Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 5

[Kit the Coyote]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Before I go into the long segment exposing Kevin "Fistgate" Jennings (who was "inspired to become a homosexual activist by Harry "NAMBLA walks with me" Hay),...



I'll have to be clear to the readers of this thread when you or Kit the Coyote use the term "sex education" in relation to the teachings of Kevin Jennings, GLSEN and the LGBTQ movement as a whole. For most people "sex education" doesn't involve teaching children how to safely learn to fist or perform urolagnia or coprophilia.

Fisting, urolagnia, and coprophilia were not planned subjects of the seminar you brought up. Fisting was brought into the discussion by a student. The speakers had promised to speak honestly about sex in that session tried to address it and I will admit did so quite poorly. Both Jennings and GLSEN admitted that this went over the line and intended to set better limits on discussions in the future.

The other two subjects were not discussed at all according to MassResistance.

This actually shows the problem with sex education in the US, there is no standard approach or curriculum on how to teach that subject. Thus we swing from the extremes of not teaching it at all or just saying don't do it to the opposite extreme we see in your example. Both of these do harm as teenagers and young adults start to have sex with the resulting issues of unwanted teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

Which is why for me at least, when I talk about comprehensive sex education I am talking about a well planned educational approach that is age appropriate and addresses what children need to know and are effective at reducing the problems we face.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Kit brought up prior restraint, which is used to prohibit speech and actions in cases where great harm would more than likely be done after the fact, (Kit's still confused about the term, even though he was the one that brought it up:

It is rather hard to punish speech that has not happened, how do you propose we punish abuse of speech before the words are spoken?

Like the chaos and anarchy created by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one falls under prior restraint laws, so could promoting sexual perversion to children. The bottom line is that it would be against the law for Kevin "Fistgate" Jennings (who was "inspired" by NAMBLA pedophile Harry Hay to become a homosexual activist) and his fellow homosexual child indoctrinators of the LGBTQ movmement to promote sexual perversion to children. If Jennings and his fellow child indoctrinators ignored that law, they would be punished after doing so no matter if there were visible harm done at the time or not (it's against the law to falsely report a fire, it doesn't matter if chaos or anarchy didn't happen after the alarm was pulled).

Nobody ever said that you homosexual child indoctrinators are smart, but hopefully yet another explanation of how prior restraint laws could be used against child indoctrinators (i.e. molesters of the mind) has finally helped you understand that it could be used successfully.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Before I go into the long segment exposing Kevin "Fistgate" Jennings (who was "inspired to become a homosexual activist by Harry "NAMBLA walks with me" Hay),...


I'll have to be clear to the readers of this thread when you or Kit the Coyote use the term "sex education" in relation to the teachings of Kevin Jennings, GLSEN and the LGBTQ movement as a whole. For most people "sex education" doesn't involve teaching children how to safely learn to fist or perform urolagnia or coprophilia.

Fisting, urolagnia, and coprophilia were not planned subjects of the seminar you brought up. Fisting was brought into the discussion by a student. The speakers had promised to speak honestly about sex in that session tried to address it

The prosecution rests it's case: sexual perversion was "honestly" discussed with inquisitive youth by pro LGBTQueer adult educators.

But wait, there MUST be a disclaimer next:

and I will admit did so quite poorly.

Atta boy Kit, throw in a disclaimer to show how 'reasonable' LGBTQ'ers can be.

Both Jennings and GLSEN admitted that this went over the line and intended to set better limits on discussions in the future.

For those of you who don't understand LGBTQ doublespeak, it means that the child indoctrinators will be more careful next time not to get caught.

The other two subjects were not discussed at all according to MassResistance.

We'll go into what was taught at the conference in question, who was responsible for the cirriculum and what is currently being taught to youth by GLSEN and the child indoctrinators of the LGBTQ movement when I start the segment in the days to come.

This actually shows the problem with sex education in the US, there is no standard approach or curriculum on how to teach that subject. Thus we swing from the extremes of not teaching it at all or just saying don't do it to the opposite extreme we see in your example. Both of these do harm as teenagers and young adults start to have sex with the resulting issues of unwanted teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

Which is why for me at least, when I talk about comprehensive sex education I am talking about a well planned educational approach that is age appropriate and addresses what children need to know and are effective at reducing the problems we face.

Hence the reason I asked Arthur Brain, … Dante and you in the days to come to create scenarios where you would talk to a 'gay' youth about sex education. I'll counter by talking to a heterosexual youth about sex education.


Hold off on that scenario for now, as I have a few things to cover regarding Donald Trump and his LGBTQ ties, as well as Brett Kavanaugh's SCOTUS nomination.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Regarding SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

https://pointofview.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Kavanaugh-with-Trump.jpg

I must say that anyone that pro abortionist/pro homosexual President Donald Trump nominates for the Supreme Court would immediately raise my suspicion.

Let's see what the American Family Association has to say about Kavanaugh:

Evangelical Group Voices Opposition to Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court Nomination

July 11, 2018

While many conservative evangelical leaders and organizations have voiced their support President Donald Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace his former boss, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the U.S. Supreme Court, at least one conservative Christian group is voicing its concerns with the selection.
The American Family Association, an evangelical conservative nonprofit known for its staunch opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion that is accredited by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, wasted no time in issuing its disappointment with Monday night's nomination.

"Judge Kavanaugh's reasoning on religious liberty, Obamacare and issues concerning life have proven to be of major concern," AFA President Tim Wildmon said in a statement. "For these and other reasons, we are calling on citizens to urge their senators to firmly oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court."
Wildmon continued by saying that Kavanaugh, a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is the "wrong nominee" and even "a bad nominee."...

[But wait, there's more!]

Considering that Wildmon and the AFA are in the minority when it comes to evangelical organizations' opinions of Kavanaugh, the organization issued a clarification on Tuesday.
The statement released on Tuesday reads:
"AFA has opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court for some very valid reasons. We are deeply concerned about how he might ultimately rule on issues related to abortion and religious liberty. For these reasons, we consider this nomination to represent a four-star appointment when it could have been five-star.

Read more: https://www.christianpost.com/news/...t-kavanaughs-supreme-court-nomination-225951/

4 out of 5 stars for a pro abortion*, anti religious liberty, pro Obamacare SCOTUS nominee (is anyone starting to understand why I loooooooathe the AFA and other sell-outs to God and our once great country?).

*Trump's Court Pick Kavanaugh Believes Roe v. Wade Settled Law, Says Susan Collins
https://ijr.com/2018/08/1117833-collins-kavanaugh-roe-wade-abortion/

I am having fun watching the circus sideshow where Kavanaugh is being accused of sexual assault when he was in high school. Here's what I wrote in another forum:


Oh the hypocrisy of the Republicrat Party and it's Libertarian allies. It wasn't that long ago that Alabama US Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore was accused of sexual improprieties against several teenage girls that allegedly happened 40 years prior. Republicrats rushed to condemn Moore (Senator Ted Cruz included) even though the allegations were proven to be lies.
Why was Moore lying and Kavanaugh telling the truth? Certainly it wouldn't be because Moore is a God-fearing constitutional conservative while Kavanaugh belongs to the 'good ole boys' club?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Like the chaos and anarchy created by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one falls under prior restraint laws,

The classic crowded theatre example is not an example of prior restraint. It is an example of how speech has consequences. Prior restraint means that speech is restricted before it made and is very limited.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Hence the reason I asked Arthur Brain, … Dante and you in the days to come to create scenarios where you would talk to a 'gay' youth about sex education. I'll counter by talking to a heterosexual youth about sex education.

I can only address this as a personal conversation like father/son. I am not qualified to be a professional educator or counselor.
One of my sons being gay though I can speak from that experience but will address this how we addressed it to both our boys. I see no reason to discuss sex differently with your children be they gay, straight, boy or girl.

We always made sure that we answered any questions our boys had as honestly as possible, tailoring only for their age at the time.

We emphasized that sex is a very personal, special activity that should only be engaged in with someone they really knew well and had a long-term serious relationship with, ideally in marriage. We also emphasized as part of this that sexual relationships outside of such a relationship would be setting themselves and their partner up to be hurt.

When they approached puberty, we made sure they understood how sex worked, the risks of sexual diseases and how to practice safe sex.

We also emphasized, don't take what you hear from other kids or the internet at face value, going back to, they could ask us and we would answer honestly, even if we needed to research the answer together.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Like the chaos and anarchy created by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one falls under prior restraint laws,

The classic crowded theatre example is not an example of prior restraint. It is an example of how speech has consequences. Prior restraint means that speech is restricted before it made and is very limited.

Prior restraint laws should definitely be used against the LGBTQ movement when it comes to indoctrinating youth to the ways of sexual perversion.

Perhaps the doctrine of "Clear and Present Danger/Imminent Lawless Action" might also be a tool used for silencing the child indoctrinators at GLSEN and the entire LGBTQ movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

In any event, as I pointed out in earlier posts with the various laws already on the books, if enforced they would keep the LGBTQ movement from indoctrinating children to the ways of perversion.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Hence the reason I asked Arthur Brain, … Dante and you in the days to come to create scenarios where you would talk to a 'gay' youth about sex education. I'll counter by talking to a heterosexual youth about sex education.

I can only address this as a personal conversation like father/son. I am not qualified to be a professional educator or counselor.

If you're going to promote homosexuality to youth, and hence introduce them to the culture of death, you best "qualify" yourself to lie through your teeth without blinking an eye like professional educators and counselors who promote immoral/perverse sex do.

One of my sons being gay though I can speak from that experience but will address this how we addressed it to both our boys. I see no reason to discuss sex differently with your children be they gay, straight, boy or girl.

So you don't differentiate between homosexuality and heterosexuality nor would you speak to opposite genders differently about sexual relations?

We always made sure that we answered any questions our boys had as honestly as possible, tailoring only for their age at the time.

Keeping that last sentence in mind (which I'll answer with an *) let's move on to your next piece of advice:

We emphasized that sex is a very personal, special activity that should only be engaged in with someone they really knew well and had a long-term serious relationship with, ideally in marriage.

So out of wedlock sex is acceptable as long as they "know the person really well"? What's considered "long term"?. BTW, was "marriage" an option when this alleged talk with your alleged 'gay' son took place?

We also emphasized as part of this that sexual relationships outside of such a relationship would be setting themselves and their partner up to be hurt.

The real "hurt" is not telling your alleged son who allegedly is homosexual that emotionally, physically and spiritually the sexual desires that he has and the behavior that follows is literally a dead end for him.

When they approached puberty, we made sure they understood how sex worked, the risks of sexual diseases and how to practice safe sex.

*So you talked about HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, anal cancer, etc. etc. with your alleged 'gay' son as well using condoms and not engaging in high risk homosexual acts at age 9 or 10?

Average age of puberty 9 or 10 for US boys
https://www.webmd.com/children/news/20121020/earlier-puberty-age-9-10-average-us-boy#1

We also emphasized, don't take what you hear from other kids or the internet at face value, going back to, they could ask us and we would answer honestly, even if we needed to research the answer together.

I'd go with the kids on the internet over a parent who refuses to tell his alleged sons the truth.

You do realize that your advice lacks one important term that differentiates between life and death?

Moral absolutes.

When we get to the part where we'll provide a scenario to an inquisitive 'gay' youth and an inquisitive heterosexual youth, we'll discuss this further.

BTW, if I knew that I could chase Arthur Brain/...Dante off by suggesting that they provide a sex education scenario to a 'gay' youth, I would have brought the subject up much sooner.

 

[MrDante]

How about we do something "different" when I start the segment on homosexual indoctrination of children in schools?

How about you, ...Dante and Kit "...sob sob" the Coyote each present a scenario where you give a talk on sex education to a 'gay' youth, i.e. a youth with homosexual desires? I'll counter by giving a talk on sex education to youth who has heterosexual desires.

what about the youths that have both?

 

[MrDante]

Yes and I intended you to look it up in relation to censorship and the courts. I'm finding I have to be very specific in referencing things with you since you like to misrepresent anything said that doesn't match your viewpoint.



WOW, how long ago did I bring up prior restraint and censorship and you just NOW get it! Amazing. If you had brought this point up immediately we could have saved SO much time. Partly my fault as well I need to stop letting you push me down rabbit holes.

distraction and misdirection...it's what ACW does.

 

[MrDante]

Fisting, urolagnia, and coprophilia were not planned subjects of the seminar you brought up. Fisting was brought into the discussion by a student. The speakers had promised to speak honestly about sex in that session tried to address it and I will admit did so quite poorly.

I'm not sure they did it poorly. the response was entirely clinical, MassResistance heavily edited their tape to create false impressions and outrage.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

How about we do something "different" when I start the segment on homosexual indoctrination of children in schools?

How about you [Arthur Brain], ...Dante and Kit "...sob sob" the Coyote each present a scenario where you give a talk on sex education to a 'gay' youth, i.e. a youth with homosexual desires? I'll counter by giving a talk on sex education to youth who has heterosexual desires.

what about the youths that have both?

Bisexuality falls within the LGBT acronym. If you want to give sexual advice to a youth with bisexual desires in your scenario, feel free to do so.

You are going to partake in the scenario when the time comes aren't you ...Dante?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote
Fisting, urolagnia, and coprophilia were not planned subjects of the seminar you brought up. Fisting was brought into the discussion by a student. The speakers had promised to speak honestly about sex in that session tried to address it and I will admit did so quite poorly.

I'm not sure they did it poorly. the response was entirely clinical, MassResistance heavily edited their tape to create false impressions and outrage.

Is that what the LGBTQ movement is calling teaching sexual perversion to youth these days: "clinical sex education"?

Just so I can keep up with your undocumented allegations (bold faced lies) against Massresistance:

1). They "planted" a high school student inside the seminar and told him to ask about fisting.

2). They heavily edited the tape recorded inside a seminar to make it look like a seminar teaching crocheting to high school students really was lessons on teaching them sexually depraved acts (things that homosexuals do).


Did I miss anything else Alex Jones?

https://archive.4plebs.org/dl/pol/image/1459/29/1459291301798.jpg

 

[Kit the Coyote]

If you're going to promote homosexuality to youth, and hence introduce them to the culture of death, you best "qualify" yourself to lie through your teeth without blinking an eye like professional educators and counselors who promote immoral/perverse sex do.

Since the goal is not to promote any sexuality and avoiding the culture of death is addressed I don't see that lying is an issue. The most important thing is that your children see you as an honest source of information that they know they can come to and talk with confidence. Otherwise, you are driving them to more dangerous sources of information.

So you don't differentiate between homosexuality and heterosexuality nor would you speak to opposite genders differently about sexual relations?

On the subject of sex education, there is nothing homosexuals do that heterosexuals don't also do and I can think of no subject that should be exclusive to boy or girls. If we had daughters, we would likely have added a little extra emphasis on the risk of pregnancy but I think it is important for boys to understand that too.

So out of wedlock sex is acceptable as long as they "know the person really well"? What's considered "long-term"?. BTW, was "marriage" an option when this alleged talk with your alleged 'gay' son took place?

I wouldn't say it was 'acceptable' more an acknowledgment of reality. The sex out of wedlock taboo is long dead in our society with the NIH latest surveys showing that 75-80% of youth in the US are having sex before they are married. This incidentally is why abstinence-only until marriage education approach is failing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/

So while we did emphasis 'ideally in marriage', it was more important to teach to them that sex must be part of a serious relationship with someone you really care about and know well. This is part of avoiding that death culture you like to go on about.

Not only does this train them to avoid casual multi-partner sex but it also means that the people they do have sex with will be more likely to be the person they will marry in the long run.

No, marriage was not an option at the time and of course, we started talking sex with our boys before he came out to us. Another reason to focus on relationships. I was massively relieved that it is now an option.

The real "hurt" is not telling your alleged son who allegedly is homosexual that emotionally, physically and spiritually the sexual desires that he has and the behavior that follows is literally a dead end for him.

And drive him away from us to more dangerous sources of information? It is possible to be homosexual and not live the 'deathstyle' you go on about and that is what we emphasized with him. The focus on relationships and sex became even more important.

*So you talked about HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, anal cancer, etc. etc. with your alleged 'gay' son as well using condoms and not engaging in high-risk homosexual acts at age 9 or 10?

At ten we were still focusing on not having sex too early and stranger danger. But yes as they grew into their sexuality the dangers and risks associated with any sexual activity were emphasized and the importance of safe sex practices. We also emphasized again the importance of relationships and avoiding causal sex.

You do realize that your advice lacks one important term that differentiates between life and death?

Moral absolutes.

You asked specifically about sex education which is what I focused on. Moral and social behavior is a larger but related subject and they were part of our discussions. Particularly on the emphasis of relationships.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I'm not sure they did it poorly. the response was entirely clinical, MassResistance heavily edited their tape to create false impressions and outrage.

I sort of suspected as much, the MassResistance made a big deal about it yet it only seemed to amount to three lines of discussion.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I see that ...Dante wants to have me banned for saying this in an earlier post:

"Nobody ever said that you homosexual child indoctrinators are smart,"

I'll kindly ask TOL moderator Sherman to ban ...Dante from this thread as it appears as well as spreading lies about a pro traditional family values organization (Massrestistance) he wants the author of this thread silenced.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you're going to promote homosexuality to youth, and hence introduce them to the culture of death, you best "qualify" yourself to lie through your teeth without blinking an eye like professional educators and counselors who promote immoral/perverse sex do.

Since the goal is not to promote any sexuality and avoiding the culture of death is addressed I don't see that lying is an issue. The most important thing is that your children see you as an honest source of information that they know they can come to and talk with confidence. Otherwise, you are driving them to more dangerous sources of information.

If you're discussing homosexuality with youth and don't emphasize that it's physically, emotionally and spiritually deadly, you're not being honest with that youth (to put it mildly).


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So you don't differentiate between homosexuality and heterosexuality nor would you speak to opposite genders differently about sexual relations?

On the subject of sex education, there is nothing homosexuals do that heterosexuals don't also do and I can think of no subject that should be exclusive to boy or girls. If we had daughters, we would likely have added a little extra emphasis on the risk of pregnancy but I think it is important for boys to understand that too.

That lie again? Sure, a few heterosexuals engage in the perversions that the vast majority of homosexuals partake in (8 out of 10 homosexual males engage in buggery), as well as other sexually depraved acts, but they're your allies, not your opponent.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So out of wedlock sex is acceptable as long as they "know the person really well"? What's considered "long-term"?. BTW, was "marriage" an option when this alleged talk with your alleged 'gay' son took place?

I wouldn't say it was 'acceptable' more an acknowledgment of reality. The sex out of wedlock taboo is long dead in our society with the NIH latest surveys showing that 75-80% of youth in the US are having sex before they are married. This incidentally is why abstinence-only until marriage education approach is failing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/

Need I pull up abortion rates amongst out of wedlock sexual relationships? While Kinsey's propaganda has resulted in sexual promiscuity and sexual relations outside of marriage, that doesn't mean that the basis of human sexuality (marriage) is wrong.

...No, marriage was not an option at the time and of course, we started talking sex with our boys before he came out to us. Another reason to focus on relationships. I was massively relieved that it is now an option.

So you told your allegedly 'gay' son to wait until marriage before sex, even though marriage wasn't an option at the time?


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The real "hurt" is not telling your alleged son who allegedly is homosexual that emotionally, physically and spiritually the sexual desires that he has and the behavior that follows is literally a dead end for him.

And drive him away from us to more dangerous sources of information? It is possible to be homosexual and not live the 'deathstyle' you go on about and that is what we emphasized with him. The focus on relationships and sex became even more important.

What's better: a parent driving his alleged son to an early grave or the alleged child finding out on his own (through truthful parental advice) that homosexuality is a dead end behavior and lifestyle?


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
*So you talked about HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, anal cancer, etc. etc. with your alleged 'gay' son as well using condoms and not engaging in high-risk homosexual acts at age 9 or 10?

At ten we were still focusing on not having sex too early and stranger danger. But yes as they grew into their sexuality the dangers and risks associated with any sexual activity were emphasized and the importance of safe sex practices. We also emphasized again the importance of relationships and avoiding causal sex.

I wanted to be outside playing ball when I was 9, not being told about HIV/AIDS, gonorrhea and syphilis. Thanks for acknowledging that the LGBTQ movement steals the innocence away from children.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You do realize that your advice lacks one important term that differentiates between life and death?

Moral absolutes.

You asked specifically about sex education which is what I focused on. Moral and social behavior is a larger but related subject and they were part of our discussions. Particularly on the emphasis of relationships.

So you have no problem borrowing off Judeo-Christian moral absolutes, but putting your own little perverted twist on it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

How about we do something "different" when I start the segment on homosexual indoctrination of children in schools?

How about you [Arthur Brain], ...Dante and Kit "...sob sob" the Coyote each present a scenario where you give a talk on sex education to a 'gay' youth, i.e. a youth with homosexual desires? I'll counter by giving a talk on sex education to youth who has heterosexual desires.




Bisexuality falls within the LGBT acronym. If you want to give sexual advice to a youth with bisexual desires in your scenario, feel free to do so.

You are going to partake in the scenario when the time comes aren't you ...Dante?

I'm not writing out any loopy scenarios, that's your "job". I've never "indoctrinated" or given any advice on sexual matters to youths, gay or otherwise either.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Bisexuality falls within the LGBT acronym. If you want to give sexual advice to a youth with bisexual desires in your scenario, feel free to do so.

You are going to partake in the scenario when the time comes aren't you ...Dante?

I'm not writing out any loopy scenarios, that's your "job". I've never "indoctrinated" or given any advice on sexual matters to youths, gay or otherwise either.

(Hmmmm, Arthur Brain answers for ...Dante again. Interesting, very interesting).

Like I told Kit the Coyote: If you're going to support the term 'gay youth', at least give them some helpful advice when it comes to the perverse sex that they'll be engaging in.

I should note that you can open your scenario with "I'm straight" and throw that disclaimer in another dozen times so that it's perfectly clear that you are.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Bisexuality falls within the LGBT acronym. If you want to give sexual advice to a youth with bisexual desires in your scenario, feel free to do so.

You are going to partake in the scenario when the time comes aren't you ...Dante?




(Hmmmm, Arthur Brain answers for ...Dante again. Interesting, very interesting).

Like I told Kit the Coyote: If you're going to support the term 'gay youth', at least give them some helpful advice when it comes to the perverse sex that they'll be engaging in.

I should note that you can open your scenario with "I'm straight" and throw that disclaimer in another dozen times so that it's perfectly clear that you are.

Eh? You put my own username in your post ya big dope! :doh:

You're surely not again implying that posters are sock puppets of each other after Sherman set you straight on the matter how many times now?

:freak:

Sorry on the latter dude as it seems to be a constant source of irritation to you for some reason but straight, heterosexual, women only etc here is the way it is.