Rick & Cyndi wrote:
> "Bob Myers" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> wrote in message
groups.com...
>>
>>>I firmly believe thats one sexual orientation is not a reason to get
>>>attention. It is the work that produces results, like in this case
>>>COOKING. I am glad that you guys think the same as well.
>>
>>Ronnie, I just wanted to confirm that I could not possibly agree
>>more. I don't care if a person's sexual preferences are for men,
>>women, Martians, or whatever - I just don't see how any of this
>>is a relevant part of choosing who should have a COOKING
>>show!
>>
>>Bob M.
>>
>>===========
>
>
> Quite frankly, I don't see why anybody's sexual preference must be known -
> at all!! It bothers me when people get on TV or seek other forms of media
> and practically shout to the world that they like to have sex with whomever
> they're having sex with. And I really don't think many others enjoy hearing
> about it either. Do any of you really want me to jump and shout about the
> fact that I have sex with my husband? No. Most likely not. Perhaps if I
> were "demonstrating what I do" and you enjoyed viewing that people having
> sex - well, that's a whole 'nother ball game...
>
> Regardless, if you can cook on a TV show - then cook on a TV show but don't
> tell me who and what you like to "do". I'm not interested. Your sex life
> if 'your' business and should be kept as 'your' business.
>

so you never hold your husband's hand, or-goodness- kiss him in public?
You never refer to him by an appelation that is clearly meant to express
wifely devotion or what have you?


--

saerah

"It's not a gimmick, it's an incentive."- asterbark, afca

aware of the manifold possibilities of the future

"I think there's a clause in the Shaman's and Jujumen's Local #57 Union
contract that they have to have reciprocity for each other's shop rules."
-König Prüß