Poll

What is your sexual/romantic orientation?

Heterosexual
29 (69%)
Homosexual
6 (14.3%)
Bisexual
2 (4.8%)
Pansexual
0 (0%)
Hetero-romantic asexual
1 (2.4%)
Homo-romantic asexual
0 (0%)
Bi-romantic asexual
0 (0%)
Pan-romantic asexual
0 (0%)
Aromantic asexual
0 (0%)
Unsure / "it's complicated" / other
4 (9.5%)

Total Members Voted: 42

Print

Author Topic: Sexual Orientation  (Read 75428 times)

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #135 on: February 05, 2013, 01:36:59 PM »
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
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

ShadowBrain

  • Ridiculously relevant
« Reply #136 on: February 05, 2013, 08:11:53 PM »
So, just to clarify: the people in those pictures have wangs?
"Mario is your oyster." ~The Chef

« Reply #137 on: February 05, 2013, 08:33:55 PM »
The African-American... individual certainly appears to.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #138 on: February 05, 2013, 11:07:39 PM »
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?
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #139 on: February 05, 2013, 11:15:58 PM »
"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.

« Reply #140 on: February 06, 2013, 06:39:20 AM »
I think the censor isn't working for me.
VVVERExSTFJCQVM=

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #141 on: February 06, 2013, 04:07:47 PM »
"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!
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #142 on: February 06, 2013, 04:41:48 PM »
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
~I.S.~

BriGuy92

  • Luck of the Irish
« Reply #143 on: February 06, 2013, 10:29:16 PM »
The censor is sexist!
I've got the censor turned off, and I still see asterisks. I'm calling shenanigans.
Know the most important contribution of the organ Fund science girls type. It's true!

Sapphira

  • Inquiring
« Reply #144 on: February 06, 2013, 11:52:41 PM »
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
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 11:55:19 PM by Sapphira »
"The surest way to happiness is to lose yourself in a cause greater than yourself."

« Reply #145 on: February 07, 2013, 01:07:22 PM »
The silly replacement was "weenus"
VVVERExSTFJCQVM=

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #146 on: February 08, 2013, 05:36:13 PM »
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 that's recently resurfaced.

Quote from: John Piper
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 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, including an observation that Piper's conception of gender roles isn't even Christianity, it's Plato's Theory of Forms)

« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 05:40:15 PM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

« Reply #147 on: February 08, 2013, 06:00:13 PM »
Interesting how there are hardly any non-medical terms for the vagina that aren't considered obscene or pornographic.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #148 on: February 08, 2013, 09:09:05 PM »
Va-jay-jay?  Vag?  Cootie-snorcher?
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

Sapphira

  • Inquiring
« Reply #149 on: February 08, 2013, 09:13:51 PM »
XD Never heard that last one.

Hoo-ha. Bajingo. Lady parts.
Then there's also all the gender-neutral terms.
"The surest way to happiness is to lose yourself in a cause greater than yourself."

Print