It's possible to be a lesbian-identified bisexual. Sexual identity doesn't always match sexual orientation.
It's possible to be a lesbian-identified bisexual. Sexual identity doesn't always match sexual orientation.
I don't think those of us who aren't "lesbian-identified bisexuals" have any idea what this sentence means.Originally posted by Zuul
The Southern American contraction "y'all" from "you all" is a perfectly legitimate word and addresses the English language's need for a word that means "a group of people I am addressing". It's certainly more elegant than the Northern equivalent, "you guys".
I agree Joe Biden is funny and kind of sexy. Look at this guy.
I've loved him for years. Ever since I watched him school some Republican senators on the finer points of the Constitution and Federalist Papers.
I'm still swimming in harmony. I'm still dreaming of flight. I'm still lost in the waves night after night...
Do you have an idea or an article you would like to see on the Electric Elephant? Email me at theelectricelephant(at)gmail.com!
I don't think I can argue with this point without doing a lot more research than I feel like doing. And frankly, I don't know if I even care to disagree.
PS I loathe you from my soul.
Apologies for being uncontroversial here but yeah, agreed.
Standard English supposedly just uses "you" in the plural but I've been paying attention to this and I (and most other speakers of standard English) rarely use "you" in the plural. For me it's grammatically weird to use "you" and so I have to resort to "you guys" or "y'all" instead.
Exy, can you give some examples of behaviors you would consider deviant?
"Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon." (Chesterton)
I have a human biology and sexuality book floating around my house from college. I don't really feel like finding it, but it says essentially the same thing about fetishes etc.
I'm still swimming in harmony. I'm still dreaming of flight. I'm still lost in the waves night after night...
Do you have an idea or an article you would like to see on the Electric Elephant? Email me at theelectricelephant(at)gmail.com!
It's been a bit of a fight across some blogs and Twitter recently.
There are the "gold star lesbians" who've never slept with a man ever in their lives, and then there are those filthy fakes and pretenders who've had sex with men, or admit to being attracted to them. Some feel that if you admit to being attracted to men, it doesn't matter how you identify or what community you've been part of. You don't get to have anything to do with being a dyke and should stay out of lesbian space and only interact with other bisexuals.
You were the one who complained about how the opinions here are shared by 90% of the posters at the Dope, so there you go.
I don't get it, if you're bisexual why would you "identify" as lesbian?
I don't think I have a "sexual identity".
The blog entry that got me following the kerfluffle.
Really, my stance is against any sort of identity politics bullshit. The second you've got people trying to exclude others from some group they self-identify with, it gets ugly and stupid. Have sex with women, socialize with lesbians, identify as a lesbian? Okay, fine, whatever, you are one if you say so. I don't need to know whether or not you've ever touched a penis or thought about one.
If people didn't self-identify with one group and exclude others from said groups, all of our basic social structures would collapse and nobody would have any sense of identity. Not even familial.
I'm still swimming in harmony. I'm still dreaming of flight. I'm still lost in the waves night after night...
Do you have an idea or an article you would like to see on the Electric Elephant? Email me at theelectricelephant(at)gmail.com!
Put me down for sport being art -- dance in particular.
When I telemark ski, the carved ice arcs are pure as I balance on edge. There is rhythm in how my body moves, with one muscle group triggering the next through the turns. Pressue builds, then releases and builds again. I lay forward into the wind and enter a state in which I am both incredibly focused, but at the same time very relaxed, thoroughly in tune with my body as I flow down the hill.
When I wild water paddle, I merge with the currents. I look, listen and feel, flowing with the water, going up, down and around with it. I forget myself and do not struggle against forces far beyond my control. Then I use my meagre abilities in the moments when the water and I share the same path.
In both these sports, I am able to use my body and the immediate environment to express myself in ways that words cannot describe, but fellow skiers and paddlers understand and share when they watch me.
Oh. I had no idea it was so dire.
I'll go write the dyke entrance exam now.
I think that poly is healthy for those people who are poly because they love and respect their partners and find that poly relationships enhance such love and respect. But then I do not have an ounce of jealousy in me, and think that jealousy is a very bad thing that runs hand in hand with power and control issues. I would be very uneasy with a partner who did not have other close friends, for although bonding to someone is truly fulfilling, bonding to the exclusion of all others is very disquieting to me. The move from close friends to lovers seems quite natural and emotionally fulfulling, so I would be very supportive of a partner having lovers or even having other partners.
Anyone who unironically uses the phrase "white guilt" is retarded and has no right to have any opinions about anything ever.
I disagree with this. The whole animal rights movement strikes me as being both dishonest and disassociated with reality.
PeTA has a number of stances that I happen to agree with: their focus on spaying and neutering most pets; their advocacy for adopting from animal shelters; and their talk about monitoring experimental and agricultural animals for humane treatment within the limits of the experiments are all stances I agree with, and support; in 99% of cases I agree with their stance that natural fur is obsolete as a necessary and useful material for the manufacture of garments*.
So, why do I have a nearly implacable hatred for PeTA?
Let's begin with taking a look at PeTA's own website about Ingrid Newkirk, it's president. I'm going to gloss past the press releases that are scrolling through the top of the frame, save to mention that some of those are so far from being connected to reality as to bring everything else on the website into question for me. (So - if the American Cancer Association were as driven as Newkirk, and PeTA, they'd have cured cancer by now? Are you fucking shitting me?) Instead lets talk about this quote about Ms. Newkirk:Very high sounding, I'm sure you'll say. What it ignores is that right from the beginning there, Ms. Newkirk is, shall we say, glossing over her own personal hypocrisy: She is an insulin dependent diabetic. The life and rules she advocates for others to follow would kill her, and she still refuses to moderate her stance on the medical need for animal products to keep people alive - she simply keeps using them herself.Like humans, they are capable of suffering and have interests in living their own lives. Therefore, they are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or for any other reason.
For that matter, if you believe I'm being too hard on her, PeTA was among those people who convinced Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to eschew any food relief supplies while his people were starving, because they might be contaminated with GenMod grains. This isn't some hypothetical future people might die from our choices, that was real deaths happening because of the fear mongering about a threat that is very long-term if it exists at all. Considering that starving people have tried to eat grass, shit, and rotting material to keep alive, I can't help but think that the people the relief supplies were intended for would not have been glad for their government's actions. Nor for PeTA's part in poisoning Mugabe towards GM foods.
Then let's not forget that Newkirk has spoken out time and again in support of ALF, and PeTA has given financial support to that organization. Which has claimed responsibility for vandalism, and arson. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a number of citations for actions that have been performed by people claiming to act for ALF, which meet almost any standard for terrorism.
So, no, I don't believe PeTA to be a generally misrepresented organization that is simply under the assault of some kind of right-wing backlash.
Now, I should admit, my first exposure to PeTA was through a roommate who was advocating going vegetarian for moral reasons, while having nearly orgiastic sessions feeding his pet snake live mice**, and that colored my initial impressions of the organization. Since that original negative impression, I've seen very little to change my mind about them.
As for the dissociation with reality? I offer up two words: Sea Kittens.
*The joker here is that I believe that there are still some niche uses that are not yet replaceable with an artificial fiber that serves the same purpose as the natural fiber might. The one I remember is that the fur lining arctic hoods is wolf's fur, because that won't allow ice to form on it from the vapor of the breath going through and over the fibers. I grant it's a rare person who needs that feature, but it's a legitimate feature that I don't believe is mimicked, yet, by any artificial fiber.
**I didn't object to him feeding his snake live mice. Nor did I object to the presence of the snake because it was a snake. I was furious that he didn't give a damn for the no pets clause in the lease, and his pleasure at seeing the mice struggle and die struck me as completely incomprehensible given his moral arguments against consuming meat.
I'm sorry, but the complaints about Newkirk's diabetes are the single bullshittiest reason people come up with to rag on PeTA.
Part of what led me to this conclusion was my irritation with the way people bring up nonsense like that. In fact, last time I heard that argument used, I donated $20 to PeTA out of spite.
If that's true, that's a big problem. I'm going to have to look into that at some point, because it's not obvious to me why PeTA would consider GMO food part of its mission.
That's fair. I'll be the first to admit it's a bit like ragging on Al Gore for flying around in his jet, and buying carbon offsets.
Oops.Part of what led me to this conclusion was my irritation with the way people bring up nonsense like that. In fact, last time I heard that argument used, I donated $20 to PeTA out of spite.
The problem is that while I could point to articles on the PeTA site that were blaming GMO for the bee colony collapse crisis, I couldn't find anything that provided a direct link between Mugabe and PeTA. (It's made more difficult because one of the major stringers writing stories in Zimbabwe has the last name Peta - which meant there was a lot more dross to sift through than I was willing to dig up while I wrote this.)If that's true, that's a big problem. I'm going to have to look into that at some point, because it's not obvious to me why PeTA would consider GMO food part of its mission.
I also decided to skip the whole flap with their no-kill shelter euthanizing animals, because while I think that was a FUBAR on their part, it's not because I'm opposed to euthanizing animals. It just shouldn't be happening at a no-kill shelter, but sometimes events get ahead of capabilities.
No, it's way worse than that. If Al Gore stopped flying on planes, there would be less CO2 in the atmosphere. If Ingrid stopped shooting up insulin, it wouldn't save a single animal. The complaint is based -- at least as far as I can tell -- on the fact that decades ago, insulin used to be produced from the pancreases of slaughtered animals. Or else maybe on the fact that insulin was at some point tested on animals. (Although if it's the latter, than people are being really inconsistent in not faulting every PeTA member who uses any drugs at all, since all drugs were at some point tested on animals.)
She'd have to be a lunatic to be so invested in her principles that she'd let herself die horribly when it wouldn't prevent any animal from suffering or being killed. It doesn't make her a hypocrite that she's more rational than that.
I don't know what that story was about (although I've heard of it elsewhere at some point.) I have no problem with euthanizing animals, though, so while I'm obviously not in favor of them fraudulently claiming not to euthanize, I'm not hugely upset.I also decided to skip the whole flap with their no-kill shelter euthanizing animals, because while I think that was a FUBAR on their part, it's not because I'm opposed to euthanizing animals. It just shouldn't be happening at a no-kill shelter, but sometimes events get ahead of capabilities.
Vegetarianism is not healthier than a normal diet. Most people should probably be eating more meat, not less.
See? I'm not an animal rights activist.
Strongly disagree, unless by "most people" you mean those in impoverished nations. Most Americans are getting more than enough protein. In fact, they generally eat twice of what's required.
Frankly, the majority of Americans need to be eating less of pretty much everything they eat. Including meat. (But I do agree that it's part of a healthy diet and should be included. Lean meats, people! It's good for you!)
I have no doubt we eat more protein than our government food recommendations would deem sufficient. But I think that official food recommendations tend to push a higher-carb, lower-protein diet than scientific and anthropological research would support -- probably at least in part for reasons relating to how much cheaper and easier it is to produce carbohydrate than protein.
At any rate, I totally reject the idea that reducing consumption of meat (particularly lean meat and fish) represents a positive health choice for most people in the US. Eat more animals. Drink less soda.
That is not a "government food recommendation" site. That's from the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Is there a government conspiracy to make physicians push carbohydrates on us as well, then? We may need a more protein-rich diet than the carb heavy food pyramid recommends, but twice the protein of what is deemed medically ideal is too much.
I said that because as far as I can tell they use the government standard in making this recommendation. They're probably not the only medical professionals who make use of the food pyramid, either. I think the government's guidelines tend to get treated as the Standard and that's probably a contributor to our national health problem.
Alright, fair enough. I looked into it further and I don't disagree with you as strongly as I did before, if at all.
If someone was to get the majority of their protein from animal sources and it was all actually lean meat (in my example here I'm using tuna, tilapia, and skinless chicken breast), if you had six ounces of meat at each meal you'd be getting 120 grams of protein solely from that, with additional protein on top of that from plant sources. That's about twice the official recommendation for a man of 150lbs.
Since they're lean meats, six ounces are around 190-200 calories. At the end of the day, you're getting around 570-600 calories purely from meat. Since I was careful about which meats I chose for this example, that's only around 9 grams of fat and 239mg of cholesterol.
A man of 150lbs who works out three times a week would need 2188 calories a day to maintain weight. After those servings of meat, he'd be looking at filling out the rest of his day with around 1588 calories.
So if people are eating tilapia, tuna, skinless chicken breast, skinless turkey breast, lobster, cod, grouper, ocean perch, etc, and relying on that to fill them up instead of bread, yeah, I can see how that could tend towards a healthier diet. Those all have between 1-2 grams of fat per serving. But! The USDA considers a serving size of lean beef as having 10 grams of total fat. This translates into 90 calories from fat, with almost half coming from saturated fat. That single serving of "lean" beef has more calories than a pound and two ounces of fish and chicken.
So if people are eating actually lean meats and not USDA defined lean meats, eating more of them would be healthy. There. You bastard.
Heh I don't think that most people have a particular sexual orientation. A lot of people probably have the drive to procreate, and others don't. But for the most part I think that sexuality is largely conditional. In otherwords everyone is basically bisexual, but there are cultural forces at play enforcing the roles regarding sexuality. But also, that these cultural roles are not diminished in value or importance based upon the fact that they are cultural and not genetic. Just because something has a physical cause rather than a metaphysical one doesn't make it more important or more valuable. I am considering culture to be a metaphysical thing.
"And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman
Ha ha ha, I'm too stoned to politely pretend that's not completely stupid.
Feel free to behave in the manner of your choosing.
"And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman
Sure, that's why I love the Constitution. The problem is that it has to be enforced strictly to work, and for that, people have to believe in what it says. People also disagree highly about the extent of individual rights not explicitly covered by the Constitution. For example, on the Supreme Court itself, you've got the liberal justices who believe your rights can be whittled away by "reasonable" regulations, and then people like Scalia who think your rights are absolute if they're in the text, but if they're not in the text (disregarding the Ninth Amendment, apparently), you have no rights.
Basically, the unfortunate fact is the Rule of Law is created and enforced by Men. And while it's true that there is objective natural law based on human nature, it doesn't enforce itself. (This is also why philosophy, though not necessarily university Philosophy departments, is important.)
Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi
And again, eerily, I agree entirely with Vox. Enforce the Constitution strictly and we have a fantastic system, but that isn't always the case.
If you need help with that, let me know. I had to write like a 20 page essay for the straight entrance exam. Though on the bright side, being white doesn't require an entrance exam anymore.
I'm still swimming in harmony. I'm still dreaming of flight. I'm still lost in the waves night after night...
Do you have an idea or an article you would like to see on the Electric Elephant? Email me at theelectricelephant(at)gmail.com!
I experienced some controversial opinions last night -- I went on a date with a person who turned out to be a young-earth-anti-gay-christian-fundamentalist. The experience left me feeling icky.
Geez. How did you end up stumbling into that?
I was invited to attend a most excellent string quartet concert by what appeared to be a very nice person who had worked with the local symphony.
It was a very enjoyable evening (the quartet was truly excellent), and the woman was a pleasant and interesting companion, until the witnessing and anti-gay diatribe started on the drive home.
It left me feeling shaken, chilled, and with an uneasy feeling in my gut, so I've spent today cocooning. At the moment I honestly feel that anyone wanting to take me out on a date had better have good references from now on, but I realize that this just a silly reaction to a bad date, and I just need a bit of time to settle back down to my usual happy-go-lucky self.
What I find odd is that through my work, I deal with people far worse and far crazier that this person, and it does not get to me. Having this stuff sprung on me when I was on a date did get to me. I guess I did not have my defences up, and ended up getting emotionally cold-cocked.
Wait... so she started with the diatribe on the first date? Damn, that's the craziest part of that story.
Having a strong opinion about something - fine.
Expressing that opinion on a first date - risky.
Ranting about something incredibly divisive on the first date? - insane.
And you know she's crazy if I, of all people, can offer advice regarding social situations.
Something tells me we haven't seen the last of foreshadowing.
Haha, I would be less offended by the strident opinions than the fact that the person was too uncouth to know the appropriate venue expressing such strident opinions.
Honestly, the level of the volunteer help at America's symphonies has really gone downhill!
"And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman
Here's a couple of probably unpopular opinions.
1) You have no rights. You only have the privileges allowed to you by society. There is nothing you have that cannot be taken away.
2) We should not treat everyone equally as no-one is born equal in life to anyone else. There are always people who will be better than average and people who will be worse. Those who wish to improve their situation should be given help to do so. Those who do not wish to do so should be given no help at all.
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
People who raise their prepubescent children on a vegan diet are child abusers.
I don't think that's controversial at all, Zuul. That's downright sensible. Veganism is a legit form of diet but it's a difficult one to make balanced. For a kid who's growing and needs lots of stuff, it probably isn't the best choice.
I don't think so, therefore I'm probably not.
Sadly, in my family it does appear to be controversial.
Football is played with your feet.
American Football is gridiron. It is not football. It is closer to rugby (either variant) than football.
I repeat soccer = football.
In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.
Sure but it isn't going to change in the US. It also has a lot to do with the fact that the original game of Football in the US is very different from today's game. The US game started in New Jersey effectively in 1869. It was a Rugby variant that involved kicking or running the ball over the goal line. The forward pass did not exist yet. Soccer as we call it, really is not much older. So the Football name was firmly established in the US by the time the Irish* brought the sport of Association football (soccer) over here.
Baseball is just rounders, now that opinion is controversial. I have heard it from time to time from English Posters. They are similar but different and where Rounders is just a game for kids in the UK, Soccer is just a game for kids in the US.
* I believe it was the Irish, but many waves of immigrants brought the game over and then their kids barely played/followed it and it still has yet to catch on as a big spectator sport in the US.
I completely agree with this, myself. I think the idea that there are "natural rights" is silly because only a minority of societies have ever granted the rights that we westerners expect.
Which is not to minimize the fact that western societies which protect basic rights are way better than other societies.
I'm going to make handegg a viable name for the american football, so help me God.
I don't think so, therefore I'm probably not.
You probably should be. They apparently euthanize over 90% of animals they take in, but the uproar was over a few PETA employees picking up adoptable animals at other shelters, euthanizing them in their PETA-mobile, and then leaving the bodies in a dumpster.
Between their 'oh no we don't support them' support for domestic terrorism, general hypocrisy among the higher ups, their scarring propaganda aimed at children, and the fact that they spend very little of their money ACTUALLY HELPING ANIMALS, they are a load of crap and not worthy of anyone's support or monies. The Humane Society of the United States isn't much better.
If you want to donate money and have it actually help animals in need, I recommend you find a local shelter or group or charity and donate to them. They don't get any help from 'the big guys' and will probably put it to better use.
How do you figure the Humane Society isn't much better? They spend most of the money they take in on sheltering and neutering animals. They can't keep every stray alive sadly but they do a good job overall.
They have never had a Drink Beer campaign as a weird assault on the dairy industry. Is this because they don't condemn Ringling Brothers?
Oh wait, I am confusing the ASPCA with The Humane Society of the United States which it turns out is a weird group trying to restrict Pet ownership.
[gilda]nevermind[/gilda]
...and the ASPCA isn't a whole lot better than HSUS, but still better. Leading me to stand by my opinion that if you really want to help animals, donate time/money to someplace local.
We donate to the Popcorn Zoo which is part of the Associated Humane Societies.
Yeah, see, again, I know this kind of thing makes a lot of people angry but I am totally fine with it. In fact I thought it was pretty funny.
Posting rules
Reply with quote
