In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> engagement and wrote:
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >>engagement and wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>You continue to find ways to
> >>>>>engage me -- a known homosexual.
> >>>>
> >>>>And your point is?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You prefer my e-company to that of masculine and/or heterosexual
> >>>engagements.
> >>
> >>False dilemma.
> >
> >
> > I stand corrected. Rudy, you have the option of dozens, hundreds and
> > even thousands of activities today. Your choice is to spend your time
> > communicating with a self-acknowledge *** man.
>
> So?

And you continue to provide opportunities for me to continue disucssing
your sexual identity. Asking a question typically invites a response. As
scented as pointed out, you do seem obsessive. I am hoping to show you
that it is acceptable to disclose your sexuality publicly.

> > I choose to spend my time
> > with a man who appears to be, based on the evidence, struggling with his
> > sexuality.
>
> Weak insult. I'm not insulted, Ron, because I know
> you're just attempting insult, for want of any adult
> thing to say.

Like a small percentage of the popular, I find your behaviour similar to
theirs. There is the false bravado of masculinity of being negative with
*** men, only to disguise a desire to connect with them.

My experience of heterosexual males is that they tolerate and accept my
presence, it is only those who actively seek out my engagement that
allows me to ponder the true nature of their sexuality.

Understandably, we live in a sexually repressive and religiously
dominated culture with all sorts of negative messages. I can understand
your reluctance to declare your interest in men. Given the possibility
of your prior sexual abuse having been raised, I can further understand
your reluctance to be open with another male. That was then, this is now.