quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: The school already had a policy requiring prom dates to be opposite sex.
(That double post is not a mistake - just trying to be sure you see it.)
Sorry, double posts are annoying - no matter what the reason.
But what's your point? Surely you're not saying that just because the policy was already there it's OK? That it doesn't matter whether or not the rule is discriminatory just because it was "already on the books"?
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by just_me: But what's your point? Surely you're not saying that just because the policy was already there it's OK?
No, I'm not saying it's ok. It's despicable. My point is, mal keeps insisting that if Constance McMillan and her date just showed up to the prom, without making any kind of "announcement", they would have been admitted. He is incorrect, because they already had a policy in place to deny them admittance.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Being gay is a choice. Pedophiles aren't granted the same accord for succumbing to their "natural" desires.
yes, thank you for being a supreme jerk yet again comparing gays to pedophiles.
It's yet another useless comparison. The same accord is not granted to pedophiles when and where they engage in relationships that are impossible for meaningful consent to exist within, not because it's a matter of 'choice.'
Let's try something out. Let's see if you can voluntarily abstain from making another gauche comparison where gays are equivalent to pedophiles. I know you can. I know you're tempted to. But let's see if you can take my word over the fact that it's supremely offensive and will score you no points for style and substance. Can you manage? Is it even possible for you?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: The school already had a policy requiring prom dates to be opposite sex.
It's probably more than likely that state has a law requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Just because you want something doesn't make it's opposition unjust. The fifteen year old girl can't have a 30 year old date. Their consensual behavior doesn't make it acceptable. Ask the 30 year old who landed in jail.
Maybe some day soon homosexuals will be accepted as you wish. Only 20 years ago it was considered a mental disorder. What do you expect? We're trying to normalize a behavior that defies the laws of natural selection. You don't have to be religious to be confused by this "natural" phenomena. If it is a natural genetic condition, it's self defeating and shouldn't exist. Natural selection should have eliminated this biological predisposition. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Apparently not. You can't help but be a needlessly inflammatory poster who only hurts his own side.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: We're trying to normalize a behavior that defies the laws of natural selection. You don't have to be religious to be confused by this "natural" phenomena. If it is a natural genetic condition, it's self defeating and shouldn't exist. Natural selection should have eliminated this biological predisposition. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Don't bring natural selection and 'genetic conditions' into the discussion if you don't understand them. And it's plain you don't. I don't really understand them either, but I know enough to know that a) natural selection does not work on solely one factor, and b) there are such things as recessive genes, for example.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If it is a natural genetic condition, it's self defeating and shouldn't exist. Natural selection should have eliminated this biological predisposition.
This fallacy of yours was shot down quite some time ago.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: The school already had a policy requiring prom dates to be opposite sex.
It's probably more than likely that state has a law requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Just because you want something doesn't make it's opposition unjust. The fifteen year old girl can't have a 30 year old date. Their consensual behavior doesn't make it acceptable. Ask the 30 year old who landed in jail.
I have no idea what this has to do with what you quoted.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, whenever I see Mal posting on the side of homosexuality-as-choice I cringe. Speaking as a bisexual man, I am wholly unconvinced that homosexuality is a genetic condition. This is not to say that it is a fully controllable choice for everyone. I think it's likely that for a majority of individuals, homosexual or not, the roots of their sexuality are so thoroughly ingrained in them that there's little chance they'll change. Why would they? People who try to change aren't usually doing it because that's what they want. They're doing it because they want the social acceptance that it would grant. It's an essential distinction.
Instead of likening it to something repulsive like pedophilia, I'd liken it to something innocuous and basic. Like, say: Food preferences.
I know a guy who hates eggs. Hates 'em! Is this genetic? I doubt it. I see no compelling evidence for that. But who cares? Could he start liking eggs if he tried? Well, how would he do that? Why? Let's say he gets ridiculed for hating eggs. So he forces himself to eat eggs, to avoid ridicule.
That's a miserable situation. How likely is it that he'll start liking eggs based on this? I think he might even hate eggs more at the end of the day.
Let's say instead that he genuinely wants to like eggs more, so he can enjoy the various egg dishes he's missing. He starts slowly introducing egg products in his meals, until he either decides it's not working and gives up, or keeps going and eventually decides eggs are actually pretty cool.
Okay, great, so that's my view on sexuality in a nutshell.
But I don't think any of this really matters. I don't like it when the only defense people can make for homosexuality is "they can't help it, they were born that way!" That's crap. In my view, consenting homosexual relationships are a completely reasonable choice. They don't need any other justification, any more than three consenting adults need to justify or defend their polyamorous relationship, or two consenting adults need to justify their platonic relationship, or two consenting adults need to justify their no-strings-attached sexual relationship.
Mal's problem is not that he says homosexuality is a choice. It's that he thinks this makes it even more squicky than if it was uncontrollable. It doesn't. Homosexuality isn't squicky, period.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For many people, their sexuality seems to exist on a spectrum where they're predisposed to view one gender more desirable to some degree. Other folks are strictly binary.
So for someone who's easily attracted to either gender, I suppose it would be a choice. For someone who's heavily weighted in favor of one gender, I'm not sure the word adequately describes the situation. It seems more fair to say exceptions are sometimes made to the rule. And for others, there's no choice involved. Only one gender is ever desirable.
Personally, I see the choice/no choice dynamic as being more an issue of not understanding the range of views on sexuality out there. It's never going to describe gays in general; it's never going to reveal grand sweeping truths. It's a dynamic I personally find interesting, but I'm not sure it's much more than that.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Speaking as a bisexual man, I am wholly unconvinced that homosexuality is a genetic condition.
There's underlying physiological traits and heritability patterns which suggest a genetic component, but at best we can only guess that it seeds the "potential" to, for whatever reasons, express as gay.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how some here would dlassify me -- I am opposed to gay marriage and feel that the normalization of homosexuality in school curriculums is wrong. Yet I do not have anything against homosexuals in the military and feel positive towards lesbians who choose artificial insemination to have families.
Now as for the prom thing, I think canceling prom is dumb. By now the vast majority of junior and senior students have seen girls making out in music videos and probably most have seen porn involving women having sex with women. I really doubt letting this girl go to prom with another girl will cause anyone thre to go gay, if that is what the school administration is worried about.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's underlying physiological traits and heritability patterns which suggest a genetic component, but at best we can only guess that it seeds the "potential" to, for whatever reasons, express as gay.
Just yesterday I had a long conversation with a woman at work who is bi-sexual. She admits to being predatory and actually enjoys turning heterosexual women to lesbianism. She currently says she has caused 6 women to go gay -- and not just become party lesbians, but totally confront their parents to "come out." I was intrigued by her assertations, and have seen her at play at a convention we both attended. I would not doubt her claims in the least.
So is homosexuality genetic? I really don't think so. I do believe that certain people have a personality predisposition to seek out novelty and that may be a factor.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hold up. I want to get your stance on the matter clear. Do you think that heterosexual adults can be made gay by being pressured to be gay?
Also, do you think that most people's expression of homosexuality — or indeed, much of anyone's at all — is due to them having a personality that draws them to the novelty of being gay?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Being gay is a choice.
What an odd thing to say.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Pedophiles aren't granted the same accord for succumbing to their "natural" desires.
So you don't see any difference between consensual adult relationships and child abuse?
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Behavior is a choice. The law decides what behavior is accepted by society.
It hasn't been all that long since the "behavior" of interracial marriage, or kissing even, was illegal. Laws can be utterly immoral.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Just yesterday I had a long conversation with a woman at work who is bi-sexual. She admits to being predatory and actually enjoys turning heterosexual women to lesbianism. She currently says she has caused 6 women to go gay -- and not just become party lesbians, but totally confront their parents to "come out." I was intrigued by her assertations, and have seen her at play at a convention we both attended. I would not doubt her claims in the least.
So is homosexuality genetic? I really don't think so. I do believe that certain people have a personality predisposition to seek out novelty and that may be a factor.
The problem is, I'm calling bull***t on that story. I'm not saying that you're making it up; maybe she was. But it sounds way too much like the kind of crap that 'phobes are constantly inventing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that for some people it IS a choice. For some, it probably isn't. I don;t think all gay people are the same as each other any more than I think all straight people are the same.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think what you wish Lisa, I have known her for 5 years and she is quite capable of doing exactly as she claims. Like I said, I have seen her basically stalk and seduce. I have a relative who prides herself on being able to get any man or woman she wants as well so it is quite possible.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a relative who prides herself on being able to get any man or woman she wants as well so it is quite possible.
It could just as well be that these individuals are particularly talented at recognizing subtle indications of mutable sexual identity.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Matt, but mutable means that a person can be changed. I personally believe that there are many people who are in that category. Again, I doubt there are pheremones or anything that would indicate a physiological predisposition to homosexuality -- but personality factors just might.
I know a girl who had been a striper and had seduced a co-worker. She had even talked marriage with the girl, but eventually dropped the idea since she did not want to get into a socially unacceptable relationship for a lifetime. Now one could speculate that a woman might go into stripping because she has a subconscious desire to be around other naked women, but I doubt it. I think the explaination for her friend going from heterosexuality to contemplating a homosexual marriage has more to do with most women in that occupation being open to novelty and experimentation, not some genetic thing.
quote:Yes Matt, but mutable means that a person can be changed.
In this context I'm suggesting there are some people that can go either way by nature, not that nature provides that attribute to all. (i.e. a genetic disposition may be towards one end of the spectrum or the other OR toward neither)
Your experience with a person that's good a "switching" supposedly straight people isn't that strong of an argument for a strictly non-genetic cause, especially given much more rigorous research that does indicate a genetic component.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Think what you wish Lisa, I have known her for 5 years and she is quite capable of doing exactly as she claims.
In order for your anecdote to be true (and thus topple the current well-studied knowledge of human sexuality) you would be claiming confirmability of the notion that she is indeed turning people who were previously heterosexual into gay people, rather than reacting to indicators of interest in an individual whose more mutable and previously present middle position on the kinsey scale is merely closeted.
You can throw anecdote at us but it just shows suggestion to you from a far from rigorous sample and a definitely far from rigorous methodology.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the explaination for her friend going from heterosexuality to contemplating a homosexual marriage has more to do with most women in that occupation being open to novelty and experimentation, not some genetic thing.
I already asked a question about clarifying the extent to which you apply this whole 'novelty' thing. State clearly what that all is.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Yes Matt, but mutable means that a person can be changed.
I disagree. Mutable just means bisexual. Sure, someone who is bisexual can go from functioning heterosexually to homosexually and vice versa. What does that have to do with those of us who aren't bi?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Regarding the michael story: My understanding is that women have a higher tendency (genetic or otherwise) to be bisexual/mutable/middle-of-kinsey-scale. Given the general social pressure to be heterosexual, it is not at all surprising you can find plenty of people who are bi but operating as straight.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bwuh? The only reason they didn't force the school to hold the prom was that forces were already in motion to get a second prom going.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Bwuh? The only reason they didn't force the school to hold the prom was that forces were already in motion to get a second prom going.
Whoops, missed that part of the article.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite true Raymond, or one could say males have an easier time repressing same-sex thoughts and actions than females. Personally, I believe Freud was right on this issue -- humans are born bi-potential and, due to societal pressure and the instinct to reproduce, most will only exhibit heterosexual inclinations. I wonder though, if you gave everyone this test -- http://mysexualorientation.com/ how would they come out (no pun intended)?
Studies on people's physiological reactions to visual stimuli have shown that heterosexual women get as much aroused by viewing lesbian sex as heterosexual sex. Males generally don't find male homosexual sex a turn on. Is that genetic or cultural, who knows?
And could someone please show some of this research that demonstrates some "rigorous" reserch that has been replicated that shows that human sexuality is fixed by some sort of genetic predisposition? I have yet to see anything that clearly shows some are "born" straight and some are born homosexual.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that flies and other well studied creatures have specific genetic markers which determine their sexuality, there is good solid evidence that genes can indeed lead to homosexuality in some species. Knowing that these genes exist in other species, it is not unreasonable to believe that genes could determine sexuality in humans. People are a lot harder to study since for some reason, they object to having their genes manipulated and don't breed where told.
Women are generally pretty easy to arouse- watching monkeys leads to signs of arousal. A woman engaging in sex without arousing is more likely to be injured and damaged, so the theory is that any hints at sex in the future will lead to arousal. Also, why a lot of woman are aroused when raped- they didn't enjoy it or want it, but their body did everything it could to protect them.
I think some people are one way, some the other and some get to choose. Since some people get to choose, it does confuse the issue.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Considering that flies and other well studied creatures have specific genetic markers which determine their sexuality, there is good solid evidence that genes can indeed lead to homosexuality in some species.
The problem with this is that most non-human brains (and non-human personalities) are less complex than human ones. And I'm not just talking like, a smidge less complex. The difference is several orders of magnitude.
Flies, for example, have a very limited scope of behavior and actions. So a genetic predisposition could actually create a significant and noticeable effect.
I haven't seen any compelling evidence that humans have a genetic predisposition with regards to sexuality. I definitely haven't seen any compelling evidence that such a genetic predisposition is strong enough to actually have a meaningful effect on our vastly superior, and vastly more complex, brains (slash personalities).
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I think that for some people it IS a choice.
So I'd like to know what that view is based on.
Based on years of observation by psychologists, by the fact that there tends to be common events in homosexuals histories, and by the fact that people rarely do things for one reason alone.
I believe, and modern science has so far seemed to confirm this, that genetics can make people predisposed to some sorts of behavior, but that cultural factors and personal history are actually much better predictors of human behavior.
I know some of my gay friends feel like they had little choice because they had always felt they were gay, before they even knew what gay was.
Human sexuality is most often viewed as a spectrum rather than as a black or white choice these days. It's kinda funny for me in a personal way, although it was tough for me when I was younger. I had a lot of people assume I was gay....I was smaller than my classmates, sensitive, loved kids, played flute, and didn't really date much.
But I never once was attracted to men. I always liked women, but I was socially awkward around them, and 'had no confidence regarding my appearance or attractiveness. I had cystic acne on my chest, and it really affected my confidence regarding dating. Plus, I didn't like the say most guys seemed to treat their girlfriends....but I had no idea how to date.
Just because a guy is sensitive, non-athletic, musical, and caring doesn't mean he is gay.
I have quite a few friends who are gay, and it's a mixed bag. Some probably were programmed from day one....but some of them clearly chose this lifestyle. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:... in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.
Although you can debate to what extent that nonshared environment is a product of individual choice, I personally do not have a problem with the idea that same-sex behaviour could be a result of many factors, but with strong genetic and environmental components.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, if, let’s say, novelty seeking, or creativity, are a factor of genetics in any way would we not expect that people with high levels of this trait would be more likely to engage in behaviors that are out-of-the-norm? So a society that still holds out that same-sex behaviors are unusual, which will always be the case I believe, yet still allows the behavior (or even makes it a protected legal class) then you will have more people begin to experiment with it and maybe see themselves as having a same-sex orientation? Personally, I think that homosexuality may be an associated genetic variable to novelty seeking, but not the actual trait that a gene might cause – if by some chance homosexuality were determined to have a genetic basis in humans.
It would be like saying that people with blue eyes are more sexually promiscuous than people with brown eyes and trying to prove the hypothesis by comparing pre-marital sexual habits of Swedes and Saudi Arabians. Sure, you will find that the blue-eyed sample is way more promiscuous than the brown-eyed Saudi people, but to say that the genes that cause blue eyes are also responsible for promiscuity would be to extrapolate an incorrect conclusion due to your samples.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucas, that's pretty much what I believe as well. I don't rule out a disposition for same sex attraction, but not every person who is gay would have it, nor would every person who has it be gay.
There are very, very few things that are completely predetermined from a biological standpoint regarding human behaviors. I think it is as ridiculous to say that all gay people are that way for biological reasons as it is to say that there is no possible biological factors involved. There are a multitude of factors that influence human behavior, and human sexual behavior is even less understood than other branches, IMO.
Who would have guessed I'd believe that there are individual reasons for each person that affect their sexuality. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, anything is minor when compared with something more extreme. Does it make the less extreme behavior ok?
Personally, I'm glad I live in a country where acceptance has gotten to the point where a lesbian high school student getting banned from her prom is a big deal...<eta>...and the intolerants lose.</eta>
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:. Personally, I believe Freud was right on this issue -- humans are born bi-potential and, due to societal pressure and the instinct to reproduce, most will only exhibit heterosexual inclinations.
The question is, why do you believe this? is it based on anything more rigorous than what came before?
Also, you still haven't addressed my questions about the 'novelty' thing even though you've brought it up again as a feature of your personal views.
Kwea:
quote:Based on years of observation by psychologists, by the fact that there tends to be common events in homosexuals histories, and by the fact that people rarely do things for one reason alone.
Things like common events in homosexual histories make a complex cause possible for determining how this shared group could have ended up gay, but it doesn't make a case for how your sexuality is a choice once it is expressed. To say that being gay is a choice once you are gay means that you can choose to not be gay. Do you believe there is a significant subset of gay people who can choose not to be gay?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
In the case of males we see that in many societies in ancient history that once the prohibitions against same-sex behavior were taken away the prevelance of the behavior increased. Prisons are also an example where we find same-sex behaviors common. One cannot prove the Freudian view, any more than any other theory though. In the case of women, most women get stimulated by viewing lesbian sex scenes. Also, many women who consider themselves straight will go bi or lesbian if they get involved in environments where it is common (i.e. stripping, porn or swinging). I am not so much concerned with moral judgements in this case as just the psychological aspects of orientation change in these environments. Also, ask the average heterosexual woman to be truthful and answer if they would go on a date someone like Angelina Jolie if given the chance. I have asked that to many downright homophobic women and gotten the silly grin and the nod of the head in the affirmative. So yes, I believe society has a lot to do with sexual expression and I believe that almost everyone who opposes the normalization of homosexuality agrees, or else they would not be so against their children being exposed to teachings that it is okay. As for novelty, I have read research to suggest that some people are way more prone to experiment and seek novel experiences so I believe that if this trait has a genetic basis you would find it over-represented in gay and bi populations.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the case of males we see that in many societies in ancient history that once the prohibitions against same-sex behavior were taken away the prevelance of the behavior increased.
You may have a chicken/egg problem here, though. Did the behavior increase because the prohibitions were taken away, and thus more people were inclined to try it? Did the prohibitions get taken away because the behavior had become widespread? Did as many people try it as before, but did so more openly because the prohibitions had been removed?
What you're doing is preselecting the answers to those questions which reaffirm your own biases.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, ask the average heterosexual woman to be truthful and answer if they would go on a date someone like Angelina Jolie if given the chance. I have asked that to many downright homophobic women and gotten the silly grin and the nod of the head in the affirmative.
I'm going to call bull on this one. Not just because it's ridiculous, but because I (straight male) would never go on a date with Angelina Jolie. She freaks me out.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, think about it this way. Let's say you live in a society that believes people should wear clothing that covers the entire body -- like in the mid-1850s. You probably would feel really strange if you went outside with your arms exposed while shopping. In fact, you probably think that it's natural for people to be this modest. Now let's say that all laws against public exposure are taken away. In fact, the media as well as the schools teach that we should be accepting of people wearing less clothing and that any notions of modesty your society has is merely an expression of outdated norms.
Will people start testing the limits? Will people experiment with new clothing styles that show off more of the body? I think they would indeed.
Now while the argument over same sex relations may be somewhat different, it still is something that we think of at the core of our belief systems. Some in the forum admit that there are people who are heterosexual, but could be changed under the right circumstances -- I would assume those are highly contingent on the belief system of the individuals. So perhaps instead of throwing terms around like "homophobe" which would mean fear of homosexuals the correct way to look at it is that many people fear that if homosexuality is normalized then their children might be sucked into it (since we have no genetic test to see who is and who isn't persuadable). Personally, I would never pick on anyone due to their sexual orientation, but I am adament against it being taught in schools as equal to heterosexuality.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's a choice for some people, who are somewhere in the middle of the sliding sexuality scale mentioned earlier.
But for others it is not a choice. And by being opposed to it being taught in schools as such, you are pushing all of those people for which it is not a choice into a subclass. I don't approve of that for skin color, sex, or sexuality.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
nd for those in the middle you are only increasing their confusion by promoting it as equal to heterosexuality.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you see homosexuality as something evil to be suppressed and discouraged, then sure.
If you see homosexuality as something that one either is or isn't, and not an evil thing, then you are simply leaving all options open, and letting each person decide what they are or what they want.
I do believe that more people are accepting this second category. And I believe this trend will continue until the people in the first category give up or just fade into the distance.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I'm going to call bull on this one. Not just because it's ridiculous, but because I (straight male) would never go on a date with Angelina Jolie. She freaks me out.
Yeah, I gotta agree. Jolie is very far down the list of celebrities I would want to date (if I was not already in a relationship).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
