One man and one woman

[magicmiles]

^^ seeing that androgynous look more and more where I live (Brisbane is Australia's third biggest city, but waaaay behind Sydney and Melbourne with all things fashion).

I've started unashamedly using facial moisteuriser

I'll be interested to see if it takes hold in some of Australia's more conservative rural areas, where "Men are Men" (and sheep are scared)

[Quesi]

^^ seeing that androgynous look more and more where I live (Brisbane is Australia's third biggest city, but waaaay behind Sydney and Melbourne with all things fashion).

I've started unashamedly using facial moisteuriser

I'll be interested to see if it takes hold in some of Australia's more conservative rural areas, where "Men are Men" (and sheep are scared)

You know he grew up in Australia?  He arrived as a refugee when he was a kid. 

I've put this video on this forum before, but I just love it.  And I love his mom. 

[magicmiles]

You know he grew up in Australia?  He arrived as a refugee when he was a kid. 

I did not. My male model general knowledge is worse than my science general knowledge.

[nogodsforme]

^^ seeing that androgynous look more and more where I live (Brisbane is Australia's third biggest city, but waaaay behind Sydney and Melbourne with all things fashion).

I've started unashamedly using facial moisteuriser

I'll be interested to see if it takes hold in some of Australia's more conservative rural areas, where "Men are Men" (and sheep are scared)

I'll bet you'd look hot with a touch of "guyliner".

[Chronos]

But we are seeing more and more GLBT individuals and families in various different commercials and ads.

Yep, I see them all the time, more and more each day. Inclusion of gays in television shows, movies and marketing has now become de rigueur. So much so that I cannot seem to find a television show or movie that doesn't include at least one gay character, if not an openly gay actor. In this circumstance, the media are merely reflecting what religious institutions have experienced for a very long time [snark].

Strangely, though, testosterone commercials have yet to catch on to the gay scene. Why haven't gays protested this bias? Would such an attack require an acknowledgement that gays also have testosterone problems?

[Chronos]

By the way, the testosterone commercials always have white couples in them. I cannot remember seeing black, latino or asian men.

Only Age 50+ white guys have low-T because only Age 50+ white guys can admit to performing poorly or not at all?

[nogodsforme]

That's the demographic with money and/or insurance to throw at their penises. I look at those commercials as evidence of a solution looking for a problem:

"Hey, Sheldon, this new drug for xyz disease has this rather interesting side effect on men...."
"If we can name limp boner something medical sounding, we hit the jackpot!"

Deep male announcer voice: Men, do you suffer from ED--erectile dysfunction?

Suffer? Does ED hurt? Have men died from it? Sorry for the lack of sympathy from a female, but how about some malaria vaccine research. Hello?

[Jag]

The demographic with money to throw at their penises - that's hilarious!

Truly, all males who read this, I'm not bashing on men. I love men - you're generally stronger than me, you tend to understand mechanical things better than I do, and once we get the silly sex crap out of the way (as in "not going to happen, but you're fun to hang around with so let's be friends and let that be enough"), I enjoy your company a great deal. Plus you understand sports way better than most of my girlfriends!

Now, regarding ED - during all the debate nonsense over birth control in the last few years, over and over I raised this question: why is it perfectly acceptable to have ED medication covered by insurance, but birth control is a different story? How can they argue that ED is not also "from god" - clearly, he doesn't want your penis to work anymore, so who are you to interfere with his will? If god himself has decided to no longer let you have erections, then by god, no more erections for you.

They never see the hypocrisy.

[Dante]

Now, regarding ED - during all the debate nonsense over birth control in the last few years, over and over I raised this question: why is it perfectly acceptable to have ED medication covered by insurance, but birth control is a different story? How can they argue that ED is not also "from god" - clearly, he doesn't want your penis to work anymore, so who are you to interfere with his will? If god himself has decided to no longer let you have erections, then by god, no more erections for you.

They never see the hypocrisy.

Probably because it's still all about men controlling women. Shocker, I know!

[Jag]

It's the women who help them do so that I can't wrap my head around.

[nogodsforme]

Heads up all abstinence-only/anti-abortion conservatives:

Stop "treating" ED and you reduce the need for contraception and abortion. In fact, put some research into drugs that are guaranteed to cause ED instead, and distribute them to all abstinence-only/anti-abortion conservative men.

Bada bing, bada boom, no pregnancies, therefore no worry about abortions. Save all those fetuses from being created in the first place by preventing men who don't agree with abortion from having intercourse. Problem solved, right?

Just sayin'.

[One Above All]

Heads up all abstinence-only/anti-abortion conservatives:

Stop "treating" ED and you reduce the need for contraception and abortion. In fact, put some research into drugs that are guaranteed to cause ED instead, and distribute them to all abstinence-only/anti-abortion conservative men.

Bada bing, bada boom, no pregnancies, therefore no worry about abortions. Save all those fetuses from being created in the first place by preventing men who don't agree with abortion from having intercourse. Problem solved, right?

Just sayin'.

You make a good point, nogodsforme. Since they can't masturbate either (it's a sin!), it's not like they'll need to do anything with their genitals. And it might be a good thing to keep those people from breeding.

[Chronos]

Now, regarding ED - during all the debate nonsense over birth control in the last few years, over and over I raised this question: why is it perfectly acceptable to have ED medication covered by insurance, but birth control is a different story? How can they argue that ED is not also "from god" - clearly, he doesn't want your penis to work anymore, so who are you to interfere with his will? If god himself has decided to no longer let you have erections, then by god, no more erections for you.

They never see the hypocrisy.

There is a simple explanation. Insurance is designed to pay for the expense of repairing things. If you crash your car into a tree, insurance pays the expense for repairing the car. With health insurance, the plan is designed to pay for restoring the functions of the human body or alleviating the problems caused by an accident, disease or disorder.

The vast majority of males will have erections until the day they die. The quality of erections decreases with age, certainly, but they still occur. The vast majority of females will have menses from age 15-45 and then menopause. Menses beyond age 50 is a rarity. So, erections for men are normal at any age beyond puberty, and menses are females are normal at any age between puberty and 50.

If you want to do something that alters the normal function of the human body, such as stopping menses at age 25, the expense wouldn't be reimbursed. The expense to restore the normal function of the human body, such as a lack of erections in a man aged 50, would be reimbursed.

While this seems like hypocrisy from the perspective of social policy, and it certainly is, it isn't hypocrisy from the perspective of insurance. This is why insurance is not the appropriate tool for delivering health care because not all health care is for dysfunctions.

[Ambassador Pony]

"not going to happen, but you're fun to hang around with so let's be friends and let that be enough"

That rarely happens.

[Nam]

This is what the Bible says to gay people.


Leviticus 20:13:


"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -King James Version

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." -New American Standard Bible

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." -New Revised Standard Version

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." -New International Version



You've been lurking around here long enough to know better than to come at us with this feeble bullshit.

Jesus is getting his ass raped by gays all over the internet.

The Message is more literal:

"If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths"

The other versions you list are more suggestive in what the penalty should be where as this one clearly tells you the obvious punishment.

But I like how the Bible isn't really against lesbianism.

-Nam

[LoriPinkAngel]

This is what the Bible says to gay people.


Leviticus 20:13:


"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -King James Version

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." -New American Standard Bible

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." -New Revised Standard Version

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." -New International Version



You've been lurking around here long enough to know better than to come at us with this feeble bullshit.

Jesus is getting his ass raped by gays all over the internet.

The Message is more literal:

"If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths"

The other versions you list are more suggestive in what the penalty should be where as this one clearly tells you the obvious punishment.

But I like how the Bible isn't really against lesbianism.

-Nam

If you want to really take this literally men don't have vaginas so they really aren't doing the same thing with each other that they would be doing with a woman so they aren't doing anything wrong.

[Nam]

The Message is just highly condescending. My mother's reading it, and enjoying it. I told her, "We'll, you're about as short as a child." But she agrees it's condescending.

-Nam

[Jag]

This is why insurance is not the appropriate tool for delivering health care because not all health care is for dysfunctions.

This is an excellent point, and highly relevant to US health care. I've often heard "we don't have a health care system, we have a sick care system" and in my experience, that's a valid observation. I hadn't thought of it quite that way in relationship to this matter but it's a very good observation. Thanks for the insight; I'm better prepared to discuss this topic in general with this perspective in mind.

[Jag]

"not going to happen, but you're fun to hang around with so let's be friends and let that be enough"

That rarely happens.

This might be an awful, thoughtless position to take, but it's how I see it: his attraction is not my problem, it's up to him to decide how important it is. I simply don't stay friendly with guys who won't take me at my word when I make clear that I'm in a committed exclusive relationship. I'm well aware that most of the men I consider friends would jump in bed with me in an instant if I indicated willingness to do so - they know my limitations and choose to continue having a non-sexual relationship with me. Obviously, this excludes my gay friends. This really is a straight guy thing - I have lesbian friends and this is a complete non-issue, for them and me.

I'd like to dismiss the video evidence simply because it was shot on a college campus and the people interviewed are still very much in the "learning how to have a relationship" stage - but I also know that's a joke position to try to support so I won't even bother. I know when I'm gonna lose an argument before even starting  . My life is richer for the men I have friendships with, and I certainly hope they feel the same way.

One observation about the differences though; my guy friendships tend to revolve around doing things - hiking, sporting events, motorcycling, etc. My girlfriends tend to want to get together and chat over coffee/beer/wine/whatever. The two different focuses tend to balance each other out and I would hate to have to compromise on either. Most of my cultural activities are with various atheist groups - I love my science geeks!

[pianodwarf]

One observation about the differences though; my guy friendships tend to revolve around dong things

Heh.  Heh.  Heh.

[Jag]

Holy Freudian Slip Batman!

I'm almost tempted to leave it like that...

[DT]

By the way, the testosterone commercials always have white couples in them. I cannot remember seeing black, latino or asian men.

Only Age 50+ white guys have low-T because only Age 50+ white guys can admit to performing poorly or not at all?

You have to remember the standard for America has been "white" men for a long time. Even in health care, the health of other ethnic groups is compared to whites; though there are numerous health disparities. I suppose they wanted to keep it constant.

[Jag]

To be fair you can also add emphasis to the "men" part of the equation. Women get shortchanged too, regardless of ethnicity.

[pianodwarf]

To be fair you can also add emphasis to the "men" part of the equation. Women get shortchanged too, regardless of ethnicity.

That's actually not true.  At the turn of the Twentieth Century, the female life expectancy in the United States was only one year longer than the male.  Today, the gap is about seven years, and it's continuing to increase.  Women are actually the healthier sex.

[DT]

This is what the Bible says to gay people.


Leviticus 20:13:


"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -King James Version

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." -New American Standard Bible

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." -New Revised Standard Version

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." -New International Version



You've been lurking around here long enough to know better than to come at us with this feeble bullshit.

Jesus is getting his ass raped by gays all over the internet.

The Message is more literal:

"If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths"

The other versions you list are more suggestive in what the penalty should be where as this one clearly tells you the obvious punishment.

But I like how the Bible isn't really against lesbianism.

-Nam

Romans Chapter 1
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them

Lesbians are included too. The old testament death sentence was to preserve the bloodline (another topic), and new testament, well verse 32 alludes to who Paul was speaking to.

[Jag]

To be fair you can also add emphasis to the "men" part of the equation. Women get shortchanged too, regardless of ethnicity.

That's actually not true.  At the turn of the Twentieth Century, the female life expectancy in the United States was only one year longer than the male.  Today, the gap is about seven years, and it's continuing to increase.  Women are actually the healthier sex.

I was referring more to drug trials and studies and such. And it just occurred to me that I may be a bit biased - I used to work for a medical device manufacturer, and a common complaint (internally) was that our company was as guilty as any other of prioritizing men's health over women's - it was a big deal (again, internally) because our reality didn't match the public face of the company. I may very well be painting the industry with too wide a brush.

[nogodsforme]

For a long time, IIRC, prisoners in jail were used as volunteers to test drugs in exchange for various privileges. Not exactly the most representative sample.

I don't know that women have been in real clinical trials much at all other than contraception. To be fair, ethical researchers have been reluctant to include women of childbearing age in drug trials for liability and side effect reasons. Unethical researchers have experimented horribly on women, esp. the poor and women of color since the days of slavery, producing a limited amount of useful science and a lot of fodder for feminist critique....

[Jag]

^^^My work was limited to heart disease device trials. In retrospect, I worked with a lot of female researchers, but few female research subjects. It was mostly from the researchers that I heard the observations about our company not being any better about broadening that base than any others, no matter how we presented our information to the public.

[Chronos]

By the way, the testosterone commercials always have white couples in them. I cannot remember seeing black, latino or asian men.

Only Age 50+ white guys have low-T because only Age 50+ white guys can admit to performing poorly or not at all?

You have to remember the standard for America has been "white" men for a long time. Even in health care, the health of other ethnic groups is compared to whites; though there are numerous health disparities. I suppose they wanted to keep it constant.

These drugs are manufactured and marketed by the same pharmaceutical companies that always include diversity in advertising for other medications. I don't think they suddenly forgot about diversity for this one type of medication. It's obvious that these companies think that blacks, latinos and asians (1) do not think they have these problems, (2) will not buy these products (pride, stubborness) or (3) lack money to be a serious source of customers.