05-12-2015, 05:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2015, 05:16 PM by SargeMaximus.)
(05-12-2015, 04:47 PM)Benjamin Wrote: I dunno man.. I would have issues myself is a program had stated that it didn't matter if you were straight/bi/gay whatever and I was going to use it.. I wouldn't want those labels ignored as I know that i'm not those things.
Dude, you don't have to be straight, bi, or anything to have self esteem. You don't have to be straight to value yourself, you don't have to be straight to stand up for yourself, and you don't have to be straight to be alpha. Seems like a redundant and useless title.
(05-12-2015, 04:47 PM)Benjamin Wrote: I guess it's similar to the doubts you're having about the straight program but from the other side. Not sure if i'm making sense, this isn't really something i've had to explain before.
I guess what i'm saying is I more support having different versions than a 'catch all' version in this case.
I disagree. I see it as training yourself internally and externally. How does your orientation play a role in any of the things the AM promises? I can see a distinction for Gay men MAYBE but even then, we are attracted to whoever we're attracted to. A sub can't change that can it?
A catch-all version would focus on self love, acceptance, all that good stuff which women find attractive anyways, it just wouldn't make being straight a pre-requisite for it to work. From where I see it: the only thing the "heterosexual male" line does is limit it's use. If you don't want woimen affected, why not just say "male"??
