AFriendlyFace

Eric, this is awesome!! I'm so happy for you!

Well, Chase definitely isn't since Brandon specifically called him and told him to call of the search party. Which incidentally might make their position look even more compromising! Certainly I surprise chapter!

Have a very happy and special birthday, Anna!

Yeah, this sums it up nicely. I must say I'm quite disappointed that Clay finally came out. He was my standby 'see what a joke you can turn yourself into when everyone knows your gay and you won't admit it' example. At this point he has a long way to go before he can be respectable or expect to be taken seriously, but at least he's finally on the right track.

Wow! So then do you mean to say that no one could independently arrive at homophobia through strictly internal processes? What an interesting idea! I think that's heavily contingent on the concept that people have an innate, natural inclination toward acceptance or effective internal reasoning. I personally don't think that's the case. I think that many people will naturally conclude that different = bad. In that way I think homophobia, racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. may indeed be innate for some people. The classic refuting argument is that very young children and babies don't have such feelings. That just isn't quite enough to convince me. Children have lots of natural inclinations that, while often very cute, are completely fallacious and stupid. I'd like to think that it was the case that these babies had a sophisticated innate system of meritorious values, but it seems more likely to me that they simply haven't thought about such things and are incapable of so doing. I think what it really comes down to is whether or not children learn to embrace differences and diversity or whether or not they are taught that different = inferior or dangerous. If they aren't 'taught' anything I think there's a good chance they'll conclude that diversity is fine, but I think there's also a good chance that they'll conclude that it isn't. I think it'll depend on other experiences and the way they rationalize and process them. (I like peanut butter. I always eat peanut butter. One day I tried jelly. It was good. So different = good. OR I like peanut butter. I always eat peanut butter. One day I tried apple sauce. It was nasty. So different = bad. But really a sum of many such experiences which may be more meaningful and significant.) Personally, although I grew up in a very homogeneous environment I always received a very strong message that it was okay to be different and that diversity was a good thing. So I very easily carried that over to concluding that homosexuality was a good thing. Undoubtedly this is also why I'm accepting on virtually all over points as well, and probably why I'm also something of a moral relativist myself. Having a different opinion or set of values from me doesn't make someone 'wrong' or a bad person. It just makes them different which is fine. Thus I tend to be very opinionated about my own beliefs and values, but readily tolerate other peoples' even if they conflict with my own. So yeah, I think this all comes down to how someone comes to view 'different'.

Eh, I know I keep missing the point of this thread, but here's another very amusing gay song: It's ok to be gay

How nice that we all get a present from someone else's birthday Have a fantastic day and a terrific year! -Kevin

This is a really awesome batch of stories! I'm very grateful to all the authors and editors who contributed, and especially to Graeme (who I should add also produced a story, and a top-notch one at that ) and Steph for their hard work. It was also a pleasure doing reviews with Tim To the readers, thank you very much for reading and giving us all a reason to write! LOL, now go read everyone!

I always feel like I'm wracking my brains when I'm trying to think of a character name. Every time I come up with a new story the ideas and general plotline come easily, but I'm tortured trying to come up with names. I tend to be a pretty careful reader (translation: slow and methodical). I don't scan or skim at all so similar names rarely confuse me. I have noticed though that it also seems to work the other way. The author seems more likely to accidentally type the wrong one if they're too similar. On the twins point, it feels very uncomfortable to me to have twins with completely dissimilar names. Slightly less so if it's a male/female set, but if it's male/male or female/female I'm very put off by names that don't 'fit together' in any way. It doesn't have to be something as similar as 'Tim and Tom' or 'Brett and Brent' as in the examples. I'm fine with 'Ray and Faye' or 'Noah and Jonah' or indeed 'Tyler and Kyle" (the 'yle' spelling is close enough), but something like 'Jane and Susan' just wouldn't float for me as a set of well-named twins. Personally, I even prefer for siblings to have somewhat related names. Any of the above would work where the sound or spelling has something in common, but in general 'Michael, Michelle, and Max' would be great or 'Adam, Bobby, and Cindy'. (or 'Erica, Frank, and Gus' or 'Peter, Quinn, and Robyn'). Those sorts of things I don't find problematic in terms of similarity at all. 'Michael, Michelle, and Max' may all be M's, but they look and sound pretty different, but collectively they still make me thing 'siblings'. The other examples are even more individually different but still work nicely as a set. LOL, personally I've known more than a couple of 'Padma's' I like these names alot, especially 'Tyler'. I don't really think of 'Kyle' as a gay name though. I think of it more as a straight name actually. I've read several stories with gay Kyle's, but I still think of it as a straight name. That makes a lot of sense and I completely agree!

I wanted to be a veterinarian...I settled for being a vegetarian instead

Oh no! If it means doing other software updates I shan't bother at all. I can't stand doing those! ...LOL, my approach to software updates is to ignore them until I'm absolutely forced to do them. Thanks for the warning, Kurt!

Happy Birthday, Conner! I hope you have a fantastic day and an absolutely stupendous year! That looks delicious! I love colourful frosting

Great pics, Anna! Well...since I don't know what they are I'm sure I wouldn't notice yours Anyway nice pic

Hmm, I'm not sure if I think they're hotter than Ron or not, but they're definitely hot! I love to kiss but I don't like kissing guys with facial hair. I don't like the way it looks personally, but even on guys that can pull the look off (and as I said I usually think guys look better without it. Some guys just don't look bad with it either, but they'd like look better without), I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of kissing them with it. I like to have a razor against it

Thanks for the info, Steph! My approach to new technology is almost always the same. I ignore it as long as possible, then once it's absolutely unavoidable I start using it and readily adapt. So if it becomes too big to ignore I might start using it Actually, for once my curiosity is piqued enough for me to be considering downloading it and having a look.

It does look like I missed it based on that quote...but I specifically remember not missing it. HMMMMM

...don't know what it is?

That's an extremely insightful analysis to which I personally strongly agree But aren't sharing, equality, and having more choices 'good' things in anyone's book? I think this raises the issue of whether or not some form of 'morality' or simple 'right and wrong' is instinctive or not. You may not think you need those things to make your decisions - personally I like to think that too - but your thought processes and decisions must be shaped by something mustn't they? Unless they are some how instinctual. You may no longer need religion, philosophy, natural order, or law to 'keep you in line' so to speak, because you've already determined what their underlying point was, but I think merely thinking about that has influenced you to some extent. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I like to think as you do too, and really I'm just analyzing my own thoughts on this. Speaking for myself I'm comfortable with not following all the prescriptions of my religion or the law because I try to take everything in context and look at the underlying rationale and motives. For example I would never consider it immoral to cross a street against a light, be it on foot or in/on some vehicle. However, prohibitions against running red lights, jay walking, and crossing illegally make a lot of sense. They keep people from getting hurt and they prevent the flow of traffic from being interrupted while people are forced to wait on the illegal crosser. So in that way the laws make sense, I agree with them, and I support them. However, it's very clear to me that their function is for safety and efficiency. If I come to an intersection (again either by foot, in a car, or any other mode of transportation) and it's completely empty, and I can clearly see that it's completely empty then it is not dangerous or inefficient in the greater scheme of things for me to cross illegally and it does not make sense for me to wait under these circumstances. Of course they can't make such provisions in the law itself because it would get too convoluted and nuanced to be effective, but I don't feel any guilt or shame for violating the law in such a way that clearly makes sense and does not go against its sensible underlying cause. Anyway, the point is that I'm making my own complex, sophisticated decision regardless of the law itself. However, I've still reflected on these points because of the law. At some point I may not have been able to see the deeper underlying factors (perhaps due to a genuine inability or maybe just because I was in a hurry and wouldn't have stopped to consider the ramifications) and simply needed to be told 'don't go'. So the law did have a bearing on my thought process, even if it eventually got me to the point where I might chose to ignore it. I'm tempted to start a thread just to discuss whether or not one can ever truly 'warrant harm'. Anyway, good points Take care all and have a great day! Kevin

LOL, I always do leave a bigger tip when my server flirts with me. The other day my waiter hugged me. It really depends on circumstance. I'm sure it's because I seem to live in some cross between gay Disneyland and a Queer as Folk episode, but I meeting interesting guys my odds seem to be quite good that they're gay/bi. I'm sure this is because since my 'social network' is overwhelming composed of GLBT/Allies any 'mutual friends' I meet have a high likelihood of being gay. Apart from that I tend to go places that have a strong gay contingent anyway. And of course if I'm actually going out in the social/recreational sense of the phrase, there's a really good chance it's at a gay club, bar, or restaurant so again my odds are quite good. Apart from that, if I'm interested in a guy in the first place he has a higher than average chance of being gay/bi because I'm seldom interested in straight guys. It's like for example, if I notice a car I like it stands a very good chance of being blue. This is because I'm 'attracted' to blue cars and more likely to notice them in the first place. So even though the sheer number of blue cars might not be all that large compared to the entire sum of cars in the area, the fact that I like it predisposes it to being blue. That's all a bit off topic though I would like to remind everyone to avoid making sarcastic remarks that are directed at other members Someone could be disappointed that you didn't flirt with them. Maybe they didn't even overtly flirt with you. Maybe they just tried to make themselves attractive and available and they will be disappointed by your inaction. Just playing devil's advocate Well, this and Kit's and Corvus' earlier statements all point to one thing; it's how you define flirting. To give two extreme examples: If you automatically define flirting as something which is light, pleasant, and welcome then there may indeed be actions which are 'too much', but one cannot commit those actions without straying under the definition of 'harassment' (or whatever other word you might want to use). Thus it doesn't matter what someone does you likely wouldn't be complaining that they were flirting inappropriately since your own personal definition would preclude 'flirting' being inappropriate in the first place. Instead you would complain that the person was harassing you. or leering at you or something. On the other hand, if you define flirting as something inappropriately forward, overly sexual, or otherwise unwelcome then there may indeed be actions which are perfectly pleasant and welcome, but you wouldn't define them as 'flirting' because your definition would preclude flirting from being something that is welcome. I think everything else falls somewhere between those two points. For example Kit might welcome some friendly, social actions from strangers, but perhaps he wouldn't define them as 'flirting' because he's already decided that 'flirting' isn't welcome from strangers, so if this pleasant action is welcome then it mustn't be flirting. As an example I do intentionally flirt from time to time, but I certainly don't do it 'all the time'. On the other hand several people have said 'you flirt with everyone' or something to that effect. I've been accused of flirting with tons of people with which it was never my conscious intention to flirt. So clearly the definition the observers use has varied from my personal definition. I smile and make eye contact with everyone with whom I have any interaction. If I notice someone looking at me, or even just looking my way, I usually give them a smile and a nod. I'll politely hold a conversation (and usually fully engage in it) with anyone who tries to make small talk with me. I tend to at least giggle a bit if someone says something that they meant to be funny, and I'm the sort of person who is inclined to make amusing remarks from time to time. However, all of these things aren't my efforts to flirt; they're just the social principles to which I ascribe. I'm uncomfortable or feel rude if I don't do these things, and every now and then I'm tired, grumpy, or in a hurry and I'm not in the mood to make small talk with someone. Yet if they start chatting with me I probably will anyway. I think the key here is reading the cues that people are sending. For example I'll smile and make eye contact with the majority of people, but if they look away are start to look uncomfortable then I drop it. If they look receptive I may say 'hello' or make a casual remark about something, but again if their response is closed off I usually just smile again and go on about my business. If the conversation continues more serious, actual flirting might begin but we wouldn't have gotten to that point in most cases unless they were at least fairly receptive. I also continue to use the approach of backing off if it looks like I've made them uncomfortable. So I don't think people usually feel like they get unwanted attention from me. Also, in general I think with the more mild stuff, the chatting and smiles (which as I said I don't personally consider 'flirting' anyway) you really do have to be 'looking for it' to perceive it as flirting. Anyway, that's why I think it's usually safe to flirt with strangers without offending them, because I think that by time my conduct would reach the point at which it was clearly flirting the person would have already sent me enough cues for me to be fairly confident that it isn't 'inappropriate'. Indeed, I think the reason I ended up starting this thread was because it was one of the more relatively rare cases in which I feel like I might have 'gone too far'. Even then I don't think my behaviour would have been felt to have been inappropriate, it would have been my lack of 'follow up' that was inappropriate. Actually I usually don't have that problem either because I can similarly generally sense when the other person is interested in moving things along and if I'm not then I act to keep things at the level we're currently out or take it down a notch. The problem was that I either missed or ignored the cues he was sending and similarly ignored my own gut telling me I wasn't interested and continued to flirt back and keep 'upping the ante' until I was 'supposed' to ask him out at which point I didn't and thus made a social blunder. Anyway, I'm glad for this thread because I don't think I would have analyzed the situation in such a productive way and gleaned as much insight without this discussion! Take care all, Kevin

I strongly second this motion. Radcliff isn't bad looking and he's a good actor, but he's not super-hot or anything. Ron is cuter IMO.

Well, here in Houston we have several 'gay stores' at which you can buy books, magazines, shirts, novelties, and sexual paraphernalia. The gay cards are usually also sold in a section of these stores. So I'm assuming some company supplies the cards to the store. I certainly don't think Hallmark cards would threaten the business of the stores themselves to any great extent, but I have no idea what else the card makers themselves make. So it seems possible that if interest and sales significantly declined the cards might not be available there anymore. On the other hand, you're right about the quality. Hallmark has three cards. There's usually a whole wall full of the gay cards at these stores. You also have a much bigger range. You can get everything from dirty, to funny, to sentimental. I think the big issue would be the convenience factor. The last time I bought one for a friend it was last minute (on the way to his party) and I had to go out of my way to pick one up. Had they been available at a CVS or something I probably would have just stopped there for speed and convenience. Of course with proper planning I'd rather have gone to the store with more selection. -Kevin

Great pic! ...but I fear this could result in another round of debate about eye colour! My vote goes to blue this time

........Eradicating people isn't evil? There was no positive off-set Of course eradicating people is evil! But as W.L. intimated WWII also resulted in major economic expansion and widespread diplomatic efforts. It probably played a major role in the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union (which most people in Western Civilization consider a good thing), it lifted the U.S. out of a depression, and did a lot to unite Europe against the Nazis. A great deal of the world's technological advances were directly or indirectly a result of WWII and frankly given how radically different the world would be I doubt any of us born post WWII would even be alive. Of course there were many other indirect results as well, some of which most assuredly weren't good. Much of the trouble in the Middle East can directly or indirectly be traced back to WWII. Obviously it was extremely costly in terms of lives and resources as well. So no, I didn't mean to imply that the actual eradicating itself was a good thing, but the entire world would be radically different had WWII not occurred in the way that it did, which it definitely wouldn't have done without Hitler. So if you find any good in the world as it stands today it is my belief that it can be indirectly traced back to WWII (and WWI, and a great many other major events both good and bad). ....Difference between a mass murderer and a serial killer, the serial killer can be 'nice' to society and get away with it. How many times have you heard neighbors say "How nice he was!' Stalin was a mass murderer, so was Pol Pot and Hitler where is the redeeming feature here? I doubt if you were in a concentration camp as my relatives were, you could find a redeeming feature. I think it's especially important for the victims, and families of the victims, of something horrific to look for a redeeming feature in the whole thing. Look at the good which has come out of the Matthew Shepard incident. Or the Stonewall riots. Vicious murder and riots aren't generally considered good things either, but they did have overall very positive results in some ways in the way in which they unified the gay community and brought awareness to gay issues. The same can actually be said about AIDs/HIV. To go back to this, think of all the stories we've all heard of people falling in love as a result of the war? Or the heartwarming stories we've all heard of love and endurance which the Jewish people managed in the most extreme and desolate of circumstances. Events cannot happen within a vacuum. 'Bad' things inevitably spawn both more bad things and some good things. 'Good' things inevitably spawn both more good things and some bad things. The bigger and more major the event the more intense the resulting 'good' and 'bad' can be. Hasn't there been some good to the 9/11 incident? Or hurricane Katrina? I certainly think there has. Didn't Christopher Reeve inspire countless people as a result of his accident? What about Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's? I don't think that trying to find good in a bad event is dishonourable to the victims at all. If something terrible happened to me, or my family, I'd certainly be delighted if people were able to find some good in it. Going back to our examples, isn't that the reason for the Holocaust Museum? Or for the work Matthew Shepard's mother does? I'm not saying I'm glad these bad things happened to these people, but I am saying that some good can be found in these incidents, and I think that's a wonderful thing to take from it all. -Kevin

No, I definitely see your point Actually though, for me, most of the time when I'm flirted with I feel like I'm in control.

Me too, but I shan't hold my breath. It'll probably be a sunrise by the time I see it