Anne Lawrence – Resources – Autogynephilia

I have talked before on this blog about what I appreciate and don’t appreciate about Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory about transsexualism.  You can read more in my post about this book by Michael Bailey – The Man Who Would Be Queen.  For the most part, I agree with the autogynephilia theory, but not 100%, as it seems to not accurately describe every transsexual’s experience.  People are more complex than simple typologies want to suggest.  But overall, the typology does seem to fit many, if not most, of us.  Anne Lawrence, shares Blanchard’s and Bailey’s views.

I have been reading some of Anne’s articles at and finding them very interesting and helpful in order to understand ourselves better.  I hope to read Anne’s book someday.  I am learning a lot even though Anne and I do not share many of the same conclusions.  Anne is actually a self-professed autogynephilic transsexual.  In other words, Anne is like many of us, and like me, or perhaps rather like what I would have become were I to have pursued my crossdressing interests to the farthest end.  Obviously as you know from reading my other posts, I do not believe that getting medical surgeries to try to live as women is the correct treatment for our gender and crossdressing issues.  Just because an intervention seems to take away someone’s unease about their body, does not mean it truly was the best course of action.  Much of my reasoning of course comes out of my own Christian worldview.  I believe that our bodies matter, that they are a part of our identity, who we really are.  Not only did God carefully create us, but our bodies are so tied to who we are, that those of us in Christ will experience a resurrection someday, transforming and perfecting our bodies.

There is so much on Anne’s website.  Take a look at some of the articles.  I will share and comment on some of the articles later on, but for today, I only want to share two of the articles that really summarize well Anne’s views on autogynephilia.  They were refreshing reads for me, as it seems to me that Anne is much more objective and logical than many of the trans community, and willing to be honest about these issues.  Thank you Anne for your great insights and hard work.


The abstract of the first article I’ll share with you gives you a basic definition of autogynephilia:

The increasing prevalence of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism in Western countries is largely due to the growing number of MtF transsexuals who have a history of sexual arousal with cross-dressing or cross-gender fantasy. Ray Blanchard proposed that these transsexuals have a paraphilia he called autogynephilia, which is the propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of oneself as female. Autogynephilia defines a transsexual typology and provides a theory of transsexual motivation, in that Blanchard proposed that MtF transsexuals are either sexually attracted exclusively to men (homosexual) or are sexually attracted primarily to the thought or image of themselves as female (autogynephilic), and that autogynephilic transsexuals seek sex reassignment to actualize their autogynephilic desires. Despite growing professional acceptance, Blanchard’s formulation is rejected by some MtF transsexuals as inconsistent with their experience. This rejection, I argue, results largely from the misconception that autogynephilia is a purely erotic phenomenon. Autogynephilia can more accurately be conceptualized as a type of sexual orientation and as a variety of romantic love, involving both erotic and affectional or attachment-based elements. This broader conception of autogynephilia addresses many of the objections to Blanchard’s theory and is consistent with a variety of clinical observations concerning autogynephilic MtF transsexualism.


Article 1:

Becoming What We Love: autogynephilic transsexualism conceptualized as an expression of romantic love

Thinking about the desire to become a woman, as not only erotic, but romantic, makes a lot of sense to me.  I like being with my wife even when I’m not sexually aroused.  If a crossdresser has fallen in love with the woman he has created, himself, than it makes sense that he would enjoy being that woman all the time, not only when sexually aroused.  This seems to be similar to what I’ve argued before – Crossdressing without sexual component.  It’s great to see a scholarly article about the phenomena I was seeing in people’s stories and trying to understand and articulate.

Article 2:

Autogynephilia: A Paraphilic Model of Gender Identity Disorder

I did not know about this, or I did not fully think about it, in the following quote:
“Blanchard (1991) formally distinguished four different types of autogynephilia in gender dysphoric males, although most of his patients demonstrated more than one type. The first type was transvestic autogynephilia, which denotes arousal to the act or fantasy of wearing women’s clothing. Persons in whom this type of autogynephilia predominates are referred to as crossdressers, transvestites, or “persons with transvestic fetishism” (in DSM-IV-TR). The second type was behavioral autogynephilia, which denotes arousal to the actor fantasy of engaging in some behavior regarded as typically feminine. This behavior could range from knitting in the company of other women to having sexual intercourse with a male. The latter behavior, according to Blanchard’s formulation, did not represent genuine androphilia, because the arousal was not to the male partner per se, but rather to engaging in a behavior regarded as typical of females. The third type was physiologic autogynephilia, which denotes arousal to fantasies such as being pregnant, menstruating, or breast-feeding. The fourth type was anatomic autogynephilia, which denotes arousal to the fantasy of having a woman’s body, or aspects of one, such as breasts or a vulva. The relative prevalence of the different types of autogynephilia is not known, but transvestic autogynephilia appears to be the most common type. Blanchard (1991) found that 90% of transsexuals who experienced anatomic autogynephilia had also experienced transvestic autogynephilia.”


Of course I realize that many crossdressers are sexually turned on by the act of crossdressing.  And I knew that many with crossgender feelings longed to be able to be themselves by doing feminine activities like knitting, or longed to have female bodies so that they could experience the joys of pregnancy and breastfeeding.  But I honestly did not consider that some of us might be sexually turned on by an activity like knitting, because it is viewed as feminine.  I’m a big advocate that men should pursue being themselves, instead of pursuing crossdressing, which might mean knitting as a man if that is an activity you enjoy, instead of feeling like you need to crossdress in order to practice that hobby you enjoy.  I guess I’d still argue for that.  But it adds a whole new layer of complexity for those who get sexually turned on by it.  I guess the treatment for men such as that would look a little different.  Perhaps once they understood why they were being turned on by thinking of those activities, they would realize that it is not truly a hobby they would naturally enjoy, but rather just a sexual turn on and something that they could avoid without giving up a part of themselves.


Do I have any readers that are sexually turned on by doing activities people normally think of as feminine?


On a different point in the same article, I appreciate how Lawrence does not discount that there could be gender dysphoria in a person because of discomfort with the gender roles in the given society.  This could be present in addition to the autogynephilia sexual model.  One might cause the other or they could just be present at the same time, both contributing to a person’s desire to become the opposite sex.


This next quote makes a powerful point.  If you are not convinced by Lawrence, simply go to a transgender fiction site.  You’ll see that people like us are not satisfied by simply TG fiction, but all kinds of other deviant sexuality (sadism, infantilism, incest, etc.) comes out in the stories as well.  There but for the grace of God go I as well.  Unfortunately at times I have been turned on by some of the stories with these disturbing elements.  I can admit that though now with ease because I know I am forgiven and loved by God and he is making me new.


“Third, Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory helps explain why transvestism and transsexualism are often associated with other unusual erotic interests. Sexual scientists have observed for decades that unusual sexual interests — sadomasochism, bondage, autoerotic asphyxia, interest in leather and rubber, exhibitionism, voyeurism, infantilism, pedophilia — frequently do not occur in isolation, but instead tend to co-occur. Males who have one unusual sexual interest are far more likely to have one or more other unusual sexual interests than would be expected simply by chance (Abel & Osborn, 1992; Wilson & Gosselin, 1980). And other unusual erotic interests are very common among transvestites and some MtF transsexuals. Wilson and Gosselin (1980) found that 63% of their sample of transvestites and transsexuals also described fetishistic or sadomasochistic interests. Blanchard and Hucker (1991) reported that transvestism accompanied many cases of autoerotic asphyxia. Abel and Osborn (1992) documented the co-occurrence of transvestism and transsexualism with other paraphilias. If transsexualism and transvestism are purely gender-identity-based phenomena, then these associations makes no sense. But if transsexualism and transvestism sometimes represent unusual sexual interests — as Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory proposes — then their association with other uncommon sexual interests does make sense.”

26 comments on “Anne Lawrence – Resources – Autogynephilia

  1. The Sceptic says:

    Before you canonize Ms. Lawrence, you might want to understand just who “she” really is and where she is coming from:

    “As part of the ongoing investigation into the Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clique of sexologists, this section explores persistent rumors that Anne Lawrence’s 1997 resignation as an anesthesiologist was connected with Lawrence’s erotic interest in ritualized genital modification.

    The information below examines the link between Anne Lawrence’s career-ending incident and Dr. Lawrence’s professed erotic interest in genital modification. In May 2003, the State of Washington Department of Health delivered a 105-page dossier on Dr. Lawrence, the relevant pages of which are presented below.”

    Further I must, and will continue to point out your obviously biased insistence on conflating your condition, (transvestic fetishism), and a congenital defect, (Transsexualism). Why is that?


  2. The Sceptic says:

    For further info, you can look here:

    “Anne Lawrence is a controversial sexologist and former anesthesiologist who self-identifies as a “real transsexual” who has a sex-fueled mental illness called “autogynephilia.”

    Dr. Lawrence left anesthesiology after examining an unconscious patient for signs of ritualized genital modification. Others, myself included, have observed that Dr. Lawrence’s interest in sugically altered genitalia is an uncomfortable mix of sexual and professional fascination. This page documents first-hand reports of people submitting to Dr. Lawrence for medicalized examinations that appeared inappropriately sexual to the observers.”


  3. Don says:

    Thorin I was aware of and knew about Ann Lawrence and Blanchard years ago and reading their literature greatly contributed to my fall 4 years ago leaving my wife and living as a woman. These things, which I believe are very true, will not contribute to your mission of helping people stop cross dressing and instead justifies if.

    The only way I was able to free myself was to take drugs and break the autogyniphiilic connection. You said back then that drugs are not for everyone but I think this proves that autogyniphiiia or transgender cannot just be willed away.


  4. The Sceptic says:

    Don. I sympathize with your position and I agree that giving any credence what so ever to Lawrence’s position is counter productive to your goal of ridding yourself of a deeply ingrain addiction/paraphilia.

    IMHO Lawrence’s, many books and articles are little more than a self-justification for allowing SRS for autogyniphiliacs.

    This is not to discredit Blanchard’s work which again IMHO, accurately describes the generally older heterosexual men, (many of them married with children), that compromised the majority of his study’s population.

    Again, I really must point out that in contrast to the population “studied” by these renowned sexologists, there exists a tiny percentage of people like myself that will studiously eschew any such researchers, and focus exclusively on attaining our sole and primary goal of bringing our bodies into as close a conformity with are brains as is humanly possible.

    Just as a note of interest that might give you an idea of just how rare we really are, I can tell you that in the ten or so years since I have taken a rather distant interest in this topic, I have come into contact, (via the web), with exactly three, maybe four, individuals which I would describe as “true transsexuals”, and two of those are “strong maybes”.


  5. thorin25 says:

    Don and the Skeptic, I pursue the truth wherever it may be found. I really resonate with the writings of Lawrence, even though as I said, I disagree with many of the conclusions both of Lawrence and of Bailey and Blanchard. I don’t advocate SRS for anyone, even though they would say to do whatever makes you happy, including SRS. So I don’t agree with their treatment options. So I don’t canonize them. Nor do I accept everything about their autogynephilia theory.

    But Don, I have found reading articles like this really helpful in understanding myself. I am able to differentiate and be nuanced. I can read these articles in order to understand myself better, and hope they help others to understand themselves better, without saying we should agree to everything they said. Actually in this very post, I made some cautions about things I disagreed with, and how I recommend different treatment.

    Don, I don’t remember ever saying anything bad about your taking drugs. I just said not everyone needs them, such as myself and many other men I have known who have quit. Surely drugs could be a good way to give some people relief and the added edge to quit. While it took more than just willpower for me to quit (understanding myself better, God on my side, accountability), it surely is possible to quit with just willpower. We are free to choose what we most want to do, and if we want to quit, we can. Your testimony Don about the treatment you pursued, gets a lot of hits at this site, so feel glad that your story and suggestions are helping others!

    The sceptic, I told you I would read the articles you shared with me about the brain types of transsexuals. Until I do, you need not repeat yourself for a 10th or 20th time (I’ve lost track). Your posts are becoming spammy. If you keep repeating yourself on that one minor point, then I will delete those posts. Please be a mature adult, accept that we have agreed to disagree, and accept that I will read the articles you sent. Be patient. Stop taking offense so easily.

    Your comments about Lawrence are fine. That is new information which I had read already on that site, but I appreciate you sharing it anyway.
    But not comments like this which will be deleted next time –
    “Further I must, and will continue to point out your obviously biased insistence on conflating your condition, (transvestic fetishism), and a congenital defect, (Transsexualism). Why is that?”


  6. The Sceptic says:

    I understand but conflating these two distinct conditions is NOT a “minor point” and lies at the very heart of the problem. The treatment protocols are necessarily radically different.

    I agree with you that cross dressing is an addiction and should be treated as such. By conflating it with a condition which you your self have in fact noted is different, you are adding to the confusion and in fact contributing to and supporting the TG mantra that gender dysphoria is a “spectrum” and that there are many different ways of dealing with this “naturally occurring human variation”.

    One is either a full blown transsexual in desperate need of a “sex change” or a cross dresser who enjoys wearing feminine garb for various reasons, as Lawrence discusses in those quotes that you used.

    The all important caveat is that just because Lawrence “self professes to be a transsexual”, does not mean that she is. Autogynephilic cross dressers who just lose all reason and control and “go all the way” tend to do that, They all themselves transsexuals, (or use the new and ill defined PC term, ‘transgender’) in an attempt to make it more acceptable in the eye of the public. They just flat hate and go apoplectic at the use of the term ‘transvestite which just means cross dresser in Latin.

    It never really works out for them unless they somehow can parley their “transgender” status into some kind if a spokesman’s job or “activist”. Many of these autogynephilic men in dresses never even get that all important surgery because they are quite happy with their “female penis”.
    This is “transgender” today. This is the madness which has resulted from the conflation of these two terms and cross dressers appropriating the “narrative” of the transsexual.

    The bottom line is that I can and will support you in your efforts to combat and defeat your addiction but I will not stand silent in the face of a false, misleading and ultimately destructive conflation of facts.

    Real “transsexuals” those who absolutely needed that ‘sex-change’ in order to get on with a normal life, do not call themselves anything other than man or woman. And….they don’t make any claims to special treatment or protections. They just live their lives quietly like the rest of society.


  7. thorin25 says:

    Sceptic, I just about deleted your post, but I keep trying to be understanding and gracious. Partly, I kept up your post because it was a good coherent summary of your views. But again, please stop repeating yourself endlessly. It gets really old, really fast. I realize that my warnings seem pretty weak at this point as I keep not following through on them.

    Yes, we agree that autogynephiles/crossdressers/transvestites are not of the same category as people like you. So we both accept Blanchard’s understanding of what is going on with these people, like me, but we both disagree with Blanchard and Lawrence that it is fitting for them to get a sex change. We both think that is a terrible idea.

    You are offended that they use the term Transsexual at all for these people, whereas I am not. They’ve gone through the same procedures, men making themselves look like women, even if their motivations are different from yours, they still have undergone the same process, and the same label can apply. No conflation here, just different types of transsexuals, which is in fact what Bailey argued in his book. They weren’t conflating either.

    If I understand you correctly, you agree with Blanchard’s, Lawrence’s two-fold typology, of two different types of people seeking SRS surgery, but you very much vehemently dislike that he calls both types transsexuals. I realize you want to distance yourself from these other types of transsexuals, but the reality is, they are all doing what amounts to the same thing, and for a lot more of the same reasons than you care to admit.

    And again, I don’t believe in any “true transsexuals” in the way that you mean. Yes there are people like you, a lot more I think than you think there are, but you are still, I believe, sorry if this offensive, that you are man who underwent physical treatment for a non-physical problem. We disagree, that’s fine. It’s not my life goal to ridicule you or attack you. I’m fine agreeing to disagree.

    I’m even willing to hear your evidence to the contrary. Which is why I will read the links you sent me. But you have to have patience. In the meantime, you can’t keep attacking my posts because you think you are a crusader. Make your own blog!

    I understand your perspective, and see why all of this riles you up. But that is not my perspective, so you have to accept that not everyone agrees with you. That’s life. I will continue to use the terms in the way that make sense to me, (and as happens, most or all of the literature seems to use them in the same way that I do as well).

    Okay, conversation over. No more posts where you call me out on my “conflations” because you think it is your duty. Anymore like that will be deleted.


  8. The Sceptic says:

    OK Fair enough. It is your blog and so you get to make the rules. Even though I don’t like it, I can accept it.

    In closing, I will leave you with the following link. I am sure that you will find it much easier to digest and understand.

    Sadly despite the science, (IE the raw facts), the presentation is highly biased, reflecting the standard LGBT meme. Little wonder all is lost.


  9. thorin25 says:

    Thank you for your understanding. Your link did not work by the way.

    Remember that you are still welcome to post and dialogue about posts I write. Just as long as we don’t go back to the tired argument above.


  10. Don says:

    Thorin. the link did not work on Android but it did work on a PC and it was very interesting.
    Sceptic , the presentor knew nothing about autogyniphilia and treated all transgender the same as homosexuals effected by prenatal hormones


  11. cranmer says:

    Hi Thorin thanks for this- it’s very interesting. I can’t think of a “feminine” activity that I’ve been attracted to whilst not dressed up, but it certainly got me thinking that when I used to dress I would often perform stereotypically “feminine” activities as part of it- ie I would often clean the house or cook, activities which to my shame I rarely undertake now to help my wife. How much I was aroused by these activities or just by the clothes themselves is hard to say. I think I’ve shared here before how part of my early introduction to crossdressing was through playing female characters in drama at school. Looking back, I find it interesting that I was often cast as “good girls”, wholesome wives/mothers who often would be sewing, cooking, looking after children etc, and I wonder how much my behaviour when I used to dress alone for arousal was tied up with that- ie trying to present to myself a nurturing feminine image that I had been encouraged towards. I never really had a desire to dress in particularly raunchy clothing like some CDs; I would much rather dress in elegant and demure attire instead that fitted in with that image

    One thing that strikes me in all this is how so often it seems that the CD/TG world has a very narrow view of gender roles/stereotypes. I am ashamed that my behaviour when dressed suggests that in my subconscious I think helping round the home etc is really a woman’s role- it doesn’t occur to me when I’m not acting out the charade of being a woman. It is something I would never say, but yet I wonder how much I do hold to unhelpful gender ideas…


  12. The Sceptic says:

    “the presentor knew nothing about autogyniphilia and treated all transgender the same as homosexuals effected by prenatal hormones…”

    Yes this is the problem when conflating terminology. It makes things confusing and hard to understand. I think her point was, apart from the obvious bias, that the effect of prenatal hormones on the fetus in utero is both ubiquitous and empirically obvious, (IE: scientifically provable).

    And…since I am still welcome to post here, I will take this opportunity to set the record straight despite the fact that Thorin will vociferously disagree. I was not born a man. I was born with male genitalia and a female brain. This was the essence of what that most recent link was about. The “how” and the “why” that happens.

    Given those facts, I have to conclude that Thorin’s insistence that I am a man is not only ludicrous but indicative of some deep seated prejudice based on who knows what. Nevertheless we have agreed to disagree, and I am fine with that.

    Another interesting aside is that I visited ‘sillyol’me’s’ website and took her survey. I was not surprised that I scored a perfect 46/46. Nevertheless I disagree with her support of Blanchard’s theories re: “true transsexuals”, in that she accepts his description of what she terms “trans-kids”, as homosexual transsexuals.

    I am not sure I pointed this out before but the problem with Blanchard’s study is that his population consisted mainly of older, sometimes married, heterosexual men who were highly autogynephilic which is why his theories were so attractive to Lawrence, and apparently “resonate” so well with Thorin even though he finds the idea of surgery abhorrent. This idea, that surgery is absolutely wrong for him, is both understandable and makes perfect sense because Thorin is in fact a happily married man for whom such a surgery would be a complete and total disaster and the epitome of medical malpractice.

    The point that I have been trying to make is that for some people, (a very tiny minority), this surgery is the very best option available.


  13. Don says:

    Sceptic, I am so sorry that you were born with this mistake in biology and that you feel that you are a woman as it has put such a special and unusual burden on your life. I must say though that when reading your writing it sounds like it is coming from a man.


  14. CDwife says:

    May i jump in here? …. You stated” I was not born a man. I was born with male genitalia”.God doesn’t make mistakes so to me you were born a man. I was born with female genitalia therefore i am a woman.


  15. Lisa says:

    I also believe God does not make mistakes. No amount of surgery will transform a man into a woman. Men cannot menstruate or become pregnant. Neither can taking female hormones duplicate a female brain. Biologically we are so different. To say I am a woman born with male genitalia well it’s ridiculous.



  16. thorin25 says:

    Sceptic, you are raising, albeit in a different way, the same issue that we have agreed to disagree on. You think you are a female, because you think your brain is a female. You think this makes you some kind of biological “true transsexual.” I disagree. I don’t think there is much evidence for the female brains you speak of being in men, and even if they were, this does not logically necessitate altering the other 95% of a person’s body to match one part of a person’s body. But like I told you, I will read those articles you sent me about brain studies. In the meantime, I still hold to the fact that people born men are born men regardless of what they feel about their brains. So let’s continue to agree to disagree. I hold no prejudice against you or others like you.

    Sceptic you claim to be a Christian. If so, try not to use your words as weapons. They hurt, and they could get you banned. We disagree. so be it. Don’t call me ludicrous or prejudice. Not only will I not tolerate it, but it’s not helpful to civil discussion.


  17. thorin25 says:

    Cranmer, what you said is true for me also in certain ways.

    I also think that transgender people and crossdressers have what is often the most extreme gender stereotypes. That’s part of the reason we felt like we needed to crossdress in the first place in order to be ourselves. If we are truly gentle or sensitive or whatever, our extreme stereotypes that we somehow took in, cause us to think that we can only be ourselves while crossdressing, letting those traits out as the feminine part of ourselves, instead of realizing we can be a gentle and sensitive man.

    Reading crossdressing fiction is another good way to see the extreme gender stereotypes of transgender men and crossdressers. Some of the stories just make you cringe and want to vomit. They are extremely sexist and demeaning about what it means to be a woman. I think there is even a story category about bimbos, thinking women are stupid idiots. It’s so shameful and disgusting.

    We have these strange ideas about what it means to be a woman, and so when crossdressing we try to act in those ways. We need to not only repent of our crossdressing but our views of women. Crossdressers like to say they are more understanding of women and what they go through. perhaps that is true in certain small ways. But largely we have tried to take on for ourselves certain aspects of womanhood (how they dress), while ignoring the other parts of woman hood that we don’t want. We must repent. Thank you Lord for forgiving us for our crossdressing and our sexism.


  18. CD wife says:

    ” I was not born a man. I was born with male genitalia and a female brain” A quote from your last post.
    Also with respect to the deaf community there was no reason to be so rude to Don


  19. thorin25 says:

    Don’s comment might have been better worded, though I don’t think he was trying to insult you Sceptic. Don, Sceptic’s point I do agree with slightly. Men and women are indeed different, but I am not sure they are so clearly different all the time that we can deduce someone’s sex just through reading text they wrote. But Don, if you believe differently, that is fine. No problem.

    Sceptic, I have lost patience with you and am going to delete your last couple comments. You said you tried to be brief and not offend, yet you are not reading people’s posts carefully nor even your own. They directly quoted you, I checked. Yet you accuse them of misrepresenting you. It just seems like you are here to troll rather than to have a civil helpful discussion. I also felt like we were going around in circles when you and I were discussing, without you really reading what I was saying, and now you are clearly doing so with CD wife and Lisa.

    I recommend Sceptic that you take a break from my blog. I’m not banning you. But I’m just suggesting that you be patient over the next months until I get to the articles you want me to look at, and then we can discuss them later on. And when you come back, make sure you really listen when you are discussing with people.


  20. Don says:

    Skeptic, I am truly sorry for offending you, I should not have said what I said, because I knew it would hurt, but I did set not out to intentionally hurt you. I tried to soften it a bit by acknowledging that it is difficult for anyone being transsexual, even if you are living your dream and you said you are fine. Are you afraid, because you are not using your female name? Just think about how many super star entertainers kill themselves with drugs or people that win the lottery that end up penniless. There are great negatives that go along with great positives.

    Speaking of the negatives, it’s all going to come to a head with the transgender bathroom issue occurring now. It’s building and building and it’s going all the way to the Supreme Court. Remember what happened with the Gay Marriage issue? I think that in the end there will be more people accepting transgender people when this is settled, which for you Skeptic, will be a positive. That’s just the direction society is going and it’s a huge force in one direction only.


  21. Don says:

    Correction, I did NOT set out to intentionally hurt Skeptic, Thorin could please correct my writting?


  22. Don says:

    Thanks Thorin, that would be a terrible thing to say I intentionally wanted to hurt someone.


  23. thorin25 says:

    Sceptic, I will remove your comment for you. I am glad you are showing your true colors as it makes me feel less bad for banning you. Why would such harsh words be okay if they were not public but only directed to me? Hateful condescending words and false accusations are okay if they are private? Really?

    For the record, although this conversation is over, I never did delete your links and I’m still, after all of this, looking forward to reading your articles you linked to me. I do not understand your impatience or your intolerance of me having a differing opinion. I do not apologize for not reading 300 pages within a couple days as you may have wanted me to do. You are not welcome back to this blog. You have been taking up so much of my time for so little fruit and a lot of hateful words. I’m sorry. But that is my decision.


  24. CD wife says:

    I come here looking for healing conversation and your prayers and hopefully to support. I’m glad you have come to this decision Thorin.


  25. Lisa says:

    Thank you Thorin. I know you made the right decision.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s