Required Reading

[Will]

I was traveling during the week when "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" began to be broadcast. I did see two episodes, by accident, while changing clothes or trying to go to sleep in various hotel rooms. And while I have some thoughts about the series thus far, that's not the reason for this thread.

 

This morning I have been catching up with the Message Center, as I didn't have the chance to visit while I was away. When I came to the bottom of the thread about "Queer Eye," I decided that I'm going to print out the dialogue between Rick Munroe and Devon. Then, I'm going to make copies of it and distribute it to my men friends (all but one of whom are straight) and to my students when they return in the autumn.

 

Why? Because anybody who wants to read civil, intelligent, well-argued differences of opinion about issues of gay identity could do no better than to study this exchange. I can't remember the last time I read a volley of arguments so persuasive that I could easily side with either writer. What makes it even more interesting and, frankly, gratifying is that it's the work of two escorts. Anybody who's still fool enough to believe that all escorts are semi-literate and dumb (pace Rick) need only read this exchange.

 

I do think that we need to examine what we mean by "stereotype." It's an easy word to use (like "stylized") but doesn't really say very much. For example, I'm not sure that the producers of "Queer Eye" are actually portraying gay men stereotypically. It's my sense that the gay men they chose are doing that work for them. It's also my sense, however, that not all of those five men are "stereotypically" gay. "Typically" gay, however, is a different thing. Every one of those five men is quickly and accurately identifiable as gay. If that's stereotype, and if stereotype is a "bad" thing, there's nobody to blame but ourselves.

 

Most interesting to me is the sensitivity that all of us feel about these men, both the gay transformers and the straight transformed. I, for example, have been struck by the predictably clueless looks and behavior of the black-haired, blue-chinned hunk and the all-of-a-sudden-hot artist. It would be hard to find more "stereotypical" examples of what gay men think straight men are.

 

But the real question is this: Why is it a bad thing to be nelly? Why is a man hopeless if he wears socks with wing-tips?

 

If anyone should want to take up these and related questions, I hope that he and those who respond will follow Devon's and Rick's example. To my mind, they provide a peerless model of how interesting, useful, and even entertaining the Message Center can be when posters actually think before they write and, what's more, respect each other no matter how strongly they may disagree.

[Doug69]

>Why? Because anybody who wants to read civil, intelligent,

>well-argued differences of opinion about issues of gay

>identity could do no better than to study this exchange. I

>can't remember the last time I read a volley of arguments so

>persuasive that I could easily side with either writer.

 

I have to say that I agree with this. I had some pretty strong opinoins about that awful program (my views are the same as Rick's), but I made the choice not to join the discusison because the dialogue between Rick and Devon was so comprehensive, so eloquent, and at such a high level of discourse that I didn't want to interrupt it.

 

Frankly, this sort of effusive praise makes me a little sick, but I had exactly the same reaction as you did when I read their exchange -- that it was about as elevated and insight-provoking and well-written as an online debate can be, and it explored virtually every important issue of gay identity and issues surrounding media representations of gay people with great skill and substance. I, too, thought others could benefit from reading it.

 

Now excuse me while I go vomit at myself for being so sweetly complimentary, but one must give tne escort-devils their due.

[woodlawn]

>I do think that we need to examine what we mean by

>"stereotype." It's an easy word to use (like "stylized") but

>doesn't really say very much. For example, I'm not sure that

>the producers of "Queer Eye" are actually portraying gay men

>stereotypically.

 

I didn't bother reading the portion of the thread you're describing because the issues seem to me so clear as to render a lengthy discussion unnecessary. The basic premise of "Queer Eye" is that being gay means one has a greater interest in and familiarity with matters of appearance than men who are not gay. That isn't true -- and that is why we call that image a stereotype. Any other questions?

 

>If that's stereotype, and if stereotype is a "bad" thing,

>there's nobody to blame but ourselves.

 

 

I don't know whom you mean when you say "ourselves." I don't think I've ever done anything to encourage anyone to believe that all gay men share the idiosyncrasies of the subculture that inhabits our urban gay ghettos. The people who act in a way that encourages people to believe this are perhaps to blame if others think all gay men are like that. I am not to blame.

 

 

>But the real question is this: Why is it a bad thing to be

>nelly?

 

It depends on what you mean by "bad." Given the number of gay men who are at pains to describe themselves (and the men they want to meet) as "straight-acting," one can say with a certain amount of confidence that a lot of gay men find "nelly" behavior unattractive.

 

>Why is a man hopeless if he wears socks with

>wing-tips?

 

Beats me. I have always found wingtips very uncomfortable without socks.

[Rick Munroe]

>Why is a man hopeless if he wears

>socks with wing-tips?

 

See, I am so not the stereotypically fashion-conscious gay man. I didn't even know they made such a thing as wing-tipped socks.

 

>I'm not sure that

>the producers of "Queer Eye" are actually portraying gay men

>stereotypically. It's my sense that the gay men they chose

>are doing that work for them.

 

But you just said it: they specifically chose those types. The casting notices (breakdowns) for any production very specifically describe the type of person they want. The producers knew exactly what they were doing; it wasn't just a matter of chance that these guys are these guys.

 

>I hope that he and those who respond will follow Devon's and

>Rick's example. To my mind, they provide a peerless model of

>how interesting, useful, and even entertaining the Message

>Center can be when posters actually think before they write

>and, what's more, respect each other no matter how strongly

>they may disagree.

 

You obviously don't know about the vulgar and nasty email exchange that Devon and I had behind the scenes. That's how we were able to maintain civility in public. :+ (just kidding) Seriously, I have to agree with you. I enjoyed that debate and I did come away with a slightly different opinion of the show ("it's not that bad"). I love when I can actually learn something here, and I do try to keep an open mind and ear.

 

But Will, will you please stop hacking away at my carefully crafted image of the dum-dum with little more than a cute face and a hot ass? Nobody finds intelligence and civility sexy.

 

P.S. Let me know what your students think of my avatar image. }(

[Barry]

> Nobody finds intelligence and civility sexy.

 

Quite the contrary Rick. Intelligence can be very very sexy.

 

Barry :-)

[Doug69]

>I didn't bother reading the portion of the thread you're

>describing because the issues seem to me so clear as to render

>a lengthy discussion unnecessary.

 

That's a good example of how someone can miss out on learning by thinking that they are so smart, and know so much, that they don't have to bother listening to what anyone else has to say who thinks differently.

 

I agree with you about this program - I think it's odious, stereotype-promoting, and condescending towards gay people - but having read what Devon wrote in defense of it, I was able to think about the issue from a somewhat different perspective, and although I still hate the program, think it's utter garbage that I'll never watch again, and can't wait for its inevitable and quick demise, I do think that there are some potentially beneficial aspects to it which Devon's arguments highlighted for me.

 

Given the other crap that you end up having to read here by wading through the cesspool that takes up so much of the bandwith, spending a few extra seconds on an actually intelligent dialogue can do you and your escort-hostile impulses some good.

[woodlawn]

>That's a good example of how someone can miss out on learning

>by thinking that they are so smart, and know so much, that

>they don't have to bother listening to what anyone else has to

>say who thinks differently.

 

The above is a good example of your hypocrisy. I just read a post from you in another thread complaining about the fact that VaHawk mocked and insulted you. Now you're doing the exact same thing you complained about. If you can't take it then don't dish it out, you pissy little twerp.

 

>I agree with you about this program - I think it's odious,

>stereotype-promoting, and condescending towards gay people -

 

Don't put words in my mouth, shithead. All I said was that it promotes stereotypes.

 

>but having read what Devon wrote in defense of it, I was able

>to think about the issue from a somewhat different

>perspective, and although I still hate the program, think it's

>utter garbage that I'll never watch again, and can't wait for

>its inevitable and quick demise, I do think that there are

>some potentially beneficial aspects to it which Devon's

>arguments highlighted for me.

 

 

So you hate it and think it's garbage and don't want to watch it and want it off the air as quickly as possible, but you also think it has "potentially beneficial aspects." It would take not just a psychiatrist but an entire team of them to make sense of that.

 

 

>spending a few extra seconds on an actually

>intelligent dialogue can do you and your escort-hostile

>impulses some good.

 

If you will check the board you will find that I have never asked for your advice about what I should read. And there's a reason for that. The reason is that I don't give a shit what you think I should read. Or what you think about my attitude toward escorts. So far as I'm concerned you are another one of the contributors to the "cesspool" you just complained about.

[Doug69]

My - looks like I touched a nerve. I think that any time someone mentions your bizarre, pathological hostility towards escort, you seem to lose your mental balance.

 

I hope you're doing ok - actually, I take that back - I don't hope that.

 

>The above is a good example of your hypocrisy. I just read a

>post from you in another thread complaining about the fact

>that VaHawk mocked and insulted you. Now you're doing the

>exact same thing you complained about. If you can't take it

>then don't dish it out, you pissy little twerp.

 

No, what you just wrote here is completely false. I have never complained about VaHawk - or anyone else - "mock[ing] and insul[ing] me." If I complained about anything, it was that VaHawk's mocking comments and insults were trite, boring, and cliched and appeared to be copied from the book entitled "Best 101 Internet Insults."

 

I like insults and mockery that are creative and insight-generating, and dislike them if they are simply cliched slogans or the by-product of impotent rage. I'll leave it to your powers of deduction to figure out into which category you belong in light of your inability to muster anything more than calling someone "shithead" and petulantly whining like a 5 year-old that you didn't ask for their reaction to your opinion - even though you just placed your opinion on a public message board.

 

>So you hate it and think it's garbage and don't want to watch

>it and want it off the air as quickly as possible, but you

>also think it has "potentially beneficial aspects." It would

>take not just a psychiatrist but an entire team of them to

>make sense of that.

 

No - it would only take a person of below average intelligence or more to understand what I said. It's really rather straightforward. Squint your eyes and concentrate:

 

I personally hate the show, find it stupid and boring, and think it does more harm than good. Therefore, I want it off the air.

 

Devon's writings, however, (which you didn't read, because you already know everything, and because he's an escort, which makes you hostile towards him), convinced me that, despite all of this, there are beneficial apsects to the show, including its displaying a positive, friendly interaction between straight guys and openly gay men.

 

Thus, I hate the show, but recognize, thanks to Devon, that it has some good traits. Get it now? Good boy.

 

>If you will check the board you will find that I have never

>asked for your advice about what I should read.

 

If you will check the board, you will see that one does not have to be invited to express one's opinoions about what other posters have written before doing so. So whether you asked for my advice or not is irrelevant.

 

If you don't want others to comment on the shortcomings of your views and your conduct, let me suggest that you refrain from publicly describing your views and conduct on a message board, the purpose of which is to allow others to comment upon what has been posted.

[woodlawn]

>My - looks like I touched a nerve. I think that any time

>someone mentions your bizarre, pathological hostility towards

>escort, you seem to lose your mental balance.

 

You must lead a mighty dull life if the only excitement you have is trying -- in my case vainly -- to get a rise out of a bunch of complete strangers on an internet message board by telling stupid lies like the above. Or lies like the one you recently told about finding the discussion of smalltownjohn "in the archives." Even Lucky didn't buy that one.

 

 

>I hope you're doing ok - actually, I take that back - I don't

>hope that.

 

Hope's cheap, anus, so go ahead and indulge yourself.

 

 

>No, what you just wrote here is completely false. I have

>never complained about VaHawk - or anyone else - "mock[ing]

>and insul[ing] me."

 

Indeed you have, liar, and more than once. Now you're trying to parse your way out of it, much like Bush and his 16 words. I'm sure you'll be just as successful as he has been.

 

>I like insults and mockery that are creative and

>insight-generating,

 

Then it's a pity you're incapable of coming up with any. But don't lose hope. Practice makes perfect.

 

>No - it would only take a person of below average intelligence

>or more to understand what I said.

 

Scum, I don't really give a rat's ass how you feel about some television show or about anything else. The only thing about you that is worthy of remark is your relentless hypocrisy.

 

>Devon's writings, however, (which you didn't read, because you

>already know everything, and because he's an escort, which

>makes you hostile towards him),

 

You've been around the board (using other screen names) long enough to see me compliment several escorts on various postings, so you're lying again. What a shock.

 

>If you will check the board, you will see that one does not

>have to be invited to express one's opinoions about what other

>posters have written before doing so.

 

If one did have to be, we'd never hear a word out of you.

 

>If you don't want others to comment on the shortcomings of

>your views and your conduct,

 

On the contrary, I look forward to more lies and hypocrisy from you and your fellow scumbags. Some people are entertained by watching the chimps at the zoo gibber and throw excrement at each other. You and the other occupants of your cage, whose antics are quite similar to the chimps', are my entertainment.

[Doug69]

>You must lead a mighty dull life if the only excitement you

>have is trying -- in my case vainly -- to get a rise out of a

>bunch of complete strangers on an internet message board by

>telling stupid lies like the above.

 

THIS - from the "person" who claims that he comes to this Board because, even though he finds the people here so repuslive and stupid, he is entertained by their "antics" just as one is entertained by watching monkeys throw excrement at each other.

 

What was that you were saying about leading a "mighty dull life"?

 

>Or lies like the one you

>recently told about finding the discussion of smalltownjohn

>"in the archives." Even Lucky didn't buy that one.

 

I never said I found that discussion in the archives, leaving one to wonder why you would make that up.

 

>Scum, I don't really give a rat's ass how you feel about some

>television show or about anything else.

 

I know - that's because you think you know everything. You didn't care what Devon or Rick had to say either, becuase you claimed that you knew everything there was to know on the topic, so there was no reason to read anyone else's viewpoints.

 

To me (and, from what I have read, to many others here), it is clear that your pompous self-love and irrisistible need to believe that you are smarter than everyone else - combined with your revealing hatred for escorts - makes you miss out on a lot in life, because you think that the only thing that has value is what you say, and I genuinely think that's sad.

 

So I did try to point it out to you in order to help you and in order to make you see how your need to feel like you are the smarest makes you closed up to so many valuable things, in order to enable you to discover more and to grow.

 

But, alas, you are too bitter and afraid to be open to anything that someone has to say that can help you, and so you react with ingratitude and anger.

 

The truly excellent and insightful discourse between Rick and Devon is but one of the many things you miss out on, while you sit there hugging yourself and telling yourself that you know everything, and lashing out with impotent, child-like vulgarity and rage at anyone who sees this and points this out.

 

So, I plead guilty to trying to extend a helping hand to get you out of your sewer of Dank Self-Love and Lonley Bitterness. It's sad that you are unable to accept it, but when you re-consider, I'll be here for you.

[woodlawn]

>THIS - from the "person" who claims that he comes to this

>Board because, even though he finds the people here so

>repuslive and stupid,

 

"Repuslive" is not a word I've used. Although it is rather expressive.

 

 

>he is entertained by their "antics" just

>as one is entertained by watching monkeys throw excrement at

>each other.

 

That part is accurate. Except that the word is "your" antics, not "their."

 

>What was that you were saying about leading a "mighty dull

>life"?

 

I was saying that you must lead one. The dullness of your posts attests to it.

 

 

>>Or lies like the one you

>>recently told about finding the discussion of smalltownjohn

>>"in the archives." Even Lucky didn't buy that one.

>

>I never said I found that discussion in the archives,

 

Of course you did, liar.

 

>I know - that's because you think you know everything. You

>didn't care what Devon or Rick had to say either, becuase you

>claimed that you knew everything there was to know on the

>topic, so there was no reason to read anyone else's

>viewpoints.

 

More stupid lies. There are posters who will let you make shit up and claim they said it. I'm not one of them, liar.

 

>To me (and, from what I have read, to many others here), it is

>clear that your pompous self-love and irrisistible need to

>believe that you are smarter than everyone else - combined

>with your revealing hatred for escorts - makes you miss out on

>a lot in life, because you think that the only thing that has

>value is what you say, and I genuinely think that's sad.

 

Oh my gosh! What have we here?! Another egotistical asshole who thinks reading People magazine while he's at the hair stylist makes him qualified to psychoanalyze people he's never even met! How unusual to encounter someone like that on this message board!

 

 

>So I did try to point it out to you in order to help you and

>in order to make you see how your need to feel like you are

>the smarest

 

 

Well, "Doug," if I ever need to feel like I am the "smarest," reading the posts and "opinioins" of people like you, no matter how "repuslive" you may be, will certainly help me to achieve that goal. LOL!

 

 

>But, alas, you are too bitter and afraid to be open to

>anything that someone has to say that can help you, and so you

>react with ingratitude and anger.

 

Could this be right? Am I closing myself off to people who, if I were more open to their ideas, could help me to appreciate . . . the positive aspects of some trivial makeover show on television? On second thought, why would I give a shit?

 

 

>So, I plead guilty to trying to extend a helping hand to get

>you out of your sewer of Dank Self-Love and Lonley Bitterness.

 

Yup, it sure is "Lonley" in here. LOL!

[Doug69]

>>I know - that's because you think you know everything. You

>>didn't care what Devon or Rick had to say either, becuase

>you

>>claimed that you knew everything there was to know on the

>>topic, so there was no reason to read anyone else's

>>viewpoints.

>

>More stupid lies. There are posters who will let you make

>shit up and claim they said it. I'm not one of them, liar.

 

FROM YOU:

 

"I didn't bother reading the portion of the thread you're describing because the issues seem to me so clear as to render a lengthy discussion unnecessary.

 

Why bother denying you said something when it's saved for everyone to see that you said it? I'm content to let the reader decide.

 

After Will's post, I was hoping this thread would be about Rick and Devon's outstanding discourse. You, however, had to leap in and slime it up with your know-it-all, pretensious insistence that it had no value becuase you're too smart to bother with such tripe, and unfortunately, I allowed your self-loving puke to detract from Will's tribute.

 

So I will simply re-iterate how great I found Rick and Devon's discussion, highly recommend to others that they read it, and once again express my sympathy to you that your psychotic self-love prevented you from seeing it and so many other things.

[woodlawn]

>FROM YOU:

>

>"I didn't bother reading the portion of the thread you're

>describing because the issues seem to me so clear as to render

>a lengthy discussion unnecessary.

 

>Why bother denying you said something when it's saved for

>everyone to see that you said it?

 

I didn't deny I said the issues were so clear as to render a lengthy discussion unnecessary, merely that I said I already know everything about the subject, which was your accusation. Why not get someone who understands English to explain the difference to you?

 

 

>After Will's post, I was hoping this thread would be about

>Rick and Devon's outstanding discourse. You, however, had to

>leap in and slime it up with your know-it-all, pretensious

>insistence that it had no value becuase you're too smart to

>bother with such tripe, and unfortunately, I allowed your

>self-loving puke to detract from Will's tribute.

 

Or to put it much more accurately, you can't stand hearing any opinion that differs from yours and can't resist insulting anyone who expresses such an opinion. Which makes one wonder why you come to a message board rather than simply turning off your computer and talking to yourself all day.

 

Don't let this make you believe that I'm going to follow you around translating everything you post into English. I'll only do so now and then.

 

 

>express my sympathy to you that your psychotic

>self-love prevented you from seeing it and so many other

>things.

 

I wonder if you realize how ridiculous you appear when you throw around these buzzwords from a science you don't even begin to understand? On the other hand, if you realized it you'd stop doing it and I'd be deprived of a real source of amusement. Sorry I brought it up.

[Will]

"Nobody finds intelligence and civility sexy."

 

And do you think I'm a nobody? And aren't you promoting an image, both of yourself and of other gay men, that is just as stereotypical as the men you're complaining about on "Queer Eye"?

 

We could have a heated, and perhaps not very civil, conversation right here on this site about escort stereotypes. Without those trademarks of what's hot today (but lukewarm tomorrow and downright cold the day after tomorrow) -- tattoos, shaved bodies, steroid muscles, brushcuts and the like -- many of our escorts would have no "image" whatsoever. They seem to shop for their look in the pages of some kind of House & Garden for gay tramps. Personally, I just don't get it: Those guys turn me off, not on. For me, a man's sexiness begins with what's inside him, not with what he tacks onto the surface. Dumbness is for straight men. Give me a smart, sassy, "natural" man any day of the week.

[taylorky]

>But the real question is this: Why is it a bad thing to be

>nelly?

 

 

it's not a bad thing to be *whatever you really are*

 

 

 

Why is a man hopeless if he wears socks with

>wing-tips?

 

 

 

what the hell are wingtips????

[woodlawn]

>"Nobody finds intelligence and civility sexy."

 

>And do you think I'm a nobody?

 

No, but I do remember certain posts by you referring to the days when you used to take young, goodlooking men out and buy them all sorts of gifts in the hope that they would put out, only to be disappointed -- which, you implied, is why you turned to escorts. That doesn't sound to me as though your goal was a stimulating, intelligent conversation.

 

>And aren't you promoting an

>image, both of yourself and of other gay men, that is just as

>stereotypical as the men you're complaining about on "Queer

>Eye"?

 

Perhaps he's simply talking about the sort of gay man who hires escorts. If he is, I can't say his remarks are inaccurate.

 

 

>We could have a heated, and perhaps not very civil,

>conversation right here on this site about escort stereotypes.

> Without those trademarks of what's hot today (but lukewarm

>tomorrow and downright cold the day after tomorrow) --

>tattoos, shaved bodies, steroid muscles, brushcuts and the

>like -- many of our escorts would have no "image" whatsoever.

>They seem to shop for their look in the pages of some kind of

>House & Garden for gay tramps.

 

But if that is true then they aren't stereotypes -- they are truly representative of what gay escorts are like.

 

 

> Personally, I just don't get

>it: Those guys turn me off, not on. For me, a man's sexiness

>begins with what's inside him,

 

See above.

[Barry]

>what the hell are wingtips????

 

 

http://www.florsheim.com/images/products/17109-78h.jpg

 

Barry

[taylorky]

oh i c thanks barry.

[Rick Munroe]

>"Nobody finds intelligence and civility sexy."

 

I thought it was obvious since I added the little winky-face smiley (and don't you hate that a grown man has to say things like "winky-face smiley"? Those things need a better name) but since it wasn't, let me just say: I was just kidding. I guess I won't try to be ironic anymore. I'm just too du-- okay, I won't go there again.

 

For the record, my opinion is the opposite of that quote of mine above. When I was a teenager, yes, I was very turned on by images of dumb jocks and nasty thugs but not anymore. Give me a confident, smart, self-assured, friendly man. Yum.

 

And for full disclosure, I want to say that in most of my posts, there is a lot of Derek, too. He dominates the bedroom but I dominate the computer ;-) , and he rarely gets a chance to post. However, what usually happens is that I read threads aloud to him, he gives me his thoughts, and I add them to mine and post. He just lets me take full credit. As our friends tell me (too often), I'm lucky to have him. :9

[Bilbo]

RE: Are there any psychiatrists in the house?

 

It strikes me as odd that when a legal subject is broached, there are quite often a lot of answers from posters who are lawyers. However, whenever Woodie starts talking about people who are not psychiatrists, the people who are psychiatrists are silent. I know you may be thinking, why bother? But, I have actually seen Woodie respond to reason, assuming that you answered with something that might not quite be all his way - provided that you do it respectfully and ignore when he talks trash back at you. And I promise that if you asked me to, I would try to reference to the pop psych and not so pop psych that I have read and studied in class less often. Are you there?

[guyinsf]

RE: Are there any psychiatrists in the house?

 

I am a mental health professional but not an MD, hence I'm not a psychiatrist. I have responded when some of these "debates" have previously arisen. All I can say is that my recollection is that the references to psychiatrists are usually along the lines of "every psychiatrist would demean you if you told him you hired an escort." As I have responded previously, this is a statement not grounded in reality. Of course some psychiatrists would respond with harsh criticism, but many others would simply explore the issue further in an attempt to understand the significance of it in the client's life. Internally some of the latter group may be judging the clients, but I think it's a stretch to assume that every person who specializes in psychiatry has that same moral compass. We're not talking about murder or child abuse here.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, particularly your last two sentences.

 

>It strikes me as odd that when a legal subject is broached,

>there are quite often a lot of answers from posters who are

>lawyers. However, whenever Woodie starts talking about people

>who are not psychiatrists, the people who are psychiatrists

>are silent. I know you may be thinking, why bother? But, I

>have actually seen Woodie respond to reason, assuming that you

>answered with something that might not quite be all his way -

>provided that you do it respectfully and ignore when he talks

>trash back at you. And I promise that if you asked me to, I

>would try to reference to the pop psych and not so pop psych

>that I have read and studied in class less often. Are you

>there?

[Bilbo]

RE: Are there any psychiatrists in the house?

 

I am not surprised that I confused you. I often confuse people. I'm even more likely to do it in person. <g>

 

I often speculate, as do most of us here, based on my experience. That would include theater, Reiki and Body Electric training. Woodie often complains that I am trying to speak like a psychiatrist, when he and I both know that I am not trained to be a psychiatrist. Now he has done it with someone else. And the habit is growing. I noticed someone else making that same kind of remark about someone else this morning. Now, while it does seem like Woodie is of a mind that anyone hiring an escort would meet with a psychiatrist's disapproval, that is not always the subject at hand when he points out that I am not one.

 

On to trying to explain those last "two sentences":

A.

>>It strikes me as odd that when a legal subject is broached,

>>there are quite often a lot of answers from posters who are

>>lawyers. However, whenever Woodie starts talking about

>people

>>who are not psychiatrists, the people who are psychiatrists

>>are silent.

 

It has happened in the past that I have mentioned that during my one escapade with the police, I felt that I had been "entrapped." It has been pointed out that I am using a legal term incorrectly. (I think that it was Woodie who did so.) And there have been at times a chorus of lawyers commenting on that exchange. (There are also other threads where lawyers have commented on the law.) However, I never remember a time when Woodie, or anyone else, commented on a psychiatric matter and anyone who was in that field commented on the exchange. - And here, I have to apologize, because I don't remember, or perhaps didn't notice, the time that you say you did so. - Nor do I remember any mental health practitioner threads similar to the ones where the lawyers talk about things legal.

 

 

B.

I know you may be thinking, why bother? But, I

>>have actually seen Woodie respond to reason, assuming that

>you

>>answered with something that might not quite be all his way

>-

>>provided that you do it respectfully and ignore when he

>talks

>>trash back at you. And I promise that if you asked me to, I

>>would try to reference to the pop psych and not so pop psych

>>that I have read and studied in class less often.

 

I cannot speak for Woodie, but if there were comments from mental health professionals that his posts (pointing out that fellow posters are not psychiatrists) are bothering them, then he would do it less often in the future. In return for which, I promise that if, instead, there are posts from mental health care professionals that my posts are bothering them, I will be more careful in the future to make it clear that I am not speaking as one of that profession.

 

Are you

>>there?

 

Again, thanks for your answer. I am still hoping to hear from more posters who do follow your profession. Thanks!

>

[Bilbo]

RE: Oops, missing words

 

I was moving parts of a sentence around, and accidently left out the words "I would hope." As in, "then I would hope that Woodie would ..." Please pardon me for looking like I might be prominsing something that Woodie would do, and in the very paragraph (sentence?) which started out "I cannot speak for Woodie"!

[Doug69]

RE: Are there any psychiatrists in the house?

 

>I often speculate, as do most of us here, based on my

>experience. That would include theater, Reiki and Body

>Electric training. Woodie often complains that I am trying to

>speak like a psychiatrist, when he and I both know that I am

>not trained to be a psychiatrist.

 

Woodlawn uses this tactic when someone accurately describes the reasons he's so angry, bitter, and in desperate need of attention. When someone is able to expose him in that way, he begins attacking their formal credentials, an odd tactic to use with me, in any event, given that he has no knowledge of my education or professional background or what training I (or most others here) have had in psychological or psychiatric assessment and treatment.

 

Woodlawn, in essence, uses this message center as his therpaist's couch. He has been coming here for years, almost on a daily basis, and parading himself around and exposing himself for all to see.

 

All of his interal conflicts, his multiple sources of anger and frustration, his feelings and fear of lonliness and isolation, his need to prove he is the smartest and strongest in order to compensate for deep feelings of insecurity, failure, and shame, are all manifest in his never-ending dances of hostility, bitterness and demeaning behavior, all masquerading as posts on a message board.

 

Woodlawn needs this place so badly because it is where he comes to expose and exercise all of the fears and conflicts which, in all other arenas in his life, he frantically suppresses. Having chosen this forum in which to expose himself and his deepest anxieties and fears for years and years, day after day, he ought not be surprised that those who are subjected to his daily stream of couch-confessions end up developing - whether they want to or not - a rather thorough sense of who he is and the sad, heavy psychological afflictions which plague him.

[woodlawn]

RE: Are there any psychiatrists in the house?

 

>>I often speculate, as do most of us here, based on my

>>experience. That would include theater, Reiki and Body

>>Electric training. Woodie often complains that I am trying

>to

>>speak like a psychiatrist, when he and I both know that I am

>>not trained to be a psychiatrist.

 

>Woodlawn uses this tactic when someone accurately describes

>the reasons he's so angry, bitter, and in desperate need of

>attention.

 

Now, Bilbo, do you see what you've done? You've drawn out yet another fool who resorts to the stale and time-worn tactic of using psychological buzzwords he can't begin to understand in an effort to trash anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. Aren't you tired of this yet?