What's the MOTIVE?

[Browne]

In our sexually polarized world, media presents to us constantly a world divided sexually between straight people's points of view and gay people's points of view about what is morally or ethically proper. They may mention "bisexuals" or any other flavor of the "non-straight" variety, but "bisexuals" are often (mistakenly) just lumped into the "non-straight" end of the pole.

The act of media continually prodding the populace on sexual issues between straights and non-staights generates negative ENERGY. It generates a LOT of negative energy. And who benefits from this negative energy? I suppose anyone who wishes to keep people DIVIDED would benefit.

Now I've read that it is thought that most people are in their very nature "bisexual" to some degree or another.

What would the world look like if people were ALLOWED to live their life by their TRUE nature?

Is the continual generation of negative energy around the subject what's preventing such a world from manifesting?

in my mind, if there are people who are benefitting from keeping people polarized, than it makes sense to me that "bisexual" people (theoretically the largest sexual classification of people on the planet) would be public enemy number one, simply because they are naturally more balanced (not polarized) people who have the ability to UNDERSTAND both sexes. So if the polarization ends, then the negative energy surrounding the topic of sexuality ends.

So if all of this is true, wouldn't it make sense for those who benefit from the production of negative energy, to attempt to make bisexuality look bad in order to disused people from recognizing and more importantly living in their true nature?

Has anybody ever witnessed for themselves someone who attempts to make bisexuality look like a negative lifestyle?


------

[tenni]

Interesting thoughts with a variety of assumptions that may or may not be valid. The most important questionable assumption to me is that bisexuals are the largest sexuality group. Heterosexuals are the largest sexuality group and I have read that bisexuality is the largest non heterosexual group.

I’m not convinced that “media’ is prodding the populace on sexual issues. It may be the culture of the society that is reflecting attitudes and values about sexuality. The changes within a society may be reported by media. I would suspect a conflict about values and attitudes of the status quo compared to change may bring negative resistance about several values. Whether they be morality about sex and sexuality or towards other racial, religious groups, xenophobia towards those not like “us” may be the root of negativity.

Islamophobia has been a major negativity that has come forward in several societies recently. It has been focused on face coverings as well as extremist radicals perverting islam to create false assumptions that create a politics of fear. Who profits by keeping a society controlled by a politics of fear? It is an interesting question. On the morality issue it may be the military industries. I heard recently that since its creation that the USA has only had seven years without being at war somewhere in the world. I'm sure many would argue with that point just as they argue about what is behind morality and sexuality. Some might argue that it is religious organizations that profit from keeping a politics of fear (xenophobia) opposing sexual morals changing.

Have I witnessed someone attempt to make bisexuality look negative? Yes, it shows on this site quite often. It is thread after thread of porn presenting itself as bisexuality or those who post about monogamy and bisexuality. This reflects an unresolved values conflict as to just what bisexual morality is imo.

The defining of just what is positive about bisexual people and how they differ in values and attitudes from monosexuals is not clear to me. Forces that want bisexuality to maintain a heterosexual monosexual value system seem strong on this site and society. It was homosexuals themselves who argued that they were just like heterosexuals to win acceptance (same sex marriage morality issue). Many bisexuals still identify with many values that are mainstream heterosexually based. Is that due to negative energy? I do not know. It is not the sexuality as much as the people who identify with the sexuality that creates tension.

Thoughts to ponder what the world might be if not monosexually based.

[Browne]

Interesting thoughts with a variety of assumptions that may or may not be valid. The most important questionable assumption to me is that bisexuals are the largest sexuality group. Heterosexuals are the largest sexuality group and I have read that bisexuality is the largest non heterosexual group.

I’m not convinced that “media’ is prodding the populace on sexual issues. It may be the culture of the society that is reflecting attitudes and values about sexuality. The changes within a society may be reported by media. I would suspect a conflict about values and attitudes of the status quo compared to change may bring negative resistance about several values. Whether they be morality about sex and sexuality or towards other racial, religious groups, xenophobia towards those not like “us” may be the root of negativity. Islamophobia has been a major negativity that has come forward in several societies and focused on face coverings as well as extremist radicals perverting islam to create false assumptions that create a politics of fear.

Have I witnessed someone attempt to make bisexuality look negative? Yes, it shows on this site quite often. Wether it is thread after thread of porn presenting itself as bisexuality or those who use to rant about monogamy and bisexuality reflect an unresolved conflict as to just what bisexual morality is imo.

The defining of just what is positive about bisexual people and how they differ in values and attitudes from monosexuals is not clear. Forces who want bisexuality to maintain a heterosexual monosexual value system seem strong. Most bisexuals still identify with many values that are mainstream heterosexual based. Is that due to negative energy, I do not know. Thoughts to ponder what the world might be if not monosexually based.

Thanks tenni and a few thoughts that pop into my mind after reading your post is how many heterosexual people are classifying themselves as such due to social pressure, while repressing bisexual thoughts. And is the media an entity that can be trusted to be fair and balanced without any motivation of their own getting in the way? Media is a powerful entity and power corrupts people. I think the idea that media is manipulating people rather than serving them with their best interests in mind, makes people who have "trusted" media their whole lives to be threatened by that idea to the point where they cannot face it.


------

[tenni]

Hard
In your society perhaps more than some other western societies, the media has become entertainment based on rating and profit for the owners of the media. Recently, a CEO in Canada whose company owned a television station sent a memo to the chair of the news section telling them not to report on an issues that the CEO did not support. Other news organizations did report it. The CEO was not in any way a journalist. This was made public and the CEO had to apologize. What is news and the government or commerce who decide what is covered and what is not reported has been a long time question. During the Iraq war governments censored and controlled the media. Lies were promoted in your country while Britain, Canada and other European news organizations did report differently. Some argued that they had freedom of speech when we really have freedom to remain ignorant. In today's world with the internet some might argue that no government can completely control their society with politics of fear. Some might argue that we are controlled. Recently, I read that the majority in the USA support same sex marriage. Other societies reached this tipping point long before the US. Still the US morality is changing about same sex marriage. How did this happen?

[Browne]

Hard
In your society perhaps more than some other western societies, the media has become entertainment based on rating and profit for the owners of the media. Recently, a CEO in Canada whose company owned a television station sent a memo to the chair of the news section telling them not to report on an issues that the CEO did not support. Other news organizations did report it. The CEO was not in any way a journalist. This was made public and the CEO had to apologize. What is news and the government or commerce who decide what is covered and what is not reported has been a long time question. During the Iraq war governments censored and controlled the media. Lies were promoted.

I think your post here is suggestive of a few things. First would be the power structure, in which media is a part of, is a structure based upon compartmentalization, meaning that lower levels of the power structure are ignorant to what upper levels of the power structure's motives are. For instance Brian Williams has his place within the power structure of Western Media. Yet he is subservient to his bosses wishes. The second would be that this sort of corruption has an epicenter within my country, and although I would agree that we probably have the most effective media when it comes to propagandizing stories or ideas, other countries in the world do it to, albeit to a much lesser degree than here.


------

[Cum1st]

I see moderation on former attitudes. It used to be that a man discovered to have had a cock in his mouth was a fuckin' queer, light in the loafers... "Once a cock sucker, always a cocksucker."

Making overt advances on the wrong man could lead to being assaulted by a "queer puncher" considered by some to be a "latent homosexual".

I don't see the need to define. By definition I'm bisexual. In my mind I'm turned on by men and women.

Sliding off the subject, why are people defined like paint? Add a little burnt umber to a can of white paint and you have brown or at least off white.

[pole_smoker]

Have I witnessed someone attempt to make bisexuality look negative? Yes, it shows on this site quite often. It is thread after thread of porn presenting itself as bisexuality or those who post about monogamy and bisexuality. This reflects an unresolved values conflict as to just what bisexual morality is imo.



:rolleyes: LMAO Tenni there you go yet again with how you are a prude and don't like porn or bisexual adults discussing sex...despite being a huge player, and how you love to be a bi or gay married man's booty call, cum dumpster, or side piece LMAO! Get over yourself, you're one of the biggest trolls, and queens here that loves to make huge issues out of nothing and pretend that bisexuals are all professional victims like you are.

Next thing you know you'll do the same old tiresome song and dance about how people who are "monosexual" or gay/lesbian, or heterosexual are "the enemy" or simply don't like or understand bisexual people, or bisexuality which is total bullshit.

[charles-smythe]

In our sexually polarized world, media presents to us constantly a world divided sexually between straight people's points of view and gay people's points of view about what is morally or ethically proper. They may mention "bisexuals" or any other flavor of the "non-straight" variety, but "bisexuals" are often (mistakenly) just lumped into the "non-straight" end of the pole.

The act of media continually prodding the populace on sexual issues between straights and non-staights generates negative ENERGY. It generates a LOT of negative energy. And who benefits from this negative energy? I suppose anyone who wishes to keep people DIVIDED would benefit.

Now I've read that it is thought that most people are in their very nature "bisexual" to some degree or another.

What would the world look like if people were ALLOWED to live their life by their TRUE nature?

Is the continual generation of negative energy around the subject what's preventing such a world from manifesting?

in my mind, if there are people who are benefitting from keeping people polarized, than it makes sense to me that "bisexual" people (theoretically the largest sexual classification of people on the planet) would be public enemy number one, simply because they are naturally more balanced (not polarized) people who have the ability to UNDERSTAND both sexes. So if the polarization ends, then the negative energy surrounding the topic of sexuality ends.

So if all of this is true, wouldn't it make sense for those who benefit from the production of negative energy, to attempt to make bisexuality look bad in order to disused people from recognizing and more importantly living in their true nature?

Has anybody ever witnessed for themselves someone who attempts to make bisexuality look like a negative lifestyle?


------...no...

[tenni]

Rule 2 should be followed by all including gentlemen and ladies. :)



2 - Be polite. Flame the idea if you feel you must, but not the person.

[jem_is_bi]

Rule 2 should be followed by all including gentlemen and ladies. :)



2 - Be polite. Flame the idea if you feel you must, but not the person.


There is someone that does the negative of that rule as often as possible.

[pole_smoker]

Rule 2 should be followed by all including gentlemen and ladies. :)



2 - Be polite. Flame the idea if you feel you must, but not the person.


Try actually not being a total hypocrite for once.


There is someone that does the negative of that rule as often as possible.
Indeed. It's Tenni.

[Long Duck Dong]

In our sexually polarized world, media presents to us constantly a world divided sexually between straight people's points of view and gay people's points of view about what is morally or ethically proper. They may mention "bisexuals" or any other flavor of the "non-straight" variety, but "bisexuals" are often (mistakenly) just lumped into the "non-straight" end of the pole.

The act of media continually prodding the populace on sexual issues between straights and non-staights generates negative ENERGY. It generates a LOT of negative energy. And who benefits from this negative energy? I suppose anyone who wishes to keep people DIVIDED would benefit.

Now I've read that it is thought that most people are in their very nature "bisexual" to some degree or another.

What would the world look like if people were ALLOWED to live their life by their TRUE nature?

Is the continual generation of negative energy around the subject what's preventing such a world from manifesting?

in my mind, if there are people who are benefitting from keeping people polarized, than it makes sense to me that "bisexual" people (theoretically the largest sexual classification of people on the planet) would be public enemy number one, simply because they are naturally more balanced (not polarized) people who have the ability to UNDERSTAND both sexes. So if the polarization ends, then the negative energy surrounding the topic of sexuality ends.

So if all of this is true, wouldn't it make sense for those who benefit from the production of negative energy, to attempt to make bisexuality look bad in order to disused people from recognizing and more importantly living in their true nature?

Has anybody ever witnessed for themselves someone who attempts to make bisexuality look like a negative lifestyle?


------


It is always easier to look at black and white than the grey area........

Bisexuals tend to be unique in that they are the most diverse group of the 3 major sexuality, so we are one side, the other side and also in the middle and any statement about bisexuals, tends to misrepresent a part of the bisexual community that does not fit the statement.

It is really no different to the people that are trying to shoehorn bisexuality into something akin to people that are attracted to males and females and are not monogamous / do require a open relationship or marriage in order to be happy.... that may be true of some of us but its about as true as gay males are into anal and that lesbians hate males and penetrative sex..... part of the gay male and lesbian community may fit that statement, others do not......

The reason why its easier to use the black and white stance is because it is the furthest distance from ourselves and allows for a stronger argument.

Imagine targeting a bisexual person for their act of enjoying oral and anal sex with another male... and having them say well your wife did not complain when she pegged me...... and there is also the understanding that some heterosexual ( generally male ) people want a partner ( generally female ) to be bisexual in the bedroom... so shitting in their own nest is not on the list of things to do and so their opinions about people is generally confined to the people that they would not want in their bedroom with their female partner ( generally males )... so the battle lines are too closely drawn for people to to really use bisexuals as a weapon or support in a debate.

What would the world look like if everybody would be able to reveal their true nature ? a royal mess..... because then it would become about a sense of entitlement ( I am bisexual, I am attracted to males and females, my partner is not interested in joining in or sharing me, they are wrong, I am right threads )...... its a indication that even within a world of open sexuality, that the world will still not be perfect because of the differences in each person.......

Attempts to make bisexuality a negative lifestyle ? well if you count the people that have tried to portray bisexuality monogamy as a negative aspect of the bisexual lifestyle ? yes..... but to be dead honest, the biggest negative aspect of bisexuality, is the idea that bisexuals are people that are deceitful liars that will cheat on their partners, that is true of some bisexuals but not bisexuals as a whole...... and when its defended in the site, then yes the impression to people can be that bisexuals do not regard that as wrong but something bisexuals need to do in other to have their cake and eat it.
That is not a attack on anybody at all, BTW, just in case its used against me in yet another personal attack by some members of this site......

I personally think that the best way to present bisexuality is as a very diverse sexuality that can encompass attractions to males, females and trans, intersex etc, in a platonic or sexual sense that differs from person to person by way of monogamy, non monogamy, poly and open relationships and marriages...... and what makes us different from heterosexuals and gay . lesbian people, is merely the fact our attraction is not limited to people of the same or opposition gender, it embraces them both.....

But that blurs too many lines and puts some of us in the hetero camp and others in the gay / lesbian camp, so we become the ally that people want in their camp for added numbers and support but do not want us in their camp when they have their rights because we are not them.

[kikigrace]

In the original comment Hardcell proposes that bisexuals have the capacity to understand the other sex better than heterosexuals...(for some reason I can't get my computer to cut and paste the way others do). I found this interesting, but in my experience untrue. I am a "mostly heterosexual" female married to a "very bisexual" male, and in the beginning I thought that yes, his bisexuality would give him something of a more feminine perspective. But now I think I thought that out of some kind of myth about "gay" people. Yes, he is better at communication and understanding and expressing emotions than most men, but I don't think that is because of his sexuality. In the end, we have found it just as hard to "understand" each other as any other man and woman, I think. He may be attracted to men, but he is still 100% a man, and I think the quality of his sexuality is much more similar to that of most men than it is to a women's. The typical reasons...more visually stimulated, more able to separate out the "physical" side of sex from the emotional side (compared to most women- I am generalizing of course), I don't know- the stereotypical things. And the same for non- "bedroom" types of things. The only area I see a significant difference from other straight men I have been with is that he seems to be less jealous. But I don't think this is due to his bisexuality. Do gay people really understand the opposite sex better? An interesting question. I feel like in my parents generation the "typical" gay male enjoyed more "feminine" activities perhaps- cooking, gardening, fashion- my mother had gay male friends who she adored for those very reasons- but today it seems like that is only one "type" of a gay male. Just because you LIKE penises and male energy doesn't automatically make you "more like a woman". Anyway, that is just my personal perspective. Interesting discussion! Especially for one such as me that is really working hard right now to "understand" my husband :) I put that in quotes because at first I really thought I was trying to understand "bisexuality", but now I understand more it is really just a human being I am trying to understand. I am coming to think that monogamy is no more hard or unfulfilling for a straight, gay, or bi, or anything else person.

[Browne]

I see moderation on former attitudes. It used to be that a man discovered to have had a cock in his mouth was a fuckin' queer, light in the loafers... "Once a cock sucker, always a cocksucker."

Making overt advances on the wrong man could lead to being assaulted by a "queer puncher" considered by some to be a "latent homosexual".

I don't see the need to define. By definition I'm bisexual. In my mind I'm turned on by men and women.

Sliding off the subject, why are people defined like paint? Add a little burnt umber to a can of white paint and you have brown or at least off white.

Well I think the "need to define" is a common affliction with far too many people who practice the art of judging or classifying someone or something from afar, which is one of the most easiest things to do in life. But getting to know the person or the situation so as to attain a much more accurate representation? Ain't nobody got time for THAT! Especially these days, eh? But I would have to agree that the attitudes have changed over the last few decades. Might that be a product of the decay of religion that has taken place in the same timespan? Maybe.

Thanks for the post!


------

[Browne]

What would the world look like if everybody would be able to reveal their true nature ? a royal mess.....

i sometimes wonder if such a thing took place that the universe would simply end, haha! Because it would be the end of "good" and "evil". Because there wouldn't be anymore polarity for friction to occur. I think something pretty radical would need to happen though, in order for such a world to come to be. We'd definitely need to shift out of the current mental state we have now, which is ego driven, to a state more altruistic and not so self centric.



...... and what makes us different from heterosexuals and gay . lesbian people, is merely the fact our attraction is not limited to people of the same or opposition gender, it embraces them both.....

And this can reflect our inner BIology because both men and women have masculine and feminine attributes. Our brains and the picture of the world they give to you, whether or not you're a man or woman, are a synthesis of logic and intuition.


------

[Browne]

In the original comment Hardcell proposes that bisexuals have the capacity to understand the other sex better than heterosexuals...(for some reason I can't get my computer to cut and paste the way others do). I found this interesting, but in my experience untrue. I am a "mostly heterosexual" female married to a "very bisexual" male, and in the beginning I thought that yes, his bisexuality would give him something of a more feminine perspective. But now I think I thought that out of some kind of myth about "gay" people. Yes, he is better at communication and understanding and expressing emotions than most men, but I don't think that is because of his sexuality. In the end, we have found it just as hard to "understand" each other as any other man and woman, I think. He may be attracted to men, but he is still 100% a man, and I think the quality of his sexuality is much more similar to that of most men than it is to a women's. The typical reasons...more visually stimulated, more able to separate out the "physical" side of sex from the emotional side (compared to most women- I am generalizing of course), I don't know- the stereotypical things. And the same for non- "bedroom" types of things. The only area I see a significant difference from other straight men I have been with is that he seems to be less jealous. But I don't think this is due to his bisexuality. Do gay people really understand the opposite sex better? An interesting question. I feel like in my parents generation the "typical" gay male enjoyed more "feminine" activities perhaps- cooking, gardening, fashion- my mother had gay male friends who she adored for those very reasons- but today it seems like that is only one "type" of a gay male. Just because you LIKE penises and male energy doesn't automatically make you "more like a woman". Anyway, that is just my personal perspective. Interesting discussion! Especially for one such as me that is really working hard right now to "understand" my husband :) I put that in quotes because at first I really thought I was trying to understand "bisexuality", but now I understand more it is really just a human being I am trying to understand. I am coming to think that monogamy is no more hard or unfulfilling for a straight, gay, or bi, or anything else person.


Well although the capacity to understand the aspects of both the sexes in a more conscious manner might be there, it doesn't necessarily mean that any given bisexual will apply themselves that way. I just see it as a situation where there's more potential for understanding as compared to sexually polarized person. We don't think of FACTS when we think of sex, but FACTS can be viewed as a masculine attribute. We might not think of FEELINGS when we think of sex, but FEELINGS are typically thought of as a feminine attribute. So it sounds like your husband might be doing this sort of inner connection between sexual attributes. He probably just has not articulated it to himself that he is doing it.


------

[Cum1st]

(for some reason I can't get my computer to cut and paste the way others do).

Hi kikigrace and fortunate husband:

Very perceptive and from the heart.

To quote a post click "Reply With Quote" in the lower right hand corner of that post. The text of the post will appear in a reply box with a bracketed prefix and suffix. The brackets and characters in them are code and must remain. I deleted parts of the body of your post to focus on the subject I am addressing (not because I didn't like it).

Hope this helps.

[tenni]

Try actually not being a total hypocrite for once.


Indeed. It's Tenni.


Rule 2 violation.
Discuss the issue not the person.

[pole_smoker]

Rule 2 violation.
Discuss the issue not the person.
:rolleyes: You're one to talk, you violate this "rule" all the time.

[tenni]

:rolleyes: You're one to talk, you violate this "rule" all the time.

Please feel welcome to point out when I violate the rule 2 in your opinion the next time you notice it.

Remember to discuss the issue and not flame the poster. In other words, do not refer to me directly but the issue. Jem did this in post 10. It was pole who attacked his belief that it was me...that is flaming a poster. Jem did not violate rule 2.

Now, let's return to the thread topic about motive.

[pole_smoker]

Please feel welcome to point out when I violate the rule 2 in your opinion the next time you notice it.

Remember to discuss the issue and not flame the poster. In other words, do not refer to me directly but the issue. Jem did this in post 10. It was pole who attacked his belief that it was me...that is flaming a poster. Jem did not violate rule 2.

Now, let's return to the thread topic about motive.
You've done it all the time and frequently do it on this website. There's no need to point it out since you constantly do it; but that's not surprising since you're a troll in all meanings of the word.

[charles-smythe]

In the original comment Hardcell proposes that bisexuals have the capacity to understand the other sex better than heterosexuals...(for some reason I can't get my computer to cut and paste the way others do). I found this interesting, but in my experience untrue. I am a "mostly heterosexual" female married to a "very bisexual" male, and in the beginning I thought that yes, his bisexuality would give him something of a more feminine perspective. But now I think I thought that out of some kind of myth about "gay" people. Yes, he is better at communication and understanding and expressing emotions than most men, but I don't think that is because of his sexuality. In the end, we have found it just as hard to "understand" each other as any other man and woman, I think. He may be attracted to men, but he is still 100% a man, and I think the quality of his sexuality is much more similar to that of most men than it is to a women's. The typical reasons...more visually stimulated, more able to separate out the "physical" side of sex from the emotional side (compared to most women- I am generalizing of course), I don't know- the stereotypical things. And the same for non- "bedroom" types of things. The only area I see a significant difference from other straight men I have been with is that he seems to be less jealous. But I don't think this is due to his bisexuality. Do gay people really understand the opposite sex better? An interesting question. I feel like in my parents generation the "typical" gay male enjoyed more "feminine" activities perhaps- cooking, gardening, fashion- my mother had gay male friends who she adored for those very reasons- but today it seems like that is only one "type" of a gay male. Just because you LIKE penises and male energy doesn't automatically make you "more like a woman". Anyway, that is just my personal perspective. Interesting discussion! Especially for one such as me that is really working hard right now to "understand" my husband :) I put that in quotes because at first I really thought I was trying to understand "bisexuality", but now I understand more it is really just a human being I am trying to understand. I am coming to think that monogamy is no more hard or unfulfilling for a straight, gay, or bi, or anything else person. …that sounds a lot like my experience too…I’ve expected bi-sexual girls to relate more to my bisexuality…not so…straight girls actually seem to relate better…the average bi girl doesn’t like bi guys…the tolerant bi girls on this site are the exception…

[charles-smythe]

:rolleyes: You're one to talk, you violate this "rule" all the time. …I’m afraid he’s right…no longer than I’ve been here it’s easy to see that no matter what side he picks you attack him…you try to be slick about it…but you still attack him…

[charles-smythe]

Please feel welcome to point out when I violate the rule 2 in your opinion the next time you notice it.

Remember to discuss the issue and not flame the poster. In other words, do not refer to me directly but the issue. Jem did this in post 10. It was pole who attacked his belief that it was me...that is flaming a poster. Jem did not violate rule 2.

Now, let's return to the thread topic about motive. …If you doubt that you attack him…try going for a week without commenting on ANY of his posts…

[Melody Dean]

…that sounds a lot like my experience too…I’ve expected bi-sexual girls to relate more to my bisexuality…not so…straight girls actually seem to relate better…the average bi girl doesn’t like bi guys…


I disagr---


…the tolerant bi girls on this site are the exception…


Nevermind.

[tenni]

…If you doubt that you attack him…try going for a week without commenting on ANY of his posts…


Charles Please monitor Pole to see that he does not violate rule 2 by flaming anyone nor refer to any particular person in a derogatory personal slur (includes use of LOL with copying what someone posts).

Let us know if he can do that for a week.

Here are a flaming by pol within the past few minutes.

"Yeah...like a talking head libtart like Stewart actually gave a shit about Baltimore at all before any of this happened. http://www.bisexual.com/forum//images/smilies/rolleyes.png"

[pole_smoker]

wthout becoming sophmoric. I did not refer to him specifically on this thread. I did not state that he hated women etc.

...I will only comment on the idea and not the person. He is such an enthusiastic poster it would be nearly impossible not to respond to a thread that he has not offferred an opinion or slur.
:rolleyes: Now you're making up excuses for stalking and trolling me.