This is one of the most sexually ignorant things I've ever heard. What year was this written? Surely it was 1872 or something.

What? So let me see if I have this correct. Straight guys really want another guy. Well come and get it guys. Sorry ladies. No need to apply. And all those titty lovers are really just putting on a show for other guys. I see.

You would be surprised. I heard someone make the argument against even being accepting of homosexuality because it increases the rate of HIV/AIDS infection among hetrosexual women. Apparently all of their boyfriends and husbands are off having sex with gay male prositutes, getting infected, and passing it on to the women. And this, of course, is the fault of the gay male prostitutes who are busy seducing these hapless straight men into unspeakable acts.

I was left speechless by this...creative reasoning, but fortunately other people at the conference weren't and they slapped her down good.

Mkay, what "record shows that heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman?" I want to see this record. What a bizarre argument against gays. The whole thing is riddled with fallacies and crazy-talk.

Damn he has uncovered our secret plan. The ultimate expression of gay male misogyny, while simultaneously creating a larger pool of best girlfriends (fag hag/fruit fly in the common parlance) for us to choose from.

Many thanks to our lesbian sisters for helping make this happen.

while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.

All women need the cock. Period! That whole clitoris thing is a feminist myth, its the cervix that is the source of a woman's pleasure. And then only when a baby comes flying out.

We've got the magical power of GAY!

Um, Something tells me this guy is projecting. Since he wants to suck dick, he assumes that all men do.

this is a pile of crap. seriously.

This man has never heard of the clitoris. Or a vibrator, for that matter.

Basically, the argument is "Everybody loves the cock. Sex without cocks is just awful."

Right?

But what this guy is missing is that I can still have sex with a guy without being married to him, so changing the law won't change my decisions about whether to sleep with a guy or not.

This reminds me of the argument against legalizing the currently illegal drugs, "But if they're legalized, then EVERYONE will use them!"

Actually... when surveyed (in the 80s, I believe), and asked if they would begin using any of the currently illegal drugs if they were legalized, the vast majority of people interviewed said that they wouldn't. However, when asked if they thought their neighbors would... the vast majority said that they thought their neighbors would start using at least one of the currently illegal drugs just because they were legal.

Legalizing something doesn't just change the way people ARE. Some people are more likely to use drugs than others just as some people are more likely to sexually prefer men or to sexually prefer women. Changing the law won't change someone's preference or underlying personality - it's just ignorance to think that it will.

Sorry, can't stop laughing, to say anything intelligent.

I... but... exact opposite... head exploding... I... WOW.

If anything, I'd say women in love with Republican "family values" types should read this article

This makes perfect sense if you are this guy's target audience, i.e. closeted pastors and GOP lawmakers who hope to pray the gay away. I can see them reading this and salivating over a room full of twinks in togas. Just think of this as a form of evangelical erotica.

I work in theatre in NYC. Ain't no place with less "social censure" of gayness, aside from the Castro district. I've never yet felt the need to go gay. I can camp it up with the best of them, but man is not my cup of tea.

I agree with Rob. This guy's busily setting up a reality where he can FINALLY go man crazy and then blame it on "permissive society". What a sorry closet case.

Oh, and what basic grasp of anatomy am I missing that women can't get satisfaction from another woman to the same extent that a man can from another man? The poor boy lacks imagination.

sounds like someone is a cock craving bottom deep down inside...

Perhaps the records have more about gay man sex than gay woman sex because they were written by men. Just a thought.

Does anyone else think it would be fucking awesome and hilarious if the whole world was bisexual? I always find it funny when two of my gay friends share an ex. To me, that's the weirdest thing about gayness. I think it'd be interesting if we could all do that.

Huh??????? WHAT ???? Reason totters on its throne ......

Yes, gay males in any great concentration release "queertrinos" which neutralize the female sexual anatomy rendering it uselss and barren.

I think I'll make a whole lot of money marketing "lead anti-queertrino panties" in this grim queerified future!

There probably ISN'T much "record" of women/women sex, 'cause most/all of the surviving "records" are written by men.

Wow... I usually only assume that the guys who shout loudest against gays are secretly gay themselves, but there's no assuming with this one. He's undoubtedly gay. I, like most sexually secure straight men, simply aren't attracted to other men. No problems with them, just not attracted, thanks. Legal or not, accepted or not, encouraged or not, I simply am not interested in being homosexual. But this guy clearly is, and clearly can't wait for it to happen.

He's 100% gay. I'd bet everything I own on it.

i suppose that dumbass is correct in one aspect: that is there is no social censure, then currently closeted men will feel more free to enjoy sex with other men.

but dude, some of us really do just think about pussy all day.

26 - Maybe he's hoping for this supposed gaypocalypse?

It's really simple: straight people don't "need" restrictions on homo-sex because they are not tempted by homo-sex, by definition.

Why the closet-case writer can't aknowledge this is something for psychologists to figure out, and for the rest of us to point and laugh at.

What a complete load of crap!

Well, crap. I guess I need to call my bisexual boyfriend and tell him that clearly, since he's had some cock, he's not into me. Never was. I'll stop putting pressure on him to have gross hetero sex, and just live my lonely sexless life, since apparently sex with women sucks so much that no one wants to do it.

What's funny is that the Romans prided themselves on being manly men, unlike those faggy Greeks and Persians.

Men are irresistibly attracted to any available hole, regardless of who it's attached to. There's just no keeping them away from those holes! Women, on the other hand, are completely sexually dysfunctional in the absence of cock. Women are nothing without a cock!

Actually, that sounds kind of Freudian. Majorly fucked-up sexual theory masquerading as a "basic grasp of anatomy" FTL!

Since when do religious nut jobs care about women?

This guy is just dying to be "turned" gay.

You're wasting your time humoring this softball bullshit, Dan. Even conservatives generally think people like this guy are total nutbars. Save your energy for critics that people actually listen to.

If it affects women, then it affects every aspect of society. Women are the glues that hold families and the family is the basic block of any society. Sadly one can see many similarities in the debauchery of those times and what some are trying to recreate now. Only thing I would add to this analysis by Mr Klinghoffer is that we all know how the Roman culture ended, thanks to this type of permissive behaviors.

I'm done laughing now. Here's what I learned, about why there isn't any "record" about women, in ancient Greek and Roman history. Free men are the ones worth mentioning in history.

Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation. Status concerns were also of the highest importance. Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes, and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika. In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos, which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood (Dover, 1989). To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homose…

rewind:

Sorry, I forgot the quotation marks.

@12: Or "fingers," apparently.

A survey of one heterosexual man found that he could find pleasure in a man just as easily as in a woman. A survey of zero heterosexual women found that they enjoy sex with said heterosexual man.

This just goes to show how the anti-gay crowd isn't making arguments. They're making excuses. They abandon one "sincere" objection for the next so easily (Leviticus to "family values" to "slippery slope" to "end of all reproduction"), and their arguments get more and more far-fetched and frantic every time. And each time, tools like loveschild latch on and say, "Yes! THAT'S it! That's what my reason has been all along!"

At least we can take some solace in knowing that this means, deep down, that they have some awareness that their real motivations are invalid.

Loveschild @37,

I'm going to disagree, and say that it is intellectually dishonest to blame the deteriation and failure of Rome on sexual practices. The failure of Rome had more to do with it's economic enviornment, civil wars, political and social problems.

"Economic weaknesses and their social repercussions were largely to blame for the decline which Rome went through during the third century. Due to the nature of economic development during the Republic and the ramifications thereof, Rome developed an economy riddled with weaknesses and problems. These inherent economic weaknesses began to manifest themselves during Gibbon’s golden-age. The system of small estates developed during the Republic gave way to the system of the great imperial private estates. The growth of the large estate was a catalyst to the general decline of Rome as a symptom. By the third century the great era of the industrial city-state was over. During the second century we see the reversion from an industrial life based on the wide use of coinage to more primitive conditions of payments. As the empire grew it needed a state system of credits able to support the intricate and highly organised commercial life of the empire we see a retrogression of this sort of system if anything. The decline of the slave-market lead to a system whereby the free peasantry increasingly became the work-tool of the state and the landowners also became a work-tool bound to the place where they were needed. The social structure resulting from this sort of economic system also had the bad effect of creating a very restricted internal market. The empire seemed prosperous and successful but it was essentially thriving on borrowed time. The artificial supports provided by expansionism helped to conceal these problems but at the price of eating up huge amounts of money and further reinforcing the problems of limited demand, technical inadequacy and decentralisation. The costs of running the empire continued to increase exponentially along with a corresponding decrease in productivity and the ability of many to pay. From this we see the rise bureaucracy and therefore further pressure on the Roman citizens (the middle classes in particular). The increasing materialism of the Romans also seemed to contribute to a general weakening of the Roman ‘spirit’. The empire had dug itself into a hole from which it could not escape and went into terminal decline. The barbarisation of the military beginning under Hadrian and the disastrous political effects of this were also very important. It was the legions that had repressed the Republic and it was the legions once again who violated the “majesty of the purple”. The civil wars which were the result of this along with its political, economic and social problems affected the empire to such an extent that it could no longer defend itself effectively against its enemies. By the fourth century such damage had been inflicted that the Roman world was never the same again and eventually went into terminal decline. "

http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/art…

Oy. I'm sick of people bringing up the "hey, Romans were gay!" argument. Like Kim in Portland has pointed out, it was closely tied to social class and a unique, Roman idea of gender in sex.

If you were a male citizen, you were not expected to be fucked by other men. It was still considered effeminate to play the "submissive" role in sex because one of the most sacred rights of citizenship was the right to physical autonomy and sanctity. Being the submissive partner put you in the role of women and slaves, both entities in Roman society who did not control their own bodies. For example, Caesar was famously mocked with rumours that he was a foreign king's boy toy.

More still, it was still a top Roman ideal to be a family man and to be the top dog of a household. It was considered a quasi-religious state *duty* to have children. Rome was extremely conservative -- not a hedonist paradise.

I'm pretty sure the "records" of female gayness are more of a private sort: secret diaries and love letters. Girls weren't supposed to know the slightest bit about sex ever, but let's face it: everyone did even back in the puritanical 50s, 1800s, whenthehellevers. And with all the same-sex sleepovers... well, I'm sure more than one budding lez has had her girlfriend over for more than bad movies and pedicures.

if legalizing gay marriage will keep guys who would really rather be fucking other guys from getting into relationships with me (a straight lady, thankyewverymuch), then it can't be legalized soon enough! hop to it!!

@37,

The Roman empire became Christian before it fell, dumbass. By your logic, Christianity destroys civilizations.

God, this is the best news I have ever read! I love me some straight men!

I am 100% embarassed for Christian people (since this came from a christian website). IF they are all this stupid, and I'm using the word STUPID here because it fits perfectly, then their time has come and their religion and power-hold over modern American society could be at an end. Keep making these comments and they will destroy themselves and push others who have the ability to question the things they hear and read farther away from the church.
Religion will destroy itself with it's judgements, paranoia and strong-handed methods of keeping it's followers afraid and ....stupid.

Kim, those quotes are good, but a little obtuse for some. I happened to get my degree in Classical History, so maybe I can distill it:

Rome failed because of slavery and social inequalities. It finally reached various tipping points where there weren't enough "citizens" to control all the "provinces" they had conquered. Much of the wealth was based on conquest and slave labour on large estates. That's an unstustainable model. Slavery corrupts a society, just as we're seeing in America with our imported slaves from Mexico, etc.

Roman men did participate in same sex relationships out of a certain kind of necessity. Those "citizens", if they weren't of the patrician classes, had 20+ military service requirements. They often spent several years at a time away from home, and there weren't a lot of "camp women" around to perform some, um, services. This is why rape was a common occurance in Roman warfare: these were horny guys with no women around! When a guy spends several years sleeping beside the same guys every night, things are bound to happen. The orgies that Caligula & Nero made famous were of a far more hetero nature, and were reserved for the upper classes.

There certainly was public censure for effeminate behaviour. Marc Antony had to defend himself against such charges with a statement to the effect of, "I was the dominant one in that relationship!"

Like some others said, the historical record doesn't exactly expand much to a womans' experience, because they were horribly disadvantaged and discriminated against in the ancient world. Men were expected to get married to women, no matter what their sexual orientation, in order to expand their legacy and immortality in the form of children. It didn't matter what he did outside that marriage bed, or really, what abuse he sent to the wife. It was a man's world, with its own rules of machoism, separate from our own societal taboos.

So I find it funny that he finds these parallels, because the modern age and the ancient were two different worlds. A woman in the ancient world was almost guaranteed marriage, but never love. A married woman could do nothing for herself, in Greece never left the house, and was treated like a 10-year-old daughter by everyone around her. A woman couldn't find love because she was in a cage of society's making by the time she was a teenager. Sappho is a great exception, but people like her were rare.

But anyway. This guy's full of shit. If queer acceptance meant that men could be more honest about their desires, so be it. I'd rather be with someone who loved me, than with someone who was forced to be with me because society deems it 'what must be done'. Why would anyone choose dishonesty over honesty?

37, Um Loveschild, really do you know anything about history? The Roman Empire became Christian in 312AD under Emperor Constantine. The fell AFTER they became a Christian empire.

43 With all due respect Kim, the only one being dishonest and refusing to acknowledge history here is you. You cannot distance the destruction of Roman culture from their indulgences on licentious lecherous behaviors. Proof of that is their religion, a religion which not only condoned but promoted and glorified such acts. Where is the Roman religion now? Relegated to second hand accounts, some scripts and museum statues while other religions of the same antiquity are still practiced today. So while the bulk of the fault of the fall of the Roman empire can be attributed to the socio-political and economic reasons that you cited, the Roman culture of those times itself could not be sustained even in it's epicenter (within the italian peninsula) because it was promoting conducts that in the end were unsustainable and would not allow it to further expand into the future. All it took was for an outside culture, ideas and a religion that sought to free the enslaved and dying culture of the Romans for their pantheons to be forgotten until they were re-discovered by archaeologists.

No Loveschild, it is YOUR own ignorance and candy coated covering you have plastered on history that proves that you know nothing of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Get yourself an education you twat.

by the by, orgies were illegal, even if they were upper class only. they were very sub rosa and yeah, only the rich could afford them.

loveschild, if you don't know your history, then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Loveschild is the very definition of obtuse, which makes me think of triangles. I love triangles.

@57 Triangles make me think of three ways.

Unfortunately I have no data with which to form an opinion on that particular shape.

LC Where is your evidence for "conducts that in the end were unsustainable and would not allow it to further expand into the future?" An assertion is not proof of anything. And please note that circular arguements are logically invalid. And also note that # 54 makes the point that the Byzantine Empire was around until umm I think 1453 AD - and they did think they were the Roman Empire.

One of the first classes I took for my Classical Civ. course mentioned the prevalence of sex toys in the Roman world. Quite apart from that, this guy's male-elevating, cock-centric worldview says infinitely more than his ravings on Greco-Roman sexietiems.

Oh yah, and Loveschild, since neither of us is (I believe) an expert on the fall of the Empire, shall we defer to the professionals on this one? I challenge thee to find me one prominent classical historian, without religious bias, who believes acceptance of homosexual sexual activity in certain scenarios to be a major factor behind the collapse of Roman society, and not, ya know, sprawling, ill-managed expansionism, marauding foreign tribes, inept leadership, etc.

Loveschild,

Why are you wasting your time here? Your arguments when it comes to gay marriage and DADT are so tired and you are not going to convince anyone around here that you are right.

Please go back to the right-wing mothership and let them know that they've lost and to get over it.

KTHXBYE

Loveschild, you have to stop getting your history lessons from people like Pat Robertson, or whatever wacky preacher man to whom you are listening.

I mean, if you want to arbitrarily assign blame for the fall of the Roman Empire, you could argue it was the advent of it's acceptance of Christianity. Furthermore, if you want to talk about a little bit of history repeated, it could be argued that if our country becomes a Christian nation it too will fall.

Ergo... twinks caused the downfall of Rome.

Betcha never knew chicken was so deadly.

mmmm.....waxed asshole

With respect to the article, that guy's a nutjob and/or a closet case.

As a straight boy who loves girl butt, I don't find boy butt interchangable even though anatomically it probably is. (Sorry, willowy twinks.)

53:

I don't know where you get off calling me dishonest. I addressed your statement: "Only thing I would add to this analysis by Mr Klinghoffer is that we all know how the Roman culture ended, thanks to this type of permissive behaviors." Which as writen, by you, indicates that "permissive behaviors" was the single thing responsible for the decline of Rome.

I pointed out that it would be intellectually dishonest for us to believe that "permissive behaviors" alone were responsible for the fall of Rome. It wasn't an insult to you, an attack on your intellect or an accusation of your being dishonest.

You respond by attacking me, and yet you agree with me: "So while the bulk of the fault of the fall of the Roman empire can be attributed to the socio-political and economic reasons that you cited" in your response to me. Apparently, if you agree with me that slavery and social inequality corrupted the empire, that physical size of the empire grew to large for the Roman citizens to control it, than I can't just be refusing to acknowledge history.

Why don't you try reading things with the spirit that is intended, instead of a personal attack upon your person? I wasn't attacking you.

You're forgiven.

This isn't an attack, but you might want to read up on Roman religion if it interests you, because it was common for Romans to absorb outside culture, ideas and a religion from each group they had interactions with.

Religion in Ancient Rome

Religion in ancient Rome combined several different cult practices and embraced more than a single set of beliefs. The Romans originally followed a rural animistic tradition, in which many spirits (gods) were each responsible for specific, limited aspects of the cosmos and human activities. The early Romans referred to these gods as numina. For example, there were different numina for ploughing, for horses, and for cattle.

The Etruscans provided the context out of which Roman culture and religious beliefs evolved. See Etruscan mythology. Another aspect of this animistic belief was ancestor worship, with each family honouring their own dead by their own rites.

Early in the history of the Roman Republic, foreign gods were imported, especially from Greece, which had a great cultural influence on the Romans. In addition, the Romans connected some of their indigenous deities with Greek gods and goddesses.

As the Roman Empire expanded, and included people from a variety of cultures, there were more and more gods.

The legions brought home cults originating from Egypt, Britain, Iberia, Germany, India and Persia. The cults of Cybele, Isis, and Mithras were particularly important.

Along with this, the ancient Roman beliefs and practices continued, especially in and around Rome itself. This included the worship of the lares and penates (spirits specific to a family, with altars in the home), festivals such as the Lupercalia and Saturnalia, and a complex system of lucky and unlucky days.

Another important aspect of religion in Roman times was the divinity of the Emperor. More than just being the Pontifex Maximus (the head of the Roman Religion), Roman Emperors endorsed the various popular cult religions.

In an effort to enhance political loyalty among the populace, they often called subjects to participate in the cults and revere the emperors as gods. Examples of this include "The Achievements of the Divine Augustus", which are two large bronze pillars in Rome inscribed with the deeds of Augustus, roman coins where the Emperor is portrayed with a halo or divine glow, temple inscriptions such as "Divine Augustus Caesar, son of a god, imperator of land and sea..." (Roman Temple Inscription in Myra, Lycia).

Eventually, Christianity came to replace the older pantheon as the state religion.

http://www.crystalinks.com/romereligion.…

Epic. Fail. I'm just sitting here, still shaking my head. The guy is obviously a closet case like others have mentioned. Unbelievable.

59 I'm gonna recommend you read some of the surviving medical records from Romans during those times. You'll see clearly descriptions of STDs, genital warts and such that are clearly due to some distinct sexual practices. You can start by researching some of Moscicki's work. As you see I'm not referring to the Byzantine Empire which was one with a very different religion from the one that preceded it, which is the one I'm referencing to. Also we are discussing the Roman ((culture)) of those times which cannot be separated from it's religion, which in turn cannot be separated from the sexual ritual practices they engaged in and which also extended to their everyday life of Roman men.

Wow, you gay guys are really really good at converting people. The Mormons should take lessons from you.

69, Again Lovechild, The Roman Empire fell AFTER it converted to Christianity. Just a little fact you want ignore I know. Really, maybe you shouldn't have ditched your world history classes?

God, I love it when people get nerdy about history. *sniff*

Kim, you're so totally my hero right now.

Loveschild - evidence of gay sex-induced STIs (not sure how you can ascertain what gender(s) the people being infected/infecting were) is not actually evidence that gay sex brought about the fall of the roman empire.

@69: "[S]ome distinct sexual practices."

Are there non-distinct sexual practises?

I'm guessing the STDs were spread in part by prostitution, the majority of which was most probably heterosexual in nature.

Oh for God's sake.......

WHEN will this idiotic mindset die out, anyway?? We all know it's just a matter of time..

# 69 LC But where is your evidence that permissive sexual behaviors adn ONLY that caused the fall of the (Christian, as Rob keeps pointing out) Roman Empire? And it is news to me that the Byzantine Empire " was one with a very different religion from the one that preceded it." For one thing, Byzantium was part of the Roman Empire - the Eastern part - and called themselves Roman.

@74: I guess prostitution qualifies as "permissive", right? Oh well.

76, She has no evidence because she's just making crap up and posting it as fact. She's never seen a medical record from ancient Rome. Lying is a sin Loveschild. Oh, right, it's okay for you to ignore the Bible. Only the gays have to do what it says.

76 Are you for real Theo?

Again, we are discussing culture not political, military endeavors. And I never implied that it was solely to blame but instead that it was one of the many components that weakened that specific roman society. You know that the Roman religion I'm referencing to is PREVIOUS 391 AD.

5th century Athens gifted the world with philosophy, drama and democracy; the arts and sciences flourished and citizens engaged intensely with political and intellectual life. Meanwhile, the culture embraced bisexual pederasty as a male socio-sexual norm.

Tell me how Teh Gayz weaken society again?

Hi Rob @ # 78:

I'm asking for several reasons:
1.In my opinion, folks who want to deny basic human rights to others should be able to produce logical arguments to support their postion. And again, visceral faith based statements aren't enough.
2. And she might change her mind if she sees that her position is illogical.

So call me a hopeless idealist. Hey - it ain't all bad being one- look at what Woodrow Wilson accomplished! :)

You guys! Everytime a commenter responds to "Loveschild", she gets a nasty little thrill way down in her 'bad place'! She's probably rubbing her dirty pillows with one hand and typing with the other! Getting all this Slog-attention is her best gay-sex-substitute!

You are all helping her Get Off, in her nasty "Hate's Shill" way!! Do not be the batteries in her innernetz vibrator!!!

Unless you want to, I mean... It IS pretty good entertainment, I must say.. But just don't assume you're speaking to a rational being who is capable of responding to you rationally, y'all are just her eee-lectronic buzz buddies.

Merry @ # 82 :

You may be right ....::sigh::

@ 79,

You're too much of a coward to answer, but if homosexuality had ANYTHING to do weakening Rome, wouldn't suppressing homosexuality (as happened after Constantine converted the empire to Christianity) have made it stronger? Can you explain that paradox?

LC # 79 You said "You know that the Roman religion I'm referencing to is PREVIOUS 391 AD. " Ummm ... you know that is Christianity, don't you?

LC @ # 37 You said "Only thing I would add to this analysis by Mr Klinghoffer is that we all know how the Roman culture ended, thanks to this type of permissive behaviors."
Then @ # 79 you said "And I never implied that it was solely to blame but instead that it was one of the many components that weakened that specific roman society." Making contradictory statements doesn't improve the strength of your arguments, ya know.

@ 12 & 40

Or strap-ons.

OK Rob - you may now say "I told you so!"

Maybe everybody should stop talking to Loveschild? Loveschild doesn't listen and can't reason. You're attempting to communicate with someone with the reasoning powers of a brainwashed, developmentally-delayed mollusc.

Seriously, look at this quote:

"Sadly one can see many similarities in the debauchery of those times and what some are trying to recreate now."

Fucked! Or this:

"You cannot distance the destruction of Roman culture from their indulgences [or] licentious lecherous behaviors."

Double-fucked! And, totally brainwashed. "Licentious" is one of those words that really outs the hardcore Christian kooks. It's one of their little mantras.

Loveschild probably hoards gold, decries "socialism" (eeek!), argues public healthcare will bring ruin (it destroyed Rome!) and squawks incessantly about Obama's "New World Order". Actually, just picking Rome as a comparison for U.S. decline is something all the American Empire whackjobs do. I think it has something to do with the Rapture and Jews and repressed bisexuality, but I'm no expert and don't wanna be.

Loveschild is completely and totally fucked in his/her/it's squishy, cephalopodian head. This sad, irritating creature needs massive, massive therapy (and probably a few dozen hugs from a better mom than the one it was born to), not conversation with Slog's lovable drunks and ne'er do-wells.

Trust a Canadian on this. Ignore Loveschild. Let him/her/it scuttle away to a cozy tidepool crevice, and wish it peace and healing.

Dammit, I just now noticed that Merry basically said this already but way better than me. Crud.

A friendly slog-o-hood reminder:

Please do not feed the trolls

Pass it on

79, Well Loveschild, it's pretty obvious you're uneducated. From your embarrassing lack of knowledge of basic world history, I've got to wonder if you even graduated high school.

@69 I'd love to read some ancient roman medical histories. Can you direct me as to where I can find them? I'd also love to read some of Moscicki's work, unfortunately there is no such person. Unless you are refering to the chemist who patented the production of nitric acid and former President of Poland.

Baconcat @ 24, you are probably not still reading this. But I looooooove yoooooooooo. That was perfect.

Pray tell, what does hair, or the lack of it, have to do with anything (except in your dreams?)?
From what I know, lots of men enjoy the hairiness of another man over the imagined smooth hairlessness of women, and yes, even the so-called straight men. It's that difference that can be extremely attractive to many men.

If you ask me, men who are turned on to hairless twinks are closet pedophiles.

Hmm.. an upside of this for straight guys could be that straight women will have to work harder to compete for them. Most of the time straight relationships begin with guys doing most of the work to hook up with them and all they have to do is sit around until they get picked up by someone who seems decent enough. Which, let's face it, is sexist, contrived and old fashioned.