LGBTAitP #28: Come Taste the Rainbow!

[noparlpf]

Hmm? What are you referencing at present?

If you're just talking the general case, I'd honestly be more jostled that people would abandon their established romantic pairings with speed and gusto given the short and definitively temporary nature of such things. I've only got my own brain to work with, but I'd probably be too busy acclimating to a female body and figuring out what to do about it to break things off with my girlfriend-come-boyfriend and find a new pairing.

Oh yeah, context is a thing. It was a random webcomic I was reading earlier.
And you're probably right, except it's not supposed to be realistic, it's for humour. Later, two guys get magically turned gay for each other, which is obviously hilarious because homosexuality is edgy?
I need to do better things with my day. I guess it's back to Doctor Who. I'm all the way up to season fifteen.

Been trying to be a little bit more feminine lately. I just bought a big plushie of a My Little Pony character.

I regret nothing.

Not to be a downer, but unfortunately, this time around MLP is kind of a guys' show.

Spoiler

Show

Though I don't think most guys get plushies.

[Lix Lorn]

Hehe think more sugar glider in your pocket

Lolwhut. xD

Not to be a downer, but unfortunately, this time around MLP is kind of a guys' show.

Spoiler

Show

Though I don't think most guys get plushies.

...not really? A lot of guys watch it, but it is in no way a guy's show.

[noparlpf]

Lolwhut. xD


...not really? A lot of guys watch it, but it is in no way a guy's show.

Eh, I guess it's technically a little girls' show, but the majority of the people you hear about watching MLP:FiM are late-adolescent guys. I guess it's a case of vocal group vs. everyone else not being noticed?

[Lix Lorn]

Indeed, but the reason this is such a big thing is because of how stereotypically feminine the show is.

[Ceric]

However, the assumption that men in general aren't concerned about sexual violence is a bit iffy if I may say so. I think this statement is vague and maybe even incorrect. I think that if you mean that men in general are not worried of being tarted by sexual violence, that you could be right. I think that if you think men generally trivialize sexual violence existing that you are wrong. I think most men have formed attachments with some women/girls, enough to worry about their friends/wives/girlfriends/daughters/other female family when they go out because they might become a target of sexual violence. if the previous statement is incorrect and I am an exception to the general rule I'd like to see that backed up by data.

also remember that changing your path isn't special for people who feel they might be tartgetd by sexual violence, but by 'regular' violence as well. I must admit that seeïng people hang about in a shady manner near a not well lit road I change my path home as well. that has nothing to do with me feeling a potential target of sexual violence, but with the fact that a group might prove too strong for me if it came to fighting and thus responding to my fight of flee (or in this case remain on the route or take an other route) instinct.

I agree that men do not have no concern about sexual violence. When a group of friends and I were playing a CTF-based game at night, one of the first rules a guy came up with was "scream if you get attacked and we'll all drop what we're doing and find you." I have another friend from another country who won't even let his girlfriend walk alone in the city at night. (I live in the USA and he's told us that his country is a third-world country; one of his ten-year-old students once fought off an attempted mugging on the way to class.) But these are the only instances I can think of where a guy showed explicit concern for a girl's safety. Otherwise it's always the girls who first bring up rules about buddy systems and staying safe.

And while neither guys nor girls would walk into a shady alley at night, I find that guys overall tend to be less cautious than girls. If I'm on campus late at night, I lock my bike and take the bus home instead of biking by myself. And when I do bike home, there's two routes - one alongside a busy street and another that cuts through an empty field - and I always prefer the street route, where I find the guys tend to take the field route.

You mention that you might change your route due to avoiding a group of people who "might" be too strong for you... But as a woman, I assume by default that if I get attacked my attacker will be too strong for me. Maybe they won't be if they're also female. I know some (admittedly non-combative) martial arts and I'm of about average fitness. But I assume that my attackers are much more likely to be male and stronger or at least heavier than me. Yes, I just told a story about a (male) 10-year-old who fought off his attackers, but the way my friend told it they simply hadn't expected a ten-year-old to know martial arts and ran away as soon as he started throwing punches. I can't risk my safety on that luck. Not to mention that sexual assault doesn't necessarily mean a fight. If someone gets close enough or is simply unexpected enough to grope you, it doesn't matter if you beat them to a bloody pulp afterwards; the sexual assault has already happened. Sexual violence is different from regular violence in that respect.

These are obviously anecdotes and not data as you've requested, but that's my thoughts on the issue.

[Worira]

Stats

link

trivialize male victimization less thanks

ps muggers aren't looking for a fair fight and muscles won't stop a knife in the gut

[Mystic Muse]

Not to be a downer, but unfortunately, this time around MLP is kind of a guys' show.
Though I don't think most guys get plushies.

Not really, and most guys also wouldn't spend $93 on a plushie either.

[noparlpf]

Not really, and most guys also wouldn't spend $93 on a plushie either.

I wouldn't spend $93 on almost anything. Except maybe a car or a computer.

[Mystic Muse]

I wouldn't spend $93 on almost anything. Except maybe a car or a computer.

I just got my paycheck today and could afford to splurge a little, and had been wanting it for a while. I don't plan on making this a habit, but I really wanted that plushie.

[Saskia]

Stats

link

trivialize male victimization less thanks

ps muggers aren't looking for a fair fight and muscles won't stop a knife in the gut

Who do you feel is trivializing male victims, and in what way?

[Worira]

Who do you feel is trivializing male victims, and in what way?

You've actually been doing a pretty good job at avoiding it, much better than I've seen people do in similar discussions. However, I've gotten a general vibe that men have less to fear from violent crime, which is... not really the case. Ceric's post, in particular, seems to make the assumption that men are safer from violent crime based on size and strength, while disregarding the fact that those aren't actually particularly relevant factors in most predatory crimes. I also object to "men don't have concern for sexual violence" being used to mean almost exclusively "men don't have concern for sexual violence against women", and in doing so disregarding the very real fact of sexual violence against men.

[Zorg]

So, how 'bouts thems LGBT issues, am I right?

[Irish Musician]

I wouldn't spend $93 on almost anything. Except maybe a car or a computer.

I'd buy a very nice 1930's Mandolin for that.....just saying

[noparlpf]

I'd buy a very nice 1930's Mandolin for that.....just saying

I don't have an income and I don't like spending money on things anyway. With a steady job and whatnot that might not sound as much.

[Arachu]

Good morning my Beautiful people of this thread, hope you all had a good night.

I didn't. MY wife is out of town because her gpa died, which wasn't a good thing, but we are glad that he did due to the fact that he had lymphoma and was in a lot of pain. And when she isn't sleeping next to me in the bed, I can't sleep. Not to mention the fact that I have second hand poison oak from her (not really her fault, she was just the source), and all in all I got it worse than she did and she was the one who was all up in it. Well, went last night to get some steroids (shot and 15 regiment of pills) from the Dr's office, and it helped quite a bit, however the shot kept me up all night as well.

On the brighter side, I got my new TV stand all set up with my surround sound, game consoles, and the like last night while I couldn't sleep.....so that was at least some silver lining.

I know there aren't strictly LGBTA related, really, I just needed a little venting time, so thank you for that. Now, for coffee..........lots of coffee.....

~Matthew~

*Hugs!*

It's not even that academic. It's entirely sort of a toupe fallacy that sunk in; the only examples I've ever experienced of people who seek sex but abjure emotional attachment are predatory, and dehumanizing. So while I have most likely met people who fall under sexual aromatic, the only ones who exist under that label in my head are terrible people. This has come up before, and I believe Nix Nihila rebuked me then as well. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. This post will be the last I bring it up.

*Hugs* That image is pretty common in a lot of peoples' heads. Have you tried singling out dehumanization itself as 'bad'? I find it a bit easier to work through these sorts of things with some compartmentalization.

Quite the contrary, these labels are needed, for various quantities of need. Having a handy name makes something Obvious, it is a part of society and harder to question. Labelin yourself grants you legitimacy. You can be a big guy with training, a too heart, strong morals, a clean record and the ability to stop other people from breaking the rules, or you can be a police officer. This is why people usually respond to big definitions with "so, like a [thing], then?" because it's a way of hooking it into ourselves.

Someone can never want sex ever no not even then, and it weird. Someone can be asexual, and you accept that it is a thin they know which is legitimate. The label is the verbal equivalent of a uniform.

Like food allergies - just saying you "can't eat" a given food tends to get you a lot of dirty looks from disgruntled cooks (along with accusations of pickiness), but saying that your body outright rejects it tends to get your point across without offending anyone. Usually.

I personally want the concept of The Right One to go away forever. That concept has ruined so many things, so many people. U watch folks pass up good opportunities do they can be available "just in case" all the time and it's guy wrenching.

This whole one true love thing ruins movies for me too. Rassunfrassun.

You and me both, sister. Between that and... Almost every other popular sexual/romantic concept, I can barely visit a theater without feeling insulted at some point.

Spoiler

Show

Back when I was...oh, probably about thirteen, I was visiting my dad in Indiana. He had a boat, and he, a friend, that friend's nephew who was a friend of mine, and our dog went sailing around the lake. At one point, we stopped and went hiking in the woods.

The next morning when I woke up, I was deathly itchy all over, and I couldn't even open my left eye! The dog had run through a patch of poison ivy, and when I had snuggled with him later that night, it had got almost literally all over me! It took nearly a month and over three dozen bottle of Calemin (or however you spell it) lotion to clear me up. I couldn't see out of my left eye for a week, the lid was swollen shut.

Let's just say that when I got back to my mom's after that trip, she was freaking out .

And now I know how to recognize poison ivy on sight.

~Phoenix~

Dear god that sounds worse than that time I got that sunburn that killed the top layer of epidermis. *Hugs!*

Been trying to be a little bit more feminine lately. I just bought a big plushie of a My Little Pony character.

I regret nothing.

X3


~Bianca

[Irish Musician]

I don't have an income and I don't like spending money on things anyway. With a steady job and whatnot that might not sound as much.

Definitely understand that. I hate money, but unfortunately it is necessary.

also, Thank you all for your well wishes!

~Matthew~

[appending_doom]

Indeed, but the reason this is such a big thing is because of how stereotypically feminine the show is.

I actually spent a while being a little ashamed of liking it - in part because I'd internalized a lot of gender baggage that made me uncomfortable to be too closely associated with something branded as "feminine" (boo, gender narratives).

However, I think that whether we like it or not, a primarily female-dominated show that focuses on the relationships of the characters is "feminine" by the western understanding of gender branding.

[Ravens_cry]

My gender identity is pretty fluid, and I like a lot of things on 'both sides' of the line and am never afraid to admit it.

[gunnar11]

Someone can never want sex ever no not even then, and it weird. Someone can be asexual, and you accept that it is a thin they know which is legitimate. The label is the verbal equivalent of a uniform.

I personally want the concept of The Right One to go away forever. That concept has ruined so many things, so many people. U watch folks pass up good opportunities do they can be available "just in case" all the time and it's guy wrenching.

This whole one true love thing ruins movies for me too. Rassunfrassun.

My thoughts exactly

I just point out the differences there. A lot of people love their parents and don't lust for them. A lot of people like pornography and dot develop romantic attachment to the actors.

That wasn't what I was referring to at all...
Although I think I agree... not sure...

You like guys with boobs and a nice butt?

Yes, and horns coming out of their backs and wings on each of their fingers. YOU GET WHAT I MEAN

Come now friend, no need to be passive aggressive. Coidzor goes in for academic discussion; to learn thins and discuss them to resolution even when the answer doesn't matter anymore. It's nothing personal, and I do it too. It's just a method of getting information so we will have it for next time.

Yeah, it's just that it seemed more like an attack than a question, but oh well, I guess I just misread.

I have a harder time with understanding people who will never in their life develop emotional attachment but are fine using people for gratification. This has always in my experience come with not warning others of a lack of attachment, an in one case seemed rather sociopathic.

It also doesn't help that a sufficient number of asexuals are aromantic, or profess such, causing a mental correlation between sexuality and love.

First of all: I never said I would never in my life develop romantic feelings towards someone, I just haven't up until now.
Second: I am fine using people for gratification? Where did you get that idea from? Let me tell you that I know a lot more romantics that use other people to gratify themselves than I do (according to you).
I do not use people for gratification. I even have had some relationships. The problem lies in the fact that I don't love them, so eventually we break up. I don't do everything for the sex. I like people, and love to spend time with them.
It can be as family, it can be as friends, or as lovers (though never do those overlap) IF we act as lovers, we do everything lovers do, with the exception of me really feeling the love. In no way is that gratification. It's just nice.

Also: I understand you have a hard time understanding this concept, but what I don't understand is why you would call it 'disturbing'.
I don't understand why people eat pineapple on their pizza's, but I certainly do not find it 'disturbing'

I have half achieved my aim, here. The counter arguments, my thinking about them and formulating responses has helped me understand. The amount of discomfort and almost blame placement has me baffled though. I forget sometimes that these are touchy topics on which people expect crushing chastisement, as I am only ever around the playground where everything is nice. If it makes you feel better though, this wasn't just "aromatics are weird", it was "I find his weird and recognize it is a problem. Thoughts?"

I'm glad you understand it better.
Don't get me wrong, I never wanted to place blame on you, or discomfort you, it's just those words 'Disturbs me' are really heavy

It's not that much of a touchy topic, it just hits hard when it gets shot down like that. I know not everything is nice in the playground.
A lot of shady things happen here...

Now this isn't fair at all, and I find it hard to believe that you of all people can't see that it's offensive. Do you seriously believe that romantic love is the only, or only valuable, kind of emotional attachment, and moreover that any sexual contact without love must involve someone being "used for gratification"?

What's more, it's not like love is a switch you can turn on and off. You don't choose whether, and whom, you fall in love with. You just do, or you don't, and you just have to deal with it, there's nothing you can do about it. At least that's certainly the case for me. It's not like - I imagine - aromantics wander around going "no, I shan't love you! And I shan't love you! Shan't shan't shan't!" It's that they can't.
I find it sad, and yeah I do find it a bit odd considering how fundamental it is to human psyche - maybe even more than sex - but I don't find it impossible to comprehend.

SHAN'T SHAN'T SHAN'T
but seriously: that's just what I meant, thanks for writing it down for me :smaltongue:

And really, I don't mind. I know I'm missing out on something, but It's something I've never had. There's no use in trying to get something that was never yours to begin with.
I don't know, though, how fundamental it is. Sometimes I even think 'love' isn't a real thing, just a word people made up, like 'the spark'. It's just that people experience it very differently, and as such they think it's exclusive for everybody apart, 'Love'. (speaking about love for a partner, not family of friends)

That's just what those tricksy oaks want you to think!
~Phoenix~

*chuckle* hihihi

Shouldn't that be Femalefactor?

*chuckles more* hihihi hahahi

Great. Now he has 3rd degree burns as well.

hahahhahahahaha *laughs*

E-syphilis would like to have a word with you.

*rolling on the floor* Stop it, you guys! You're killing me!

Well, redheads are known to be fiery.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAA *rolls and laughs maniacally*


You guys are so funny xD I seriously laughed my ass off. My mom and sis are looking at me like 'wtf?' right now

[noparlpf]

I actually spent a while being a little ashamed of liking it - in part because I'd internalized a lot of gender baggage that made me uncomfortable to be too closely associated with something branded as "feminine" (boo, gender narratives).

However, I think that whether we like it or not, a primarily female-dominated show that focuses on the relationships of the characters is "feminine" by the western understanding of gender branding.

I'm pretty solidly male, but I've never cared much about what gender society thinks my interests are. On the other hand, I basically hate most mainstream things that are heavily identified with one gender or the other, not because of that, but because I usually think they're dumb.

[Ravens_cry]

My biggest problem is I have a desire to be pregnant, yet not even the best plastic surgery in the world can let me achieve that.

[appending_doom]

I'm pretty solidly male, but I've never cared much about what gender society thinks my interests are. On the other hand, I basically hate most mainstream things that are heavily identified with one gender or the other, not because of that, but because I usually think they're dumb.

Well, there's that, too.

[noparlpf]

My biggest problem is I have a desire to be pregnant, yet not even the best plastic surgery in the world can let me achieve that.

They've had moderate success with uterus transplants recently.
And as we can make viable eggs from stem cells, at least in mice, and we're working on making dedifferentiation from mature cells to stem cells practical and cost-effective, no doubt they'll figure out how to coerce XY cells to produce X eggs soon, which would be neat. We might eventually also be able to convince XY cells to grow into a functional uterus so as to avoid the issue of rejection for transsexual women seeking uteruses. I think pregnancies in transplanted uteruses in both male and female bodies (no offense intended, I'm thinking about science and need to differentiate between bodies, not minds) would have to conclude by c-section, though, at least for the foreseeable future.

[Ravens_cry]

I guess I would have to live with that, assuming the technology comes soon enough, though I admit to wanting the package deal, even though it sounds incredibly painful. No offence is taken; I know you mean in a biological sense.

[Ceric]

Stats

link

trivialize male victimization less thanks

ps muggers aren't looking for a fair fight and muscles won't stop a knife in the gut

You've actually been doing a pretty good job at avoiding it, much better than I've seen people do in similar discussions. However, I've gotten a general vibe that men have less to fear from violent crime, which is... not really the case. Ceric's post, in particular, seems to make the assumption that men are safer from violent crime based on size and strength, while disregarding the fact that those aren't actually particularly relevant factors in most predatory crimes. I also object to "men don't have concern for sexual violence" being used to mean almost exclusively "men don't have concern for sexual violence against women", and in doing so disregarding the very real fact of sexual violence against men.

My post was mostly in response to Socratov's, who addressed men being concerned about sexual violence in terms of their friends/wives/girlfriends/daughters/other female family's safety (specifically compared to being concerned about being a target of sexual violence, which he did say that they might not be so I didn't mention it), and who mentioned that men as well as women change their path for safety reasons. I wanted to state that in my experience the former, while sometimes true, is not as strong as the concern women have about being a target of sexual violence, and the latter also does not happen as much for men as for women.

The third point about being able to win/loose a fight was in response to Socratov's specific wording ("might" win a fight compared to my own "definitely won't" win a fight), although I agree with you on all other points.

That said, I definitely didn't mean to trivialize male victims and I should have made that more clear.

So, how 'bouts thems LGBT issues, am I right?

Sorry >.>

[SiuiS]

Serps - don't forget boardies (I've heard it used as a generic unisex term) and the good ol' budgie smugglers.

I hear budgie smuggler and I see Kneen in a speedo. It is neon yellow, he is wearing like, a fez or toureg hat, and somehow looks fabulous. I do not brain.

*sigh* So I didn't go out for clothes and now I'm wondering if I should even bother going to the halloween thingie. And to top it of I ended up hurting one of my friends. :/*

How am I going to get there when I can't even do this?

Oh, luv, I'm sorry. But like they said, friendship heals.

We're you unable to buy appropriate clothes, like you couldn't muster the will? Or we're you unable to get to the store in time?

Now if only I could live by them keep from trying to use words like "irrespective" instead of ones that actually communicate my meaning.

I think irrespective is a perfectly fine word!

I had trouble with this once though. I was on the Xbox live-a-majig, and came across some folks who were, um, "critiquing" the equipment of other players. So I put on my headset and explained my load out, as they were pretty reasonable... Up until I said "m'lee" instead of "may-lay". My response was that I would pronounce it French if I were speaking French, and that I don't think there's a definitive American English pronunciation for the word. I got a lecture about trying to sound smart (:smallcurious:), and how I was homosexual and then a slew of what I understand to be big-standard harassment via threats of sexual violence.

So I suppose I can see why one would decide that using words which come naturally is maybe not the best idea, but if that is the alternative then I'd rather remain salubriously verbose.*

kay. I reserve my right then, to say "complexily" "complicatedness" "imaginize" and "constringent" then. as well as any other words I modify or make up. like disastrophe.

Disastrophe is the best word.

Is it the glottal stop made during speech when an emergency of sufficient magnitude causes vocal cessation?

I'm on my phone at the moment, so just imagine I'm embedding a macro here implying that I use some form of obsolete language like 'æ' and making a reference that "you probably wouldn't have heard of it".*

The implication of course being that you're all starting to sound like a bunch of linguistics hipsters and there's a language thread already.

Psh. Lazy~
Though I suppose if I spent more time in sexy clothes and less on my phone... Hm.

Do eth and thorn count? I use those whenever possible and my keyboard complies.

I think a lot of the derogatory terms are filtered. Apart from those I only know 'bear' and 'beard'. I think. There are probably terms I use that I don't think of as slang, though.

What is slang anyway? Who determines what slang is? Is 'lol' slang?

No, silly, that is an acronym :3

The letter standing Twenty-Sixth in the alphabetum Danum dost be a language by itself? And obsolete? Malefactor!*

You just...
And then...
Malefactor?

...

<3

Good morning my Beautiful people of this thread, hope you all had a good night.

I didn't. *MY wife is out of town because her gpa died, which wasn't a good thing, but we are glad that he did due to the fact that he had lymphoma and was in a lot of pain. *And when she isn't sleeping next to me in the bed, I can't sleep. *Not to mention the fact that I have second hand poison oak from her (not really her fault, she was just the source), and all in all I got it worse than she did and she was the one who was all up in it. *Well, went last night to get some steroids (shot and 15 regiment of pills) from the Dr's office, and it helped quite a bit, however the shot kept me up all night as well.

On the brighter side, I got my new TV stand all set up with my surround sound, game consoles, and the like last night while I couldn't sleep.....so that was at least some silver lining.

I know there aren't strictly LGBTA related, really, I just needed a little venting time, so thank you for that. *Now, for coffee..........lots of coffee.....

~Matthew~

Oooouch. But at least it was productive! I guess?

Now this isn't fair at all, and I find it hard to believe that you of all people can't see that it's offensive.

You are correct. I actually thought I had an explanatory paragraph in there... An I thought I caught all my typos as well. So before going any further, some exposition.

Spoiler

Show

I have this habit which makes perfect sense to me but frustrates the hell out of others. When I am wrong, and I am owning up to it, I do not seem properly penitent. I don't stop talking, I don't apologize profusely. I continue, because having established that I am in the wrong, we can set that aside as a decided factor and focus only on those factors which are still undecided. I am led to believe this seems a lot like I do not care I am wrong and insist on my correctness regardless? Even when it does not seem that way, my response doesn't trigger the proper visceral feel. You can know logically that I know I'm wrong, but I'm not acting like it, so you discount it.

I considered that this would be offensive. I went through several drafts, an several drafts of explanation. I finally settled on erring on the side of an honest mistake. I know not all people who feel I am calling them out fall into this category. I know no one I am calling out fits in this category.

And there is also; so what if it is offensive? There is no tactful way to say something like this. I suppose if I said, basically, "I view this in the worst possible light, can you help me fix that?" you would be more predisposed to help, but eventually it would be asked "what worst possible light?" and then we would be here again.

I also find it strange that saying the furthest, say, .0001 percent on either end of the spectrum bothers me is okay, but describing what I perceive as one of those extreme poles causes umbrage. I understand it - it's a concrete thought which could be construed as directed at individuals - but in reality it's no different than being creeped out by people who enjoy extreme bondage and degredation. It is not a judgement, it is a statement.

Do you seriously believe that romantic love is the only, or only valuable, kind of emotional attachment, and moreover that any sexual contact without love must involve someone being "used for gratification"?

Not at all, and your surmising that really only shows that you are operating in - or assuming I am operating in - a binary system. There are other kinds of sexual contact than gratification and abstinence. Pure self gratification with no regard toward your partner(s) as anything but a sex object is to me, bad. Being in a relationship which you do not emotionally reciprocate is to me, bad. Both at once is bad^2.

Of your partner considers afterglow a sufficient connection that's fine. If you do, and just aren't aware they don't, that's fine. Going into a relationship wherein you are aware not only that the other expects relationship to involve reciprocal romantic, platonic, or emotional bonding of some other variety, but also that sexual acts will be undertaken predominantly as expressions of that bond; and therein engaging in sexual acts while feeling none of these things perforce constitutes leading the other party on in many ways for the sole purpose of your own pleasure. And yes, I find that objectively abominable. Deception, use and abuse, of a person's heart and soul is bad. These are just some of the At-the-time-relevant methods of doing so.

Unfortunately, I have met a lot of people who do this, and I have not known of any who are in superficially similar relationships who do otherwise. As I said, it is a toupe fallacy thingy, where I only see the bad examples and seem to have assumed that all examples would thus be bad. This conversation has helped immensely, and I apologize (again) that it came up, but I find fixing this issue to be more immediately worth effort than backing down, maintaining a bad paradigm, and not stepping on some toes. This is partially because those who would be hurt haven't said much, so I can only surmise that the damage done is superficial. I certainly feel as if this series of discussions has lumped me in with the people who willingly practice severe bigotry, rather than using a fine enough granularity, and in a situation where my declaration of an honest issue is met with "OMG bigotry!" I cannot help but feel the outpouring is perhaps more severe than necessary.

That is not to say that you are over exaggerating. It is also not to say that the hurt anyone has felt is superficial or should be discounted. It is to say that both the hurt and the misunderstanding should be fixed, and because of other factors, not the least I which is I sincerely doubt anyone I've offended would accept an apology if they did not believe I had made progress towards correcting my faulty understanding, we needs must redress my lack of capacity for insight before addressing the harm the discussion Has done. Doing otherwise would mean the harm was still caused but nothing good came of it, and I would be upset at that. Needless harm is terrible.




An suddenly I see Coidzor's Dilemma. There does not seem to be a sufficient way to be concise. Too little detail leaves the statement open for interpretation. Too much implies that anything not directly stated must not be part of the conversation. Is it any wonder that his speech is so labyrinthine?

What's more, it's not like love is a switch you can turn on and off. You don't choose whether, and whom, you fall in love with.

I do not know that this is true. I believe it to hold in the majority of cases though, which means I am probably being pedantic? I can't tell. I'm in Orator mode.

You just do, or you don't, and you just have to deal with it, there's nothing you can do about it. At least that's certainly the case for me. It's not like - I imagine - aromantics wander around going "no, I shan't love you! And I shan't love you! Shan't shan't shan't!" It's that they can't.
I find it sad, and yeah I do find it a bit odd considering how fundamental it is to human psyche - maybe even more than sex - but I don't find it impossible to comprehend.

I don't find it incomprehensible. I find it unsettling, and it creates in me an anxiety which is converted to aggression by twenty years of misguided application of martial philosophy. I've develope the toolset to survive ambush with a machete, which is great, but it doesn't apply to sections of my life that are really hard. So gut-reactions which I am used to being vital to my continued survival are wrong. Reactionary responses I have conditioned into myself are wrong. But it's not enough to stop enabling such reactions because they have become literally reflexive. I must actively combat them, undo the old patterns and instill new ones. It is an uphill battle, and academic and philosophical pedantry are a coping mechanism. I cannot quite help it, but I appreciate you calling me out on it.

Incidentally, I know how to identify all the poisonous things, ivy, oak, and sumac, seeing as I have been in boy scouts since I was 6 (nowe an Eagle Scout) and in all that time camping never ONCE got anything, but maybe a tick or two. No poison nothing, at all, in 22 years......and I get it 2nd degree from that damned redhead I married
~Matthew~

Well, redheads are known to be--

Well, redheads are known to be fiery.

Dangit.

Green spandex, red hair, she's kind of hard to miss.

Oh wow, no wonder you say you're wife is hot, CDD.

Tell me, how did you get her out of Gotham?

Been trying to be a little bit more feminine lately. I just bought a big plushie of a My Little Pony character.*

I regret nothing.

Regret is for those who don't fall asleep on a Fluttershy.

Eh, I guess it's technically a little girls' show, but the majority of the people you hear about watching MLP:FiM are late-adolescent guys. I guess it's a case of vocal group vs. everyone else not being noticed?

12 year-old girls don't network. You need to be at least 13 to get on MySpace.

I agree that men do not have no concern about sexual violence. *When a group of friends and I were playing a CTF-based game at night, one of the first rules a guy came up with was "scream if you get attacked and we'll all drop what we're doing and find you." *I have another friend from another country who won't even let his girlfriend walk alone in the city at night. *(I live in the USA and he's told us that his country is a third-world country; one of his ten-year-old students once fought off an attempted mugging on the way to class.) *But these are the only instances I can think of where a guy showed explicit concern for a girl's safety. *Otherwise it's always the girls who first bring up rules about buddy systems and staying safe.

These discussions are no fun because I'm always an outlier. I can't stand for a girl who has X response because I grew up male-bodies, but I can't represent boys who have X response because I grew up female-souled. I think we should stop making generalizations about what each gender thinks in general. Especially because boys who grow up worried about prisoners in their area fear rape just as much as "girls do".

And while neither guys nor girls would walk into a shady alley at night, I find that guys overall tend to be less cautious than girls. *If I'm on campus late at night, I lock my bike and take the bus home instead of biking by myself. *And when I do bike home, there's two routes - one alongside a busy street and another that cuts through an empty field - and I always prefer the street route, where I find the guys tend to take the field route.

You mention that you might change your route due to avoiding a group of people who "might" be too strong for you... *But as a woman, I assume by default that if I get attacked my attacker will be too strong for me. *Maybe they won't be if they're also female.

This is, as Asta said of something else, a red herring. If you are ambushed then you're in trouble, gender and build be damned. You are already exercising good martial arts practices - a bad martial artist is capable of fighting off three men in a dark alley. A good one says "bigger this, there's muggers in there" and takes the long way around.

And the difference between a big man and a small man is the same as a inference between a big man and a small woman. Perhaps the fitness of these men is simply superior? Most guys - and I realize I, too, am generalizing. Sorry - who are in the college situation work out frequently for strength and mass, not leanness. They have spent a good part of their lives inoculated by violence. They may be specifically looking for danger and possess a physical swagger that tells off a mugger. If you, a woman, put in that same effort then I doubt you would have more to fear than these guys simply because you are female.

Muggers train for boy reading. Anxiety, nervousness, inattentiveness, bad posture, shambling walk. Most muggers on record prefer overconfident male targets. A man will punch and kick, they say, a woman will claw your eyes out. I think it says a lot that women feel they are most in danger, but convicted felons say this is not the case.

If someone gets close enough or is simply unexpected enough to grope you, it doesn't matter if you beat them to a bloody pulp afterwards; the sexual assault has already happened. *Sexual violence is different from regular violence in that respect.

These are obviously anecdotes and not data as you've requested, but that's my thoughts on the issue.

I find this fallacious and misleading. If a person gets close enough to you to sucker punch you, the physical violence has happened and cannot be undone, either. Violence is by no means a form of restitution (though it can e cathartic). Pointing out that beating or killing your would be rapist doesn't make you feel any less almost raped is a straw man. It makes the implicit assertion that someone who is almost killed will be fine, and thus better of than the almost-rape victim, and thus discountable in this instance. Violence at all is bad. Part of the solution is to not be in a situation where it can happen.

I wouldn't spend $93 on almost anything. Except maybe a car or a computer.

Sometimes that plug toy or new shoes or new book are all that get you through.

My eldest kitten, Scotty, is probably the only reason my ex-room mate is still intact.

I also object to "men don't have concern for sexual violence" being used to mean almost exclusively "men don't have concern for sexual violence against women", and in doing so disregarding the very real fact of sexual violence against men.

You're misreading. It is not that men are uncaring about sexual violence, it is that it generally does not occur to them as a possibility as often as it does to women. Anecdotally, I believe this to be true. I know women who have been warned every week about sexual violence for a decade, and who flip out a the slightest provocation over it. One of them has a brother, who was never given this lecture and so doesn't quite get what the big deal is. Consider that one gender, more than the other, is frequently hit by scare tactics all the time.


Boy it seems like I'm waffling back and forth a lot. This is all internally consistent I swear!

*Hugs* That image is pretty common in a lot of peoples' heads. Have you tried singling out dehumanization itself as 'bad'? I find it a bit easier to work through these sorts of things with some compartmentalization.

Somewhat. It is a complicated morass in that I don't subscribe many positive traits to humanity as an animal, but I understand the word humanity, in the sense of humane, to be a thing which transcends species.

Also I've been unable to sleep for more than two or so hours a night for the past week. This made sense when I typed it but now it sounds bollocks.

I have made progress though. I think I will stick to my making of individual judgements based on merit, an just not mention it in situations where it could be miscon... I'll just not mention it again actually, as even if not misunderstood it reinforces stereotypes I don't like in those who would agree.

You and me both, sister. Between that and... Almost every other popular sexual/romantic concept, I can barely visit a theater without feeling insulted at some point.

Hotel Transylvania was great! Except for that and the fart jokes.

I actually spent a while being a little ashamed of liking it - in part because I'd internalized a lot of gender baggage that made me uncomfortable to be too closely associated with something branded as "feminine" (boo, gender narratives).

However, I think that whether we like it or not, a primarily female-dominated show that focuses on the relationships of the characters is "feminine" by the western understanding of gender branding.

I believe that is the consensus. I also believe I is better that way; a feminine thing does not need to be decoupled from femininity unordered to make it sanitized and acceptable for masculine consumption. It only has impact as a feminine show that is good. Making it masculine strips it of its intended power.

[Coidzor]

Oh yeah, context is a thing. It was a random webcomic I was reading earlier.
And you're probably right, except it's not supposed to be realistic, it's for humour. Later, two guys get magically turned gay for each other, which is obviously hilarious because homosexuality is edgy?
I need to do better things with my day. I guess it's back to Doctor Who. I'm all the way up to season fifteen.

I'm inventing a banana-vampire persona through improvisation with small children. I think we could all be doing better things with our time, haha. x.x

I'm sorry. That sounds almost as horrible as the excerpts I've seen and things I've heard about the Wotch.

SiuiS: Wait. I have a Dilemma now?

I actually just had to stop and think when I re-read the post to figure out if irrespective actually meant what I was trying to convey and then when I checked the dictionary it didn't seem to so I was kind of embarrassed and annoyed at myself about that. It's not even a word I use commonly, so I have no idea where I pulled it from, haha. x.x

[appending_doom]

I believe that is the consensus. I also believe I is better that way; a feminine thing does not need to be decoupled from femininity unordered to make it sanitized and acceptable for masculine consumption. It only has impact as a feminine show that is good. Making it masculine strips it of its intended power.

If I wasn't entirely clear, my issue wasn't that MLP is feminine, but with the perceived implications of enjoying something of a feminine nature. Both troubling, of course, but I imagine it's slightly worse to have issue with the existence of a popular show aimed at girls than to be uncomfortable with you yourself liking it.

[SiuiS]

Yes, and horns coming out of their backs and wings on each of their fingers. YOU GET WHAT I MEAN

That actually sounds kinda hot.

Yeah, it's just that it seemed more like an attack than a question, but oh well, I guess I just misread.

Coidzor (and myself I guess?) seem to get that a lot. Statements which are meant purely on a logical level get taken to ave emotional meaning, usually judgement. I was letting you know because Coidzor will probably do it again, and it seems Half of what I say upsets you, so it may be easier in the future knowing we aren't trying to upset you, it just happens.

I should note I don't actually speak for Coidzor, and am making assumptions.

First of all: I never said I would never in my life develop romantic feelings towards someone, I just haven't up until now.
Second: I am fine using people for gratification? Where did you get that idea from?

I never said "Gunnar11 uses people". I very specifically said several times that I am speaking of no one here, only people I have met in Meatworld who espouse these values. Assuming I meant you is just going to upset you, and I'm sorry I'd the way I sai it made it seem like you were my target. I am speaking in generalities almost by requirement; individual people merit individual consideration.

Also: I understand you have a hard time understanding this concept, but what I don't understand is why you would call it 'disturbing'.
I don't understand why people eat pineapple on their pizza's, but I certainly do not find it 'disturbing'

I am not sure I can meaningfully describe it. Food cannot compare; I don't eat olives because they don't stay down, not because they create an emotional response.

My biggest problem is I have a desire to be pregnant, yet not even the best plastic surgery in the world can let me achieve that.

We're getting there~

Coidzor: wow, I really am making a plot of myself talking or you. Sorry. I have noticed that your technical writing style seems to belt understanding by people who are more relaxed in speech, and also that brevity seems to compound this issue for you. I can relate, so I seem to have developed a mental history for you that doesn't exist? Sorry. That's kind of weird isn't it?

Doom, I was using your post as much to talk to the general public and to Nope, as you. I realize that was probably not very clear, and I should work on that.

How exactly do you mean, the implications?

[Talya]

Holy hell. 360 posts here in 6 days.

I think I posted in #1, and haven't since.

Hmm. What shall I say?

Ohoh!

My story: http://irishjackie.blogspot.ca/2012/07/bon-appetit.html