LGBTitp - Part Six

[Eloi]

There are two ways we can resolve this, the first is me going "Blah blah blah not been around since the dawn of time shmot been around since the dawn of time." Or you can accept my retcon so that it means the creation of time, that is to say, the laying out of hours, minutes, seconds, etc. by humans, which humans were around for.

I epically ninja'd you on your retcon.

(Also sorry I haven't been around, been at my girlfriend's house. )

[Dogmantra]

I epically ninja'd you on your retcon.

But... but... I'm on fire! I should be immune to ninjas!
(Also I retcon that ninja-ing so in canon, it never happened... man, I love this power)

[Thufir]

There are two ways we can resolve this, the first is me going "Blah blah blah not been around since the dawn of time shmot been around since the dawn of time." Or you can accept my retcon so that it means the creation of time, that is to say, the laying out of hours, minutes, seconds, etc. by humans, which humans were around for.

That retcon fails to account for other races laying out divisions of time before humanity. Everyone know the Time Lords came first.

[Eloi]

But... but... I'm on fire! I should be immune to ninjas!
(Also I retcon that ninja-ing so in canon, it never happened... man, I love this power)

Dogmantra Did Not Shoot Post First.

[Serpentine]

Note to self: Do not read the comments on a Graphjam about gay marriage just before you go to bed. It will just make you cross and less tired

[Eloi]

Note to self: Do not read the comments on a Graphjam about gay marriage just before you go to bed. It will just make you cross and less tired

Ha, I irritate myself before I go to bed a lot. I get irritated rather easily tho'. Not sure why.

[Danne]

@Serp: Condescending tone was completely unintentional, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

I read an article a long while ago (in a national newspaper no less) where the author more or less said that she didn't think transgenderism was real, simply because she didn't know any trans-people...

What a ridiculous argument! I personally don't know any Russians, therefore, Russia must not exist!

Re: the nature vs. nurture debate -- I recall reading a fascinating study in high school a few years back which looked at identical twins. If I recall correctly, in the sample they looked at, only about 1/3 of the twins were both homosexual. More often, one was gay and the other straight, even when genetics and life experiences were the same. However, when interviewing each twin, they found that those experiences were interpreted completely differently by each individual, e.g. Twin A had a positive experience where Twin B had a negative one, etc. The actual study was rather homophobic (trying to make the case that there couldn't be a genetic influence or both twins would always be gay or always be straight, and that therefore it could be "corrected" ) but I found the findings about the twins' interpreting life experiences very interesting.

I personally think it's a combination of both -- you're born with the right genes/chemical balances/what have you, and then life experiences help to shape it.

What's a Graphjam?

[Murdim]

The actual study was rather homophobic (trying to make the case that there couldn't be a genetic influence or both twins would always be gay or always be straight, and that therefore it could be "corrected" )

That's wrong on so many levels. And by that, I mean factually, logically wrong. "Rather homophobic" is a hell of an understatement.

That's positivist social sciences for you - contradictory, overrated, over-mediatised, methodologically inept, almost always heavily biased in one way or the other, and mainly sponsored by people with obvious agendas. Enforcing hasty generalisations as universal rules may be the very basis of natural sciences, but it do not work very well when you deal with real people. Because enforcing simplistic, objective "explanations" on extremely complex and nuanced subjective experiences is inherently alienating. Because social science theories influence us, in such a way that their predictions are in great part self-fulfilling. Because those who hold the strings behind social sciences - the scientist himself, but also his institute, and especially his financial supports - find little to no practical value in the quest for truth, and often prefer to use it as a way to impose a "truth" that arranges them.

Ha, I irritate myself before I go to bed a lot. I get irritated rather easily tho'. Not sure why.

Yeah. Though it may be slightly different for me : 10 PM to 0:30 AM is usually the period of the day when I feel the most woken up, and thus the most ready to write long, emotionally charged messages, be it irritated rants or feel-good declarations.

[Quincunx]

Graphjam is a site for making graphs, which apparently comes with a comments function wherein idiots may post.

If there's ANY chance of someone finding the original of the study Danne mentioned, I'd be VERY interested in it. Any amount of evidence about differing perceptions is welcome, and a twin study--ooh!

*****

Do any guys have the urge to pee in a safe place, or is something interesting to aim at all you require? Am I overestimating the women's need for a safe place in which to pee--would we be happy with an appropriately sloped place to squat? (Yes, this'll relate back to the thread topic and not be a random jaunt into gender politics, but first I need to check that the assumptions about a 'safe place' are valid.)

[Eloi]

Do any guys have the urge to pee in a safe place, or is something interesting to aim at all you require? Am I overestimating the women's need for a safe place in which to pee--would we be happy with an appropriately sloped place to squat? (Yes, this'll relate back to the thread topic and not be a random jaunt into gender politics, but first I need to check that the assumptions about a 'safe place' are valid.)

Uh, not sure if my two cents are helpful in your survey, I'm not exactly sure what's being asked, but I'm kind of adverse to any restroom that isn't in my house or people I know's house. (Horrible grammar, I'm aware) Considering I don't really consume much outside of my house or other's, its not really much of a problem.

...

That seems really weird, know that I look at it.

[Danne]

Graphjam is a site for making graphs, which apparently comes with a comments function wherein idiots may post.

Ah.

If there's ANY chance of someone finding the original of the study Danne mentioned, I'd be VERY interested in it. Any amount of evidence about differing perceptions is welcome, and a twin study--ooh!

I couldn't find the exact article, but this references it, and seems to draw some of the same conclusions. Though I didn't read the whole thing (just skimmed it).

[Murdim]

I couldn't find the exact article, but this references it, and seems to draw some of the same conclusions. Though I didn't read the whole thing (just skimmed it).

*Clicks on the link*
*CTRL+F*
*Search for "bailey"*
*Skip through the six results*
*Must refrain from closing the window without reading any further*
*Read the word "sissy" employed seriously, as if it was an accurate, useful descriptor*
*Want to punch my screen*
*Go back at the top of the page*
*Look at the header*
*Read "NARTH"*
*Close the window*

Seriously. I might give that... thing a closer inspection later on, but for now, I'm too disgusted yet by the whole "ex-gay advocate justifying his homophobic slurs through the long-discredited authority of a not-so-glorified con man" shtick to do so.

[Coidzor]

^: NARTH? National Alliance to Reprogram Trussed-up Homosexuals?

... <3
Hope is a nice thing to have.

Such Audacity! Want a cookie?

Do any guys have the urge to pee in a safe place, or is something interesting to aim at all you require? Am I overestimating the women's need for a safe place in which to pee--would we be happy with an appropriately sloped place to squat? (Yes, this'll relate back to the thread topic and not be a random jaunt into gender politics, but first I need to check that the assumptions about a 'safe place' are valid.)

What do you mean by "safe?" Considering you're asking people who aren't women and don't know what a "safe place to pee" constitutes to one, this demands qualification.

Edit: I mean, sure, no one's really going to want to heed nature's call when they feel like they're in place where they'll get knifed/X if they stop long enough to do that. Somehow though, I doubt that's the kind of safety you refer to. And defecation and urination are fairly different things for men at least, not sure whether the process of selecting a place for those are the same or different in women due to the mechanics involved being more similar at least due to most women not picking up the skill of standing urination or simply being disqualified due to not having whatever setup it is that allows women to learn how to do that.

golentan: Well, my PM box is usually open. Except when it gets dusty. Then I have to clean it.

[Eloi]

What do you mean by "safe?" Considering you're asking people who aren't women and don't know what a "safe place to pee" constitutes to one, this demands qualification.

I second this. I'm really unsure what's being unasked too. I also see now that it wasn't probably directed at me, but hey, whatever, you have my invaluable data now.

[arguskos]

Ah Quin, still the only poster that utterly wrecks threads with a single post. Is there a Qunicunx-branded Decoder Ring I could buy somewhere?

And now, avante! *flies away*

[Danne]

*Clicks on the link*
*CTRL+F*
*Search for "bailey"*
*Skip through the six results*
*Must refrain to close the window without reading any further*
*Read the word "sissy" employed seriously, as if it was an accurate, useful descriptor*
*Want to punch my screen*
*Go back at the top of the page*
*Look at the header*
*Read "NARTH"*
*Close the window*

Seriously. I might give that... thing a closer inspection later on, but for now, I'm too disgusted yet by the whole "ex-gay advocate justifying his homophobic slurs through the long-discredited authority of a not-so-glorified con man" shtick to do so.

Tell me about it. There's a reason I only skimmed it. Even that much was unpleasant.

[Ilena]

Im assuming she means safe as in noone at all can see you at any angle, though i know men tend to just put their backs to people and thats about it. I know when i select a place to pee i try to find a place that noone at all will see me (though of course squatting to pee is totally different then standing, as theres much more visible :P)

[Eloi]

Tell me about it. There's a reason I only skimmed it. Even that much was unpleasant.

I was confused why it only talked about Homosexuality. In fact, I'm confused why most media does. I mean there is a broad spectrum of things, there is Bisexuality, Pansexuality, Asexuality. Asexuality is really interesting topic as well, because there is a lot under that umbrella too. There is Heteromantic, Homoromantic, Panromantic, Biromantic, and Aromantic Asexual people. Not to mention Transexuality, which could be layered over any of these. Not to mention everything in-between all of /that/. Human sexuality is just too complicated of a topic to be dumb-downed the way it is in that..thing.
It just seems a little weird how you can just create an imaginary structure so far removed from reality, and then publish an 'academic' paper on it.

[Coidzor]

Well, not much sensationalism you can do with asexuals. They don't have any face to the world or any kind of self-conforming identity due to active oppression.

They're just sorta... here and there and not worth the effort of vilifying or declaring abomination.

[Eloi]

Well, not much sensationalism you can do with asexuals. They don't have any face to the world or any kind of self-conforming identity due to active oppression.

They're just sorta... here and there and not worth the effort of vilifying or declaring abomination.

I've actually heard a lot of arguments, from normally rational people, that asexual people don't even exist. Without any sort of voice, or support, or anything, I can understand why that assumption is prevalent.

[Dogmantra]

I've actually heard a lot of arguments, from normally rational people, that asexual people don't even exist. Without any sort of voice, or support, or anything, I can understand why that assumption is prevalent.

I wonder if the same people would think that a "straight person who is completely uninterested in a relationship" exists.

[Eloi]

I wonder if the same people would think that a "straight person who is completely uninterested in a relationship" exists.

Like an aromantic heterosexual person? I knew a few people like that personally, I've also known people who identified as asexual, I don't know why people want to assert that these people don't "exist". Why does it matter to them how someone wants to personally identify themselves? There's a lot of things I wonder why people do...

[Murdim]

Tell me about it. There's a reason I only skimmed it. Even that much was unpleasant.

Well, there's something I want to say, but that's not about the article. I feel really bad about the way I answered to you in my previous message, and also to Niezck in the message before it. I've been so bitter, so agressive against the homophobic positions that you presented without defending, that it almost sounded like I was attacking you. So... I'm sorry, both of you.

[Asta Kask]

Like an aromantic heterosexual person? I knew a few people like that personally, I've also known people who identified as asexual, I don't know why people want to assert that these people don't "exist". Why does it matter to them how someone wants to personally identify themselves? There's a lot of things I wonder why people do...

Well, some of them believe that anyone who thinks s/he's asexual is actually repressed and needs help.

[Dogmantra]

Like an aromantic heterosexual person?

I guess that's what I said. I assume they accept heterosexual people as existing so I kind of used that as a springboard. Man, I suck at saying what I actually mean.

[Niezck]

Well, there's something I want to say, but that's not about the article. I feel really bad about the way I answered to you in my previous message, and also to Niezck in the message before it. I've been so bitter, so agressive against the homophobic positions that you presented without defending, that it almost sounded like I was attacking you. So... I'm sorry, both of you.

It's cool, I just tend to play devil's advocate a lot of the time. I find it interesting to see the argument put forward and what not.

[Danne]

Well, there's something I want to say, but that's not about the article. I feel really bad about the way I answered to you in my previous message, and also to Niezck in the message before it. I've been so bitter, so agressive against the homophobic positions that you presented without defending, that it almost sounded like I was attacking you. So... I'm sorry, both of you.

Oh, no, don't worry about it. I didn't think you were attacking me. There's no need to apologize.

Btw, I feel just as disgusted by those positions as you do, so I understand your bitterness. I wasn't even going to link to it (like I said, I found the actual data interesting, but the conclusions were, um, offensive) but someone asked.

[Coidzor]

I've actually heard a lot of arguments, from normally rational people, that asexual people don't even exist. Without any sort of voice, or support, or anything, I can understand why that assumption is prevalent.

Well, there's an underlying assumption at play that humans are sexual beings. From that, those who deny this are sexual beings who are denying themselves (see: vows of chastity and rapidly exiting GiTP), deluded (self or otherwise), confused, or outright damaged in some way.

From that you can say there are no true asexuals, only people who are either confused or broken.

Normally there's no "wrong behavior" to get outraged over due to it being mostly characterized by a lack of behavior.

And there you have it, believing they don't exist and not really caring about the ones who are that way anyway so long as they don't encounter 'em personally.

[golentan]

Well, the thing that weirds me out about Asexuality is... it's asexual.

Not "Not attracted to anybody," which makes a certain amount of sense to me. Just not interested in sex/sexually charged activities. It's... how to put it. I'd think that with the nerve densities and wiring involved that there would be at least a certain physical satisfaction involved in at least some peripherally related activities. Enjoyment on (if nothing else) the level of a good massage or a nice bubble bath at the end of a long day, or putting Aloe on a sunburn, or whatever other comparative you want to use. Tension (mild discomfort) -> Pleasure -> Release of Tension = flood of reinforcing neurotransmitters and slight addictive behavioral adjustment, for all of these actions.

Yet most of the A's I've spoken to have said something to the effect of "Tried masturbating/fooling around once or twice, wasn't fun, no interest in sex."

I realize that is a subset of the asexual population, but it seems to be a large one. And it's bizarre. It weirds me out.

And thus it's fascinating. It's one of the many things that makes me scribble furious notes to myself and begin making wild hypotheses about nerve connections, dopamine, and miscellaneous other items, just because it's so disparate from other physical responses in the general population.

[Murdim]

Btw, I feel just as disgusted by those positions as you do, so I understand your bitterness. I wasn't even going to link to it (like I said, I found the actual data interesting, but the conclusions were, um, offensive) but someone asked.

Well, now that I've read it, I've found it to be... not that bad. Not half as bad as the words "J. M. Bailey", "sissy" and "NARTH" seemed to imply.

He does say a lot of intelligent things ; actually, I would say there's appreciably more good stuff than bad stuff overall. The main idea of the article appears to be that like every single other psychological trait, homosexuality isn't something you're simply "determined" to be, either via genetics, prenatal development, familial environment or specific life experiences, and that in fact, the development of a homosexual attraction pattern is an essentially subjective occurence. This is, in fact, several notches more exact and comprehensive that the discourse of many well-intentioned gay rights activists or allies, and I can only suppose that this fairly refreshing honesty may lead some people to accept the more dubious parts of his views on homosexuality. Rather unsurprisingly, he also implies homosexuality isn't a choice ; if there's something positive to say about ex-gay advocates in general, it would be that they at least recognize that people don't just "choose" to be gay - else they wouldn't be trying to cure them.

I must recognise that Mr Whitehead is remarkably intellectually honest for the most part. Sure, he presents a very pathologised conception of sexual orientation, where homosexuality is defined as "giving in" to one's same-sex attractions, rather than having them in the first place ; but I would attribute it to bigotry, not intellectual dishonesty. After all, it tallies with the vision his patients have of their own homosexuality ; our "positive" notion of homosexuality as a sexual attraction primarily geared towards the same sex isn't really relevant - and I say it as a bisexual person, someone whose sexuality is basically erased under the classical homophobic definition of homosexuality. In a way, that makes him partially right when he says homosexuality (i.e homosexual behavior) is something you can strive against through the repression of undesirable desires.

If there wasn't that sickening part about "sissy boys", I'd even envision the possibility that the man isn't homophobic himself, but believes that those who suffer from egodystonic homophobia shouldn't be forced to "just accept" feelings they do not want under the dubious pretense that prejudice against gay people is badong. Even bigots need help, I guess.