Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 71

Thread: Famouses - homosexuales

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default Famouses - homosexuales


    Neil Patrick Harris (ENTP)


    John Barrowman (ENTP)


    Angelina Jolie (ENTP)


    Lady Gaga (ENTP)


    Ellen DeGeneres (ENTP)


    Elton John (ISFP)


    Jodie Foster (ISFP)


    Drew Barrymore (ISFP)


    Linda Hamilton (ISFP)


    Anna Paquin (ISFP)


    Ricky Martin (INTJ)


    Boris Moiseyev (ENFJ)


    Udo Kier (ENFJ)


    Marlene Dietrich (ENFJ)


    Ian McKellen (ISTJ)


    Alain Delon (ISTJ)


    Marlon Brando (ESTP)


    James Dean (ESTP)


    John Travolta (ESTP)


    Megan Fox (ESTP)


    Michelle Rodriguez (ESTP)


    Pink (ESTP)


    Madonna (ESTP)


    Jaye Davidson (INFP)


    Jim Parsons (INFP)


    Leisha Hailey (INFP)


    Sarah Paulson (INFP)


    Anne Heche (INFP)


    Bai Ling (INFP)


    Maria Schneider (INFP)


    Paris Hilton (INFP)


    Lindsay Lohan (ESFP)


    Zachary Quinto (INTP)


    Cynthia Nixon (INFJ)


    Stephen Fry (ISTP)


    Fiona Shaw (ISTP)


    Those with bisexual behavior are marked by italic font.

    There is behavioral overbalance in types, but it's doubtful that types relate to primary sexual orientation. Rather the overbalance is due to type relating wish to live "as everybody" and an aspiration to keep uncovered this abnormality, and also type relating probability of homosexual behavior caused not by biological sexual orientation and love, but by experiment, kind of indiscriminateness, etc. Hence, some people may be known as bisexual while they are not such in essence (in general, I doubt, that primary bisexualness exists in noticable % of people).
    Almost in all cases types of these people were identified by me befor I got information about their sexual behavior.

    For educational purposes:
    Sexual orientation (primary) - biologicaly conditioned trait of psyche to feel love and sexual attraction to people of concrete sex, while sexual behavior is secondary.
    Sexual orientation in many if not in most cases is not related to inversion of sex traits, so there are many manly gays and womanly lesbians. Due to modern researches share of homosexual people is ~5 %, and in many cases their _only_ difference is sexual preference.

    sources:
    http://www.nndb.com (1, 2, 3)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...isexual_people
    Last edited by Sol; 01-16-2016 at 01:29 PM.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  2. #2
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,810
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Galen has Neil Patrick Harris as a Delta, I believe....but you have him as Alpha.

    I think Pink is ESTp, but I don't think Madonna is.

    And how come I'm not on this list! I'm famous and I'm gay! I'm one of the special rainbow magic-y ones. Waaaaah. ((lol))

  3. #3
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Galen has Neil Patrick Harris as a Delta, I believe....but you have him as Alpha.

    I think Pink is ESTp, but I don't think Madonna is.

    And how come I'm not on this list! I'm famous and I'm gay! I'm one of the special rainbow magic-y ones. Waaaaah. ((lol))

    What about me? Am I not famous and gay?

    I like some of Pink's songs, especially her earlier stuff, yet if Madonna isn't ESTp what in the world is she. ESFp? ENFj? What? I'm pretty sure Bolt would think that Madonna is ESTp. I could believe ESFp for her as well. Yet ESTp works better because she has a song where she talks about "social disease" and that sounds like Fi-PoLR to me. "Don't want your social disease." That's one of the lines. I think.

  4. #4
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Lol, Gamma is the most heterosexual quadra because there are none of them on this list.
    Don't worry, they do exist. Trust me



    Here's a few of the homosexuals I have on my list:

    David Burtka, Neil Patrick Harris's long-time boyfriend (Ne-ENTp)
    Tim Gunn (ISXp)
    George Takei (ESTj)
    Richard Chamberlain (I had him as ESTj, may want to look at that again)
    Russell Tovey, who I just found out about recently (seems Te-IXTp <3 )
    Neil Patrick Harris (Te-ISTp, he's probably so/sx though so I can see how he comes off as an extrovert)
    Brief glance at Sarah Paulson, she seems Fi-ENFp.
    Anne Heche seems reasonably INXp.

    I used to be so confident that Ian McKellen was Te-ISTp, but I'm not so sure about that at all anymore. He's starting to seem more and more Fe to me, although it's kinda obscured by his Britishness.
    Last edited by Galen; 03-09-2011 at 08:09 PM.

  5. #5
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is it just me, or why do so many of these people have freaky eyes? There's just something about the eyes...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  6. #6
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    Is it just me, or why do so many of these people have freaky eyes? There's just something about the eyes...
    I only see one with freaky eyes.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  7. #7
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker View Post
    I only see one with freaky eyes.
    which one?
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  8. #8
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    Is it just me, or why do so many of these people have freaky eyes? There's just something about the eyes...
    You're a homophobe.

  9. #9
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    It's because they're gay. Not joking lol. I remember a long time ago me and my sister noticed that about gay people haha. Not that they all have freaky eyes, but there's definitely a noticeable distinction in them compared to heterosexuals.
    Maybe we should make a whole VI subsection for delineating gays and straights.

  10. #10
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think freaky eyes are NGR.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  11. #11
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,810
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gay and straight is a lot of times more connected than people realize... Like why is Pink and Paris Hilton on that list? Those women are technically bisexual, not gay. Sexuality in women is probably more ambiguous and fluid than men anyway. That's why I write how homosexuality is connected to everything in the whole universe, because it really touches all people in some ways. Even if you are purely straight, you at least probably know somebody that's gay.

    Many women enjoy the emotional connection and intimacy another women can provide, but still need to get fucked by dick. And some women are more of the pure lesbians and the thought of a man touching them that way disgusts them.

    Some guys are very straight and want a wife and kids, but dick really turns them on, or some specific homoerotic encounter, they get really into. It doesn't mean they want a relationship with a man though. (I'm both sexually AND romantically into men though...) And society really shouldn't tease them that they're 'really gay deep down inside' because they might not be.

    And as long as people want to advocate 'gay should still mean an all-purpose insult, and people shouldn't be sensitive about that', then there will always be 'closet cases' who don't talk about their homoerotic fantasies for fear of how society will view them, because 'gay' is still meant to mean 'homosexual' as well. So you really can't have it both ways. You can't indirectly treat something as inferior, and claim that you're not, and then at the same time think that everybody should be comfortable with whatever. They obviously won't be, if it's still objectively discouraged.

    Otherwise, you would say 'That's so straight' just as well. But be honest with yourself. Nobody says that. Although I think I should, and then if people get offended, I can say 'you shouldn't be so sensitive, I obviously don't mean it against heterosexuals lolz.' See how that's a silly arguement? Cause 'straight' still means heterosexual as well.

    Why isn't Rosie O'Donnel on this list? She's more of a pure lezzie than all of those women combined really lol.

  12. #12
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fireyed View Post
    Most of the girls listed aren't even gay. They're either bisexual, attention seeking, or simply open to lesbian experiences.
    Just being open to that experience makes someone more gay. It's not a "you either are or you are not" thing. But I agree that many of those people weren't the first ones that came to my mind when I think of gay celebrities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Lol. I don't know anything about him personally, but I remember reading something where he commented about how whenever he's staying in a hotel room, he finds the Bible that hotel rooms often come with and rips the pages out of it that condemn homosexuality.

    I thought that was a really petty thing to do.
    It probably is but I think it's the way you do it. If you tear it as a revenge and be all upset about it like a little bitch, not cool. If you shove them to guys ass you are going to penetrate soon.. Well, still not cool imo but it has some attitude in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    It's because they're gay. Not joking lol. I remember a long time ago me and my sister noticed that about gay people haha. Not that they all have freaky eyes, but there's definitely a noticeable distinction in them compared to heterosexuals.
    I think their eyes can often be revealing. And I got 75% from that gaydar test, SO MY OPINION IS VALID.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  13. #13
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Lol. I don't know anything about him personally, but I remember reading something where he commented about how whenever he's staying in a hotel room, he finds the Bible that hotel rooms often come with and rips the pages out of it that condemn homosexuality.

    I thought that was a really petty thing to do.
    I think it's awesome. LOL.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  14. #14
    star stuff April's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    chatbox
    TIM
    NG human sorcerer
    Posts
    915
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker View Post
    I think it's awesome. LOL.
    Agreed. I don't see why it's Fe/Ti.

  15. #15
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by April View Post
    Agreed. I don't see why it's Fe/Ti.
    I just figure that if you're gonna do something like that, why not go ahead and rip out all of the passages in the bible that you object to? Why just stick with the homosexuality passage and not the parts about selling women or rape?

  16. #16
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Lol. I don't know anything about him personally, but I remember reading something where he commented about how whenever he's staying in a hotel room, he finds the Bible that hotel rooms often come with and rips the pages out of it that condemn homosexuality.

    I thought that was a really petty thing to do.
    Eh, I didn't think of that as petty, but it was more of a "what do you really accomplish by doing this" reaction from me. There are tons of things about the bible you could admonish, so why simply go with the homosexuality passage? Something about McKellen doing that strikes me as weird Fe/Ti, although that's not to say the mere act of ripping out a page in the bible is a sign of Fe/Ti; I can't explain it very well.

  17. #17
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    maybe it just makes him feel better for those two minutes it takes.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  18. #18
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wrong forum, buddy.

  19. #19
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,742
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aww, Michelle Rodriguez looks adorable!

  20. #20
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post

    Udo Kier (ENFJ)
    Him
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  21. #21
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,629
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker View Post
    Him
    What? Udo Kier doesn't look freaky.



    ...not at all.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  22. #22
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Freaky eyes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post


    Udo Kier (ENFJ)


    Sarah Paulson (INFP)


    Kristanna Loken (INFP)


    Cynthia Nixon (INFJ)
    idk, there were others originally, too, but then I thought maybe it's just bad makeup...

    You're a homophobe.
    Admittedly somewhat. Though, it doesn't help that the homosexuals I've known IRL didn't exactly leave a good impression on me...regardless of their sexual tendencies, they had a lot of other things about them that made me uncomfortable...Not all of them, granted, but enough of them.

    Actually, I've been rather attracted to one or two in the past...My very first real crush turned out to be gay, and I felt very comfortable (if it's possible to be excited and comfortable at the same time) around him.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  23. #23
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    Freaky eyes...



    idk, there were others originally, too, but then I thought maybe it's just bad makeup...
    Most of those people look pretty Beta (save Sarah Paulson), so that could probably be the reason why.



    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    Admittedly somewhat. Though, it doesn't help that the homosexuals I've known IRL didn't exactly leave a good impression on me...regardless of their sexual tendencies, they had a lot of other things about them that made me uncomfortable...Not all of them, granted, but enough of them.
    Such as? Sorry if I'm prying too deep.

  24. #24
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Justin Beiber is ISFp.

  25. #25
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post


    Such as? Sorry if I'm prying too deep.
    One was a total diva.

    One was simply obnoxious; would talk on and on about issues with his past (dude, get yourself a psychologist); and also talked about how he'd seen all these mythological creatures, like dragons and fairies and such-- and he was totally serious, too.

    I also had a female friend who I suspect was bi, and she would try to get very touchy-feely with me and I at that time was not at all comfortable with being touched a lot in general, and it just weired me out. Plus, I just didn't want to swing that way anyway...but even if she was only doing it to be platonically friendly, I really didn't like it. She also had "past" issues, and was a very needy person in general. She would call me up on the phone, just to have me listen to her music with her (she'd hold the phone up to the stereo speaker), and I didn't like her choice of music, either. But I tried to be her friend, because we'd known each other for like, forever, and I also knew that she needed kind people in her life (she didn't get that at home). But whenever I was with her for very long, I would begin to feel stifled and depressed.

    Another admittedly lesbian girl I knew, just freaked me out because she was also Wiccan and really into supernatural stuff. She had freaky eyes, too...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  26. #26
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    One was a total diva.

    One was simply obnoxious; would talk on and on about issues with his past (dude, get yourself a psychologist); and also talked about how he'd seen all these mythological creatures, like dragons and fairies and such-- and he was totally serious, too.

    I also had a female friend who I suspect was bi, and she would try to get very touchy-feely with me and I at that time was not at all comfortable with being touched a lot in general, and it just weired me out. Plus, I just didn't want to swing that way anyway...but even if she was only doing it to be platonically friendly, I really didn't like it. She also had "past" issues, and was a very needy person in general. She would call me up on the phone, just to have me listen to her music with her (she'd hold the phone up to the stereo speaker), and I didn't like her choice of music, either. But I tried to be her friend, because we'd known each other for like, forever, and I also knew that she needed kind people in her life (she didn't get that at home). But whenever I was with her for very long, I would begin to feel stifled and depressed.

    Another admittedly lesbian girl I knew, just freaked me out because she was also Wiccan and really into supernatural stuff. She had freaky eyes, too...
    Haha, well those are some pretty bad experiences. I wouldn't say you're homophobic though, as all of those experiences sound like case-by-case issues that are (for the most part) unrelated to sexuality. Eccentricity, overstepping interpersonal boundaries, etc.

  27. #27
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    Haha, well those are some pretty bad experiences. I wouldn't say you're homophobic though, as all of those experiences sound like case-by-case issues that are (for the most part) unrelated to sexuality. Eccentricity, overstepping interpersonal boundaries, etc.
    Yeah. But they all just really gave me the impression that homosexuals were all these conflicted, psychologically unstable individuals; in fact, I have yet to meet a homosexual/bisexual IRL who was not abused and/or molested as a child; really makes one think...Well, the first example I gave (the diva) I don't know what his childhood was like one way or the other, but the rest (plus a couple I didn't mention in the PP) all had at least one instance of abuse or molestation in their past.

    I don't hate homosexuals; but I do hate the idea that so many of them (and I will say this despite current "popular" opinion on the subject) might have been...normal had they not been messed up as children, and now instead of being helped and treated to overcome their aversion to the opposite sex they are rather being told they must accept it-- and some of them don't want to accept it.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Zachary Quinto (INTP)
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  29. #29
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Genesis 19 : 23-26
    The sun had gone forth over the land when Lot arrived at Zoar. Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah. So he went ahead overthrowing these cities, even the entire District and all the inhabitants of the cities and the plants of the ground. And his wife began to look around from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

    From Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, pg. 316 (On A Book Entitled Lolita): . . . That my novel does contain various allusions to the physiological urges of a pervert is quite true. But after all we are not children, not illiterate juvenile delinquents, not English public school boys who after a night of homosexual romps have to endure the paradox of reading the Ancients in expurgated versions.

    From THE ANNOTATED Lolita (REVISED AND UPDATED) by Vladimir Nobokov [Edited, with preface, introduction, and notes by Alfred Appel, Jr.], pg. 19: . . . Here is Virgil who could the nymphet sing in single tone, but probably preferred a lad's perineum . . .

    pg. 341: 19/5 Virgil . . . perineum: the Latin poet (70-19 B.C.). The perineum includes the urologenital passages and the rectum. In the 1958 edition it read peritonium (the double serous membrane which lines the cavity of the abdomen). Although H. H. 's grotesque error is intentional on Nabokov's part, he decided to correct it here because the mistake, if discerned, might be taken for the author's, or remain ambiguous.

    From What Do You Say After You Say Hello? (The Psychology Of Human Destiny) by Eric Berne, M.D.; pgs. 351, 352 [CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: The Script in Treatment (C--MOTIVES FOR THERAPY)]: Usually the patient comes to therapy for two reasons, neither of which places the script in jeopardy. His Adult comes in order to find out how to be more comfortable living in his script. The most forthright example of this is the homosexual of either sex, who usually makes an honest declaration in this respect. The male homosexual, for example, does not want to leave his script world which is populated by women who are either dangerous and hateful schemers, or else innocent and occasionally amiable weirdos. All he wants is to live more comfortably in that world, and only rarely does he wish to see women as real people. Other therapeutic goals of a similar nature are: "How to live more comfortably while bashing your head against a stone wall," "How to live more comfortably while holding on to the sides of a tunnel," "How to keep other people from making waves when you're up to your chin in Shit Creek," and "How to outcrook the crooks when the whole world is Crooksville." Any vigorous attempt to change the script world itself must be postponed until after the patient is firmly established in therapy and understands how it fits into his script.

    pgs. 319, 320 (B--THE PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPONENT): The importance of "thinking sphincter" lies in the way the sphincters can be used transactionally. The Child in Mike intuitively senses very quickly in what way various people want to use sphincters against him. He knows that this man wants to urinate on him, that one wants to defecate on him, that a woman wants to spit on him, and so forth. And he is almost always right, as he finds out in the long run if he engages with any of these people. What happens is this. When Mike first meets Pat (in the first ten seconds or at most, ten minutes, after they first set eyes on each other), Mike's Child senses exactly what Pat's Child is up to. But as quickly as possible, Pat's Child, with the assistance of his Adult and Parent, generates a thick smoke screen which, like a jinn, gradually takes on a human form as Pat's persona or disguise. Mike then starts to ignore and bury his Child's intuitive perception in favor of accepting Pat's persona. Thus Pat cons Mike out of his accurate perception and offers his persona instead. Mike accepts Pat's persona because Mike is just as busily throwing up a smoke screen to con Pat, and he is so intent on this that he forgets not only what his Child knows about Pat, but also what he knows about himself. I have discussed the first ten seconds in more detail elsewhere. People ignore their intuitive perceptions and accept each other's personas instead because that is the polite thing to do and plays along with the needs of their games and scripts. This mutual acceptance is called "the social contract." The script significance of sphincters is that each person seeks, and intuitively spots, someone who has a complementary script. Thus, to put it in the most basic terms, the person whose script calls for him to eat shit will seek out someone whose script calls for him to shit on people. They will hook into each other in the first ten minutes, spend more or less time disguising the sphincter basis of their attraction for each other, and if they continue beyond this point, eventually they will satisfy each other's script needs.
    If this does not sound credible, consider the more flagrant cases where there is an immediate satisfaction of script needs. A male homosexual can go into a men's room or bar, or even walk down the street, and in ten seconds he can unerringly spot the man he is looking for, one who will not only give him the kind of sexual satisfaction he wants, but do it in the way his script calls for: in a semi-public place where the thrills of a game of "Cop & Robbers" are added to the sexual satisfaction, or in a quiet place where they may form a longer-lasting liaison which may (if the script calls for it) end in murder . . .

    pg. 269 [CHAPTER FOURTEEN: How is the Script Possible? (F--THE LITTLE FASCIST)]: . . . This became the essence of fascism--a roving band seeking male or female prey to torment or deride--whose art lay in probing for the victim's weakness. There are two by-products of the grovel, both of them advantageous to the aggressor. The biological effect is sexual pleasure and excitement, with the victim available to indulge even the most ingenious perversions, the favorite of record being anal rape . . .

    From Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships by Eric Berne, M.D.; pg. 125 [CHAPTER NINE: Sexual Games (2 PERVERSION)]: The game of "Homosexuality" has become elaborated into a subculture in many countries, just as it is ritualized in others. Many of the disabilities which result from homosexuality arise from making it into a game. The provocative behavior which gives rise to "Cops and Robbers," "Why Does This Always Happen to Us," "It's the Society We Live In," "All Great Men Were" and so forth, is often amenable to social control, which reduces the handicaps to a minimum. The "professional homosexual" wastes a large amount of time and energy which could be applied to other ends. Analysis of his games may help him establish a quiet menage which will leave him free to enjoy the benefits that bourgeois society offers, instead of devoting himself to playing his own variation of "Ain't It Awful!"

    pgs. 126, 127 [CHAPTER NINE: Sexual Games (3 RAPO)]: . . . Third-Degree "Rapo" is a vicious game which ends in murder, suicide or the courtroom . . . The confrontation may be immediate, as in the illegitimate cry of rape, or it may be long delayed, as in suicide or homicide following a prolonged love affair . . . One of the most unfortunate and acute forms of Third-Degree "Rapo" occurs relatively frequently between homosexual strangers, who in a matter of an hour or so may bring the game to a point of homicide. The cynical and criminal variations of this game contribute a large volume to sensational newspaper copy.

    From Childhood And Society by Erik H. Erikson, pg. 84: . . . More common are fantasies of a kind which may prepare for future perversions. Any anal fixation on one of these modes is especially apt to prepare for a homosexual attitude with the implied idea of gaining love and control forever through anal incorporation. With girls matters are entirely different, owing to the fact that a girl's "graspiness" does not need to remain fixated in the mouth or perverted in the anus: it can normally shift to the vagina and dominate genital behavior . . .

    Me, I'm A Thief by Sarah Slean (in which THE FALLING STAR VANISHES PRIOR TO IMPACT)
    Here comes again
    Blood in the vein
    Seven A.M. the bus comes
    Gotta fly
    Gotta say goodbye
    Leave them before they leave me

    Turning the sheets
    Rolling in her sleep
    The city wants us to die faster
    I know that he's
    Somewhere underneath
    But I don't know how to save him

    Me I'm a thief
    I'm a falling star
    I'm a photograph taken
    From where you are

    I love you still, always will
    Here's hoping you'll be waiting but I
    Gotta fly
    Gotta say goodbye
    Gotta find out what's aching

    Me I'm a thief
    I'm a falling star
    I'm a photograph taken
    From where you are

    So shed your tears
    That's what they're for
    I don't expect you to understand this war

    I go quietly (AND OH THEY BEG ME TO STEAL)
    No you don't get me (THERE'S NOTHING, NOTHING TO FEEL)
    No you don't get me (AND OH THEY BEG ME TO STEAL . . .)

    Dr. Marshall Mandell of Norwalk, Connecticut, author of Dr. Mandell's 5-Day Allergy Relief System, explained how the body can go haywire. He said: . . . [The orthodox physician] will decide the so-called psychosomatic illness he has incorrectly diagnosed stems from the trauma of being alive in the modern world, and your inability, as a second class individual, to adequately adjust to your situation . . . Many environmental factors can cause different types of brain malfunctioning that will affect your normal human behavior. Your intellect may be altered, forgetfulness and confusion may set in, nervousness, headache and fatigue may develop, changes in perception can occur and visual and auditory stimuli might become distorted. An individual may experience sexual malfunction as a mild to moderate dysfunction and psychotic reactions are the most extreme form. Different aspects of schizophrenia can manifest themselves because of brain allergy and unmet nutritional needs. And lesser indications that your brain is allergic are often indicated by unaccountable restlessness, irritability, mood swings, responses to situations blown out of proportion, inappropriate rage with the slightest provocation, depression, anxiety, and sexual incapacity.
    People who feel tense, nervous, or withdraw into themselves do this from a malfunctioning of the brain. The usual cause, albeit an unrecognized one, is an environmental substance, such as a commonly eaten food or an inhaled or ingested chemical agent that may be part of everyday activities.

    From Detoxify Or Die by Sherry A. Rogers, M.D.; pgs. 34, 35 (Chapter I: Environmental Toxins Are Everywhere): Or consider much more subtle symptoms which are counterproductive for society, such as the inability to handle stress, uncontrollable violence, increased mental disease, decreased intelligence, drug addiction, schizophrenia, gender confusion, and the loss of normal parental instincts. Environmental hormone mimics, with plastics and pesticides at the top of the list, although not the sole causes, have a huge impact on the developing child, as well as his parents. The financial and social burdens of this filters to all of society . . .
    These environmental hormone mimics (like pesticides and plastics, as examples) are worse than any computer virus. For they can scramble messages and jam signals in the body chemistry beyond our wildest nightmares. Unfortunately, since there is not much attention paid to the increased level of cancers in children in the last two decades (which had reached an all-time high), how could we expect the epidemic of learning disability, depression and other "softer" or more subtle developmental deficits to garner much notice? But the fetus and infant are uniquely susceptible, with scientists showing that by age 6, some kids have already accumulated one half of their total life-time amount of cancer-causing chemicals! For example, many environmental hormone mimics damage the thyroid gland, which is so crucial to the developing brain and resulting adult intelligence. No wonder reports abound that the scholastic aptitude tests scores are getting lower with the decades.

    pgs. 97, 98: Xenoestrogens are a group of everyday chemicals that the body can mistake for estrogens and other hormones. In fact these chemicals, often called "estrogen mimics," hormone mimics, hormone or endocrine dysruptors, or hormone modifiers, sit in hormone receptors in cell membranes booting out our real hormones, thus creating havoc. Animal and human studies, for example, show exposure to these environmental hormone mimics leads to a spectrum of problems like abnormal infertility, impotence, confused sexual orientation (gender dysfunction), cancer, hyperactivity, stunted growth and damaged brain function in children . . .

    From The City And The Pillar by Gore Vidal, pg, 29: Bob laughed and suddenly grabbed him. They clung to one another. Jim was overwhelmingly conscious of Bob's body. For a moment they pretended to wrestle. Then both stopped. Yet each continued to cling to the other as though waiting for a signal to break or to begin again. For a long time neither moved. Smooth chests touching, sweat mingling, breathing fast in unison.
    Abruptly, Bob pulled away. For a bold moment their eyes met. Then, deliberately, gravely, Bob shut his eyes and Jim touched him, as he had so many times in dreams, without words, without thought, without fear. When the eyes are shut, the true world begins.
    As faces touched, Bob gave a shuddering sigh and gripped Jim tightly in his arms. Now they were complete, each became the other, as their bodies collided with a primal violence, like to like, metal to magnet, half to half and the whole restored.
    So they met. Eyes tight shut against an irrelevant world. A wind warm and sudden shook all the trees, scattered the fire's ashes, threw shadows to the ground.
    But then the wind stopped. The fire went to coals. The trees were silent. No comets marked the dark lovely sky, and the moment was gone. In the fast beat of a double heart, it died.
    The eyes opened again. Two bodies faced one another where only an instant before a universe had lived; the star burst and dwindled, spiraling them both down to the meager, to the separate, to the night and the trees and the firelight; all so much less than what had been.

    YOUR FACE

    Cut my face 'cause I missed the lunar eclipse
    You said I don't know why the Moon turned red
    It's not necessarily because of the Bible
    Or the blood that will weep from your face

    A picture of your face obscured by tears
    I don't want to see

    Ezekiel 16: 49
    Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen.

    Quotations of ILLYRIA

    From Angel Season 5 (Episode 16: Shells) [Written by Steven S. Deknight]

    ILLYRIA: You seek to save what's rotted through.

    ILLYRIA: You are deceivers.

    ILLYRIA: I have nowhere to go. My kingdom is long dead. Long dead. There's so much I don't understand. I become overwhelmed. I'm unsure of my place.

    ILLYRIA: We cling to what is gone. Is there anything in this life but grief?

    From Angel Season 5 (Episode 17: Underneath) [Written by Sarah Fain & Elizabeth Craft]

    ILLYRIA: In my time, nightmares walked among us. Walked and danced, skewering victims in plain sight . . . laying their fears and worst desires out for everyone to see. This to make us laugh . . . And now nightmares are trapped in the heads of humans. Pitiful echoes of themselves. I wondered whom they angered so to merit such a fate.

    ILLYRIA: I walked worlds of smoke and half-truths intangible. Worlds of torment . . . and of unnameable beauty. Opaline towers as high as small moons. Glaciers that rippled with insensate lust . . .

    ILLYRIA: You challenge me. But there's not enough space to open my jaws. My face is not my face. I don't know what--what it will say . . .

    ILLYRIA: I fear in any other dimension in this form, I'd be but prey to those I knew.

    ILLYRIA: Your world is so small . . . and yet you box yourselves in rooms even smaller. You shut yourselves inside, in rooms, in routines.

    From Angel Season Five (Episode 19: Time Bomb) [Written by Ben Edlund]

    ILLYRIA: To never die and to conquer all--that is winning.

    ILLYRIA: Betrayal was a neutral word in my day. As unjudged a word as "water" or "breeze."

    ILLYRIA: How did you worms accomplish this? You ripped me out of linear progression. Tore my time line into shreds and stitched it back together out of sequence. You caged me in this fractured time frame . . . in moments that repeat themselves over and over without deviation. But I don't say these words.

    ILLYRIA: Yes. Nothing's what it used to be, is it? These are the fruits of your attempt to murder me. Your Kingdom turned to ash and stale wind. I slew the white-haired one first.

    ILLYRIA: I didn't give you the chance. That you learn when you become a king. You learn to destroy everything that's not utterly yours. All that matters is victory. That's how your reign persists. You're a slave to an insane construct. You are moral. A true ruler is as moral as a hurricane. Empty but for the force of his gale.

    ILLYRIA: If you want to win a war, you must serve no master but your ambition . . . You have not lied. My undoing is beyond you, your people. Something is broken inside me. My power is too great. I know this now, as I know it every time I come to this moment.





    - from Myra Breckinridge and Myron by Gore Vidal; pp. 334-338: Just back of the station there is a pleasant bosky dell with tall trees and thick bushes and birds twittering—and on the greensward I stumbled upon these two guys making it. Their shirts were off; their blue jeans were down to their ankles and they were lying one on top of the other rubbing back and forth like a pair of nine-year-olds.
    “Well, this is a pretty how-de-do!” I thundered, handbag at the ready.
    “Get lost,” said the dark-haired one on the top. But the fair-haired one on the bottom knew the voice of authority when he heard it and pushed the other one off him and then they quickly pulled up their pants, allowing me a pleasant glimpse of turgid, nay, tumescent, nay, nothing powers: a pair of standard American rosebuds, but then, to be fair to the American rosebud, like a Christmas present, it is not the actual tiny gift but the thought behind the erection that counts.
    “We were just taking it easy,” said the dark one, giving me a look of hate.
    “You won’t tell nobody, will you, lady?” The blond was nervous. “I mean we’re really straight.”
    “Save that for the Blue Parrot.” This was a shot in the dark but it connected. Myron—the original Myron—used to know a group of slightly older queens in Manhattan who all swore that right after the war the bars of New York were filled with beauty, particularly along “the bird circuit” as it was then known; and of these legendary aviaries, the Blue Parrot on the East Side was always the most brilliantly stocked with our feathered friends.
    “Are you from New York too, lady?” The blond one wanted to be friendly, fearing an indictment for an act against nature as nature is defined in the unnatural state of California.
    The two young men are from New York. The dark one, Mel, is going to Columbia where he plays football, he says, and the other is his buddy Gene, a carhop, and they are traveling about the country while school is out. “We dig the road, lady,” said Gene, the con man of the pair.
    “You dig each other.”
    “Hell,” said Mel, “I’m just a kind of come on’er, that’s all.”
    “Come on him is closer to the mark, buddy.”
    I don’t know why I thought at first that they were out-of-towners but they proved to be locals. It was exciting, I confess: two genuine sweaty 1948 youths, smelling of sex, as they talked of bop music, of hipsters, of smoking tea . . . tea! That dear old pre-mainline word! They were, they said, beat. Yes, that word was born in the bosky dell of Metro’s back lot or at least revealed for the first time to me as though for my blessing, which I gave.
    Mel said, “I guess you might say that I am—that we’re both—sort of beat with life, with everything.”
    “Not Hollywood surely.”
    “L.A. is shit,” said Gene. “We been holed up on South Main where the police bust you every two minutes and the women is all whores.”
    “Not all of us.” I was, I fear, revoltingly saccharine but something about those two studs touched me. After all, I was witnessing the dawn of Beat.
    Mel was conciliating. “You’re a right beautiful woman, ma’am,” he said respectfully. But what we’re after is this pure thing that’s beyond sex. You dig Celine?”
    “I do not read novels.” I was suddenly hard. “The only words that I care for are dialogue. Get it? High-priced Metro dialogue is all I need words-wise, so you can take your Celine and shove his collected works all the way up that long journey to the end of the night in your asshole.”
    Well, that had the effect of inspiring terror and awe. They both started trembling and, though swathed in denim, their rosebuds were plainly contracting to acorn proportions. As is my policy, after the whammy, the softening up. “I confess that in my day I have studied the enemy, contemplated the strategies of fiction if only in order to find new ways to destroy the art form whose only distinction is that it prepared the way for the movies, much as John the B. prepared the way for the big J. C. And of course I will never deny the importance of any novel which has been used to inspire a work of celluloid. We are all permanently indebted to James Hilton, Daphne du Maurier and W. Somerset Maugham, whose names head the golden list. Yet at best their works are no more than so much grit beneath the studio’s shell: mere occasions for masterpieces, for cinema pearls.”
    I could see that I had completely overwhelmed them; and was pleased. Unfortunately (for him), Mel still had a little starch left in him. “But I don’t think that’s true, ma’am. I mean words, wowee, that’s all we got, my buddies and me with these long talks we have about perception and really seeing just what it is this cosmos-thing sees and all the beatness of it, the beatitude, yeah, that’s the word for all the words we say, for all this yakking we do.”
    “Stop!” I commanded. I had had a sudden vision—like Jennifer when she saw Linda in The Song of Bernadette—of the post-Myra world which I now realize that I must devise a precise blueprint for. To date, I confess, I have been creating the future in an inexcusably haphazard fashion, but in my defense I must note the extenuating circumstance that I lack not only a well-trained staff but mobility. “Mel, you must write all this shit down.”
    “Shit?” whined Mel, but Gene stopped him, muttering, “Don’t get the lady mad. Watch out for that handbag. There’s lead in it.”
    “Like in your pistol, Gene?” I was jocose. Buddy buddy. I needed them. “Yes, write it down. Make a book of it. Call it a novel, if you like.”
    “But I thought you said I was to take all the novels and shove them . . .”
    “Please, Mel. That is an offensive image to use in the presence of a lady. I mean that I can predict absolute success for your work at this time. But you must beat—that word again!—Kerouac to the punch.”
    Who?”
    “If you do as I say, Mel, your name will be up there on the screen, and his will be unknown. Can’t you see it, Mel? Based on a novel by Mel American Rosebud . . .”
    “But that’s not my name.”
    “Because—this year—I promise that Metro, my studio”—I indicated the Thalberg Building, which I cannot see but they could—“will begin a series of films about hipsters, hot-rodders, lovers of boogie-woogie, not to mention belly-rubbing . . .”
    “Belly-rubbing?” This blew Gene’s mind.
    “What do you think you two pro-crypto fags were doing just now?”
    “But we dig the broads,” squeaked Gene, jumping to avoid the handbag with which I had intended to reduce to an ounce of attar his tiny rosebud.
    “Of course you do! You’re part of my vision for this studio. And—now get this—if we can have your story on the screen by 1950, as a vehicle for Van Johnson and Peter Lawford, camera work by James Wong Howe and directed by any one of our staff directors, though I might bring in Irving Rapper from Warner’s, I will be able to start a cycle of profitable pix that will knock the quiz shows out of the box and off the tube and fill the movie houses of the world with a new sort of film, more wondrous than anything as yet dreamed of even by Herbert Yates. A beat generation is what I will give the movie audience first. But a beat generation that is well groomed, exquisitely lit, and acted by major stars in perfect frames. Here is my card.” I had—as always—written my name on the back of a cocktail napkin and stuffed it in my purse just in case.
    I gave it to the stunned Mel.
    “Now mop the come off your jeans, boys. Mel, you dictate into the nearest recorder that tome which, I promise you, Irving Lazar will see is bought by my studio for a sum in the high six figures. Gene, you will be inked, too, as tech. adviser.”
    They fled me, grateful for the vision I had given them of a new world. We shall hear from Mel, I am sure of that.
    So, Mr. Williams, I have begun to alter this year of grace, my grace, and if I can film a photoplay with a title that has Beat in it—On Beat, Beat Me Daddy Eight to the Bar, The Beat Years of Our Lives, The Beat Man, Beat Your Meat—I will anticipate and torpedo an entire “literary” movement of the pre-Myra fifties when the so-called Beat writers, howling their words at random, helped distract attention from our Industry’s product and made it possible for Charles Van Doren to dominate through television the entire culture, answering questions whose answers he had been given in advance—a twenty-one-inch corruption that was directly responsible, first, for the death of Marilyn Monroe at the hands of the two Kennedys and, second, for R. M. Nixon’s current subversion of the government. Fortunately I—and I alone—can turn America around. It is a great responsibility and one to which I intend to rise, humbly of course but inexorably.


    September 19, 2009 at 2:50am hi [lazybones]. i did go to see the pyschic, and she told me many things.

    She saw that something happend to you between ages 6-8.

    She said that you are not evil, but lack empathy and are going down the left hand path. There is only so much you can grow spiritually on that path.

    She saw that your heart chakra is shut down and needs to be opened up.

    She would not receive an answer to wether or not you were abused.

    She said if you are going to do anything professionally it would be in the health care
    field, like a lab technicitian or something not working with the public.

    She saw that your pain is related to a urinary track infection.

    She saw that you are looking for a job.

    She saw that you need/want money quickly. why is that?

    She saw that you want me to be a parental figure, and that i can't be that for you.

    She said many things, but what scared me the most was when she said nothing good can come from this relationship.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.helpself.com/manifest/index.htm

    that is the link to the website i was talking to you about. its a manifestation website, but the guy talks like alice miller in some ways.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As far as things i can do to help you out, she said that there is nothing i can do. I can tell you these things, but you don't want to hear them.

    Things that i need to work on, are that even though i feel compassion for people and want to be of service to them not everyone deserves that. Not everyone is operating with integrity.

    She also said that even though i see people through spiritual eyes, if they don't see themselves that way theres no way i can make them see that.

    She told me that i'm very inclined to be of service, to the point of becoming like an indentured servant.

    She said that i can't shove people into the light, or force spirituality on them. It doesn't work.

    She said i'm supposed to live my life and have fun.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    She interpeted the dream you had, with the asian girl, the dream spoke about our bisexuallity.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anyway, its 3:00am here and i should get to bed.
    Manifesting Your Potential
    www.helpself.com

  30. #30
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what

  31. #31
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,742
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lazybones, do I have to be the asshole that says less is more?

  32. #32
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,371
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Lazybones, do I have to be the asshole that says less is more?

  33. #33
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,629
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    what
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  34. #34
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still miss him -- the ex. The first. If only there was something that could change things. But there isn't. And there never will be.

  35. #35
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    - from THE HISTORY OF CHILDHOOD (Lloyd deMause, Editor); pp. 17-18 [CHAPTER 1 – The Evolution of Childhood by Lloyd deMause]: It is, of course, not love which the parent of the past lacked, but rather the emotional maturity needed to see the child as a person separate from himself. It is difficult to estimate what proportion of today’s parents achieve with any consistency the empathic level. Once I took an informal poll of a dozen psychotherapists and asked them how many of their patients at the beginning of analysis were able to sustain images of their children as individuals separate from their own projected needs; they all said that very few had that ability. As one, Amos Gunsberg, put it: “This doesn’t occur until some way along in their analysis, always at a specific moment—when they arrive at an image of themselves as separate from their own all-enveloping mother.”
    Running parallel to the projective reaction is the reversal reaction, with the parent and child reversing roles, often producing quite bizarre results. Reversal begins long before the child is born – it is the source of the very powerful desire for children one sees in the past, which is always expressed in terms of what children can give the parent, and never what the parent can give them. Medea’s complaint before committing infanticide is that by killing her children she won’t have anyone to look after her:

    What was the purpose, children, for which I reared you?
    For all my travail, and wearing myself away?
    They were sterile, those pains I had in the bearing of you.
    Oh surely once the hopes I had, poor me,
    Were high ones; you would look after me in old age,
    And when I died would deck me well with your own hands;
    A thing which all would have done. Oh but it is gone,
    That lovely thought. [Euripides, The Medea, 1029-36; Jason, too, pities only himself, 1235-7.]

    Once born, the child becomes the mother’s and father’s own parent, in either positive or negative aspect, totally out of keeping with the child’s actual age. The child, regardless of sex, is often dressed in the style of clothes similar to that worn by the parent’s mother, that is, not only in a long dress, but in one out of date by at least a generation. [Aries, Centuries of Childhood, p. 57; Christian Augustus Struve, A Familiar Treatise on the Physical Education of Children (London, 1801), p. 299.] The mother is literally reborn in the child; children are not just dressed as “miniature adults” but quite clearly as miniature women, often complete with decollete.
    The idea that the grandparent is actually reborn in the baby is a common one in antiquity, [Agnes C. Vaughan, The Genesis of Human Offspring: A Study in Early Greek Culture (Menasha, Wisconsin, 1945), p. 107; James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (New York, 1911), p. 533] and the closeness between the word “baby” and the various words for grandmother (baba, Babe) hints at similar beliefs. [Kett, Adolescence, pp. 35, 230.] But evidence exists for more concrete reversals in the past, ones that are virtually hallucinatory. For instance, the breasts of little infants were often kissed or sucked on by adults. Little Louis XIII often had both his penis and nipples kissed by people around him. Even though Heroard, his diarist, always made him the active one (at thirteen months “he makes M. de Souvre, M. de Termes, M. de Liancourt, and M. Zamet kiss his cock”) [74. E. Soulie and E. de Barthelemy, eds., Journal de Jean Heroard sur l’Enfance et la Jeunesse de Louis XIII, vol. 1 (Paris, 1868), p. 35], it later becomes evident that he was being passively manipulated: “He never wants to let the Marquise touch his nipples, his nurse had said to him: ‘Sir, do not let anyone touch your nipples or your cock; they’ll cut them off.’” Yet the adults still couldn’t keep their hands and lips off his penis and nipples. Both were the mother’s breast returned.
    - p. 21: The need of the parent for mothering placed an enormous burden on the growing child. It was sometimes even the cause of its death. One of the more frequent reasons given for infant death was “overlaying,” or suffocation in bed, and although this was often just an excuse for infanticide, pediatricians admitted that when it was genuine it was due to the mother’s refusal to put the child in a separate bed when she went to sleep; “not wanting to let go of the child, [she] holds him even tighter as she sleeps. Her breast closes off the nose of the child.” [88. Most, Mensch, p. 74]. It was this reversal image of the child-as-security-blanket that was the reality behind the common medieval warning that parents must be careful not to coddle their children “like the ivy that certainly kills the tree encircled by it, or the ape that hugs her whelps to death with mere fondness.” [Charron, Wisdom, p. 1338; Robert Cleaver, A godlie forme of household government . . . (London, 1598), p. 296.]
    - pp. 23-24: Another example of the double image was in circumcision. As is well know, Jews, Egyptians, Arabs, and others circumcised the foreskin of boys. The reasons given for this are manifold, but all of them can be covered by the double image of projection and reversal. To begin with, such mutilations of children by adults always involve projection and punishment to control projected passions. As Philo put it in the first century, circumcision was for “the excision of passions, which bind the mind. For since among all passions that of intercourse between man and woman is greatest, the lawgivers have commended that that instrument, which serves this intercourse, be mutilated, pointing out, that these powerful passions must be bridled, and thinking not only this, but all passions would be controlled through this one.” [Felix Bryk, Circumcision in Man and Woman: Its History, Psychology and Ethnology (New York, 1943), p. 94.] Moses Maimonides agrees:

    I believe one of the reasons for circumcision was the diminution of sexual intercourse and the
    weakening of the sexual organs; its purpose was to restrict the activities of this organ and to
    leave it at rest as much as possible. The true purpose of circumcision was to give the sexual
    organ that kind of physical pain as not to impair its natural function or the potency of the
    individual, but to lessen the power of passion and of too great desire.

    The reversal element in circumcision can be seen in the glans-as-nipple theme embedded in the details of one version of the ritual. The infant’s penis is rubbed to make it erect, and the foreskin is split, either by the mohel’s fingernail or with a knife, and then torn all around the glans. Then the mohel sucks the blood off the glans. This is done for the same reason that everyone kissed little Louis’s penis – because the penis, and more particularly the glans, is the mother’s nipple returned, and the blood is her milk. [Even present day self-cutters experience the flow of blood as milk; see John S. Kafka, “The Body as Transitional Object: A Psychoanalytic Study of a Self-Mutilating Patient,” British Journal of Medical Psychology, 42 (1969), p. 209.] The idea of the child’s blood as having magic-milk qualities is an old one, and underlies many sacrificial acts, but rather than examine this complex problem here I would like to concentrate on the main idea of circumcision as the coming-out of the glans-as-nipple. It is not generally known that the exposure of the glans was a problem for more than just the circumcising nations. To the Greeks and Romans, the glans was considered sacred; the sight of it “struck terror and wonder in the heart of man,” [Eric J. Dingwall, Male Infibulation (London, 1925), p. 60; and Thorkil Vanggaard, Phallos: A Symbol and its History in the Male World (New York, 1969), p. 89] and so they either tied up the prepuce with a string, which was called kynodesme, or else pinned it closed with a fibula, a clasp, which was called infibulation. [Dingwall, Infibulation, p. 61; Celsus, De Medicina, vol. 3, W. B. Spencer, trans. (Cambridge, 1938), p. 25; Augustin Cabanes, The Erotikon (New York, 1966), p. 171; Bryk, Circumcision, pp. 225-27; Soranus, Gynecology (Baltimore, 1956), p. 107; Peter Ucko, “Penis Sheaths: A Comparative Study,” Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland for 1969 (London, 1970), p. 43.] Evidence of infibulation, both for “modesty” and “to restrain lust,” can also be found in the Renaissance and modern times.
    When the foreskin wasn’t sufficiently long to cover the glans, an operation was sometimes performed whereby the skin was cut around the base of the penis and the skin drawn forward. In ancient art, the glans was usually shown covered, either with the penis coming to a point, or else clearly showing the tied foreskin, even when erect. I have only found two cases where the glans showed: either when it was meant to inspire awe, as in the representations of the phallus which were used to hang in doorways, or when the penis was shown being used in fellatio. Thus, to Jew and Roman alike, the image of reversal was imbedded in their attitude toward the glans-as-nipple.
    - p. 25 (INFANTICIDE AND DEATH WISHES TOWARD CHILDREN): In a pair of books rich in clinical documentation, the psychoanalyst Joseph Rheingold examined the death wishes of mothers toward their children, and found that they are not only far more widespread than is commonly realized, but also that they stem from a powerful attempt to “undo” motherhood in order to escape the punishment they imagine their own mothers will wreak upon them. Rheingold shows us mothers giving birth and begging their own mothers not to kill them, and traces the origin of both infanticidal wishes and post-partum depression states as not due to hostility toward the child itself, but rather to the need to sacrifice the child to propitiate their own mothers. Hospital staffs are well aware of these widespread infanticidal wishes, and often allow no contact between the mother and child for some time. Rheingold’s findings, seconded by Block, Zilboorg, and others, are complex and have far-reaching impications; here we can only point out that filicidal impulses of contemporary mothers are enormously widespread, with fantasies of stabbing, mutilation, abuse, decapitation, and strangulation common in mothers in psychoanalysis. I believe that the further back in history one goes, the more filicidal impulses are acted out by parents.
    The history of infanticide in the West has yet to be written, and I will not attempt it here. But enough is already known to establish that, contrary to the usual assumption that it is an Eastern rather than a Western problem, infanticide of both legitimate and illegitimate children was a regular practice of antiquity, that the killing of legitimate children was only slowly reduced during the Middle Ages, and that illegitimate children continued regularly to be killed right up into the nineteenth century.

    - pp. 43-47 (‘TOILET TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND SEX’): The child in antiquity lived his earliest years in an atmosphere of sexual abuse. Growing up in Greece and Rome often included being used sexually by older men. The exact form and frequency of the abuse varied by area and date. In Crete and Boeotia, pederastic marriages and honeymoons were common. Abuse was less frequent among aristocratic boys in Rome, but sexual use of children was everywhere evident in some form. Boy brothels flourished in every city, and one could even contract for the use of a rent-a-boy service in Athens. Even where homosexuality with free boys was discouraged by law, men kept slave boys to abuse, so that even free-born children saw their fathers sleeping with boys. Children were sometimes sold into concubinage; Musonius Rufus wondered whether such a boy would be justified in resisting being abused: “I knew a father so depraved that, having a son conspicuous for youthful beauty, he sold him into a life of shame. If, now, that lad who was sold and sent into such a life by his father had refused and would not go, should we say that he was disobedient . . .” Aristotle’s main objection to Plato’s idea that children should be held in common was that when men had sex with boys they wouldn’t know if they were their own sons, which Aristotle says would be “most unseemly.” Plutarch said the reason why freeborn Roman boys wore a gold ball around their necks when they were very young was so men could tell which boys it was not proper to use sexually when they found a group in the nude.
    Plutarch’s statement was only one among many which indicate that the sexual abuse of boys was not limited to those over 11 or 12 years of age, as most scholars assume. Sexual abuse by pedagogues and teachers of smaller children may have been common throughout antiquity. Although all sorts of laws were passed to try to limit sexual attacks on school children by adults, the long heavy sticks carried by pedagogues and teachers were often used to threaten them. Quintillian, after many years of teaching in Rome, warned parents against the frequency of sexual abuse by teachers, and made this the basis of his disapproval of beating in schools:

    When children are beaten, pain or fear frequently have results of which it is not pleasant to
    speak and which are likely to be a source of shame, a shame which unnerves and depresses the
    mind and leads the child to shun and loathe the light. Further, if inadequate care is taken in the
    choices of respectable governors and instructors, I blush to mention the shameful abuse which
    scoundrels sometimes make of their right to administer corporal punishment or the opportunity
    not infrequently offered to others by the fear thus caused in the victims. I will not linger on this
    subject; it is more than enough if I have made my meaning clear.

    Aeschines quotes some of the Athenian laws which attempted to limit sexual attacks on schoolchildren:

    . . . consider the case of the teachers . . . it is plain that the lawgiver distrusts them . . . He forbids the teacher to open the schoolroom, or the gymnastics trainer the wrestling school, before sunrise, and he commands them to close the doors before sunset; for he is exceeding suspicious of their being alone with a boy, or in the dark with him.

    Aeschines, when prosecuting Timarchus for having hired himself out as a boy prostitute, put several men on the stand who admitted having paid to sodomize Timarchus. Aeschines admitted that many, including himself, were used sexually when they were children, but not for pay, which would have made it illegal.
    The evidence from literature and art confirms this picture of the sexual abuse of smaller children. Petronius loves depicting adults feeling the “immature little tool” of boys, and his description of the rape of a seven-year-old girl, with women clapping in a long line around the bed, suggests that women were not exempt from playing a role in the process. Aristotle said homosexuality often becomes habitual in “those who are abused from childhood.” It has been assumed that the small nude children seen on vases waiting on adults in erotic scenes are servants, but in view of the usual role of noble children as waiters, we should consider the possibility that they may be children of the house. For, as Quintillian said about noble Roman children: “We rejoice if they say something over-free, and words which we should not tolerate from the lips even of an Alexandrian page are greeted with laughter and a kiss . . . they hear us use such words, they see our mistresses and minions; every dinner party is loud with foul songs, and things are presented to their eyes of which we should blush to speak.”
    Even the Jews, who tried to stamp out adult homosexuality with severe punishments, were more lenient in the case of young boys. Despite Moses’s injunction against corrupting children, the penalty for sodomy with children over 9 years of age was death by stoning, but copulation with younger children was not considered a sexual act, and was punishable only by a whipping, “as a matter of public discipline.”
    It must be remembered that widespread sexual abuse of children can only occur with at least the unconscious complicity of the child’s parents. Children in the past were under the fullest control of their parents, who had to agree to give them over to their abusers. Plutarch muses on how important this decision was for fathers:

    I am loathe to introduce the subject, loathe too to turn away from it . . . whether we should
    permit the suitors of our boys to associate with them and pass their time with them, or whether
    the opposite policy of excluding them and shooing them away from intimacy with our boys is
    correct. Whenever I look at blunt-spoken fathers of the austere and astringent type who regard
    intimacy with lovers as an intolerable outrage upon their sons, I am circumspect about showing
    myself a sponsor and advocate of the practice. [Yet Plato] declares that men who have proven
    their worth should be permitted to caress any fair lad they please. Lovers who lust only for
    physical beauty, then, it is right to drive away; but free access should be granted to lovers of the soul.

    Like the adults we have previously seen around little Louis XIII, the Greeks and Romans couldn’t keep their hands off children. I have only turned up one piece of evidence that this practice extended, like Louis’s abuse, back into infancy. Suetonius condemned Tiberius because he “taught children of the most tender years, whom he called his little fishes, to play between his legs while he was in his bath. Those which had not yet been weaned, but were strong and hearty, he set at fellatio . . .” Suetonius may or may not have made up the story, yet he obviously had reason to think his readers would believe him. So, apparently, did Tacitus, who told the same story.
    The favorite sexual use of children, however, was not fellatio, but anal intercourse. Martial said one should, while buggering a boy, “refrain from stirring the groin with poking hand . . . Nature has separated the male: one part has been produced for girls, one for men. Use your own part.” This, he said, was because the masturbating of boys would “hasten manhood,” an observation Aristotle made some time before him. Whenever a pre-pubertal boy was shown being used sexually on erotic vases, the penis was never shown erect. For men of antiquity were not really homosexuals as we know them today, but a much lower psychic mode, which I think should be termed “ambisexual” (they themselves used the term “ambidextrous”). While the homosexual runs to men as a retreat from women, as a defense against the oedipal conflict, the ambisexual has never really reached the oedipal level, and uses boys and women almost without distinction. In fact, as psychoanalyst Joan McDougall observes, the main purpose of this kind of perversion is to demonstrate that “there is no difference between the sexes.” She says that it is an attempt to control childhood sexual traumata by reversal, with the adult now putting another child in the helpless position, and also an attempt to handle castration anxiety by proving that “castration does not hurt and in fact is the very condition of erotic arousal.” This well describes the man of antiquity. Intercourse with castrated children was often spoken of as being especially arousing, castrated boys were favorite “voluptates” in imperial Rome, and infants were castrated “in the cradle” to be used in brothels by men who liked buggering young castrated boys. When Domitian passed a law prohibiting castration of infants for brothels, Marial praised him: “Boys loved thee before . . . but now infants, too, love thee, Caesar.” Paulus Aegineta described the standard method used in castrating small boys:

    Since we are sometimes compelled against our will by persons of high rank to perform the
    operation . . . by compression [it] is thus performed; children, still of a tender age, are placed in a vessel of hot water, and then when the parts are softened in the bath, the testicles are to be squeezed with the fingers until they disappear.

    The alternative, he said, was to put them on a bench and cut their testicles out. Many doctors in antiquity mentioned the operation, and Juvenal said they were often called upon to perform it.
    Signs of castration surrounded the child in antiquity. In every field and garden he saw a Priapus, with a large erect penis and a sickle, which was supposed to symbolize castration. His pedagogue and his teacher might be castrated, castrated prisoners were everywhere, and his parents’ servants would often be castrated. St. Jerome wrote that some people had wondered whether letting young girls bathe with eunuchs was a wise practice. And although Constantine passed a law against castrators, the practice grew so rapidly under his successors that soon even noble parents mutilated their sons to further their political advancement. Boys were also castrated as a “cure” for various diseases and Ambroise Pare complained how many unscrupulous “Gelders,” greedy to get children’s testicles for magical purposes, persuaded parents to let them castrate their children.

    Here are a few links:

    http://primal-page.com/homosex.htm

    http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html

    "As John Addington Symonds reported his experience as a boy at public school:

    Every boy of good looks had a female name, and was recognized either as a public prostitute or as some bigger fellow's Śbitch.' Bitch was the word in common usage to indicate a boy who yielded his person to a lover. The talk in the dormitories and the studies was incredibly obscene. Here and there one could not avoid seeing acts of onanism, mutual masturbation, or the sports of naked boys in bed together."

    http://primal-page.com/psyhis.htm

    http://www.iraresoul.com/gaystraight.html

    http://www.iraresoul.com/sex_essays.html#5

    http://www.narth.com/docs/freedom.html

    http://www.alice-miller.com/readersm...=2699&grp=0709

    'So, my question for you: what exactly do you mean in your books by "perversions" in regards to sexuality? I can certainly see that in cases where power relations are sexualized (such as in BDSM), people are replaying power dynamics from childhood in explicitly charged form. But do you believe that only a heterosexual love object is possible if one is free from childhood trauma? I would tend to think that for humans it may be more flexible than that. In fact, I think that the deep homophobia and even hatred of homosociality one sees in American men (compared to many Europeans) has historical roots in childhood trauma and repression combined with religious fanaticism and patterns of hyper-vigilance. These men often hate their fathers for the overt abuse and use their heterosexual relationships to repeat their trauma with their mothers. Is that not "perversion?"

    Both as a gay man and anthropologist, I'm skeptical of certain Freudian views of sexuality, and while I can trace out some aspects of my sexuality in light of the early lack of masculine love and a sense that my father, even if he didn't protect me was somehow "safer" than my mother, I don't think it can all be reduced to that given other aspects of my inner life. Rather, as I have worked on seeing and expressing my truth, I find the shame and guilt gone, leaving me free to love and appreciate men in new and happier ways. I also love women, but not in the same way. Also, seeing the childhood dramas of abuse pervasively played out among my heterosexual friends, I have had much healthier relationships in terms of communication and being and having a loving witness than I see many of them having--relationships often fraught with emotional abuse and attachment rage. What do you think?
    '

    "AM [Alice Miller]: Since you have been reading my books for 20 years you certainly know that I think EVERYTHING we become is in some way connected to our childhood. This does not mean that in my opinion heterosexuality is better or healthier than homosexuality, not at all. What I do think is that only the DENIAL of this connection to one's history, the denial of the endured injury to protect the abuser (out of fear) is indeed unhealthy. This is true for people of BOTH kind of sexual orientation. But you don't deny your history, you are thus free of shame and guilt, as you say, you can enjoy the good communication with your partners and don't need ideologies to justify your choice."

    http://www.primalspirit.com/mickel_e...inatal_art.htm

    Grof: ‘We certainly see the enormous unleashing of the aggressive impulse in the many wars and revolutionary upheavals in the world, in the rising criminality, terrorism, and racial riots. Sexual experiences and behaviors are taking unprecedented forms, as manifested in sexual freedom of youngsters, promiscuity, open marriages, overtly sexual books, plays, and movies, gay liberation, sadomasochistic experimentation, and many others. The demonic element is also becoming increasingly manifest in the modern world.’

    http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln05_psychogenic.html

    - from BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph. D.; [The Birds and the Bees], p. 19: ...Simple pelvic thrusting and rubbing of the genitals on the rump of the other animal is widespread in both male and female homosexual mounts (occurring in the Northern Fur Seal, Lion, and Proboscis Monkey, among others), and simple genital-to-genital touching is the form of homosexual (and heterosexual) contact in species where males do not have a penis (as in most birds, such as the Pukeko and Tree Swallow). A more unusual type of male homosexual contact involves various forms of non-anal penetration. In Whales and Dolphins, both males and females have a genital slit or opening; when not aroused, the male's penis is contained in the cavity leading to this slit. Homosexual activity in Bowhead Whales, Bottlenose Dolphins, and Botos sometimes involves insertion of the penis of one male into the genital slit of the other. Other more unusual forms of penetration have also been documented: male Botos occasionally insert the penis into a male partner's blowhole (on the top of his head!), while male Orang-utans have even been observed retracting their penis to form a sort of "hollow" or concavity that another male can penetrate. Clitoral rubbing or other types of genital tribadism are found in female Bonobos, Gorillas, and Rhesus Macaques (among others), while males in several species (e.g. White-handed Gibbons, West Indian Manatees, and Gray Whales) rub their penises together or on each other's body. In male Bonobos, mutual genital rubbing sometimes takes the form of an activity with the colorful name of "penis fencing," in which the males hang suspended by their arms and rub their erect organs against each other.

    - p. 93 [Chapter 3] - (quote from James Darling): ...after about twenty minutes I realized that what I was watching was three whales involved in most erotic activities! ...Then one, two, and eventually three penes appeared as the three whales rolled at the same time. Obviously, all three were males! It was almost two hours after the first sighting...and up to that point I was convinced I was watching mating behavior. A discovery--and a stern reminder that first impressions are deceiving.
    --James Darling, "The Vancouver Island Gray Whales"
    -Two male Gray Whales participating in homosexual activity off the coast of Vancouver Island. Only the erect penises of the whales are visible above the surface of the water, but this enabled scientists to verify the sex of the animals. Without this confirmation, observers would probably have mistaken this for heterosexual mating activity.

    - p. 106: ...Astounding as it sounds, a number of scientists have actually argued that when a female Bonobo wraps her legs around another female, rubbing her own clitoris against her partner's while emitting screams of enjoyment, this is actually "greeting" behavior, or "reassurance" behavior, or "reconciliation" behavior, or "tension-regulation" behavior, or "social bonding" behavior, or "food exchange" behavior--almost anything, it seems, besides pleasurable sexual behavior.
    NOTE: See, for example Takahata et al. (1996: 149), who ask, "Is GG-rubbing a sexual behavior?" and conclude that its "nonsexual" aspects are more prominent, because of its association with tension reduction, feeding, reassurance, participation by nonestrous females, and the fact that Bonobos (unlike Japanese Macaques) do not form "exclusive homosexual female-female pairs." None of these characteristics, in fact, negate a fully "sexual" interpretation. In particular, the fact that Bonobos do not form same-sex pairs or consortships hardly argues against the sexual nature of their genital rubbing--it simply indicates that homosexual interactions in this species do not involve extensive pair-bonding. By these criteria, Bonobo heterosexual interactions would have to be considered nonsexual as well, since they are often associated with the same "social" or "nonsexual" situations, nor do individuals form "exclusive heterosexual male-female pairs." See also Kuroda (1980:190), who considers genital rubbing between females to be "uninterpretable" when it occurs in contexts that are not related to tension reduction or food exchange; and Kano (1980: 253-54, 1992: 139, 1990: 66-67, 69), who classifies same-sex activities in Bonobos as primarily "social" rather than "sexual" and ascribes to them the primary "functions" of greeting, reassurance, reconciliation, and food-sharing (while nevertheless sexual aspects may be secondarily involved in some cases). As recently as 1997, researchers were still speculating about, and emphasizing the nonsexual "functions" of Bonobo homosexual activity (Hohmann and Fruth, 1997).

    "Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members . . . The base doctrine of the majority of voices usurps the place of the doctrine of the soul. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

    - from Palimpsest: A Memoir by Gore Vidal; pp. 29-31: Boarders in the Lower School were divided between the aristocrats, who had pubic hair, and the plebes, who did not. I was part of the aristocracy. When Jimmie arrived, at midterm, he was much discussed. Did he or didn’t he have pubic hair? He went for a shower, and I joined him: aristocratic, with bright gold curls. As I looked at him, he gave me a big grin and so it began, likeness drawn to likeness, soon to be made whole by desire minus the obligatory pursuit.
    When I came to read the Symposium, I was amazed at how precisely Plato had anticipated two boys twenty-three hundred years later. The classical scholar M. I. Finley once told me that it was not he but one of his students who first noticed that Plato never speaks in his own voice at that famous dinner party; rather, he gives to others viewpoints that he may or may not have shared. So it is Aristophanes—not Plato—who explains to his dinner companions the nature of sexual desire.
    To begin with, there were three sexes, each shaped like a globe – male, female, hermaphrodite. The three globes behaved offensively to the king of the gods, who chose to discipline them by slicing each in half. “Just as you or I might chop up sour apples for pickling,” remarks Aristophanes, “or slice an egg with a hair.” Apollo was then called into tidy up the six creatures that had once been three. “Now when the work of bisection was complete it left each half with a desperate yearning for the other, and they ran together and flung their arms around each other’s necks, and asked for nothing better than to be rolled into one.”
    This explains, according to Aristophanes, how the male half of the hermaphrodite is attracted to his female half, while the half of the woman sphere is drawn to woman and man to man. “And so when this boy-lover—or any lover, for that matter—is fortunate enough to meet his other half, they are both so intoxicated with affection, with friendship, and with love that they cannot bear to let each other out of sight for a single instant . . . although they may be hard put to say what they really want with one another, and indeed the purely sexual pleasure of their friendship could hardly account for the huge delight they take in one another’s company. The fact is that both their souls are longing for something else – a something to which they can neither of them put a name…. And so all this to-do is a relic of that original state of ours, when we were whole . . .”
    Parenthetically, I have just been reading Kenneth Dover’s wonderfully self-confident memoirs. The author of Greek Homosexuality asks, “Why did Plato make Aristophanes the mouthpiece of the ‘other half’ doctrine? My own answer was (and is) that Plato recognized it as a vulgar, uneducated idea, and therefore appropriate to a writer of comedies which are undeniably vulgar and populist.” Dover then celebrates “those of us who are happily married . . .” One is pleased, of course, for the Dovers; even so, there are other equally successful unions. But I am hardly, disinterested as I, too, have written vulgar and populist comedies.
    I cannot think just how or why my coming together with Jimmie happened to take place on the white tile floor of the bathroom at Merrywood. I suppose that the butler was on the prowl at the time. But there we were, belly to belly, in the act of becoming one. As it turned out, Jimmie had been involved with another boy, while I, despite wet dreams, had never even masturbated. As it was, mutual masturbation was impossible with Jimmie – too painful for me because his large callused hands gripped a cock like a baseball bat. So we simply came together, reconstituting the original male that Zeus had split in two. Yet “sexual pleasure could hardly account for the huge delight we took in one another’s company.” There was no guilt, no sense of taboo. But then we were in Arcadia, not diabolic Eden.
    - pp. 34-35: We went downstairs to the men's room with its tall marble urinals and large cubicles. I wondered, what, if anything, he felt. After all, men are not boys. Fortunately, our bodies still fitted perfectly together, as we promptly discovered inside one of the cubicles, standing up, belly to belly, talking of girls and marriage and coming simultaneously.
    Thus, we were whole for what proved to be the last time for the two of us--and for me, if not for him, for good. I not only never again encountered the other half, but by the time I was twenty-five, I had given up all pursuit, settling for a thousand brief anonymous adhesions, as Walt Whitman would put it, where wholeness seems, for an instant, to be achieved. Quite enough, I think, if the real thing has happened. At least, in Platonic terms, I had completed myself once.

    - from The Selected Essays of Gore Vidal (Edited by Jay Parini); pp. 353-355 [Pink Triangle and Yellow Star (1981) by Gore Vidal]: Tricks is the story of an author – Renaud Camus himself – who has twenty-five sexual encounters in the course of six months. Each of these encounters involves a pick-up. Extrapolating from Camus’s sexual vigor at the age of 35, I would suspect that he has already passed the 500 mark and so is completely obliterated as a human being. If he is, he still writes very well indeed. He seems to be having a good time, and he shows no sign of wanting to kill himself, but then that may be a front he’s keeping up. I am sure that Decter will be able to tell just how close he is to OD’ing.
    From his photograph, Camus appears to have a lot of hair on his chest. I don’t know about the shoulders, as they are covered, modestly, with a shirt. Perhaps he is Jewish. Roland Barthes wrote an introduction to Tricks. For a time, Barthes was much admired in American academe. But then, a few years ago, Barthes began to write about his same-sexual activities; he is now mentioned a bit less than he was in the days before he came out, as they say.
    Barthes notes that Camus’s book is a “text that belongs to literature.” It is not pornographic. It is also not a Homosexual Novel in that there are no deep, anguished chats about homosexuality. In fact, the subject is never mentioned; it just is. Barthes remarks, “Homosexuality shocks less [well, he is—or was—French], but continues to be interesting; it is still at that stage of excitation where it provokes what might be called feats of discourse [see “The Boys on the Beach,” no mean feat!]. Speaking of homosexuality permits those who aren’t to show how open, liberal, and modern they are; and those who are to bear witness, to assume responsibility, to militate. Everyone gets busy, in different ways, whipping it up.” You can say that again! And Barthes does. But with a nice variation. He makes the point that you are never allowed not to be categorized. But then, “say ‘I am’ and you will be socially saved.” Hence the passion for the either/or.
    Camus does not set out to give a panoramic view of homosexuality. He comments, in his preface, on the variety of homosexual expressions. Although there is no stigma attached to homosexuality in the French intellectual world where, presumably, there is no equivalent of the new class, the feeling among the lower classes is still intense, a memento of the now exhausted (in France) Roman Catholic Church’s old dirty work (“I don’t understand the French Catholics,” said John Paul II). As a result, many “refuse to grant their tastes because they live in such circumstances, in such circles, that their desires are not only for themselves inadmissible but inconceivable, unspeakable.”
    It is hard to describe a book that is itself a description, and that is what Tricks is – a flat, matter-of-fact description of how the narrator meets the tricks, what each says to the other, where they go, how the rooms are furnished, and what the men do. One of the tricks is nuts; a number are very hairy—the narrator has a Decterian passion for the furry; there is a lot of anal and banal sex as well as oral and floral sex. Frottage flows. Most of the encounters take place in France, but there is one in Washington, D.C., with a black man. There is a good deal of comedy, in the Raymond Roussel manner.
    Tricks will give ammunition to those new-class persons and redneck divines who find promiscuity every bit as abominable as same-sex relations. But that is the way men are when they are given freedom to go about their business unmolested. One current Arab ruler boasts of having ten sexual encounters a day, usually with different women. A diplomat who knows him says that he exaggerates, but not much. Of course, he is a Muslim.
    The family, as we know it, is an economic, not a biological, unit. I realize that this is startling news in this culture and at a time when the economies of both East and West require that the nuclear family be, simply, God. But our ancestors did not live as we do. They lived in packs for hundreds of millennia before “history” began, a mere 5,000 years ago. Whatever social arrangements human society may come up with in the future, it will have to be acknowledged that those children who are needed should be rather more thoughtfully brought up than they are today and that those adults who do not care to be fathers or mothers should be let off the hook. This is beginning, slowly, to dawn. Hence, the rising hysteria in the land. Hence, the concerted effort to deny the human ordinariness of same-sexualists. A recent attempt to portray such a person sympathetically on television was abandoned when the Christers rose up in arms.
    pp. 341-344: Today, American evangelical Christians are busy trying to impose on the population at large their superstitions about sex and the sexes and the creation of the world. Given enough turbulence in the land, these natural fascists can be counted on to assist some sort of authoritarian—but never, never totalitarian—political movement. Divines from Santa Clara to Falls Church are particularly fearful of what they describe as the gay liberation movement’s attempt to gain “special rights and privileges” when all that the same-sexers want is to be included, which they are not by law and custom, within the framework of the Fourteenth Amendment. The divine in Santa Clara believes that same-sexers should be killed. The divine in Falls Church believes that they should be denied equal rights under the law. Meanwhile, the redneck divines have been joined by a group of New York Jewish publicists who belong to what they proudly call “the new class” (ne arrivistes), and these lively hucksters have now managed to raise fag-baiting to a level undreamed of in Falls Church—or even in Moscow.
    In a letter to a friend, George Orwell wrote, “It is impossible to mention Jews in print, either favorably or unfavorably, without getting into trouble.” But there are times when trouble had better be got into before mere trouble turns into catastrophe. Jews, blacks, and homosexualists are despised by the Christian and Communist majorities of East and West. Also, as a result of the invention of Israel, Jews can now count on the hatred of the Islamic world. Since our own Christian majority looks to be getting ready for great adventures at home and abroad, I would suggest that the three despised minorities join forces in order not to be destroyed. This seems an obvious thing to do. Unfortunately, most Jews refuse to see any similarity between their special situation and that of the same-sexers. At one level, the Jews are perfectly correct. A racial or religious or tribal identity is a kind of fact. Although sexual preference is an even more powerful fact, it is not one that creates any particular social or cultural or religious bond between those so-minded. Although Jews would doubtless be Jews if there was no anti-Semitism, same-sexers would think little or nothing at all about their preference if society ignored it. So there is a difference between the two estates. But there is no difference in the degree of hatred felt by the Christian majority for Christ-killers and Sodomites. In the German concentration camps, Jews wore yellow stars while homosexualists wore pink triangles. I was present when Christopher Isherwood tired to make this point to a young Jewish movie producer. “After all,” said Isherwood, “****** killed six hundred thousand homosexuals.” The young man was not impressed. “But ****** killed six million Jews,” he said sternly. “What are you?” asked Isherwood. “In real estate?”
    Like it or not, Jews and homosexualists are in the same fragile boat, and one would have to be pretty obtuse not to see the common danger. But obtuseness is the name of the game among New York’s new class. Elsewhere, I have described the shrill fag-baiting of Joseph Epstein, Norman Podhoretz, Alfred Kazin, and the Hilton Kramer Hotel. Harper’s magazine and Commentary usually publish these pieces, though other periodicals are not above printing the odd expose of the latest homosexual conspiracy to turn the United States over to the Soviet Union or to structuralism or to Christian Dior. Although the new class’s thoughts are never much in themselves, and they themselves are no more than spear carriers in the political and cultural life of the West, their prejudices and superstitions do register in a subliminal way, making mephitic the air of Manhattan if not of the Republic.
    A case in point is that of Mrs. Norman Podhoretz, also known as Midge Decter (like Martha Ivers, whisper her name). In September of last year [circa 1980(?)], Decter published a piece called “The Boys on the Beach” in her husband’s magazine, Commentary. It is well worth examining in some detail because she has managed not only to come up with every known prejudice and superstition about same-sexers but also to make up some brand-new ones. For sheer vim and vigor, “The Boys on the Beach” outdoes its implicit model, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
    Decter notes that when the “homosexual rights movement first burst upon the scene,” she was “more than a little astonished.” Like so many new-class persons, she writes a stilted sort of genteel-gentile prose not unlike—but not very like, either—The New Yorker house style of the 1940s and ‘50s. She also writes with the authority and easy confidence of someone who knows that she is very well known indeed to those few who know her.
    Decter tells us that twenty years ago, she got to know a lot of pansies at a resort called Fire Island Pines, where she and a number of other new-class persons used to make it during the summer. She estimates that 40 percent of the summer people were heterosexual; the rest were not. Yet the “denizens, homosexual and heterosexual alike, were predominantly professionals and people in soft marginal business—lawyers, advertising executives, psychotherapists, actors, editors, writers, publishers, etc.” Keep this in mind. Our authoress does not.
    Decter goes on to tell us that she is now amazed at the recent changes in the boys on the beach. Why have they become so politically militant—and so ill groomed? “What indeed has happened to the homosexual community I used to know—they who only a few short years ago [as opposed to those manly 370-day years] were characterized by nothing so much as a sweet, vain, pouting, girlish attention to the youth and beauty of their bodies?” Decter wrestles with this problem. She tells us how, in the old days, she did her very best to come to terms with her own normal dislike for these half-men—and half-women, too: “There were also homosexual women at the Pines, but they were, or seemed to be, far fewer in number. Nor, except for a marked tendency to hang out in the company of large and ferocious dogs, were they instantly recognizable as the men were.” Well, if I were a dyke and a pair of Podhoretzes came waddling toward me on the beach, copies of Leviticus and Freud in hand, I’d get in touch with the nearest Alsatian dealer pronto.
    Decter was disturbed by “the slender, seamless, elegant and utterly chic” clothes of the fairies. She also found it “a constant source of wonder” that when the fairies took off their clothes, “the largest number of homosexuals had hairless bodies. Chests, backs, arms, even legs were smooth and silky. . . . We were never able to determine just why there should be so definite a connection between what is nowadays called their sexual preference [previously known to right-thinking Jews as an abomination against Jehovah] and their smooth feminine skin. Was it a matter of hormones?” Here Decter betrays her essential modesty and lack of experience. In the no doubt privileged environment of her Midwestern youth, she could not have seen very many gentile males without their clothes on. If she had, she would have discovered that gentile men tend to be less hairy than Jews except, of course, when they are not. Because the Jews killed our Lord, they are forever marked with hair on their shoulders—something that no gentile man has on his shoulders except for John Travolta and a handful of other Italian-Americans from the Englewood, New Jersey, area.
    It is startling that Decter has not yet learned that there is no hormonal difference between men who like sex with other men and those who like sex with women. She notes, “There is also such a thing as characteristic homosexual speech . . . it is something of an accent redolent of small towns in the Midwest whence so many homosexuals seemed to have migrated to the big city.” Here one detects the disdain of the self-made New Yorker for the rural or small-town American. “Midwest” is often a code word for the flyovers, for the millions who do not really matter. But she is right in the sense that when a group chooses to live and work together, they do tend to sound and look alike. No matter how crowded and noisy a room, one can always detect the new-class person’s nasal whine.
    Every now and then, Decter does wonder if, perhaps, she is generalizing and whether this will “no doubt in itself seem to many of the uninitiated a bigoted formulation.” Well, Midge, it does. But the spirit is upon her, and she cannot stop because “one cannot even begin to get at the truth about homosexuals without this kind of generalization. They are a group so readily distinguishable.” Except of course, when they are not. It is one thing for a group of queens, in “soft, marginal” jobs, to “cavort,” as she puts it, in a summer place and be “easily distinguishable” to her cold eye just as Jewish members of the new class are equally noticeable to the cold gentile eye. But it is quite another thing for those men and women who prefer same-sex sex to other-sex sex yet do not choose to be identified—and so are not. To begin to get at the truth about homosexuals, one must realize that the majority of those millions of Americans who prefer same-sex sex to other-sex sex are obliged, sometimes willingly and happily but often not, to marry and have children and to conform to the guidelines set down by the heterosexual dictatorship.

    - from The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath; pp. 210-211 (Chapter Eighteen): ‘I don’t see what women see in other women,’ I’d told Doctor Nolan in my interview that noon. ‘What does a woman see in a woman that she can’t see in a man?’
    Doctor Nolan paused. Then she said, ‘Tenderness.’
    That shut me up.
    ‘I like you,’ Joan was saying. ‘I like you better than Buddy.’
    And as she stretched out on my bed with a silly smile, I remembered a minor scandal at our college dormitory when a fat, matronly- breasted senior, homely as a grandmother and a pious Religion major, and a tall, gawky freshman with a history of being deserted at an early hour in all sorts of ingenious ways by her blind dates, started seeing too much of each other. They were always together, and once somebody had come upon them embracing, the story went, in the fat girl’s room.
    ‘But what were they doing?’ I had asked. Whenever I thought about men and men, and women and women, I could never really imagine what they would be actually doing.
    ‘Oh,’ the spy had said, ‘Milly was sitting on the chair and Theodora was lying on the bed, and Milly was stroking Theodora’s hair.’
    I was disappointed, I had thought I would have some revelation of specific evil. I wondered if all women did with other women was lie and hug.
    Of course, the famous woman poet at my college lived with another woman—a stumpy old Classical scholar with a cropped Dutch cut. And when I had told the poet I might well get married and have a pack of children some day, she stared at me in horror. ‘But what about your career?’ she had cried.
    My head ached. Why did I attract these weird old women? There was the famous poet, and Philomena Guinea, and Jay Cee, and the Christian Scientist lady and lord knows who, and they all wanted to adopt me in some way, and, for the price of their care and influence, have me resemble them.
    Last edited by HERO; 03-20-2011 at 12:07 AM.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    add:
    Ricky Martin (INTJ)
    Jaye Davidson (INFP)
    Fiona Shaw (ISTP)
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    John Barrowman (ENTP)
    Lady Gaga (ENTP)
    Leisha Hailey (INFP)
    Lindsay Lohan (ESFP)
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  38. #38
    Ver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    net
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    526
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you think about Ellen deGeneres and Portia de Rossi? Ellen is totally ENFp, but Portia - is she INFj?

  39. #39
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauluch View Post
    What do you think about Ellen deGeneres and Portia de Rossi? Ellen is totally ENFp, but Portia - is she INFj?
    Di Rossi strikes me as Fe/Ti irrational, probably ISFp.

  40. #40
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,810
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thank you Slacker for educating pianosinger and doing the right thing. Thank you pianosinger for having the balls to admit an opinion that's not so 'PC.' Thank you Galen for not succumbing to the obvious self-loathing homosexual male impulse and saying "Yeah, we all suck." Lazybones, it is okay if you are gay and you are in good company here. Just calm down a little bit we all love you and support you and accept you (Thank God catholics can't abort you)

    I met a lot of homosexuals I don't like. I don't like most homosexuals, just like I don't like most heterosexuals. It feels really ideal if I meet a gay guy I like, because you have the shared affections plus you also get along in other ways so it's easy to feel deeply connected.

    Pianosinger: I remember this one fat, invasive obese black effeminate ****** would annoy me in public and talk about things that I didn't want to hear about. He was also too nosy and said that "I had a big heart and need to let go of things." But it's like he wasn't letting me being myself. What if I don't want to let go? That should be my prerogative, not his, and it's not like his way was the best way. Also when this really obvious straight black masculine man came in the room, he started chasing him like a little girl. I thought for sure he was gonna get beat up a lot in life. When I was less empathetic I made passes on straight guys all the time but I try to be a lot more respectful and caring. Then again you see straight males doing the same thing with females. When I see a guy I like, I enjoy being flirtatious and visceral just like any other guy would.

    But then I remember my gay friend Trey that I like and am crazy about. I'm also quite fond of Galen, but sometimes I think that I like him more than he likes me. I guess that's okay. Hi Galen sweetie pie. I won't act like an annoying ******.

    The thought of judging all homosexuals as bad just because you won't subjectively like most of them is just retarded to me. We don't do the same thing with straight men.

    go go go go gays. go go go go women. go go go go go all minorities and anybody who knows what it feels like to be left out!
    Last edited by Shazaam; 10-11-2011 at 01:20 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •