Skip

Better Orgasms Now -- Ask Me How
March 2, 2004 1:54 PM   Subscribe

Gay sex -- so good, it just might destroy the planet. Family Research Council founder Paul Cameron is frequently cited as an authority on sexuality by the religious right. In his view, "lesbians are particularly good seducers" and the thrill of gay sex is like "pure heroin" -- which is why homosexuality must be stopped before we all suffer gay-orgasm death, apparently. (I don't know about you, but after reading Cameron, I could sure use a... something in my mouth.) [via TBogg.]
posted by digaman (75 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
haha, and these people are considered adults and, well, sentient humans.
posted by xmutex at 1:56 PM on March 2, 2004


Cue lesiban porn joke in 3...2...1...
posted by Cyrano at 1:58 PM on March 2, 2004


Gay sex: It's what's for dinner.
posted by xmutex at 2:00 PM on March 2, 2004


this is hysterical--is he for real?
posted by amberglow at 2:02 PM on March 2, 2004


Metafilter: We Could Sure Use A... Something in Our Mouths.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:04 PM on March 2, 2004


Oh, he's real. Not to buy into any stereotypes here, but does Miss -- uh, Mr. -- Cameron not look like every creepy self-loathing closet case you've ever seen?
posted by digaman at 2:07 PM on March 2, 2004


It's true. Gay sex really is that good. At least, that's what everyone I've schtupped has told me. ;-)
posted by stonerose at 2:09 PM on March 2, 2004


Mr. Cameron holds forth on gay marriage.
posted by digaman at 2:10 PM on March 2, 2004


It's pretty cliche to point to a gay-basher and say "s/he's a closeted homosexual," but the people that put forth this type of logic truly are closeted homosexuals.

It reminds me of the local proseltyzing, loud-mouthed youth leader in my home town. I heard him say that "gay people are little children in a candy store. They look all around, and they don't know what to choose. Well, God tells us what to choose..."

As soon as he said it, I knew that he was gay. See, my brain (or hormones or whatever) makes that choice for me. I don't have to stop and ask God "is it okay for me fellate this guy? No? Okay." That's because it never occurs to me to do it, and I wouldn't even be remotely tempted if someone suggested it. That guy from my town and the man in question instead see gay sex as a conceivable choice that they have to reject. They're both wicked gay and very ashamed.

The part that I still don't get is why everyone else has to be ashamed of their urges.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:13 PM on March 2, 2004 [1 favorite]


Not to rain on the parade here, but it probably isn't worthwhile to waste time on the completely irrational bull goose loony fuckers. They aren't the ones standing in opposition to equality; they're the drugs that feed the twisted dirty fantasies of bitter pr0n watching bubba's who think queers is bad, but girls n girls is "badder" (heh, heh).

Please, use your energies against those that actually might command respect, and thereby win for their side against justice. This guy is a troll. Don't feed the trolls!
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:15 PM on March 2, 2004


You know, come to think of it, I have been meaning to suck some rock-hard cocks.
posted by squirrel at 2:16 PM on March 2, 2004


Hey, I doubt that George Bush is a closeted gay man, other than a few frat-house BJs back before he accepted Jesus as his personal bartender. He doesn't have the imagination.

But a guy who claims that gay sex is like "pure heroin"?

My dealer must be cutting mine.

Wulfgar!, baby -- the Family Research Council is one of the most powerful and media-pervasive religious right groups in the US.
posted by digaman at 2:18 PM on March 2, 2004


Ok, my question is - how does he know that gay sex is so much better than straight sex?

I can only assume he's being doing clinical trials down at the Ponds institute, repeatly screwing men and women to see which one turns out the best.
posted by Neale at 2:19 PM on March 2, 2004


"I'm convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers,"

Has he watched too many Coors Light "Twins" Commercials or something? Does he think all lesbians are the stuff of Penthouse Letters?

I never thought of lesbians as seductive. Actually I find them almost the complete opposite (that sounds bad though). Back in college, I used to absolutely love hanging out with lesbians because it meant I could have conversations with them, hang out, go to movies, etc, without any hint whatsoever that we would eventually end up together. It was like all the pressure was off to flirt and I could focus on the conversation or task at hand.

When they're completely off limits, seduction is the last thing on my mind.
posted by mathowie at 2:19 PM on March 2, 2004


what's up with the family research logo? is that not bizarre or what, is it the pictographic version of 'gay sex is pure heroin'?
posted by chaz at 2:28 PM on March 2, 2004


Wulfgar!, baby -- the Family Research Council is one of the most powerful and media-pervasive religious right groups in the US.

Agreed, so why lend them creedance by supposing homosexual motivations of their leader (GAY AGENDA!!!) or by arguing their insanities as if they make sense? There will always be a group of folks that follow the fear tactics of the FRC (I wish we had back the money we sent that television preacher ... you know, the one that was screwing the hockey player?) but do they really have the power that arguing with them gives them credit for? Its like having a pissing match with Fred Phelps. Win or lose, he's the one who's going to make the most noise afterwards.

I can see it now: "Popular homo-lefty Internet chat group MetaFilter endorses the gay conversion of upstanding Family rights advocate."
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:31 PM on March 2, 2004


Matt while I agree with you to a certain degree about lesbians, I as a penis carrying heterosexual could not help myself going through mental images of all of us in bed together at the end of the night...
posted by aaronscool at 2:31 PM on March 2, 2004


Gay sex is like pure heroin? I always miss out on the fun stuff.

mathowie - I used to hang out with lesbians, too. My experience is that one can never be 100% sure.
posted by pyramid termite at 2:33 PM on March 2, 2004


This almost begs for satire except that the "Family research Council" has spared us the trouble.
posted by troutfishing at 2:34 PM on March 2, 2004


Oh and I forgot: DAMN YOU LESBIANS for infecting me with deviant sexual desires!!!
posted by aaronscool at 2:34 PM on March 2, 2004


Hmm, I've got major surgery coming up later in the year... perhaps my docs will hook me up with some of this gay sex heroin to get me through the first week or two of recovery. Vicodin, shmicodin -- I'm gonna get me some hot girl-on-girl action!
posted by scody at 2:38 PM on March 2, 2004


Now I've got to try this gay sex stuff everyone is talking about.

Although my left hand and I are in a long-term relationship, the state refuses to recognize it as legal for tax purposes. Even my accountant has called me sick and deranged when I brought up the proposal to him. This is even without telling them how, sometimes, my right hand gets in on it too.

What's that? I'm in public? Nobody needed to know?
posted by Hildago at 2:39 PM on March 2, 2004


It was like all the pressure was off to flirt and I could focus on the conversation or task at hand.

I also recommend developing a relationship with a woman that lasts more than 2 years. I don't mean that as a snark on you particularly, mathowie, just that most people who have trouble refocusing their energy with women really ought to fully get to know one or two of them.

And I really don't mean that as a slam. I myself was unable to get away from that way of thinking you mention until into my 30s. Because of the same dynamic you mention, I continually found myself in hopeless love
posted by squirrel at 2:42 PM on March 2, 2004


matt, aaron... they don't care or worry that you two straight males may be seduced by lesbians. duh.

"Martial sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does"

hmmm... i just got in from my jiu jitsu class and there was no sex involved. i feel cheated. oh ok, so he meant marital... i've always suspected these family values types were people who just don't know how to fuck, one way or the other. this confirms it.
posted by t r a c y at 2:43 PM on March 2, 2004


Still do, actually.
posted by squirrel at 2:44 PM on March 2, 2004


(Still do fall in hopeless love,
not still do confirm tracy's point
--which I'm still pondering.)
posted by squirrel at 2:46 PM on March 2, 2004


Satire is dead. Again.
posted by lbergstr at 2:47 PM on March 2, 2004


tracy, they don't know how, who or why to fuck. This is clear. But is that the root of their problem, or a symptom of it?
posted by squirrel at 2:49 PM on March 2, 2004


Gay marriage is apparently equally addictive: they've just criminally charged the mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., for performing marriages without licenses.
posted by stonerose at 2:50 PM on March 2, 2004


I could sure use a... something in my mouth.)

You mean a big, fat cock?
posted by delmoi at 2:58 PM on March 2, 2004




Obviously gay.
posted by delmoi at 3:02 PM on March 2, 2004


just that most people who have trouble refocusing their energy with women really ought to fully get to know one or two of them

Yeah, this was back in college, when I was a young, fit bag of hormones in my early 20s with not a lot of platonic relationships under my belt. I'm so totally over it now.
posted by mathowie at 3:03 PM on March 2, 2004


The paranoid bleating a guy who's been harboring gay fantasies since his nuts dropped. Check his hard drive for gay porn!

If it weren't meant so seriously I'd be laughing. Instead, I'm just shaking my head and wondering how people can grow to contain sooo much irrational and misdirected hate.

On Preview: delmoi, yep, I bet he's got his nipples pierced too.
posted by fenriq at 3:05 PM on March 2, 2004


"Jason West, 26-year-old Green Party mayor, was ordered to appear in court Wednesday to answer charges that he broke state law by solomizing about two dozen weddings without a marriage license"

He did what?! Oh, 'solomizing'.
posted by homunculus at 3:07 PM on March 2, 2004


"i've always suspected these family values types were people who just don't know how to fuck"

My personal interpretation is that they are, in fact, another sexual class. So we have hetero, gay, lesbian, and religious fundamentalists. Much like gay and lesbian orientation this is something they didn't choose, it's just the way they were born.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:11 PM on March 2, 2004


This is not as plainly comic as it looks. His actual argument -- that gay life is all about sex in a way that straight life is not, and that it's this putative hedonism that's so attractive -- is more sensible and more offensive. And by "sensible," I don't mean "accurate," but "logically defensible if one accepts the premises, as opposed to presuming an FRC spokesperson would say gay orgasms are better than straight orgasms."
posted by blueshammer at 3:12 PM on March 2, 2004


blueshammer: What's to stop people from being slutty heteros?
posted by shagoth at 3:16 PM on March 2, 2004


Shame!
posted by squirrel at 3:23 PM on March 2, 2004


What? Straight men and women can have sex outside marriage too, now? Oh man, the genie's really out of the bottle now!
posted by scody at 3:23 PM on March 2, 2004


Good point, blueshammer.
posted by digaman at 3:26 PM on March 2, 2004


Aren't fundamentalists actually not supposed to enjoy sex at all? That it's all about making babies?
posted by amberglow at 3:30 PM on March 2, 2004


"an FRC spokesperson would say gay orgasms are better than straight orgasms"
Well MY gay orgasms are better than my straight ones, but I'm queer.
posted by divrsional at 3:30 PM on March 2, 2004


I'd like to see him in an interview:

INTERVIEWER: "So Paul, basically what you're saying is that if we made this thing legal and normal, you could get it up for a guy?"
posted by moonbiter at 3:36 PM on March 2, 2004


The allure of a more intense orgasm and hedonistic lifestyle of a gay person is the issue here?

Heck, I'd guess I'd have to agree with whoever said they just don't know how to fuck. Or maybe its got something to do with deep seated resentment from all those big gay penises in the videos they rent for "research"?
posted by fenriq at 3:41 PM on March 2, 2004


His actual argument -- that gay life is all about sex...
Sounds like he is watching too much TV.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:59 PM on March 2, 2004


not really, thomcatspike.
I mean, gay TV characters always struck me as incredibly asexual, if you compare them to actual people

a friend of mine usually jokes that the only realistic gay guys you see on Tv are the Sex and the City women.
posted by matteo at 4:05 PM on March 2, 2004


Shagoth: Nothing is (quite obviously). But given the purview of the Family Research Council and the "audience" for its research, it's safe to assume that they aren't hedonists. And hedonsim ("If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get -- and that is what homosexuality seems to be -- then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm." So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. ... "People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical," he adds, sounding evangelical himself. "It's pure sexuality. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they'll take enormous risks, do anything." He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. "Martial sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does. So, Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.") is what Cameron is talking about.

That said, "The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm" does sound like a closet case talking. I mean, this is an old argument ("... 'cause they have the same equipment and knows what feels good!"), but I'd like to see this "evidence" ... except, of course, to say that maybe a lot of his straight test subjects are significantly on the other end of hedonism scale.
posted by blueshammer at 4:06 PM on March 2, 2004


Surely someone hacked the website, and it's all just a spoof. I mean, really, what kind of adult human could possibly seriously make such silly statements.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:09 PM on March 2, 2004


Anyone notice the rainbow band across Cameron's bio page? I once said that the word "gay" meant happy, and I resented that they get a word like that. So now im gay? Hmm. I inexplicably look at women all the time, and simply register a guys presence as just another guy, so im banking on the straight cliche.
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:09 PM on March 2, 2004


I actually met and talked to this guy once. He came to town to lobby against an anti-discrimination law. He seemd very very gay.
posted by Slagman at 4:10 PM on March 2, 2004


Cameron is not a spoof -- anymore than the current occupant of the White House, anyway. And the rainbow on the bio page is because that's not Cameron's own site -- it belongs to some kind of sexual-orientation program at UC Davis.
posted by digaman at 4:54 PM on March 2, 2004


Back in college, I used to absolutely love hanging out with lesbians because it meant I could have conversations with them, hang out, go to movies, etc, without any hint whatsoever that we would eventually end up together.

Me too. Which is why I'd always eventually develop crushes on them and get mah fool heart broke. That whole freindliness thing is nothing but an underhanded seductio technique. Pure heroin indeed.

Actually, I read somewhere that there's a term for guys like me: "dyke tyke." Go figure.
posted by jonmc at 5:40 PM on March 2, 2004


As usual, the Onion already did this better.
posted by 2sheets at 5:56 PM on March 2, 2004


Cameron's argument seems very strange to me (of course). But if what he posed were actually true, human beings way before the dawn of civilization would have been drawn to it and, perhaps, 'civilization' would never have dawned since it is, if widely adopted as a life choice, an evolutionary dead end. I mean, 50,000 or 100,000 years ago there were no such things as marriages or social mores, were there?
posted by billsaysthis at 6:18 PM on March 2, 2004


Actually, I read somewhere that there's a term for guys like me: "dyke tyke." Go figure.

"Dutch boy" is the term I always heard. (Hee hee. Isn't that naughty.)

I fell madly in love with a lesbian friend during my first year of college. She was really wonderful. It totally broke my heart. I didn't even have the heart to tell her how I felt. Spent the rest of the year cursing my Y chromosome.

Now I've got to try this gay sex stuff everyone is talking about.

It's no better or worse than the straight kind. (Unless that's just me.)
posted by boredomjockey at 6:28 PM on March 2, 2004


Cameron's argument seems very strange to me (of course). But if what he posed were actually true, human beings way before the dawn of civilization would have been drawn to it and, perhaps, 'civilization' would never have dawned since it is, if widely adopted as a life choice, an evolutionary dead end. I mean, 50,000 or 100,000 years ago there were no such things as marriages or social mores, were there?

OK, I'm really not defending Cameron here -- really, I'm not -- but, again, he's arguing hedonism, which a culture wouldn't arrive at until it's established at the top of the food chain. Now -- to venture off into regions I'm willing to defend, or at least argue -- I think we are seeing in the world today that non-procreative relationships, both hetero and homo, come to encompass a greater and greater percentage of the population in first-world nations, and, looking at America, that this seems (and I don't have any real data) to be classed as well -- the wealthy seem to have disproportionately fewer kids. And I wonder if the root cause of this isn't a form of hedonism, as in, Life is very comfortable; why would I want to spoil that with kids?

Is there historical precedent for any of this? Is that how the men and women of the old empires behaved? Or is it truer now because it's less important to have heirs to pass your fiefdom onto?
posted by blueshammer at 6:41 PM on March 2, 2004


it's this putative hedonism that's so attractive

I take my putative hedonism straight up, thanks.

Life is very comfortable; why would I want to spoil that with kids?

It's hard to argue with that.
posted by rushmc at 6:55 PM on March 2, 2004


"Martial [sic] sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does"


Ok, if I were that guys wife, I'd deck him in public for that. I would put money on it that she's had the occasional lover on the down low over the years. This guy sounds like he believes all this spam mail that I've been getting.


The good thing is, Bush is looking to the bible for guidance on the whole gay marrige issue. Pretty soon we will all be required to marry our dead brother's widow, have more than one wife, and men will only be allowed to marry virgins. At least, that's according to the Bible.


After reading those rules from 2000 years ago, I can't help but think that the men writing the good book had issues with lesbians too.
posted by DragonBoy at 7:58 PM on March 2, 2004


I think we are seeing in the world today that non-procreative relationships, both hetero and homo, come to encompass a greater and greater percentage of the population in first-world nations

Sorry, where are you getting this?
posted by digaman at 8:15 PM on March 2, 2004


Speaking of Martial Sex, this whole Cameron screed gave me a sense of deja vu - then I remembered I had just read the same thing - as satire - a couple weeks back from Gen. JC Christian, Patriot.
posted by soyjoy at 8:36 PM on March 2, 2004


digaman, I'm not getting it from anywhere except the anecdotal evidence of my life. I mean, certainly the Adults my Parents Knew When I Was Growing Up is not much of a random sample, but we lived a lot of different places and I met a lot of different people, and I think there's been a marked change in attitude about having children just in that time. I think a lot has happened to the idea of the nuclear family since the '40s -- and I'm not saying that these have been bad changes, but I think there has been a real social change about the function of families and the cultural importance of procreation.

My hypothesis is that there's something of an invisible hand in cultures that acts as a correlative to overpopulation, and that it might have to do with the fact that successful societies get so good at leisure. But I'm presenting it here as a theory, wondering if those who know more can dispel it or polish it.
posted by blueshammer at 8:41 PM on March 2, 2004


What do you do with all those gay people with children?
posted by Hildegarde at 9:50 PM on March 2, 2004


> Cameron's argument seems very strange to me (of course). But if what he posed were actually true, human beings way before the dawn of civilization would have been drawn to it and, perhaps, 'civilization' would never have dawned since it is, if widely adopted as a life choice, an evolutionary dead end.

I guess it needs repeating: sexual selection is not the only evolutionary mechanism.

That said the above argument presupposes a genetic basis for homosexuality which is uncertain. For the sake of argument if we do want to assume a genetic basis for homosexuality it could very well involve recessive genes (if you decide to research recessives just try to ignore the unhelpful stuff you sometimes read about recessives as 'faulty' genes).

> I mean, 50,000 or 100,000 years ago there were no such things as marriages or social mores, were there?

A group of pre-humans left archeological evidence of tool use over two and a half million years ago at Olduvai Gorge. I'm not going to try to link tool use to social mores, but Olduvai Gorge gives us a nice early date where a group of pre-humans gathered in one place. All that social psychologists seem to need to do to establish group norms is to put people into a group and wait. If certain aberrations from the norm are more harshly punished than others (by violence, isolation, sexual exclusion or whatever other means) you can say that those strongly held group norms become mores.
posted by snarfodox at 9:59 PM on March 2, 2004


I always have been and remain astonished at how much time most folks spend thinking about sex. I mean, it's superfun -- and necessary for the survival of the species if you're doing it heterostylee -- and all, sure, but...

It's just not something that occupies that much of my mind. I suppose that's either a blessing or a curse depending on how much of a lustmonkey you are and how central what you do with your gonads is to your definition of self. Me, not so much.

Ah well. I'm happy this way.

Why someone would care so much about other people's genital adventures, though, now that really twists my melon.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:30 PM on March 2, 2004


blueshammer, while I'd agree with you that straight people seem to feel less compelled to have kids than in previous generations -- after all, in this economy, both partners often have to work -- but I would disagree that there's "more" homosexuaity than there ever was. There was a tremendous amount of furtive sex, and even nervous confessionals (yes, pun) during the '50s, and gay sex is going on everywhere, all over the world, but most of it until recently has been undercover.

You might call the apparent upsurge the Will and Grace effect -- put a character on TV, and suddenly you see their type everywhere. Plus, of course, there was gay liberation, Allen Ginsberg, freedom day parades, and all those other things that made it easier to talk about.

But there have always been a lot of gay people around. They just weren't getting married at City Hall on TV.
posted by digaman at 10:41 PM on March 2, 2004


[Gay sex is] no better or worse than the straight kind. (Unless that's just me.)

It's not just you.
posted by Asparagirl at 11:38 PM on March 2, 2004


After reading those rules from 2000 years ago, I can't help but think that the men writing the good book had issues with lesbians too.

Er, that good book says zilch about lesbianism, though a bit here and there about gay guys. In Judaism, lesbianism falls under the general heading of "lewd behavior", but there isn't a specific prohibition--it just isn't mentioned at all in the Old Testament. (Unless you interpret the Ruth/Naomi story to be a mention in the positive sense...)
posted by Asparagirl at 11:42 PM on March 2, 2004


> Er, that good book says zilch about lesbianism...

True, but rumour has it that Tatian, Nazianzen or someone else in the early church burned Sappho's poetry anyway. Hopefully just a vicious rumour.

> it just isn't mentioned at all in the Old Testament.

I thought that the only reference to homosexuality was in the Old Testament (Leviticus) along with the instruction not to eat fruit from trees that are less than three years old and perhaps most importantly the warning against offering bread to god if you are a dwarf or you have a flat nose.
posted by snarfodox at 12:37 AM on March 3, 2004


digaman, I'm not trying to say that homosexuality is more prevalent now than in the past -- but, as an example, mightn't a good deal of the homosexuality been "on the side" from people in breeding relationships? And on the other hand, 60 years ago was not so long ago that the invisible hand idea couldn't be meaningful.

That said, I would be surprised if there were not in fact more gay relationships today than previously, for reasons of cultural acceptance. Similarly, I'd be surprised if the much-commented-upon college lesbianism "phase" isn't more common today than previously. But, again, I don't have data here, and I'm not against being surprised.
posted by blueshammer at 5:14 AM on March 3, 2004


Blueshammer: The single best predictor of fertility is the average level of education attained by women in a population. At risk of oversimplifying, if women see that they have options in life other than cranking out babies, they'll take them. This obviously correlates to some extent with wealth, but it's not 100%.
posted by adamrice at 8:37 AM on March 3, 2004


Hee hee, when I clicked into here, there were 69 comments.
posted by scalz at 9:22 AM on March 3, 2004


we learned in more than a few courses that many other cultures and societies have had 'homosexual' rituals and behaviors that were considered normal: the Spartans, the Romans, the Greeks, to name a few western pillars. But it was not held to be a violation of any law, nor did it prevent the procreative acts from being performed, so it was just what it was.
posted by bluefish at 10:15 AM on March 3, 2004


"If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get -- and that is what homosexuality seems to be -- then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm."

This whole idea seems to be based on a false premise. IF sexuality is just about amusement, IF all you want is a hot orgasm, IF that is what homosexuality is about, then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist.

Just talking about myself, and not for any other gay or bisexual men, but the fundamental shift in my mind from being a teen hedonist who would try anything for amusement, to being bisexual came when I fell in love. I didn't just want to have sex with that guy, I wanted to do everything with him including those little annoying household things that are unsexy as heck.

In fact, as part of my copious experience sitting on speaker's pannels with other gay, lesbian and bisexual people, I can't recall anyone who put forward the claim that homosexual sex was all about amusement, or having hot orgasms. But that could have been a skewed sample of relationship-oriented men and women.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:44 AM on March 3, 2004


Hrm, in response to Wulfgar!, I think that these things need to be addressed because they reflect common myths about what lesbigays do and what homosexuality is about to us. The best way to do this is not to get all hostile about Cameron's views, but to simply explain our views that homosexual relationships are not all about getting the perfect orgasm.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:59 AM on March 3, 2004




« Older i hate taxes.   |   Koo koo kids lookin' for koo koo kicks Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post