta admit the debate on this subject does not elicit a response like this very often.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
No, you're right about that. I'd just rather see it not devolve into an argument, and while the people currently involved are being very respectful, should the current path continue, I fear it will invite persons in who might be less inclined to behave.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
ooooh! Pax! i'll see you at the Philly show!
okay, back on track ... one thing that i wonder is why is homosexuality such a big deal?
we can safely say that it doesn't harm anyone, no more than any other relationship between two people harm anyone. yet, last night, i was watching about 30 minutes of "philadelphia." great movie, great performances by Hanks and *especially* Denzel -- i'd argue he has the harder role, and does a better job. but even in this really progressive movie, it was still made in 1993, and Denzel still says things like, "listen, those people make me sick, but a law has been broken. you remember the law, right?!?!"
granted, Denzel does appear to learn and grow from this attitude, as evidenced in the scene when Hanks listens to the aria and it's kind of mystical with the lights and stuff. but the fact remains: there's an "ick" factor.
why is it so powerful? why the revulsion? why is it such a big deal?
i really don't think that the marriage debate has anything to do with marriage or legality. it's about some people in society needing to reassert, first, their heterosexual status, and second to make sure that homosexualtiy, something they find icky, remains in a permanent 2nd class status.
but why is there even this need? why are all FYM threads that are even tangentally related to homosexualty become consumed with the topic? why does it seem, to many, that the measure of a person's political beliefs is gauged in their acceptance/tolerance/whatever of gay people? why have 5% of the population become such a litmus test for where we fall in red/blue America? and this falls on the left and on the right. for the left, for example, it seems as if the only kind of devout Christianity that is tolerated is one that accepts and loves homosexuals. i fully admit that i agree with this -- and it is a litmus test that i use as well.
it feels very odd for a white kid from a reasonably upscale suburb born to a nice, mostly normal family with good parents who went to a fancy-pants liberal arts college to be at the center of such heated debate, and to have your "lifestyle" spoken about in both drogatory and lauditory language. it's just such a thing -- from the Jeff Gannon scandal, to Mary Cheney, to SpongeBob. we seem obsessed with it.
why?
why? why? why?
okay, back on track ... one thing that i wonder is why is homosexuality such a big deal?
we can safely say that it doesn't harm anyone, no more than any other relationship between two people harm anyone. yet, last night, i was watching about 30 minutes of "philadelphia." great movie, great performances by Hanks and *especially* Denzel -- i'd argue he has the harder role, and does a better job. but even in this really progressive movie, it was still made in 1993, and Denzel still says things like, "listen, those people make me sick, but a law has been broken. you remember the law, right?!?!"
granted, Denzel does appear to learn and grow from this attitude, as evidenced in the scene when Hanks listens to the aria and it's kind of mystical with the lights and stuff. but the fact remains: there's an "ick" factor.
why is it so powerful? why the revulsion? why is it such a big deal?
i really don't think that the marriage debate has anything to do with marriage or legality. it's about some people in society needing to reassert, first, their heterosexual status, and second to make sure that homosexualtiy, something they find icky, remains in a permanent 2nd class status.
but why is there even this need? why are all FYM threads that are even tangentally related to homosexualty become consumed with the topic? why does it seem, to many, that the measure of a person's political beliefs is gauged in their acceptance/tolerance/whatever of gay people? why have 5% of the population become such a litmus test for where we fall in red/blue America? and this falls on the left and on the right. for the left, for example, it seems as if the only kind of devout Christianity that is tolerated is one that accepts and loves homosexuals. i fully admit that i agree with this -- and it is a litmus test that i use as well.
it feels very odd for a white kid from a reasonably upscale suburb born to a nice, mostly normal family with good parents who went to a fancy-pants liberal arts college to be at the center of such heated debate, and to have your "lifestyle" spoken about in both drogatory and lauditory language. it's just such a thing -- from the Jeff Gannon scandal, to Mary Cheney, to SpongeBob. we seem obsessed with it.
why?
why? why? why?
Last edited:
If you want an answer from me as to why homosexuality is such a big deal, I say it is a throwback to medieval Christian stoicism, which was suspicious of any and all forms of pleasure. Prior to the Christian stoic movement, there is little evidence that the issue even resonated on the moral or political radar.
For the stoics, they believed every and all emotions came from Satan. A man was to be completely emotionless. Crying at a funeral was a complete "no-no." Sex, even between a husband and wife, was to have zero lust and no pleasure. If a woman even expressed pleasure during sex, she had committed a mortal sin. This is where we get the modern adjective "stoic," as in emotionless. Women, however, were allowed to express sorrow, due to Christian stoicism's heavy misogyny. Women were seen as inherently flawed and weak, and even went as far as to say that the existence of women at all was due to Satan's influence. Thus, if women were already sinful just by breathing, what did it matter if they expressed emotions?
Combine a suspicion of pleasure with a hatred of women, and it is easy to see why homosexuality was deemed as the worst offender for them, as it was seen as a completely hedonistic act, with men "reducing" themselves to the level of women. It actually had nothing to do at all with the Bible. The Bible was just used later to justify homophobia, after the crux of the Christian stoic argument, a suspicion of pleasure and misogyny, fell out of favor.
The Catholic Church still carries on the stoicist argument today: their condemnation against homosexuality is solely due to medieval "natural law" arguments. The Bible has nothing to do with it.
It is easy to see why I find such pseudophilosophy to be repugnant, and why I get even more angry when the pseudophilosophy has been repealed for everyone EXCEPT homosexuals. And, as we can see, old habits die hard even centuries after the fact.
Melon
For the stoics, they believed every and all emotions came from Satan. A man was to be completely emotionless. Crying at a funeral was a complete "no-no." Sex, even between a husband and wife, was to have zero lust and no pleasure. If a woman even expressed pleasure during sex, she had committed a mortal sin. This is where we get the modern adjective "stoic," as in emotionless. Women, however, were allowed to express sorrow, due to Christian stoicism's heavy misogyny. Women were seen as inherently flawed and weak, and even went as far as to say that the existence of women at all was due to Satan's influence. Thus, if women were already sinful just by breathing, what did it matter if they expressed emotions?
Combine a suspicion of pleasure with a hatred of women, and it is easy to see why homosexuality was deemed as the worst offender for them, as it was seen as a completely hedonistic act, with men "reducing" themselves to the level of women. It actually had nothing to do at all with the Bible. The Bible was just used later to justify homophobia, after the crux of the Christian stoic argument, a suspicion of pleasure and misogyny, fell out of favor.
The Catholic Church still carries on the stoicist argument today: their condemnation against homosexuality is solely due to medieval "natural law" arguments. The Bible has nothing to do with it.
It is easy to see why I find such pseudophilosophy to be repugnant, and why I get even more angry when the pseudophilosophy has been repealed for everyone EXCEPT homosexuals. And, as we can see, old habits die hard even centuries after the fact.
Melon
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
bingo.
it absolutely has everything to do, i think, with our attitudes towards pleasure. the idea of having sex for pleasure, and only for pleasure (though we conveniently ignore the fact that sex strengthens bonds between partners, and that homosexuals have sex out of love and commitment), leads some minds to imagine a Bachhanalian world of orgies.
but i'd argue that there's something uniquely American about our uneasiness with pleasure. the Protestan Work Ethic rears its head again. the Yanks on here live in a very hard working country, and there's a huge schism between work and play, which is why so many of us tend to exhibit compulsive, blank-aholic attitudes towards both than our European neighbors who appear to have much more of a balance (at least based upon my experience in Europe ... yes, a sweeping generalization, but could you ever see Americans embracing the idea of a siesta?)
we fear pleasure, because we often think that the only way to success is through it's rigorous denial.
it absolutely has everything to do, i think, with our attitudes towards pleasure. the idea of having sex for pleasure, and only for pleasure (though we conveniently ignore the fact that sex strengthens bonds between partners, and that homosexuals have sex out of love and commitment), leads some minds to imagine a Bachhanalian world of orgies.
but i'd argue that there's something uniquely American about our uneasiness with pleasure. the Protestan Work Ethic rears its head again. the Yanks on here live in a very hard working country, and there's a huge schism between work and play, which is why so many of us tend to exhibit compulsive, blank-aholic attitudes towards both than our European neighbors who appear to have much more of a balance (at least based upon my experience in Europe ... yes, a sweeping generalization, but could you ever see Americans embracing the idea of a siesta?)
we fear pleasure, because we often think that the only way to success is through it's rigorous denial.
Well, Protestantism, historically, emphasized hard work (e.g., the "Protestant work ethic"). Historically Roman Catholic countries tend to be a lot more "relaxed." Quebec is an excellent example of that, as the historically Catholic province tends to pride itself with having "fun cities," compared to historically Protestant Toronto, which they view as "uptight."
If they did view "idle hands" as being the handiwork of "the Devil," then that would probably explain why this nation became a bunch of workaholics.
Melon
If they did view "idle hands" as being the handiwork of "the Devil," then that would probably explain why this nation became a bunch of workaholics.
Melon
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
melon said:
and probably a reason why New Orleans is so traditionally hedonistic.
seankirkland
The Fly
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
- Messages
- 112
Well, while you guys are patting each other on the back and having a "pseudo-intellectual-verbal-hurrah-fest," let me throw this out there:
What would you say if you had a discussion with U2, the band we all love, about their Christian beliefs? When I read an interview recently (on this website, I believe), Edge was asked what he was reading lately. His response: The Bible. Bono clearly has a relationship with Yahweh and speaks conversationally to Jesus in several songs. Would you rampage through the conversation with all the hullabuloo about why this or that doesn't fit your "truth?" I doubt it, because if it were them, of course, you'd sit in amazement with mouths agape. How in the world could Bono, Larry, and Edge believe such crap? Really?
By the way, what if, in years way down the road, people got a hold of the U2 books.....autobiographies and such.... U2 UNFORGETTABLE FIRE, AT THE END OF THE WORLD, SHOW..... and they thought, "Hmm. You know I think U2 didn't even exist. These writers just wanted us to believe there was a great band and get our hopes up so we could set up huge fan organizations and take all their money. They'd have a hoax as a crutch, those funny little idiots!!"
Melon, with all the uber-liberal info you've been writing, I'm surprised you're still living in America. By the way, ARE you a U.S. citizen? It seems you'd want to be far away from here, with how bad it is. I mean, our country are a bunch of imperialistic pigs who want world-domination and treat people like filth. What are we thinking having elections in Iraq??? The Iraqis hate us for making a mess of things....at least that's what CNN has me thinking.
What would you say if you had a discussion with U2, the band we all love, about their Christian beliefs? When I read an interview recently (on this website, I believe), Edge was asked what he was reading lately. His response: The Bible. Bono clearly has a relationship with Yahweh and speaks conversationally to Jesus in several songs. Would you rampage through the conversation with all the hullabuloo about why this or that doesn't fit your "truth?" I doubt it, because if it were them, of course, you'd sit in amazement with mouths agape. How in the world could Bono, Larry, and Edge believe such crap? Really?
By the way, what if, in years way down the road, people got a hold of the U2 books.....autobiographies and such.... U2 UNFORGETTABLE FIRE, AT THE END OF THE WORLD, SHOW..... and they thought, "Hmm. You know I think U2 didn't even exist. These writers just wanted us to believe there was a great band and get our hopes up so we could set up huge fan organizations and take all their money. They'd have a hoax as a crutch, those funny little idiots!!"
Melon, with all the uber-liberal info you've been writing, I'm surprised you're still living in America. By the way, ARE you a U.S. citizen? It seems you'd want to be far away from here, with how bad it is. I mean, our country are a bunch of imperialistic pigs who want world-domination and treat people like filth. What are we thinking having elections in Iraq??? The Iraqis hate us for making a mess of things....at least that's what CNN has me thinking.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
seankirkland said:
please take this somewhere else.
and, U2 love homos. and non-Christias. and they don't force their beliefs on anyone, they neither claim to know what God is thinking nor do they tell anyone else how to live their lives because they claim to have God's cell phonen umber.
they're some of the best Christians i know, because they let it speak through their music and their actions, and leave it at that.
and that should be more than enough.
seankirkland
The Fly
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
- Messages
- 112
How am I forcing my beliefs on anyone by anything I've said? Am I driving to your house and making you do what I say? By no means.
Who said I didn't love "homos?"
Why must I leave or you "shut this discussion down?" Did you think that by opening up this topic that you wouldn't be challenged by anything, but, rather, that you'd sit by as everyone applauded everything you say in response to questions? I don't want to come across as "disrespectful," but if a parent ever disciplined you out of love, and it seemed to hurt or didn't suit your fancy, I wouldn't doubt that your response would be something along the lines of "You don't love me because you don't let me do exactly what I want, when I want to because it's my truth that's valid here." Can you imagine a child saying that? When a child is given a shot of medicine, does it hurt or does it feel good? It surely doesn't feel good and it will probably make them cry, but it can save their life as well.
And how are U2 some of the best Chrisitans you know? Do you know them? I don't know them, except by their music, interviews I read, and the reports in the news. It seems that Bono might "have God's cell phone number," by the way he talks to Him so much in his songs.
Anyway, thanks for "letting" me in for some of this discussion. I guess I'll have to "take this somewhere else????" Geez.
Who said I didn't love "homos?"
Why must I leave or you "shut this discussion down?" Did you think that by opening up this topic that you wouldn't be challenged by anything, but, rather, that you'd sit by as everyone applauded everything you say in response to questions? I don't want to come across as "disrespectful," but if a parent ever disciplined you out of love, and it seemed to hurt or didn't suit your fancy, I wouldn't doubt that your response would be something along the lines of "You don't love me because you don't let me do exactly what I want, when I want to because it's my truth that's valid here." Can you imagine a child saying that? When a child is given a shot of medicine, does it hurt or does it feel good? It surely doesn't feel good and it will probably make them cry, but it can save their life as well.
And how are U2 some of the best Chrisitans you know? Do you know them? I don't know them, except by their music, interviews I read, and the reports in the news. It seems that Bono might "have God's cell phone number," by the way he talks to Him so much in his songs.
Anyway, thanks for "letting" me in for some of this discussion. I guess I'll have to "take this somewhere else????" Geez.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
seankirkland said:
your previous post had nothing to do with the thread at hand. if you wish to discuss Christianity, and whether or not it is a hoax, there are other threads for that. this is not what the discussion in this particular thread is supposed to be, and i don't have the power to shut down threads, but i did start it, and my post to you was a request not a threat. but you'll notice that earlier in the day, Pax warned you and Melon to get the thread back to where it was before you two started debating Christianity.
i want to be challenged, i want questions. if you'll read back a few pages, you'll notice that i actually wondered why this thread was such a love-in. not that there's anything wrong with a love in but the point of this thread is to ask "the homo" questions, not to assert what your interpretation of what you believe the Bible says about Christianity. there have been many, many threads regarding that, and they're great and interesting; just post your thoughts on that matter there.
and, yes, if i as an adult were faced with parents who wanted to punish or disciplin me because of my homosexuality, then i would tell them that their love was misguided, that they were simply wrong about their understanding of what it means to be homosexual, and i'd work with them to help them see that this is as natural as their own sexual orientations.
and, yes, i'd stand in front of God and renounce him, and Jesus, if they told me i was in violation of whatever natural law they had set for humanity.
homosexuals arise naturally. homoseuxals are as authentic as heterosexuals. and i know God knows this.
i also do not believe God is a parent who has written a rule book who's literal interpretation (in English) must be strictly adhered to. i am an adult, not a child, and with every breath i strive to live an authentic life.
and i "know" U2 as artists, because i own pretty much eveyrthing they've ever officially released, and some things they haven't officially released. no, i do not know Paul, Dave, Adam and Larry, but i know U2. and how U2 present their Christianity -- which is as loose and non-heirarchical as you can find out there -- is admirable. and Bono's "chats" with god are filled with humility; he never claims to speak for him, but only to ask for his blessings, forgiveness, and mercy.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
and i've welcomed all your comments, save for the last one.
i just want this to get back on track.
it has been wonderful for me to write about something that's both so close to my heart and soul, and yet appears to be injected into every possible political discussion currently going on in America, 2005.
i just want this to get back on track.
it has been wonderful for me to write about something that's both so close to my heart and soul, and yet appears to be injected into every possible political discussion currently going on in America, 2005.
Last edited:
seankirkland said:
I fail to understand how you believe comments like this reflect an example of Christs love.
The creator of this thread has asked you to not ruin his thread. Start your own thread if you want to about a topic that interests you.
Have some decency and respect for others in the forum.
Anthony
Refugee
Apologies for not having seen this earlier.
seankirkland; this was a fairly mellow thread until the disagreements started, I can only reiterate what Dreadsox said - if you feel strongly about it, start another thread.
There are plenty of others who may share your opinion, but they have been able to keep those out of a thread that quite clearly isn't about them.
Ant.
seankirkland; this was a fairly mellow thread until the disagreements started, I can only reiterate what Dreadsox said - if you feel strongly about it, start another thread.
There are plenty of others who may share your opinion, but they have been able to keep those out of a thread that quite clearly isn't about them.
Ant.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
sorry Irvine
let's talk about hot guys or something
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
Greatest title to a thread ever.
the soul waits
New Yorker
Ditto, ZeroDude, I'm late here too..
Great thread, Irvine, thank you for your perspective and openness.
Great thread, Irvine, thank you for your perspective and openness.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i'm happy to continue.
this thread was a joy in which to participate.
i've actually saved all the text and keep it in a file on my computer. i'd love to revisit it in 20 years.
this thread was a joy in which to participate.
i've actually saved all the text and keep it in a file on my computer. i'd love to revisit it in 20 years.
coemgen
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Hey Irvine, I appreciated what you said about U2's faith. What got you hooked on U2? (Sorry if this has already been asked.) What's your favorite album?
the soul waits
New Yorker
Hi Irvine,
I've read back a bit to where all the commotion started
and in regards to why lots of people find homosexuality such a big deal, I'd have to say I'm blank staring at this one as well, and the fact that it's sex for pleasure and not for procreation doesn't quite cut it for me, really.
If it where that, then more people would be against birth-control as well, no?
I think it's mainly because people fear what they don't know. Nothing more, nothing less.
But... when you look a bit deeper, it might also be that people find that it resonates to something deep down (being VERY careful not to generalize here!) that maybe they feel too at times, don't know how to give it a spot in the whole set of morals and norms they inherited (and this hold true for whether or not they feel it on some level), get insecure at what they don't understand and lash out in different ways. Some agressive, others passive-agressive.
I've read back a bit to where all the commotion started
and in regards to why lots of people find homosexuality such a big deal, I'd have to say I'm blank staring at this one as well, and the fact that it's sex for pleasure and not for procreation doesn't quite cut it for me, really.If it where that, then more people would be against birth-control as well, no?
I think it's mainly because people fear what they don't know. Nothing more, nothing less.
But... when you look a bit deeper, it might also be that people find that it resonates to something deep down (being VERY careful not to generalize here!) that maybe they feel too at times, don't know how to give it a spot in the whole set of morals and norms they inherited (and this hold true for whether or not they feel it on some level), get insecure at what they don't understand and lash out in different ways. Some agressive, others passive-agressive.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
coemgen said:
hooked on U2? hmmm ... i don't think i was fully aware of who they were until i saw the video for "one." yes, i was taken by this Irish poet with the hypnotic blue eyes, but it was also the first time, i think, when i became aware of what music could really do. up until that point, i had been kind of a typical late-80s pop-metal kid (was only 14 in 1992 when "one" came out). i loved Guns + Roses, Def Leppard, Motley Crue, etc. then there was a Nirvana thing, and Pearl Jam came out, and i remember starting to identify a bit with the grunge thing. and then i heard "one" and it was startling -- i had no idea music could be that powerful. the song was perfect, gorgeously sung, and just when you didn't think it could get any better, it does, and at two points -- the "have you come here for forgiveness" part, and then the closing moments when bono hits those high notes. like i said, i had no idea music could *do* that, and so i became a huge fan of at least that song. i then started to work backwards -- i think i had sort of a bizarre crush on a girl, and she mentioned that she really liked WOWY, and so i went out and bought Joshua Tree just for that song so i could put it on a mix for her. i kept working backwards from there. seeing rattle and hum was a big deal, and then i got really into all of Bono's social work, and by the time i was a junior in high school, i was a fanatic. obsessed.
my favorite album by them is, hands down, Achtung Baby. it might be my favorite piece of popular art, ever. it's so perfect, so coherent, such a thought-through artistic effort -- every part of that album, from the bassline to the artwork to the lyrics to the sunglasses are perfect pieces of an intricately woven tapestry. that album literally opened my eyes and destroyed the simplicity of my life, since suddenly after listening things were much, much more complicated. of course, much of that probably was to do with being 14 and puberty and all that, but Achtung remains both a towering achievement in an objective sense; and an album that, more than any other album or movie or book, has had an undue influence on my life. i wanted to be Bono, and much of who i am today and what i am doing with my life goes back to that album.
after Achtung, my albums breakdown, roughly, as such:
2. TJT
3. Boy
4. HTDAAB
5. ATYCLB
6. War
7. Zooropa
8. RAH
9. UABRS
10. Pop
11. TUF
12. October
coemgen
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Thanks for sharing that Irvine. It's scary how close it is to my experience with Achtung Baby. I agree with you completely on every point you made about it. Honestly. I think I was the same age when it hit me too. About 14. I found a lot of my identity in it and in the band at the time, and I still go back to it.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
what do you like/dislike about living in DC?
Tinybubbles
The Fly
Do you believe that people who describe themselves as bisexual are truly bisexual? Would you ever date a man who described himself as such?
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
U2democrat said:
like: beautiful architecture, safe place to be gay, possible to live w/out a car, interesting people to debate with in bars, interesting culinary options, not oppressively expensive like NYC or SF, can get to NYC and Boston easily, lots of people from all over the world, gorgeous spring and fall, lots of history, free museums, lots of smart people running around, still get 4 seasons
dislike: the horrid humidity in the summer, still expensive, not NYC or SF, no real sense of identity like other cities, a bit of a company town (the company being the US government), people are ambitious and can be a bit crazy about achievement (like me), winter can be super dreary, crime, the Metro isn't as efficient as it could be, the monuments get old quick
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Tinybubbles said:
yes, there are truly bisexual people, though i think many men, in particular, cling to the bisexual label when they are probably gay because it gives them the option of not having to "come out" and able to cling to some sense of "normality" in the face of the fact that they are probably gay. i think most gay men go through a phase of trying to be straight, then saying they are bisexual, before finally admitting it and becoming gay. i was bisexual once. and i remember my first boyfriend saying, "yeah, i was once bisexual too." it does seem like a bit of a stepping stone on the path to coming out and being what you are, which is usually gay.
however, sexual orientation is very intricate, and if someone says they are bisexual, i would never challenge them (unless i knew them really well).
that said, i think bisexuality for women is far more common. i do think it's true that women are more turned on by an emotional connection, whereas men are more turned on by what they see. this simply makes sexual preference more black-and-white for (most) men.
i think it would be tough to seriously date a bisexual. but i'd have to think about it, and i'd like to say that if i were in love with a person, then it shouldn't be an issue. but, yes, i would be far more cautious about dating a bisexual, or at least ask more questions. you want to be open minded, and the last thing a gay person should do is to cut someone off for their sexual orientation.
however, we are all human, and i would probably be a more paranoid and jealous boyfriend if i were dating a bisexual.
it hasn't happened, but that's what i would imagine.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
coemgen said:
Far out. I was 14 as well, and what Irvine wrote about Achtung Baby and 'One' (it was One that got me as well) is pretty much a perfect summary for the way I feel about it (favourite piece of popular art etc). Generation Achtung!!
Honestly, I still listen to One like it's the first time. Never fails to hit me the same way.
- Status
Similar threads
