"Most People Over 70 Are Uncomfortable With Homosexuality"

12th May 2014


It's probably true - i'd say maybe even over 50.

But i think they are uncomfortable with homosexuality, not with homosexuals - and of course, they wouldn't know if the person they're talking to is homosexual anyway.

Live and let live.

Most people who are aged over 70 feel "uncomfortable" with homosexuality and are "disconcerted" by same-sex marriage, Nigel Farage has said.

The Ukip leader defended Roger Helmer, an MEP fighting the Newark by-election for the party who has previously suggested gay relationships are "viscerally repugnant"
Mr Farage told Sunday Politics on BBC One: "As I say, when Roger grew up and, indeed, when he was an adult, homosexuality was illegal in this country, and he held that view for some period of time.

"And actually, if we asked the 70s and over in this country how they felt about it, most of them still feel uncomfortable. He has said the world has moved on, he now accepts there’s been a big social change in Britain and he’s relaxed about it.

“There are a lot of people in this country who are disconcerted by the change in the traditional meaning of marriage, and I think in a tolerant society we understand that some people have different views."

He said that Mr Helmer had grown up in an age when "homosexuality was imprisonable" and he had a "strong Christian bible background".

He said: “Roger Helmer is fighting this by-election for us; he’s somebody of 70 years of age who grew up with a strong Christian Bible background.

"He grew up in an age when homosexuality was actually imprisonable, and he had a certain set of views which he maintained for many years which he now says he accepts the world’s moved on and he’s relaxed about."

He said that many people in Britain are concerned by same sex marriages, and that society must be "tolerant" of their views.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/10823025/Nigel-Farage-Most-people-over-70-are-uncomfortable-with-homosexuality.html

So Nigel is saying that people should be tolerant of people who have intolerant views?
Very odd, of course they have every right to their view, but having views that seek to deny equality to homosexuals is intolerant in itself.
Yes i am sure there is a sizeable number who are uncomfortable with homosexuality in he old age bracket, they knew no other way, but it still does not mean they cannot change their perception or that holding this belief is also fine as long as it does not spout intolerant views towards homosexuals.

This goes back to my points on cultural pessimism where people are fearful of change, we had it on the 20th century with so many things, from women gaining the vote, to Elvis  rock and roll dancing, to Mini Skirts etc, all things people were very much pessimistic about and were very anti of allowing them to change, but change they did and within a short time all these and many other changes became very acceptable as will be the case with equality for Gays in marriage, in a couple of years people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, as has happened countless times when things change.

So if this (edit potential) MP spouts intolerant views then he has to expect people will be critical of his views in a society that is very progressive, if he keeps to himself with his views, then fine

I think it's probably true to a certain extent that much older people are uncomfortable with homosexuality but that's down to the generation and the times that were prevailing during their younger lives. It was considered illegal then and people were taught that homosexuality was wrong so people need to understand that.
It takes years to wipe away all that stuff and that is what is happening as even the older generations who are or were uncomfortable with it begin to see that what was taught to them was the wrong message. Being uncomfortable with it doesn't necessarily mean they are against it, it just means it's not for them but generally they are tolerant of it.
Does that make sense?

BigAndy9 wrote:12th May 2014


It's probably true - i'd say maybe even over 50.

But i think they are uncomfortable with homosexuality, not with homosexuals - and of course, they wouldn't know if the person they're talking to is homosexual anyway.

Live and let live.

Most people who are aged over 70 feel "uncomfortable" with homosexuality and are "disconcerted" by same-sex marriage, Nigel Farage has said.

The Ukip leader defended Roger Helmer, an MEP fighting the Newark by-election for the party who has previously suggested gay relationships are "viscerally repugnant"
Mr Farage told Sunday Politics on BBC One: "As I say, when Roger grew up and, indeed, when he was an adult, homosexuality was illegal in this country, and he held that view for some period of time.

"And actually, if we asked the 70s and over in this country how they felt about it, most of them still feel uncomfortable. He has said the world has moved on, he now accepts there’s been a big social change in Britain and he’s relaxed about it.

“There are a lot of people in this country who are disconcerted by the change in the traditional meaning of marriage, and I think in a tolerant society we understand that some people have different views."

He said that Mr Helmer had grown up in an age when "homosexuality was imprisonable" and he had a "strong Christian bible background".

He said: “Roger Helmer is fighting this by-election for us; he’s somebody of 70 years of age who grew up with a strong Christian Bible background.

"He grew up in an age when homosexuality was actually imprisonable, and he had a certain set of views which he maintained for many years which he now says he accepts the world’s moved on and he’s relaxed about."

He said that many people in Britain are concerned by same sex marriages, and that society must be "tolerant" of their views.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/10823025/Nigel-Farage-Most-people-over-70-are-uncomfortable-with-homosexuality.html

I would agree with much of what he says here. Older people are sometimes uncomfortable, doesnt make them homophobic. It should be remembered that it is only in fairly recent times that being a practising homosexual as it was termed was illegal. This is just another example of whilst we might disagree with their views they do have the right to hold them and to voice them.

I disagree on it not making them homophobic. Not all are of course but I do think it is a more 'understandable' homophobia; they come from less developed times so it is natural they will have more ignorant views.

However, I think if somebody holds severely backward views on gay people then I would not want to see them in parliament, at all.

The optimistic side of this of course is the immense number of people under 30 who absolutely support gay equality and have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality whatsoever- in about 30 years time, such views will be as good as extinct in this country   

Eilzel wrote:I disagree on it not making them homophobic. Not all are of course but I do think it is a more 'understandable' homophobia; they come from less developed times so it is natural they will have more ignorant views.

However, I think if somebody holds severely backward views on gay people then I would not want to see them in parliament, at all.

The optimistic side of this of course is the immense number of people under 30 who absolutely support gay equality and have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality whatsoever- in about 30 years time, such views will be as good as extinct in this country   

They will Les, which is really what always happens with social constructions.

Why shouldn't people be homophobic as long as they don't hurt anyone?

Nems wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I disagree on it not making them homophobic. Not all are of course but I do think it is a more 'understandable' homophobia; they come from less developed times so it is natural they will have more ignorant views.

However, I think if somebody holds severely backward views on gay people then I would not want to see them in parliament, at all.

The optimistic side of this of course is the immense number of people under 30 who absolutely support gay equality and have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality whatsoever- in about 30 years time, such views will be as good as extinct in this country   

They will Les, which is really what always happens with social constructions.

Social constructions?

^Ragga, because if such views ever did become the majority then they have an awful habit of getting themselves leverage in law. And then they cause problems. Fortunately the ethos of this thread is a positive sign of things going in the right direction   

Well have to say, my Nan had a plethora of gay friends, Chelsea was an area that had a lot of gay people, and she worked around there and knew a lot, most of them in the antiques trade. Nobody in my family has ever had the slightest concerns about it, and I'm only two years off 70 (groan).

Eilzel wrote:

Nems wrote:

They will Les, which is really what always happens with social constructions.

Social constructions?

^Ragga, because if such views ever did become the majority then they have an awful habit of getting themselves leverage in law. And then they cause problems. Fortunately the ethos of this thread is a positive sign of things going in the right direction   

Well you can't make people feel comfortable with homosexuality. I doubt that those views will become the majority, unless there's too much bias towards gay people.

Eilzel wrote:

Nems wrote:

They will Les, which is really what always happens with social constructions.

Social constructions?

^Ragga, because if such views ever did become the majority then they have an awful habit of getting themselves leverage in law. And then they cause problems. Fortunately the ethos of this thread is a positive sign of things going in the right direction   

Dont you think the law that made homosexuality illegal was a social construction?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Social constructions?

^Ragga, because if such views ever did become the majority then they have an awful habit of getting themselves leverage in law. And then they cause problems. Fortunately the ethos of this thread is a positive sign of things going in the right direction   

Well you can't make people feel comfortable with homosexuality. I doubt that those views will become the majority, unless there's too much bias towards gay people.

Are you saying that the majority of people are uncomfortable with homosexuality?

For all Andy knows, he may well have had older gay relatives?, so could many people have...

Although it was less common to have gay people...they still did exist years ago Andy.

But yes, many older people did frown upon that and saw themselves as ' old school' type.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you can't make people feel comfortable with homosexuality. I doubt that those views will become the majority, unless there's too much bias towards gay people.

Are you saying that the majority of people are uncomfortable with homosexuality?

Er ... no. Are you saying there's too much bias towards gay people?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Are you saying that the majority of people are uncomfortable with homosexuality?

Er ... no. Are you saying there's too much bias towards gay people?

Most definitely not, that's the way your post read that's all, so I asked the question.

Good morning Folks.

So are gay people comfortable with straight people?

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Er ... no. Are you saying there's too much bias towards gay people?

Most definitely not, that's the way your post read that's all, so I asked the question.

Did it?

I doubt that those views will become the majority

You must have misread it.

Shady wrote:Good morning Folks.

So are gay people comfortable with straight people?

Morning Shady! xx

Nems wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Social constructions?

^Ragga, because if such views ever did become the majority then they have an awful habit of getting themselves leverage in law. And then they cause problems. Fortunately the ethos of this thread is a positive sign of things going in the right direction   

Dont you think the law that made homosexuality illegal was a social construction?

As much a social construction as the laws that criminalized it in the first place?

I thought you were saying homosexuality itself was a social construction; my apologies xx

Eilzel wrote:

Nems wrote:

Dont you think the law that made homosexuality illegal was a social construction?

As much a social construction as the laws that criminalized it in the first place?

I thought you were saying homosexuality itself was a social construction; my apologies xx

No worries, thats what I meant, the idea of making it illegal is just pure madness to me, but it was

Nems wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

As much a social construction as the laws that criminalized it in the first place?

I thought you were saying homosexuality itself was a social construction; my apologies xx

No worries, thats what I meant, the idea of making it illegal is just pure madness to me, but it was

But I do think the original social construction in light of that is homophobia. Homosexuality existed from the very beginning- it was man who imposed ideas on it being wrong or immoral.

Eilzel wrote:

Nems wrote:

No worries, thats what I meant, the idea of making it illegal is just pure madness to me, but it was

But I do think the original social construction in light of that is homophobia. Homosexuality existed from the very beginning- it was man who imposed ideas on it being wrong or immoral.

Agreed, and historically, only very recently.

Eilzel wrote:

Nems wrote:

No worries, thats what I meant, the idea of making it illegal is just pure madness to me, but it was

But I do think the original social construction in light of that is homophobia. Homosexuality existed from the very beginning- it was man who imposed ideas on it being wrong or immoral.

Exactly right

Probably from the earliest times when man has realised that ' he fit woman like glove' , has man thought only that is the natural thing, as well as testosterone playing it's part in things, and a woman's oestrogen both being stimulated ...leading to the obvious...

But obviously in homosexual men the chemicals and emotions tip the other way in favour of other men...

I can't explain that obviously ..but early man would never have imagined some 'man can love man'.

Joy Division wrote:Probably from the earliest times when man has realised that ' he fit woman like glove' , has man thought only that is the natural thing, as well as testosterone playing it's part in things, and a woman's oestrogen both being stimulated ...leading to the obvious...

But obviously in homosexual men the chemicals and emotions tip the other way in favour of other men...

I can't explain that obviously ..but early man would never have imagined some 'man can love man'.

I don't know about that JD. Obviously I don't anyone can explain why some are gay at this point. However; whether a man could never imagine it or not; it would have been clear that such people did exist. The Greeks acknowledged it explicitly although it was not ok to have a long term relationship with a man it was not seen as bad to engage in same sex relationships if you were the active; social suicide for the passive however- and it was institutionalized among soldiers I think in Thebes and as a right of passage for a young man with an older man.

Homosexuality of course also exists in other species, and no homophobia- so homophobia certain appears to be something man made- one theory is in the early tribal people it would have been seen as 'bad for the growth of the tribe' for men to be with men, and so any prohibitions may have stemmed from there.

I do think we have come far from tribal simplicity though   

Homosexuality is fundamentally wrong, because it goes against all physical and biological design of sexual organs and the purpose of attraction and coupling being between a make and female, it will never be the same as or equal to a normal male female relationship because it is basically an unnatural and abnormal practice and so fundamentally different.


Trying to launch it up the scale of public opinion and acceptance under the guise of equality is also misleading, as it is more a glaring example of where something mentally/physically/biologically has gone wrong.

Nems wrote:

Shady wrote:Good morning Folks.

So are gay people comfortable with straight people?

Morning Shady! xx

Good afternoon Nems.

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality is fundamentally wrong, because it goes against all physical and biological design of sexual organs and the purpose of attraction and coupling being between a make and female, it will never be the same as or equal to a normal male female relationship because it is basically an unnatural and abnormal practice and so fundamentally different.


Trying to launch it up the scale of public opinion and acceptance under the guise of equality is also misleading, as it is more a glaring example of where something mentally/physically/biologically has gone wrong.

Still banging the same old drum eh; don't you get bored of being on the wrong side of history AND public opinion?

Tribal simplicity demonstrated at its finest   

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality is fundamentally wrong, because it goes against all physical and biological design of sexual organs and the purpose of attraction and coupling being between a make and female, it will never be the same as or equal to a normal male female relationship because it is basically an unnatural and abnormal practice and so fundamentally different.


Trying to launch it up the scale of public opinion and acceptance under the guise of equality is also misleading, as it is more a glaring example of where something mentally/physically/biologically has gone wrong.

So your argument is oral sex and kissing are fundamentally wrong because it is not the biological design of sexual organs, let alone what our lips are designed for. Thus matti is thus saying that all people that engage in kissing and oral sex and all heterosexual partners with anal sex is wrong, yet never here him say this, odd that one.
So the purpose of attractions is now the opposite sex, which would mean choice, why is it you cannot even chose what female you are physically attracted to? If it was against nature, why is it natural for men to only be attracted to some males physically as much as heterosexual men are to some women?
That proves it is very natural biologically due to attraction

What am appropriate adjective. Uncomfortable that is. Bloody painful might be a more apposite description.

In my lifetime it has moved from being illegal to almost compulsory. Yes I am exaggerating a little but the militant gays seem never t\o settle on the next milestone. For example civil partnerships were supposed to resolve the issue of protection of partners in gay relationships to afford inheritance rights etc. As soon as that was given then the message changed and the militants demanded marriage.

Now marriage has been agreed you will find they will attack places that won't marry them.

Alright said Fred wrote:What am appropriate adjective. Uncomfortable that is. Bloody painful might be a more apposite description.

In my lifetime it has moved from being illegal to almost compulsory. Yes I am exaggerating a little but the militant gays seem never t\o settle on the next milestone. For example civil partnerships were supposed to resolve the issue of protection of partners in gay relationships to afford inheritance rights etc. As soon as that was given then the message changed and the militants demanded marriage.

Now marriage has been agreed you will find they will attack places that won't marry them.

Yes you are completely exaggerating, because you find extremes within all walks of life and it does not mean they speak for all of a group. Civil partnerships did not resolve anything in regards to equality on marriage, now of course you do believe in equality, so how did civil partnerships resolve something that was not equality?
You may find the odd gay couple that will stupidly insist on some places that marry them, but not vastly the majority and a view extreme examples is not a just cause to bash a set group of people, far from it.
Equality is equality to all, not just those you recognise.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality is fundamentally wrong, because it goes against all physical and biological design of sexual organs and the purpose of attraction and coupling being between a make and female, it will never be the same as or equal to a normal male female relationship because it is basically an unnatural and abnormal practice and so fundamentally different.
Trying to launch it up the scale of public opinion and acceptance under the guise of equality is also misleading, as it is more a glaring example of where something mentally/physically/biologically has gone wrong.

Still banging the same old drum eh; don't you get bored of being on the wrong side of history AND public opinion?
Tribal simplicity demonstrated at its finest   

Don't you get bored being on the wrong side of normal?

Alright said Fred wrote:What am appropriate adjective. Uncomfortable that is. Bloody painful might be a more apposite description.

In my lifetime it has moved from being illegal to almost compulsory. Yes I am exaggerating a little but the militant gays seem never t\o settle on the next milestone. For example civil partnerships were supposed to resolve the issue of protection of partners in gay relationships to afford inheritance rights etc. As soon as that was given then the message changed and the militants demanded marriage.

Now marriage has been agreed you will find they will attack places that won't marry them.

There is exaggerating a little; then there is making a simply stupid comment- yours is the latter   

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
Still banging the same old drum eh; don't you get bored of being on the wrong side of history AND public opinion?
Tribal simplicity demonstrated at its finest   

Don't you get bored being on the wrong side of normal?

Eilzel is normal he accepts people for who they are, what I do find abnormal is people promoting inequality to others based off unfounded illogical views, where their true reason is dislike thus exposing their real intent.

I did say almost. It wasn't meant literally. I forgot you need it spelling out Eilzel.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
Still banging the same old drum eh; don't you get bored of being on the wrong side of history AND public opinion?
Tribal simplicity demonstrated at its finest   

Don't you get bored being on the wrong side of normal?

There is no need for that   

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
Still banging the same old drum eh; don't you get bored of being on the wrong side of history AND public opinion?
Tribal simplicity demonstrated at its finest   

Don't you get bored being on the wrong side of normal?

Do I get bored being extraordinary you mean? No not at all- if anything it is always fascinating when I have to inform people my partner is not in fact my 'girlfriend' but my 'boyfriend' and then I go through the same old comments of how they'd never have guessed I was gay and how I have changed their assumptions about gay people. I can say thankfully I have never had a bad reaction or heard anything negative; and even with the most alpha-male straight guys the only comments about same-sex marriage are on the lines of 'it's about time' and 'it should always have been that way'   

So is there anything good about being on the wrong side of history? I guess your kind will at least get a mention in the history books- you know, with the KKK and slavery supporters   

I must add eilzel when civil partnerships were being discussed you yourself felt that solved the problem it was only when the militants got on the case that marriage was then required.

I'm insisting we straights get equality with gays. Yo can have marriage and civil partnerships we can't!!
Discrmination  is what it is pure and simple.::D::

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality is fundamentally wrong, because it goes against all physical and biological design of sexual organs and the purpose of attraction and coupling being between a make and female, it will never be the same as or equal to a normal male female relationship because it is basically an unnatural and abnormal practice and so fundamentally different.
Trying to launch it up the scale of public opinion and acceptance under the guise of equality is also misleading, as it is more a glaring example of where something mentally/physically/biologically has gone wrong.

So your argument is oral sex and kissing are fundamentally wrong because it is not the biological design of sexual organs, let alone what our lips are designed for. Thus matti is thus saying that all people that engage in kissing and oral sex and all heterosexual partners with anal sex is wrong, yet never here him say this, odd that one.
So the purpose of attractions is now the opposite sex, which would mean choice, why is it you cannot even chose what female you are physically attracted to? If it was against nature, why is it natural for men to only be attracted to some males physically as much as heterosexual men are to some women?
That proves it is very natural biologically due to attraction

Well given that our lips (mouth) are one of our erogenous zones, I would say it is perfectly natural and normal to be stimulating them through kissing and other contact.

Alright said Fred wrote:I did say almost. It wasn't meant literally. I forgot you need it spelling out Eilzel.

Then your whole post made no sense; it isn't even almost compulsory- and even as an exaggeration is ridiculous- the only thing gay people have ever asked for is equality.

I wonder how evolution will treat homosexuality & non homosexuality.Maybe evolution will phase out one or both of the sexualities or even blend them so that both are just the norm.

Where will homosexuality be in a thousand years?

Alright said Fred wrote:I must add eilzel when civil partnerships were being discussed you yourself felt that solved the problem it was only when the militants got on the case that marriage was then required.

I'm insisting we straights get equality with gays. Yo can have marriage and civil partnerships we can't!!
Discrmination  is what it is pure and simple.::D::

I'd scrap CPs now actually; they were only ever a compromise. But if they exist of course straight people should be entitled to them.

And anyway CPs came into being in 2005. I myself wasn't even on these forums until 2010 so it is quite remarkable you know what I thought back then, do I know you?   

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
So your argument is oral sex and kissing are fundamentally wrong because it is not the biological design of sexual organs, let alone what our lips are designed for. Thus matti is thus saying that all people that engage in kissing and oral sex and all heterosexual partners with anal sex is wrong, yet never here him say this, odd that one.
So the purpose of attractions is now the opposite sex, which would mean choice, why is it you cannot even chose what female you are physically attracted to? If it was against nature, why is it natural for men to only be attracted to some males physically as much as heterosexual men are to some women?
That proves it is very natural biologically due to attraction

Well given that our lips (mouth) are one of our erogenous zones, I would say it is perfectly natural and normal to be stimulating them through kissing and other contact.

Fair point, but was it designed to engorge a penis or the tongue inside the vagina or licking the clitoris?
So it shows we have adapted our pleasures of which many heterosexual couples do this as well as anal sex, so the argument on sexual pleasure is moot to say the least is it not?

Shady wrote:I wonder how evolution will treat homosexuality & non homosexuality.Maybe evolution will phase out one or both of the sexualities or even blend them so that both are just the norm.

Where will homosexuality be in a thousand years?

Same place it was 1000 years ago and 1000 years before that. Only more people will just accept it  ::D:: 

Eilzel wrote:

Shady wrote:I wonder how evolution will treat homosexuality & non homosexuality.Maybe evolution will phase out one or both of the sexualities or even blend them so that both are just the norm.

Where will homosexuality be in a thousand years?

Same place it was 1000 years ago and 1000 years before that. Only more people will just accept it  ::D:: 

Maybe or maybe not as we don't know what evolution will do with us or how it will change us according to what's happening in the world at the time.

It might be that all humans become homosexual with the ability to reproduce.

Irn Bru wrote:I think it's probably true to a certain extent that much older people are uncomfortable with homosexuality but that's down to the generation and the times that were prevailing during their younger lives. It was considered illegal then and people were taught that homosexuality was wrong so people need to understand that.
It takes years to wipe away all that stuff and that is what is happening as even the older generations who are or were uncomfortable with it begin to see that what was taught to them was the wrong message. Being uncomfortable with it doesn't necessarily mean they are against it, it just means it's not for them but generally they are tolerant of it.
Does that make sense?

I think that makes perfect sense.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Well given that our lips (mouth) are one of our erogenous zones, I would say it is perfectly natural and normal to be stimulating them through kissing and other contact.

Fair point, but was it designed to engorge a penis or the tongue inside the vagina or licking the clitoris?
So it shows we have adapted our pleasures of which many heterosexual couples do this as well as anal sex, so the argument on sexual pleasure is moot to say the least is it not?

Again all erogenous zones and it comes down to our biological and physical design and intended purpose of this being attraction between male and female.

Shady wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Same place it was 1000 years ago and 1000 years before that. Only more people will just accept it  ::D:: 

Maybe or maybe not as we don't know what evolution will do with us or how it will change us according to what's happening in the world at the time.

It might be that all humans become  homosexual with the ability to reproduce.

Haha, maybe, but evolution tends to take more that 1000 years to make changes that immense   

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
Fair point, but was it designed to engorge a penis or the tongue inside the vagina or licking the clitoris?
So it shows we have adapted our pleasures of which many heterosexual couples do this as well as anal sex, so the argument on sexual pleasure is moot to say the least is it not?

Again all erogenous zones and it comes down to our biological and physical design and intended purpose of this being attraction between male and female.

Again moot because whether gay or not people engage in these acts, thus if it is natural for heterosexuals then the same can be said for homosexuals based off the fact you neglect that people cannot control who they are physically attracted to.
Can you control who you are physically attracted to?
No, then biologically being gay is very normal

My grandparents, God rest their souls, were probably among the most tolerant and liberal people I know. You could  literally walk in their house with bright pink hair and tattoos and announce you were a lesbian and they'd say "Ok love. Can you put the kettle on? I'm parched!"

Not all old people are like  that though. Some people are very set in their ways, particularly the older that get.
It's hard for them to get into a more modern way of thinking.

Edit: actually my grandmother, thinking about it would probably say "oh what's that like? I might try that!" Hahahahahahha