Who is Wade Englund?

[_Yoda]

Wait a minute. Wade said that he didn't like women who had the characteristics of being overly dramatic, gossipy, and catty. I don't like women, or men, for that matter, who act that way, either! And, yes, I do know gay men who tend to act this way.

I think that what Wade was saying is that these characteristics were bad...not that all women possessed them.

Wade? Am I being accurate, or not?

[_EAllusion]

Hey Beastie,

It turns out you did misread Wade a bit. The "Overly dramatic, vane, gossipy, and catty..." traits were ascribed to women. The "promiscuous, unfaithful, abusive, and self-centered" traits he attached to men. He was saying that gay men tend to be all of these. So his post was misogynist, misanthropic, and horribly bigoted towards gays. A rare trifecta few can consistently hit.

[_sock puppet]

Hey Beastie,

It turns out you did misread Wade a bit. The "Overly dramatic, vane, gossipy, and catty..." traits were ascribed to women. The "promiscuous, unfaithful, abusive, and self-centered" traits he attached to men. He was saying that gay men tend to be all of these. So his post was misogynist, misanthropic, and horribly bigoted towards gays. A rare trifecta few can consistently hit.

Wade only seems to have sufferance for and perhaps be attracted to himself.

[_ShadowFax]

by the way, some of you are misunderstanding one part of Wade's post. He wasn't saying women are promiscuous. He's saying women are attracted to promiscuous men.

Is this the statement you’re referring to?

In response to the question: You know Wade, what's wrong with promiscuous women?

They also tend to embrace the worst aspects of men: promiscuous, unfaithful, abusive, and self-centered. To be clear, I made no mention of promiscuous women. I was speaking about men.

Are you saying that his use of the word ‘embrace’ means “attraction to – accept or gravitate toward” men? In this case the focus would be on the male rather than picking up on the word “they” focusing on the woman completely changing Wades meaning.

Example number 55 indicating problematic communication with Wade.
I wish Wade would hand out a urrim and thummim with each post. Or a hat for better interpretation.

I suspect Wade doesn’t even know what he means.

Yesterday as I read George Reynolds 1879 apologist remarks about the Book of Abraham (see Consiglieri’s bulls-eye Book of Abraham thread) I recognized Wade’s mind pattern in Reynolds comments and writing style. There is a certain type of brain confusion that lacks simplicity evident in both writers. The confusion propels more confusion which doesn’t make sense. Then they get upset and undermine the reader for not understanding them, or believing in them or having faith – such is the style of Mormon apologists brain patterns and writing patterns.

[_EAllusion]

Wade only seems to have sufferance for and perhaps be attracted to himself.

One route this could go would be Wade trying to justify his stereotyping of gays in an effort to take heat off his negative stereotyping of women. After all, this was all part of a curiously wordy explanation about why he doesn't secretly want to hold and kiss other men and fall asleep in their strong, yet supple arms.

Wade is into bigoted crackpot "experts" on gays like Judith Reisman, Jeffery Satinover, and Paul Cameron. So he might try to cite some of their overinflated statistics on gay promiscuity. That could be a rabbit hole to chase down, as one would be tempted to reply to such pseudoscientific arguments. But it is true at the end of the day that gay men are statistically more likely to be promiscuous, so I don't see the point. After all, Wade said, "To make matters worse, the gay men I am familiar with tend to embrace rather than eshew the things about women that I find repelling. So, not only are gay men sexually un-intersting or repelling to me, some of their personality and character traits are also repelling to me."

If he had said that the poor blacks he knows tend to embrace traits of poor blacks he finds repelling, then later said what he mean was they tend to be criminals, we would have no trouble hearing what he was saying loud and clear. That he could cite statistics showing that poor blacks are much more prone to criminality wouldn't in anyway mitigate his statement about finding poor blacks repelling because of such traits. It's no different here. What Wade was saying was awful. It was misogynist to be sure, but it was only crude misogyny in an effort to slur gays.

[Gadianton]

Let me refer you to the previous page. When describing what traits you don't like in a woman you wrote:

They also tend to embrace the worst aspects of men: promiscuous, unfaithful, abusive, and self-centered.

By "they" you clearly meant women.

Let me refer you to the same previous page and put my statement into context:

To make matters worse, the gay men I am familiar with tend to embrace rather than eshew the things about women that I find repelling.

By "they", I am referring to gay men, though I can see how you would read it otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEuDDvqYbVw

[_Buffalo]

By "they", I am referring to gay men, though I can see how you would read it otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So what you're really looking for is a "bear."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_%28gay_culture%29

[_wenglund]

Well, as far as anything useful, yes, it does. Book learnin' isn't much help, when it comes to actual practice.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't love and intimacy key and useful aspects of marital sex? And, if so, does one necessarily have to have had sexual relations before they can be loving and intimate? Isn't it true that may know of and developed skills in these useful aspects of marital sex by way of practice, without intercourse, and not just through book learning?

Makes me wonder if you were avoiding the possibility of fathering children, instead of avoiding the emotional proximity with one woman.

My 32 nieces and nephews, the children of women I have dated over extended periods of time, and children of best friends, would resoundingly say otherwise. The fatherly aspects of marital/familial relations is an area I am particularly gifted in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_schreech]

If I generally don't have to tell people that they are misconstruing what I say (which I don't), but tend only to find myself, as well as other believers, in that unpleasant situation among a small group of vocal disbelievers and aggitators against my faith, it is reasonable to consider the distinct probability that the problem lay with them. The "problem", in such cases, isn't so much with miscommunications (which are reasonably expected to occur from time to time and may be the fault of all parties--including me), but the inability to correct the mis-communications when they occur due not only to a remarkable unwillingness on their part to listen and understand (typical for closed minds), but also a seeming pathology to speak for me and put words into my mouth, absurdly thinking they know better than me what I mean and say. By far, no one over the years has been a worse offender than Beastie. She is nothing short of phenominal.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Lol - this post, better than anything else you have posted, helps me understand why remain alone and celibate...Everything you just posted confirms the suspicions I mentioned in the previous post...Yes, wade, keep telling yourself that its not your fault that nobody understands you (by the way, just look at how many times you told people they misunderstood or misconstrued what you were saying on the previous page...)...Yes, wade, men and women occasionally mis-understand each other and its not because the women you associate with have "closed minds"...

Wade, its you...just accept it...Its sad to me that you are in your 50s and nobody has told you this....