LGBTAitP 26: No Time For Snappy Titles

[Zorg]

@ Absol - the more you dig, the more you find things that make you go "why? why didn't I see this?!" don't you?

-

I don't follow the NFL, but I just became a Minnesota Vikings fan.

[Asta Kask]

So, I realized that I identified myself as trans without realizing it over a year ago.

Spoiler

Show

When I first got the BoEF (yes, I know, I know...), I designed a new race after reading through most of it. The race itself, called the elda, were basically an offshoot of elves that embraced sexuality and personal freedom. Compared to most of the material in that book, however, they were actually quite tame.

The important part came in what I wrote about their society:


Keep in mind that, a year ago, I had no idea what transgender or transsexuality meant (I'm still kinda iffy on the difference), had never heard of genderfluidity, nor did I really understand the difference between gender and sex (as should be obvious by this quote of myself from a year ago). The idea that someone could be called by a pronoun other than the one for their body also seemed like an entirely unique and original concept to me.

The important part is, the only reason I put this into the description was because I wanted to make it socially acceptable for someone to want to permanently change their gender, and I privately considered myself to be a "female soul."

Once again, the signs, why didn't I notice sooner? This is going on my wallet list.

You can put a cloth on a lantern, but some light will still escape.

[Arachu]

I do have to interject. The biggest cause of incest is not a genetic tendency for it, but rather the way in which people genetically avoid incest (because not avoiding incest results in bad children and your genes being eliminated). The general rule (for humans) is that you do not become sexually attracted to people you see during or before the age of six. This was far more effective before we were capable of speedily traveling across the globe. If you spend your childhood separated from a cousin, it's quite possible to crush on them later in life.
Homosexuality, meanwhile, does actually have evolutionary advantage. This sounds completely nonsensical, but hear me out. The advantage is akin to having one dominant straight gene and one recessive gay gene (though no single gay gene exists; it's more complicated than that), where some of your children are gay. In K-strategist species, this is Nature's solution to overpopulation. When some members of a species are having non-reproductive sexual partners, they serve to help other members raise children without increasing the number of children needing to be raised. In a population which cannot increase in size in its current area, this is a good thing. It results in stronger children, instead of a large number of children some of which will die. Each death is a waste of resources.

I can see where that makes sense, but it doesn't account for bisexuals or asexuals... Unless maybe the former's a 'codominant' sort of thing?

So, I realized that I identified myself as trans without realizing it over a year ago.

Spoiler

Show

When I first got the BoEF (yes, I know, I know...), I designed a new race after reading through most of it. The race itself, called the elda, were basically an offshoot of elves that embraced sexuality and personal freedom. Compared to most of the material in that book, however, they were actually quite tame.

The important part came in what I wrote about their society:


Keep in mind that, a year ago, I had no idea what transgender or transsexuality meant (I'm still kinda iffy on the difference), had never heard of genderfluidity, nor did I really understand the difference between gender and sex (as should be obvious by this quote of myself from a year ago). The idea that someone could be called by a pronoun other than the one for their body also seemed like an entirely unique and original concept to me.

The important part is, the only reason I put this into the description was because I wanted to make it socially acceptable for someone to want to permanently change their gender, and I privately considered myself to be a "female soul."

Once again, the signs, why didn't I notice sooner? This is going on my wallet list.

X3 *Hugs~*


@Siuis:

Spoiler

Show

[tangent] [trigger warning maybe?]

Spoiler

Show

My views on this level of interaction are outdated. Literally. I've grown a lot morally in the last ten years, but everything codified before that is still there. I find the thought of permanently harming another person to be reprehensible in the extreme, such that it gives me nausea, insomnia, nightmares. But I still hve a series of social triggers that will lead me to use of lethal force. The human psyche does not compile, it has to be defragmenter occasionally. I haven't in a decade. So I feel these Thigs but don't believe they are correct all the time.

I can definitely grok that. I'm still surprising myself with things I hoped I was over. >.>

Spoiler

Show

Attraction is fine. Be attracted.
But if I know you're a pedophile, you told me. You either told me for a reaction, or in hopes of finding sympathy. Being a 'technical' anything here you match the Latin roots of a word and consciously ignore the implications of it is bad. It doesn't matter what it is, either. It's like people who 'technically died'. You don't die when your hear stops. You die when your dead. Those semantics activate my old Stoic Jerk mode.

Sympathy is a slippery slope. How do I respond? How can I? In most cases, it means you're looking for commission, someone to say it's cool so you don't feel bad. On its surface that is fine, but in experience people take miles when you hve inches. If I tell someone I'm okay with them having a bad trait against their will, then they will expect me to be okay when they have little slips and fall off the wagon. I won't. I've had too many people try to guilt me into being an accomplice after the fact, with drugs, with violence against their partners and family, with theft.
Yes, there is a technical distinction. This distinction does not show up in practice however, and practice is all I care about. Cared about. Five minutes of thought and I could Have scores of ways in which I care about theory over practice now.

That's... Toupee fallacy. If everyone exclusively uses the word to refer to criminals, nobody's going to mention distinctions. Some people still draw the same conclusion about homosexuals, just because they don't acknowledge any who don't somehow justify the assumption. :/

(Sorry if that sounded angry (it wasn't supposed to)... I'm just fed up with dehumanization in general. I'm pretty much ready to defend most anyone from it at this point, with some exceptions that I'm mostly trying to work through. >.>)


~Bianca

[Lix Lorn]

So, I realized that I identified myself as trans without realizing it over a year ago.

Spoiler

Show

When I first got the BoEF (yes, I know, I know...), I designed a new race after reading through most of it. The race itself, called the elda, were basically an offshoot of elves that embraced sexuality and personal freedom. Compared to most of the material in that book, however, they were actually quite tame.

The important part came in what I wrote about their society:


Keep in mind that, a year ago, I had no idea what transgender or transsexuality meant (I'm still kinda iffy on the difference), had never heard of genderfluidity, nor did I really understand the difference between gender and sex (as should be obvious by this quote of myself from a year ago). The idea that someone could be called by a pronoun other than the one for their body also seemed like an entirely unique and original concept to me.

The important part is, the only reason I put this into the description was because I wanted to make it socially acceptable for someone to want to permanently change their gender, and I privately considered myself to be a "female soul."

Once again, the signs, why didn't I notice sooner? This is going on my wallet list.

I feel you. For about a year I posted on this one forum, where shipping and genderswapping was my main hallmark. I spent at least as much time being female as I did male there. No surprise that of the two good friends I had on that forum, one was utterly unsurprised, and the other actually guessed I was about to say it before I did. xD

[SiuiS]

I can see where that makes sense, but it doesn't account for bisexuals or asexuals... Unless maybe the former's a 'codominant' sort of thing?

Bisexuality, I would guess, is less attraction to both genders, and more not being disgusted so much by one or the other. Straight people tend to be really, really creeped out by homosexual thoughts and such. Complete plot-pull, though.

That's... Toupee fallacy. If everyone exclusively uses the word to refer to criminals, nobody's going to mention distinctions. Some people still draw the same conclusion about homosexuals, just because they don't acknowledge any who don't somehow justify the assumption. :/

It might be said fallacy. And yes, people still do. And honestly? I have no problem with someone being a bigot. I have a problem with them acting bigoted. You can believe what you want, but unless you're capable of intelligent discourse I don't want to hear it. It's an at least fair use of the concept, you must admit.
other people don't have to like homosexuals. They don't have to be okay with them. They don't have to stay on the same side of the street as us. They only have to know tat they are making a subjective, not objective, opinion affect their actions. It's sad when someone chooses to be prejudiced, but they have the right to make that choice.

(Sorry if that sounded angry (it wasn't supposed to)... I'm just fed up with dehumanization in general. I'm pretty much ready to defend most anyone from it at this point, with some exceptions that I'm mostly trying to work through. >.>)

That's the core of it. I consider humans animals. If a lion attacks a human and eats him, the human shoul have fought back harder. That's how being prey works. It's only within the pack, so to speak, that I care about pack rules. But yeah, it is dehumanizing. I'm kind about it, but that's what it is. Or was. It also related to my Druidic bent, but I can't really elaborate on that.

I feel you. For about a year I posted on this one forum, where shipping and genderswapping was my main hallmark. I spent at least as much time being female as I did male there. No surprise that of the two good friends I had on that forum, one was utterly unsurprised, and the other actually guessed I was about to say it before I did. xD

heehee~

[noparlpf]

I do have to interject. The biggest cause of incest is not a genetic tendency for it, but rather the way in which people genetically avoid incest (because not avoiding incest results in bad children and your genes being eliminated). The general rule (for humans) is that you do not become sexually attracted to people you see during or before the age of six. This was far more effective before we were capable of speedily traveling across the globe. If you spend your childhood separated from a cousin, it's quite possible to crush on them later in life.

I thought I read that it was people you grew up with (not just anybody you saw) before you were about twelve. Has early puberty pushed that back?
And anyway, back in the day before people would even travel much between villages incest was still very taboo, which means it had to happen sometimes for people to have noticed it. So it is possible that there's a genetic tendency in the failure of whatever genes code for you not being attracted to people you were raised with.

Homosexuality, meanwhile, does actually have evolutionary advantage. This sounds completely nonsensical, but hear me out. The advantage is akin to having one dominant straight gene and one recessive gay gene (though no single gay gene exists; it's more complicated than that), where some of your children are gay. In K-strategist species, this is Nature's solution to overpopulation. When some members of a species are having non-reproductive sexual partners, they serve to help other members raise children without increasing the number of children needing to be raised. In a population which cannot increase in size in its current area, this is a good thing. It results in stronger children, instead of a large number of children some of which will die. Each death is a waste of resources.

I've heard that theory too.

So, I realized that I identified myself as trans without realizing it over a year ago.

Spoiler

Show

When I first got the BoEF (yes, I know, I know...), I designed a new race after reading through most of it. The race itself, called the elda, were basically an offshoot of elves that embraced sexuality and personal freedom. Compared to most of the material in that book, however, they were actually quite tame.

The important part came in what I wrote about their society:


Keep in mind that, a year ago, I had no idea what transgender or transsexuality meant (I'm still kinda iffy on the difference), had never heard of genderfluidity, nor did I really understand the difference between gender and sex (as should be obvious by this quote of myself from a year ago). The idea that someone could be called by a pronoun other than the one for their body also seemed like an entirely unique and original concept to me.

The important part is, the only reason I put this into the description was because I wanted to make it socially acceptable for someone to want to permanently change their gender, and I privately considered myself to be a "female soul."

Once again, the signs, why didn't I notice sooner? This is going on my wallet list.

That's pretty neat. I guess even without the proper terminology (seems like a lot of us didn't realise exactly what we were until we found the words) you already sort of knew (which is also probably a common trend now I think of it).

[Asta Kask]

Bisexuality, I would guess, is less attraction to both genders, and more not being disgusted so much by one or the other. Straight people tend to be really, really creeped out by homosexual thoughts and such. Complete plot-pull, though.

There are some rat experiments that support that. Rats turn bisexual if you turn off an important gene for detecting scent.

It's also good to remember that not everything is an adaptation - it may be a remnant from an earlier stage, or it may be a side-effect of something that is adaptive (moths fly into flames because their navigation system counts all light source as being at infinite distance).

[Serpentine]

Homosexuality, meanwhile, does actually have evolutionary advantage. This sounds completely nonsensical, but hear me out. The advantage is akin to having one dominant straight gene and one recessive gay gene (though no single gay gene exists; it's more complicated than that), where some of your children are gay. In K-strategist species, this is Nature's solution to overpopulation. When some members of a species are having non-reproductive sexual partners, they serve to help other members raise children without increasing the number of children needing to be raised. In a population which cannot increase in size in its current area, this is a good thing. It results in stronger children, instead of a large number of children some of which will die. Each death is a waste of resources.

There's lots of hypotheses on how homosexuality in a species is an evolutionary advantage, and they're not all mutually exclusive. As well as that one, there's also:
- it's advantageous for an individual to be "a little bit gay" - that is, there are certain traits that increase the reproductive ability of a (non-gay) individual, but if you have a whole lot of these traits you'll end up with a gay person - effectively, homosexuality is a byproduct of stuff that makes non-homosexuals sexier.
- with regards to the "birth order" phenomenon, it is better if each son* is attracted to a different type of mate, to increase diversity in grandchildren. Sometimes this ends up with a youngest son who is interested in a VERY different type of mate (yeah, I know this is another 'byproduct" sort of theory, but it ties into the child-raising thing too).
Note that these two are both fully compatible with bi/pan- and asexuality, too. I'm sure there's other theories, too, but these are the ones I've heard of.

*notice how most homosexuality research is about dudes?

[Asta Kask]

*notice how most homosexuality research is about dudes?

But most movies on the Internet are about gals. So it evens out.

[Randomguy]

I can see where that makes sense, but it doesn't account for bisexuals or asexuals... Unless maybe the former's a 'codominant' sort of thing?


~Bianca

I think that's where the "it's more complicated than that" part comes in: There are probably a bunch of different genes involved. Straight men and lesbian women would have a lot of "attracted to women" alleles, gay men and straight women would have a lot of "attracted to men" alleles, bisexuals would have a roughly equal amount of both, asexuals would have almost none and demisexuals would have only just enough to not count as asexuals.

Or something like that, anyway.

It certainly fits in with the kinsey scale, though.

[noparlpf]

I think that's where the "it's more complicated than that" part comes in: There are probably a bunch of different genes involved. Straight men and lesbian women would have a lot of "attracted to women" alleles, gay men and straight women would have a lot of "attracted to men" alleles, bisexuals would have a roughly equal amount of both, asexuals would have almost none and demisexuals would have only just enough to not count as asexuals.

Or something like that, anyway.

It certainly fits in with the kinsey scale, though.

And it's probably even more complicated than that.
We really don't know much about how our genes work together yet.

[Coidzor]

If it were that simple as alleles alone, there's a fair chance we'd have caught on to some of that and have a research paper or scientist who we could constantly cite ad nauseum on the subject.

As it is, I personally suspect that a lot of it has to do with epigenetics.

[Lix Lorn]

*notice how most homosexuality research is about dudes?

Well duh. We know why girls get it on. It's hot, amirite?
I am not entirely serious and I hope you know that.

[Lentrax]

Well duh. We know why girls get it on. It's hot, amirite?
I am not entirely serious and I hope you know that.

Well yeah. We know that Lixie.
To both parts.

[Coidzor]

I find blue text helps convey the sarcasm without another line of white text being necessary. Turns that white text from covering your booty to actually providing some additional interplay and fun times.

[Asta Kask]

Most scientists are male, and if female subjects started making out in the laboratory the scientists would be too distracted to record data.

[Lix Lorn]

Most scientists are male, and if female subjects started making out in the laboratory the scientists would be too distracted to record data.

Clearly, the scientists should be the subjects. What could go wrong?

[Irish Musician]

Clearly, the scientists should be the subjects. What could go wrong?

I have this vision in my head of a scientist pouring a substance into another substance from beaker to beaker and just starting at the females making out. Then, as he is watching, his hand slowly slides over to another beaker with another substance in it, and when those two substances are combined, and explosion occurs

[Lix Lorn]

I have this vision in my head of a scientist pouring a substance into another substance from beaker to beaker and just starting at the females making out. Then, as he is watching, his hand slowly slides over to another beaker with another substance in it, and when those two substances are combined, and explosion occurs

Is he pouring faster and faster as he watches?

[Irish Musician]

Is he pouring faster and faster as he watches?

Oh yes........and faster and faster and faster and faster and faster and faster and faster and faster

[Arachu]

I feel you. For about a year I posted on this one forum, where shipping and genderswapping was my main hallmark. I spent at least as much time being female as I did male there. No surprise that of the two good friends I had on that forum, one was utterly unsurprised, and the other actually guessed I was about to say it before I did. xD

X3

Bisexuality, I would guess, is less attraction to both genders, and more not being disgusted so much by one or the other. Straight people tend to be really, really creeped out by homosexual thoughts and such. Complete plot-pull, though.

It might be said fallacy. And yes, people still do. And honestly? I have no problem with someone being a bigot. I have a problem with them acting bigoted. You can believe what you want, but unless you're capable of intelligent discourse I don't want to hear it. It's an at least fair use of the concept, you must admit.
other people don't have to like homosexuals. They don't have to be okay with them. They don't have to stay on the same side of the street as us. They only have to know tat they are making a subjective, not objective, opinion affect their actions. It's sad when someone chooses to be prejudiced, but they have the right to make that choice.

True... It would be a bit hypocritical to antagonize people for not liking people that haven't hurt anyone.

That's the core of it. I consider humans animals. If a lion attacks a human and eats him, the human shoul have fought back harder. That's how being prey works. It's only within the pack, so to speak, that I care about pack rules. But yeah, it is dehumanizing. I'm kind about it, but that's what it is. Or was. It also related to my Druidic bent, but I can't really elaborate on that.

Seems a bit victim-blaming to say the human should've fought harder, but it wouldn't be fair to condemn the lion for needing to eat. I'd try to focus on the fact that someone died even if it was the lion.

If it were that simple as alleles alone, there's a fair chance we'd have caught on to some of that and have a research paper or scientist who we could constantly cite ad nauseum on the subject.

As it is, I personally suspect that a lot of it has to do with epigenetics.

That's my hypothesis.

Clearly, the scientists should be the subjects. What could go wrong?

*Imagines scientists repeatedly saying they needed more testing and that they were this close to learning something profound* XD


~Bianca

[Coidzor]

I have this vision in my head of a scientist pouring a substance into another substance from beaker to beaker and just starting at the females making out. Then, as he is watching, his hand slowly slides over to another beaker with another substance in it, and when those two substances are combined, and explosion occurs

And this is the ultimate result.

[Serpentine]

And it's probably even more complicated than that.
We really don't know much about how our genes work together yet.

Also there's a great deal of evidence that there's plenty of other stuff going on aside from genes, too (e.g. the birth-order thing, some connection between homosexuality and childhood abuse (sorry guys :/)).

[noparlpf]

Also there's a great deal of evidence that there's plenty of other stuff going on aside from genes, too (e.g. the birth-order thing, some connection between homosexuality and childhood abuse (sorry guys :/)).

Genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors all play their parts in developing complex organisms.

[Coidzor]

Also there's a great deal of evidence that there's plenty of other stuff going on aside from genes, too (e.g. the birth-order thing, some connection between homosexuality and childhood abuse (sorry guys :/)).

Well, you know, if we just figured out the right way to spin that we might even be able to use the bigots constructively to help stamp out child abuse.

Ok, so it would never work, but it's an interesting thought. ...Right?

[noparlpf]

Well, you know, if we just figured out the right way to spin that we might even be able to use the bigots constructively to help stamp out child abuse.

Ok, so it would never work, but it's an interesting thought. ...Right?

Interesting thought but absolutely impractical even as a dream.

[Coidzor]

SiuiS, Arachu, Musashi: You and others who were interested in that subtopic from about pages 23-24 may be interested in an article on Gawker from September 7th, 2012 10:30 AM by Cord Jefferson. I won't link between the necessary TRIGGER WARNING and having been unable to finish the article, though. You might find it of interest or just something that will make you rage harder than you've ever raged, though.

Still... digesting what I have read and working up the intestinal fortitude to finish.

[Saposhiente]

I can see where that makes sense, but it doesn't account for bisexuals or asexuals... Unless maybe the former's a 'codominant' sort of thing?

Ignore the dominant/recessive thing because that's a huge simplification. The important thing is that you are not gay but some of your children are.

Bisexuality, I would guess, is less attraction to both genders, and more not being disgusted so much by one or the other. Straight people tend to be really, really creeped out by homosexual thoughts and such. Complete plot-pull, though.

Well, no. I think the disgust is a culture thing. The reason that gays receive disproportionate disgust relative to lesbians is because they're "unmanly" to most people, whereas if someone is unfeminine, nobody cares. Except maybe sexists. Being gay, the idea of heterosexuality doesn't creep me out at all, it's just a thing. Of course I've got Aspergers and aren't creeped out by anything (Protip: It is indeed possible to un-see things; you simply have to recognize how they do not affect you at all and be indifferent. I have forgotten all but the general plot of 2girls1cup), so I'm not really a representative example. But straight women: when was the last time you were creeped out by lesbian thoughts? I certainly don't hear about this. I think the creepout is from the culture, not an innate thing. In any case, if bisexuality were simply not being creeped out by either thing, I would be bisexual, however I unfortunately am not.

[SiuiS]

Saposhiente: you misunderstand. I mean the actual, factual tendency of straight people to feel a tug of revulsion when they put brain power behind doing a homosexual act. It doesn't matter, guy gal or otherwise. Thinking "if I put my tongue [place]" is creepy/gross. This isn't a societal tendency. A LI of homosexual people have the same thought when applying their minds to heterosexual acts, though it's seemingly a less vocal objection (except Supernerd !)

There's lots of hypotheses on how homosexuality in a species is an evolutionary advantage, and they're not all mutually exclusive. As well as that one, there's also:
- it's advantageous for an individual to be "a little bit gay" - that is, there are certain traits that increase the reproductive ability of a (non-gay) individual, but if you have a whole lot of these traits you'll end up with a gay person - effectively, homosexuality is a byproduct of stuff that makes non-homosexuals sexier.
- with regards to the "birth order" phenomenon, it is better if each son* is attracted to a different type of mate, to increase diversity in grandchildren. Sometimes this ends up with a youngest son who is interested in a VERY different type of mate (yeah, I know this is another 'byproduct" sort of theory, but it ties into the child-raising thing too).
Note that these two are both fully compatible with bi/pan- and asexuality, too. I'm sure there's other theories, too, but these are the ones I've heard of.

*notice how most homosexuality research is about dudes?

I always figured that abuse correlating to homosexuality was because non abused people rarely ever require the toolset to question themselves at that level, let alone need to deal with their mental interplay. A heterosexual sees a chick, gets excited, no one cares. Especially not the chick, most of the time.
A homosexual sees a dude, gets excited, and has to do some soul searching.

Ironically, my example also deals with dudes. I don't feel capable of speaking for ladies in general just yet.

Seems a bit victim-blaming to say the human should've fought harder, but it wouldn't be fair to condemn the lion for needing to eat. I'd try to focus on the fact that someone died even if it was the lion.

I would normally rant at this.

No. No it's not victim blaming. And if it is, I don't care.
If a lion eats a human, he's not a victim. He's prey. Prey animals who get eaten? Should have fought harder. grown antlers. Travelled in packs. Sympathy? No. You mess with a bill, you get horns. You mess with a lion, you get Herculean cosplay material or you get et.

I also dislike the term victim blaming. It is entirely circumstantial, because I know it's necessary to give the concept legitimacy, bu I personally have never seen a situation where the 'victim' did not have a part in it, but was still blamed. So I have a disconnect there. That's why I fall back on my rationality; rules don't matter, in the sense of 'we have them do we apply them unilaterally". Every situation is unique, and requires critical thought. A woman who is raped comin. Home from a club? Not her fair no matter how sexily she dressed. A man raped in his cell? Not his fault no matter how much he should hve known he shots sleep less. A walking bit o meat that considers itself above the food chain because concepts like 'Zoo' and 'Rifle' exist? He's asking for it. You don't wander the savannah without protection, and you don't lean drunkenly into a lion exhibit. That not blaming the victim, that pointing out cause and effect

I understand this is the phenomenon commonly known as hype backlash however, which means its less a valid stave and more of a knee jerk reaction. That's why I acknowledge that pack rules work in the pack; human interaction needs must differ from human/animal interaction.

SiuiS, Arachu, Musashi: You and others who were interested in that subtopic from about pages 23-24 may be interested in an article on Gawker from September 7th, 2012 10:30 AM by Cord Jefferson. I won't link between the necessary TRIGGER WARNING and having been unable to finish the article, though. You might find it of interest or just something that will make you rage harder than you've ever raged, though.

Still... digesting what I have read and working up the intestinal fortitude to finish.

sounds... Academic. I'll check it out when I have a tab, thank you.

[Arachu]

SiuiS, Arachu, Musashi: You and others who were interested in that subtopic from about pages 23-24 may be interested in an article on Gawker from September 7th, 2012 10:30 AM by Cord Jefferson. I won't link between the necessary TRIGGER WARNING and having been unable to finish the article, though. You might find it of interest or just something that will make you rage harder than you've ever raged, though.

Still... digesting what I have read and working up the intestinal fortitude to finish.

I'm a bit... Put-off by some of the wording (I mean, what's the "proper" way for a brain to develop ), but I'm surprised someone actually took the time to study it so thoroughly. Hopefully it at least leads to better laws being passed, clearly this wouldn't be an issue at all if imprisonment worked.

In any case, thanks for pointing it out~

I would normally rant at this.

No. No it's not victim blaming. And if it is, I don't care.
If a lion eats a human, he's not a victim. He's prey. Prey animals who get eaten? Should have fought harder. grown antlers. Travelled in packs. Sympathy? No. You mess with a bill, you get horns. You mess with a lion, you get Herculean cosplay material or you get et.

I also dislike the term victim blaming. It is entirely circumstantial, because I know it's necessary to give the concept legitimacy, bu I personally have never seen a situation where the 'victim' did not have a part in it, but was still blamed. So I have a disconnect there. That's why I fall back on my rationality; rules don't matter, in the sense of 'we have them do we apply them unilaterally". Every situation is unique, and requires critical thought. A woman who is raped comin. Home from a club? Not her fair no matter how sexily she dressed. A man raped in his cell? Not his fault no matter how much he should hve known he shots sleep less. A walking bit o meat that considers itself above the food chain because concepts like 'Zoo' and 'Rifle' exist? He's asking for it. You don't wander the savannah without protection, and you don't lean drunkenly into a lion exhibit. That not blaming the victim, that pointing out cause and effect

I understand this is the phenomenon commonly known as hype backlash however, which means its less a valid stave and more of a knee jerk reaction. That's why I acknowledge that pack rules work in the pack; human interaction needs must differ from human/animal interaction.

I dunno if it's fair to assume that all humans think they're above the food chain... Or that people should somehow know whether they're going to be ambushed by lions - but anyway, I'm not saying whether victims in general are completely without fault of some sort but rather that they've been harmed. Maybe the person could've worn platemail on the safari, but regardless of details they're dead. Therefore a victim. Even if they were, say, trying to kill the lion or walking around with meat strapped to their neck.

That said, I don't have a very conventional worldview. Or dictionary, it seems. Plus we're getting a bit heated... Agree to disagree? *Hugs?*


~Bianca