Bisexuality, Polyamory, Fuzzy Logic & Slippery Slopes
Visual Purple
improvement, progressive, worthy of emulation, worthy of adoption,
noble, desirable and/or salubrious. Not only should female Bisexuality
and Polyamory not be subsumed under the GLT BDSM rubric, they are more
inimical to female Bisexuality and Polyamory than is heterosexual
monogamy.
A general confusion is prevalent nowadays due to logical fuzziness. It
goes like this: If I accept a lifestyle that is different than the way
I live, I must accept any and all lifestyles that are different than
the way I live.
What we used to call good old fashioned common sense has fallen by the
wayside.
It is for this reason that I say, and reiterate, that as a Bisexual and
Polyamorous woman, I refuse to allow anyone to push me down the GLT
BDSM slippery slope.
Like heterosexuality, homosexuality is the blocking off of half of
Humankind to be intimate with. How can I accept either heterosexuality
or homosexuality as full and healthy expressions of Human sexuality?
Transsexuals are people who have serious physical defects, either
congenital or assumed or both. We are required to be understanding and
compassionate, but this does not require accepting transsexuals as
normal or their sexuality on par with that of bisexuals who are not in
possession of primary and secondary sexual characteristics of both
sexes. Most certainly, they cannot influence the sexuality of the
physically normal and healthy majority.
I simply cannot accept BDSM as normal forms of Human sexuality. If I
reject bondage, domination, sadism and the acceptance of slavery in the
political and socio-economic spheres, how can I accept them as healthy
forms of the expression of love and intimacy? In my piece "Are BDSM and
Anarchy Incongruous?" (See my POLYAMORY ISRAEL site, which is on the
following URL:
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/Polyamory_Israel.html) I
demonstrated that BDSM is mimetic of societal perversions,
characterized by bondage, domination, submission and the willingness to
allow oneself to be enslaved. Therefore, anarchists, indeed all who
maximize the conditions in society that allow us to express that which
is sublime in our Humanity, are enjoined to go against the tide of
"Political Correctness" and call those sexualities exactly what they
are - destructive and self-destructive aberrations and perversions. I
realize that I will alienate people with that statement, but I must
speak what, at this juncture in my life, appears to me to be the truth.
A perfect example of pushing people down the slippery slope occurred at
the movie awards this year. "Brokeback Mountain" was lauded for how it
handled the subject matter it portrayed, the love of two men, including
the sexual expression their love took on. So, the movie Transamerica
hitches a ride too. Can no one see the difference between two men
loving one another and someone who wishes to have his genitals
surgically removed and turned into what looks like woman on the
outside?
Our ability to discern critical differences between and among
situations is being systematically destroyed by bombarding us with the
increasingly weird. Of course, it is increasingly forbidden to call the
weird weird.
Being open-minded is one thing. Having our brains spilling all over the
floor because we are being bashed over the head with the demand that we
accept everything as morally equal, of equal import, of equal
contribution to our well-being is quite another matter.
As a woman who is Bisexual and Polyamorous, this issue is near and dear
to my heart and I feel it is essential to clarify the confusions. Being
BiPoly requires a lot of common sense to be done wisely and well. It
can, and has been, easily be sullied.
Being BiPoly, I am expected to accept the entire GLT BDSM gamut.
Bisexuality, as we have said, is usually subsumed thus: GLBT, that is,
under all that which is not heterosexual. Gay men, lesbians,
transsexuals of all types and people in the BDSM subculture are all
surprised and very hurt that I don't lend my support to them, don't
call myself "queer" along with them, do not wish to be associated with
them and think that they, along with the monogamous heterosexuals are
all living a partial, compromised sexuality at best, a revolting
perversion at worst.
Not only do I not want to be associated with the GLT BDSMers, they are
even more inimical to what I am trying to do than are the heterosexual
monogamists.
I recently received an e-mail from a man who likes to be tied up and
dominated telling me that I'm "hypocritical". It is one of many similar
responses to my writing that I have received from people who define
themselves as G, L,T, B,D,S and/or M. I have routinely been labeled
"arrogant", "illogical", and "narrow-minded" as well.
If I were to endorse those lifestyles as being on a par with
Bisexuality I would, without further investigation into my character or
testing of my acumen, be congratulated by those same people for my
egalitarian open-mindedness, incisive logic and consistency. In other
words, their compliments are as baseless as are their insults and
neither are of any concern to me whatsoever. It is astounding that the
employment of less than ten highly emotionally-charged buzz words can
bring most people into line.
Sometimes, in the case of extreme miscreants double, triple and even
quadruple "whammies" are delivered in order to fell an independent
thinker. "You're "illogical" (thus undermining the person's faith in
his or her to think), "arrogant" (thus isolated) and a "hypocrite"
(this insult says not only that one is morally reprehensible, but also
reinforces the befuddled message that "illogical" broadcast). This
triple shot is usual lethal. If not, the moniker "troll" may be added
to the cocktail.
The next step is to feign uproarious laughter at the person. The jokes
employ sarcasm, and they verily fall over one another trying to outdo
one another in "cleverly sarcastic" ridicule. Most people do not like
to be ridiculed and find it humiliating enough to capitulate and modify
their stance.
Finally, the dissenter is labeled "insane". Most people are terribly
afraid of being thought insane and this technique brings many into
line. I, for one, have no reservations about being called "insane" by
people who enjoy any of the activities listed on the following site:
http://www.xeromag.com/fvbdglossary.html#bdsm I am particularly amused
by the irony of people who enjoy being strapped into straight jackets
calling me "insane" when I call their practices what they are. Those
who enjoy penis and testicle torture (receiving or giving) run a close
second in making themselves absolutely ridiculous calling someone
else's sanity into question. The ugly list goes on.
Frustration and dread are aroused in those who think formulaically and
in accordance with any given school of those if someone does not
surrender or capitulate after all these methods of behavior control are
tried. If after these methods are employed the person still persists in
voicing his or her opinions, the general consensus is that they are not
dealing with a normal Human being and so need not take the thoughts of
the non-Human species into account at all.
I am not one of those who can be daunted by social pressure. I am
impervious to social pressure and will continue to write the truth as I
see it.
I'm not hypocritical at all. I have the courage to tell it like it is
and not get pushed down the slippery slope of accepting every
alternative lifestyle because I live a sexual lifestyle that is not
(yet) the norm.
I am profoundly dismayed that the bizarre, degenerate, depraved and
perverse are becoming the mainstream and heaven help you if you employ
those terms to describe the phenomena. You will be called a "neo-Con"
(by those who think that neo-Con is the American equivalent of neo-Nazi
and every conservative or Republican is a neo-Con) and/or a "religious
fanatic", or "fundie".
Compare the number of times you have heard the following terms and
phrases during the last month: "arrogant", "illogical" (for those who
are clearly more intelligent than the average, otherwise "stupid" is
used), "narrow-minded", "neo-Con", "religious fanatic" with the number
of times you have heard the following terms employed: "modest",
"humble", "wise", "self-effacing", "common sense".
I wrote the following to a man who wrote me that he enjoys being a
"sub":
Wanting to be beaten, electrocuted, fettered, pierced, humiliated, tied
up and otherwise have someone in power over you or hurt you is aberrant
in the extreme and the result of having been exposed repeatedly to
violence. It is in no wise normal. It perpetuates violence in society
and confuses violence with love and intimacy in one's close
relationships. In other words, it is a sexual perversion the
provenance of which is societal perversion. BiPoly, in
contradistinction, is the most salubrious sexual expression. It is the
natural state. It can bring about only emancipation and good, not harm
either in one's personal life or in the societal sphere.
There has to be a more biologically and socially responsible, more
life-furthering and generally loving reason to adopt a sexuality than
"I enjoy". "I enjoy" is a reason to choose one flavor of jelly bean
over another. It is not a reason to adopt a sexuality. The topic here
is sex - the most intimate expression of Human beings and that which
allows the unfolding of the generation, not frivolities that may be
engaged in or not depending solely upon whether one enjoys it or not.
Let us take eating as an example. I enjoy chocolate pudding, sour
cream and potato chips much more than I do salad. What would become of
me if I ate chocolate pudding, sour cream and potato chips because I
enjoy them? I would rapidly fall into a pathological state, be a
miserable Human being and be useless to others.
BiPoly, in allowing for a greater expression of genuine love and mutual
responsibility serves the unfolding of the generations and Human
society, as well as personal well-being. It is also clear how GLT BDSM
do not at all and that monogamous heterosexuality brings it about only
very partially and imperfectly.
Let my position be abundantly clear. I do not consider heterosexual
monogamy, being homosexual (male or female) and most certainly not
transsexual as being on par with being Bisexual and Polyamorous. None
of the above-named sexualities can offer Humanity what Bisexual
Polyamory can. As far as the BDSMers, I consider them with compassion,
having been severely damaged by the pervasive violence in society.
Recently I saw and advertisement by a Dom looking for a sub who agrees
to be chained to his bed at night and to the wall during the day. The
chain, he assures the applicant, will be long enough for her to do his
housecleaning, but not to escape if she changes her mind later. Another
advertisement comes from yet another Dom looking for a sub from the
ages of 18-35 with lovely feet. He wants to bite her toe off. Of
course, there are ads that issue from subs for Masters. One such
advertisement reads: "I am a 23 submissive slut looking for a Master. I
will do absolutely anything you demand and I love being used and
abused." Subs are often referred to as slave/sluts. All of their
protestations that outsiders do not understand them and that they are
doing the quite normal and harmless need not be taken seriously at all.
These most certainly cannot be considered a normal Human sexual model
and no revisions of our thought about Bisexuality and Polyamory should
employ them as examples or models of what is healthy for the mainstream
or representative in any way. Though they claim to be part of the
"Polyamory community", their practices constitute a pathetically
degraded ersatz Polyamory and it would be wise to disavow them entirely
as we go about our business of finding expressions of BiPoly that are
fit for normal, healthy Human beings.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
Pat Kight
> I am not one of those who can be daunted by social pressure. I am
> impervious to social pressure and will continue to write the truth as I
> see it.
Bully for you. Any chance we could talk you into writing it somewhere else?
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Ruth Lawrence
"Pat Kight" <kig...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:KZqdneu7reR...@scnresearch.com...
> Visual Purple wrote:
>
>
>> I am not one of those who can be daunted by social pressure. I am
>> impervious to social pressure and will continue to write the truth as I
>> see it.
>
> Bully for you. Any chance we could talk you into writing it somewhere
> else?
She already is and has, alas :-/
Ruth, very fed up
Griff
> Visual Purple wrote:
>
>
>> I am not one of those who can be daunted by social pressure. I am
>> impervious to social pressure and will continue to write the truth as I
>> see it.
>
>
> Bully for you. Any chance we could talk you into writing it somewhere else?
>
*applause*
Griff
--
... How do you know when you're sticking your hand in the crazy? Very
simple: Crazy does the same thing over and over again and expects
something different to happen.
Visual Purple
You are giving Polyamory a bad name and delegitimizing it in the eyes
of ordinary people.
This is not a private list. Anyone may post here on the subject of
Polyamory.
It is not your place to tell anyone to go elsewhere so long as s/he
stays on topic.
You are off-topic most of the time and flame to boot. It is you who
are out of order.
melissa Jacobini
preaching what is correct or not, i dont see a sign of god over your head
MElissa
Lane
ChickPea wrote:
> If we don't feed it, it might go an piss on someone else's garden.
There's another, even more effective solution, one which is guaranteed
100% to work.
Just don't read her posts.
Lane
Philippa Cowderoy
> Get used to the idea that you are not the spokespersons for Polyamory.
> You are giving Polyamory a bad name and delegitimizing it in the eyes
> of ordinary people.
>
Look in the mirror, dear.
> It is not your place to tell anyone to go elsewhere so long as s/he
> stays on topic.
>
It's as much so as it's anybody's place to tell anyone else what their
place on this newsgroup is.
> You are off-topic most of the time and flame to boot. It is you who
> are out of order.
>
Welcome to usenet. You have a lot of learning to do.
Society does not owe people jobs.
Society owes it to itself to find people jobs.
Philippa Cowderoy
> I don't- it's just that when someone else replies, it gets dragged up.
>
Sounds like you need a better filter?
Kai Jones
published this:
Oh, I thought you were going to advocate that all of us who don't want
somebody participating here should leave. Because just not reading
her posts won't do it, not all the way: only if everybody else also
chooses not to read her posts, and more importantly chooses not to
engage with her--no responses at all--will we be free of exposure.
Sure, we could keep killfiling (or choosing not to read) each person
who responds to her, or use a scoring newsreader that lets you set
responses to any particular thread or person so that you won't see
them.
The thing is, some people enjoy playing with trolls, at least some of
the time--I'm one of them. And ignoring them only works sometimes,
and doesn't serve the people who want to bat the troll around for
whatever reason.
And then there's the theory that leaving evil ignored and
uncontradicted allows it to continue to exist and influence others.
Some days I think that's the ultimate truth.
It's a classic example of the tragedy of the commons.
--
Kai Jones sni...@pacifier.com http://snippy.livejournal.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature. Oh yeah, and I'm contrary, too.
Lane
ChickPea wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (melissa Jacobini) wrote in
> <43CE89D0...@triad.rr.com>::
>
> >look if you dont like something dont do it , but dont go around
> >preaching what is correct or not, i dont see a sign of god over your head
>
> it might go away.
>
> >MElissa
> >
> >Visual Purple wrote:
> >> Not everything that is alternative is good, acceptable, valuable, an
> >> improvement, progressive, worthy of emulation, worthy of adoption,
> >> noble, desirable and/or salubrious. Not only should female Bisexuality
> >> and Polyamory not be subsumed under the GLT BDSM rubric, they are more
> >> inimical to female Bisexuality and Polyamory than is heterosexual
>
Hey! Not fair. I was trying to be a good troll-non-feeder and resisted
the strong temptations I had to make fun of her post but then you, the
one asking us not to go and get in a jab.
Next time, if I feel like it, I'm going to swing away. :^)
Lane
melissa Jacobini
with a huge need for attention , but in anycause you are right ignoring
tantrums usually works with my kids too
cheers
Guy W. Thomas
"Kai Jones" <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:dh5ts1lgdofqqkm09...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Jan 2006 11:01:41 -0800, "Lane" <la...@absolutelynot.org>
> published this:
>
>>
>>ChickPea wrote:
>>> If we don't feed it, it might go an piss on someone else's garden.
>>
>>There's another, even more effective solution, one which is guaranteed
>>100% to work.
>>
>>Just don't read her posts.
>
> Oh, I thought you were going to advocate that all of us who don't want
> somebody participating here should leave. Because just not reading
> her posts won't do it, not all the way: only if everybody else also
> chooses not to read her posts, and more importantly chooses not to
> engage with her--no responses at all--will we be free of exposure.
> Sure, we could keep killfiling (or choosing not to read) each person
> who responds to her, or use a scoring newsreader that lets you set
> responses to any particular thread or person so that you won't see
> them.
Your post triggered some thoughts for me Kai. I don't mean this response to
be argumentative. I'm certainly not arguing with you. I'm just adding some
thoughts. Personally I'm not interested in being free from exposure to a
particular person or idea at least not on Usenet. I've only killfiled one
person for a few months once (guess who starts with the J) This probably
contributes to more stress than I should expose myself to, but for me it's
important to stay as open as I can. This is not to suggest that people who
kill file or avoid reading given individuals should stop doing so. I think
it is *very* important for people to make their own boundaries on what they
will expose themselves to. I often think I should start kill filing several
people but I'm too nosy for my own good.
However kill filing and intentionally trying to chase somebody off a group
are very different things. Yes sometimes I'd like some people to just go
away, but I don't want to chase them away.
> The thing is, some people enjoy playing with trolls, at least some of
> the time--I'm one of them. And ignoring them only works sometimes,
> and doesn't serve the people who want to bat the troll around for
> whatever reason.
True enough, and it is always possible that a "troll" could learn something
or we might learn something in the interaction.
> And then there's the theory that leaving evil ignored and
> uncontradicted allows it to continue to exist and influence others.
> Some days I think that's the ultimate truth.
Absolutely!
> It's a classic example of the tragedy of the commons.
--
Guy W. Thomas
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/
"I love my country so much, like an exasperating friend."
From Mike Doughty's song "Move On"
Guy W. Thomas
"ChickPea" <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b98ts1d1gb2q480jf...@4ax.com...
> In alt.polyamory, (Guy W. Thomas) wrote in
> <437ldpF...@individual.net>::
>>> the time--I'm one of them. And ignoring them only works sometimes,
>>> and doesn't serve the people who want to bat the troll around for
>>> whatever reason.
>>
>>True enough, and it is always possible that a "troll" could learn
>>something
>>or we might learn something in the interaction.
>
> behaviour at all. It's as mechanical as an insect.
I didn't mean to speak about any specific person. Sometimes talking to
someone who doesn't change their minds can be instructive to others reading
the newsgroup. Even if the message is, "this person does not speak for
everyone".
John Palmer
On 17 Jan 2006 23:09:13 -0800, "Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Transsexuals are people who have serious physical defects, either
>congenital or assumed or both. We are required to be understanding and
>compassionate, but this does not require accepting transsexuals as
>normal or their sexuality on par with that of bisexuals who are not in
>possession of primary and secondary sexual characteristics of both
>sexes. Most certainly, they cannot influence the sexuality of the
>physically normal and healthy majority.
So you view transsexual folks as full human beings, but they should be
kept separate... oh, but equal, surely. Separate, but equal... a good
phrase. It sounds so accepting, and so compassionate of those who are
different.
You mention Israel... are you aware of the US history of that phrase?
It's how folks treated "niggers". Not black people, or negros, or
African-Americans... niggers.
Folks back then, they were required to be understanding and
compassionate, but, you know, black folks were simply *different*...
that was their story, and they were sticking to it! They weren't like
white folks. So why shouldn't they stick around with their own kind?
Why shouldn't their thoughts, their feelings, their needs and desires,
all be considered as things that must be kept separate?
They were denying the essential humanity of black folks, and
reinforcing that continual denial by keeping them separate. After all,
you don't need to feel *real* compassion when you don't actually see
the people who are suffering.
As for the issue at hand, I used to ponder about folks who feel their
physical sex didn't match their gender identity. Then I started
imagining what it'd be like if I woke up tomorrow in the body of a
woman. I'd still be a man; it's what I am. If my body worked, I'd have
to accept there was some "normality" to it, but I wouldn't be able to
say it was right. And whether I could accept my body or not, it
wouldn't ever feel right.
I don't know what makes a person say that their physical body doesn't
match a more important reality. I do know that it happens.
And yes, folks in that situation do deserve understanding and
compassion, just as I'd hope I'd receive the same if, tomorrow, I
found myself with a woman's body and a woman's social roles imposed on
me. But it should be the real type of compassion, not the false type
that says "ew, they're so different! But I suppose I'll look bad if I
say so."
>Our ability to discern critical differences between and among
>situations is being systematically destroyed by bombarding us with the
>increasingly weird. Of course, it is increasingly forbidden to call the
>weird weird.
Not always.
(Sorry. Private joke. Not pointed at anyone, except, perhaps, myself.)
>
>Being open-minded is one thing. Having our brains spilling all over the
>floor because we are being bashed over the head with the demand that we
>accept everything as morally equal, of equal import, of equal
>contribution to our well-being is quite another matter.
Me, I figure people should be happy, and act to make other people
happy. I figure if people are not harmed, then other folks don't have
any business judging "moral equality".
I also figure that people are their own best judges of their own
happiness, and that one shouldn't try to say that people who claim to
be happy aren't, really. It isn't always possible to know if a person
is happy by observation... especially not when that person is engaging
in activities that the observer finds disturbing or distressing.
I can grant that it's true that sometimes people will act in ways that
don't make them happy, that if they were wiser, or stronger, they
might act differently. So? You can't make people wiser and stronger,
and there's always the possibility that your assessment is incorrect.
People must grow and learn in their own way and in their own time, and
because they aren't like you, their paths might be different from the
path that would seem correct for you. Many's the person who said "how
can anyone live like that?" when the wiser statement was "I could
never live like that!" Well, of course such a person couldn't... and
shouldn't. People are different. It is foolish to assume otherwise.
>
>Being BiPoly, I am expected to accept the entire GLT BDSM gamut.
>Bisexuality, as we have said, is usually subsumed thus: GLBT, that is,
>under all that which is not heterosexual. Gay men, lesbians,
>transsexuals of all types and people in the BDSM subculture are all
>surprised and very hurt that I don't lend my support to them, don't
>call myself "queer" along with them, do not wish to be associated with
>them and think that they, along with the monogamous heterosexuals are
>all living a partial, compromised sexuality at best, a revolting
>perversion at worst.
It's not suprising tht people would feel hurt for your considering
their activities to be a revolting perversion. I do have to wonder,
though: if your compassion was as deep as you say, why would you throw
around such wording? If your true concern was for the fulfillment of
these people's sexual nature, you would have concern, not revulsion.
Perhaps they, too, should be considered equal, but kept separate?
For me, there's plenty of room for those who don't harm others, and
who seek happiness in their own way.
>I'm not hypocritical at all.
You preach compassion, but do not show it. You ask for wisdom to be
accepted if it comes from you, but do not seem to seek it in others.
You mock those with whom you disagree, but claim mockery and social
pressure on disagreement is wrong. You claim that society is unhealthy
for repressing your notion of proper sexuality, but would form a
society that represses other people's choices about proper sexuality.
'nuff said.
John Palmer
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Beauty has a beginning, and an ending, but always lives beyond its span,
in the hearts of many.
Doug Wickstrom
<b98ts1d1gb2q480jf...@4ax.com>
ChickPea <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> caused electrons to
dance and photons to travel coherently in saying:
>In alt.polyamory, (Guy W. Thomas) wrote in
><437ldpF...@individual.net>::
>
>>"Kai Jones" <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
>>news:dh5ts1lgdofqqkm09...@4ax.com...
>
>>> The thing is, some people enjoy playing with trolls, at least some of
>>> the time--I'm one of them. And ignoring them only works sometimes,
>>> and doesn't serve the people who want to bat the troll around for
>>> whatever reason.
>>
>>True enough, and it is always possible that a "troll" could learn something
>>or we might learn something in the interaction.
>
>The troll in question has shown no sign of being capable of learning
>behaviour at all. It's as mechanical as an insect.
That's insulting to insects. Ants and bees, at least, show
evidence of communication and learning.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty."
--Groucho Marx
Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Kai Jones
<gu...@speakeasy.net> published this:
and I accidentally deleted my own attribution!
>Your post triggered some thoughts for me Kai. I don't mean this response to
>be argumentative. I'm certainly not arguing with you. I'm just adding some
>thoughts.
Okay! Great way to clarify that, and much appreciated given the
ongoing misunderstandings in the newsgroup. Not necessarily between
you and me, that is, just in general the level of miscommunication
seems to have gone up considerably lately.
>I think
>it is *very* important for people to make their own boundaries on what they
>will expose themselves to.
I agree, and one reason I killfile is to protect myself from bad
influences.
>I often think I should start kill filing several
>people but I'm too nosy for my own good.
I get nosy sometimes, but my newsreader lets me choose to download and
see posts even if they've been killfiled.
>However kill filing and intentionally trying to chase somebody off a group
>are very different things. Yes sometimes I'd like some people to just go
>away, but I don't want to chase them away.
I am willing to and interested in chasing some people away, both on
this newsgroup and (in the past) on other newsgroups. I think of it
in the same vein as community policing. However, I don't have that
kind of power!
Lane
John Palmer wrote:
> (Much snippage throughout)
>
> On 17 Jan 2006 23:09:13 -0800, "Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Transsexuals are people who have serious physical defects, either
> >congenital or assumed or both. We are required to be understanding and
> >compassionate, but this does not require accepting transsexuals as
> >normal or their sexuality on par with that of bisexuals who are not in
> >possession of primary and secondary sexual characteristics of both
> >sexes. Most certainly, they cannot influence the sexuality of the
> >physically normal and healthy majority.
>
>
> physical sex didn't match their gender identity. Then I started
> imagining what it'd be like if I woke up tomorrow in the body of a
> woman. I'd still be a man; it's what I am. If my body worked, I'd have
> to accept there was some "normality" to it, but I wouldn't be able to
> say it was right. And whether I could accept my body or not, it
> wouldn't ever feel right.
>
> I don't know what makes a person say that their physical body doesn't
> match a more important reality. I do know that it happens.
Of all the original poster's points this was the one I most was tempted
to respond to.
I can absolutely not relate to the experience of feeling a different
gender than my anatomy claimed me to be. While a gay man and (relatedly
or not, I"m not sure) quite comfortable with my feminite side, I have
never doubted that I was a male. Even when I was a kid and wanted to
play with my sisters dolls, I still knew I was a boy and never wanted
to be anything else.
But, a few years ago, a close anatomically female friend of mine
announced that she was transexual and was going to undergo gender
reassignment therapy to become officially male. Living through that
experience with him was one of the most enlightening and rewarding
experiences I have ever had.
It did not really give me a handle on the experience itself. My own
experience of it was still extremely vicarious. I still cannot relate
to it. But I do, at least, understand now it's depth and importance.
And I know, with all my heart, that this friend is much happier now
than he was when he was anatomically female.
> >Being open-minded is one thing. Having our brains spilling all over the
> >floor because we are being bashed over the head with the demand that we
> >accept everything as morally equal, of equal import, of equal
> >contribution to our well-being is quite another matter.
>
> Me, I figure people should be happy, and act to make other people
> happy. I figure if people are not harmed, then other folks don't have
> any business judging "moral equality".
I am still amazed that there are thinking people who feel otherwise
about this. Would anyone out there who would claim to know what is and
is not morally acceptable (amongst those things which harm no
unconsenting adults) have others in power that disagree with them make
those choices for me? Can people really be so myopic?
>
> >I'm not hypocritical at all.
>
> You preach compassion, but do not show it. You ask for wisdom to be
> accepted if it comes from you, but do not seem to seek it in others.
> You mock those with whom you disagree, but claim mockery and social
> pressure on disagreement is wrong. You claim that society is unhealthy
> for repressing your notion of proper sexuality, but would form a
> society that represses other people's choices about proper sexuality.
>
> 'nuff said.
I can't imagine it being said any better. Not that she'll get the hint.
Lane
Ruth Lawrence
"Guy W. Thomas" <gu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:437npsF...@individual.net...
>
> "ChickPea" <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b98ts1d1gb2q480jf...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.polyamory, (Guy W. Thomas) wrote in
>> <437ldpF...@individual.net>::
>>
>>>"Kai Jones" <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dh5ts1lgdofqqkm09...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> The thing is, some people enjoy playing with trolls, at least some of
>>>> the time--I'm one of them. And ignoring them only works sometimes,
>>>> and doesn't serve the people who want to bat the troll around for
>>>> whatever reason.
>>>
>>>True enough, and it is always possible that a "troll" could learn
>>>something
>>>or we might learn something in the interaction.
>>
>> The troll in question has shown no sign of being capable of learning
>> behaviour at all. It's as mechanical as an insect.
>
> I didn't mean to speak about any specific person. Sometimes talking to
> someone who doesn't change their minds can be instructive to others
> reading the newsgroup. Even if the message is, "this person does not
> speak for everyone".
I ggree with this view.
Many trolls are merely personally nasty.
This one is something else.
Ruth
Ruth Lawrence
> published this:
>
>>
>>ChickPea wrote:
>>> If we don't feed it, it might go an piss on someone else's garden.
>>
>>There's another, even more effective solution, one which is guaranteed
>>100% to work.
>>
>>Just don't read her posts.
>
> Oh, I thought you were going to advocate that all of us who don't want
> somebody participating here should leave. Because just not reading
> her posts won't do it, not all the way: only if everybody else also
> chooses not to read her posts, and more importantly chooses not to
> engage with her--no responses at all--will we be free of exposure.
> Sure, we could keep killfiling (or choosing not to read) each person
> who responds to her, or use a scoring newsreader that lets you set
> responses to any particular thread or person so that you won't see
> them.
Exactly.
> The thing is, some people enjoy playing with trolls, at least some of
> the time--I'm one of them. And ignoring them only works sometimes,
> and doesn't serve the people who want to bat the troll around for
> whatever reason.
Actually, some of the bullshit is, in this case, worth
addressing, and in various places some have been
effectively doing so.
> And then there's the theory that leaving evil ignored and
> uncontradicted allows it to continue to exist and influence others.
> Some days I think that's the ultimate truth.
Yes. This particular troll may sound credible in part to young
freshmen etc, and such assertions probably ought to be contested.
Ruth
Ruth Lawrence
> In alt.polyamory, (Pat Kight) wrote in
> <KZqdneu7reR...@scnresearch.com>::
>
>>Visual Purple wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am not one of those who can be daunted by social pressure. I am
>>> impervious to social pressure and will continue to write the truth as I
>>> see it.
>>
>>else?
>
Already is/has.
Ruth, mightily exercised by the toxic pseudo-intellectualism
Teal
> It is for this reason that I say, and reiterate, that as a Bisexual and
> Polyamorous woman, I refuse to allow anyone to push me down the GLT
> BDSM slippery slope.
<tl;dr>
> Let my position be abundantly clear. I do not consider heterosexual
> monogamy, being homosexual (male or female) and most certainly not
> transsexual as being on par with being Bisexual and Polyamorous.
How nice for you.
Teal
--
"Who could have predicted a harmless gasoline fight
could end in tragedy?" --- J. Nicoll
Steve Pope
>"Kai Jones" <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
>> Because just not reading
>> her posts won't do it, not all the way: only if everybody else also
>> chooses not to read her posts, and more importantly chooses not to
>> engage with her--no responses at all--will we be free of exposure.
>> Sure, we could keep killfiling (or choosing not to read) each person
>> who responds to her, or use a scoring newsreader that lets you set
>> responses to any particular thread or person so that you won't see
>> them.
> Your post triggered some thoughts for me Kai. I don't mean
> this response to be argumentative. I'm certainly not arguing
> with you. I'm just adding some thoughts. Personally I'm
> not interested in being free from exposure to a particular
> person or idea at least not on Usenet. I've only killfiled
> one person for a few months once (guess who starts with the J)
> This probably contributes to more stress than I should expose
> myself to, but for me it's important to stay as open as I can.
> This is not to suggest that people who kill file or avoid reading
> given individuals should stop doing so. I think it is *very*
> important for people to make their own boundaries on what they
> will expose themselves to. I often think I should start kill
> filing several people but I'm too nosy for my own good.
> However kill filing and intentionally trying to chase somebody
> off a group are very different things. Yes sometimes I'd like
> some people to just go away, but I don't want to chase them away.
I agree with this view on group dynamics.
Discouraging people (perhaps, by mass killfiling, perhaps by
other methods) because of some ideal that I want the group
setting to feel like is not something I wish to involve myself in.
That feels to me like a group-ified version of a level
of self-consciousness that I don't wish to possess.
(Tangentially, I also find that I can compensate for some
posting-style excesses that others seem to have a lot of
trouble with, whereas I have a lower tolerance for other types
of behavior that seem more acceptable to many in the group.)
Steve
serene
(Steve Pope) wrote:
>Discouraging people (perhaps, by mass killfiling, perhaps by
>other methods) because of some ideal that I want the group
>setting to feel like is not something I wish to involve myself in.
>That feels to me like a group-ified version of a level
>of self-consciousness that I don't wish to possess.
I don't use killfiles to create a group setting I want -- the group
will be what it is, with or without my killfiles. I use killfiles
because there are people whose ideas I find either toxic, boring,
irritating, or some combination of those things, and it's not worth
spending my limited time on extended conversations with people I
dislike. I don't do it in person, and I won't do it here.
serene
Steve Pope
>Visual Purple wrote (in between all snipped ramblings)...
>> Let my position be abundantly clear. I do not consider heterosexual
>> monogamy, being homosexual (male or female) and most certainly not
>> transsexual as being on par with being Bisexual and Polyamorous.
>How nice for you.
I've run across many many people who have some huge portion
of their ego invested in the idea that their sexuality, sexual
orientation, and/or relationship practices make them superior
to others, spawning various ridiculous attitudes and pronouncements.
But only once per decade or so do I run across a proclamation
as sweeping as VP's. There should be some sort of prize.
Steve
Lara Croft
<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:14:49 +0000, in message
> <b98ts1d1gb2q480jf...@4ax.com>
> ChickPea <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> caused electrons to
> dance and photons to travel coherently in saying:
>
> >In alt.polyamory, (Guy W. Thomas) wrote in
> ><437ldpF...@individual.net>::
> >
> >>"Kai Jones" <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> >>news:dh5ts1lgdofqqkm09...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>> The thing is, some people enjoy playing with trolls, at least some of
> >>> the time--I'm one of them. And ignoring them only works sometimes,
> >>> and doesn't serve the people who want to bat the troll around for
> >>> whatever reason.
> >>
> >>True enough, and it is always possible that a "troll" could learn something
> >>or we might learn something in the interaction.
> >
> >The troll in question has shown no sign of being capable of learning
> >behaviour at all. It's as mechanical as an insect.
>
> That's insulting to insects. Ants and bees, at least, show
> evidence of communication and learning.
Mechanical as an insect? Ever seen a spider spin a web? My son and I
watched one for half an hour once. It spun a web the entire length of
our back door. It was fascinating. I turned the light on so flying
insects would be attracted to the web. That was one smart spider, and
it reeled in lots of tasty treats to eat that night. It was definitely
capable of learning. It used to come back every night, and spin a new
web. I always left the kitchen light on for it. I had pets of every
kind. ;)
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0800:
>Not everything that is alternative is good, acceptable, valuable, an
>improvement, progressive, worthy of emulation, worthy of adoption,
>noble, desirable and/or salubrious. Not only should female Bisexuality
>and Polyamory not be subsumed under the GLT BDSM rubric, they are more
>inimical to female Bisexuality and Polyamory than is heterosexual
>monogamy.
I believe you have just asserted that female bisexuality and polyamory
are inimical to themselves.
>A general confusion is prevalent nowadays due to logical fuzziness.
How is this night different from all other nights?
>It
>goes like this: If I accept a lifestyle that is different than the way
>I live, I must accept any and all lifestyles that are different than
>the way I live.
Do you know anyone who actually advocates this? Who feels
that, for example, because they are bi and don't object to
heterosexuality, they must accept $evil_drug addiction and
sleeping on the street?
>What we used to call good old fashioned common sense has fallen by the
>wayside.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices that a person learns in
childhood.
>It is for this reason that I say, and reiterate, that as a Bisexual and
>Polyamorous woman, I refuse to allow anyone to push me down the GLT
>BDSM slippery slope.
Because of course no real bisexual actually enjoys BDSM, and there are
no vanilla monosexuals?
>Like heterosexuality, homosexuality is the blocking off of half of
>Humankind to be intimate with. How can I accept either heterosexuality
>or homosexuality as full and healthy expressions of Human sexuality?
By considering that maybe, just maybe, nobody benefits from forcing
themselves to have sex to people they aren't attracted to. And that's
true whether someone is attracted to a huge number of people, but
only of one gender; or to a large number of people, regardless of
gender, but only within certain parameters of height, weight, skin
color, or accent; or only to three people on the planet, none of whom
reciprocate.
>Transsexuals are people who have serious physical defects, either
>congenital or assumed or both.
Many would agree with you--this is one of the reasons why they seek
surgery and other treatments, so that their physical bodies fit with
what they feel they are and should be.
>We are required to be understanding and
>compassionate, but this does not require accepting transsexuals as
>normal or their sexuality on par with that of bisexuals who are not in
>possession of primary and secondary sexual characteristics of both
>sexes.
Very few people are in possession of primary and secondary sexual
characteristics of both sexes. Certainly, none of the transgendered
people I've known are. I suspect you're conflating intersex people
with "she-male" tranny porn.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@redbird.org | http://www.redbird.org
The statement "I feel more passionately about this than you
do" may be a fact, but it is not an argument." --Molly Ivins
Vicki Rosenzweig
12:14:15 +1100:
>
>"Kai Jones" <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
>news:dh5ts1lgdofqqkm09...@4ax.com...
>
>> The thing is, some people enjoy playing with trolls, at least some of
>> the time--I'm one of them. And ignoring them only works sometimes,
>> and doesn't serve the people who want to bat the troll around for
>> whatever reason.
>
>Actually, some of the bullshit is, in this case, worth
>addressing, and in various places some have been
>effectively doing so.
>
>> And then there's the theory that leaving evil ignored and
>> uncontradicted allows it to continue to exist and influence others.
>> Some days I think that's the ultimate truth.
>
>Yes. This particular troll may sound credible in part to young
>freshmen etc, and such assertions probably ought to be contested.
>
Thanks. Suddenly I don't feel so bad about feeding the troll.
But I will try not to do so again.
This may be another sign that I should go to bed for about 36 hours.
Pat Kight
> Quoth "Ruth Lawrence" <curly...@optusnet.com.au> on Thu, 19 Jan 2006
> 12:14:15 +1100:
>>Yes. This particular troll may sound credible in part to young
>>freshmen etc, and such assertions probably ought to be contested.
> Thanks. Suddenly I don't feel so bad about feeding the troll.
> But I will try not to do so again.
As will I.
Having reread her last couple of posts and followed the links to her
metaphysical musings, I've become convinced that Doreen is a
fundamentalist, cut from the same cloth as Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps
or the rest of their ilk. The details may differ, but the basic
philosophy is the same: Those who do not believe as they believe and
embrace the values they embrace are Other, and thus evil.
She can wrap it up in anarchy and metaphysics and her own unique vision
of polyamory if she pleases, but it's just the same old screed. But
there's nothing new there, and it's not worth my time.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
melissa Jacobini
Ans tTlogical connection besides the ones she makes in her own mind,
what is to say it makes no sence really, even aristoteles , who is the
father of methaphysics talked about the fundaments of it, and anybody
who wants to spread an idea, for novel that it may be, must at every
instance sustent it's tesis, if not is jsut a diatrive of nonsence and
nothing else, maybe some people shall stop trying to be the center of
attention as they clearelyu are but then if she was all so right
woul'dnt she be in the academic world discussin this with renoun
scholars instead of bombarding online mailing lists.
what humores me the most, is that teory that all women given the freedom
of choice and relieved of social preasures will naturally be bisexual
and polyamorous , just like she is, ( i am but that is irrelevant to
this point) certainly that is not a BIAS STUPID and ignorant
GENERALIZATION that as all GENERALIZATIONs has proven to be FULL OF IT
, because of course nature is so SIMPLISTIC, and then that will go hand
on hand with the thepry that all women are this and that and the same
and there is no individuality and the internal emotional and physical
connections of each oen are just nonsence, and genetics is just
bullshit, even tough it has been scientifically proven that
homosexuality happens during gestation ( MY HUSBAND ISA RESEARCH
SCIENTIST AND I AM INFORMED OF ALL THIS IN A FIRST HAND BASIS)
Some of us are actually in the academic world and do sustain informed
discusions regarding many subjectsd that for the most part are really
common sence and i am open to interestign new ideas all the time but at
least SHOW a hint of intelligence, not because somebody use pompous
"difficult" words mean they have something intelligetn to say, and not
because they blab may they have something to say at all
cheers
Mister J
"melissa Jacobini" <mjac...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:43D0E036...@triad.rr.com...
I understand the concerns about leaving he uncontradicted and therefore
gaining credibility. However, she lost her academic credibility with me when
she cited Microsoft Word Spellchecker as a source. If I recall correctly,
that was in her first post here.
L
melissa Jacobini
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>what humores me the most, is that teory that all women given the freedom
>>of choice and relieved of social preasures will naturally be bisexual and
>>polyamorous , just like she is, ( i am but that is irrelevant to this
>>point) certainly that is not a BIAS STUPID and ignorant GENERALIZATION
>>that as all GENERALIZATIONs has proven to be FULL OF IT , because of
>>course nature is so SIMPLISTIC, and then that will go hand on hand with
>>the thepry that all women are this and that and the same and there is no
>>individuality and the internal emotional and physical connections of each
>>oen are just nonsence, and genetics is just bullshit, even tough it has
>>been scientifically proven that homosexuality happens during gestation
>>( MY HUSBAND ISA RESEARCH SCIENTIST AND I AM INFORMED OF ALL THIS IN A
>>FIRST HAND BASIS)
>> Some of us are actually in the academic world and do sustain informed
>>discusions regarding many subjectsd that for the most part are really
>>common sence and i am open to interestign new ideas all the time but at
>>least SHOW a hint of intelligence, not because somebody use pompous
>>"difficult" words mean they have something intelligetn to say, and not
>>because they blab may they have something to say at all
>>cheers
>>
>
>
> I understand the concerns about leaving he uncontradicted and therefore
> gaining credibility. However, she lost her academic credibility with me when
> she cited Microsoft Word Spellchecker as a source. If I recall correctly,
> that was in her first post here.
>
> L
>
>
to my typos, sorry all for the annoying mistakes, will be more careful
from now on
Melissa
Mean Green Dancing Machine
melissa Jacobini <mjac...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
>It would not kill me to get a spell checker, should pay more attention
>to my typos, sorry all for the annoying mistakes, will be more careful
>from now on
Don't worry too much about it unless it bothers you when people respond
to the funnier mistakes.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2006 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Labor Department : Labor :: Fire Department : Fire.
melissa Jacobini
Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
> In article <43D13BA2...@triad.rr.com>,
> melissa Jacobini <mjac...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>It would not kill me to get a spell checker, should pay more attention
>>to my typos, sorry all for the annoying mistakes, will be more careful
>
>>from now on
>
> Don't worry too much about it unless it bothers you when people respond
> to the funnier mistakes.
ell at least i make people laugh :))))
Mister J
Oops. Sorry, Melissa. I was referring to VP, not you. It was months ago when
she did that in the first post of hers I read. It didn't even have to do
with the spelling of a word at the time.
L
melissa Jacobini
>I knwo you weren't refering to me but still my TYPING sucks soemtimes :)
Vicki Rosenzweig
19:38:10 GMT:
[Quoting Mr. J:]
>>
>> I understand the concerns about leaving he uncontradicted and therefore
>> gaining credibility. However, she lost her academic credibility with me when
>> she cited Microsoft Word Spellchecker as a source. If I recall correctly,
>> that was in her first post here.
>>
>> L
>>
>>
>It would not kill me to get a spell checker, should pay more attention
>to my typos, sorry all for the annoying mistakes, will be more careful
>from now on
>
Using a spell checker is reasonable. Quoting one as an academic
source, as VP is said to have [I don't remember that particular
interlude] is not.
The Pedantocrat
> Quoth melissa Jacobini <mjac...@triad.rr.com> on Fri, 20 Jan 2006
> 19:38:10 GMT:
>
> [Quoting Mr. J:]
>
>>>I understand the concerns about leaving he uncontradicted and therefore
>>>gaining credibility. However, she lost her academic credibility with me when
>>>she cited Microsoft Word Spellchecker as a source. If I recall correctly,
>>>that was in her first post here.
>>>
>>>L
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It would not kill me to get a spell checker, should pay more attention
>>to my typos, sorry all for the annoying mistakes, will be more careful
>
>>from now on
>
> Using a spell checker is reasonable. Quoting one as an academic
> source, as VP is said to have [I don't remember that particular
> interlude] is not.
To be fair, I don't think it was cited as a source, rather it was used
as an illustrative example.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.polyamory/msg/50fec22f3b59bb6b
--
The Pedantocrat
Mister J
"The Pedantocrat" <pedan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_MednfPsxpM...@suscom.com...
The term 'polamory' has been coined only very recently. You will not
find the term 'polyamory' in most dictionaries of the English language.
Even as I type, my WordT program puts a red line under the word
polyamory, indicating that it is a misspelling. English-speaking
society-at-large is not yet willing to allow the existence of the
phenomenon, and this refusal is the reason why no accepted term for the
phenomenon is to be found in lexicons of the English language.
End Quote.
OK, I sit corrected. It is an example rather than a citation. I was working
from memory of an email I read three months ago. Nevertheless I stand by my
assertion that the Microsoft Word Spellchecker is not a definitive source
for verifying the existence of words, particularly specialty words that are
not in common use. Considering the fact that the user can add words to the
spell checker's lexicon, it is not definitive that words that it finds in
its lexicon are in fact words or spelled correctly.
L
DGo...@aol.com
Visual Purple wrote:
> Not everything that is alternative is good, acceptable, valuable, an
> improvement, progressive, worthy of emulation, worthy of adoption,
> noble, desirable and/or salubrious. Not only should female Bisexuality
> and Polyamory not be subsumed under the GLT BDSM rubric, they are more
> inimical to female Bisexuality and Polyamory than is heterosexual
> monogamy.
> goes like this: If I accept a lifestyle that is different than the way
> I live, I must accept any and all lifestyles that are different than
> the way I live.
> wayside.
> Polyamorous woman, I refuse to allow anyone to push me down the GLT
> BDSM slippery slope.
> Humankind to be intimate with. How can I accept either heterosexuality
> or homosexuality as full and healthy expressions of Human sexuality?
Hello, again.
You know, Doreen, I expressed this same sentiment over in soc.bi in my
introduction to the group and it wouldn't fly or even float. It sank
like a stone. It sank like a constipated poop.
It turned out I had a few issues of my own to deal with.
What are your issues, and why don't you capitalize Heterosexual
Monogamy?
Why, if I may ask, and you need not answer, are your posts always about
*you* and never your poly family?
If you do love them (and I believe you do), the members of your poly
family deserve a nod her in this forum, once in a while. That would be
soundly On Topic. Please excuse me if I have missed your mentioning
them here.
Fuzzy logic is *way* different from a slippery slope....
If you feel we have lost common sense, may I recommed Gunner's
"Retrosexual Movement" over in rec.crafts.metalworking, much of which I
do agree with. It's an interesting thread.
Doug (who hasn't got so much as sawdust on *his* shoulder this morning)
Lara Croft
<ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
How do you killfile? I don't have anyone I want to killfile, but it
would be good to know how to do it.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Lara Croft <samm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>How do you killfile? I don't have anyone I want to killfile, but it
>would be good to know how to do it.
You're apparently using a Mac newsreader called Thoth. Search the docs
for "killfile" or "filter".
serene
wrote:
Depends on your newsreader. In Agent, I just do Ctrl-K to make a new
kill filter.
serene
Ryk
wrote:
>How do you killfile? I don't have anyone I want to killfile, but it
>would be good to know how to do it.
I just wanted to see Lara Croft ask this question one more time
Ryk
Lara Croft
<r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
LOL it is funny seeing Lara Croft ask how to killfile. I guess I could
just use my Desert Eagles, but that would make a big mess.
Lara Croft
<aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <220120061212409585%samm...@aol.com>,
> Lara Croft <samm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >How do you killfile? I don't have anyone I want to killfile, but it
> >would be good to know how to do it.
>
> You're apparently using a Mac newsreader called Thoth. Search the docs
> for "killfile" or "filter".
Thanks. I found it. It's under "News". Yup, I use Thoth.
DGo...@aol.com
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> Quoth "Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com> on 17 Jan 2006 23:09:13
> -0800:
>
> >Not everything that is alternative is good, acceptable, valuable, an
> >improvement, progressive, worthy of emulation, worthy of adoption,
> >noble, desirable and/or salubrious. Not only should female Bisexuality
> >and Polyamory not be subsumed under the GLT BDSM rubric, they are more
> >inimical to female Bisexuality and Polyamory than is heterosexual
> >monogamy.
>
> I believe you have just asserted that female bisexuality and polyamory
> are inimical to themselves.
Yes, Doreen has just done this. My father had a t-shirt that said "You
say I contradict myself. So, I contradict myself." I miss him. I wish I
had a t-shirt that said "I subsume the inimical, you poopie-head."
However, I agree with Doreen's first quoted sentence. All alternative
sexual expression between consenting adults is worthy of respect and a
little mattress space, if not full Constitutional recognition as free
association.
Now, if Doreen's comma had been a semicolon, I believe the preposition
"they" would point the other way. She'd be saying BDSM *behaviors* are
inimical (antagonistic) to femal bi-poly than is HM. Which all in all,
might be true.
But that's not what she said. (Wrote.)
Loose associations are a symptom. A symptom I have, and one I need as
an inventor. Freedom of association is protected, and worth fighting
for.
And another thing.... Doreen, you seem to have confused female
bisexuality with feminist bisexuality or feminist lesbian polyamory or
some political thing. It's just a practice. It can't really be inimical
to anything unless it's got political *intent*.
> >We are required to be understanding and
> >compassionate, but this does not require accepting transsexuals as
> >normal or their sexuality on par with that of bisexuals who are not in
> >possession of primary and secondary sexual characteristics of both
> >sexes.
>
> Very few people are in possession of primary and secondary sexual
> characteristics of both sexes. Certainly, none of the transgendered
> people I've known are. I suspect you're conflating intersex people
> with "she-male" tranny porn.
Yes, Doreen has lumped pre-op post-hormone M-->F transsexuals with the
intergendered folks, the XXY and XYY crowd. Many of us on psych meds
develop hormonal problems; women with male-pattern hair growth, men
with breasts. I remember the fellow with breasts on a TV interview from
prison. I am pretty sure he was on some strong dose of psych meds,
rather than hormones, as his demeanor was "scary". And I don't think
our prisoners get much help with this. Many with GID or pre-op status
are forced to live with the "wrong" gender. "Wrong" for them.
Prepare for what can happen, quothe Homeland Security. Well, when you
pick a gender on your license, what can happen is you will be arrested
and put with others who have picked that gender. That's just plain
wrong in a way I can't even say.
How can you discount someone who has both gender characteristics,
Doreen? Your argument that bisexuality is somehow superior seems to
extend out to conclude that angrogyny and all the minority genderings
are superior, not inferior.
I'ts like saying, "chocolate and vanilla are so drab. *I* am
Neopolitan, and so inherently more tasty. However, Chunky Monkey is
just gross!" Blah blah blah.
It's naiive. It's like saying newer is better, but everything current
is bullshit, which subtley implies "I'm more current than right now.".
It's posturing. My example in this paragraph would be postmodernist
posturing.
Listening to 1968 today on "30 years in 30 days" on 94.7 near DC; the
long break in "Inna Gadda Da Vida". Wow. I remember how confused I was
in 1972, hearing that song, and hearing that Dawn, an eighth-grader
like me, had a pair of "transparent pajamas"; a negligee.
I was like, one--she's 13 and still wears pajamas? and two--who would
wear pajamas made out of Saran Wrap? We always slept in the nude in our
house, as far as I can remember, back pretty far. I just didn't get it.
Negligees were never erotic to me back then. They can be now.
Ah. Now it's "Get High with my Friends"--Joe Cocker on the radio. Mmmm.
(snuggle)
Doug
Aqua
> Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>
>>Quoth "Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com> on 17 Jan 2006 23:09:13
>>-0800:
>>>We are required to be understanding and
>>>compassionate, but this does not require accepting transsexuals as
>>>normal or their sexuality on par with that of bisexuals who are not in
>>>possession of primary and secondary sexual characteristics of both
>>>sexes.
>>
>>Very few people are in possession of primary and secondary sexual
>>characteristics of both sexes. Certainly, none of the transgendered
>>people I've known are. I suspect you're conflating intersex people
>>with "she-male" tranny porn.
>
>
> Yes, Doreen has lumped pre-op post-hormone M-->F transsexuals with the
> intergendered folks, the XXY and XYY crowd.
I've never heard of XYY males as regarded as in any way intersex. X0
(Turner's syndrome) women sometimes are, though. However, most intersex
people have no obvious chromosomal abnormalities like that - it could be
a gene defect, or complicated developmental timing effects.
Aqua
DGo...@aol.com
intergendering.
I had no idea that an XYY male would not be considered intersex.
Doug
Aqua
I don't actually know that much about intersex; I do happen to know a
bit about human genetics.
Aqua
DGo...@aol.com
Marc wrote that XYY is a kind double dose of maleness. Can anyone here
say if that is associated with mental illness, and whether XYY is
detectable in genetic testing batteries, the kind that promise to tell
if you are susceptible to colon cancer etc.? We have cancer in our
family and I have wanted such testing.
I do understand, and it also seems reasonable at a deep level, that the
developing egg is and will remain female unless Y triggers the
development of maleness. Is XYY caused by double insemination of an egg
or what?
Doug
Liminal
Quoted from http://www.bchealthguide.org/kbase/nord/nord812.htm
"XYY syndrome is a rare chromosomal disorder that affects males. It is
caused by the presence of an extra Y chromosome. Males normally have one
X and one Y chromosome. However, individuals with this syndrome have one
X and two Y chromosome. Affected individuals are usually very tall and
thin. Many experience severe acne during adolescence. Additional
symptoms may include antisocial or behavioral problems and learning
disabilities. Intelligence is usually normal, although IQ, on average,
is 10 to 15 points lower than siblings."
Liminal
Steve Pope
>Veddy Inneressing.
>Marc wrote that XYY is a kind double dose of maleness. Can anyone here
>say if that is associated with mental illness, and whether XYY is
>detectable in genetic testing batteries, the kind that promise to tell
>if you are susceptible to colon cancer etc.? We have cancer in our
>family and I have wanted such testing.
XYY is said to be overrepresented among the male prison population
in the U.S.
(I heard one percent of the general male population and ten perecent
of male prison population, but I can't document those particular
numbers.)
Steve
Aqua
> In alt.polyamory, (DGo...@aol.com) wrote in
> <1139313680....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>::
>
>
>>Veddy Inneressing.
>>
>>Marc wrote that XYY is a kind double dose of maleness. Can anyone here
>>say if that is associated with mental illness, and whether XYY is
>>detectable in genetic testing batteries, the kind that promise to tell
>>if you are susceptible to colon cancer etc.? We have cancer in our
>>family and I have wanted such testing.
>
>
> (statistically significant) predilection for behaviour problems. ISTR
> reading somewhere that XYY males are more highly represented amongst petty
> criminals than would be the statistical expectation- but I can't remember
> the reference, and it's not coming up (yet) on Google. I suppose that
> being bigger and more active than your peers, and with delayed maturation
> and behaviour problems would in itself be enough to skew the odds.
>
> In general, XYY males are more physically active, tend to suffer delayed
> maturation and can have learning difficulties.
>
> Ah. Here's a link:
> http://www.ddhealthinfo.org/ggrc/doc2.asp?ParentID=5199#bbc
>
> Here's another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY
I just want to second the XYY links Marc (and Liminal) have supplied.
>>I do understand, and it also seems reasonable at a deep level, that the
>>developing egg is and will remain female unless Y triggers the
>>development of maleness. Is XYY caused by double insemination of an egg
>>or what?
>
> Or what. It's a developmental problem, and causes an extra chromosome to
> be added to the genotype.
The problem as far as I understand actually occurs when the sperm is
being formed, and an incorrect number of chromosomes is packaged. (This
can also happen in an egg, but obviously that doesn't ever lead to XYY.)
As an aside, there's a bit more to becoming female than absence of the
male trigger, as can be seen from Turner's syndrome (X0 - a single X
chromosome). These individuals are female, but I don't believe undergo
normal puberty or are ever fertile.
> The syndrome caused by double fertilisation would be - twins.
Erm, no, not in the sense Doug seems to be asking.
Fraternal twins require two eggs (double ovulation, or these days, due
to in-vitro work) each fertilised by a separate sperm. That's a kind of
double fertilisation, I guess.
Identical twins are one egg, fertilised by one sperm. For some reason
no-one really understands, at an early stage of cell division, the cells
"reset" so for example, rather than four (identical) cells regarding
themselves as four cells of one individual, they regard themselves as
two cells each belonging to two individuals. The later this happens,
the more likely this process is to go wrong, and you get Siamese twins -
some cells duplicating and some not.
Identical twins are in fact natural clones. Any "what if?" speculations
anyone's ever had about what cloning does could probably be answered by
looking at identical twins.
I was generally taught that double fertilisation of a single egg either
doesn't happen or leads to miscarriage - the individual would not just
have three sex chromosomes, but three of every other chromosome, and I
don't believe a human can survive with that.
Aqua
Aqua
> Veddy Inneressing.
>
> Marc wrote that XYY is a kind double dose of maleness. Can anyone here
> say if that is associated with mental illness, and whether XYY is
> detectable in genetic testing batteries, the kind that promise to tell
> if you are susceptible to colon cancer etc.? We have cancer in our
> family and I have wanted such testing.
I also wanted to mention, while we're playing medical question time,
that XYY isn't "genetic" in the sense of family history of colon cancer;
it's a one-off condition. From what I understand, it's only tested for
specifically if there's a suspicion it's relevant (i.e. tall thin male).
On the other hand, it seems far more XYY are being detected early these
days due to prenatal testing.
Aqua
Josh Robinson
> AIUI (and I'm relying on memory rather than google here), XYY men have a
> (statistically significant) predilection for behaviour problems. ISTR
> reading somewhere that XYY males are more highly represented amongst petty
> criminals than would be the statistical expectation- but I can't remember
> the reference, and it's not coming up (yet) on Google. I suppose that
> being bigger and more active than your peers, and with delayed maturation
> and behaviour problems would in itself be enough to skew the odds.
>
> In general, XYY males are more physically active, tend to suffer delayed
> maturation and can have learning difficulties.
One wonders if removing XXY from that post would alter its truth-value ;-)
/J
--
Josh Robinson
jmr59 [at] hermes [dot] cam [dot] ac [dot] uk
David Matthewman
Since 'XXY' doesn't appear in the post, it's hard to see how it would. ;-)
--
David Matthewman
Josh Robinson
Sorry :-)
DGo...@aol.com
to here from y'all.
That UK series "The XYY Man" would be interesting. I enjoy older motion
pictures.
I didn't mean to imply, Aqua, that you know that much about intersex,
only that I know very little although my policy (which is a policy of
heart, I think, not mind) would make me amenable to pre- and post-
operative TG friends and partners, should the opportunity present. It
is a minimifidianist policy of aprejudice.
Yesterday a female friend reported an assault to me, and I found
someone with the ability to respond to her complaint. The perp is
indeed tall and skinny and the assault did represent low maturity and
was impulsive behavior. I speculate that XYY may be used one day as a
defense in court, although not in this case. It is being handled
administratively at present. Poor dear, she is so loving most days. It
was 8 am. I got out of the elevator, she was the only one on the third
floor, and she was crying....
Doug
Philippa Cowderoy
> I didn't mean to imply, Aqua, that you know that much about intersex,
> only that I know very little although my policy (which is a policy of
> heart, I think, not mind) would make me amenable to pre- and post-
> operative TG friends and partners, should the opportunity present. It
> is a minimifidianist policy of aprejudice.
>
An important point here: TG != intersex. The political issues're
significantly different, and there're plenty of intersexed people out
there who're fed up with being used as a clever debating point by TG
people. There is, of course, an argument to be made that transsexualism is
an intersex condition - but that's not how the labels and the political
lines've ended up.
The task of the academic is not to scale great
intellectual mountains, but to flatten them.
Chris Malcolm
> I'd like to thank y'all for this barrage of replies. Good thread. Nice
> to here from y'all.
> That UK series "The XYY Man" would be interesting. I enjoy older motion
> pictures.
> I didn't mean to imply, Aqua, that you know that much about intersex,
> only that I know very little although my policy (which is a policy of
> heart, I think, not mind) would make me amenable to pre- and post-
> operative TG friends and partners, should the opportunity present. It
> is a minimifidianist policy of aprejudice.
> Yesterday a female friend reported an assault to me, and I found
> someone with the ability to respond to her complaint. The perp is
> indeed tall and skinny and the assault did represent low maturity and
> was impulsive behavior. I speculate that XYY may be used one day as a
> defense in court, although not in this case.
What's the difference between using an XYY defence, and saying "Yes I
did it, but I feel I should be treated leniently because I come from a
long line of habitual criminals. It's in our blood. We can't help it."
What would you think of a judge who said to the defendant "I have been
asked to treat you leniently because of your good background and
previously good character, suggesting that this criminal act was an
aberration. On the contrary, since you don't have the excuses of
coming from a bad background and a criminal family, you obviously
exercised more free will in your choice of this evil act. Therefore
I'm giving you the maximum penalty allowed by the law."
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
DGo...@aol.com
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> DGo...@aol.com wrote:
> > ...was impulsive behavior. I speculate that XYY may be used one day as a
> > defense in court, although not in this case.
>
> What's the difference between using an XYY defence, and saying "Yes I
> did it, but I feel I should be treated leniently because I come from a
> long line of habitual criminals. It's in our blood. We can't help it."
No difference. Should I have written "offered one day" instead of "used
one day"? I didn't mean to legitimize this strategy. I did mean to
comment on irresponsiblity. I didn't do that very well.
Doug