John Galaor

More about birds. Little birds this time. Page 602, HOUSE SPARROW, Passer domesticus BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD, Molothrus ater WATTLED STARLING, Creatophora cinerea Social organization. I do not copy this part. Description Behavioral expression. Male Brown-headed Cowbirds sometimes solicit homosexuals copulations from male House Sparrows. Cowbirds commonly invite birds of other species to preen them, but occasionally a interspecies encounter includes homosexual mounting when House Sparrow is involved. This extraordinary behavior typically begins with a male Crowbird adopting a characteristic HEAD-DOWN posture next to a Sparrow in which he bows his head, touching his lower bill to his breast feathers while crouching slightly and raising his wings a bit at his shoulders. The house sparrow then mounts the cowbird, grasping his head feathers in his beak while attempting to copulate. If he shows signs of leaving or lack of interest after a single mounting, the cowbird would will immediately resume the invitation posture to him, insistently nudging the sparrow with his head and persistently following him until he mounts again. This make continue for an extended time, with repeated homosexual mountings (five or more) occurring in a single session. Homosexual courtship occasionally occur in Wattled Starling. Males sometimes select another male as an object of their attention, displaying to him with a number of stylized postures. Among this are the LATERAL DISPLAY, in which the male turns sideways and lets his wings hang down at his side (exposing his white feathers) [My comment: that reminds me of the sagging, some male boys showing their underwear] In the FRONTAL DISPLAY the courting male fluff up his belly and back feathers, raising and quivering his wings while spreading his tail; In the distinctive VULTURE POSTURE, in which he stretches his entire body vertically while puffing out his breast feathers and he tightly folds his wings against his sides like a vulture. A form of plumage transvestism also occurs in this species, in which some females develop a male appearance. Most males have a special seasonal nuptial plumage, growing two pendulous wattles from either side of their beaks and losing most of their feathers from their head, thereby exposing the yellow or black skin and two fleshy comb-like growths on the forehead. The feather loss has been described as a form or "male pattern baldness" akin to the type of hair loss found in humans, and indeed is regulated by male hormones (as in human baldness). While the majority of females never exhibit these plumage characteristics, a few females do acquire a male appearance with feather loss, wattle and combs. Frequency: Brown-headed Cowbirds regularly perform the head-down display toward other species in the wild, and approximately 36 % of such display are directed by male cowbirds toward male House Sparrows; however Sparrows respond with homosexual mounting probably only sporadically. Similarly, homosexual courtship is in all likelihood only occasional occurrence in Wattled Starlings. About 2-10% of female Wattled Starlings are transgendered, exhibiting fairly complete battles and/or baldness. Other females appear to fall along a continuum of plumage characteristics, with some individuals showing only partial wattle development or incomplete baldness. --------------- Other Species Male Sharp-tailed Sparrows (Ammodramus caudatus), a North American species, sometimes mounts other males. Adolescent male Yellow-rumped Caciques (Cacicus cela), a South American black bird, frequently mount fledglings of both sexes. Sexual behavior towards these younger birds is usually part of an overall pattern of harassment, in which adolescent males (often in groups) chase, peck, attack, and sometimes even knock fledglings from their perches (often resulting in death by drowning if they fall into water). About 36% of such harassments (and the associated sexual behavior) involve same-sex interactions. [My comment: this part also makes me recall the attitude of bullies in a high school, while harassing timid or gay boys]

there are some... some expectations that come out by reading a story. Pleasant expectations, I suppose. Reading can cause a little scare sometimes, well mixed with the pleasant expectations. For a story is like a simulation of living. We need to read stories for we have not enough living in our life. Sometimes we had not enough thrilling in our lives. Or, either, living a real lives takes us a lot of time we not have. Then, events develop much faster in a novel, or a short story. Then, reading is akin to live in a much faster way. And it is a lot cheaper than the real thing. Then, depending on the readers you aiming at... your stories should have some constraints in language. If you had read the famous Madame Bovary of Flaubert, you can see how prudish was his language, and this novel was declared obscene because a married lady was flirting with a young gentleman. There is a part on the story that tell us they went at last along in a close carriage at great speed by lone ways in the countryside. It is supposed in this sinful carriage, they unleashed their lower passions constrained for so long. It is supposed... because the author does no tell a word of what was happening inside this carriage. It is the sinful mind of the reader that is imagining the lustful scene. But what this couple was doing is simple to pray the holy rosary. Remember they were French and catholics. Then, the story was obscene because, the censors were obscene. And they assumed that not self-respecting lady goes alone in a carriage praying the holy rosary without a chaperon to witness the event. Or, just in case, a married lady has not the right to do that either. Not even to wink a young bachelor gentleman. The stories in GA, to be popular, has to be priggish like those of 19 century. Flaubert wrote this novel in late 19 century during the apotheosis of Victorian prudishness. So, take this notice, those strayed authors that are too explicit narrators. A lady cannot go alone in a carriage with a gentleman unless she is accompanied by a chaperon. John Galaor, the explicit narrator

the appearance of a person says much about his hormonal state. Then, it is my theory that most gay people love young healthy looking strong people. So, they cannot look fat or something. Excess of fat shows like he is lacking libido. Something is unbalanced in this body. Of course, as we are getting older, our levels of testosterone lower, and we start to gain weight by accumulating fat. Testosterone makes for a lean body, with little fat. There is not any need to have overdeveloped muscles. But muscles are a mark of having enough testosterone. Then, my idea is that most gays do not feel attracted to feminine gays, but they had to be mostly manly. On the other hand, people high on testosterone would prefer feminine gays. That calls for the well know stereotype of top and bottom gays. Of course there must be intermediate cases, in which both can be top and bottom alternatively. Some animals involved in homosexual relations take turns at mounting, while others mounters do not accept to be mounted. I think bisexuals are a case of intermediate sexuality, a case of being between totally gay and totally straight. I will post a theory of mine, mostly a hypothesis, about homosexuality. I would prepare it and present it in the lodge.

the trouble as said Alyce in Wonderland is that "words once uttered have a life of its own". Being an alien among an English speaking crowd, I am very sensible to the meaning of words. Then, some words puzzle me or take me aback. I got clueless with some words. Most times, when I had not a dictionary I had to vex myself with those words. But now I am like... a rich man, and I got my own dictionary. I even can consult on the Internet for the meaning of words. I would not entertain you much, My consult on the net said, choice   [chois] noun, adjective, choic·er, choic·est. –noun 1. an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends. 2. the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option: The child had no choice about going to school. 3. the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen: This book is my choice. He is one of many choices for the award. we are then forced to look for choosing. choose    /tʃuz/ Show Spelled [chooz] verb, chose; cho·sen or ( Obsolete ) chose; choos·ing. –verb (used with object) 1. to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure. 2. to prefer or decide (to do something): He chose to run for election. 3. to want; desire. to answer the question it all depends which part of the meaning we "choose". If we accept point 1 it means we can "select" if we like girls or boys? Can a gay man select that? I think he cannot. Most of them do not. then, if we accept the step 2, we have the word "prefer" then to be gay is a choice. For gays prefer a person of his same sex. Then if we accept the point 3, we have the word "want" or "desire", that means we want to have sex or desire to have sex with a person of our own sex. Then the meaning is at least "contradictory" according to the dictionary. It is a choice and it is not, at the same time. That's the reason I included a topic about free will. When I consulted the dictionary, "freewill" simple meant that "we do something on our own", that is voluntarily. That is if you are not forced by external agents, it is an exercise of freewill. If we were to analyze the question farther, when we do something on our own, why we do it? Mostly because we have an inner force that pushed us towards doing this, in spite of being prohibited, or in spite that we know that we risk the opprobrium of our society. Think of Saudi Arabia, where gays are beheaded in a public place from time to time. Or in Iran, where from time to time they hang some gays in a public place. Then, we cannot be gay in a capricious way, as in a fancy, like we were willing to attract the attention of the public or something. Then, if we do this, this behavior is forced by an inner force we have. We do not do this or that gay thing to please the crowds and win applauses. The conclusion is that if we brave the opprobrium or hate of society with our deeds, then this cannot be a case of freewill, for it is somewhat forced by an inner tendency. Sorry, if someone thinks I am getting thick with this analysis. We cannot do a deconstruction of the language without a little work of reasoning. We do it because we love it? Yes. We do it in spite of being rebuked and rebuffed by society? Yeah. the problem that remains is that the prohibition of being gay is a part of a "kosher" doctrine. Some elements of the "kosher" doctrine of the Jews went to Christianity and some others to Islam. The prohibition of being gay is simply an element of the "kosher code" of behavior. Then, while a Muslim or a Jew has not any problem to accept the prohibition of eating pork meat, or other norms, those Jews or Muslims that are gay had problems to accept the prohibition. They are risking the rejection of society and sometimes risking their life. Nobody would go there risking their life unless an inner force were pushing him towards that behavior. I recommend to visit the topic BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE posted by me in the lodge. It talks about the homosexual behavior or many animals.

I hope he would be soon alright. He would be well in a few days.

Some litttle fragments Looking at the index, I see birds, waterfowl and others from page 485 to 653. I do not know about small birds. Page 479 presents waterfowl and other aquatic birds. pag. 481 says, Frequency: Homosexual couples constitute a significant proportion of pairs in Greylag Geese: an average of 14% of pairs in some populations are some sex, and in some years this proportion can even be higher, with more of 20% of all pair-bonds consisting of ganders. Page 483 presents Canada goose and snow goose. Pag 483 Frequency: In canada Geese, up to 12% of pairs in some semi-wild populations are homosexual. The proportion is smaller in Snow Geese; about 1 in 200 nests belong to a pair of females. Approximately 4 % of all mountings during Snow Goose rape attempts are between males. pag. 487 Black Swan and Mute Swan pag 489 Freq: Overall male couples constitute 5-6% of all pairings in Black Swans: in a given year, an average of 13% of male birds are homosexual pairs, and sometimes this proportion is as high as 20-25% of all successful families. Same sex bonds probably occur only sporadically in Mute Swans. Pag 491 on Mallard Duck . p.493 Freq. homosexual copulations and parings between female Mallard Ducks occur sporadically and are most common during the fall. In one study, roughly a quarter of the days in which sexual activity was observed included same sex mountings. The proportion of homosexual pairs varies between populations, anywhere from 2-19 percent of all pairs. ------------ And so on. I would put some samples on smaller birds. ---------- page 552 Silver Gull p. 553 Freq. About 6% of all pair bonds in Silver Gulls are homosexual, while nesting attempts by female pairs occurs approximately 12 % of all breeding seasons. in some population of Herring Gulls, nearly 3% of all pairs are homosexual, while other populations they are much less frequent, about 1 in every 360 pairs. Male homosexual mountings account for 10% of non monogamous copulations in Silver Gulls, and 2% of the total number of copulations; they are probably much less common in Herring Gulls. ------------ Page 587 Hooded Warbler. pag. 589 Freq: The overall incidence of homosexual pairs in Hood Warblers is not known, since not widespread, systematically study had yet been conducted to determine the prevalence. However, in one population observed over three years, 4% of pair bonds (3 of 80) were between males. Although over sexual behavior had not been observed between such pair mates, heterosexual copulations are rarely seen in this species either; it is possible that, therefore, that homosexual copulations take place. Among females, plumage transvestism is a regular occurrence, as about 59 percent of females have some degree of malelike black feathers on their head: 40% has only a slight amount, 17% an intermediate amount, and 2% have a nearly complete black hood. ------------ Well, I am tired of putting samples. there are also Sparrows, black birds and crows on page 598 and others. by example, pag. 600. Freq. In Sociable Weavers studied in captivity, as much as three quarters of all mounting activity is between males., and 3 out of five full copulations are homosexual. The occurrence of same sex mounting in wild birds of this species are not known, but the prevalence is probable comparable (specially since heterosexual activity is also apparently infrequent). In one study of wild Gray-capped Social Weavers, all sexual activity observed took place between males. In Red Bishops, aprox 6% of courtship bumble-flights are directed by and adult male toward another adult male; courtship of younger males probably occurs more often than this. -------- Well, I am tired of copying.

I was very moved with your story.

there is not enough people that love classic. I like some works of Brahms I heard. But I am not sure I would like all of them. I like also Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and others, but we should have to ask... how it becomes that this person or that other like this music and not other? I was reading about kabuki theater... and well, why we do no like kabuki theater? It is a rhetorical question. I remember I was hooked to Bach when I married. I had bought a play recorder and some records from Bach, among then was "Toccata e fuga". I was from a poor ignorant family that never had books or records. This record player was my first machine to heard music. I did not know anything about Bach except that it was a music composer and famous. Then "toccata e fuga"... it seemed I had read this somewhere. Then, if instead of Bach I would had chose Pink Floyd, I would had get hooked to a different sort of music. The music you like best is that associated with a lustful youth period of your life. What was you hearing when you were full of lust? That is the best music for the rest of your life. But this does not preclude divorces. You can divorce of this music when your lust state disappears. It is like you do not get pleasure out it. So, you divorce. For the lust is not a permanent state. It presents some fluctuations. Then, when your lust come back... what music were you hearing? This will be your next marriage with the best music that money can buy. Well, I love also baroque choruses singing. It awakes my lust and provokes some peculiar swelling on my body.

BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE By Bruce Bagemihl Some comments on this book. I bought it some years ago in Amazone books It is a fabulous books and deserves to be recommended to people interested in homosexual behavior of many animals. If someone is interested, he can ask me to post some fragments of the book on other animals. I choose this page at random yesterday. Then I said, I will post a little on the lodge. On page 405 WILD SHEEP, GOATS AND BUFFALO BIGHORN SHEEP Ovis canadensis THINHORN and DALL’S AHEEP Ovis dalli ASIATIC MOUFLON or URIAL Ovis orientalis ----------- On page-406-407 Description Behavioral Expression In bighorn and thinhorn sheep, males live in what one zoologist called “homosexual societies” in which same-sex courtship and sexual activity occurs routinely among all rams. Typically an older high-ranking male would court a male younger than him, using a sequence of stylized movements. Same sex courtships is often initiated when a male approaches other in the in the LOW STRETCHED posture, in which the head and neck are is lowered and extended far forward. This might be combined with a TWIST where the male sharply rotates his head and points his muzzle towards the other male, often while flicking his tongue and making growling or grumbling sounds. The courting ram often performs a FORELEG KICK, stiffly snapping his front leg up against the other male’s belly or between his hind legs. He also occasionally sniffs and nuzzles the other male’s genital area and make perform LIP CURLING or FLEHMEN, in which he samples the other male’s urine by retracting his upper lip to expose a special olfactory organ. Thinhorn rams may even lick the penis of the male they are courting. The being courted sometimes rubs his forehead and cheeks -even licking and nibbling him- and may also rub his horns on the other male’s neck, chest or shoulders, occasionally developing an erection. Similar courtship behaviors occur among male Asiatic Mouflons. In addiction to genital licking (in Thinhorns), sexual activity between rams usually involves mounting and anal intercourse; typically the larger male rears up on his hind legs and mounts the smaller male, placing his front legs on the other flanks. The mountee assumes the characteristic posture known as LORDOSIS, in which he arches his back to facilitate copulation (this posture is also seen in many females mammals during heterosexual mating). Usually the mounting male has an erect penis and achieves full anal penetration, performing thrusts that probably lead to ejaculation in many cases. --------- My comment: It continues the story describing more variations on this courtship and mounting, sometimes in groups, several males corralling making a circle around a younger male to mount it in turns, etc. Sometimes they go after him if try to flee, chasing him to continue and so.. -------------- Then there is a part which is called --------------- Frequency. In Bighorns and Thinhorns, homosexual mounting occurs commonly throughout the year, but is specially frequent during the rut when heterosexual activity si also taking place, accounting for about a quarter of all sexual activity at that time (and ocurring in up to 69 percent of males’ interactions. With each other). Outside the rut, all mounting activity is homosexual, but mounting accounts only accounts for 2-3 percent of males interactions with each other. At least 70 percent of males interactions with each other involve courtship behaviors. Homosexual activity appears to be less frequent in Asiatic mouflons: Behavioral transvestism occurs in approximately 5 percent of the rams in some populations of Bighorn sheep.

I must have a bit of feminine soul. Those verses are so sensible. I cannot often praise verses. It is a very rare circumstance. For sometimes words pass through me like I were an incorporeal ghost. One need to have something more solid than a soul. We need to have a body with needs unresolved, a memory fully charged with frustrations and disappointments. Then, sometimes, we let our body and memory lost on the solitary roads. This is precisely when I am a mere ghost, a pure spiritual being, that... well, words pass through me, for I have not any molecule of matter, I have not any substance at all and the words cannot hit any part of me.

Very good, Cailen. You had impressed me with your carefully written and emotive story. You let me speechless. It was a real thrilling.

the phrase made me recall the Masons that it is said they had a secret handshake to recognize each other. Now I recall when I was a kid, about 60 years ago, that someone told me of a secret sign that gays had. As you get the hand of someone he made a sign on the palm of your hand like asking, "are you gay?" if you smiled back or gave back the same sign on his palm, it was a yes.

these questions can put up more space among people than others. But even religion... it can be a problem, unless we are talking about light religion. Anyway, I think harmony among two persons is rather difficult, after a while living together. Even among heterosexual couples. Aloofness can be caused by the same reasons. Some one told here, perhaps west coast did, that sex without love makes not any sense. I was thinking mostly about the opposite. Love without or with very little sex, can be also a problem. Then, the frustrations that can cause the differences in the frequency of lust desires can be a cause for separation in any couple. Have you heard this argument about the headache? I have never been living with another guy, but it can happen the same things as among heterosexual couples. "What about..." "Today is impossible. I got a terrible headache." And that's all. This is life. But the worse thing is when someone wants to change you. If he wants to change your thinking, your tastes, interest, etc. This also can be a poison in a relation. But this must be like a sort of universal trait; we want to change the other ones that live with us. Then, the differences in home tiding, expending money, saving or working, can be a very knotty problem. Even the differences is taste watching movies, TV, sports, vacations or leisure time, can be also a source of problems. Then, what could be the nexus that could tie two persons? The only thing that comes to my mind is sex. I understand that sharing the bills of an apartment like electricity, water, rent, etc. are also an argument. But perhaps is not the stronger of arguments.

You must be full of reason in your post for I barely understand your reasoning. It made me feel i am reading Kant or something. Nevertheless, in spite of you well ordered speech, I remain puzzled with the idea of a free choice, as synonymous with free will. Your arguments are too complex for my mind that is rather simple in its nature. I am a simple man, and do not understand the standard arguments of the some philosophers. What is clear is that as a person, there many things we like to have, or to consume, or to be. If we feel often hunger, we want to eat. If we are poorly fed we want some variety in food, and so on. If I am thirsty I want to drink something that contains water. Then I need some shelter from cold or from the heat, some clothes to be more comfortable in some latitudes, etc. As social animals we want to get some recognition, or appreciation from other humans, and so on. Withing this rang of being social, there are some signs or rank. Many of us want to have some signs of rank, etc. Many of this needs come to us because we are animals, and social. As social animals, we tend to imitate others, we want to be like one among others. So, all this is the result of a machinery that make us behave in a way or another. We can have more strength or being a weakling. But all this occurs not because we have a freedom to be strong naturally, or we are weak because it is our will to be so. We are what we are, and there is little we can do to change things. Let us assume that being a weakling we became strong like the famous Schwarzenegger or Rambo. So one tell you, you can become like Rambo. He was a weakling like you when he was twelve years old. Someone could conclude that if you do not exercise hard enough you have not the will to become a strong man like Rambo, or Schwarze. Then, if you are a weakling is you fault. I think it is not that simple. If you are weak to start with, you will have not do enough exercise to become a Rambo. You need some help from outside to do that much exercise. Someone had to help you with the exercise to improve your physical development. The same can be said of playing the piano. If you buy a piano and put it in your lounge you can tell your son, here is the piano, if you train enough you can become a great pianist. Well, he would not do any serious exercise to learn. It is like giving a boy of four or five a pencil and a note pad, and tell him start to write those letters. They are the model. This would not work. You had to train the boy step by step, teaching him to grab the pencil in due manner. You have to be near him telling how well he is doing the damn thing and so on. Then, step by step the child is learning to make a line in the paper. Then he learns to do other lines, this and that, very long lines. Then you teach the boy to make lines smaller each time, etc. You are telling constantly how good he is doing this damn stupid lines, and so on. Little by little you are taming the little kid to learn how to write. But when he is able to write a few letters, he is still a long distance to become a millionaire writing novels like John Grisham. So, our capacity to act depends to some remarkable degree to our past experience learning some rare sets of behavior like Maths, Physics, Endocrinology, Cytology, Genetics, or playing tennis. If you had not any of these backgrounds, some chooses are not at the reach of your free will. I cannot sing like Pavarotti, because I do not learned to sing. I can not play the piano for the same reason. I cannot do great maths, because I do not know enough, and so on. I can not dismissed your arguments, for they were out the reach of my intelligence. Then, we are limited, to say the least, and we only can do only some of the things that are withing our capacity to act.

I agree mostly with you. The only question pending is a definition. The Concise Oxford says, "freewill, voluntary". And voluntary means it is not forced or coerced from the outside. Then, anything that one does like a drinking a glass of water is an example of free will. That would be the end of the argument, if it were not because "I do not like the word free will", except... the origins of this could be explained by our historical past. In a world full of wars, authoritarian leaders, harsh bosses and foremen, driving us by force to an enslaving work or to wars... gives all its sense to the word "free will". Then, as in the past the "forcing" and "coercion" was so common, the word "free will" has its on right to be born. Then, when we are doing something "on our own", without being forced from outside forces, we can talk of free will. After consulting in the dictionary I got the meaning of this. But I was also influenced by science, and behaviorism in particular. From the point of view of physiology, the body is a machine that runs as ruled by a machinery that define some basics. Then, on the other hand, most vertebrates, including humans, had to learn some repertoire of behavior to earn their life and survive as long as possible. Then, all that any living organism is doing, but the basics, is something it has learned. If you had learned to play the piano, many people had told you how clever, cute and virtuous you are for playing. Then, when you grow up, even if your profession is not playing the piano, to put some gayness into the people around you, you can play the piano for a while from time to time. So, you are able to play the piano "voluntarily" that is in your own free will, because your were taught to play when you were a boy. I put this example because it is not any easy to learn to play the piano. Many students end abominating of the piano exercises. Then, what is the difference that we choose not be authoritarian with your children? versus your were? This is nothing independent. If you ended abominating of the way your parents treat you, the idea of being authoritarian with your boys, had become "aversive conditioned". Then you hate this procedure, and you would be nice with your children. Well, what would be the case if a couple who had authoritarian parents, were now raising their kids in the same manner? What could be the reason to explain these differences? It is a sort of a mystery. But I can postulate a theory that could explain these differences. In the first case, the parents were authoritarians but with little or zero mitigation. They punished the child and that was the end of the story. In the second case, the parents were authoritarians but felt bad after punishing their children, and poured over them some comfort, some consolation for being a harsh son of a bitch parent. Then, any child that were raised in this way, had learned that after a good trashing, mom or dad, got me in his arms and caress me lot, the soothed me of the scolding, he tell me nice words of love and kissed me. He or she, spread some cream on the place is hurting more by the erosion caused by the whip, etc. This sort of things. Then, when a parent chooses a way or another to raise his children, he is acting in a way that has its roots on his past. It is like being a Christian or a Muslim, or a Jew. We are any of this, because of some past influences determines our behavior in the present. It can be also explained how a Mormon family is surprised one day that their son that became an atheist. They had done something wrong. If were not the case, he would be a Mormon boy like any other. The past can explain why a concrete boy had not learned well to play the piano and dropped the damn thing off. Others on the contrary, were able to make a career of playing the piano. Even to learn it better or worse can be traced to the way the boy was taught to play. From the perspective of Natural Sciences it does not make any sense to postulate that playing the piano could be genetic.

it can exist more gays that you can count on the surface of the earth.

being ignorant is quite common among humans. On the other hand, perhaps this people were meaning to be nice to you, talking about intimate themes, that are in general taboo. But why are they taboo? It is taboo, is a theory, do not get mad at me, is taboo, because we had separated ourselves from the main males, to say something. "They" I suppose they speak freely about sex among them. I mean their friends and buddies. So, if we do not feel such a likeness with them, it is a little like the taboo of speaking of sex among males and females. Society has taught us we cannot talk of sex with the girls. It is not educated or something. So, in way, this feeling of weirdness about talking freely about sexual matters... is like we are infringing on a taboo. So we are under the control of society's sexual taboos. We cannot talk about this. But I remember from my adolescence, when I was in religious boarding school, that some boys of 14 or so, were talking openly about sex. Even about homosexual sex. We were a bunch of subversives. But none of them were considering himself a gay, at least openly. I remember also the case of a boy about ten or eleven that was like a pansy; very feminine in his manners. They said of him he was a pansy, but I do not remember any harassing of this boy. It was considered like a phenomenon of nature. I remember a night, I was going to the lavatories to pee, and the pansy was running by a corridor wearing a sheet like a floating cloak and saying I am the queen of the woods, and some other boys were running after him. I went to the lavatories to pee but I do not know where these boys hid. I do not see them anymore this night. So, that was a sort sort of subversive behavior. Well, perhaps the nuns got notice of all of this, and the boy was sent back with his family. It was in the school like six months or so. I am not sure how he left the school. He came to the school when he was like ten year or so. Not very common. We were there like in a prison, since an early age. About half of them had mums that brought food and fruits to them on Sundays. The rest were not so lucky. I remember this boys talked freely about someone taking up the ass, and things of this style. They were pretty foul mouthed. Perhaps, because I was in my youth rubbing with lower class people, I was able to see that they had a different idea about being gay. For most of this people, being gay was a bad thing because you were degraded to the rank of being a female. But in general they treated gays a little like they were females. They even showed some deference, perhaps with the idea of using a gay just in case. To use a gay as a surrogate female was not far from their minds. This was nothing to be openly accepted. For it meant they were not man enough to find a girl to copulate that easily. Most of they were bragging of having copulated last Saturday with a girl, but most of this bragging was bullshit. To bed a girl in those times were something bordering the miraculous, or like watching a wonder of nature, like the Niagara Falls, or the Victoria Falls in Africa. It was a wonder such as seeing an infinite herd of wildebeest grazing as you watched from a plain in the African savanna. Then, in secret, many of them did not mind to take into account the services that a gay could provide to them.

Very good, Myr. Very easy to read and very thrilling. I am amazed by your mastery writing. I said that I had to study the way you write. I have to read more or your stories.

It seems that you and me are using the word choice with different meaning. If I do not get you wrong, you are using the word choice as something you are willing to do. I am using the word "choice" with a different mean. I can refer to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, that says, 1) choosing, selection. By or for choice, means preferably. Of one's choice, that one chooses. Take one's choice, decide between possibilities. 2) Power, right, faculty of choosing. From choice, willingly. have no choice, have not alternative. That send us to "choose". 1) Select out of greater number. Decide to do one thing instead of other. Think fit, be determined to do. 2) Select to between or from, take one or another. The argument here was on the polysemic nature of the word, that means select between different options and to willing to do something. in the case of selecting between different options, for being a free choosing, the options had to be equivalent to our knowledge. I mean, we cannot choose freely between eating an apple or being punished with fifty lashes. For one of the options is not any desirable. then, if by choose we mean "I have a will or desire of doing something", like eating for I am hungry, or drinking water because I am thirsty... this should not be considered a "free will" at all. For this desire is out of my control. Some inner sensors are telling me I am hungry or I am thirsty. The same occurs in regard to our sexual desires. If we have homosexual desires, this condition is not capricious. It comes from my inner sensors, that drive me in some direction and not in other. Then, this should not be call free will. But simple desires. Perhaps irrational desires, or abnormal desires, in the mathematical sense. For in maths the normal is the most frequent in some class of occurrences. Then, to be a gay male or a gay female comes from some inner source in ourselves, that cannot be determined precisely. So, it can be called a choice, because of this confusion or ambivalence of the language. It points to someone who wants to do something in spite of opposition and criticism of family and society. But we have to take into account, that any one that takes this path of doing prohibited acts, that are considered an abomination by a traditional society, is acting driven by an inner force. If the gay would not had this inner force pushing him to act, he would not act at all. So, our acting on sexual desires are something that cannot be called an act of "freewill". It is neither a choosing, in the sense of having equivalent and different options to act. It is not that this gay person can select freely between a male and a female as his sexual focus of interest. Then, with this ambiguous contamination of the word choose, and choice, and even free will, we cannot understand the real quid of the argument. For it has a core contamination. Then, we wish or we desire, some basic stuff like food and water. We are also compelled to sleep or to rest when the body tell us. It is very difficult to go against these orders from our body. Then, we also like to perform some actions we had learned since we were boys, like playing football, soccer, tennis, playing the piano, etc. We had learned to chat with people, and sometimes to argument, and we like to repeat some of this we had learned in the past. Some of the actions we want to perform are learned; some others are determined probably by some sensors we had in our brain. Then, that's when I was presenting this topic of "free will". I thought we are sharing a confused mind around this concept. If an inner force drive us to do something, this is not free at all. But we have some control, a provisional control over this drive, for a limited time. Like the will to pee, or to defecate. We feel the drive but sometimes we are able to delay the time to perform these desires for a reason or other. For food and water sometimes is not available at all, and we have to go a long way looking for this food and water we need. This is also valid in the case of sexual urges. We have to delay our impulse or desire for a time, for we cannot perform an act of sex anywhere. We have to do it by hiding to society. Then, the need has been delayed, but the desire does not die because of this delay. It is about the same with deers in Africa. They are thirsty as hell in the summer, but the crocodiles are waiting to hold one of those deers to eat it. So, they had to drink with utmost care fro any moment a croco would catch any of them. They had to be alert, but they cannot delay for a long time the need to drink water. There are only a few holes with water at the end of the summer in most of Africa.

I think I can understand this former paragraph. There is a component in our mind in respect to bedroom activities. Depending on the needs of each one, one gay can be a receiver or a giver. If one is a receiver one needs this strength, the manly essence in him. It is like we are lacking of some essential stuff in our blood. That is what a giver can give us. On the other hand, if we are givers, we need a recipient, a hungry partner that need all this we have in excess. Then, the problematic part of this theory is that some of us are unstable. We can be takers for a period, and feel wholly full of strength and manly stuff to feed others. Then, If I am living with a giver, always full manliness, always looking for a willing receptor, problems would arise after a period of living together. This problem also arises among heterosexual couples. It is assumed the male is the giver. In the first phase of living together, all is right. Each member of the couple has its role; one is a giver, the other is a taker. Then, there is a problem with the receptors of neurotransmitters in the brain. They can get exhausted and weakened. Perhaps many of those receptors can die of overwork. So, the orgasms are not as intense as before. They had lost some their former knockout. Then, for some reason, the brain gets tired of all those pyrotechnics, it needs a period of rest. After a period of rest more or less prolonged, some of the neurotransmitters get cured and we are able to start anew withe a new episode of falling in love. We are not all made the same. While one member of the couple gets tired, the other is not, and it starts to build up problems. The one that has not tired, starts to feel frustrated. Then this is when one tells the other, "you do not love me by my personality; you only love me by the sex." Then the other replied, "what are you saying?" It comes ready the answer, "I do not like to be a sex toy." And the rusting of living together starts to build up. Then the giver says, "you are getting tired of me, aren't you?" And it comes the reply, "Well, it is not exactly tired. But I am still feeling a little hurt of yesterday." "yesterday? We did nothing yesterday. It was three days ago." "Anyway, you are rather brutish." "You did not say that when we started with this." And so on. I mean, the receptors can get exhausted and knocked out. And some brains are more prone to have receptors tired or wrecked up than others. I remember a beautiful and intelligent young lady in this group that wrote, "love is like a drug. We can get hooked on it, and forget all the rest." I agree with this. But is also like a drug in that our brains can get tired of this huge floods of neurotransmitters. We cannot stand this for long periods of time; our brains get tired. If you had any notice about how a new couple works, you had heard the complains. On a side, women say, "man are always thinking of the same thing". The men complain "women are too often with a headache." We are not all made equal. We are very similar, but not equal. It is a little bit like playing tennis. One can get easily tired in half an hour, while others can play for a few hours, even under a heat of 90 to 95 F degrees.

by more than friendship, ¿you mean love? Love is perhaps the result of a flood of oxitocine in the blood stream, that comes as a consequence of intense and prolonged lustful craving. Then, all this flooding began to fade slowly, as the craving lust gets weaker. After all this turmoil of hormones, it rest the capacity to live together. This is not an easy task, for many people have a bent for bitching those around them. And it is also rare that even the most submissive persons can bear this bitching for a long time. Then, I suppose the enemy for living together can be identified as strong believes. Unless those believes were identical, a rare occurrence. Then flexibility must be the key among people raised in great cities, for the "kosher thinking" is less strict in great cities. Then, to find a clone of your same "kosher thinking" is not easy either. Then, it would be like a miracle if you find someone skeptical that he would not mind a dime about this or that dogmatic trifle.

those Jews with a sense of humor, are the more intelligent Jews. It takes some intelligence to have a sense of humor. This happens all the time with every sort of people. To have a sense of humor means we understand our limitations, our weakness, and the relativity of social truths. I had been arguing with Marxist people, and in general with many educated people in the groups. Well, due to some problems with this discussions, I devised the concept "kosher culture" to refer in general to the believes of people, even those that think they are scientists of defending science theories. I took the idea from the kosher rules. That is people believe this or that, about his own religion or his own culture, or about some widespread ideas on science, or any other field. Well, they feel threatened if you argue seriously in a philosophical way that contradicts his thinking. What I mean is not the Jews, but is most of the people that behaves this way. They behave with the ideas they have as they were "truths" in the same way a strict Jews has for their kosher rules . So, in a way, most people behaves the same way. I had observed this also here, in this group of GA when I say something that is not seen as "regular kosher doctrine". I mean, as people that can be classified in a group, we share some "tenets", some theories, that we believe are true as it were kosher rules. When someone like me comes out telling something that they had never heard of, they feel like I were rejecting the kosher rules. The question is that very little people has a sense of relativism. It also happens among people that is arguing about scientific matters. Any assertion, any theory, has to be true. Then, shut up.

if a gay has a few times in his life intercourse with a female, he does not looses his gayness. OK. If this is true, the opposite can be also true. If a straight man has had some episodes of sexuality with other males, he does not loose his condition of being straight. Perhaps, there is some opportunistic behavior in some straight people, in the sense that is not any easy to get a sexual relief. It takes a lot of effort for a young man to bed a young girl. Then, if he is not infected by the hatemongery against gays, when he feels sure nobody is around looking, he would not mind to use a gay as a woman surrogate. He would be glad to use him in the customary manner of homosexual uses. I can even consider that some straight man can be performing not only the role of a male, but if he is a little forced, he could reciprocate also with his gay partner. even if he does not like much to perform this service. If a person imbued by a true hate for gays he would avoid at all cost any such abominations. He would called that. Even then, some on the outside can behave as gay haters, but are not true haters either, and could take advantage of any opportunity, if he feels sure nobody could witness such activities. Then, what means this label of being bisexual? Sexuality can be define in a mathematical way. "How many times a person has done what and with whom as function of time". That looks like a math algorithm to measure the sexuality of a person. It would be like being gay in the scale of Richter. Then, someone can be this or that (put a number) that defines how much gay he is in this scale. Alfred Kinsey, I suppose you all know who was him, made such an scale of sexuality. http://en.wikipedia..../Kinsey_Reports He devised the idea that being gay was something relative. It depended on how often a person thought of another member of his same sex in sexual way as compared with having sexual interest with persons of the opposite gender. Then, he established a scale of six steps. In step 6 the person was totally gay, with not any interest in the opposite sex. While in the step 5, they had mostly sexual interest in persons of his own sex and occasional sexual interest in persons of the opposite sex. As you followed the other steps of the scale the person had more occasions to feel interest on people of the opposite sex. In the other extreme of the scale, ladder 0, the person was exclusively heterosexual. And never had even fantasies with persons of his same sex. Kinsey devised also a point 7 of the scale for those called "asexuals". There exist people that declare not to feel any lust either for males or for females. This concept is even relative, in my opinion. For many people that consider themselves of normal sexuality had so little lust, and had so little need to gratify his lust, that are more or less asexuals. It would be needed some scale to measure asexuality. It would come of absolute asexuality, with zero experiences and needs of sexual gratification to several degrees of asexuality, from zero to the average frequency of sexuality. This scale would be independent of the question of being gay or not. Then even lust can have some rank, and can be defined by an algorithm. Another question not related, is the probability that a person taken at random would be in which step of the ladder. If theoretically most people is straight, then most of them would be in this step. Then the frequency of people being in a site or another depends on what happens really. There is not any reason a priori for being gay or not gay would be case of being either white or black. A person can be a little gay, nobody knows that, or it can be a little more. If we could be check mathematically the life of anyone, we would be able to determine how much gay is someone compared to another. For it has to be defined by the number of homosexual sexual acts he had performed as a function of time. This is only an idea of a simplified algorithm. Then, a bisexual is someone that feels attracted either by their own gender of his opposite. This feelings or cravings define a sort of virtual behavior. In in question of acts, the acts performed define if one is bisexual or not. One hypothetical person could had passed a time, when he was young having sex with persons of his same gender. Later, after some years he could had been married and had not any gay relation. And 30 or 40 years later, he would had resumed his younger gay activities. And some years later, as he gets older he has not any more physical relations, but looks at gay videos or read gay stories. This could be an example of bisexual.

it depends on what you mean by choose. If I like a male and go with him, there is a will on my part. But this is not a choose in the sense that is indifferent for me to go with this man or with another man. To love someone can be a sort of irrational drive that is outside any sense. Even, if a girl, or another man, is going after you, perhaps you do not like any of them, and you cannot choose what you do not like. It means, is not like choosing a piece of fruit, that now you eat an apple and a little later you eat a banana. So to accept someone for sexual reasons, with sexual interest, is something unexpected most times. You suddenly get hook on this person but you could not explain the reason. Even in a whore house, a customer can choose among different girls. But the girls in general are no choosers. This example of a whore house is the only case of choose I imagine. The customer chooses the girls that looks more attractive to his eyes. You can choose what girl you talk to in high school, but she is freed to reject you. Then, if someone does not feel attracted to girls in a sexual way, he cannot choose any of them. It is about the same with boys. You can go after a boy, or a man, but if he does not like you, there is not anyway you make that choice. Just imagine the case of a choice between apples and pears in a plate. If any of those fruits do not taste right, of an apple could bite your lip or you hand, when you take it to eat it, then you cannot do a choice either. Just imagine a gay that do not look attractive to girls, then, there is not any chance he could choose a girl in a sexual sense. Not only because he feels not attracted to them, but also because they would reject him. Then, we can choose only inert objects, like fruits, or some dishes in a smörgåsbord.

That was what said Plato in "The symposium" where a bunch of friends were talking about love. Socrates said, that if you love a young man by the beauty of his body, your love would not last. For the body gets old and looses its beauty. Then, you have love someone by his virtue, the beauty of his mind, for this beauty does not fade, but increases with time, as he perfects and enriches his soul. I am not sure if this is true, for mostly my love of man, was of the sort span type, and was motivated mostly by lust. I never had any illusion of loving anyone forever. Just for a few days, or mostly a few weeks.