Some guys just fear making a committment.
You are a thick bit of shite, aren’t you. You have been told over and over and over that there is more to it than that, but seem to be unable to process the information. Shirley, there is more to it than that. Multiple examples upthread.
I have never said that he was gay because he went to a male prostitute, and it takes a tortured reading to twist that out of it. I said that going to a male porostitute was evidence that he is gay. I said nothing about anything* making* him gay. And it was not the only evidence, whether you accept it or not.
Listen dumbass, you better quit while you are still in sight. Your assertion was that I argued that everyone who goes to a male prostitute is gay. Don’t believe me. Here, I’ll C+P ypur exacts words. Caution, cite ahead. Try and learn how to recognize them.
I never said anything remotely like that. Never once did I make any statement about “all men who go to male prostitutes.” It’s not about the exact words, genius, it’s about you finding words in the same zip code. To be fair, you probably do believe I made that argument. I am sure your inability to find it anywhere must be a bit disconcerting. Why don’t you take a moment. I’ll wait.
You have not shown jackshit, with the occasional showing of your ass excepted. Repeat after me – It was not the only evidence. It was not the only evidence. It was not the only evidence. It was not the only evidence.
Not pertinent? When you base your claims on your personal experience with “these guys” who start out as “guys who visit male prostitutes,” and when you are called on that, become “sex-offenders I have known and loved but unfortunately am unable to provide any statistical data about for some reason – oops sorry about my poor word choice?” If it is not pertinent than you can just pack up and go Bucko, because while it may be a poor thing, it is thine own, and all thou hast.
I asked you if they did that, and you said “no.” Do you want to offer a different answer now?
Listen carefully, Miller. You can visit one prostitute over and over, and still visit more than one prostitute. The two are not mutually exclusive. Me saying that someone visits more than one prostitute does not mean they cannot also visit the same one over and over. Does that make sense to you? Do you get it? I don’t know how to make it clearer than that.
I asked you if sex addicts made a point of seeking out the same prostitute over the course of several years. You said “no.” Was your original answer incorrect? Are you changing your answer to “yes” now? You have to expect us lay people to be a little confused when experts such as yourself, with all of your clinical training and fancy degrees, keep changing their stories.
Shirley, while one gay hooker does not preclude the existence of other gay hookers, it doesn’t imply them either, and it definitely doesn’t remove the existence of the one. If he had sex with 20 random guys and one particular guy 20 times, the “probably queer” answer still stands. If he had sex with 20 guys 20 times each, it still stands.
Essentially, you seem to be now complaining that people are relying on the evidence they do have instead of the evidence they don’t have. This is not rational.
Well, I was under the impression that one does not need training and degrees to understand that a person can both fuck the same prostitute over and over, and also fuck other prostitutes. Obviously I was wrong in your case.
No, I am saying that people are relying on the evidence that they do have, and that evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion.
So what you are saying is that he can fuck the same prostitute over and over, as long as he does not seek her out?
Whether or no two concepts are mutually exclusive, when one **has **been excluded (your ‘no’ response to Miller’s query) it makes little sense to cite it as still in the realm of possibility.
It’s one of his *cutest *little tricks. First noted here –
Based on what we know, we cannot say he is gay, but based on what we do not know, we might conclude otherwise.
But again, it doesn’t matter if he hired other hustlers. They don’t cancel out the one he had an ongoing relationship with.
I asked you a pretty simple question: do sex addicts make a point of seeking out the same prostitute over the course of several years? You said they did not. Now you’re saying that they do. Perhaps you can understand how this inconsistency undercuts your already incredibly shakey “expertise” on this issue? If you can’t maintain the same answer to a straightforward question for longer than a page, why should we accept anything you say in this thread at face value?
You really are an intellectually dishonest little fucker, aren’t you? Your question was do they have sex with only one prostitute. I said no, they can have sex with many. That does not imply that they can’t possibly fuck the same one over and over at the same time they are fucking others. I don’t care how many times you and Contrapuntal say one excludes the other. It doesn’t.
Really? So I guess I just imagined this:
and this:
The problem is that I assumed from the outset that I was engaging in a discussion with people who were interested in a dialog that would help to fight ignorance. You are not interested in that dialog. You are interested in twisting what I have said to your own ends. My only point was that visiting a male prostitute does not necessarily mean you are gay. Now the fact that we are arguing over whether you can visit a prostitute more than once if you are also visiting other prostitutes shows how ridiculously far we have gotten from that point.
It’s surprising to see someone suggest that if a man bangs a whole bunch of men on different occasions that leaves his supposed homosexuality more in doubt than if that man is only banging one man.
Cite for where I said that? And remember, if I didn’t use those exact words, Contrapuntal will swoop in and bitch slap you one, and refuse to discuss the actual point you were trying to make.
Seriously, you, I never said that. Nor did I mean to imply it. The only thing I wanted to say (or imply) is that visiting a male prostitute, even over and over, is in and of itself not sufficient evidence to declare someone gay. That’s it. A couple of people dragged me off in other directions, but that’s the only point I really had.
Okay. So is your point that we should refrain from calling Haggard gay until he makes an official declaration of his orientation? Because that’s the only evidence that would be sufficient in your view. Correct?
Oh, but we are! You’re just proving to be tougher than we thought.
Normal people call this “reading for comprehension.”
And again, that’s not the situation being discussed. Every time someone points out the differences between the actual discussion in this thread, and the one going on in your head, you’ve sailed blithely past it, issuing your corrections in an increasingly condescending (and now openly insulting) tone, despite the fact that you’ve got absolutely nothing to back up your increasingly confused and contradictory assertions.
No, “we” are not arguing that. You are arguing that, although I can’t imagine with whom, because nobody in this thread has said anything remotely similar to that.
You have imagined quite a lot, I fear, including that I said anywhere that visiting a male prostitute makes someone gay. It has been my contention all along that he is already gay, and the man on man sex for money merely evidence of it. I have aboutely no idea what made Haggard gay; perhaps his God. What do you think?
The problem from the outset is that you jumped into this discussion with a lie, which you tried to pass off as a poor choice of words when called on it. More problems developed when you refused to acknowledge that no **one in this thread **contests the fact that visiting a male prostitute is not necessarily proof of sexual orientation. Problems mounted when you refused to acknowledge that the argument contains more complexity and more details than “visitng a male prostitute.” Problems abounded when you refused to answer direct, on point questions regarding the bullshit you are spewing. And finally, problems overwhelm when you actually believe that your dodging and weaving and backpedalling and stonewalling and false appeals to authority are somehow resounding blows in the battle against ignorance.
NO ONE HAS DISPUTED THAT! Find one instance, just one, of anyone in this thread disputing that. Now, just for the hell of it, (think of it as an itellectual exercise if you must), find an actual instance. Not a case where you assumed it, or it seemed to you, but an actual instance of anyone either **asserting **that visiting a male prostitute was necessary and sufficient to identify someone as gay, or **denying **the opposite. Just one. Or fuck away off.
Again. This is all in your mind. My complaint was not that you quoted me with less than 100% accuracy. My compaint was twofold. A) Your rendering of my words was not remotely close to anything I had said. B) Your response to my request for a cite was “It seemed obvious to me.” In other words, your post is your cite. Didn’t work for whatsiname, won’t work for you.