Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: Sapphira on October 21, 2012, 02:37:55 PM
-
While I know this is a risky and controversial topic, I'm surprised this poll hasn't been done before. I do realize not everyone fits "neatly" into one category, and one's orientation and/or identification may change over time. If you're unfamiliar with any of the terms in the poll, Google is your friend.
Feel free to discuss anything related to sexual and/or romantic orientation here. Just keep it respectful, tactful, and kind. Also, save the marriage/gay debate for the preexisting topic (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12100.0).
I personally identify as hetero-romantic ace. Depending on how you look at it, I guess that makes me both "straight" and "nothing" at the same time.
-
Heterosexual all the way....unless you happen to be Chris Hemsworth. (' /// ' ;
-
I'm a heterosexual...nothing much to say about that, really. I've had four partners over the course of my life and they've all been women (yay me?).
I'm not completely turned off to the idea of becoming romantically or sexually interested in a male, I just don't see it happening. But you never know with the human body, I guess.
-
I've been nearly reduced to an aromantic heterosexual, and I see no option for that!
EDIT: I suppose that would fall under "it's complicated." I was mostly kidding, anyway.
-
I'm gay. Attracted to men, and I guess I've had emotional-romantic crushes on men, though I haven't really done anything. I can still donate blood!
I met a friend in college who identified as a "pan-romantic lesbian." While she was sexually attracted to women, she said she felt the capacity to fall in love romantically with a person without regards to their gender. Her girlfriend is a transgender woman who so far hasn't undergone any transition, so she looks like a man still.
Another friend of mine eventually came out as a lesbian, attracted to women. However, she identifies as "genderqueer," so her gender identity is about 60% female, 40% male (she's biologically female). So for her, it's confusing to say she's a lesbian if she herself is not simply a "woman" attracted to women. (Her parents are evangelical Christian, and when they found her online profile with a "queer" identification they began to tell their friends that they were disowning their daughter. They stopped funding her college tuition, so she had to take out loans in her own name to avoid having them send her to a local private Christian college. It was pretty upsetting, but she's been very adamant about taking care of herself despite her family's rejection).
-
when they found her online profile with a "queer" identification they began to tell their friends that they were disowning their daughter.
That's awful. I have a friend who's mother used to beat her because she was a lesbian, although they've since settled their differences after my friend threatened to leave and never come back (she had already rented out a room at a friend's house). Guess her mom cared about her enough not to make her orientation an issue.
EDIT: Seeing as how this doesn't really have much to do with the marriage debate, I thought it was appropriate to respond to Markio's comment. Feel free to edit or delete my post if you think otherwise.
-
Straight.
-
Heh, I tried not to go completely overboard with the list. I think I did a pretty good job covering a lot of orientations, though. :P
Her parents are evangelical Christian, and when they found her online profile with a "queer" identification they began to tell their friends that they were disowning their daughter.
It's stories like this that both sadden and infuriate me. Treating a fellow human being as such—especially one's own child, no less—is so horrible and un-Christlike. It's no wonder people are repelled and disillusioned by the notion Christianity, when so many so-called Christians are acting this way, completely counter to everything Jesus emphasized.
Anyway... I guess I'll share some of my story.
As far as "coming out" about my orientation, aside from a few internet friends, I've really only talked about it with my parents. They pretty much already knew I was ace, but just didn't know the term for it. I think most people who know me really well wouldn't be surprised by my orientation. Being hetero-romantic, though, I imagine I come across as heterosexual, if anything. Or possibly a celibate heterosexual. (I am indeed celibate, but I choose to be. Being that it's my "default mode," though, it's just not a "struggle" or "issue" or whatever for me.)
While my parents accept my orientation, I think part of them believes I just might be a "late bloomer" or something. While I suppose that's possible, or maybe I'm "repressed" or something, I'm in my mid-twenties; I think I would have experienced sexual attraction by now, especially considering I HAVE experienced romantic attraction. If I am indeed NOT ace, I have such incredibly low libido I might as well be.
-
Real question (no troll): Do "asexuals" masturbate?
-
I think the answer that we're seeing here, is that they have no desire to, or have some sort of reason to avoid it.
-
Asexuals are such because they either a) have no sexual drive whatsoever or b) merely aren't sexually attracted to other people. Asexuals of the latter brand-for lack of a better term-do masturbate (according to my asexual friend in my school's GSA), just not with the aid of porn, pictures of models, etc. If they do look at porn for that purpose, they might be more interested in the clothing the actors are wearing. :P
Of course, I'm not doing the term justice; I'm just going by what I've heard and what good ol' Wikipedia says. Human sexuality is so freaking complex that even asexuality probably branches off into a bunch of subcategories. Or maybe it doesn't. I'm not an expert.
-
Straightjacket
-
LD: This is my understanding of the matter: Some do, some don't. (http://www.asexuality.org/home/general.html#def9) (Given the subject matter, MATURE DISCUSSION WARNING.)
-
Wouldn't Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory be considered asexual? I thought Amy Farrah-Fowler was ace as well, but she seems to be exhibiting more romantic and sexual curiosity as the series has progressed (or so I've heard, I don't really watch the show very often).
I used to think I might have been asexual when I was in 8th grade. All the other guys were talking about how girls were "hot," and I didn't understand it. I figured they were all just trying to act older by pretending to be interested in women... until I actually witnessed my friend full-on making out with a girl, on the lips, longer than a few moments! I was so stunned that anyone would feel compelled to kiss a girl.
Meanwhile, I was looking at pictures of men online: fully clothed, and not in overtly sexual positions, so I didn't know I was experiencing sexual attraction to them. I was really just terribly uninformed about sexual diversity, as I went to Catholic school this whole time and I didn't even consider it an option to be a guy attracted to other guys.
Then I got to college and realized that all the guys in my high school just hadn't been all that good looking. Finally it was painfully obvious how sexually-attracted-to-men I was. That took awhile to get used to. I didn't even kiss a guy until I was 21. In retrospect, I think it's hilarious how the Advice Dog meme originated in a thread I had made (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQtffQC3gYE)about not being sure about kissing girls.
-
I love that show! Yes, Sheldon is considered ace, though I would also say he's aromantic, as well. I haven't quite figured out Amy's deal; she strikes me as being a repressed bisexual becoming less and less repressed, but I'm not entirely sure.
Incidentally, my parents like to call me "Sheldon" because of our similarities. Then again, aside from similar orientations, I think I might also have mild Asperger's syndrome (which manifests itself differently in females, but nevertheless...), which Sheldon also clearly has.
...I guess I'm sort of like a female, way less socially impaired/naive, way less "extreme" version of Sheldon. Heh.
-
I've never understood the "pan-" designation. Wouldn't the average bisexual bang a decent-looking trans?
-
Straight. Though I admit, I've never been in a position to question that orientation, so I suppose it's not set in stone. (Although I find it unlikely that I'd be attracted to a man).
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2024%2F2466057515_03421d811d_o.jpg&hash=901cd2d0996f9c5dda1c633066ec841e)
-
Don't forget about Andrej Pejic:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestylishmrgordon.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FAndrej-Pejic3.jpg&hash=beffbd6cbf911cef1fcd883324ef8c1e)
He is a male model and has some incredible photo-work that takes advantage of his androgyny.
-
Somebody's going to have to explain pansexuality and the need to explicitly specify "romantic" to me.
-
Pansexuality: sexual attraction to people of all gender identities and biological sexes.
Biological Sex: merely refers to how the person's body is structured. If you have a penis, surprise, you're a male.
Gender Identity: a person's perception of their gender. Gender identity corresponds to the norms society has given to males and females. So, for instance, a person can be biologically female yet "feel like" or identify as a boy. The person really only has to say that they identify as a boy to fit the mold, but the feeling displays itself in the person's preference for clothing atypical of girls and/or refusal to shave body hair, among other things. This is a pretty crude definition so don't take it at face value.
A pansexual is just anyone with the potential to be attracted to both sexes and any of the many (and I mean it when I say there are a bunch of them) gender identities.
The primary difference that seperates bisexuals and pansexuals is that the former is only attracted to males and females who identify as their respective genders. A true bisexual cannot and will not feel attracted to a transgendered person, i.e., someone who is biologically male yet identifies as a woman (you know, drag queens). As for transsexual males-females who underwent an operation to physically become males and almost always identify as such-I'm not sure. Seeing as how they're basically just males, an unaware bisexual wouldn't know the difference. :P
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Romantic Love: purely relates to the emotional side of a relationship.
You can feel a deep connection to someone else without wanting to have sex with them. An asexual heteroromantic person, for example, desires that sort of connection but is by and large unstimulated by what others would call sexual activity.
Some people feel the need to "explicitly specify" this (as you put it) because they really have no interest in sex and it's important for their partner to understand that.
Hope this helps.
-
Performing drag doesn't make a person transgender. Transgender people simply identify as a gender that does not align with their biological sex. Drag queens and drag kings dress as the gender opposite of their biological sex purely for the sake of performance. Then there are cross-dressers (previously known as transvestites) who receive sexual pleasure from wearing clothes of the opposite gender (without identifying as that gender).
-
To add to that, the individuals above don't necessarily "make you gay," they make you confused. But, hermaphroditic beauty has always been extolled in ancient Chinese literature I've read. The idea of being attracted to this sort of beauty is by no means new.
-
Performing drag doesn't make a person transgender.
I was trying to give an easy example for ShadowBrain, but you're right, drag queens and kings aren't necessarily transgendered.
-
Heterosexual: Straight
Homosexual: Gay
Bisexual: Both
Everything else: Look at me I'm a special snowflake
-
Yeah because human sexuality can be reduced to three very simple categories and if you don't perfectly align with any of them you're obviously just looking for attention. *rolls eyes*
-
I'm perfectly aware that this will come off as bigoted, but as much as I support freedom of expression and a proud sense of self, I'm not sure I want to be around thirty, forty years in the future if every mommy-kisser and his dog has some elaborate sexual/romantic preferences I'm supposed to know about before I start talking about sex--heck, even just using pronouns. Being "just" straight, even "just" gay, isn't "right" or "wrong", but I won't lie and say it doesn't make the dating scene a lot easier to deal with. But hey, being angry that you can't boil things down into simple concepts is human nature,
-
That'd be understandable if it weren't for the fact that the number of people who fall outside of the gay/straight binary is not particularly big (at least in comparison to the amount of those who don't). And for those rare individuals who do, all it takes is getting to know them-one conversation at most, usually-to know the proper pronoun to use.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.colortools.net%2Fimg25%2Fspectrum_chart.jpg&hash=2f2fdcf8a5b8d32099c59ae551c7ae07)
Each pixel in this spectrum is a different colour, but that doesn't mean we need a name for every individual one.
-
Having names for a number of those colors makes it easier to describe what you're seeing.
-
Implying that humans are analogous to colors. Colors don't think, they don't perceive, and they certainly don't have any opinions about what you call them.
Are you suggesting that we be more like colors?
-
Besides, the colors we can actually see and have names for are in part based on our culture. There are some tribes that have many names for shades of green and brown that we don't even perceive., but they don't have a name for blue and don't see it as a separate hue like Westerns do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b71rT9fU-I
Similarly people that have been brought up to believe in a dichotomy think of things as black and white, wrong and right, straight and gay (not straight, queer, wrong, etc.) instead of realizing that there are many shades and hues of human sexuality.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fyeroc.us%2Fi%2Fart%2FSexualitySpectrum-575px.jpg&hash=fd33682ed0db37674721439c510425af)
-
Look at it this way, Weegee. Christians and Muslims both believe in god, but we don't lump them into one group because there are ways in which they're different (we also group Christians according to the doctrines they adhere to, i.e., Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, etc.). Same goes for bisexuals and pansexuals.
-
Interesting video, Luigison. I've always had difficulty categorizing "in-between" colors like turquoise (is it more blue or green?), fuchsia (magenta or purple?), and the color of mac 'n' cheese (orange or yellow?) And when I do use more descriptive color names, like periwinkle or cerulean or mauve or chartreuse, etc., a lot of people are just confused. Even magenta confuses some people, which I regard as a different color from pink, but falling under the same color category (pink being anywhere between dark magenta and light red). Defining what shades of red I like versus shades I do not like is also rather challenging, as I'm really picky about red-colored things (clothes/object color preferences). Similarly, I wonder if cyan should count as its own color or as a variant of blue.
Back on topic, I'm debating whether I should add something like "hetero bi-curious" (or "mostly hetero") and "homo bi-curious" (or "mostly homo") to the poll or just leave it as is. What do you guys think?
-
In ten years' time, we'll all be talking like this in regards to sexuality:
It feels like I’m the only female-bodied genderfluid only attracted to male-bodied individuals. (https://twitter.com/TumblrTXT)
-
A lot of people (like my genderqueer friend who's attracted only to women) choose to simplify by referring to themselves as "queer." Queer is all-encompassing for any gender identity/sexuality for which there isn't already a category for.
If the list were to be expanded, then maybe "gay-leaning bi," and "straight-leaning bi" would work? Most bisexual people I know are not in the very middle, and generally find themselves attracted more to one side of the gender spectrum than the other. That's the other reason a lot of people use words other than "bisexual," as bi- implies a binary of only two options.
-
Non-genital Flesh Desires is a good band name.
-
Okay, I promise this is the last time I tl;dr and ask a specific question: what's genderqueer, again?
I know this is a relatively petty, ShadowBrainian reason to be irked by ever-broading delineation of the sexual spectrum, but I hate that feeling I get when I see a girl I consider attractive and start worrying that she's an... aromantic transsexual, or something. Eh, maybe I should just talk to women with more gusto, but it would be nice if we could collectively decide that asking someone's "orie" would be a socially-acceptable way to dictate where the rest of the relationship will go. Honestly, I decided at some point that a significant other is just a best friend you want to touch on a consistent basis, but courtship still still takes time and money.
-
Genderqueer (aka gender-variant) means you identify somewhere between male and female, but not at either extreme. If gender identity is a spectrum, and there are males at one end and females at another, then genderqueer people can be anywhere in the middle. My aforementioned friend feels that she is about 40% male and 60% female. Since we've met she has slowly come out of the closet even further, from bi to lesbian to kind of transgender lesbian, so... I figure it doesn't affect our friendship because she's still fun to hang around with regardless of her gender identity or sexuality.
-
Ah... Alright. Well, as long as trans/"variant" people address me as "Grey", then I don't think I even really care.
-
Wait, you mean your name isn't "Brian"? ;P
I feel so alone, looking at the results of the poll so far... (I'm already pretty alone here, just by being a girl. :P )
Hmm... I have difficulty grasping the "40% male, 60% female" thing, I think. I mean, I have a lot of quirks/traits that are stereotypically "male" (more in a nerdy sense than, like the cliché "masculine," I guess (hah)), and I'm definitely not a "girly girl," but I most definitely identify as female. And I'm more comfortable looking feminine (jewelry, make-up, hair style, clothes styles, etc.).
Then again, I guess I think of my non-feminine traits as part of my personality rather than part of my gender identity. (Incidentally, I have the least common personality type for females. Heh.) Maybe rather than identifying as any part "male" I would identify as part "gender-neutral"? I dunno.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the concept of gender-variant. I mean, I kind of get the "wrong gender in the wrong body" thing; if I were to suddenly wake up one day as a dude, I'm sure I would still think of myself as female, and thus be totally displaced and disoriented (pun intended). But I'm not sure I get the mixed percentages of gender identity.
-
Wah! I just noticed I'm not the only gay person! How exciting.
Rarest personality type for women? Are you talkin' Myers-Briggs? INFJ? (That's me!)
I suppose a genderqueer person only feels partially displaced in their body. My friend regularly binds down her breasts, but not every day. You're also correct in saying that your personality traits (or gender expression) are separate from your gender identity. I identify as fully male, yet I've exhibited feminine traits (such as wearing nail polish once, or singing in a higher register (http://vocaroo.com/i/s0dViFzHiDm8)). Here's a really helpful youtube video that covers all the different subjects that have been brought up so far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAoG8vAyzI
-
Questions: Are sex-segregated restrooms discriminatory? Is a biologically male person who identifies as a woman entitled to use either bathroom? Should there be bathrooms specifically for trans* and/or agendered persons?
-
Thar's what the sex neutral restrooms are for. They're not exactly numerous, and we usually refer to them as handicapped restrooms, but if the decision is that tough, then that's the place to go, pun intended.
-
Yeah, Myers-Briggs. INTJ. Rarest for females, and like 3rd rarest over all, or something. INFJ, eh? Incidentally, that happens to be the rarest personality for males (and also in general). _NFJs tend to be pretty awesome, though.
Partially displaced, eh? Like it depends on the day or her mood or something? Hmm... This is be may kind of a weird/silly analogy, but I wonder if that's akin to the idea of "feeling" unattractive. Some days a person can feel ugly (or fat or something), other days they can feel "normal," other days they can feel "teh hawtness, rawr!" A lot of factors, either internal or external, can contribute to that feeling, even though one's over all appearance doesn't tend to change all that drastically from day to day. And regardless of how others may actually perceive said level of attractiveness. Granted, appearance is more subjective than gender—at least I would think so, but...
Perhaps gender-variant people—who I guess have a more fluid gender identity—can sometimes feel more male, sometimes more female from day to day?
Interesting and helpful video, I think, Markio. That guy talked really fast, though. X_x
Having more gender-neutral bathrooms would probably be a good idea. Not only for people with atypical identities, but also for people who take their young children to the bathroom. I mean, how awkward is it for a mom to bring her 5-year-old son into the ladies' room, or a dad to bring his 5-year-old daughter into the men's room? Likewise, how comfortable or appropriate or safe would it be for a parent to send their opposite-gendered small child into a public restroom by themselves?
-
Should there be bathrooms specifically for trans* and/or agendered persons?
They're building a locker room for 'em at the UW right now. Oh, brave new world...
-
Thought this was relevant.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi47.tinypic.com%2Fw3h2d.jpg&hash=ae9597fb8ac4c1d7bffc59ad70a52212)
-
They're building a locker room for 'em at the UW right now. Oh, brave new world...
Right next to the prayer room, I take it?
Also, would a card or something be required to get in, or could I go there to check out some sweet MtF badonkadonk?
-
Male to Female? Also, nice signature.
-
Thought this was relevant.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi47.tinypic.com%2Fw3h2d.jpg&hash=ae9597fb8ac4c1d7bffc59ad70a52212)
I find this completely hilarious.
-
Right next to the prayer room, I take it?
Sounds like Barnes and Noble, where the LGBT Studies section is always directly across from the Spirituality/Religion section, and directly adjacent to the African American Studies section. So I have no chance of blending in while surreptitiously perusing their selection. If only I was one of those hip, racially-conscious white persons...
-
The illusion of sex
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fqph.is.quoracdn.net%2Fmain-qimg-ae935c3b219ce3717e9c0934041dd428&hash=145e3dbdba60afc7598382e665278fd6)
In the Illusion of Sex, two faces are perceived as male and female. However, both faces are actually versions of the same androgynous face. One face was created by increasing the contrast of the androgynous face, while the other face was created by decreasing the contrast. The face with more contrast is perceived as female, while the face with less contrast is perceived as male. The Illusion of Sex demonstrates that contrast is an important cue for perceiving the sex of a face, with greater contrast appearing feminine, and lesser contrast appearing masculine.
Russell, R. (2009) A sex difference in facial pigmentation and its exaggeration by cosmetics. Perception, (38)1211-1219.
http://www.quora.com/Optical-Illusions/What-are-some-great-optical-illusions
-
Isn't that defining sex, rather than debunking it? Even if the natural lighting environments rather than the contrast were changed, we would be seeing a very quantifiable difference. They both look male to me, anyway.
-
So... What, the only thing standing between me and accidental gayness is the lighting in the room?
-
The Illusion of Sex demonstrates that contrast is an important cue for perceiving the sex of a face, with greater contrast appearing feminine, and lesser contrast appearing masculine.
I think the point is merely to identify the subtle visual cues that we use to categorize people into male and female categories. The fact that the more "feminine" face has more prominent lips and eyebrows against lighter skin corresponds to the makeup that women wear to look more feminine: lipstick, eyeliner, eyebrow pencil, foundation for smooth skin; by comparison then, masculinity would be visually defined by less prominent facial contrast. This illusion doesn't define sex so much as it identifies how sex is perceived, which would be derived from one's culture or environment rather than their biological makeup.
In that video I posted earlier, this illusion would be akin to "gender role," or gender expression, which is defined externally.
-
Ah, so you're saying this contrast we use has sociological influences, then. That makes more sense than calling this contrast an illusion. I would not be surprised, however, if it had biological roots, further exaggerated by social influences. I understand that whether we perceive a face to be male or female can be an illusion, but I see no evidence that can indicate men and women's faces are not visually different. In other words, I see no reason to believe gender role is the only thing at work, here.
-
Both faces look androgynous to me. I guess the one on the left looks slightly more feminine, but not all that much. Not enough to make an accurate guess, I think.
the makeup that women wear to look more feminine: lipstick, eyeliner, eyebrow pencil, foundation for smooth skin
You sure seem to know a lot about makeup. ;)
Personally, when going solely by appearance and not other cues, the way I deduce the gender of people who are rather androgynous-looking (namely children) is mostly by tertiary sex characteristics, such as hairstyles and clothing. Actually, I'd think you'd kind of HAVE to, since they either don't have obvious secondary sex characteristics or they haven't developed yet. Those who don't fit the "gender norm" appearance are more likely to be mistaken for the wrong gender, I think. Or have others unsure of or question their gender, at least.
-
I deduce the gender of people who are rather androgynous-looking (namely children) is mostly by tertiary sex characteristics, such as hairstyles and clothing.
What do you deduce from these Google images? https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+kaulitz&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvnsol&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nhqLUMSvBejV0gGs0YHgAQ&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=631
Also note the "without makeup," "new hair," etc.
I'm assuming you would view him as female. I actually think that many of his images look like my sister and that is not a put down on my sister in anyway.
---
On a related note, I have on many occasion covered up the hair of people in photos like in yearbooks, facebook, etc. to see if I know them.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mb8vucgQMY1qfajz0o1_500.jpg&hash=51083088337e7c5a2d4e693d5710bc72)
-
You sure seem to know a lot about makeup. ;)
I watch What Not To Wear a lot, I guess.
As long as we're showing examples of people whose gender expression is atypical or androgynous, I figured I'd post some videos of some transgendered people. The site they're from posts interviews with all different kinds of LGBT people represented.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-mu5ljK_Gk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8wdQzAvNJk
-
I'm also from Laurel, MS.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.mentalfloss.com%2Fblogs%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2F3312847_ec94754962.jpg&hash=a020b3cde0854a523b03d8e620d2ea23)
While some animals eagerly engage in free love (deep sea squid, bonobos, and penguins have all been found to have bisexual tendencies), koalas are a more conservative bunch. These eucalyptus-munching marsupials are strictly heterosexual—at least in the wild. Once in captivity, female koalas participate in lesbian orgies. According to scientists at the University of Queensland, who monitored 130 koalas using digital cameras, female koalas in captivity engage in homosexual acts three times as often as they participate in heterosexual activities. The orgies often include up to five females at a time. (They don’t count the males out, though: The females’ heterosexual activities lasted twice as long as their homosexual encounters.)
Scientists remain uncertain about the cause of these encounters. Some believe that female koalas use the orgies as a method of attracting males, while others think it’s a hormonal behavior. Still others believe it serves to release stress.
Read the full text here: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/101509#ixzz2AW3HoOP8
--brought to you by mental_floss!
-
Tonight I got on a 80's kick. Androgenise? Sebastian Bach (https://www.google.com/search?q=sebastian+bach&hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FLuNULf1JovK0AHr1oHwBg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631#hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&tbm=isch&q=sebastian+bach+skid+row&revid=1321352112&sa=X&ei=FbuNUI3jMqWF0QHpnIEY&ved=0CEQQgxY&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ceb5c3ba7f798ac0&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=631) and Jani Lane (https://www.google.com/search?q=jani+lane&hl=en&safe=off&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDAx8HsxKXfq6-gWGheVVOboSb_FmVZSsPfpsU4Z19YUt59afQSwDQb2rFKwAAAA&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=OruNUKuBEpPp0QHBn4GYAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631#hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&q=jani+lane+warrant&revid=1306978498&sa=X&ei=QLuNUKvvFq6M0QHi8oDoDQ&ved=0CEQQgxY&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ceb5c3ba7f798ac0&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=631). I didn't know Jani had died this summer. So long...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka6SDrSeVEQKinda makes me think of David Lee Roth more then Frankie though.
-
I'm still kind of debating whether to vote bi or pan. I fit the definition of pan, but in real life, I usually just say bi (to the handful of people that I'm out to) because it's easier than having to explain a new word to them (though it could be argued that that might be easier than addressing the misconceptions some of them already have about bisexuality).
I've always liked girls. I had a crush when I was in daycare. And a lot of the girls I've liked were pretty and feminine with long blonde hair, but I also always had a thing for tomboys. And I liked some "girl stuff"... when I could avoid being self-conscious about it. When McDonald's had Hot Wheels and Barbies, I got the Barbie so that my Pocahontas (doll? action figure? other McDonald's toy from when the movie came out) would have a friend. I still remember her now -- she was a traditional Mexican dancer (I forget the name of the dance, and would probably sound offensive if I tried to come up with the word) with a big white dress with roses all over it.
I thought Polly Pocket was the coolest thing ever (old-school Polly Pocket, where it was actually a whole little playset that actually fit in your pocket, not the lame Bratz-knockoff stuff that had that name last time I checked). A girl at my preschool had one, and I loved playing with it, and then one time McDonald's had them as toys and I got this Christmas-themed one where you turned the knob on the bottom and she spun around a path inside of a house (the whole thing was red and green and shaped like a wreath when it was closed), and then one day I got my own actual one, and it was so awesome. It opened up perpendicular-type, like a laptop, and there was a treehouse with a slide that she could go down and there was a monkey that could hang from a tree branch, and some other animals that I can't remember.
(FAKE EDIT: Found it (http://www.onlypollypocket.com/1989/Wild_Zoo_World/wild_zoo_world.html)! I didn't remember it being pink, but that is definitely it. And they have it for sale, too...)
(FAKE EDIT 2: Found the wreath one too (http://www.onlypollypocket.com/1993/McDonald_s_Totally_Holiday/mcdonald_s_totally_holiday.html). Christmas of '93 makes sense; I would have just turned 4 and been in preschool.)
Sometimes I was embarrassed about liking that stuff. I remember feeling conflicted. I remember one time (this was, if my memory is somewhat reliable, shortly before the one where I got the Mexican dancer Barbie; pretty certain they were all around the same time, anyway), they had Barbies and boy toys, and my mom said I could get a friend for Pocahontas if I wanted, and I went with the boy toy instead, and then later (possibly the next day), I remember standing at the top of the stairs and crying because I really did want a friend for Pocahontas.
One year, I was at summer camp. One of my shirts was purple and had a big glow-in-the-dark moon on it with geese flying in front of it, with “Vermont” underneath the moon. Some of the other kids decided that meant I was gay, because it’s purple and apparently Vermont has a reputation for being gay (it was a Christian camp, so the counselors didn’t really do anything about the bullying – you know, just in case I actually was gay). Purple has always been my favorite color, but after that week, I never wear the shirt again.
So later, I remember watching Motocrossed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jhypcyupm8) on the Disney Channel (it came out in 2001, so this would be when I was around 12, and just starting non-homeschool). For those who don’t remember the movie, it’s about a girl who cuts her hair and pretends to be her brother so she can take his place in a motocross race when he gets injured (Mulan with dirt bikes, in other words (or Twelfth Night, if you will (THAT WAS SLIGHTLY A PUN!)). I remember that my sister’s tub of Barbies was there by the sofa, as well as a police or firefighter action figure (actually it was basically a Ken doll with more muscles) that one of my younger brothers had. On a whim, I was absent-mindedly seeing which of Barbie’s clothes could fit on him (pretty much the only one was a pair of overalls, which actually fit him quite well). So my mom and I were watching the movie, and my mom made a comment, I think about how the girl in the movie kinda did look like a boy with her hair cut and everything, and I said “She looks good either way” and immediately after saying that I realized that I had just said it and that I was holding a doll and I looked at my mom and thought “oh crap she thinks I’m gay now” and I stopped talking and felt awkward.
Skip ahead to college. 2006. I continue having crushes on girls. Some have long hair. Some have short hair. I can also tell that I am very attracted to a guy on my dorm floor freshman year. One of the girls I had a crush on was the ex-girlfriend of that guy, interestingly enough.
In 2008, I see a documentary that gets me thinking about transgender people. My exact words (to myself) were “How is a sex change different from laser eye surgery?” The standard argument I’d heard was that people can’t really be transgender because God doesn’t make mistakes, and he wants you to be whatever sex you were born as. But I started wondering, what about birth defects? People can definitely be born in less than ideal forms. I think that was what started me rethinking everything.
In fall of 2009, I first started thinking of myself as possibly bi. And I’ll admit, Bill Kaulitz was a part of that (well, pictures of him – Bill himself did not come over to my house and make out with me or anything, sadly). I told a friend of mine I thought I might be bi, and he, being even more conservative than I was at the time (in retrospect, I find it kind of hard to believe someone was more conservative than 08/09 me), was like “Nah, I don’t think you are,” and me, being highly suggestible, was like “Well, maybe I’m wrong, I dunno.”
January of 2010. I meet this girl. I’m attracted to her (Incidentally, part of the reason I was attracted to her was that when I first met her she was wearing a baggy hoodie and a baseball cap and looked kind of androgynous, and actually reminded me of this guy I went to high school with and then one time we went on a college trip with some kids from another school and there was this girl that looked like him, and so anyway this girl kinda remound me of both of them, which is an interesting sidenote I think (note, I don’t want this to come off as “she looks like a guy”, not that there would be anything wrong with that I’m gonna shut up now)). We get along. We end up dating.
I decide to go with “I could be bi; I choose to be straight.” I extrapolate from my own experience and figure everyone is bi, or has the capability of being attracted to all manner of people, and it’s which ones we focus on that matters. I decide that the reason I have same-sex attractions is because I was only taught to guard against opposite-sex ones, and I was so focused on keeping those out that I didn’t notice the gays sneaking in the back.
However, I also express frustration (well, to myself; I don’t really bring it up to anyone else) with Christianity for the way that the ones saying “You’re not born that way, it’s a choice!” never actually act like it’s a choice – you can’t stand up in church or in Bible study and say “I’m struggling with homosexual temptations,” because then you're not just another fallen person dealing with your own personalized sins and temptations, like people who are tempted to lie and be angry and take revenge and cheat on their spouse in a heterosexual way – you're just gay. Those are normal temptations, but only homos have homosexual feelings. They're unnatural, and the only reason you'd feel temptations like that is because you chose to feel them. Or maybe you're possessed.
I’m starting to soften a bit around now. I call out the BS of treating the Sodom and Gomorrah story as an indictment of homosexuality (again, to myself and the couple of random people that may have stumbled across the blog I had back then (where I mostly complained about Obama and talked about how awesome I thought Glenn Beck was). I ask, if the angels had been female, would God have looked at the goings-on and thought to himself “Eh, it could be worse”? The rapey part was much more important than which specific parts were involved. Likewise, I say, our beef is with promiscuity and unfaithfulness and frivolity and impurity and lack of love, which show up in relationships of all sex-combinations.
And around this time, I also start thinking about the nature of love. Doing a word search for all the instances of the word “love” in the Bible, I quickly realize that there’s really no mention in the Bible of anything resembling what we know as romantic love today. I’m unsatisfied with the examples of marriage in the Bible – the patriarchal, property-based marriages all leave me wondering, “Isn’t it deeper than that?” I try to read up on philosophical definitions of love. I write in my journal, “Romance doesn’t have to mean sex. It’s about companionship. If all you’re after is the physical stimulation, you’ve got two hands.”
But then, I ask myself, where is the separation between love for friends and love for a significant other? Love is not sex. So what is it? Is it the promises you make to each other? Then again, all loving relationships carry some type of promises, and we are to “let our yes be yes and our no be no”, so we shouldn’t have hierarchies of promises, right?
And in the midst of this, I ask myself, why does it have to be separated by gender? It ought to be about the individual, not stereotypes, right? The only general thing you can say about the differences between the genders and be even mostly right is that they’ve got different parts, but if it’s not about the physical aspect, why does that have to matter? Isn’t that a shallow way of looking at it? I particularly start thinking about this because I’m moving away from complementarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism) because it’s been pretty obvious for a very long time that I don’t fit the traditional definition of a good Christian manly man, and I don’t really want to – but if egalitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_egalitarianism) are right, then how can heterosexuality be a moral necessity?
Around this time I’m starting to become aware of the existence of actual Christian arguments against the traditional interpretations of the clobber passages. I don’t know what to think. I start doing more research, and try to take a more neutral position for the time being.
Easter of 2010, my girlfriend’s brother comes out to her as gay. She is angry and scared and devastated that the big brother she looked up to all her life is a [bundle of sticks]. I have no idea what to say.
May of 2010. I graduate. We keep dating for almost a year afterward, Skypeing at least once a week (Incidentally, we never slept together, but for religious and personal reasons, not because of incompatible sexualities). We eventually break up when it becomes exceedingly clear that we work better as friends than lovers, and continue to stay in touch to this day.
From late 2009 through 2011, I start becoming more skeptical of conservatism – at first, I guess it was because I was convinced that Republicans were all a bunch of lib-rull RINOs and Glenn Beck was right about everything. Then I start thinking hey Glenn Beck is actually kind of crazy, but by then I had already burned the bridge back to conservatism (Also, part of it is that since at least 2008, I'd been reading Fred Clark's years-long super-indepth dissection of the Left Behind books (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/category/left-behind/) (he's been going for nine years, and just recently started the third book in the twelve-plus-four-book series), and his challenges to traditional conservative Christian Americanism were growing on me). So now that I’m out of college, I finally start turning liberal. Over the course of the 2012 GOP primary, I gradually want less and less to do with any of the candidates.
As I talk – and especially listen – to more people, I realize that the assumption I’d been making, that everyone is bi, is probably very wrong. Most people only experience attraction to one gender or the other. I read this article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202), and it’s huge. Eventually, I find Justin Lee (http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php). I’d heard and read pro-LGBT Christian arguments before, but Justin’s is the nail in the coffin.
It’s the end of July. The Chik-Fil-A thing is happening. I get invited to the anti-boycott event on Facebook. I decline, leaving a link to gaychristian.net in my comment. And I notice another comment below mine. It’s from my ex.
“I support Chick-Fil-A not opening on Sundays, and I can appreciate that the man has his values. But I cannot support throwing the weight of the corporate success which is Chick-Fil-A behind homophobia. I can't go along with the entire LGBTQ (I think those are the right letters?) package, but I'm the proud sister of a man who loves a man. If you're my brother's enemy, you're my enemy as well. That's a traditional family value for you.”
In the comments below, a debate rages on. Although I hesitate to call it a debate when one side was presenting well-reasoned arguments and the other mostly just saying “But Leviticus!!” Her brother joins in, and tells her she’s his hero. I am filled with the feels. Some very original guy says “I just thank GOD it was Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve or they [sic] would be NO ME!!!!” and she reminds him that as long as we’re taking Adam and Eve (and, by extension, Cain, Abel, Seth, etc) as a literal account of the origins of humanity, we’re endorsing incest, because Cain wouldn’t have gotten his wife anywhere else.
So that’s my story so far. I’m bisexual, or also pansexual, and Christian, and I’m okay with that now, but I haven’t come out to anyone in real life yet except for my two best friends. I’m still a virgin. I haven’t dated any guys yet – the selection of single attractive gay/bi Christian guys in small towns in upstate New York is sparser than you might think. In fact, as far as I know, it’s only me.
I really like girls, and I also like a lot of guys, and I like feminine girls and sometimes some masculine guys, and I also really like androgyny, and there’s also trans* people (in both directions (and other, non-binary directions too)) that I’m attracted to, and at the end of the day, I want companionship with someone who complements me, filling in my weaknesses and accentuating my strengths, and me theirs, and someone to love Jesus and neighbors with, and probably someone to raise kids with and make a family and make a home, and I’m open to finding that love wherever it might show up.
And this whole post is as long as everything I’ve written for NaNoWriMo so far this month. I think I'm going to include this in my word count.
Sorry this post is so long (~10 pages double-spaced). I wasn't really expecting that. Kind of sorry. But also not really that sorry. I guess I needed to say it somewhere. I think I started writing it so I could decide whether to vote bi or pan, but I don't remember now. If you actually read the whole thing, congrats!
How about some more pictures.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mbi8rbOls91qbeduao1_500.jpg&hash=882d64dd1f583d0f5f98167d337b5963) (https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mbniymalrp1qj1pmpo1_500.png&hash=b3ac50d776e786641659eccc06faa1ca) (https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_mcrvqwMWz71rwu6v2o1_500.jpg&hash=69e02df9f6fe121d0b5d870918f0616d)
-
The thing about most 'bi' guys is that they're attracted to feminine features in either gender. From what I've seen, all but the gayest of gays are turned off by physical masculinity.
-
Eh, maybe sometimes. The guy I secretly had a crush on in freshman year was pretty masculine-looking. And a lot of the girls I like have somewhat masculine features.
I tend not to like facial hair in either gender, I guess (though I can make exceptions), but most modern heterosexual women seem not to like it either, so yeah.
I like a lot of people basically.
(ALSO: Maybe it is you who are subconsciously equating "attractive" with "feminine" in order to shore up your own straightness!)
-
x_____x Whoa... CrossEyed! That post must've taken you forever to write!
So...confused...by...androgynous...persons... Male...? Female...? Brain...not...computing... XD
With androgynous people, I think I perceive their gender based on how feminine or masculine they look. So, like the people (males?) in those pictures Luigison and CrossEyed linked/posted have pretty feminine traits. I've seen androgynous people (females?) who look fairly masculine, though.
I remember Polly Pocket! I think I had this one (http://www.onlypollypocket.com/1990/Midge_s_Flower_Shop/midges_flower_shop.html) as a kid. I definitely had this one (http://www.onlypollypocket.com/1989/Bridesmaid_Polly/bridesmaid_polly_yellow.html). 1990? 1992? (Why does it say '89 if it's '92?) Man, I feel old.
Anyway, I think I'll respond with my own ridiculously long post of overshare.
Growing up, I occasionally played with toys that were generally considered more "boyish"—although I did so in a girly sort of way. Like I remember playing with Hot Wheels with my brother, and we'd have the cars act sort of like people/characters—like in the movie Cars. Micro Machines would be kids. Occasionally we'd set up tracks and race them. I don't think I ever played cars by myself, just with my brother. I only had maybe two cars that were actually mine; one was pink and the other was a sort of bright neon red van (girly cars). I also occasionally played with my brother's Batman toys and dinosaurs, but again, only with him and possibly his friends, never by myself.
My favorite toys growing up were LEGOs and video games, which, while I guess are gender-neutral, were more associated as things girls didn't play much. I did have female friends who played with those, too. I also LOVED playing Barbies, though, which is "girly"—but, actually, I played with them way longer than my friends did, to the point where I was afraid people would make fun of me. My best friend, who was about two years younger than me, stopped playing with them before I did—and we used to play Barbies together all the time. I was probably 11 or 12 when I finally stopped.
Incidentally, my brother would occasionally play Barbies with me, but only if he had his dinosaurs. (Whenever he got his hands on my Barbies without me, he'd strip them and pull off their heads, which INFURIATED me! He broke the necks of several of them!)
Heh, I think that's why I like The Sims 2 so much—it's like LEGOs and Barbies and video games wrapped into one glorious package!
I was also obsessed with Power Rangers and Star Wars as a kid, which is also considered more of a boy thing. I remember we kids and our neighborhood friends would play "Power Rangers"—and we each would pretend to be a different Ranger. I was, of course, Pink, my favorite color (at the time). It was pretty gender-balanced, though; there were 3 girls and 3 boys playing (and each of us got to be the color we wanted), so maybe it wasn't too weird/boyish. *Shrug*
I remember being embarrassed that I liked Power Rangers, so I kept it hidden from my classmates. I felt bad because I never wore a Pink Power Ranger outfit (clothes, not a costume) that my friends (the family of two of the other "Rangers") got me for my birthday. I was too self-conscious to wear it.
Oddly enough, for the longest time, growing up I claimed I hated the male gender. I even refused to say the word "boy" and instead replaced it with the word "alien." XD (It's so ingrained in me that to some degree I still feel awkward saying "boy" to this day. I usually say "guy," anyway. But that's weird when talking about male children, as opposed to, like, teens and young adults. I got over it after working with kids. :P)
I was probably in denial, though, about hating males, because I played with both genders pretty frequently. I always considered the boys to be my brother's friends, not mine. I really only played with them in group settings where there was at least another girl. Unless it was video games.
My parents said, "Oh, you'll change your mind eventually. You'll like boys." I was squicked out by that idea, and claimed I never wanted a boyfriend or to get married or any of that sort of thing. Then again, considering the only guys I ever spent any extensive time around were my brother and his friends—whom I also viewed as annoying little brothers—my attitude kind of made sense.
In middle school, I briefly wondered if I were gay, because girls all around me were obsessed with guys and talked about crushes and stuff, and I thought guys were "gross" and didn't understand what all the fuss was about. But then I realized I wasn't attracted to girls, either, so I guess that made me "nothing yet."
By the time I was, hmm, 15? 14, I realized maybe there were SOME guys that weren't so bad. I formed a sort of acquaintanceship with a guy who sat next to me in English (that is, he was a guy I talked to in class), and he was okay.
I think what really changed my attitude toward the male gender, though, was this message board. (Dawww... :] ) I formed a lot of friendships here. And this place is predominantly male. So yeah.
In the later years of high school, I formed friendships with a few "IRL" guys. I think I had my first legitimate crush when I was like 17. Yeah, I'm slow. (Looking back, I probably did have a couple of fleeting crushes in like 6th grade, back when boys were still "yucky," but if I did, I was in denial about it.)
After experiencing my first serious crush, I realized, okay, maybe I am straight! ...Sort of. (Coming to terms with that was awkward, considering I'd previously vowed I'd never liked guys.) Whenever I've been attracted to someone, it's been on an emotional/romantic level. Finding the person "aesthetically pleasing" is a component of it, too, I guess, because I've thought of some guys as being "cute" without being emotionally attracted to them. But I've never been attracted to anyone in a sexual way.
I'm still kind of confused about my orientation, if I'm really asexual or not. I say I am because I've never experienced sexual attraction—including during the times I've been in romantic relationships. Part of me wonders, though, if my lacking it is due to some combination of naturally low libido compounded by being on anti-depressants (which I've been on long before I ever experienced romantic attraction), my shyness/social anxiety, possible Asperger’s, religious upbringing, fear, possibly repression, not being a very touchy-feely person, and having VERY strong aversion to bodily fluids. But I dunno.
I do know that I would be perfectly happy being a virgin my whole life. In fact, I'd probably prefer it that way. Even if I were married. Which means that my odds of ever finding and being in a successful lifetime-lasting romantic relationship are about 0%. If I cared. I'm more interested in companionship/friendship, regardless of gender. "Romance" (in a non-sexual way) is really more of a bonus.
[A]t the end of the day, I want companionship with someone who complements me, filling in my weaknesses and accentuating my strengths, and me theirs, and someone to love Jesus and neighbors with, and probably someone to raise kids with and make a family and make a home, and I’m open to finding that love wherever it might show up.
I like the way this was worded. I suppose I want something like that. Only without the kids part. What that means exactly, I don't know.
So yeah. Hooray for weirdness and overshare!
-
I'm a little ashamed to admit that I did not read all of CE7's wall of text before assuming the images he posted were male.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emmawatson.com%2FGlobal%2FMagazines%2FEmma-Watson-pics-in-Marie-Claire-Magazine.jpg&hash=b305010b9c1244489717801ff44b6422)
If I had not recognized the face above I might have a hard time stating that was images of a female adult. The fact that I find her sexually attractive while still having a hard time discerning that she is actually female and not underage is a little disconcerting. Imagine her face as a little more like Justine Beaver's and maybe you'll see my trepidation.
-
That looks like Emma Watson to me. Not digging the short hair.
I feel like I totally weirded everyone out based on how dead this topic got after I posted.
I was so focused on keeping those out that I didn’t notice the gays sneaking in the back.
Pun intended? ;P
Anyway, I found this Bem Sex Role Inventory (http://personality-testing.info/tests/BSRI.php), which deals with gender roles/identity and masculinity/femininity. It's kind of outdated, but I thought it was interesting/appropriate for this thread.
Here are my results:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonality-testing.info%2Ftests%2Fimages%2FBSRIi.php%3FM%3D3%26amp%3BF%3D4.3&hash=faff7c7eadcc9b35182fe3879a73c589)
Apparently I'm about halfway between "feminine" and "androgynous." On each axis, ~2/3 feminine, ~1/2 masculine. Seems about right.
I still have yet to find a good inventory/test/assessment thing dealing with orientation. Pretty much everything I've found doesn't take asexuality, pansexuality, "intensity," or type of attraction (sexual, romantic, platonic, etc.) into account. Lame.
-
Emma Watson: any time, any place, any day of the week. I'm beyond caring if that "makes" me anything.
Anyway, consider this the queer-friendly society equivalent of a zombie apocalypse survival guide:
-
Here are my results. Pretty average, although slightly more feminine. Probably because I care about understanding people's emotions?
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonality-testing.info%2Ftests%2Fimages%2FBSRIi.php%3FM%3D3.2%26amp%3BF%3D3.7&hash=a18b4b42511a8b7168ac16cb8e1e8420)
I work at a Starbucks, which is known for having gay baristas (at least in my opinion). Of course my coworkers are the most masculine men ever, and it's so boring! All they ever talk about is Fantasy Football! X/
-
image
Who are "Ve" and "Ze" reserved for?
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonality-testing.info%2Ftests%2Fimages%2FBSRIi.php%3FM%3D1.7%26amp%3BF%3D4&hash=8fb2ca1bb5ee9e718511b7f841e5221e)
...Am I the most feminine member of the board?
Probably because I care about understanding people's emotions?
One of my main [stereotypically] feminine features is that I care about other people's emotions, and I think my main [stereotypically] masculine feature is how clumsy I am with them and not knowing what to say and stuff. Basically I have the emotional instability of a woman and the emotional ineptitude of a man.
-
I was in a similar place, but a little lower.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonality-testing.info%2Ftests%2Fimages%2FBSRIi.php%3FM%3D3.5%26amp%3BF%3D4.5&hash=1bde26cdc9aa80b689848730847a4a6b)
So apparently I'm a bit feminine, too. Huh.
-
Because the test is based on data from people in the 1970s, it may be that useful in the more modern world.
-
I think how it works is a little wonky.
If you look at the URL, you can see that it scores you out of 6 on both at the same time, so the URL actually gives you better results than the chart.
Here's one I hacked to have masculinity off the charts!
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonality-testing.info%2Ftests%2Fimages%2FBSRIi.php%3FM%3D7.0%26amp%3BF%3D0.0&hash=5b1843f28a3b4b77fc9e4842954c16e5)
As for my personal results, I don't plan on doing this due to the fact that it will be inaccurate because I don't answer those types of questions well. (I always go to the extremes)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonality-testing.info%2Ftests%2Fimages%2FBSRIi.php%3FM%3D2.7%26amp%3BF%3D1.6&hash=0fa1f68939475cef22401f348e242948)
Anybody else scored in the "masculine" yet...?
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonality-testing.info%2Ftests%2Fimages%2FBSRIi.php%3FM%3D2.3%26amp%3BF%3D2.4&hash=dcaedcb2d579a4a0300346a34ed7effc)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonality-testing.info%2Ftests%2Fimages%2FBSRIi.php%3FM%3D2.5%26amp%3BF%3D3.6&hash=5e0a8efda06ed46eb8a0a683a32ed9b9)
This puts me somewhere between Sapphira and CE7.
I think the "test" is a little skewed and might be more accurate if we were giving circumstances then asked how we would act/react. After all, how many people are really going to say they are conceited?
-
Who are "Ve" and "Ze" reserved for?
Ve and ze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Invented_pronouns) are invented gender-neutral pronouns.
-
CrossEyed, you scored a 4 on the Femininity axis. I got 4.3, BriGuy got 4.5. You scored lower on the Masculinity axis (1.7), though, whereas BriGuy and I are scored higher on them (3.5 and 3, respectively.) That puts you more centered the "Feminine" range, but not more feminine. Or something.
Markio and BriGuy got the highest scores under Masculinity (3.5 and 3.2). I'm next with 3. I guess that makes us more "Masculine," but none of us fall under the "Masculine" range, because we also scored high on Femininity.
Poor Fifth, all alone. XD
From the looks of the questions, I would guess the test is actually measuring personality traits more so than "gender roles," and just using stereotypes or something. Seems like "feminine" traits are more what someone who has a strong "Feeling" preference would be, with "masculine" traits more under the "Thinking" preference. And also, going by the Big Five (OCEAN) personality, someone who'd score high on "Agreeableness" would probably score higher on "Feminine," and someone higher on maybe "Extraversion" traits and/or "Openness" would probably score higher on "Masculine." So basically, if you're both a Feeler and Agreeable, I'm guessing you'd score as "Feminine."
I'm a Thinking preference with a well-developed Feeling side, who also scores high on Agreeableness. I'm also somewhere between Introverted and "Ambiverted," and somewhere in the middle of "Openness" (depends on what, exactly, that means, which varies). So that probably explains my results.
Although, possibly another way of looking at it is how likely are you to "wear the pants" in a relationship. I dunno. XD
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblogs%2Fslacktivist%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F12%2FHelpfulGuide.jpg&hash=bb109d25612eecd603f6863e6a21e775)
-
Depends how your son knocks down his Lego sets.
-
If my son could decimate Lego cities with his genitals, I'd be [darn] proud.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBh89KXhDqs
-
I can't help but notice that the pipe graphic representing the pole results bares a slight resemblance to... Never mind.
Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7gwX7rjOw)'s a pro-tip that will make it really simple.
Just kidding. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule)
Otherwise, the myriad possibilities tend to make even the most considerate among us feel a little like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-6_xnI4KNg).
-
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
Hmm...
-
Well, there you go.
-
Wow, the comments beneath that article are so uplifting and heartfelt.
-
Pretty funny how they're calling it a "lifestyle choice" when I honestly wouldn't give a [dukar] if it were. Gay marriage is a victimless crime.
Seriously getting tired of stupid rednecks who mistrust science.
-
This leads us to another question: If homosexuality is ever found to be caused by some correctible imbalance or mutation, would it be ethically acceptable to "fix" gay babies before they're born?
-
We need gay people to help offset overpopulation, methinks.
And it'd be better to correct whatever causes pedophilia first (if it is indeed hereditary). That's actually harmful.
-
This reminds me of that awkward ethical dilemma where, if we decide aborting babies that'll be deformed is okay, then it effectively says YOU SHOULD NOT BE to all currently alive disabled people.
-
We need gay people to help offset overpopulation, methinks.
And it'd be better to correct whatever causes pedophilia first (if it is indeed hereditary). That's actually harmful.
So if what you're saying is correct, with "stupid people reproduce more," could it be possible that if the number of stupid people go up, the number of gay people will go up?
-
Wow, the comments beneath that article are so uplifting and heartfelt.
In an age where computers can beat man at Chess, in an age where you can have your car essentially tell you where to drive (or you can read from a device that's normally stored in your pocket), in an age where TVs are voice activated, people such as those still exist, and in great (if decreasing) numbers.
-
I left a thoughtful comment.
-
So if what you're saying is correct, with "stupid people reproduce more," could it be possible that if the number of stupid people go up, the number of gay people will go up?
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifrific.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FJesse-eisenberg-Shrug-Social-Network.gif&hash=3b66df03dba4a7ada165f2d818f53b4b)
-
Less anecdote, more data:
Yes, ladies and gentleman, fully 46% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx) of Americans are YEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism). Further, 41% (http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1043) believe that Jesus will "come again" by 2050, long term responsibilities/consequences be [darn]ed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Overpopulation).
To be fair, I suppose I can't blame them all for their ignorance. We're all born into it, and even I was once introduced to a bit of YEC in my youth, but thanks to a healthy amount of skepticism and an education in science I was able to overcome such garbage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology). I imagine many kids aren't as fortunate. The irony is that the same conservatives into which they're raised indoctrinated to put their faith (and votes, and they do vote (http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2012/12/12/rubio-walks-back-comments-on-the-age-of-the-earth/)) are the same group actively working to undercut funding for their public education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council). Say nothing of attempts to undermine it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings) other ways, or the cost of post-secondary education for most jobs nowadays (even if we weren't in an economic rut). Add in the possibility of family and social ostracism, sprinkle a little of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum) on top, and what would you expect? A bunch of dopes who can't explain why they like the red car on the lot over the blue one, but maintain that sexual attraction is a discrete choice.
Edit: Computers beating people at chess is now blasé (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6oS64Bpx0g#t=07m47s).
-
46%? ****ing seriously?
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F175%2F315%2FPicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg%3F1316330080&hash=96f9b1a9fe3d865879b52aaef85ba2b9)
And that doesn't include the people who aren't YEC yet still don't believe in evolution.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifrific.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FJesse-eisenberg-Shrug-Social-Network.gif&hash=3b66df03dba4a7ada165f2d818f53b4b)
Yeah, just sort of a random correlation/causation thing.
-
Tonight I got on a 80's kick. Androgenise? Sebastian Bach (https://www.google.com/search?q=sebastian+bach&hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FLuNULf1JovK0AHr1oHwBg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631#hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&tbm=isch&q=sebastian+bach+skid+row&revid=1321352112&sa=X&ei=FbuNUI3jMqWF0QHpnIEY&ved=0CEQQgxY&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ceb5c3ba7f798ac0&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=631) and Jani Lane (https://www.google.com/search?q=jani+lane&hl=en&safe=off&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDAx8HsxKXfq6-gWGheVVOboSb_FmVZSsPfpsU4Z19YUt59afQSwDQb2rFKwAAAA&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=OruNUKuBEpPp0QHBn4GYAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=631#hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&q=jani+lane+warrant&revid=1306978498&sa=X&ei=QLuNUKvvFq6M0QHi8oDoDQ&ved=0CEQQgxY&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ceb5c3ba7f798ac0&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=631). I didn't know Jani had died this summer. So long...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka6SDrSeVEQKinda makes me think of David Lee Roth more then Frankie though.
Today I was going through some old music and realized why "That's life" sounded more like Diamond Dave to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI-gDIHXowM
Sometimes I feel dumb, but I guess that back then I didn't realize it was a cover of a legendary song.
On a related note I recall hearing Bon Jovi's "Runaway" at friends house on a new CD that was just released and swearing I knew the words to the song before they played. I had forgotten it was really an old song from an old tape I had.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86K-p089R8
Sorry to clog the thread up with old music. Carry on...
-
I hate to revive this thread while, even worse, being off-topic, but PaperLuigi, I must mention, I'm not sure why you think that is a shock. Why be ****ed off and facepalm about what people might believe. I also don't understand Red Lewd's denouncement of that percentage's beliefs. Ignorance, garbage? Were those terms really necessary?
Not to reference anyone at these forums, but it sort of reminds me of friends I've had that say, "**** RELIGION STUPID SHEEPLE HOW COULD YOU BE SO STUPID." I ask them why they have this apparent hatred for anything religion-related, and the usual answer is, "WELL BECAUSE THIS ONE TIME SOMEONE TRIED TO TELL ME <insert_something_they_didn't_like> AND/OR TOLD ME I WAS GOING TO HELL."
While there are people who are extreme in their beliefs in any sector of... well anything in this world, there are honest, innocent people in them, and then there's *******s. There's good people of every race and *******s of every race. There's good people of each religion who don't impose their beliefs on others, and there's *******s that try to condemn others for not following their beliefs. Just because crazy people like WBC and raging atheists are the ones that get media attention doesn't speak for religion or lack thereof as a whole.
-
I hate to revive this thread while, even worse, being off-topic, but PaperLuigi, I must mention, I'm not sure why you think that is a shock. Why be ****ed off and facepalm about what people might believe.
Because YEC is really, really stupid? And it's disappointing that its adherents reject mainstream science?
-
Indeed. At least amongst rational folk, the reexplanation of what has been researched and theorized about in modern times using the word of ancient nomads (aka God's word) merits some guffawing.
I'll let my religious kin discuss the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, but we should not throw our hands up and consent to "I don't have to think about it, because God or [religious leader here] understands it just fine." Such thinking is pleasant and comfortable, but ultimately harmful, especially given how densely populated the Earth has become.
EDIT: Allow me to loop this idea back around to the topic at hand: consider the suffering honest to goodness, homosexual people have experienced because some Levite said that "dudes should not sleep with dudes, that's gross." The [religious leader] agrees with that guy, and who am I to argue with the [religious leader]! More importantly, now I get to say, "[darn] am I glad I'm a god-fearing normal person.
-
RLU, biased much?
Not saying I support or reject either theory, as I believe it's impossible to know for certain, but a couple years ago I read several intelligent, logical, scientific articles that seemed to support the Young Earth Theory. So saying the whole notion is "stupid" is rather closed-minded. Believing or disbelieving something blindly, regardless of what it is, is stupid, yes, but actually researching something and using logic and reason to come to a conclusion is anything but stupid or ignorant. Different people can see the same thing and reach different conclusions. Doesn't mean either is necessarily right or wrong.
Most people in general seem to be pretty ignorant, though, regardless of whatever their worldview is. But don't assume everyone with a different worldview from yours is ignorant or stupid. That's prejudiced, not to mention ignorant and stupid, itself.
If I find those articles again, I might post them. But, guys, this isn't the topic for that discussion. Take it to another thread.
-
The problem with Young Earthism is that it kind of requires accepting the Matrix. Technically, we can never know if we're actually in the Matrix or not, because if we were, it would be such a good simulation that we'd have no way of knowing. I can never know if the world around me actually exists, or if I am just a disembodied mind being fed experiences by an evil demon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon). Likewise, if an omnipotent deity created the universe 6,000 years ago (or last Thursday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Last_Thursdayism)) with the appearance of age, we would have no way of knowing, of confirming or denying it.
Those philosophical theories are all really interesting to think about, and they're certainly possible, but in order to function, we have to make certain assumptions that are, ultimately, unprovable. I have no way of actually knowing for certain that any of you actually exist physically outside of the experiences I have of you in my brain, let alone any way of knowing that you are sentient minds like I am, but I take those as postulates in order to live life. In order for science and rational thought to have meaning, we have to assume that the universe is not just a grand deception that was created five minutes ago. When Answers in Genesis argues that YEC is a possible way that the universe came about, yeah, it is, but only if literally every other conceivable arrangement of words is considered equally possible, because believing in YEC requires either rejecting the basic postulate that the world is consistent and understandable; or, at the very least, postulating the existence of a massive global conspiracy (possibly of demonic origin) among all scientists to suppress the truth of the earth's age. If either one of those is true, then how can we even study anything at all, if anything along the way can be thrown out just as easily?
Let's say I'm standing up and holding a pencil in my hand, and I ask, "If I let go of this pencil, what will happen?" You can say "It'll fall, because gravity will attract it toward the center of the earth, just as I've seen happen to many other things today." And you don't know that for certain, because I haven't let go of the pencil. It's also possible that the pencil will stay floating, because it's possible that at some point in the last few days, you were knocked unconscious and taken onto a spacecraft and now you're in a zero-g environment. But if we're going to allow that as a possibility, then we also have to admit that it's conceivably possible that the pencil will sprout wings and fly out. You've never seen a flying pencil before, but there are ways that one could conceivably exist, and it's not impossible for me to have one. In this new realm of possibilities, the only outcomes that are not possible are word salads, like "The pencil will radiate apple deaf at married bachelor." YEC is not word salad, but it is the zero-g theory -- yeah, it's a logically consistent possibility, but what reason is there to believe it?
Anyway, back on topic: Guys are cute.
-
I like to think that my life is really a TV show being written by an unseen writer, and it's part of a shared universe occupied by everyone around me, each of whose lives is being written by some other unseen writer.
Anyway, back on topic: Guys are cute.
Aren't I just?
-
post
Whether you personally accept YEC or find it "logical" is of no consequence to the truth. If any so-called theory isn't supported by the scientific community, it isn't science. It's pseudoscience. Call me prejudice and ignorant if you'd like, but I don't think you'd feel that way if someone were to deny the existence of gravity.
Look, I'm fine with being open-minded. By all means, we should be open-minded. But not so much that our brains fall out.
Relevant to the actual topic: I don't particularly like the way guys look. They're gross, hairy, and lacking in boobage. But if someone else likes that, hey, more power to them.
-
The gayest thing I ever did was buy a giant print of this and hang it on my wall:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fart.penny-arcade.com%2Fphotos%2F1087535149_PNScU-L.jpg&hash=b65080fcbe0e39bb7ac83e038df1a062)
-
So, you're saying it's hung ...on your wall, huh? ;)
-
I designed this T-shirt. My sister didn't get it.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.customink.com%2Fdesigns%2Fproofs%2Fnbb0-000p-wvta%2Ffront.jpg%3Faf1817b4b9a46ef307256f1976737be8ca7f7df2&hash=a254093567ad5886c89c975593b20aa2)
They're tongue kissing.
-
So, you're saying it's hung ...on your wall, huh? ;)
Going directly from reading the swear thread to reading this was like a reverse mental polar bear plunge.
-
I was tempted to edit her post to see if BP would remove the edit, but was too tired/lazy at the time.
LD, you should feel proud that she now accepts you as an equal as evidenced by her sharing a dirty joke with you.
-
I don't think this is relevant to the thread but I want to post it somewhere.
-
I feel like the above image is meant to be a joke. If not, all they're saying is that just because a white woman is discriminated against doesn't mean she should forget the advantages she holds over other groups, i.e., one discrimination does not negate another. I don't see what the problem is.
-
I just found it confusing and tumblresque.
-
Well it's certainly confusing. I had to reread the [darn] thing about 10 times to understand what they meant.
-
Here is the sum of my girlfriend and I's Kinsey scores:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.r21freak.com%2Finsanesteve%2Flolalgebra.png&hash=b11c517db30de976592a1b1900317daf)
We've been together over 5 years fwiw
-
While I suck at math, I can at least identify that the sum is not 0.
I think.
-
Steve the image in your post appears to be broken.
-
Language.
-
You've posted that before, I think.
-
That would go nicely in the rage thread, Weegee.
-
I don't know who to rage at, the narrator for caring too much, or the boys for the reasons described.
-
You've posted that before, I think.
They all seem alike after a point.
-
In the likely-not-wanting-to-elaborate-anyway mom's defense, it DOES kind of defeat the purpose of messing around with a "formerly male" sexual identity. I say sexual because it probably does have societal implications.
-
That would go nicely in the rage thread, Weegee.
Except the author is just a troll.
-
Oh, wow, sexual characteristics vs. gender identity can probably get its own thread. It's prettttty complicated. The English language sorely needs a neutral gender personal pronoun, but I never liked xi/xe for some reason.
Oh yea, that graph. Shows up for me, huh. I was basically saying that I've been in a 5+ year relationship with an asexual and had relatively few problems with this fact. Honestly of the sexual orientations asexuality is really not very well understood by most. It's like "wait, why are you in a ltr with someone who doesn't want to have sex?" and "wait, why would someone who doesn't like sex want a boyfriend?" and all that. I can elaborate but it's one of those things that just "works" somehow.
-
The English language sorely needs a neutral gender personal pronoun, but I never liked xi/xe for some reason.
I use "they"/"them." Screw pluralization confusion; if it's that important for society's sake, I think English can handle one more word that means two things.
-
Good for you, Steve!
I've never really understood all the emphasis society puts on sex. I mean, I understand it's an expression of intimacy and something people find pleasurable, but why is it as extremely important as people make it out to be? Why can't intimacy be expressed in different ways and be just as fulfilling? A distinct impression I've gotten is that somehow a relationship (especially marriage) is regarded as incomplete or unfulfilling or "wrong" without sex. As a hetero-romantic ace, I find that general mentality alienating and isolating.
It's comforting to know you're in a successful long-term relationship with an ace, Steve. I suppose that gives me hope. XD
For myself, though, I've come to the realization that if I were to be in a relationship, I'd rather it be with another hetero-romantic ace. (An aromantic ace would probably frustrate me, though.) Personally, I'd be really hesitant to attempt a relationship with a heterosexual because I wouldn't want that to become a possible issue in the future. Every individual is different, though, which is something to consider.
And yes, I agree wholeheartedly that our language desperately needs a singular gender-neutral pronoun. It's pretty much "they" in common vernacular, but Grammar Nazis and professors are less accepting of that. Ugh.
-
"They" could still see use to describe individuals who identify as more than one person.
Kill me.
-
I always just used "they," also. I mean, if "you" can refer to one or multiple people, why not "they?" I also have a very odd language quirk in my speech where I refer to myself as "we" in everyday speech semi-regularly (and no, I don't have multiple personalities). Yea lol English pronouns
So you identify as asexual also, Sapph? Cool. I never "got" society's fixations/hangups on sex either, and I'm ... well, "straight-ish." It's good to recognize that'd you'd prefer a heteroromantic asexual partner opposed to trying to compromise with a heterosexual -- as the latter instance runs into several problems except in rare cases. Mainly, for the heterosexual partner's needs to be met either the asexual has to have sex at least occasionally (which, for those who think this is no big deal, imagine being compelled to have sex with a member of your non-preferred sex "at least occasionally"), or be ok with letting their partner have non-romantic sex with others, which may be impractical for certain personality types. Right now the setup of my relationship is a slight mix of both (I don't really ask my partner for sexual favors since I personally have hangups with demanding things from people that they don't like) with a third element that makes the relationship far more workable sexually (which I'm not going to go into much detail on because it's semi-personal).
Of course, finding a heteroromantic asexual might be difficult, just because from what I seem to remember when I posted on AVEN for a short time to learn things about things roughly ~2/3 the members were female. If this is the actual ratio of females:males who identify as asexual, then that's problematic since your pool of potential mates is thin. Of course, if you ask me, and this is itself a somewhat controversial opinion, I think the number of people biologically wired to simply not like sex is about the same for both sexes, and that societal pressures are a big part of the reason some females identify as asexual. That is, females are more "desirable" when they are exclusive sexually and are looked down at for having sex whenever they want to, and males are more "desirable" when they have sex frequently and are often pressured into trying to find partners when they may not be thrilled by this idea. Thus, women are more likely to develop subconscious attitudes towards sex that lead them to not enjoy it. It's kind of how a lot more women identify as bisexual than men, because there's some kind of stigma against men being with people of the same sex that's stronger than that of women being with other women. I don't know, though.
Really, there's a lot more to it than even that but that's just a summary of what I've observed on the topic. Feel free to add on to or correct whatever.
-
Don't feel bad about using they/them/their as singular. That's how old-school English worked, until eighteenth-century grammarians tried to straitjacket English into following the rules of Latin grammar and successfully hijacked the school system.
This is the same reason some people think you can't end a sentence with a preposition. There is no rule. English is not Latin. Your teachers were wrong. No professional English linguist alive would ding you for writing, "Someone peed their pants." Only n00bs teaching middle school.
(Interestingly, the second-person never got hijacked. No one thinks twice about using you as both singular or plural. Compare to French or Bulgarian, where those are different words.)
-
The whole not-being-able-to-end-sentences-with-prepositions thing is really, really stupid. I mean, if you can find a way to structure a sentence in a way that doesn't end in a preposition, fantastic, but if it makes the sentence sound awkward and clunky, no. And typically it does.
I also don't see what the big deal is about using "you" in the generic sense. Replacing it with "one" is awkward. And completely restructuring a sentence to avoid it is also annoying. However, this is a "rule" I'm very careful about following in regard to formal writing. I'm pretty careful about the singular they/them/their, too, and sometimes I word the sentence so I can use it in the plural sense. But I still think it's dumb. And this is coming from a stickler for grammar.
.....Anyway. Re: Insane Steve:
Yeah, I wouldn't want to have to compromise there. I don't think it's fair to the other person that their needs not be met, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to feel guilted into it, even if they never actually pressured me. And there's no way in heck I'd be okay with the other person getting their "needs" met elsewhere. At least in my case, it just seems like a lose-lose situation to me, and I could see resentment and tension slowly building. I suppose, in theory, I could maybe tolerate the other person...pleasuring himself to meet those "needs," but in reality I think even that would bother me and really creep me out.
Haha, I remember my mom saying I could marry a eunuch or someone who otherwise can't...ahem...function "down there."
I said, "Yeah, but even if they couldn't do IT, they'd still probably wanna do other STUFF."
Her response was, "...Good point."
On the opposite end of the spectrum, I briefly mentioned before that an aromantic ace would probably frustrate me. Think of it as similar to how a romantic ace could frustrate a sexual person. If I were in a romantic relationship, I'd want romantic intimacy like cuddling, hand-holding, and maybe even G-rated kissing and stuff. (Man, that sounds really cheesy...) And if they were like "NO TOUCHY EVAR!" I'd be like, Ô_o. And I'm not even a touchy-feely person. Otherwise the relationship would be friendship. And friendship is wonderful and fulfilling and all that, but if my expectations were romantic, it'd feel...lacking.
So yeah, I think, for me, the best solution is to find someone with the same orientation as me.
Wow, this post managed to get awkward and suggestive and probably TMI. Sorry. >_<
-
Ooh la la! How exactly can "one" structure a sentence so that a preposition isn't what it ends with? ;) So suggestive!
Maybe it's because the only other message board I frequent regards the topic of sexuality, but I don't think your post read as suggestive or awkward. Being able to speak candidly about one's romantic/(a)sexual desires permits others to do the same.
Personally, I feel really weird to be a 22-year-old virgin, in part because of the societal pressures "to which" Insane Steve "referred." I'm fairly socially awkward (hence my presence on an internet message board) but I attribute my lack of action to having come out only four years ago, at a smaller college with a meager gay male population. Thankfully I'm close to San Francisco now and I'm in a chorus with 300 other gay men, and while I don't anticipate doing anybody (which is actually discouraged within the group), I think it's constructive for my sexual identity to be around men with the same orientation. I have a "big brother" in the chorus who's 51 years old with a partner of 25 years, and the normalcy of his life experiences certainly makes it seem a lot less implausible/dramatic that I will meet/date someone.
So yeah, I guess if I were to give out advice based on my own experiences so far, it's merely to find a group of people with similar identities within which you can openly embrace those aspects of yourself. Pun intended? (is "embracing" romantic?)
-
Change of subject: Even though gender identity is different from sexual orientation, I feel like this may fit the best in this thread: A First Lingerie Line for Transgendered Women (http://www.lingerietalk.com/2012/03/26/lingerie-news/were-done-hiding-a-first-lingerie-line-for-transgendered-women.html)
-
So, just to clarify: the people in those pictures have wangs?
-
The African-American... individual certainly appears to.
-
The article said that the models were all transgender, which doesn't exclude individuals who have had gender reassignment surgery. But yeah, they all were likely born with penises. Peni? Penae?
-
"Penes," but "penises" is an acceptable plural nowadays.
I get the feeling ShadowBrian and Weegee still giggle when they hear the word "penis" spoken out loud.
-
I think the censor isn't working for me.
-
"Penes," but "penises" is an acceptable plural nowadays.
I get the feeling ShadowBrian and Weegee still giggle when they hear the word "penis" spoken out loud.
This reminds me of the Biology and Anatomy teacher at a school that had the students all say "penis" and "******" out loud about twenty times each at the start of the reproduction unit.
Edit: The censor is sexist!
-
This reminds me of the Biology and Anatomy teacher at a school that had the students all say "penis" and "******" out loud about twenty times each at the start of the reproduction unit.
Edit: The censor is sexist!
This post pretty much defines the FF right here ah hahahahaha
-
The censor is sexist!
I've got the censor turned off, and I still see asterisks. I'm calling shenanigans.
-
Sexist censors! XD
BriGuy, that's because Luigison apparently has censors turned on, and if you edit a post with censored words, the words actually change.
About those words... Originally, uh, the word for "male parts" was censored and in a way that automatically changed the word to something silly. I noticed serious posts that actually dealt with genitalia sounded ridiculous and childish when censored, so I requested that censor be removed. (GASP! Ironic, right?) I guess the equivalent term for "lady parts" was forgotten about, or something. Probably because it's pretty much never said.
(Also, I was one of those kids who giggled incessantly during sex ed. I still feel really weird/uncomfortable saying/typing the clinical terms for genitalia, though, even though I don't find it particularly hilarious or anything. It's probably due to the "squick" factor, or something. Hooray for asexuality! Although I'm one to prefer euphemisms in general anyway.)
...Hahaha, this has got to be one of the weirdest, irony-laden posts I've ever made. XD
-
The silly replacement was "weenus"
-
The fact that we replaced "penis" with a funny word but just straight-up censored "vagina" is an interesting reflection of patriarchical society and the sexual economy. It reminds me of a part from the series of Christianly-explaining-sex-to-kids books my mom gave me (a more indirect, less awkward alternative to The Talk, though one that led to some misconceptions that would probably have been cleared up if I had availed myself of opportunities to ask questions (for example, the book explained that sex is when a penis goes into a vagina, but it didn't mention that you're supposed to move -- I got the impression that you just put it in and left it there)). In one of the books, it said "some boys refer to their penises with silly terms like 'weiner', and that's okay, but slang terms for girls' private parts are disrespectful." (not an exact quote; I'm quoting Greek-style) Even at the age of ten, I found that disparity odd -- why is it only okay to use slang terms for one gender's parts, but not the other's?
Implicit in that slang double standard is the assumption that females must be sheltered and protected and males must be lone, undefended protectors (which may have been intentional on some level, to promote a complementarian viewpoint that is supposedly a "traditional Christian" viewpoint (when the reality is that the only reason it was traditional in a Christian context is because it's the way the 1st-century Roman Empire already operated, and the early church was so egalitarian in comparison to the empire (following Jesus' example of treating women like actual people) that non-Christians thought Christian women were all prostitutes (because only prostitutes would be so brazen as to speak in public!) and Paul's writings that are used today to support patriarchy were actually saying "Look, guys, society isn't ready for this kind of equality yet, so here's how you can pretend to go along with this system in public to keep up appearances without having to abandon your newfound freedom entirely")). Also, I should note that these books were not divided into a boys' set of books and a girls' set of books (or even, as is more common, the default set of books and then the "for girls" version released a year or two later) -- it was the same series of four books for boys and girls. And yet, you can tell that it was subconsciously written addressing males as the default active participants -- "Okay, boys, it's fine to talk about your own junk like that, but talk about ladyparts respectfully." The authors of the book didn't give any thought to the notion that girls might refer to themselves slangily. And that mindset hurts both girls and boys (and really hurts those who don't fit into either box).
And now I'm reminded of this 2007 column by John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/co-ed-combat-and-cultural-cowardice) that's recently resurfaced.
Suppose a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.
In addition to the obvious stupidity, a commenter on Rachel Held Evans's blog post (http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/legalism-gender-roles) points out that even in this situation, Piper is addressing the man, continuing to assume that the man will be the only active party here -- "Should he step back and tell her to do it?" If Sarah is a black belt, she will not have to wait for Jason to give her an order. Her reflexes will kick in immediately.
"Irrespective of competency" means that even if Sarah is also carrying a concealed firearm, and even if Jason is a paraplegic, Jason must still step -- or roll -- in front of Sarah and refuse to let her do anything (or to actively stop her from doing anything if she's not the type to wait for a man's go-ahead before doing anything). So now Jason's dead, and Sarah ends up killing the assailant herself anyway, except now she gets to bury her quixotic boyfriend! Yay for gender roles! Everything's the exact same as it would have been in an egalitarian relationship, except now half of them are dead and the other half is either wracked with guilt and self-doubt or she's rightly furious at the religious system that killed the first half! But hey, at least now Jason doesn't have to live with the shame of being helped by a woman!
(Jenny Rae Armstrong has a really good response to Piper (http://www.jennyraearmstrong.com/2013/02/06/john-piper-women-in-combat-and-how-gender-roles-fall-short-of-the-glory-of-humankind/), including an observation that Piper's conception of gender roles isn't even Christianity, it's Plato's Theory of Forms)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.explosm.net%2Fdb%2Ffiles%2FComics%2FRob%2Frolls.png&hash=e8bab5ec9db2a699a3cbeeff040970df) (http://www.explosm.net/comics/2861/)
-
Interesting how there are hardly any non-medical terms for the vagina that aren't considered obscene or pornographic.
-
Va-jay-jay? Vag? Cootie-snorcher?
-
XD Never heard that last one.
Hoo-ha. Bajingo. Lady parts.
Then there's also all the gender-neutral terms.
-
Interesting how there are hardly any non-medical terms for the vagina that aren't considered obscene or pornographic.
But why are they considered that way? Is it because the terms themselves are more obscene, or is it because we think about them differently because of the gender?
Why is calling a penis a weiner considered less obscene than calling a vulva a hairy clam? They're both crude descriptions of what genitalia look like by way of comparing their appearance to that of something more commonly seen. I'll admit that I don't have the biggest genital lexicography, but of the slang words I know for the female reproductive system, I don't see how the words themselves are inherently that much different from the male equivalents. Even a completely innocuous term like "va-jay-jay," which is derived directly from the medical term, tends to have a different reaction than an exactly equivalent term like "peen." It's the social context of the words. A term that describes female genitalia -- particularly the appearance of them -- is considered more obscene/pornographic/disrespectful than a term describing male genitalia with equal detail, because you're not supposed to know what female genitalia look like. You're not supposed to talk about them. Women are supposed to be paragons of modesty and poise and properness, and so removing their fig leaf is a much worse crime than removing mens'. (There's also an assumption of lack of female agency in there -- the one doing the removing of the fig leaf is presumed to be a man, and the possibility of a woman speaking like that is not considered (or, alternatively, she is considered a dangerous harlot).)
Same reason why when you hear about a 40-year-old male teacher having sex with a 15-year-old female student, your reaction is a lot different than when it's a 40-year-old female teacher having sex with a 15-year-old male student. Same reason why male victims of rape and domestic abuse are ignored or mocked, when there's about as many of them as there are female victims (way more if you include prison rape). Same reason there's so much more funding for breast cancer than for prostate cancer, which is just as big a killer. Gender roles. Women need to be protected and coddled and sheltered by their big strong men. Men aren't allowed to be weak. Women aren't allowed to be strong. It cuts both ways.
(Also, cancerous breasts are so much sexier than cancerous prostates.)
It has roots in the sexual economy, where, due to human biology and evolutionary history, men are the consumers of sex and women are the suppliers. This can play out with either gender being in charge -- the women can be treated as commodities in and of themselves, with the men taking all they can carry; or the women can be acting as industries, making sure they are selling their goods to the highest bidders. This is one way in which feminism has unwittingly perpetuated the patriarchy -- whether the sexual economy is being dominated by men or by women, it's still an unequal and highly limiting system.
If you only try to free one gender from their gender roles, the overarching system will stay in place.
-
(Also, cancerous breasts are so much sexier than cancerous prostates.)
Speak for yourself!
Has anyone else seen The Vagina Monologues? That's where I first heard the term "cootie-snorcher." It's actually really funny and enjoyable for women and non-women. I've constantly heard people criticize the show by saying that it uses its shock factor to get attention, but I think that just demonstrates how simply mentioning female genitalia is automatically considered shocking and indecorous. The only monologues that are ...not-Sapph-endorsed would be:
- Reclaim: about women taking back the c-word.
- The one about the different moans women make during sex
- My Angry Vagina: just a lot of swearing
I'm pretty sure you can watch individual monologues from the show on Youtube, if you just search for the names of each monologue. It's totally worth seeing at least once. After three times the fake orgasms get old and you get tired of hearing audience members think they're clever by saying "Let's do the Penis Soliloquys next! Aren't I original and upbeat?" While I would like to see a show where men talk earnestly about their penises (for innocent not-gay reasons), the fact that there isn't a male version is because men have the privilege of being overt with their sexual prowess or experience. So there's no need to have a show about it.
-
Gentlemen (like me) call it the delta of Venus.
-
Here at the UW, they're making it "The ____ Monologues" so trans folks don't get butthurt.
-
Please tell me you're kidding.
-
They're leaving out the word to avoid offending transgender people? That doesn't make sense: there was once an infamous performance of the show where all the actresses were transsexual women. People have the right to be offended by the show, but altering the content to appease to critics seems pointless.
-
Or you can do what Notre Dame did and allow the show to be run, have everyone protest against it, and then cancel it after 1 performance and vow to never allow it again
because you're sooooooo 21th century like that
EDIT: PS the typo in the line above is deliberate, but I'll leave it as an exercise to the viewer to decide whether it is the first two or second two characters that are typed wrong EDGY POLITICAL COMMENTARY
-
Please tell me you're kidding.
I fear not. The decision's not gone without some controversy of its own, though.
-
Here at the UW, they're making it "The ____ Monologues" so trans folks don't get butthurt.
That's really pathetic, not to mention doesn't make much sense.
Okay, so I found a pretty decent online test (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-3-variable-sexuality-spectrum-test) regarding sexual orientation. It takes 3 variables into account: Hetero, Homo, and Ace. The test has some flaws, and it's not by a "professional" or anything, but so far it's the best one I've come across.
My results:
You scored 40 Heterosexuality, 11 Homosexuality, and 82 Asexuality!
You are moderately interested in sex to asexual, but do not appear to be interested in either gender.
The higher your score in asexuality, the less interested in you are in sex.
Percentiles: (I find these more interesting)
Heterosexuality Distribution: You scored 40% on Heterosexuality, higher than 28% of your peers.
Homosexuality Distribution: You scored 11% on Homosexuality, higher than 16% of your peers.
Asexuality Distribution: You scored 82% on Asexuality, higher than 95% of your peers.
I'm curious to know how they calculated that.
-
Did they really have to divide sex and gender?
Edit: You scored 64 Heterosexuality, 19 Homosexuality, and 22 Asexuality!
-
You scored 76 Heterosexuality, 30 Homosexuality, and 22 Asexuality!
I actually don't even know anymore honestly
-
51 Hetero (44th percentile), 43 Homo (70th percentile), 35 Ace (51st percentile).
Did they really have to divide sex and gender?
They actually didn't, as far as I could tell; they were used pretty much interchangeably throughout the test.
-
Lizard Dude scored 84 Heterosexuality, 2 Homosexuality, and 4 Asexuality!
Man you people are gay.
-
Or maybe you're just a homophobic, sex-crazed maniac. ;P
-
Hey now, we don't call people xenophobes just because they haven't visited other countries.
-
I scored 0 Heterosexuality (1st percentile), 66 Homosexuality(90th percentile), and 27 Asexuality(36th percentile)!
Man you people are straight. ...er.
-
See, now, Suffix, I can't tell if you're playing along or being serious.
Man you people are sexual.
-
So, LD is more gay than Markio is straight?
-
Playing along and being serious, I suppose. LD, also a name-caller of sorts, doesn't need any defense, but I'm just saying one's personal tastes do not make him/her inherently opposed to another person who has different tastes. Not that you could easily tell by looking at American politics, but seriously, now...
"Suffix scored 84 Heterosexuality, 6 Homosexuality, and 27 Asexuality!"
I guess that just means I'm starved for interaction in general, eh?
-
Quite the opposite to homophobic: I think I got my 2 Homo-Points because I wouldn't be offended if a dude asked me out.
And if lack of phobia is supposed to raise my Flame Rank then I'm much gayer than that test lets on. I'm very comfortable touching men (titty twisting, sac tapping, running my fingers through their sweaty tousled hair, etc.).
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fakcdn.okccdn.com%2Fphp%2Fload_okc_image.php%2Fimages%2F250x250%2F250x250%2F0x0%2F0x0%2F0%2F47187073937847777&hash=54f3d6d2eb007398c04ea2635ea10f81)
Overall results. Scored 71% on Heterosexuality, higher than 79% of everyone else. Scored 6% on Homosexuality, higher than 8% of everyone else. I also got 25% on Asexuality, higher than 32% of everyone else. "You are either straight or bisexual (with an interest in the opposite gender) with a moderate to high sex drive."
-
Oh, hey, Wonkette found that book (http://wonkette.com/501703/sundays-with-the-christianists-sex-education-from-people-who-think-youre-all-filthy-perverts). Mine was the "pretty much a straightforward sex-ed text with an overlay of God stuff" one, not the loopy A Beka Book book. And they don't mention it on there, but it was the fourth and final book in a series.
By contrast, on the subject of slang terms for the genitals, Facing the Facts dismisses some as “not wrong, just silly,” and presents a loose rationale for rejecting others:
But some slang is dirty or rude and should not be used. It takes what God made to be good and treats it as if it were evil. Some of the slang men use to talk about women’s bodies is insulting, either because the words are ugly or because they imply that women’s bodies are “to be used” by men. This is wrong.
But slang is also often used because we are uncomfortable talking about our sexuality and feel nervous about using the correct words. In this book we will mostly use the words doctors use, unless those words are too complicated. Because our bodies were made by God, and sex is God’s idea, we don’t have to use slang.
So yeah, good thought, but the double standard implying that only slang words about female genitalia can be wrong always seemed odd to me. And now I can articulate why.
(Reading the Christian textbook series on there (search "Sundays with the Christianists") is oddly nostalgic for me. I definitely had that history book, and I'm remembering a lot of these passages. Good opportunity to go back and examine assumptions I may not even realize I had picked up from all those Bob Jones and A Beka Book books (incidentally, in case you haven't noticed already, it sounds really stupid when a publishing company has "Book" as the last word in its name).)
-
http://bigthink.com/e-pur-si-muove/why-children-must-inherit-their-last-names-from-their-father-not-their-mother (Language Warning)
-
Good opportunity to go back and examine assumptions I may not even realize I had picked up from all those Bob Jones and A Beka Book books
Oh hey, I remember Bob Jones textbooks. None of those memories are really fond ones. I have some even-less-fond memories of Bob Jones University, where those books came from.
-
Homo-Points
Requesting a "best phrase" category for the 2013 awards.
-
Too bad Black Mage isn't around to ask LD out.
-
I guess this is kind of a bump, but I don't care because this topic is interesting and I personally could talk about it for ages. Also, its one of the uncommon-rare serious discussions on here (Unless I'm just missing them all, which is pretty possible as well)
First, though..
the selection of single attractive gay/bi Christian guys in small towns in upstate New York is sparser than you might think.
CE7, I happen to be a gay guy living in upstate New York, and although I'm not Christian, my parents attempted to raise me as such so I understand a lot of it (even if I don't agree with it). The attractive/single part.. not so much. But guys do exist around here, you just gotta know where to look ;P
Anyway, being gay as you may or may not know, I find it rage-inducing when someone asks me why I'm gay. I mean, I understand that they would ask that because its not the social norm, but its still aggravating. Its like asking a dog why he's a dog.
This leads me into my next proposal: Schools should start teaching students about homosexuality. I'm not saying it has to be a separate course, but if it was mixed into biology or health ed or something then it would be helpful. Especially considering how almost 50% of Americans identify as pansexual, bisexual, or gay. People need to be educated on the subject, considering all the bull[dukar] with political correctness that's going on right now. Not to mention its polite. Anyway, that's my little rant on the subject.
-
50%? Lemme see your bibliography.
-
Okay that's a teeny bit of an exaggeration. But you get my point regardless.its actually only 3.8% but you get the idea.. that's still 9 million people..
-
This is the second time I've heard the "half of everybody in the country is gay" statistic. I'd like to not hear it again without some credible sources.
-
82% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I don't care if "half the population" is gay (that is, I'm ok with it/them). It's not going to change my sexual orientation. I'm ok with same sex couples/marriages.
I.. don't have much else to say on the topic right now..
-
It's not going to change my sexual orientation.
...but what if it did? :U
-
"The ayes have it. With five votes out of nine, the motion is passed, and Toad is now polydemisexual."
-
As someone whose sexual orientation actually did change, I'm laughing really hard at the thread right now :D
-
/me is glad he made someone laugh, even if inadvertantly
-
This is the second time I've heard the "half of everybody in the country is gay" statistic. I'd like to not hear it again without some credible sources.
Here's a credible source regarding LGBT demographics (http://www.gallup.com/poll/160517/lgbt-percentage-highest-lowest-north-dakota.aspx). The nationwide average is only 3.5%.
From what to what, I.S.? I only know of my bisexual friends whose orientations tend to oscillate (at different magnitudes) between men and women. I have one friend who's currently in a same-sex relationship with a guy, his second guy relationship, who had only dated women through high school. He argues that his predominant attraction to men does not cancel out his previous, genuine attraction to women.
-
http://bigthink.com/e-pur-si-muove/why-children-must-inherit-their-last-names-from-their-father-not-their-mother (Language Warning)
Contrarian view: http://qz.com/58832/with-this-name-i-thee-wed-why-an-oxford-philosopher-ditched-his-maiden-name/
-
Misleading title.
-
Personally, I kinda like the idea of making up a new name that's a mashup of both names. Not hyphenated; I mean like if BP and LD got married, their last name could be Wellel or Laurch or something like that. Success of this method does depend greatly on the two people having a good combination of names. Although if the names themselves don't work, I suppose you could also translate the meanings of the names into some other language and see if they work better that way.
Also this thread keeps showing up next to "Changing One's IP Address" in the recent unread topics, and I read them as "Changing One's Sexual Orientation" every time.
-
Remind me not to marry LD. Those last names are terrible.
-
Why not usernames?
Derson
Pude
-
From what to what, I.S.?
Straight to bi (preferring women). Or, Kinsey 0 to Kinsey 2. This actually happened between when I last left the boards and when I came back, basically it's hard to describe but somehow a latent part of my sexuality got woken up due to various things happening.
I think what bothers me about this is this it actually lends some credence to the idea that bigots like to throw around that sexuality is a choice and that gay people can be "cured" (by isolating and assaulting them in some cases). I kind of think that, from my experiences, that you can change in a way where you gain some affinity towards your non-preferred sex, but not the other way around. Like, I don't think there'd be any event short of head trauma that would cause me to not be attracted to women, but over the last year and a half or so I kind of discovered that I'm nowhere near as adverse to sexual encounters with men as I thought.
As for surnames, my thoughts have been that in my ideal world no one changes their name when they marry, and that the child takes on the name of the same-sex parent (in cases where the sex of the child is easily determined). I think the only real problem with this is that some people who care far too much about their lineage might force their partner to keep having children until they get one of each sex in the cases where two people have several children of the same sex in a row.
I mean, I got a pretty masculine sounding last name and I really can't think of too many female names that go well with it. I know that my girlfriend's name sounds kind of terrible with my last name and I honestly wouldn't care at all if she kept her name (I'm not doing the hyphenated garbage, though. Screw that).
-
I've heard of Kinsey shifts like that, where it's only by a few points and does not exclude the original sex/gender that was found attractive. I think bisexuality is largely misunderstood in our society as a phase, a bout of indecision, or as a stance of equal preference between men and women. While I'm entirely gay, I've had multiple bi friends who have been doubted or rejected by gay and straight friends alike for their sexual identity, just because it doesn't lie neatly at one end of the spectrum.
Regarding last names, I have a strange Eastern European last name that doesn't sound particularly cool or fancy. However, spelled backwards you get a Persian first name. My wish is to give my son this name so that his full name is a palindrome. It's kind of the only reason I would want children. I have my priorities in order, don't I?
-
Love the priorities, Markio! ;)
Just make sure the middle name is a palindrome, too, or the whole concept will fall apart.
Now you totally have to give your future son the middle name Otto or Neven or Reinier or something. ...Or Bob. Not Robert, but Bob. That would be hilarious.
-
I want a daughter named Olivia. The rhythm of it with my last name (pronounced properly, being that my Spanish-speaking ancestors had it before me) is great. o-LI-VI-a-lau-REL. The middle name would have to get in on this too but I dunno yet what. o-LI-VI-a-mc-RO-BO-cop-lau-REL. o-LI-VI-a-the-SOR-CER-ess-lau-REL. You get the idea.
I want a son and a daughter, like my parents have. But I am the last boy born on my mom's side of the family in 21 years and I'm afraid some kind of Gerudo curse has squeaseled its way in here and made me the only male for the 100 years following my birth or something. Two of my cousins have had two girls since. One of those two cousins is pregnant with her third kid, and... it's really obnoxious to say, I know, but I hope it's a boy so much. It's lonely being the last one. The girls are funny and think I'm great but I want a boy in the family to look up to me, you know? And now I feel like it's too late 'cause I'm too old. Even if I'm the coolest first-cousin-once-removed ever, I'm still a grown-up one and the generation gap would get in the way. But maybe not because, again, all four of his older siblings and cousins are girls. I'd be the next-best thing... but then, I'm not super-close to either of my older male cousins either because they're about 15 years older than me. So [darnit]! Point: I'd better not be disappointed at all if I end up having two girls 'cause I think it's probably gonna happen.
-
Dead serious: I want to have a daughter and name her "Cleopatra". We'd call her "Cleo" for short. Ideally she'd grow up to become president.
"Cleo Crisalli" has a nice ring to it, don't'cha think?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHYoY
-
Dead serious: I want to have a daughter and name her "Cleopatra". We'd call her "Cleo" for short. Ideally she'd grow up to become president.
"Cleo Crisalli" has a nice ring to it, don't'cha think?
Who in their right mind would vote an Italian in as president?
-
Not even this Italian?
-
I have that exact poster in my room.
-
Likewise. A personal favorite!
So I forget, have we discussed polyamorists here yet?
-
I am actually in a purely physical polyamorous relationship with my best friend and her fiance at the moment. It's...interesting to say the least.
-
A purely physical relationship would be something like a dimly lit sex club orgy with people you'd never met before. Banging your best friend is the extreme opposite of a purely physical relationship.
-
So, in other words, you're sharing her.
-
A purely physical relationship would be something like a dimly lit sex club orgy with people you'd never met before. Banging your best friend is the extreme opposite of a purely physical relationship.
Uh, no. There's mutual understanding that we only do things with each other to fulfill physical needs. Like there is nothing in our relationship that signifies we are anything but what you initially described. Can't stop others from defining a relationship for me I guess.
So, in other words, you're sharing her.
Leave it to you to characterize a non-monogomous relationship in the most asinine way possible.
-
I can't stop others from defining the word 'purely' for me I guess.
-
I don't know what else to tell you, man. Sure, we're good friends outside of the act. But everything we do "relationship" wise is just for physical kicks.
I mean if that's not a true polyamorous relationship, feel free to correct me lol. I'm open to being wrong.
-
My linguistic complaint has naught to do with the existence of a third party in the relationship. It is the combination of the terms "purely physical" and "best friend". Purely physical means 100% physical which means 0% mental which means a person you don't even know. It certainly doesn't mean a best friend.
Regarding the actual relationship: Does the fiancé live elsewhere?
Regarding your posting habits: Your trademark technique of editing posts after people respond to them is as infuriating as ever.
-
My linguistic complaint has naught to do with the existence of a third party in the relationship. It is the combination of the terms "purely physical" and "best friend". Purely physical means 100% physical which means 0% mental which means a person you don't even know. It certainly doesn't mean a best friend.
Alright, fair enough. I'll concede to that.
Regarding the actual relationship: Does the fiancé live elsewhere?
Yes.
Regarding your posting habits: Your trademark technique of editing posts after people respond to them is as infuriating as ever.
Mang, I'm not the kind of person who thinks of everything he wants to say the very first time he posts. My intellect is clumsy, don't be hatin'.
EDIT: Wait a second, after people respond to them? I don't do that a lot as far as I recall. I edit them before someone responds to them, but not after. And if I do it's never in response to a serious rebuttal from a specific member or something. I was just responding to Weegee's silly comment in the last post.
-
Leave it to you to characterize a non-monogomous relationship in the most asinine way possible.
Just being frank, making sure we're on the same page.
-
I would call it sharing if she were a lifeless object. But hey, to each his own I suppose.
-
I may be in the minority here, but seeing as I value love over sex, I think I'd actively turn down a polyamorous relationship if the opportunity arose.
-
Nothing wrong with that.
-
I (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=7510.msg606954#msg606954) thought I told Deezer to restore ShadowBrian's account but it's obviously still hacked.
-
PL and LD's discussion reminded me of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V1ymoKPTAk
-
MtF lesbian here. And apparently one of the six that voted homosexual in the poll. Yay~
-
I may be in the minority here, but seeing as I value love over sex, I think I'd actively turn down a polyamorous relationship if the opportunity arose.
Same. Call me traditionalist, but I believe in one true love with one person whether gay or straight, rather than a bunch of concubines around the house.
Btw I am straight and have voted as such.
-
I find it ironic that you used the words "traditionalist" and "concubines" in the way that you did.
I'm pretty sure that's irony, at least. Maybe dramatic irony.
-
He's very traditionalist.
-
I find it ironic that you used the words "traditionalist" and "concubines" in the way that you did.
I'm pretty sure that's irony, at least. Maybe dramatic irony.
How so? I meant traditionalist as being what Americans and most Europeans believe is normal these days.
-
If you'd said "Call me a traditionalist, but I'm not into casual sex and free love," that'd be one thing, traditionalism against the modern-day sexual revolution (in the 60s and 70s, but relatively modern-day). But to say "Call me a traditionalist, but I'm not into concubines," is ironic, because concubines are a tradition from thousands of years ago, not a modern invention. Rather, the word "concubine" sounds extraordinarily dated to modern ears, and brings to mind familial arrangements that would be repulsive to us today because of our more egalitarian views toward women. Men treating women as people rather than property (ala concubines) is more a modern concept than a traditional one, particularly in the grand scheme of history.
Further, most people today know the word "concubine" because it's in the Bible, and most of the time today when we hear someone talking about "tradition" in regards to sexuality, it's someone saying same-sex marriage should be illegal because Bible. Of course, the inherent contradiction between the people saying "The Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman" and the Bible itself defining marriage as "one man and multiple wives (just don't marry sisters like Jacob did, because that was awkward), and also multiple concubines and maidservants, and you can have a baby with the maidservant of one of your wives and it'll count as that wife's baby" exists anyway, but to hear someone saying "I believe in traditional marriage, not concubines!" kind of brings that contradiction to the forefront.
You, of course, were not saying anything about same-sex relationships, and this isn't meant to presume where your feelings lie on them. Words do have baggage, though, and those are the thoughts that went through my mind when I read your post. I get what you're saying, but using that word specifically kind of muddled your point in an amusing way. Monogamy is more traditional than having multiple partners in the context of the last 300 years or so of Western society ("these days"), but bringing the word (and hence the concept) "concubines" into the picture suddenly shifts the scope from a couple centuries of Western culture to several millennia of Western and Middle/Near Eastern culture, and from that vantage point, monogamy has not been the norm.
-
Don't get me wrong, I'd be totally down with having an extra three or four women around to bang, but as far as a satisfyingly personal and emotionally intimate relationship goes, it's one or none with me.
-
PL and LD's discussion reminded me of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V1ymoKPTAk
On an unrelated note, I should really watch Seinfeld.
-
I enjoy having sex with women.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.247sports.com%2FUploads%2FBoards%2F797%2F138797%2F393512.gif&hash=2acc2a9d3b8b5e535568b0d3935b4c01)
-
At least there's one party's consent.
-
Shoot, now you're twisting my mind into a pretzel with the concept of sex without either party's consent.
-
Wouldn't that require a third party? Now I'm really wondering about TEM.
-
Your mind's not the only thing that would have to be twisted in a pretzel for that to make sense.
-
Shoot, now you're twisting my mind into a pretzel with the concept of sex without either party's consent.
Slaughterhouse Five?
-
Hopefully I don't get crucified for this megabump, but this board in particular moves really slow, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
I retook that sexual orientation test that Saph linked to earlier, because my feelings on my sexual orientation have kind of changed.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsUwT86p.png&hash=6b11fc424b8423a06845cbafff29a4e5)
I honestly find the emotional aspects of a relationship to be more important, so I'm a bit concerned by the description of the asexuality score. (Then again, the only relationship I've ever been in was when I was 14 and in middle school, so anything physical was obviously out of even consideration.) I've also noticed that my asexuality score went down from last time. Heh...
-
Nice post. I, on the other hand, will take a cheap shot.
I noticed from the poll that we have a higher than average gay population on this board. Maybe the U R MR GAY thing has some validity.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi106.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm255%2FHarryBogard%2F340x.jpg&hash=cb0a6004184ce931005814662b8a5e1e)
Or maybe I'm just making a stupid connection from an unscientific poll. Regardless, I support gay marriage.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIRw8aJy.png&hash=1454e678487c051363da25114e946ff2)
Where is TMK on the Kinsey Scale? I'd say...a two.
-
I'm pretty sure I'm a 3, though I might be a 2.
-
I'm somewhere between hugs & kisses. If I were to make a calendar it would look like a big tic-tac-toe board with me playing as O, but with X winning.
-
I took this forum from a 6 to a 0.
-
Weegee, no-one's here to talk about looks.
-
#snapcracklepop #7074LC4RN4G3 #noscope
-
Yes, Weegee, we know you're fat.
-
But I thought we were discussing dress sizes.
-
I've been getting confused about my orientation lately. I'm definitely sexually attracted to girls, for sure. But I also like guys under certain really picky tastes...so I don't know if it's right to call myself straight. But I just can't think of guys in the same way that I do girls; this is TMI-ish, but the thought of doing...erm, lewd things, isn't near close to as appealing with guys than with girls. I definitely have a preference for girls and think of them sexually far more than guys, so I guess that would make me straight, but I can still be attracted to guys, just not as sexually as with girls. I could maybe see myself having a boyfriend under certain circumstances, but I prefer the idea of a girlfriend. What am I? Do I have a label, or need to be labelled?
I guess adolescence is when you're supposed to begin finding your identity. But sexually, at least (as well as in other ways, but that's off topic), it's difficult and weird and confusing.
-
That would be around a 1 on the Kinsley scale.
-
Not terribly surprised.
-
I really need a link to that.
-
Okay, so I found a pretty decent online test (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-3-variable-sexuality-spectrum-test) regarding sexual orientation.
-
Depth of closets bt State. Pay no heed to the unfamiliar landmass to the north.
-
Unsurprising. Would be interested to see the source, though.
-
Yeah. (http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/)
-
That was... genuinely eye-opening. I mean, it goes without saying that the survey is limited to whoever already had the means and wherewithal to sign up for OK Cupid, but it's a refreshing reprieve from the vague hunches and bigoted generalizations from anonymous forumites and politicians alike that only ever seem to crop up in the news.
However, it did nothing to assuage my anxiety to see that I liked more of "The Stuff Gay Guys Like" -- or that I'm more attracted to traits that are apparently predominant in lesbians. Maybe... I should take a look at those alternate Facebook genders after all.
-
Maybe... I should take a look at those alternate Facebook genders after all.
Dibs on "two-spirit". That sounds awesome.
-
I identify as myself and Spider-Man.
-
So, single-payer healthcare, no pennies, and pretty much everyone is bicurious... remind me again what the downsides to Canada are?
-
I identify as myself and Spider-Man.
So the Bruc-- err, Batman avatar is just to throw people off?
-
"It's not who I am underneath... but what I reblog that defines me."
-
I am not picky.
I am open to relationships with chicks and dudes (Though I can honestly say that I have never been in a relationship before...)
-
So, uh...I can't for the life of me seem to understand the difference between bisexual and pansexual. Today, I saw someone say "bisexuality is being attracted to two genders, pansexuality is being attracted regardless of gender" and I couldn't understand the difference. Why would gender matter if you're bisexual, considering you're attracted to both genders? I'm not trying to be a rude dick or anything like that. I just don't get it, but hopefully someone more enlightened can kindly help me wrap my head around the difference.
I also don't really get what "panromantic" is supposed to entail.
-
Apparently, being attracting to trans people makes on pan. Wonder what someone who's attracted to the opposite sex and transsexual people is called.
-
Potentially, they're called "me," but I haven't really much occasion to confirm that theory.
-
There's really not much (if any) difference between bi and pan. I identify as either, though I'm personally more comfortable with bi. For many people who identify as pan, the idea is that the bi- in bisexual excludes people who don't fit the gender binary, but most if not all major bisexual organizations have defined "bisexual" as "attraction to two or more genders" or "attraction to same gender and different gender(s)" for decades. Appeals to etymology are rather silly -- if we're going to insist that bisexuals can only be attracted to cis men and cis women because bi means two, then "homophobe" means someone who's afraid of similarity. Etymology can be interesting, but only looking at usage can tell you what a word actually means (For what it's worth, the definition of bisexual that I use for myself is "attraction to people of genders similar to my own and genders different than my own." Also, I identify as non-binary.)
An alternate definition of pansexuality is "attraction regardless of gender", which could differentiate it from bisexuality. The idea is that for someone who identifies with this definition of pansexual, a person's gender is not a factor at all in determining whether they're attracted to them. Personally, I can't fully identify with this definition, as there do seem to be things that I find more attractive in one gender or another (for example, all other things being equal, I generally like girls with short hair better than I like guys with short hair). This is also a good time to mention that many bisexuals do tend to "lean" more toward one gender. It's a common misconception that to be a bisexual you have to be a perfect 3 on the Kinsey scale (One survey I read a while back showed that about 3% of people openly identify as bisexual, but about another 10% of people identified as straight while admitting to the survey taker that they have been "at least occasionally attracted to people of their own gender"), right up there with the notion that a bisexual has to date an equal amount of men and women, or that once they end up with someone, that means they've now finally "picked" whether they're straight or gay.
Another definition that some pansexuals use is to say "Bisexuals are attracted to men and women; pansexuals are attracted to men, women, and trans people." This is generally considered a rather transphobic definition -- although "trans" is an umbrella term that also includes people who identify as multiple genders, alternate genders, or no gender, most trans people identify as male or female, and separating them off as though "transgender" is itself a third gender is invalidating their identities. "Transgender" is not an alternative to "male" and "female"; it's an alternative to "cisgender" (people who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth).
As for panromantic -- Sexual orientation and romantic orientation do not always align. Just like people can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual/pansexual, or asexual, people can also be heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic/panromantic, or aromantic -- and they can be any combination. For example, a homoromantic asexual is someone who would like to meet and fall in love with and possibly kiss and get married to someone of their own gender, but they don't feel any sexual attraction to anyone. Someone might be sexually attracted to multiple/all genders, but only interested in settling down with one gender. There's lots of possible combinations. So someone who's panromantic is romantically attracted to people of all genders, separate from the question of whether or not they're sexually attracted to them.