AFriendlyFace

Actually it did update both Eric's and yours! Not Tim's though *shrug* In general though it does seem like my browser is frequently behind in showing me the new avatars. I'm not sure why. BTW, Mikie, I love the new Dance avatar! I think it looks fantastic!

I just read an article about the Hallmark gay cards in Houston's GLBT magazine, OutSmart. It actually made some great points about how this development will probably be the nail in the coffin of the locally owned and operated gay business which produce their own gay greeting cards. Evidently Hallmark also received a very positive 90 out of 100 points from Human Rights Campaign for its dedication to equal rights and non-discrimination. So I'll definitely try to support Hallmark, but I'll also see what I can do to support the local gay businesses as well.

Interesting points, Celia! I'm not sure that I have experienced that much unwanted attention from females. I've been flirted with by females and not been interested in anything more with them, but off-hand I can't recall many instances in which that made me very uncomfortable or caused major problems. One of the most forward examples I can recall was once in my teens, before I came out, when a girl asked 'do you have a girlfriend?' I responded that I did not, to which she grinned, touched my arm and asked, "Do you want one?" That was a bit forward, but I was still flattered and after carefully extracting myself from the situation I was not upset by it. Actually, I've certainly received much more forward, unwanted attention from other gay males than I ever have from straight females. I've been groped, honked at, propositioned, and all manner of other very blunt advances. But while I consider that behaviour inappropriate, it sort of goes back to my statement about not taking offense just for the sake of being offended. I could be insulted that the guys thought I was a just a piece of meat to prod at, but I'd rather take it as a compliment that they thought I was attractive and wanted to go home with me, then just say 'no thanks' and go on about my business if I'm not interested. Also, while I certainly don't believe in 'blaming the victim' it sort of does go back to the situation into which you put yourself. These sorts of things have usually happened to me in crowded clubs, or nighttime sidewalks in the sexualized gay district and I've usually been wearing tight, revealing, flashy, or otherwise provocative clothing and probably generally conducting myself in a manner which invited such behaviour. So I think that being honked at and receiving leers and suggestive comments sort of comes with the territory and if I were going to be offended by that I shouldn't place myself in those situations or at the least I should dress conservatively and carry myself in a more closed off manner. Of course I've usually been with friends with this has happened, I'm generally confident in my ability to take care of myself, I haven't been incapacitated when such things have occurred, and I haven't gone into private, dangerous areas. So generally I haven't felt 'threatened' by this behaviour even if I haven't always welcomed it.

I think that that too should have been under 'normal' and reasonable circumstances. If person A told person B a dirty joke about person C then that would be inappropriate. If person A told person B a dirty joke in such a way that purposely attracted person C's attention or would otherwise have been reasonably expected to be overheard by person C, then that too might have been inappropriate. On the other hand if person A were having a quiet, private conversation with person B and person C was going out of their way to eavesdrop then that definitely was not sexual harrassment. Under more reasonable, middle circumstances in which person A and person B are having a normal conversation, neither trying to be overheard by others or trying to avoid being overheard and a dirty joke was told, well I still think that if person C was offended the primary burden was on person C to say 'I find that offensive. Would you please refrain from making such remarks in my presence?' And once again, if from then on person A and person B are quiet in their conversations then I think it's still their business what they talk about it and person C has no business deliberately eavesdropping in an attempt to become offended. Basically, with all human interaction I think that ideally people should always go out of their way to both avoid saying or doing anything which might be remotely offensive to others AND to go out of their way to avoid being offended by others. Last night my neighbours were having a loud argument at about 3am AND I heard them swearing and even saying the F work (not the one that rhymes with 'duck' but the one that with 'maggot'). Now I could easily have been offended by this, but I was not. As it happened I was awake anyway and not trying to go to sleep, and I feel that their discussion, however loud, was their business and not mine. They weren't swearing at me or calling me names, indeed I think there's virtually no chance whatsoever that I (or any of our other neighbours) even entered their thoughts. So I went out of my way to not be offended by their behaviour. But really I wasn't inconvenienced. All I had to do was tune them out and go on about my business. That said, I think their behaviour from their own perspective should been considered inappropriate. Some people are offended by loud, vulgar arguments in the early morning. They were clearly not going out of their way to not be offensive to others.

Right, I agree. Hitler didn't have a purely evil affect on the world because there were positive consequences as well. I don't think that by exerting evil one necessarily has a wholly evil overall impact. There's often a 'backlash' or some other positive response to the evil which off-sets the evil to some extent. That deals with the net result of Hitler's actions; however, I would also be hesitant to describe Hitler himself as completely evil. I don't doubt that there was some good in him or that he occasionally did meritorious things as well. 'Total evil', or for that matter 'total good', are impossible ideal to live up to. Remember that one purely nice remark to someone - anyone - or one random benevolent action in his entire life would disqualify him from 'pure evil'. Similarly you can be a 'saint' and an all around awesome person, but chances are there was some mean remark or malicious action somewhere in your past which disqualifies you from 'pure good'. On a separate note, W.L., you bring up a good point about creation and destruction. Really I think creation and destruction are themselves relative. I think pretty much any act of creation is simultaneously an act of destruction and visa versa. In many ways it's the conservation of matter. No totally spontaneous creation or destruction is actually possible, only an altering which 'destroys' something in one state but 'creates' it in another. Of course science isn't all that important to me in and of itself, but I tend to agree with this concept in philosophical and moral terms as well. I knew I would enjoy this thread -Kevin

So then your perspective on Good or Evil is strongly based in Creation or Destruction? That's logical and a very common perspective. I think there is often a lot of merit to it, but I by no means think that all creation is good or all destruction is bad. I agree that there really isn't any pure good or pure evil in human existence.

What's wrong with that?

Um....it looks like a tank (and I looked carefully behind the tank to see if there was a sunset and there was not)

What an AWESOME thread! Thanks, James! For the first question of "Are you Good or Evil?" I selected 'Good' because I do think I lean more good than evil, 'Everyone is a mixture of good and evil' which I definitely believe, and 'A black and white definition is too simplistic', it definitely is. A black and white definition is too simplistic to define almost everything, but particularly something this complicated and multi-faceted. I was tempted to also pick "Good and evil are meaningless labels created to enslave us" because I do think they're practically meaningless labels and they're definitely extremely relative, but I don't think they're completely meaningless; they do serve some purpose. Also, while they often do hinder people, I don't think that's what they were created to do and I don't think they always hinder people. For "How to you define good?" and "How do you define evil" (my answers were the same) I selected 'my own thoughts/reasoning' which is definitely the big one and I think everyone has a responsibility to do this. I also selected 'Philosophy' because I think those two answers are highly inter-related and my thoughts and reasoning have a firm foundation in my life philosophy (which really I think is true of practically everyone even if they aren't 'into' philosophy per se). I also personally really love philosophy. On a side note I rejected 'Religion/Religious Teachings' because while they supply a good foundation for morality in the majority of cases I don't think that that absolves people of their responsibility to work out right and wrong for themselves and I think that a lot of harm has been done by people simply accepting what has been given to them by religion - which often does get it wrong and which must be looked at within its context - rather than working it out for themselves. I firmly rejected 'that which is natural' and that would have been the answer I was least inclined to pick. I think by implying that something is 'natural' you devoid it of humanity. I think the thing which sets people apart from nature is that they have a greater capacity for thought, reason, and morality. Very often things in nature are 'good' in simple terms but by their definition I don't think they can be 'Good' in complex moral terms because I think there's an inherent contradiction. That's not to say that I don't think very often the two could coincide and a person could achieve 'Good' by doing something similar to that which is done in nature, but I think it must still be reasoned out and arrived at more or less independently. 'Social Consensus' and 'Laws' I rejected for pretty much the exact same reasons and on the same grounds as 'Religion/Religious Teachings'. Primarily I think all three to far too easy 'short cuts' and that while they're often good they often miss the point completely and do a lot of harm. There's still that primary belief in me that people should come to their own conclusions and not believe what religion, laws, or other people tell them without questioning it. I do have a slightly different negative reaction to each. I see complete and total blind acceptance of any of the three as a form of weakness, but I see them as deferent sorts of weakness (though all inter-related). People who blindly accept religious teachings are actually being morally weak. People who blindly accept social consensus are being socially weak. People who blindly accept laws are being weak in that they lack a certain amount of courage and integrity. For "Does the Law effect your definition of good and evil?" I've pretty much already talked about this but I selected 'legal and moral are two very different concepts.' However really that is, IMO, highly related to 'Sometimes the difference is very clear, sometimes its not'. There is definitely some overlap, but it isn't perfect and they are very different concepts. Breaking the law is not immoral, and following the law doesn't make someone moral. However, very often the same acts which are immoral are also illegal. To that extent I'm also affected by the laws (so 'yes' wouldn't have been totally inappropriate), but I'm comfortable separating the two (so 'no' also wouldn't have been inappropriate). As I said, awesome thread! -Kevin

Well, personally speaking I definitely agree more with Procyon on these recent points. I think flirting and sexual harassment are two very different things in terms of the behaviour done. Apart from that, I honestly think people are a tad too quick to label something 'sexual harassment' these days. Obviously I'm very much against sexual harassment, but I think one of the key aspects of sexual harassment is that it must be persistent or repeated unwanted sexual behaviour. Some things are clearly inappropriate in polite society and I'm not advocating going back to the days when a boss could get away with slapping his secretary on the behind as he walked by. However, in the majority of cases in which people are on a more or less even playing field OR when the behaviour isn't extremely explicit I don't think any harm has been done by a small unwanted advance and I think the person has the right and power to simply say 'no thanks' and move on with their life. If at that point the advances don't stop then that's sexual harassment, but I think in most cases before you can label something sexual harassment the 'victim' must explicitly try to stop the behaviour. I realize that for some people bluntly saying no is more difficult than for others, but again unless the behaviour is extremely 'out there' and very inappropriate or unless there's a serious difference in power I still think they have the responsibility to try to stop the behaviour before they go around crying sexual harassment. Just my opinion though Take care all, Kevin

Me? And I didn't even find this thread again for over over 40 hours after it was resurrected! Breed? But isn't he.... :wacko: LOL, nah, CJ's just on his yearly vacation again

Hi all, I just wanted to get your opinions on this point. Do you think that in general, and here at Gay Authors specifically, authors tend to use the same names too frequently? I'm not going to point fingers by 'naming names' ( ) but I think the overwhelming majority of our authors are guilty of this. That definitely includes me as well! On the other hand, this is sort of a double edged sword. There's a reason the same names keep cropping up over and over again: they're popular! Not just with authors but with people in general. So if, proportionally quite a few people go by a certain name is it unreasonable for an author to include that popular name in his story? Isn't that realistic to some extent? The counter point is that some readers are very put off by strange or exotic names, particularly if there isn't a good reason. I know that for example my reading pleasure is decreased if the name is one that I've never seen or heard before. This is mostly because I'm often unsure if I'm pronouncing it correctly in my head. I also might get distracted wondering about its origins or why the author is using it. In any case a very unusual name will distract me and generally put me off a bit. Personally speaking I think a name that is neither 'strange' nor 'oh so common' is ideal. For some reason the best example I can think of for such a name would be 'Vicky' (or Vicki or Vikki). I'm sure everyone has heard the name Vicky before, but nowadays we don't hear it every day (unless of course you are a Vicky or have one in your immediate sphere I suppose). I also personally like the name. I like 'Mary' about as much, but obviously that's a frequently used one as well. So what are you thoughts on this as a reader? If you're also an author what are you thoughts on this as an author? -Kevin

I just wanted to wish a very happy, special, and all around awesome birthdays to one of our admin, and an all around top-notch fellow! Happy Birthday Robert! I hope you have a fantastic day and I hope Dan spoils you rotten! -Kevin

Hahaha! Me too, Tiff! I tend to like my guys 'pretty' as opposed to 'ruggedly masculine'. I suppose that's why I strongly prefer most gay guys to most straight guys, which works out nice really

That's what happened to my matching spikey gloves!

LOL! That sounds really fun! Check out this vid Drewbie just sent me: Thanks Drew!

Cool vid, Jamie! Well, here's a few gay songs for ya: Michael The Rejection (ironically I have danced to this at a gay club before and with a guy I was only interested in dancing with )

Aww Thanks Jamie!

Awesome picture, Niels! I love the blue eyes Dude! I have a collar just like that!

Are they real? I'd just assumed they weren't in that top photo.

Love the pics, Niels! I always enjoyed the shock value of hair dye myself Great picture, dude Cool shots! I'm sure you're stunning

He'd be so much more attractive, IMO, if he lost the chest hair and stubble on his face.

Welcome to the site you two!! I'd certainly like to be twenty again, and of course I'd want to remain a gay male while doing it.

Interesting article

Thanks for the comments you two! I'll post a more thorough response tomorrow myself, but for now I just wanted to say thanks and I'm glad you enjoyed it!