more about me...

gayteen1995's picture

possible things that you might need to know about me:
1 i am gay (completely... no girls for me)
2 i have had multiple boyfriends
3 i have dated a lesbian before just for shits and giggles( also it was a way for me and her to conceal our sexuality)
4 i am a virgin
5 i have 3 sisters
6 i am a junior in highschool
7 i like to shop
8 i am a gay rights activist( sort of... it is hard to be when your parents dont support you)
9 i am proud
10 i just got a hair cut
11 i love you
12 i am a frog(just seeing if you were paying attention)
13 i have an obsession with hair

Comments

elph's picture

2 quick queries:

(2) boyfriends... or friends who just happen to be boys?
(13) do you know any teen (gay or something else) who isn't?

***

Oh... (11) a bit too quick... huh? :)

gayteen1995's picture

(2) boyfriends

(2) boyfriends

gayteen1995's picture

(11) no i dont "love" love

(11) no
i dont "love" love you but i love you like brothers and sisters

anarchist's picture

I'm not obsessed with hair.

I don't even touch it except when I'm washing it and sometimes I quickly run a comb through it literally just one time after school.

Actually I don't really care about how I look at all anymore.

MaddieJoy's picture

I am really bored, so I'm going to comment on most of these.

1 me too, but no dudes for me!
2 lucky :(
3 are you guys still friends?
5 I don't think I could survive that many girls in one house...
7 me too!!!! SHOES!
8 the best activists are the ones who know what it's like to be discriminated against
9 good for you
10 what does it look like? I really need one.
11 aw, shucks! :)
12 i am an arctic fox ;)
13 me too!!

The ducks will get you!

jeff's picture

Hmm...

1) That's what gay means.
4) Then I'm confused by the definition you are using in 2)

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

anarchist's picture

(No subject)

elph's picture

Watched the first 6 minutes...

Seems quite serious and informative!

Am I missing anything of importance by not persevering through the remaining 24 minutes?

anarchist's picture

Not really.

Just more stuff. The only part of the video that I was really trying to point out was "hair is bullshit".

elph's picture

Further on "4 i am a virgin"

In its original sense, a virgin was a female who had not engaged in intercourse.

Later (not wanting to be denied a distinguishing "honor") a male who has sexually penetrated any female would also feel entitled to boast that he, by rights, could claim to no longer be a "virgin."

More recently, this term (virgin) has been co-opted by those of all sexual proclivities... but in the process losing its more rigorous definition.

Its use today when applied to same-sex relationship, can refer to any act that has an orgasm as one of its goals: anal penetration is one such act... but oral sex and mutual masturbation also qualify (both of which being far more prevalent)!

****

btw#1: Is your claim a complaint, or a mere statement of an inconvenient fact? :)

btw#2: Contrary to inferences, you are entitled to claim as "boyfriend" any boy with whom you've shared mutual emotional attachments... even if circumstances may never have developed that'd make "sex" a possibility!

You'll "know," however, when both the time and circumstances are propitious... :)

jeff's picture

Yes...

Let's make sure any statement (or inference) I make is sufficiently neutered, lest anyone be offended. When did referencing every comment I make become your hobby? Many people adopt new hobbies in the new year. So, that gives you 13 days to think of one.

Not sure how negating my opinion with opinion creates a fact.

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

elph's picture

It takes two to play this game... which I hope it is!

What does one find inaccurate in my comments above... or, for that matter, objectionable or offensive?

I readily acknowledge that I did find a comment above (at least as it existed prior to its current revised wording) a tad insensitive. The implication was clear: The two claims (1) to have had boyfriends, and (2) to still remain a virgin were mutually incompatible. It's conceivable that it may not have been the author's intent to encourage such an inference. But, the invitation to do so lay bare.

I disagreed with this inference as politely as I knew how. I kept it light... and included even a bit of my own brand of humor.

I did not attack the (presumed) views of the original author! My objective was to clarify... and to express another widely-held view. It is an anathema for me to gratuitously seek out personal confrontation!

If a polite statement (devoid of rancor or ad hominem) asserting a view that differs from that held by another is unacceptable here... Well...

****

Let's both lighten up... OK? :)

jeff's picture

Well...

I find it objectionable that more than half the time I post to a person who left a journal, before they ever have time to reply, and a discussion might occur, I instead always find a reply from you seemingly correcting my opinion. And that you don't seem to just have a contrary opinion, but you also want to shore up information to disprove my assertion.

My interpretation of the above is you were disinterested in #4 until I mentioned it, since no one else did except me, and then you needed to introduce text that would be "Contrary to inferences" made by me.

I think you can state your opinion without bringing mine into question, but the larger issue is that it seems the pattern lately is:
- Oasis member writes journal
- I reply
- You reply to my reply or reference my reply in a subsequent reply, typically objecting to its content
- I object to that
- You cry foul and that you're being misinterpreted, and after 1 or 2 rounds, try to end the discussion.

My main objection is that I wrote to gayteen1995, and you wrote to gayteen1995 about my reply (since none of that part of the journal seemingly interested you before I mentioned it), and the whole point of my commenting on the site is to interact with the youth on the site.

But instead, before they ever get back here to reply, and a discussion might form (aka the point of the site), with possible details and narrative, etc., instead the discussion is now about vaginas, masturbation, oral, anal (the least popular of the three, lest anyone forget, heh), and all of this stuff that is NOT informed by anything written about by the author of the journal.

So, it just seems that I reply to the text of the journal, and those rarely receive replies from the original author as much, because by the time people return to the site, it is all gone off on some fictional, speculative tangent about what they might have meant, and definitions of things they didn't say, and how when you combine what may have actually happened with the sexual definitions you provided, a person could still conclude that my opinion could be wrong.

I mean, this isn't meant to be some academic debate. I think there is greater value in waiting to hear back from gayteen1995 and then maybe it turns into a discussion, maybe not.

But it seems all of my replies to youth end up as some tangental debate about my reply (and not their journal) with you. We already know you disagree with much of what I say, so there's nothing to explore there. I also don't see any evidence that teenagers, when confronted with something they disagree with, will change their mind immediately or immediately question their self worth, etc. So, if someone doesn't agree with what I say, they don't need moral and foundational support to help them through it.

I don't know why it is surprising that having my every reply "clarified" and fleshed out with contrary points of view wouldn't get a bit annoying after a while. I often put things in a way to spark discussion, since this is a site about community and interaction.

But, if every reply I make to the youth on the site ends up as a debate with you, that then tends to kill off discussion on that journal, then I don't see that as a good use of either of our time.

My take on this is that gayteen1995 would either reply to my comment, or not, and that would become a discussion, or not, and that would lead to us (and anyone else who joined in the discussion) questioning our opinions on the subjects, or not.

At least in that model, there is a chance of a discussion. And, once a discussion begins, then by all means, jump in. But we seem to have proven that the model where I reply, and you reply adjusting my reply, and I am offended that you replied to my reply, etc., etc., are not conversation fuel.

I disagree with a lot of what people write in replies to others on here. But I ignore them because I like a messy flow of ideas. Plus, the interaction is actually more important than what is being conveyed.

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

elph's picture

Please!

Regrettably, the tone of this exchange has become much too personal. If I'm the one deemed ultimately responsible, I sincerely apologize.

I'm compelled to qualify my apology, however, by stating quite emphatically that at no time have I sought to personally denigrate or taunt. A contrary interpretation of my remarks can only be seen as both unfortunate and unwarranted.

At this juncture, the realization that I'm viewed as being gratuitously argumentative and that I have targeted you, specifically, to belittle is quite hurtful!

I've been portrayed as your antagonist. This role I have no intention or desire to fulfill!

****

Just to remind you how this started:

You quite mistakenly read my comment above ("Further on…") as being directed to you. It was not! It was merely a continuing thought from me to gayteen1995! Nothing more! The lack of indentation clearly shows this to be the case.

At the very end of my comment in "btw#2," I do express my view that it's perfectly fine to call someone a "boyfriend" even if no sex has as yet been involved!

I'm presuming that you may have interpreted this comment as criticism as it clearly expresses a view very much at odds with an implication you had made earlier in "Hmm…".

Regrettably, you have seen fit to go back and modify your original statement to be less dogmatic. The result being a very confused readership! :(

Indeed, I was expressing disagreement, but only obliquely. To see it as personal criticism, however, strikes me as a "reach" a bit too far...

Something is clearly amiss between us if this misunderstanding can leads to all of the above verbiage and recrimination!

****

Please… Peace! Let us not sully the holiday spirit!

jeff's picture

Well...

It was meant to be personal, so that you might stop qualifying everything I say on here. And somehow every time we get to this point, you seem to not see that as the case, which leads me to believe we will land here again.

If you go back to each of these similar dust-ups, the last being with lonewolf's journal, the elements are the same. I write something, and you are compelled to adjust or qualify my reply, and the result is I am not engaging with lonewolf or having a conversation about issues with him, but debating about my reply with you. So, keep in mind, my ultimate goal on Oasis it to reply to the youth on Oasis. If lonewolf hasn't replied to me, then let it go. Otherwise, I learn nothing about his life, and reconfirm what I know about your belief system, and the only reply I get from lonewolf is a directive at both of us to stop fighting.

You'd be hard pressed to find one of these exchanges that begins where I interrupt your exchange with my own spin. Look above. Am I anywhere in your "2 quick queries"? Nope. But as soon as I am interested in the virgin part, then you jump on that, and run with it and specifically question my thinking in it. How I'm meant to sort out that the top part of the reply is a separate thought from when my point of view is dismissed in the latter half is a stretch, but the larger issue is what does gayteen1995 think about this issue? What is the history there? We don't know. I usually only learn your viewpoint on this, because it turns into this, and kills the conversation. I'd rather have gayteen1995 disagree with me than you and I cover there are two viewpoints available, and we have contrary ones. This is not a revelation for most issues.

I'm unclear how not to read as criticism you jumping on many of my replies on here to present a contrary view. It's not like today is the first time.

Also, I have not edited any of my previous comments after you have replied to them. I do tweak comments all the time, but not once someone has replied to it. At that point, I consider them locked. Pre-reply is fair game. If you read something, then came back to reply later, it could change, but nothing above has changed after you replied. And, yes, my edits usually tend to make things nicer than my initial impulse.

If every reply I make on here has a hint of disagreement in your follow-up, at a certain point it starts feeling like I'm not engaging with the intended audience of the site but defending what I write with you, which isn't really a good use of either of our time, and nothing I'm really interested in spending time doing.

Until you see the pattern that keeps causing this, and I feel there is one, I fear it will repeat.

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

elph's picture

Neither emerges untarnished!

I truly regret the enmity this discussion has inevitably engendered.

Especially regrettable is that both our images have been tarnished by this inane and quite immature discussion.

We both seem to have triggers that neither seems to be able to handle as simple disagreement. From my perspective, I note two instances that virtually guarantee a contrary rebuttal: any mention by me of (1) the importance of friendship as a precursor to a healthy gay relationship, or (2) anything that hints at the advisability/desire/inherent risks of anal sex.

I'll pursue this no further… leaving no winner or looser… neither having proven his argument more deserving of respect: We both leave quite wounded!

****

On when a particular comment has been changed: I cannot say with confidence when your comment on boyfriend/virgin was changed. All I know is that I first saw the change following my posting of "btw#2" to gayteen1995. I strongly suspect that had I observed this change prior to "btw#2" my comment would not have appeared as a non sequitur! :(

On a positive note: I am very pleased that you saw fit to entirely remove your comment posted at 10:04amEST 6 December! Consequently, I reciprocated by keeping my response in abeyance... thankfully!

jeff's picture

The reason for this discussion...

... from my perspective is to illuminate the ongoing behavior from you that prompts them, as it is to me a tiny tweak, but instead we always end up here: We're different, no winner, no loser, etc.

I guess whenever I see things going down this path in the future, I will just delete my original comment, since you seem incapable of grasping the annoyance and always think it is something content-related, when that is never the case.

So, more of my stuff will just disappear in the future, I guess.

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

anarchist's picture

When these two get in a discussion...

Seriously.

jeff's picture

This is the last time...

I will delete anything I post that leads to this in the future.

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

Bosemaster42's picture

I was tempted....

To post 'BITCH FIGHT'!!! but then thought better of it. I could tell you were obviously still kind of miffed at Elph and didn't want to fan the flames. Personally, I don't think you said anything that was or could be construed as insensitive. It was a valid question.

jeff's picture

Eh...

No flames to fan. I keep having this discussion to prevent it from happening again, but I don't think that's an option anymore, so I'll just remove myself.

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles