[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Title:ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 2 --ARCHIVE
Notice:V2 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:REGENT::BROOMHEAD
Created:Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1105
Total number of notes:36379

1008.0. "Men Loving Men" by PLAYIN::LLEE (Misguided Angel) Wed Mar 07 1990 09:19

    There is an interesting discussion in men's note concerning "men
    loving men."  The majority of the reaction to the topic is "disgust."

    In men's note the author requested that only men reply to the topic. 
    But I would like to hear a female perspective on this topic as well.

    { Moderators: Cross posted with the author's permission }

    Lory


            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 421.0                       Men loving Men                       20 replies
PAXVAX::DM_JOHNSON "the wicked flee when none purs" 204 lines   5-MAR-1990 09:51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article has been edited to make it more acceptable to Dec
standards. It deals with a lot of things, but largely it deals with men,
their social conditioning towards anger/violence particularly with regards to
sex, and their relationship to other men. A quote from near the end of the
article shows the larger ramifications...

	Betty said, at the end of the workshop, "Men will be able to relate to
women when they can love men."  

How about it, men? Do you see any similarities to your own life? What would
you change about your life regarding other men? Are you afraid of touching
other men? Is your sexuality overshadowed by a thin veil of "violence"
whether towards men or women? Is your body a thing to use? Did this article
leave you cold or leave you disquieted.

    This file is open to responses from both women and men.  My preference
    is that this topic would be for men only but I can't inforce that. I
    would like to ask that the women participants in this file use extra
    sensitivity to the self-expression of  men in this note.  In my
    opinion, this is a difficult topic to talk about for a lot of men, and
    sometimes men feel pressure from women to be in some other emotional
    place than where they are at that time.  If you do choose to reply
    here, please use discretion.  Thanks.


=============================================================================
 Liberating Male Sexuality
 by Rick Blum
 from "Men Freeing Men"
 

	A "Body Sex Workshop" consists of about ten naked people together in a
room, each of us rediscovering a unity between body, sexuality, and sense of
self-worth.  People look at themselves and others; people massage themselves
and others; people talk about themselves and about masturbation.  The
benefits of this group for women have become legendary.  Body-image
improves remarkably; ability to experience pleasure increases dramatically.
	But, as a man, I wondered seriously before the workshop if I would be
able to gain much from it.  Like the others, I was used to being naked with
other men in locker-rooms since youth.  Surely, men are already personally
sex-positive, I considered.  While we tend to expect restrictions in women,
we seldom take them seriously for ourselves.  Sexual experiences are, for
men, more often a sign of pride than of shame.  The purpose of a Body Sex
Workshop for a woman in our culture was clear to me.  For a man, I
wondered.
	As I powerfully discovered, the attitude toward my sexuality which I
have been trained to have is hardly positive, just as aggressiveness is not
assertiveness, bravado is not confidence, and violence is not communication.

...

	We sometimes had no initial idea what an exercise was about; we acted
out of the cultural rules which legislate male attitudes towards sexuality.
Yet, the exercises themselves were often well-designed to break those rules.
Something was beginning to happen.  Among other things, we were laughing at
ourselves quite a bit.
	It took us a full day to get afraid.  Since men are not allowed to have
doubts, it required half of the workshop for us to begin to share them.  For
women, who are ordered to be afraid by this culture, the best approach is to
move away from fears in this type of workshop.  For men, it is particularly
liberating to spend some of the time sharing our fears in an accepting 
environment.
	So, while women fear sex, we discovered that men fear fear.  Other
comparisons became apparent.  While women pressure themselves for orgasms on
demand, we seek erections at will.  While women are more comfortable with
nudity among their own sex, heterosexual men are terrified of touch among
their own sex.  I soon realized that we men had our share of work to do.
	But it didn't feel like work.  It felt like a celebration.  The first
day was fun and "light" in atmosphere.  Laughter, time, and mutual acceptance
were establishing a safe-culture for what we were about to do.

	The second day of the celebration included three difficult activities.
We each were to give and receive a group-massage, full-body.  We each were to
have the chance to give the others full-body hugs, naked.  And, we all would
masturbate at the same time. As the day progressed, each of
us experienced a central surprise consisting of two simultaneous facts.  First,
each of us expected most or all of these activities to create intense distress.
Second fact: they didn't.
	Usually they would have, and now they didn't.  We enjoyed ourselves
thoroughly.  This shift gradually taught me what it is like to really be sex-
positive, what it is like to say "yes" to ourselves, to our sensuality, and to
others.
	I noticed a sense of closeness, amazing and unique for me, steadily
increasing among us that second day.  As this comfort and caring grew, another
feeling noticeably lessened, a feeling that I usually keep around as a
substitute for a relaxed affirmation of my male sexuality.  My aggressiveness
drained, and I was no longer interested in fighting myself and other men.  I
was loving myself and other men.  That was supposed to make me lose my
masculinity and it didn't.  In fact, it increased my confidence.
	As I hugged other men, I could feel their bodies against my body.....
Rather than anxiety, I felt relieved at the freedom of including my
genitals in my comfort.  I felt easy, and relaxed, a sensual being
expressing affection with another.  Pleasure surrounded me and was accepted
within.  There was no argument, no censoring of my sensations.  My violence
was at rest, my paranoia inoperative.  Without it there was nothing to
prove and nothing which I needed to have proven.


...


	I sensed that every man in that room would now be a better lover for
it.  Love of self, of men, and of women now seemed so obviously connected.
This love appeared to be in stark contrast to my frequently violent
relationship with other men, with my own body, an with my sexuality.  Such
discomfort would _have_ to make me a lousy lover.  I was clearly glimpsing
what it is like to replace violence with affirmation.
	The violence that I feel toward other male bodies leads me to treat
myself roughly as well.  I cannot caress myself, relax with my own sensuality,
because I do not like men.  Treating myself roughly and insensitively, it is
not difficult to guess how I will relate to women.  It is all connected, and
the workshop demonstrated this in the experience of each of us.
	As I felt ease with the sensual presence of the other men, I
reconnected to a peaceful passion toward my own body.  Sex roles faded as my
masculinity seemed easy and natural.  I could see this happening to the other
men as well and our discussion of sexuality became receptive and lucid. 
Sensitive to ourselves, we felt naturally sensitive to women and their
needs.
	There are some facts about human behavior which help me to identify the
above experiences, and which give us some definite indications about our sexual
alternatives.  It has been well established in psychological experiments that
fearful responses can be extinguished by stimulating certain other incompatible
responses.  So, when people are afraid, they can lessen their fear by
refocusing on other types of feelings.  Two feelings that work remarkably well
in counteracting fear are none other than anger and pleasure.  Either one will
usually work well.
	This gives me some definite clues about what I do with my fears.
Remember that fear is forbidden to me by our culture, especially in sexual
situations.  I have learned to counteract this fear with anger and aggression,
which is also suggested to me by the culture.  Taking this choice robs me of
the other alternative.  Our supposedly unbreakable cultural conditioning broke
apart.  Connecting to our sensuality and affection, our aggressiveness became
unnecessary.  We no longer feared our fears: they eroded under streams of
pleasure.
	I have always found sources of fear to be legion for myself as a man.
Invulnerablity is legislated to me: any confusion panics me.  Vulnerability,
self-doubt, sadness -- each are inevitable, and yet, even in small doses, each
feels self-destructive.  While self-control is my expectation, I seldom achieve
it.  My sexuality certainly laughs at any attempt at control.  It has, at
times, left me cringing inside at the spontaneous reality of that which happens
to have stimulating associations for me and that which doesn't.
	I have been trained to dominate, and the world now asks that I
equalize.  Either attitude leaves me guilty for violating the other.  Women are
in the same predicament; and so, if I am dominant, a woman may resent me, and
if I am not, she may lose her sexual response to me.
	My guess is that other men are in precisely the same spot.  My personal
choice is to learn to do something new in refocusing from these many other
sources of sexual fear -- I now choose to use pleasure instead of anger, and it
works.
	As it turns out, we would do well to return to popularity those
bumperstickers which read, "Make Love, Not War."  It was pure delight to watch
the other men at the workshop.  Smiles became uncomplicated and warm.  A
confident gentle masculinity radiated from clear and steady eyes, as they
looked directly into mine.  Strong hands periodically reached out for me,
friendly and flexible, confirming a message of communion which had woven us
into easy comradery.
	I am exhilarated at the possibilities of substituting pleasure for
defensive combat in the conquest of my fears.  I have found that I can be
sexually creative and exploratory, and be sensitive to receiving sexual
feedback from my partners, not needing to already know it all.  I no longer
need to try to order about my penis, telling it to be hard or soft.  I can
know and enjoy the entire range of my own passions, even when I don't wish to
always act upon all of them.  I now make love in an entire range of
complementary styles, depending upon the moment's pleasure.  Gentle, slow, and
receptive have all been added to my repertoire.  I am finding that an
increasing number of men can also testify to the delight of these options.
	On the other hand, just imagine the Body Sex Workshop which I have so
glowingly described, if it were run according to our usual aggressive
alternative.  We could have sat far away from each other, never looking at
each other, except for an occasional glare.  We each could have bragged about
our sexual expertise, embarassed by the exercises and so could have "studded"
them up.  We could have found some way to make rotating our hips look macho,
or else convince everyone that it was too "queer" to do.  We wouldn't get to
laugh, except at others.  If necessary, to avoid looking scared, we might have
consented to hug other men.  This could have been performed in a manner that
resembled an A-frame house, and with a lot of backslapping.  To cover up any
enjoyment of the physical contact, we could have seen who could most
effectively squeeze out the breath of his partner.  If pressured
into giving the massages, we could have seen how much the massagee could
"take," simultaneously demonstrating our powerful (and aching) fingers.  We
would each have come away angry, lonely, and, most of all, frigid.
	In exaggerated form, this example illustrates what it means to be sex-
negative.  "Frigidly" we do not experience our orgasms, even though we have
them.  Women avoid sex with fear, as they have been trained to do.  Men avoid
sex with anger.  While the above illustration sounds absurd, it describes
exactly what our cultural training would tell us to do.  Now, in the Body Sex
Workshop, with people like Betty Dodson and Tom Sargent clarifying our choices,
not being stupid, we chose pleasure.  In daily life, we are not so lucky.  Our
unaware cultural programming is constantly telling us to act according to the
above description.  Without some careful, though joyful, intentionality, we men
are indeed sex-negative -- frigid, if you will.
	Betty said, at the end of the workshop, "Men will be able to relate to
women when they can love men."  The accuracy of her insight is now clear to me.
That an all-male workshop could be run by a feminist without a hint of conflict
is one demonstration.  And our shared feelings were the essential proof.  By
reaching out to our sensuality, by letting in our gentleness, by touching
softly and confidently, we resurrected our tranquility, our human warmth, and
our pleasure.
	We came away with a sense that we had shared an experience with a
significance that went beyond our small group.  The dream of male liberation
glided in from the previously impossible heights to become a tangible reality
right in our midst.  This reality, and the freedom which it offers, is as near
as the nearest pleasure.
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
1008.1Glad you posted this....YUPPY::DAVIESAGrail seekerWed Mar 07 1990 10:5527
    
    I've been following this topic with great interest in =mn=.
                                                               
    
    IMO I feel that there is validity in the idea of men being encouraged
    to love other men, and learn more about their own emotional armour
    regarding their own sex and women.
    
    However, although in an ideal world the workshop described could
    aid all men in that process, I don't believe that all men are
    comfortable enough to use that workshop process as a first step
    into exploring their feelings. It has a "shock tactic" feeling
    that may not be right for many people and may, in fact, arouse
    defensiveness or rejection from precisely the people who could
    most benefit from the message that it's trying to get over.
    
    *The message - "Love yourself, love your fellow men" - has to
    be split off from the -method- used to get that message over*
    in order to get around some men's "early warning" mechanisms.
    
    If they don't buy the message, no style of implmentation will reach
    them. And it's their choice to reject that message, but defensive
    bickering and "Yuck!" reactions don't hit the point.
    
    'gail
1008.2GIAMEM::MACKINNONPro Choice is a form of democracyWed Mar 07 1990 11:0920
    
    
    I too have been following this note.  It seems as though most
    of the guys are interested in trying to learn to love other
    men.  Yet the sexual theme seems to keep scaring them away.
    I think the whole point of sheding the clothes is to shed
    the inhibitions of the folks involved in the workshop.
    I personally see nothing wrong with that.  I do not undertand
    why most guys can't accept that part of the workshop.
    Without clothes each man is equal.  At least that is what
    I see the point to be.  I don't understand the purpose
    for the group masturbation.
    
    I think this is a very valid problem with men.  How to solve
    it is a matter of each individual's choice.  What works
    for one may not necessarily work for another.  At least it
    is good to see that there are men who are actively working
    on this problem.
    
    Michele
1008.4Men's LibTLE::D_CARROLLJuggle nakedWed Mar 07 1990 11:5424
Very interesting.  I think the workshop sounds wonderful!  I wish every man
could take it (and of course, be receptive to it, else taking it doesn't do
much good.)

I have recently been awakened to that fact that most *people*, men and women
alike, are not in touch and/or comfortable with their sexuality.  This came
as a great shock to me.  As a woman, I was always under the impression that
men had very simple, straight-forward views about sex - whenever, however,
whoever.  Lately I have come to realize that that is how they are "supposed"
to feel, but that in actuality, men's sexuality is as subtle, complex, and
inextricable intertwined with their personhood as a woman's is.

From what I know of Betty Dodson's work, she has been one of the greatest
boons to female sexuality ever.  I think if she can have the same positive
effect on male sexuality, it would be wonderful for *everyone* concerned.

The description of the workshop didn't make *me* uncomfortable at all.  But
I was very surprised that the people in the workshop weren't uncomfortable
with it - surprised and pleased.  I am not at all surprised that the sexual
nature of it hasn't gone over real well with the =mn= crowd.  (I don't read
=mn= so I am just basing the comment on what I have read here about their
reactions.)

D!
1008.6not to be a wise-guy but...DZIGN::STHILAIREisn&#039;t she a riot?Wed Mar 07 1990 12:166
    re .2, "Without clothes each man is equal"  ??????
    
    That has not been my observation.
    
    Lorna
1008.7ASDS::RSMITHWed Mar 07 1990 12:5918
    
    Let me rephrase my reply in .5
    
    I understand, sort-of, why standing around naked with people of your
    own sex can make you comfortable with your own body.  However, I do
    not understand why genital contact is necessary.  In my mind this is
    encouraging homosexual behavior.  Yes, he said it wasn't sexual, BUT it
    seems to me that one set of genitilia touching another set is bound to
    be sexual.  I can't imagine having that contact with my fiance and not
    thinking about sex.  Also, I still don't understand the masterbation
    part of things.  
    
    It would be nice for men to be able to hug each other clothed with out
    worrying about how far apart their hips are, but I'm not sure that kind
    of class would help.
    
    Rachael
1008.8I'm not buying this bill of goodsBRAT::KOSKIThis ::NOTE is for youWed Mar 07 1990 13:0514
    Are people actually paying money to attend such a seminar? Anything for
    a buck. Why don't these people reach out and touch themselves at home?
    Sound like another self-actualization fad for the "in" people. What
    kind of people go to such seminars? I for one have better things to do
    in my life than to get naked with 9 strangers to become more aware of
    my body and self. 

    If men want to related better with the woman they love, why don't they
    sit down with them? 
    
    I don't buy into this at all.
    
    Gail
1008.11Animal, Vegetable or JerkWOODRO::ARNDTWed Mar 07 1990 13:338
    Hmmmmm . . . sounds like a Feminist Plot to get men to ejaculate
    on the floor instead.
    
    What's next?  Interspecies Body Sex Workshop?
    
    Is DEC paying for this discussion???
1008.12Confessions of a "Shootist" :-)FDCV01::ROSSWed Mar 07 1990 14:0424
    Re: .5

    > Could someone please explain why it is helpful to masterbate in a
    > group?  (I assume that means that they all did it at the same time?)
    
    Sure, no problem, Rachel. It's helpful because men, being as
    competitive as they are, have contests to see:

      - Who can reach orgasm first (or last, depending upon the
        instructions of the facilitator)

      - Whose ejaculate shoots the furthest

      - Who can kill the fly buzzing around them with their
        ejaculate (in this particular contest, it's not distance
        that wins the prize; it's accuracy)        
	
    I'm sorry. I know you asked this question sincerely. 

    It's just that I wish I had thought of this kind of "Workshop" (and 
    charged serious money for it) many years ago when my friends and I - 
    in early adolescence - had our weekly Circle Jerk "meetings."  :-)
    
      Alan
1008.13sounds like US international diplomacyGEMVAX::KOTTLERWed Mar 07 1990 14:121
1008.14No Coincidence That Our Missiles Are Phallic-ShapedFDCV01::ROSSWed Mar 07 1990 14:211
1008.15WFOV11::APODACAOh boy.Wed Mar 07 1990 14:4423
    re . Mike_Z's before-the-grin note
                                      
    No, I don't love other women.  Maybe my mom, but that's it.  And
    I certainly haven't the desire or need to masturbate in front of
    her to feel that way.  ;)
    
    I don't love _everybody_ period.  To me, at least, love is a special
    sort of thing reserved for special people in my life, not for every
    man or woman or critter that walks the each.  *Respect* is what
    I think people need for each other, not love, and well as I can
    understand the noble intentions of the seminar, I failed to see
    the need to masturbate in front of other men to love or respect
    them.  I wanted
    to comment so in MENnotes, but well, since the author of .0 wanted
    to make it FMO, and since I'm one of "them other kind", I refrained.
    
    I don't think you can love people by hanging out naked with them,
    but it might work for some people with particularly open and liberal
    ideas about sex and other people.  And the passing thought that
    this way a way to make some interesting money did cross my mind,
    but I've been called cynical before.
    
    ---kim
1008.16DYO780::AXTELLDragon LadyWed Mar 07 1990 14:5313
   Way back in the 1970's  I taught massage workshops.  Yes there were
   about 20 naked people at any one session, but no, it was not a sexual
   endeavor. Everybody was supposed to bring a partner to practice with
    but sometimes one's partner couldn't make it, so we "improvised".
    
    People's behaviour was interesting to watch.  Women and men adapted
    to new partners of the opposite sex with no difficulty.  Women could
    be comfortably paired with other women without strain.  But the
    one time we had two extra men was very uncomfortable (for them).
    
    				-maureen
1008.18Here we go again....YUPPY::DAVIESAGrail seekerThu Mar 08 1990 07:5118
    
    Re .9
    
    Well, Mike, your question doesn't seem to have evoked the exciting
    answers that you might have enjoyed reading, huh?
    
    Why don't you, for the sake of sheer mental exercise and as an
    interesting experiment, try focusing on the opposite side of this
    debate from the one that you took on =mn=? Focus on the principle, 
    not the method.....
    
    The masturbation event is a relatively small part of .0, but
    quite probably the most sensationalistic.
    How about we try and focus our minds above titilation level to
    the wider implications of .0?
1008.19WAHOO::LEVESQUEMakaira IndicaThu Mar 08 1990 09:3714
>    The masturbation event is a relatively small part of .0, but
>    quite probably the most sensationalistic.
    
     Having at first read only the edited version of .0 (the one currently
    posted), it would appear that the masturbation events were a small part
    of the seminar. After having obtained a copy of the original, unedited
    version, the point is that the masturbation is the central part of the
    method.
    
     I think the idea of men learning to love men is a good one. I do not
    believe that "masturbation therapy" is the only way or the best way to
    go about it.
    
     The Doctah
1008.21It's about *sex*, so?TLE::D_CARROLLJuggle nakedThu Mar 08 1990 10:2130
I am a little confused by all you folks who don't understand the necessity
of masturbation in the program.  It seems obvious to me.  The program isn't
just about friendship and closeness...it is about *sex*.  A big part of
human sexuality is being comfortable with you *own* sexuality, including
masturbation.  One of Betty Dodson's great achievements was giving the
American woman permission to love herself, including sexually!  Now she's
giving it to men, too!  Wonderful, I say.

Many, many woman suffer from sexual problems, including inability to
become aroused, or to orgasm.  One of the ways to overcome these problems
is to learn to be comfortable with your own body, become aroused and 
achieve orgasm by yourself, and then apply what you have learn by yourself
to interactions with your partner.

Men have sexual problems too, arising from insecurities about their bodies,
fear of intimacy, etc, resulting in inability to get and keep erections,
premature ejaculation, as well as less severe emotional difficulties,
etc.  It makes sense to me that one way to address these problems is to
teach men about themselves, and how to overcome any problems they have on
their own.

This is a workshop about *sex*.  Masturbation is a big part of human 
sexuality, and one of the few ones that *can* be done in a group situation
of all men who aren't homosexual.  So?  

I don't understand why people get so upset about it.

D!

(PS: Kim, you really don't love any women except your Mom?  :-(  )
1008.22YUPPY::DAVIESAGrail seekerThu Mar 08 1990 11:2611
    
      Re: .19 .20
       
    Why is there another "limited distribution" version of this note?
    
    Is it of value to mention it if it can't be referenced publically?
    
    If not, can't we limit our comments to what IS written in .0?
    
    'gail
1008.23YUPPY::DAVIESAGrail seekerThu Mar 08 1990 11:3018
    
    Re .21
    
    D!
    
    I don't agree that this workshop is "about sex".
                                                   
    My view is that it's about how people perceive themselves, love
    themselves, and relate to others.
    
    Someone's sexuality is a large part of their personality, but it
    is not the only gateway to growth in the areas that surround it.
    It happened to be a large part of the gateway chosen in this particular
    workshop, is all.
    
    'gail
1008.25<*** Moderator Request ***>RANGER::TARBETDat �r som fanden!Thu Mar 08 1990 11:588
    And speaking of the "sexuality content", I would wish to remind
    everyone to tread carefully in this area.  The more explicit notes in
    this string have been marginal at best.  
    
    Remember that you cannot know who is reading what you write, so please
    compose your notes carefully and with circumspection.
    
    						=maggie
1008.26Body Sex Workshop certainly *seems* to be about sexTLE::D_CARROLLJuggle nakedThu Mar 08 1990 12:1121
>    I don't agree that this workshop is "about sex".

The title was "Body Sex Workshop."  That seems to imply that it was
"about sex".

I didn't read the original posting in =mn= so I don't know what I am
missing, but the base note gave me impression that sexuality was the
thrust (so to speak) of the workshop.  From what Lory Lee said about
the more sexually explicit stuff being editted out of the note, I
would suspect the original gave even *more* of an impression that
the workshop was "about sex."

Why do you say it isn't?

>    It happened to be a large part of the gateway chosen in this particular
>    workshop, is all.

Well, it was "this particular workshop" that I was referring to when I
said "This workshop is about sex."  

D!
1008.24Edited Version of The ArticlePLAYIN::LLEEMisguided AngelThu Mar 08 1990 13:4116
    Re: .22 

    Gail,

    The original version of the article was "set hidden" in =mn= because of
    the sexual content.  The  moderators of =mn= asked Denny to edit out
    the sexual content and repost it, which he did.

    What you see in .0 is the edited version of the article.

    If you wish to see the original article, send me mail.

    Lory
1008.28and some people paid for ESTTINCUP::KOLBEThe dilettante debutanteThu Mar 08 1990 15:2314
    OK, just count me as one of the prudes. I really don't see the point in
    this workshop. I would not want to hug naked people I don't even know.
    And I don't see my being able to hug a naked woman would or would not
    make me better able to love a man. I thought the part about
    masterbation was unnecessary. (Alan Ross: do men really do what you
    said or were you pulling our (collective) legs?)

    I've been in (clothed) group therapy and didn't even like that much
    intimacy with people I had just met. My reactions to individuals are
    determined by the individual. My comfort with being naked in front of
    someone is in direct proportion to the shape my body is in, not with
    modesty.

    This just makes me think of the crazier aspects of the late 60s. liesl
1008.29Fly Approaching at 120 Degrees. Ready, Aim....FireFDCV01::ROSSThu Mar 08 1990 16:2214
      
    Re: .28

    > masterbation was unnecessary. (Alan Ross: do men really do what you
    > said or were you pulling our (collective) legs?)

    Oh, Liesl, I was just pulling your (collective) legs. 
    
    You do remember my comments in the "Dumb Men in Advertising" topic 
    in Mennotes, don't you?

    You thought I didn't care. But I do; I definitely prefer plastic. :-)

      Alan
1008.30I wonder if it's too soon to joke about this...VMSINT::RDAVISThe Man Without QuantitiesFri Mar 09 1990 09:437
�               -< see QUARK::MenNotes, 421.7 (men loving sheep) >-
    
    I don't know... doesn't comparing sex with men to sex with sheep seem
    insulting to men?  (: >,)
    
    Ducking and covering,
    Ray
1008.31REALLY!VIA::HEFFERNANJuggling FoolFri Mar 09 1990 10:2011
RE:       <<< Note 1008.30 by VMSINT::RDAVIS "The Man Without Quantities" >>>
              -< I wonder if it's too soon to joke about this... >-

�               -< see QUARK::MenNotes, 421.7 (men loving sheep) >-
    
>    I don't know... doesn't comparing sex with men to sex with sheep seem
>    insulting to men?  (: >,)
    
PLEASE RAY.  ONLY SOME MEN LIKE SOME SHEEP YOU SEXIST GOAT!
1008.32some observationsVIA::HEFFERNANJuggling FoolFri Mar 09 1990 10:3023
I remember reading the original of this in "Men Freeing Men" which I
recommend.  It sounds like an interesting workshop.  I don't think I
would be personally feel that comfortable with all the exercises (can
you guess which one?).  But I didn't go on it so I will reserve
judgement (I know, what kind of NOTER am I?).

I think the overall thesis is very interesting (to love women you need
to love men first).  My experience is that you have to love yourself
before you can love others.  If you can really do that, I'm not sure
if the gender matters too much.  What is more interesting to me than a
physical workshop (if this is indeed what is was) is exploring
emotions with other men, something I do rarely.  I don't feel
connected with too many men and would like to.  I wonder if you can
share emotions, thoughts, dreams, that the physical stuff might come
more naturally.  Unfortunately, physical contact seems to have a lot
of sexual connotation in our society (I think because we are so bad at
talking about how we feel about each other) and because sexuality is
overemphasized and distorted in our culture.  I think it would be nice
to be physically closer to my friends (not sexually [well, maybe a few
of them]).  I feel more comfortable with my women friends although
sometimes questions about sexuality come into play.  I feel much more
comfortable hugging my gay friends and there are only a few straight
men I feel comfortable hugging.
1008.33PLAYIN::LLEEMisguided AngelFri Mar 09 1990 10:4243
    I have been following this discussion in =wm= and =mn= and I find the
    discussion intriguing.

    The intent of the workshop is to have men become more comfortable with
    discovering and/or rediscovering their sexuality.  To become more
    confident with their sexuality.  To break down the emotional barriers
    and inhibitions.

    A rhetorical question for the sake of "food for thought."  How many men
    are able to touch/fondle their body and genital areas while watching
    themselves in front of a mirror ?

    In my experience many men and women are apprehensive discussing sex. 
    Men don't discuss sexual difficulties, techniques, etc with other men. 
    It's an unspoken rule amongst men not to discuss these subjects.  This
    is also true amongst women as well, but more so amongst men.

    It's interesting that most of us have gone through the Sexual
    Revolution and yet are uncomfortable with our sexuality - men and women
    alike.  Being raised in a strict home and being a recovering Roman
    Catholic, I understand uncomfortableness, but times have changed. 

    Are men unable to express themselves because they have been
    taught/raised to "keep a stiff upper lip."   Traditional roles forbid
    them to express physical and sexual emotions.  Perhaps by becoming more
    comfortable with your sexuality, anxieties surrounding erection,
    performance, premature ejaculation, etc. will be alleviated.

    The response in =mn= notes is along the lines of disgust. Some were
    even sarcastic about this.  Is this a hiding mechanism for men ?  
    Is a method of diverting/avoiding a sensitive topic ?

    I also found interesting the one reply in =wm= saying that she never
    loved another women other than her mother.  Have you never had a close
    female friend that you could talk about anything with.  I have and I
    loved her.  Love does not always equate to sex.

    My reply is not intended to provoke and/or antagonize anyone.  It's
    for self edification combined with curiosity.

    Lory
1008.36LUNER::MALLETTBarking Spider IndustriesFri Mar 09 1990 11:388
    re: .30 (Ray)
    
    � I don't know... doesn't comparing sex with men to sex with sheep
    � seem insulting to men? (: >,)
    
    I dunno; maybe it's insulting to sheep. . .
    
    Steve
1008.37MILKWY::JLUDGATEJust say KnowFri Mar 09 1990 11:4319
    re: .34
    
/	Remember back when homosexuality was a 'disease', and therapists
/    suggested way to 'cure' it?
    
    No, I don't remember.  Guess I'm just too young.
    
/	Well, when I read .0 I get the feeling that it's a sex workshop
/    meant to cure heterosexuality by exploring homosexuality.
    
    I don't really get that feeling.  Maybe it is a workshop to
    cure monosexuality (only caring for oneself) by exploring
    multisexuality (get a bunch of people in a room and make
    them FEEL something for each other, instead of pretending to).
    
    Anybody can sit in their clothes and fake feelings, but when
    clothing comes off, a lot of defenses are stripped.  (sorry,
    that wasn't intentional)
1008.38GEMVAX::KOTTLERFri Mar 09 1990 11:523
    re .36
    
    or maybe only to Rambo ;-)
1008.39homophobia may be the real issueVIA::HEFFERNANJuggling FoolFri Mar 09 1990 13:139
RE:  .34

Hmmm.  I certainly didn't read it as advocating homosexuality
(whatever that means).  I imagine one would have to confront one's own
homophobia very quickly in such a seminar though.  That may be more
to the point.

john
1008.41They're just these guys, y'know?REGENT::BROOMHEADDon&#039;t panic -- yet.Fri Mar 09 1990 17:3015
    Mmmmm, no.
    
    As a complete outsider from this, what I perceive is:
    
    They're trying to teach that nakedness isn't sex, that skin isn't
    a sex organ, and that people are human beings first and foremost,
    clothed or otherwise, and that you can deal with them on that basis.
    Now, I'm not sounding too coherent, here.  I think it's because my
    (and others) ideas in this area are best describes as inchoate.
    One friend of mine once described how he'd been nervous about getting
    naked into a hot tub with a small group of comparative strangers,
    but then he discovered that they were the same people they'd been
    all that evening; they just didn't have their clothes on any more.
    
    							Ann B.
1008.42CSC32::M_VALENZANote with pleasure.Fri Mar 09 1990 18:2518
    I think we can apply the principles of this topic towards the way we
    interact with other Digital employees.  One way is to get in touch with
    our feelings about ourselves and each other by breaking down old
    barriers, stereotypes, and assumptions.  And what better method is
    there than by masturbating while we compose our notes?  Think of it! 
    You are at home, dialed in to the system, ready to write some sarcastic
    or hostile retort in a heated discussion.  But you are too busy getting
    all hot and heavy to really say anything nasty.

    In ffact, I thinkkk it wwoudl rreallyy cchaaangee thhe chaaraacterr off
    oouurr notess in othherr wayys thhatt I, I, I havenn't thhought,
    thhoughht, thhouught, THOUGHHT, THHHOUGHT....

    ...thought of.
    
    I seem to have lost my train of thought now.  What was I talking about?

    -- Mike
1008.43USIV02::CSR209brown_ro, world beatnikFri Mar 09 1990 18:446
    re:42
    
    is this the noting version of heavy breathing?
    
    -roger
1008.44IMHO timeUSIV02::CSR209brown_ro, world beatnikFri Mar 09 1990 19:2429
    All jokes aside, I think that the stated purpose of the workshop is
    great, although the means give me great doubts about the effectiveness
    of this. I think there is a huge difference between naked with members
    of the same sex and being sexual in front of members of the same sex.
    
    I also doubt the premise that women are more free about being nude
    among each other than men; I think that it varies tremendously with
    individuals. I've seen men at my gym who do everything possible to
    keep themselves covered, although most don't care. A woman I know
    was very upset that other women who used the jacuzzi in the women's
    locker room do so in the nude. "I don't like to see all that stuff
    hanging out", she said. I know other women who are extremely casual
    about it.
    
    The bottom line for me is that the point of the workshop is about 
    men learning to relate to themselves and each other. This is good.
    This workshop uses sexuality as a key, but sexuality isn't the point;
    feeling is. To me sexuality just sensationalizes the process, and is
    indirect as can be in terms of getting to male feelings. It puts an
    unusual emphasis on the sexual aspect of relationships, as if we
    didn't already have enough of this in our contemporary society.
    
    A workshop simply based on feeling exercises would be a lot more
    direct, I think.
    
    -roger
1008.45What a RiotUSEM::DONOVANSat Mar 10 1990 07:4321
    I read mennotes and laughed out loud! Hearing a bunch of guys argue
    like a bunch of hens in the henhouse was great. I have never enjoyed
    a notestring more.
    
    On The Seminar:
    
    	* Men LOVING men? Learning to accept yourself has very little
    	  to with mutual masterbation.
                                                          
        * Love is love. Sex is sex. They do not always co exist.
    
    	* To each his/her own but boy, when visual imagry comes into
    	  play I think this is ridiculious.
          
    	* If people want to experement with homosexual acts that's
          perfectly for them. Call this Men Loving Men? Get real.
    
    
    	* 
    
    	* Love is love. Sex is sex. People confuse the two.
1008.46Humph.WFOV12::APODACAOh boy.Mon Mar 12 1990 12:5717
    re D! and .33
    
    No, I cannot say I love any other woman other than my mom.  So big
    deal?  
    
    Yes, I have had best friends, for a time, but I can't say I *loved*
    them.  I liked them a lot, tho.  Does that count???  
    
    As I said before, LOVE is something reserved for those very special.
    I don't feel it for just anyone.  That doesn't mean I hate everyone
    else, only that I don't love everyone else.  Nor does it mean I'm
    a woman-hater -- or a woman unable to love men because she doesn't
    love women.
    
    ::sigh::
    
    ---kim
1008.47All you need is love (yeah, yeah, yeah)TLE::D_CARROLLWatch for singing pigsMon Mar 12 1990 13:3832
>    As I said before, LOVE is something reserved for those very special.
>    I don't feel it for just anyone.  That doesn't mean I hate everyone
>    else, only that I don't love everyone else.  Nor does it mean I'm
>    a woman-hater -- or a woman unable to love men because she doesn't
>    love women.
 
Kim, I hope you didn't take my comment as my suggesting that you can't love
men or anything like that. My reaction was mostly saying how I would feel
if I had no women I loved.  I would feel alienated and lonely.  As it is
I love men more often, and even then, not terribly often.  I often (daily)
feel deprived from not having more female-love (or female-friendship, for
that matter) in my life.

I was not suggesting that you were *unable* to love women, or that you should
love any woman (or any person for that matter.)  It just seems to be that by
not loving (whether through chance, inability or choice) any member of half
the human race, you experience less love, which (to me) is a not-good thing.

(I don't love many women myself, but the one's I have/do I extrememly
important to me, and I wouldn't give them up for the world; a few very
good friends, my mother, a few of my fathers girl-friends who helped
raise me...)

Of course, what it comes down to is "what is love" (which *I* can't answer
even for myself.)  If I were in your mind, I might very well call the
'strong friendship" you feel for your friends to be "love".  If you were
in my mind, you might not call what I feel for some of my close but
non-romantic male friends "love".  And yet each of us is right, by
efinition, when we define those relationships as "love" or "not-love"
for ourselves.

D!, loving love (honorary child of the 60's...:-)
1008.48an overworked wordSA1794::CHARBONNDMail SPWACY::CHARBONNDMon Mar 12 1990 16:029
    Is the problem here maybe the difference between 'love' and 'romantic
    love' ? Two emotions differing not only in degree but in kind.
    
    "I love my mother/father/brother/friend."
    "I love my wife."
    
    Very different uses of the same word. Pity we don't have two
    words.
1008.49still smiling in seattleDECWET::JWHITEkeep on rockin&#039;, girlMon Mar 12 1990 17:574
    
    re:1008.6
    lorna, you slay me!
1008.50eros-something? platonic?ULTRA::ZURKOWe&#039;re more paranoid than you are.Tue Mar 13 1990 08:253
The Greeks had several words for love, most of which esacape me now. Anybody
know them?
	Mez
1008.51Eros, agape, philiaREGENT::BROOMHEADDon&#039;t panic -- yet.Tue Mar 13 1990 10:460
1008.52also caritasCADSYS::PSMITHfoop-shootin&#039;, flip city!Tue Mar 13 1990 11:001
1008.53my education is fadingTLE::CHONO::RANDALLOn another planetTue Mar 13 1990 11:083
I thought caritas was Latin for agape?

--bonnie
1008.54you're probably right, thoughCADSYS::PSMITHfoop-shootin&#039;, flip city!Tue Mar 13 1990 11:334
    You're probably right.  I never took Latin or Greek -- I've just always
    heard that caritas is the name for "charitable love".
    
    Never mind, then!  Pam
1008.55EGYPT::CRITZGreg LeMond - Sportsman of the YearTue Mar 13 1990 11:4315
    	AGAPE, EROS, PHILIA, STORGE
    
    	AGAPE - An attitude in which one person seeks the highest
    		good for another person
    
    	EROS  - Sexual love
    
    	PHILIA - Brotherly love
    
    	STORGE - Family love, although I've never quite figured out
    		 the exact distinction between PHILIA and STORGE.
    		 Maybe STORGE is more like a parent/child type love.
    
    	I knew that BA in Greek would be useful for something.
    	Scott
1008.56STAR::BECKPaul BeckTue Mar 13 1990 12:072
I thought STORGE was the love of things put away in boxes for extended periods
of time.
1008.57This is starting to get seriousRDVAX::COLLIERBruce CollierWed Mar 14 1990 17:4461
    At last we're getting to something mildly interesting in this string. 
    I can't lay hands on my Liddle and Scott at the moment, but I do have 
    C. D. Buck's "Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principle
    Indo-European Languages," which is even better, for this topic.
    
    In Greek, it allows as nouns only "eros," "philia," and "storge."  The
    last is "especially the love of parents and children, of a ruler and
    his subjects, etc."  "Philia" is "friendly love, friendship."
    
    The verb "agapao" is "have regard or affection for," or "be fond or
    contented with."  The noun "agape" was not used until the 2nd century
    A.D., though it became the common word for "love" in Modern Greek.
    
    Tallying nouns and verbs separately, Greek totals seven forms, which is
    unequalled.  Sanskrit has six;  Old Norse has five.  Greek's three noun 
    forms are matched in Sanskrit, Rumanian and Irish; some 10 more
    languages show two nouns, including Old Engish ("lufu" and "freod," the
    root of "friend").  Though Latin has "amor" and "caritas," the modern
    "Romance" languages have only one noun apiece (though Spanish at least
    has two verbs, "amar" and "quedar").  Latin's "amor" and its Romance
    descendents are thought to have originated with the infantile Greek name
    "amma," the equivalent of our "mama."  "Amma" also reached Old High
    German, meaning "mother" or "nurse."
    
    The decline in distinct words for "love" from earlier to later
    languages seems to be universal.
    
    Aren't you glad you've gotten this far?  Do you want more?  Well, 
    Greek also takes the prize for words meaning "love" in the sense "to
    have sexual intercourse," where Buck lists  five forms.  Danish and
    Lithuanian show three each, and a few others have two.  In this case
    Sanskrit and Old Norse join a large group (including the modern Romance
    languages) with only one.  Regarding the term "penis," Buck declines to
    give an overall list, saying:  "It would be futile to repeat in a list
    the usual euphemistic phrases, like Lat. "membrum viril," Fr. "membre
    viril," NE "male organ," NHG "mannliches glied," Russ. "muzkoj clen,"
    etc.; and it would be difficult to make a selection from the
    innumerable vulgar terms in common or occasional use, many of which are
    of obscure origin.  Here are noted those of an inherited group and some
    others. . . ."  There is no discussion to be found of female genitals,
    perhaps because this was, after all, 1949.
    
    Interestingly, much the most complex classifications occur for farm animals,
    which often have as many as five separate lists.  Thus, for example, we
    have "SHEEP / RAM / WETHER / EWE / LAMB" as separate meanings; likewise
    "SWINE / BOAR / BARROW / SOW / PIG" and "HORSE / STALLION / GELDING /
    MARE / FOAL" (giving only the New English versions; Buck, of course,
    gives us 30 other languages).  In most cases, these distinct meanings
    are distinguished by sexuality, or lack thereof.
    
    Please don't get the impression that you should start desperately
    seeking for DOSSITPI-EL to satisfy your prurient interests.  It is a
    large 1500 page tome that, by and large, only a linguist,
    lexicographer, or the author's mother or father could love.  It might
    make an effective and erudite doorstop, but that would be unspeakably
    tacky.  I lovingly consult my copy about once every three years, almost
    never for any serious reason.  Do any of you need to know the three
    words in Serbo-Croation that mean "lawsuit" or the Lettic word for
    "soap" (it's "ziepes")?
    
    		- Bruce
1008.58more problems than just the female parts Looks like he has more problems than just the female partsTLE::CHONO::RANDALLOn another planetThu Mar 15 1990 09:5610
I find it interesting that he comments on the proliferation of slang
and compound terms for the male member, but apparently doesn't do the
same for similar terms for sexual intercourse.  I don't remember my old
Norse very well any more, but I do remember an ancestor to "making the 
beast with two backs" and a phrase that translates roughly "putting the
bread paddle in the oven".  

The bread in the oven one also occurs in Old English. 

--bonnie
1008.59no wonder bakers were popular ;-]SKYLRK::OLSONTrouble ahead, trouble behind!Thu Mar 15 1990 12:327
    Bonnie, I thought the "bread in the oven" idiom referred to
    pregnancy rather than intercourse...I've read it with additional
    expressions of "9 months to bake" and the like.  But bread paddle?
    I guess its a versatile expression ;-), and can probably be used
    for both meanings.
    
    DougO
1008.60the double entendre is the heart of English humor...TLE::CHONO::RANDALLOn another planetThu Mar 15 1990 13:0212
re: .59

Yes, "bread in the oven" does mean pregnant.  "Putting the bread paddle 
in the oven" means the act that got you in that condition.

A bread paddle is a flat tray with a handle on it, sort of like a large
spatula.  You use it to put bread into large brick ovens without scorching
yourself, too.  

So a bread paddle is something long that goes in and out of someplace warm.

--bonnie
1008.61How do you say "baaahh" in Greek?DEC25::BERRYStupid People Shouldn&#039;t BreedTue Mar 20 1990 15:425
    
    What has all this got to do with sheep and the men who love them???
    
    -dwight
1008.62don't you know the expression "lambie pie" ?GEMVAX::KOTTLERWed Mar 21 1990 08:211