Who is Wade Englund?

[_beastie]

Going back to All Things Wade...

perhaps a more appopriate question for Wade would be: have you ever struggled with same-sex attraction?

See, Wade, in the past, has acted like a reformed smoker - someone who kicked the habit and then bugs other smokers to quit too. Or someone who has struggled with weight and then manages to lose twenty pounds and then preaches and lectures others who struggle with their weight. It's one thing to be "repelled" by gay men - to be frank, I imagine that feeling is not uncommon in straight men, particularly older straight men (it appears that my sons' generation is much more at ease with their gay friends). It's quite another to create a fake "center" to study the issue, and then to pretend to represent that "center" by going to chat boards specifically designated for gay men, and try to initiate discussions with them and get them to read the "center's" website. That is extremely odd behavior for someone who has never struggled with "same-sex attraction."

[_RockSlider]

That is extremely odd behavior..

We'll there we go, te question of the thread summarized quite nicely.

Wade is a man with some extremely odd behaviors.

[_harmony]

Wade is a man with some extremely odd behaviors.

I sincerely hope so, because if his behavior is the norm in whatever group he's part of... well, I'm going to have to seriously rethink some things.

[_wenglund]

For some of you this will prove pointless, but I thought I would at least make an attempt to correct certain misperceptions.

My amusement at the rank hypocracy here, and my not traking myself and others here all that seriously, should not be construed to mean that I regret in the least or don't firmly believe what I daid about men, women, and gays. I don't regret it and I do firmly believe what I said..

Do I think all men are promiscuous and so forth and all women are overly dramatic. No. There are some who don't possess those characteristic, and many others who have risen above their inclinations. In fact, this is, in part, why it is good for men and women to be together, since they have a way of temporing the less flatter characteristics in each other. Sadly, the opposite is true for gay men.

Do I think the listed characteristics define men, women, and gays. No. the listed characteristic are but a fraction of their respective overall character makeup.

So, was I steroetyping. Not at all. I was generalizing in much the same way that several of you have generalized. After all, the question about my sexual orientation, nor considerations of presumed oddities, would have never arisen absent generalizations.

Could I be wrong in my generalizations? Sure. However, I beleive there are social science statistics and/or cultural artifacts that support my perception.

Was I attempting to be mean and prejudicial to these groups of people. No. My comments were made in passing and in response to quiries. I have observed and mentioned the characteristics, not with the intent of derision, but rather for the purpose of personal and societal progression. As Dr. Phil is fond of saying, you cannot change what you do not acknowledge.

Now, back to the Wade roast.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

Wade-

I actually understood what you meant, and had no problem with the context of your comments.

However, I am confused about your prior website involving the studies of gay men, and your further behavior that Beastie mentioned, regarding participating in gay male chartrooms, and trying to convince these men to change their ways.

This appears to be quite a crusade that you had engaged in.

I really did not "meet" you on the boards until a few years ago. This other website of yours was really long dead. However, Beastie and others have referred to it.

For those of us who really didn't "know" you when you were involved in all of this, would you mind filling us in?

What was it, specifically, that prompted you to create this website?

[_Baker]

For some of you this will prove pointless, but I thought I would at least make an attempt to correct certain misperceptions.

My amusement at the rank hypocracy here, and my not traking myself and others here all that seriously, should not be construed to mean that I regret in the least or don't firmly believe what I daid about men, women, and gays. I don't regret it and I do firmly believe what I said..

Do I think all men are promiscuous and so forth and all women are overly dramatic. No. There are some who don't possess those characteristic, and many others who have risen above their inclinations. In fact, this is, in part, why it is good for men and women to be together, since they have a way of temporing the less flatter characteristics in each other. Sadly, the opposite is true for gay men.

Do I think the listed characteristics define men, women, and gays. No. the listed characteristic are but a fraction of their respective overall character makeup.

So, was I steroetyping. Not at all. I was generalizing in much the same way that several of you have generalized. After all, the question about my sexual orientation, nor considerations of presumed oddities, would have never arisen absent generalizations.

Could I be wrong in my generalizations? Sure. However, I beleive there are social science statistics and/or cultural artifacts that support my perception.

Was I attempting to be mean and prejudicial to these groups of people. No. My comments were made in passing and in response to quiries. I have observed and mentioned the characteristics, not with the intent of derision, but rather for the purpose of personal and societal progression. As Dr. Phil is fond of saying, you cannot change what you do not acknowledge.

Now, back to the Wade roast.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Man, quoting Dr. Phil is not very helpful for your cause ...

[_wenglund]

Wade-

...For those of us who really didn't "know" you when you were involved in all of this, would you mind filling us in?

I don't mind at all. While working as a VISTA volunteer in the Seattle area back around the turn of the century, I had occasion to work with a lot of public sector people who tended to be quite liberal, and some of whom were openly homosexual. And while we got along marvelously, they too found this quite odd given their awareness that I was conservative and LDS and a strong believer in the Church's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage. At times, conversation came around to my beliefs, during which I learned of various distorted perceptions about why I believed the way that I did. This gave me a chance to correct those misperceptions, and while not everyone agreed with me, they at least recognized that my beliefs weren't born of prejudice, but rather a desire to improve the human condition.

I also realized that some of these same misperceptions were at the heart of the counterproductive social dialogue on the subject occuring nation-wide. And, so, I figured that if I could change the discourse from personal attacts to addressing what I believed to be the real issue, then things could move forward.

Accordingly, one night after work I constructed a one page website, and formed a non-profit organization called Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders--the SAD part of the name admittedly being a play off the term GAY. The one page website consisted of a several syllogism intended to argue for the existenced of such a disorder. And, in several of the syllogsism I used the analogy of a lock and key.

The next couple of nights I spent some time on known homosexual chat boards directing people to my web site to get their impressions and to see how they would react to what I said. Without exception, the responses were negative in the extreme. This told me that, for whatever reason, my brief and well-intended efforts were pretty much in vain. As a result, I abandoned the project after only three days, though I decided to leave the website online for a few years to see if it may chance, on its own, to do some good. It didn't, and so about five years ago, when the account I had with an internet provider expired, the site was removed from the web and not restored by me anywhere else.

Clearly, though, it's impact continues to reverberate a decade later. Who would have thought that a single web page, with a few benign syllogisms, and a perfectly reasonable analogy, would be talked about so much, and create so many false impressions (not only about what I had said but also regarding my sexual orientation)? But, there it is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_MrStakhanovite]

Man, quoting Dr. Phil is not very helpful for your cause ...

WAT

[_wenglund]

Man, quoting Dr. Phil is not very helpful for your cause ...

Careful...some of the good folks around here might accuse you or stereotyping. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I don't mind at all. While working as a VISTA volunteer in the Seattle area back around the turn of the century, I had occasion to work with a lot of public sector people who tended to be quite liberal, and some of whom were openly homosexual. And while we got along marvelously, they too found this quite odd given their awareness that I was conservative and LDS and a strong believer in the Church's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage. At times, conversation came around to my beliefs, during which I learned of various distorted perceptions about why I believed the way that I did. This gave me a chance to correct those misperceptions, and while not everyone agreed with me, they at least recognized that my beliefs weren't born of prejudice, but rather a desire to improve the human condition.

I also realized that some of these same misperceptions were at the heart of the counterproductive social dialogue on the subject occuring nation-wide. And, so, I figured that if I could change the discourse from personal attacts to addressing what I believed to be the real issue, then things could move forward.

Accordingly, one night after work I constructed a one page website, and formed a non-profit organization called Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders--the SAD part of the name admittedly being a play off the term GAY. The one page website consisted of a several syllogism intended to argue for the existenced of such a disorder. And, in several of the syllogsism I used the analogy of a lock and key.

The next couple of nights I spent some time on known homosexual chat boards directing people to my web site to get their impressions and to see how they would react to what I said. Without exception, the responses were negative in the extreme. This told me that, for whatever reason, my brief and well-intended efforts were pretty much in vain. As a result, I abandoned the project after only three days, though I decided to leave the website online for a few years to see if it may chance, on its own, to do some good. It didn't, and so about five years ago, when the account I had with an internet provider expired, the site was removed from the web and not restored by me anywhere else.

Clearly, though, it's impact continues to reverberate a decade later. Who would have thought that a single web page, with a few benign syllogisms, and a perfectly reasonable analogy, would be talked about so much, and create so many false impressions (not only about what I had said but also regarding my sexual orientation)? But, there it is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How odd that you now claim you got along "marvelously" with people you describe with pejoratives - characteristics you find "repellent."

Your website, the so-called "center", associated homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia. And you pretend to be surprised by the negative reaction?

You're full of it.

by the way, have you ever struggled with same-sex attraction?