How To Remove Candle Wax from A Mobile Phone

Taped duck, Ken. Just like you do on the BBQ. Tape the bl*dy duck and "boil" it, instead of roasting it.
Oh, that's an alternative for the chest hair, just roast it off instead of using the taped duck recorder manner.
 
There's yet another twist - 'Chest Hare' - A rabbit as big as a chest. Like the rabbit in Alice in chest hare land...

Would that make them metroducks? ducks with no hair on their chest?
 
This thread is calling my name, Ken? Huh. Um...is there something specific you wanted my insight on?

Considering the enormity of this thread started by Groundrush, I found this quite hilarious:

Groundrush said:
Whoever posts anything about mobile phones should be shot
:D
 
Well, since you are (as best as I can remember), openly gay and also, might I add, seem to be quite comfortable with it (being open), I was wondering if you think that if a person (you can take me as an example), elects to teach their kids that it may not be an appropriate lifestyle (just in my mind only!), would you think that this would indicate that I have doubts about my own sexual preference?
 
To be uncharacteristically brief: Maybe.

But if you wanted brief, you knew better than to ask me. :D So here goes:

Even by my standards, I have a lot to say on the subject, but I will try to avoid tangents or broadening the scope of the discusison. I would like to start out by saying that it is very difficult to discuss this topic on neutral terms since just about every word associated with the homosexuality has some kind of negative semantic. So if I use wording that carries implications with it please assume that those implications do not apply unless specifically stated.

Basically, you and Chad are both right and both wrong. Your point of view does not automatically qualify you as a closeted homosexual or insecure or homophobe or whatever. There are a lot of reasons why a person might have a negative opinion about homosexuality: personal morality, religious belief, a negative encounter with a homosexual, misconception/ignorance, insecurity, sexual identity issues, etc. Homophobia by reason of insecure sexuality is simply the most famous and most ironic example, and arguably the most prevalent. It is true that often a closeted homosexual will be the most visciously outspoken opponent of homosexual lifestyles, but it is logically invalid to infer the opposite.

On the other hand, I think that Chad has a point about the relationship between being confident with your own sexuality and being comfortable with other sexual preferences. People who have become comfortable with their own sexuality, especially those who have "deviant" sexual preferences, tend to be very confident and open when it comes to sex (although this is not a guarantee, either). A year ago, I would have been freaked out by the idea of doing some of the things I did a month ago. But trying different things has helped me be more comfortable with things I didn't used to be, even if after I try them I can say, "That's not for me". But I now know the people who do enjoy them are not weird or freaks or wrong.

I hope that answers the question. It's so hard no to go into lengthy rants...

BTW, I think Chad deserves some respect in the area of psychology since he has a degree in the subject. I think his knowledge goes beyond someone who "thinks he's Dr. Phil" (like me :D).
 
Last edited:
Kraj said:
BTW, I think Chad deserves some respect in the area of psychology since he has a degree in the subject. I think his knowledge goes beyond someone who "thinks he's Dr. Phil" (like me :D).

Sorry, Kudos Chad.

Kraj - Thanks for letting me sneak out of this discussion with a tiny bit of self-respect...
:D
 
No prob. Kudos to you for discussing a subject the gets under your skin without gettin' all fired up.

BTW, did I mention I hate the term metrosexual? :mad:
 
Kraj said:
No prob. Kudos to you for discussing a subject the gets under your skin without gettin' all fired up.

I owe it all to you ;)

Kraj said:
BTW, did I mention I hate the term metrosexual? :mad:

I'm kind of hesitant to use it outside of the forum :D
 
Well it's just plain stupid. It's like a super-concentrated stereotype. Let's see... how can we reinforce the gay vs. straight and urban vs. rural seterotypes while coining a completely unnecessary term for a straight man who cares about his appearance, riding the fad success of Queer Eye, encouraging an increase in the market for men's cosmetics to help us get rich, and simultaneously make anyone with an iota of intelligence want to vomit? I've got it....!
 
Rich said:
Nah, you're just becoming Metrosexual :eek:

Seems it's just bad juju to do grouping and labels at all. Don't we have enough division...
 
KenHigg said:
Seems it's just bad juju to do grouping and labels at all. Don't we have enough division...

Too true, I don't care what anybodys sexuality is, as long as their not male and have me in their sights :D
 
Rich said:
Too true, I don't care what anybodys sexuality is, as long as their not male and have me in their sights :D

Well said Richard!

(Edit- O dear...It's the lack of a diet coke...I'm starting to agree with him... :eek: )
 
Rich said:
Too true, I don't care what anybodys sexuality is, as long as their not male and have me in their sights :D
And that's a problem because...? It's it too horrifying to have to politely utter the phrase, "No thank you, I'm not interested." once in a while?
 
Kraj said:
And that's a problem because...? It's it too horrifying to have to politely utter the phrase, "No thank you, I'm not interested." once in a while?

Because some members of society just won't take no for an answer, that includes females too of course ;)
 
Kraj said:
And that's a problem because...? It's it too horrifying to have to politely utter the phrase, "No thank you, I'm not interested." once in a while?

((Hum... Why does that sound familiar?))
 
Rich said:
Because some members of society just won't take no for an answer, that includes females too of course ;)
Then the problem is with the sleazeballs that won't take no for an answer; their sexuality has nothing to do with it.

KenHigg said:
((Hum... Why does that sound familiar?))
I give up. Why?
 
Kraj said:
...I give up. Why?

"No thank you, I'm not interested." I'm guessing I may have heard it a time or two whilst hitting on super model looking chickies many moons ago while chugging suds... :eek: :D
 
Kraj said:
Then the problem is with the sleazeballs that won't take no for an answer;

But they don't see themselves as sleazeballs, desire is often overwhelming
 
Kraj said:
Well it's just plain stupid. It's like a super-concentrated stereotype. Let's see... how can we reinforce the gay vs. straight and urban vs. rural seterotypes while coining a completely unnecessary term for a straight man who cares about his appearance, riding the fad success of Queer Eye, encouraging an increase in the market for men's cosmetics to help us get rich, and simultaneously make anyone with an iota of intelligence want to vomit? I've got it....!

Believe it or not, I think it's a terrible term fraught with supposition, unclarified linguistic ideas, and just plain misleading all as I pointed out earlier. I guess I'm simply more wont to speak on the level society has dictated than to fight to rise above it. 'My bad.' ;)

~Chad
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom