NEWSFLASH! SUSPICION!
Ben Allard
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4257783.stm
--
Ben
Newark NJ isn't really "stupid", it's just all the disease-related
dementia and the brain trauma. --Joe Bay, Cancer Scientist
James Kibo Parry
>
> HIV 'could destroy cancer cells':
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4257783.stm
Hey! Don't link, quote, you weenie who doesn't care if those of us
who read Usenet from within the bowels of the Earth's subway system
can't go over to the BBC's Web site to learn that AIDS cures cancer
but not vice versa!
Fortunately, I'm not on the subway right now, I'm at home rewinding
the DVD I just watched of Richard Pryor cursing. So that means
I can visit the BBC to quote the article for the enlightenment of all.
[from the BBC]
->
-> HIV 'could destroy cancer cells'
->
-> US scientists hope to be able to use a harmless form of the Aids
-> virus to seek and destroy cancer cells.
The deadly one is called "AIDS". The harmless one is called "Aids".
Actually, it's only 3/4 harmless because it's still got one capital.
Scientists hope to soon discover "lowercaids" which would not
only be harmless, but cute.
Also, paste in standard rant about how AIDS is not the same as HIV
yadda yadda yadda.
-> A University of California team found an "impotent" version of
-> HIV, with the disease-causing parts of it removed, tracked down
-> cancer cells in mice.
Mice can catch human HIV? That's bad news. The question is
whether mice can catch dog HIV, 'cause I hear Mickey is fucking Goofy.
Hmm, proper capitalization sort of stomps on that punchline.
Maybe we can give Goofy lowercaids to get rid of his big "G".
DEAR DISNEY, PLEASE GIVE GOOFY aids THANKS.
-> The next step would be to insert a gene into the virus that would
-> kill the cancer upon contact.
"Step 2: Then a miracle occurs." Put Gary Larson to work on this
project to make his cartoon come true.
(Note: That cartoon was actually by S. Harris when I saw it, and still is,
but everyone on the Web insists it was drawn by Larson, so I'm going to
pretend they're right so as not to offend bozos who have never heard of
a second cartoonist.)
-> The team told Nature Medicine more safety studies were needed
-> before such a method could be tested in humans.
->
-> Gene therapy
You can get that from the guy who has the sign
GENE THE RAPIST
Put Benny Hill to work on this project to make his sign come true.
-> The mice they studied had a form of skin cancer, called melanoma,
-> that had spread to the lungs.
Chris Rock is the voice of Gene The Rapist! Laurence Fishburne is
Mel Anoma! David Hyde Pierce is... oh, never mind, I think I'm the
only one who liked that movie.
-> In the laboratory, the scientists took HIV and removed the parts
-> of the virus that causes disease.
->
-> They then stripped off the virus' outer coat and redressed it
-> with the outer suit of another virus.
Just 'cause HIV used to be more common among gay men than straights
is no reason to give it a fabulous makeover from Carson Kressley.
Come on, don't stereotype HIV. Some of those viruses choose to live
inside straight people! (And hopefully, someday, all of them will,
once the Vast Gay Conspiracy discovers an HIV cure that only works
on gay people!)
-> By doing this, the researchers had changed the target of the
-> virus.
->
-> HIV normally infects immune cells called T cells. The new outer
-> coat instead directed HIV to hunt down molecules present on
-> cancer cells, called P-glycoproteins.
->
-> The scientists also added a substance to the virus that would
-> make it visibly glow when looked at with a special camera so they
-> could track where it travelled once injected into the mice.
"Visibly glow", as opposed to the Hanna-Barbera Theory Of Glowy Stuff
which says that glowing things make loud "WOO-WOO-WOO-WOO" noises.
"I hear that ghost glowing, but I don't see any glowing! He just has
an outline hastily scribbled around him with a grease pencil, as if
he has 'Peanuts'-style B.O.! Still, he sure sounds like he's glowing."
-> Researcher Dr Irvin Chen, from UCLA's Aids Institute, said: "The
-> virus travelled through the bloodstream and homed straight to the
-> cancer cells in the lungs, where the melanoma had migrated.
->
-> "Gene therapy has been hampered by the lack of a good carrier.
How about Delta Airlines? Every one of their planes seems to carry
at least three new strains of flu viruses. Not to mention some of
their in-flight entertainment causes cancer.
-> "Our approach proves that it is possible to develop an effective
-> carrier and reprogram it to target specific cells in the body."
Hey, can it be the brain cells that make me wonder if I should look
up whether there are 16 arshins in a vershok or 16 vershoks in an arshin?
I'd like there to be a virus that makes me forget specific pieces of
trivia that I only halfway learned in the first place. Thanks!
-- K.
Unless, of course, it's
discovered that the cure
for the Delta flu is
knowing what a vershok is.
David DeLaney
>Also, paste in standard rant about how AIDS is not the same as HIV
>yadda yadda yadda.
Yep - one's a wacky disease, the other's a wacky virus!
>"Step 2: Then a miracle occurs." Put Gary Larson to work on this
>project to make his cartoon come true.
>
>(Note: That cartoon was actually by S. Harris when I saw it, and still is,
Yep - I think it's in Einstein Simplified, but my reference materials are At
Home in the G-K stack.
>Put Benny Hill to work on this project to make his sign come true.
Are you channeling Archie again? Be careful when replying to tj frazir, he
may be changing your thinking modality all unsuspected-like...
>-> They then stripped off the virus' outer coat and redressed it
>-> with the outer suit of another virus.
>
>Just 'cause HIV used to be more common among gay men than straights
>is no reason to give it a fabulous makeover from Carson Kressley.
Outside of an HI virus, there is a fabulous coat. Inside an HI virus, it's
too dark to color!
>-> By doing this, the researchers had changed the target of the virus.
Big whoop, we've been able to do that for three and a blue for years now in
_real_ Magic.
>-> HIV normally infects immune cells called T cells. The new outer
>-> coat instead directed HIV to hunt down molecules present on
>-> cancer cells, called P-glycoproteins.
So _that's_ where the ool sent it!
>-> The scientists also added a substance to the virus that would
>-> make it visibly glow when looked at with a special camera so they
>-> could track where it travelled once injected into the mice.
>
>"Visibly glow", as opposed to the Hanna-Barbera Theory Of Glowy Stuff
>which says that glowing things make loud "WOO-WOO-WOO-WOO" noises.
This means that the mice end up with very very thin tattoos! BOW BEFORE THE
FLUORESCENT GOTH MICE! Offer them stiletto heels and accelerator pedals!
>-> Researcher Dr Irvin Chen,
...any relation, I wonder? (No, never mind. Andrea's disinformation was much
more tailored than this.)
>Hey, can it be the brain cells that make me wonder if I should look
>up whether there are 16 arshins in a vershok or 16 vershoks in an arshin?
I don't know. What organ is making you ask this? LOOK THERE FOR THE ANSWER.
Dave "does an arshin destem the vershok?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
plorkwort
Damnit, I was just about to post that.
higgledy piggledy
distimming doshes
is done over pages
with great vigor and vim
goshaks determine
fontographimetrically
how many twips
are there in an arshin.
plorkwort
--
A girl and a boy bump into each other -- surely an accident.
A girl and a boy bump and her handkerchief drops -- surely another accident.
But when a girl gives a boy a dead squid -- *that had to mean something*.
-- S. Morganstern, "The Silent Gondoliers"
Nick Bensema
>is no reason to give it a fabulous makeover from Carson Kressley.
Used to be?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm -- looks like men are thrice as
likely to catch it through male-to-male contact as through heterosexual
contact. Thrice as likely, even though only ten percent of us
engage in that behavior. So, per capita, it's twenty-seven times
as likely. There aren't separate rows for pitching and catching.
>Come on, don't stereotype HIV. Some of those viruses choose to live
>inside straight people! (And hopefully, someday, all of them will,
>once the Vast Gay Conspiracy discovers an HIV cure that only works
>on gay people!)
Do you mean it'll cure only genetically gay people, or it can only be
cured by people who engage in homosexual activity? If the latter,
then what about those gay people who can't even get a piece at the
rest stop on the interstate?
--
Nick Bensema <ni...@io.com> AIM: NBensema
==== ======= ============== http://www.io.com/~nickb/
James Kibo Parry
>
> James "Kibo" Parry (ki...@world.std.com) wrote:
> >
> > Just 'cause HIV used to be more common among gay men than straights
> > is no reason to give it a fabulous makeover from Carson Kressley.
>
> Used to be?
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm -- looks like men are thrice as
> likely to catch it through male-to-male contact as through heterosexual
> contact. Thrice as likely, even though only ten percent of us
> engage in that behavior. So, per capita, it's twenty-seven times
> as likely. There aren't separate rows for pitching and catching.
A-hem. Learn to read or you'll get AIDS. From the chart on that page
of "Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003":
Male-to-male sexual contact: 17,969
Injection drug use: 9,449
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use: 1,877
Heterosexual contact: 13,260
Other: 577
Assuming the second row is a disjoint set from the third row (i.e.
the heroin users in the second row are non-gay), this means that during that
year there were 9,449+13,260 = 22,709 straight cases, 17,969+1,877 = 19,846
gay cases, and 577 people who caught it from dirty toilet seats.
If the second row includes all the people on the third row -- which
would be a pretty stupid way to draw this chart, but let's try it anyway --
that would be 13,260+9,449-1,877 = 20,832 who got it the straight way,
and still only 17,969+1,877 = 19,846 who got it the gay way.
Of course, those are "estimated" numbers, so they might be off by
one or two people, as the CDC's gaydar vans can't afford to drive
through every neighborhood. It also assumes everyone who gets AIDS
(other than those 577 confused people) has a sexual orientation one way
or the other, but for legal purposes you kind of have to declare one so
that you'll know which TV shows you can watch.
There are also millions of people in Africa who got Straight AIDS because
they'd rather have AIDS than wear condoms, but they don't count,
because non-Americans aren't white enough.
So, Nick, if you want to play the odds, to reduce your risk of getting
the AIDS cooties, better turn gay fast, and stay the hell away from those
577 people who don't even know how they got it. Oh, and don't write
any more sequels to "Foundation".
> > Come on, don't stereotype HIV. Some of those viruses choose to live
> > inside straight people! (And hopefully, someday, all of them will,
> > once the Vast Gay Conspiracy discovers an HIV cure that only works
> > on gay people!)
>
> Do you mean it'll cure only genetically gay people, or it can only be
> cured by people who engage in homosexual activity? If the latter,
> then what about those gay people who can't even get a piece at the
> rest stop on the interstate?
They wind up being chased around flea markets by doggies.
-- K.
Have scientists yet tested
whether giving me all the candy
in the world will cure other
people of AIDS? Hey, they can't
prove it won't work if they
haven't tried it!
Kevin S. Wilson
Parry) wrote:
>They wind up being chased around flea markets by doggies.
You know, I considered posting something quite similar but then
decided it would be too cruel.
So instead I'll just laugh maniacally at your post.
--
DISCLAIMER: if your name is Cal, this post is a deliberate joke, probably being
played on you personally, at this very moment, even though it might not seem like it.
Nicko
"James "Kibo" Parry" <ki...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:kibo-15020...@10.0.1.2...
> Ben Allard (ben.a...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > HIV 'could destroy cancer cells':
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4257783.stm
>
> Hey! Don't link, quote, you weenie who doesn't care if those of us
> who read Usenet from within the bowels of the Earth's subway system
> can't go over to the BBC's Web site to learn that AIDS cures cancer
> but not vice versa!
It just depends on which disease kills you first.
--
YOP...
Dan Krueger
Nick Bensema
>the heroin users in the second row are non-gay), this means that during that
>year there were 9,449+13,260 = 22,709 straight cases, 17,969+1,877 = 19,846
>gay cases, and 577 people who caught it from dirty toilet seats.
OK; so it's roughly 20,000 each -- but, as I said before, there are
more straights than gays, so per capita, it's still more common
among gays, in the country we live in. USA! USA!
>It also assumes everyone who gets AIDS
>(other than those 577 confused people) has a sexual orientation one way
>or the other, but for legal purposes you kind of have to declare one so
>that you'll know which TV shows you can watch.
You have to? Tell that to all the bi-curious college girls on
Livejournal. Or the women who consider themselves "queer" even
though they only date men, but have lots of gay male friends, and
also have a folder full of Lord of the Rings slash fiction, and
are very active in gay activism, especially advocating the right
of mostly-straight women to read way way way too much into the
friendship between Sam and Frodo.
It's kind of weird that I can think of so many women with such
obfuscated sexual identities, but practically no bisexual men.
There's one guy who I heard had a girlfriend, and a year later I
saw him giving a backrub to a gay guy, but that's inconclusive.
Everyone else pretty much picked a side and stuck to it. Maybe
Phoenix is just too UPTIGHT.
>There are also millions of people in Africa who got Straight AIDS because
>they'd rather have AIDS than wear condoms, but they don't count,
>because non-Americans aren't white enough.
Actually, isn't homosexuality still a capital crime in many of those
countries? So if AIDS showed up, it would have to show up in
straight people. Condom use is widely discouraged by many of the
religious power structures in the region. In parts of Somalia,
condom use and trafficking is a flogging offense. So UNICEF is
trying to tell everyone that AIDS hurts more than flogging, while
the Catholics are arguing that eternal damnation hurts more than
AIDS. Etc.
>So, Nick, if you want to play the odds, to reduce your risk of getting
>the AIDS cooties, better turn gay fast, and stay the hell away from those
>577 people who don't even know how they got it. Oh, and don't write
>any more sequels to "Foundation".
Well, staying out of Africa would work too. Not that I have a choice;
I'd probably burst into flames upon stepping off the plane. And also
staying off heroin would be useful. Using condoms is useful not just
to keep AIDS out, but to keep my precious genetic material in.
> Have scientists yet tested
> whether giving me all the candy
> in the world will cure other
> people of AIDS? Hey, they can't
> prove it won't work if they
> haven't tried it!
They should try it, because if it works they can win James Randi's
million dollar prize!
Nick Bensema
>
>"James "Kibo" Parry" <ki...@world.std.com> wrote in message
>news:kibo-15020...@10.0.1.2...
>> who read Usenet from within the bowels of the Earth's subway system
>> can't go over to the BBC's Web site to learn that AIDS cures cancer
>> but not vice versa!
>
>It just depends on which disease kills you first.
George Carlin thought of this first, with two different cancers
fighting it out.
Glitter Ninja
>It's kind of weird that I can think of so many women with such
>obfuscated sexual identities, but practically no bisexual men. [ ... ]
>Everyone else pretty much picked a side and stuck to it.
Bisexuals aren't indecisive. It's very clear, we are attracted to both
men and women. What's so hard to understand about that? Where is it
written that people have to "pick a side" or else they're wrong? I guess
it's too difficult for some people's widdle brains to comprehend.
Of course, the media likes to play up the sensational side of
everything. Just like all gays have 4 hairdryers and hissy fits on a
regular basis, all bisexuals are women who have a harem of boyfriends and
girlfriends and who couldn't stay monogamous if their lives depended on
it. They dump their lesbians lovers for men and leave angry exes in their
wake, because they are so irresponsible. It's no wonder most people think
bisexuals are just like they're shown in the documentary "Basic Instinct".
Stacia
James Kibo Parry
>
> Nick Bensema (ni...@eris.io.com) wrote:
> >
> > It's kind of weird that I can think of so many women with such
> > obfuscated sexual identities, but practically no bisexual men. [ ... ]
> > Everyone else pretty much picked a side and stuck to it.
>
> Bisexuals aren't indecisive. It's very clear, we are attracted to both
> men and women. What's so hard to understand about that?
It's hard to understand because it's icky! There's nothing wrong with
loving a man, or loving a woman, or loving several women at the same
time on a trampoline, but being able to switch gears? That's just
as weird as if you liked peanut butter some days and jelly other days!
Nobody can like more than one thing!
Also, Stacia, straights hate that they can't use that "Oh, she must be
a lesbian" rationalization when you won't date them.
> Where is it written that people have to "pick a side" or else they're
> wrong?
Because the stripes on the pride flag have sharp edges and not fuzzy
areas. WHICH COLOR STRIPE ARE YOU? PICK ONE OR YOU'RE NOT SUPPORTING
THE PRIDE FLAG!
After all, there are straight bars and gay bars but not bi bars.
What are you supposed to do, send half your body to the straight
bar and half to the gay bar? And which bar gets the half that eats?
> I guess it's too difficult for some people's widdle brains to comprehend.
> Of course, the media likes to play up the sensational side of
> everything. Just like all gays have 4 hairdryers and hissy fits on a
> regular basis, all bisexuals are women who have a harem of boyfriends and
> girlfriends and who couldn't stay monogamous if their lives depended on it.
Oh, so _that's_ what you have to do to get a harem.
> They dump their lesbians lovers for men and leave angry exes in their
> wake, because they are so irresponsible. It's no wonder most people think
> bisexuals are just like they're shown in the documentary "Basic Instinct".
I think bisexuals are really just into this whole business of having
two harems so that they can steal _two_ sets of clothes from their
boyfriends and girlfriends. Extra hairdryers, too. 'Cause bisexual
women have to have long girl hair on one side and a lesbian crew-cut
on the other. Look it up, it's in the handbook right next to the
diagram of which earring goes in the gay ear and which goes in the
straight ear.
-- K.
And then there are those
perverted asexuals.
Glitter Ninja
>Glitter Ninja (sta...@xmission.com) wrote:
>>
>> Bisexuals aren't indecisive. It's very clear, we are attracted to both
>> men and women. What's so hard to understand about that?
>It's hard to understand because it's icky! There's nothing wrong with
>loving a man, or loving a woman, or loving several women at the same
>time on a trampoline, but being able to switch gears?
Just to be serious because I'm tired and cranky, it's not like switching
gears. There's no discernible change from one minute to the next.
Instead of looking at men and going "hubba hubba, woof woof, arooooo!",
you look at *people* and say "hubba hubba, woof woof, arooooo!" If
they're hot.
>Also, Stacia, straights hate that they can't use that "Oh, she must be
>a lesbian" rationalization when you won't date them.
Yeah, that happens a lot. Snerk.
>After all, there are straight bars and gay bars but not bi bars.
>What are you supposed to do, send half your body to the straight
>bar and half to the gay bar? And which bar gets the half that eats?
There's no bi *anything*! It makes sexually aloof Spot cry!
>I think bisexuals are really just into this whole business of having
>two harems so that they can steal _two_ sets of clothes from their
>boyfriends and girlfriends.
This is why I'm such a catch, boys and girls. I would never steal your
clothes! Because the chances I would fit into them are very, very small.
No pun intended. Er, no reverse pun intended.
>diagram of which earring goes in the gay ear and which goes in the
>straight ear.
I have 7 earlobe piercings now. Does that make me good or awesome?
Stacia
Kevin S. Wilson
<dankr...@xxxmindspring.com> wrote:
>Lemming...
>
Oh, look! It's one-trick pony Dank Rueger, who lurks here only to pop
up from time to time to hump my leg, lacking as he is in anything
resembling wit.
What else you got, Dank? Or did you shoot your wad?
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>It's kind of weird that I can think of so many women with such
>obfuscated sexual identities, but practically no bisexual men.
My guess is that you do know some, but you don't know it.
James Kibo Parry
> > >
> > > Bisexuals aren't indecisive. It's very clear, we are attracted
> > > to both men and women. What's so hard to understand about that?
> >
> > It's hard to understand because it's icky! There's nothing wrong with
> > loving a man, or loving a woman, or loving several women at the same
> > time on a trampoline, but being able to switch gears?
>
> Just to be serious because I'm tired and cranky, it's not like switching
> gears. There's no discernible change from one minute to the next.
> Instead of looking at men and going "hubba hubba, woof woof, arooooo!",
> you look at *people* and say "hubba hubba, woof woof, arooooo!" If
> they're hot.
In my experience, women don't like it if you yell "WOOF!" at them.
Are you sure you're not confusing women with bears?
> > After all, there are straight bars and gay bars but not bi bars.
> > What are you supposed to do, send half your body to the straight
> > bar and half to the gay bar? And which bar gets the half that eats?
>
> There's no bi *anything*! It makes sexually aloof Spot cry!
I don't think Spot could handle the bar scene. Bars are too loud, and
because Spot acts like a four-year-old because he's just a puppy, he'd
spend the whole night with his hands over his ears the way children
do when they're around anything loud that's not interesting. Also he
might be yelling "LALALALALALALALA I AM NOT LISTENING TO THE BAD MUSIC
LALALALALALALALA". And he wouldn't get in because he's underage.
He'd just try to pick up dates by putting his arm around people at
the movie theater, but usually that would merely cause him to interrupt
a showing of "Saw" for just enough time to get punched by the other
person, the usher, or the director of the film.
> > [...]
> > diagram of which earring goes in the gay ear and which goes in the
> > straight ear.
>
> I have 7 earlobe piercings now. Does that make me good or awesome?
Depends. How many are in the gay ear and how many in the straight ear?
It better be 3.5 in each otherwise you're not a _real_ bisexual.
If you're 90/10 then you're just a normal schmo!
All "normal" people are 10% bisexual. I know because the guy who
made up the Kinsey report said so. I learned that from a blog
about the TV Guide listing for the PBS show that was ripping off
that movie starring Darkman.
-- K.
Do movie theaters
still have ushers,
and if so, are they
the people for whom
they invented those
flashlights with
stun guns in the end?
David DeLaney
>ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
>>It's kind of weird that I can think of so many women with such
>>obfuscated sexual identities, but practically no bisexual men.
>
>My guess is that you do know some, but you don't know it.
Or ... DOES he?
No, wait, that's not right.
Or ... he doesn't WANT to know it!
Dave "and in America there is absolutely no polite way to find out, it's like
one of the amendments to the Declaration of Independence or something" DeLaney
Nicko
"Nick Bensema" <ni...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:WvmdnR92IYm...@io.com...
> In article <37fipnF...@individual.net>, Nicko <duh....@kriho.com>
wrote:
> >
> >"James "Kibo" Parry" <ki...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> >news:kibo-15020...@10.0.1.2...
> >> Hey! Don't link, quote, you weenie who doesn't care if those of us
> >> who read Usenet from within the bowels of the Earth's subway system
> >> can't go over to the BBC's Web site to learn that AIDS cures cancer
> >> but not vice versa!
> >
> >It just depends on which disease kills you first.
>
> George Carlin thought of this first, with two different cancers
> fighting it out.
Thanks for the heads up on that one, Pent. I'll make sure I never think of
it again.
Dan Krueger
Like that, pro?
Nick Bensema
Glitter Ninja <sta...@xmission.com> wrote:
>ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema) writes:
>
>>It's kind of weird that I can think of so many women with such
>>obfuscated sexual identities, but practically no bisexual men. [ ... ]
>>Everyone else pretty much picked a side and stuck to it.
>
> Bisexuals aren't indecisive. It's very clear, we are attracted to both
>men and women. What's so hard to understand about that? Where is it
>written that people have to "pick a side" or else they're wrong? I guess
>it's too difficult for some people's widdle brains to comprehend.
Actually, any sexuality other than my own is difficult for my widdle
brain to comprehend. But bisexuality in women has the following memes
for me.
1. Four out of the five scariest women in my life have been bisexual,
not to mention a decent sprinkling of the generally unstable-seeming
ones.
2. Bisexual women appear to be more common than gay men AND lesbians,
combined. My gut tells me that this isn't mathematically possible
to occur in nature.
3. I really didn't start hearing about or meeting bisexuals in real
life until the 90's were over and this creepy "stripper culture"
started to take root in America.
4. The mantra of the religious homophobes is that homosexuality is
a "choice", and that rather than being born into it, one grows into
it if influenced a certain way, and that's why all gays spend two
years of their adulthood going door-to-door and recruiting.
5. The usual response to (4) is that one actually is born into it.
And every so often, I read about a little bit of supporting science --
the development of the hypothalamus as an indicator of homosexuality
in men, a gene that causes people to be attracted to men, and thus
propogates because women have that gene...
6. The typical pattern I've seen in the gay men I know is: they date
a few women while in the closet, then they come out, and don't look
back. The typical pattern I've seen in the bisexual women I know is:
they date lots and lots of men, then they SWEAR OFF MEN and get into
a lesbian relationship, and then sometime later they forget about
women and start dating men again, though perhaps not as many.
7. As a straight man who hasn't had much luck with the ladies, it's
a frustrating prospect that women all across the country are
unnecessarily doubling my competition.
8. "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote", so all this may be full
of shit, and I may be even further from a Unified Gay Theory than
I think I am.
Nick Bensema
Glitter Ninja <sta...@xmission.com> wrote:
> There's no bi *anything*! It makes sexually aloof Spot cry!
Henry Rollins once spoke of a magazine for bi's, titled "Anything That Moves".
Nick Bensema
>
>"Nick Bensema" <ni...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
>news:WvmdnR92IYm...@io.com...
>>
>> George Carlin thought of this first, with two different cancers
>> fighting it out.
>
>Thanks for the heads up on that one, Pent. I'll make sure I never think of
>it again.
Dom Irerra came up with that comeback first, too. Right before he had me
thrown out of the show.
Jeremy D. Impson
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:15:04 -0600, ni...@eris.io.com (Nick Bensema)
> wrote:
>
>> It's kind of weird that I can think of so many women with such
>> obfuscated sexual identities, but practically no bisexual men.
>
> My guess is that you do know some, but you don't know it.
DUHN DUHN DUUUUUHHNNNNNNN.
--Jeremy
--
Jeremy Impson
jdimpson can be contacted at acm dot org
http://impson.tzo.com/~jdimpson
Nicko
"Nick Bensema" <ni...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:D_WdnZPX9Lv...@io.com...
> In article <37i33rF...@individual.net>, Nicko <duh....@kriho.com>
wrote:
> >
> >"Nick Bensema" <ni...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
> >news:WvmdnR92IYm...@io.com...
> >> >It just depends on which disease kills you first.
> >>
> >> George Carlin thought of this first, with two different cancers
> >> fighting it out.
> >
> >Thanks for the heads up on that one, Pent. I'll make sure I never think
of
> >it again.
>
> Dom Irerra came up with that comeback first, too. Right before he had me
> thrown out of the show.
Touche!
a-and FUCK YOU!
Heh.
--
YOP...
TeaLady (Mari C.)
news:kibo-16020...@10.0.1.2:
> It's hard to understand because it's icky! There's nothing
> wrong with loving a man, or loving a woman, or loving
> several women at the same time on a trampoline, but being
> able to switch gears? That's just as weird as if you liked
> peanut butter some days and jelly other days! Nobody can
> like more than one thing!
>
Men on the "low-down". Claim to be straight, but have sex with
other men. "It's just sex, we aren't gay or anything"
--
TeaLady (mari)
James Kibo Parry
> > men and women. What's so hard to understand about that? Where is it
> > written that people have to "pick a side" or else they're wrong? I guess
> > it's too difficult for some people's widdle brains to comprehend.
>
> Actually, any sexuality other than my own is difficult for my widdle
> brain to comprehend. But bisexuality in women has the following memes
> for me.
>
> 1. Four out of the five scariest women in my life have been bisexual,
> not to mention a decent sprinkling of the generally unstable-seeming
> ones.
Yeah, but it's all your fault. You made them unstable by refusing to become
bisexual enough to satisfy these women in _both_ the ways they enjoyed.
> 2. Bisexual women appear to be more common than gay men AND lesbians,
> combined. My gut tells me that this isn't mathematically possible
> to occur in nature.
Nature is never mathematically possible. For instance, scientists
tell us that bacteria outnumber people. But if that's true, how
come nobody cares that bacteria can't vote? It's because numbers are
always meaningless, all the time, when anyone other than me uses them.
> 3. I really didn't start hearing about or meeting bisexuals in real
> life until the 90's were over and this creepy "stripper culture"
> started to take root in America.
Please tell me more about this "stripper culture".
> 4. The mantra of the religious homophobes is that homosexuality is
> a "choice", and that rather than being born into it, one grows into
> it if influenced a certain way, and that's why all gays spend two
> years of their adulthood going door-to-door and recruiting.
> 5. The usual response to (4) is that one actually is born into it.
> And every so often, I read about a little bit of supporting science --
> the development of the hypothalamus as an indicator of homosexuality
> in men, a gene that causes people to be attracted to men, and thus
> propogates because women have that gene...
No, the usual response to (4) and (5) is that "People whose explanations
of how sexuality works consist of two-word sentences such as 'It's choice!'
or 'It's genetic!' or 'It's parents!' know nothing about sex."
Don't make me repost the analogy about whether you like red or blue.
Because I hate reasoning by analogy, even if it has pretty colors.
Okay, I'll paste in the paragraph from an article I wrote last year:
Whenever the debate of "Are gay people that way because they chose to be,
or because their genetics made them that way, or because their parents
got something wrong?" comes up, I always ask, "Which do you like better,
red or blue? Beef or chicken? Comedies or dramas? Did you choose to
like blue better than red? Or do you have a gene for liking blue?
Or did your parents manipulate you into liking blue? Those are just
preferences, and they just sort of go in random directions for no
reason, and sometimes over the years they gradually change because
you realize you like red more than you used to." These are just things
that happen. Nobody knows why. If all the scientists of the world --
even the really gay ones -- can't explain why you settled on liking
blue best, of course they can't explain something even harder to
understand such as your orientation. Heck, probably most of them
can't even understand their own orientations, let alone yours. Also,
I like black. And White Castles. And 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'."
These things aren't deliberate choices -- you don't sit down with
a pencil and paper and work out the relative merits of red vs. blue
once a year to figure out what your favorite color will be until
the next recomputation -- and these can't be wholly genetic or
caused by childhood experiences, because then you'd be stuck with
the same preferences your entire adult life and would buy the same
can of SpaghettiOs every day. Some people do feel they knew what
their orientation was from birth (I find it hard to believe they
can come to that determination before they reach puberty) and for
others these preferences just sort of creep up and then we realize
we're not who we thought we were ten years ago. Your food preferences
and color preferences shift over time because you never stop growing
and changing, and your sexual identity can be the same way.
I used to be straight. Now I'm gay. And while I can pinpoint the
date where I figured out I wasn't who I used to be, there's no way
in hell I or anyone else can figure out a _reason_ why I have the
preferences I do (or did), any more than you can figure out why
you used to like SpaghettiOs back when you had that mullet.
> 6. The typical pattern I've seen in the gay men I know is: they date
> a few women while in the closet, then they come out, and don't look
> back. The typical pattern I've seen in the bisexual women I know is:
> they date lots and lots of men, then they SWEAR OFF MEN and get into
> a lesbian relationship, and then sometime later they forget about
> women and start dating men again, though perhaps not as many.
I note that people of both genders and both orientations feel comfortable
telling you all about their dating habits. You've stumbled into a sexual
loophole: By being asexual, everyone gives you the play-by-play of every
date they go on! It's like you're a black hole that sexual gossip is
drawn into, never to come out, except on the Internet!
> 7. As a straight man who hasn't had much luck with the ladies, it's
> a frustrating prospect that women all across the country are
> unnecessarily doubling my competition.
Has any straight guy _ever_ had "much luck" with the ladies? The only
people I've ever encountered who take great pains to have a different
"conquest" every week (or every night) always seem to be growing more
and more desperate that the casual sex isn't making them happy when they
try the same thing over and over. The goal of dating is not to have
"much" luck with the ladies, it's to have a good time when you _do_ get
together with someone.
I'm happy to make a friend once in a while. It's not a game, there's
no goal or quota, there's no such thing as good luck or bad luck
when it comes to whether you satisfy your needs when it comes to
relationships -- when people aren't happy with their "luck" with
the appropriate sex, often they may just not understand what they
really want to get.
> 8. "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote", so all this may be full
> of shit, and I may be even further from a Unified Gay Theory than
> I think I am.
Gay and lesbian people can't even agree on what their pride symbol should be
(Rainbow flag? Pink (or purple or black) triangle? Two linked "male"
or "female" signs? Equal sign in a blue box? A lambda? Red ribbon? Labrys?)
I mean, there are three different "bear pride" flags. So I doubt you'll
be able to explain all gay/les/bi/trans folks in just one crackpot theory,
even if you leave out all the different types of bears.
I like to think of it this way:
"Gay" by itself doesn't imply that much about a person. It means they
can feel love for people of the same gender, but implies nothing about
what sort of sex they like, whether they're macho or sissy, how they
dress, etc. There are at least three independent axes one can position
oneself anywhere along:
A.) Sexual preference axis: Do you love people of the opposite gender,
both genders, or the same gender?
B.) Gender identity axis: Do you present yourself as a man or a woman?
C.) Attitude axis: Do you act "masculine" (macho/dyke) or "feminine"
(swishy/girly)?
There are people everywhere within that three-axis cube. A whole lot of
men are near the "I'm a man who acts masculine and loves women" corner,
and the classic gay stereotype is in the "I'm a man who acts girly
and loves men" corner. But there are also people in between, and
people in each of the other corners (butch gay guys and lipstick lesbians
and swishy straight guys and transgendered men who identify as women
and love women -- i.e. lesbians born with penises -- and every
other combination you can imagine.) My "cube" crackpot theory has eight
different extrema for men and eight for women, and while all those corners
seem to be populated (some of them sparsely), not all those stereotypes
have handy names, nor have most people considered whether "gay"
might mean one corner of the cube, or half the cube, or all of the
cube except their own corner... And all the corners are equally
distant from each other. A lot of people don't get that the "sissy
gay guy" stereotype corner is just as far from the "butch gay guy"
stereotype corner as the "straight guy" stereotype corner is from either.
My Cube O' Sex theory still doesn't take into account people who aren't
interested in dating people of _either_ gender. Asexuals can have their
own little cube off to the side or something. Nor does it do anything
about all the different specialized subtypes within "gay" and "straight"
such as fetishists (chubby chasers, shavers, rubberists, foot-lickers,
cake-farters, etc.) and sexual role-players (dominants, submissives,
slaves, cops, French maids, furries, etc.) And what about masturbation?
THERE SHOULD BE ROOM FOR MASTURBATION IN ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.
There, I just wrote you a new bumper sticker. My crackpot theory
of The Whirling Sex Cube Plus Some Place Where You Can Masturbate
must be good because they put stuff Einstein said on bumper stickers
so I must be just as smart as him, or at least as sexy as him.
-- K.
I need a haircut.
Theresa Willis
Parry) wrote:
>Okay, I'll paste in the paragraph from an article I wrote last year:
>
> Whenever the debate of "Are gay people that way because they chose to be,
> or because their genetics made them that way, or because their parents
> got something wrong?" comes up, I always ask, "Which do you like better,
> red or blue? Beef or chicken? Comedies or dramas? Did you choose to
> like blue better than red? Or do you have a gene for liking blue?
> Or did your parents manipulate you into liking blue? Those are just
> preferences, and they just sort of go in random directions for no
> reason, and sometimes over the years they gradually change because
> you realize you like red more than you used to."
I sort of tried to make this point at work once. There's this guy who
likes to complain about how our companies health care now covers gay
couples who live together because "he shouldn't have to subsidize that
lifestyle". I figure, hey, they're subsidizing health care for bigots,
so it evens out, right.
ANYWAY, one time he was warming up for another rant on the subject, so
I did a pre-emptive rant about how I didn't feel like I should have to
subsidize health care for people who put MAYONAISE on their FRENCH
FRIES because this is an ABOMINATION and a CRIME against NATURE yadda
yadda yadda.
Did he get the point? Doubtful, but at least he doesn't come yapping
at my desk with this stupid crap anymore.
Glitter Ninja
>Glitter Ninja <sta...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>it's too difficult for some people's widdle brains to comprehend.
>Actually, any sexuality other than my own is difficult for my widdle
>brain to comprehend.
I was just angry in general. Not at you. You know I wuv you in all
caps with some kinky punctuation thrown in.
>1. Four out of the five scariest women in my life have been bisexual,
Bisexuality is the sexuality of choice for crazies, kooks, and nutters.
NOT THAT I WOULD KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
>2. Bisexual women appear to be more common than gay men AND lesbians,
>combined. My gut tells me that this isn't mathematically possible
>to occur in nature.
I think being bi can be more of a "choice" than being gay or straight.
Not much choice with me, really, although I wish it was. Because it's
tough being a xenophobe and a bisexual. How does that happen?
>back. The typical pattern I've seen in the bisexual women I know is:
>they date lots and lots of men, then they SWEAR OFF MEN and get into
>a lesbian relationship, and then sometime later they forget about
>women and start dating men again, though perhaps not as many.
Well if it makes you feel better, that's not even close the pattern (if
you can call it that) that I experienced. When I was pretty young, about
7 or so, I already knew I was attracted to pretty ladies. But all in all
I haven't had a whole lot of romantic experiences either way. It was
never a rebellion against men. Men are fine. Men are just dandy. Women
are, too, but I have a problem with women not shutting the fuck up enough.
It's completely sexist to say that, but goddammit, how many times have
you heard some lady yammer on and on and on about pantihose or her best
girlfriend or the brand of oven cleaner she uses... shut the fuck up! We
don't care!
Like today. New co-worker, 19 year old male, makes a sexist comment
about all women craving chocolate because women are PMSing all the time.
My reaction? FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING PIMPLY FACED TEENAGER FUCK PUSBUCKET
ASSFUCK TARDNOSE BEANTWAT HEADPOOP CRACKFUCK. The southern female
co-worker (who is ironically named "Brenda", for those of you keeping
score at home) also reacts. She says, "Yeah, we women have all these
cravings for chocolate because we PMS all the time! Hee hee hee."
My reaction? I shot her in the head with my crossbow. Teh enb.
Stacia
Glitter Ninja
> Whenever the debate of "Are gay people that way because they chose to be,
> or because their genetics made them that way, or because their parents
> got something wrong?" comes up, I always ask, "Which do you like better,
> red or blue?
Blue!
> like blue better than red? Or do you have a gene for liking blue?
I don't know.
> Or did your parents manipulate you into liking blue?
No. They both told me green was their favorite color. Also, dad was
colorblind. Just colorblind enough to think everything was plaid.
> I like black. And White Castles. And 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'."
This is why you should clone yourself and have one of the clones date
me, dammit.
>can of SpaghettiOs every day. Some people do feel they knew what
>their orientation was from birth (I find it hard to believe they
>can come to that determination before they reach puberty)
Thank you. I don't think anyone under the age of approximately 13 knows
what their final sexuality, religion, or anything else important is. NO
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BUT I'M DRUNK SO CUT ME SOME FUCKING SLACK OK?
Besides, everything in life is fluid. You could start out straight, go
gay, wind up bi, then maybe asexual for a while, then end up into hawt
horsie sex.
>we're not who we thought we were ten years ago. Your food preferences
>and color preferences shift over time because you never stop growing
>and changing, and your sexual identity can be the same way.
Oh crap. I just said what Kibo was going to say in the future. Sorry.
>or "female" signs? Equal sign in a blue box? A lambda? Red ribbon? Labrys?)
The labrys is my favorite weapon on my MUD.
>and loves men" corner. But there are also people in between, and
>people in each of the other corners (butch gay guys and lipstick lesbians
>and swishy straight guys and transgendered men who identify as women
>and love women -- i.e. lesbians born with penises -- and every
>other combination you can imagine.)
I know a lady on the MUD who was born a man who loved women, but had a
sex change operation and is now an asexual woman. Very happily, I might
add.
>such as fetishists (chubby chasers, shavers,
But does someone who likes me necessarily fall into the fetish category,
just because I'm a fatbutt? I've seen some fatbutt porn and it's not my
thing. Large women being rubbed with pastry dough and banged by tiny
little men doesn't do it for me. I figure the feeders or fatists are
fetishists, and those who just happen to love a fat person aren't
necessarily fetishists.
Also, just because I shave... nevermind.
Stacia
I said nevermind
Glitter Ninja
>I sort of tried to make this point at work once. There's this guy who
>likes to complain about how our companies health care now covers gay
>couples who live together because "he shouldn't have to subsidize that
>lifestyle". I figure, hey, they're subsidizing health care for bigots,
>so it evens out, right.
Oh do I get this all the time. Complaints that people shouldn't have to
pay for insurance that covers fatbutts *for any reason* because we
fatbutts are running up the cost of healthcare, US News said so in a
pretty color article!
So can I get healthcare that doesn't cover bigots who perpetuate harmful
stereotypes? Can my healthcare exclude people who do naughty things like
drive over the speed limit, drink too much Budwiser on the weekends, and
eat McDonald's every day because they're too lazy to make a pot of ramen?
I want healthcare that refuses benefits to old people because they're sick
all the time, and to black people because genetically they are predisposed
to a lot of nasty diseases, and to women because they are predisposed to
have all these "pregnancy" costs which quite frankly is unfair. *I*
haven't had a kid! Why should I pay because YOU have a uterus and used
it?
>Did he get the point? Doubtful, but at least he doesn't come yapping
>at my desk with this stupid crap anymore.
I need you at my work so bad.
Stacia
James Kibo Parry
| | |
| | > it's too difficult for some people's widdle brains to comprehend.
| |
| > Actually, any sexuality other than my own is difficult for my widdle
| > brain to comprehend.
|
> I was just angry in general. Not at you. You know I wuv you in all
> caps with some kinky punctuation thrown in.
Oh yes, yes, kinky punctuation! Dot dot dot and the world's curliest
straight quotes! Jam that hyphen past that colon!
I hope you're enjoying that I've decided to resurrect the fancified
Usenet nested quotation style I used to do before I somehow forgot
all about it. I don't think it ever caught on among the general
public, either, unlike my use of "->" instead of ">" to indicate
when I'm quoting material from outside Usenet. But I may keep trying
this style even though it requires manually inserting all those
hard-to-type "|"s.
> > 1. Four out of the five scariest women in my life have been bisexual,
>
> Bisexuality is the sexuality of choice for crazies, kooks, and nutters.
> NOT THAT I WOULD KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
Four out of five scary female dentists recommend bisexual gum for
their patients who enjoy screwing gum.
So, are you very Wrigley?
> > 2. Bisexual women appear to be more common than gay men AND lesbians,
> > combined. My gut tells me that this isn't mathematically possible
> > to occur in nature.
>
> I think being bi can be more of a "choice" than being gay or straight.
> Not much choice with me, really, although I wish it was. Because it's
> tough being a xenophobe and a bisexual. How does that happen?
Hey, it's possible to be a homophobe and a homo at the same time, too.
Different sub-groups within the community don't necessarily get along.
Yes, I know this means people are weird. But weird is normally good
so I'll excuse it in this case.
> > [...] The typical pattern I've seen in the bisexual women I know is:
> > they date lots and lots of men, then they SWEAR OFF MEN and get into
> > a lesbian relationship, and then sometime later they forget about
> > women and start dating men again, though perhaps not as many.
>
> Well if it makes you feel better, that's not even close the pattern (if
> you can call it that) that I experienced. When I was pretty young, about
> 7 or so, I already knew I was attracted to pretty ladies. But all in all
> I haven't had a whole lot of romantic experiences either way. It was
> never a rebellion against men. Men are fine. Men are just dandy. Women
> are, too, but I have a problem with women not shutting the fuck up enough.
Gee, I can think of many solutions to that problem. WINK!
> It's completely sexist to say that, but goddammit, how many times have
> you heard some lady yammer on and on and on about pantihose or her best
> girlfriend or the brand of oven cleaner she uses... shut the fuck up! We
> don't care!
Yeah, that stuff belongs on a.r.k, not in real life!
Here on a.r.k, we don't even know the meaning of "e/n"!
Today I decided to buy thick spaghetti instead of thin fettucini because
although they had the same cross-sectional area, the roundness was more
appealing because rotational symmetry tastes good. Also I bought a pint
of "natural" blackberry ice cream which is actually made from marionberries
with beet juice for color.
> Like today. New co-worker, 19 year old male, makes a sexist comment
> about all women craving chocolate because women are PMSing all the time.
> My reaction? FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING PIMPLY FACED TEENAGER FUCK PUSBUCKET
> ASSFUCK TARDNOSE BEANTWAT HEADPOOP CRACKFUCK. The southern female
> co-worker (who is ironically named "Brenda", for those of you keeping
> score at home) also reacts. She says, "Yeah, we women have all these
> cravings for chocolate because we PMS all the time! Hee hee hee."
> My reaction? I shot her in the head with my crossbow. Teh enb.
Can it be an arbalest?
It really floats my boat when someone cocks an arbalest.
And there's something about the feel of a really well-balanced mace in
your hand. You know Gary Larson's cartoon about the Viking with the
brand-new mace? That's one where the punchline's not spelled out but
everyone understands it anyway because we all share this urge to smash
gum bubbles with maces.
Why do you keep talking about gum?
-- K.
Double your pleasure,
double SMASHING IS FUN!
Jeremy D. Impson
> In article <cuvloj$6dn$1...@news.xmission.com>,
> Glitter Ninja <sta...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> There's no bi *anything*! It makes sexually aloof Spot cry!
>
> Henry Rollins once spoke of a magazine for bi's, titled "Anything That
> Moves".
http://impson.tzo.com/spoken/thinktank/disk1/07_the_gay_thing.mp3
Jeremy D. Impson
> ni...@fnord.io.com (Nick Bensema) writes:
>> 1. Four out of the five scariest women in my life have been bisexual,
>
> Bisexuality is the sexuality of choice for crazies, kooks, and nutters.
> NOT THAT I WOULD KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
Nor I. Well, I did know three or four girls in college (and soon after)
who claimed to be bisexual, but never actually consummated it. I don't
mean just by not having had sex with another girl, but never even dated or
flirted with another. My first thought was "Oh, she's `bi-curious', or
just a little unsure". Actually, my first thought was "YEAH, BABY! WOAH",
but that was my second thought. But after meeting a couple more girls in
the same situation, eventually I started wondering if they subconciously
thought it was "cool" to call themselves bisexuals. Maybe that was the
trendy thing to do in the late 90s/turn of the century.
Anyways, I don't really having a point. I just like talking about
bisexual wimmins.
--Jeremy
(Although I just realized that I don't meet that many interesting
"alternative" people anymore, ever since going to work for The Man.)
David DeLaney
> Thank you. I don't think anyone under the age of approximately 13 knows
>what their final sexuality, religion, or anything else important is.
For values of "approximately 13" that include 20 or so, I'll agree with you.
But I'm pretending to be WAY OLDER THAN YOU young lady, kids these days, don't
know what it's like to save a world that fears and reviles them, grumble
grumble HEY YOU KIDS STOP FOOLING WITH THAT THERE RAINBOW FLAG SIGNAL!
(At the same time, when/if I actually think about it, I'm happy that kids
these days DON'T have to put up with most of the _really_ repressed-because-
nobody-had-bothered-getting-The-Truth-Out-There crap kids in even the 60s or
70s had to put up with...)
>NO THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BUT I'M DRUNK SO CUT ME SOME FUCKING SLACK OK?
>Besides, everything in life is fluid. You could start out straight, go
>gay, wind up bi, then maybe asexual for a while, then end up into hawt
>horsie sex.
"After all," as moms everywhere say, "how can you KNOW you don't like it ...
if you've never TRIED it?" (<carlin>"It came to me ... in a DREAM!</carlin>)
>>we're not who we thought we were ten years ago. Your food preferences
>>and color preferences shift over time because you never stop growing
>>and changing, and your sexual identity can be the same way.
>
> Oh crap. I just said what Kibo was going to say in the future. Sorry.
Please to be using this power only for good and/or wacky, never for evil
and/or boring.
>>such as fetishists (chubby chasers, shavers,
>
> But does someone who likes me necessarily fall into the fetish category,
>just because I'm a fatbutt?
No no. But someone who _wouldn't_ like you any more if you slimmed down to
even semi-medium-fatbutt probably would fall into that corner of the Obvious
Bag.
>Stacia
>I said nevermind
Dave "no matter" DeLaney
James Kibo Parry
>
> [...] Well, I did know three or four girls in college (and soon after)
> mean just by not having had sex with another girl, but never even dated or
> flirted with another. My first thought was "Oh, she's `bi-curious', or
> just a little unsure". Actually, my first thought was "YEAH, BABY! WOAH",
> but that was my second thought. But after meeting a couple more girls in
> the same situation, eventually I started wondering if they subconciously
> thought it was "cool" to call themselves bisexuals. Maybe that was the
> trendy thing to do in the late 90s/turn of the century.
Actually, recently, in some places it is ' 'cool' ' for teenage girls
to claim to be bi. This is really how coolness begins -- kids start
doing something that would normally mark them as deviates / outsiders /
a minority, just for shock value, and then that becomes the new norm
within their clique. In other words, "bi" is the new "goth".
Actually, I guess "bi" is the old "goth" too.
I am so glad I'm not bi and/or goth. I chose a style that hasn't changed
since Marlon Brando invented it in 1953, dagnabbit, so if this look
wasn't out of style by 1978, it never will be!
Just think, in 2045 you might be seeing elderly goth chicks if the
bisexual female community freezes that style the way the sado-butch
gay community did when they stole the early-'50s biker style.
After all, you still see a hippie stereotype (either elderly or
young) or even an '80s-style punk rocker once in a while, so maybe
if the "Goth" look has fused with the "bi girl" look that'll preserve it.
Quick, we need to get some other alternative lifestyle groups to
claim the hippie and punk looks before they go extinct.
-- K.
Hmm, if Tom of Finland were
still alive, would he have
finished up his punk rock
period and transitioned to
a Goth guy period by now?
James Kibo Parry
>
> Glitter Ninja (sta...@xmission.com) wrote:
> >
> > Thank you. I don't think anyone under the age of approximately 13 knows
> > what their final sexuality, religion, or anything else important is.
>
> For values of "approximately 13" that include 20 or so, I'll agree with you.
20? That young? I know a lot of people whose orientation changed
in their 30s or 40s or 50s. (A lot of middle-aged gay guys used
to be married.)
The more "specialized" kinks -- such as leather -- tend to take
the longest to bloom, which is why if you look around a leather bar
or a leather club meeting or whatever the median age of the leathermen
will be 35-40 -- there will be some people in their 20s, and some in
their 70s. Some of the older folks are people who were straight long
enough to get married and explore the possibilities of being straight
and discover their dissatisfaction, then they got into the vanilla
gay scene for a while and explored it, and finally joined the leather
community. (And yes, people do occasionally leave that community.)
Because people don't tend to get into that stuff until well past
puberty, and usually stay with that crowd permanently, that's why
leather bars tend to have a lot of older people. (I have now explained
the Secret Gay Subtext of Scott Thompson's "Kids In The Hall" sketch
where he says "all the dinosaurs are into leather" when a T-Rex in
a harness visits the bar.)
For some reason, the idea that seventy-year-old gay guys and
seventy-year-old lesbians grosses some homophobes out a little
extra bit, as if people aren't allowed to do whatever the hell
they want once they retire.
> But I'm pretending to be WAY OLDER THAN YOU young lady,
Yeah, well, I win because I'm pretending to be WAY SMARTER THAN YOU!
> kids these days, don't know what it's like to save a world that
> fears and reviles them, grumble grumble HEY YOU KIDS STOP FOOLING
> WITH THAT THERE RAINBOW FLAG SIGNAL!
It's not a signal, it's a dance prop, at least according to the Web
sites I've read about "flagging", which seems to be some sort of gay
dance thing where you grab one end of a flag and twirl it around your
head to some sort of music. Apparently you have to be gay to do that
because, lets face it, it's like figure skating without the figure
skating part. Thankfully, I have not yet encountered this alleged
craze in person.
Someone should invent a "straight pride" flag and go flagging with it
just to send the world's most mixed message. "Wait, that guy _can't_
be straight! He's twirling!"
-- K.
Also, why is it okay for the
chubby chasers to seek out
fat women but it's not okay
to wear a "NO FAT CHICKS" hat?
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney (d...@gatekeeper.vic.com) wrote:
>>
>> Glitter Ninja (sta...@xmission.com) wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you. I don't think anyone under the age of approximately 13 knows
>> > what their final sexuality, religion, or anything else important is.
>>
>> For values of "approximately 13" that include 20 or so, I'll agree with you.
>
>20? That young? I know a lot of people whose orientation changed
>in their 30s or 40s or 50s. (A lot of middle-aged gay guys used
>to be married.)
Oh, sure, but Stacia's saying ain't NOBODY under <age> that knows anything at
all. (And there's always exceptions of course, but I'm raising the bar based
on being Old and Cranky here.)
>> But I'm pretending to be WAY OLDER THAN YOU young lady,
>
>Yeah, well, I win because I'm pretending to be WAY SMARTER THAN YOU!
You win. Mental Fatality.
> Also, why is it okay for the
> chubby chasers to seek out
> fat women but it's not okay
> to wear a "NO FAT CHICKS" hat?
'Cuz fetishes can only harm the fetishizer, but an ANTIfetish can harm EVERYONE
ELSE! Even those who don't know the first thing about it! WON'T SOMEONE THINK
OF THE INNOCENT NONCHILDREN?
Dave "and then there are those who get positively BELLIGERENT about trying to
remain innocent - I mean, come on, GROW UP already!" DeLaney
Matthew L. Martin
>
> These things aren't deliberate choices -- you don't sit down with
> a pencil and paper and work out the relative merits of red vs. blue
> once a year to figure out what your favorite color will be until
> the next recomputation
What?!?! You don't?!?! That's on _my_ agenda for this weekend.
--
Matthew
I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
shelly
>(Which reminds me,I'm sick of U2 and REM now and am going to
>start wearing the headset made for shooting loud guns before
>I have to start learning sign language.)
now *that's* a fashion statement.
> I shot her in the head with my crossbow. Teh enb.
>
>Can I borrow that for awhile? I'll return it when there's
>SILENCE in the workplace!
i think you've been reading too many fairy tales. there is no
such thing as a silent workplace. waaah!
>Or at least some occasional muted yet intelligent
>conversation that doesn't involve clothes or makeup.
or personal family trauma or detailed descriptions of the
state of one's bowels. and, while we're at it, can someone
lob off the head of Dr. Dr. Dumbass, who picks at his
beard/mustache, sucks his teeth, and constantly clears his
throat? or, my all-time un-favorite, snorking wet gobs o'
snot instead of blowing his nose.
--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/ (updated dailyish, apparently)
madge
Kevin I take it that everyone knows that the initial S in your name
stands for SugarRay.
Kevin SugarRay Wilson. (Scares the bejeebus out of me)
--
"Never eat more than you can lift." Miss Piggy.
madge
>
> "James "Kibo" Parry" <ki...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:kibo-15020...@10.0.1.2...
> > Ben Allard (ben.a...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > HIV 'could destroy cancer cells':
> > >
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4257783.stm
> >
> > Hey! Don't link, quote, you weenie who doesn't care if those of us
> > who read Usenet from within the bowels of the Earth's subway system
> > can't go over to the BBC's Web site to learn that AIDS cures cancer
> > but not vice versa!
>
>
I'll choose Rampant Capitalism for 10 Bob.
Kevin S. Wilson
<dankr...@xxxmindspring.com> wrote:
>Fat-ass lemming...
>
>Like that, pro?
>
>Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:22:32 GMT, Dan Krueger
>> <dankr...@xxxmindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lemming...
>>>
>>
>> Oh, look! It's one-trick pony Dank Rueger, who lurks here only to pop
>> up from time to time to hump my leg, lacking as he is in anything
>> resembling wit.
>>
>> What else you got, Dank? Or did you shoot your wad?
>>
Man, that is just sad. Pathetic. Puppy-in-the-rain pathetic.
That really is all you got.
--
DISCLAIMER: if your name is Cal, this post is a deliberate joke, probably being
played on you personally, at this very moment, even though it might not seem like it.
Kevin S. Wilson
<jdim...@acm.spam.org> wrote:
>But after meeting a couple more girls in
>the same situation, eventually I started wondering if they subconciously
>thought it was "cool" to call themselves bisexuals.
You would be correct in making that assumption.
>Maybe that was the
>trendy thing to do in the late 90s/turn of the century.
You're off by a decade, if my experience in grad school in the late
80s is any indication.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> Just think, in 2045 you might be seeing elderly goth chicks
Uh, Metamorphosis Records in Dallas was already full of them in 1980.
Seriously. Who else do you think had watched "Dark Shadows" as adults?
By "full of," actually, I suppose I mean "run by, along with her husband,
one of." They were sort of goth doppelgangers of Timbuk3 and had a band
that I stupidly also never got out to see. At least I did manage to see
Really Red once before I left Houston and Ronnie had his heart attack.
ŹR
Wiblur the Once
@10.0.1.2:
> Quick, we need to get some other alternative lifestyle groups to
> claim the hippie and punk looks before they go extinct.
Hey now, for historical purposes, I hereby volunteer to be ARK's official
hippie.
There are still lots of us around, we just went (further) underground, only
to surface when the Dead are on tour, or when the Rainbow Family Gathering
comes around. It's more fun that way and getting beat-up for having long
hair is almost unheard of anymore.
--
"...The job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which
strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater
than the need for an answer." - Ken Kesey
http://www.aros.net/~jchapman - The Wiblovian Institute of Kibology
Otto Bahn
> > For values of "approximately 13" that include 20 or so, I'll agree with you.
>
> 20? That young? I know a lot of people whose orientation changed
> in their 30s or 40s or 50s. (A lot of middle-aged gay guys used
> to be married.)
Sometimes correlation really *is* causation.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
> Kevin I take it that everyone knows that the initial S in your name
> stands for SugarRay.
>
> Kevin SugarRay Wilson. (Scares the bejeebus out of me)
The hivemind is pretty frickin' eerie, but I wouldn't
eggzactly call it scary.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
> A.) Sexual preference axis: Do you love people of the opposite gender,
> both genders, or the same gender?
>
> B.) Gender identity axis: Do you present yourself as a man or a woman?
>
> C.) Attitude axis: Do you act "masculine" (macho/dyke) or "feminine"
> (swishy/girly)?
How does the popularity of PleaseBangMyWife.com fit into
this paradigm? (Actually, we'll get to this later.)
I was about to claim B & C are too related to be a separate
axis, but then I thought about Alan Alda types and it all made
sense.
> THERE SHOULD BE ROOM FOR MASTURBATION IN ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.
I agree you should have a room for it, but that's all I
need to know. One friend started telling me about the
porn another friend got "caught" with WRT a messy [sic!]
divorce, and I had to tell him to STOP RIGHT THERE! I
don't need to know right now. Do you like anal? Do you
like anal to mouth...?
I'm never looking at that dude the same way again.
For example, one could argue that there's a large disconnect
between one's sexual preferences with a partner and one's
fantasies when alone, but then one would have given me
waaaaay too much information already. [Cue the Randroids
and The Rape Scene]
I didn't need to know about his version of panty raids,
either.
I think this is why dating office furniture is a bad idea.
My cow orkers might as well be chairs and desks. I donut
need to know exactly how human they really are. Unfortunately
it never stopped me, either.
--oTTo--
Marc Goodman
> (C)
>
> m
> 3 | 2
> | * <- Boston
> |
> (A) o _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ s
> |
> |
> |
> | 1
> f
>
Otto Bahn
> > Quick, we need to get some other alternative lifestyle groups to
> > claim the hippie and punk looks before they go extinct.
>
> Hey now, for historical purposes, I hereby volunteer to be ARK's official
> hippie.
Prepare to get your ass kicked.
--oTTo--
Ark's Official Hippie since 2002
Nick Bensema
that's the whole basis of these religious groups that claim to be able
to cure homosexuality. I hate to see fundies being right.
That Sexuality Timecube is probably something they'll have to teach
in public schools before people can wrap their heads around it.
Then you have people like Eddie Izzard, who dress like women but
identify as men, and it becomes a hypercube.
So, for squares like me, many of these combinations are so hugely
rare that I can only name one celebrity.
There's someone on LJ who used to be a lesbian but is now an FTM
transsexual, which would have driven me bonkers if he hadn't broken
it down that, when all the math and hormones and creative reconstruction
is done, he'll be just another straight guy. That's simple enough
that even I can understand it.
There was someone else on LJ who's female, has a long-term boyfriend,
is heavy into m/m slash fiction, but got offended when she was
mistaken for "straight".
You see? You see? My stupid mind! Stupid! Stupid!
--
Nick Bensema <ni...@io.com> AIM: NBensema
==== ======= ============== http://www.io.com/~nickb/
Otto Bahn
> > (C)
> >
> > * <- Durham m
> > 3 | 2
> > | * <- Boston
> > |
> > (A) o _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ s
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | 1
> > f
Where is Perth?
--oTTo--
More gender maps, less battle plans
Nick Bensema
>
>>>it's too difficult for some people's widdle brains to comprehend.
>
>>Actually, any sexuality other than my own is difficult for my widdle
>>brain to comprehend.
>
> I was just angry in general. Not at you. You know I wuv you in all
>caps with some kinky punctuation thrown in.
Exercise 1: Use "interrobang" in a sentence, as a verb.
>>1. Four out of the five scariest women in my life have been bisexual,
>
> Bisexuality is the sexuality of choice for crazies, kooks, and nutters.
>NOT THAT I WOULD KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
I had a theory that attempted a unification with the "everyone's
10% bisexual" theory. My theory, which is mine, is this: Men's 10%
is most likely to come out in long prison sentences. Women's 10%
is most likely to come out when they're filled with seething rage.
The only reason I care at all about bisexuality, is that I wish to
avoid becoming heavily involved with women who may be harmful to
my health, psychological or otherwise. And while it's politically
incorrect for progressives to espouse sexual-orientation-based
prejudice, a guy in a NASCAR hat and a down vest appears on my
shoulder and tells me "watch your step! bi girls are danger! stay
out of arm's reach! if she asks you out, tell an adult immediately!"
and then a guy in a ponytail and hemp shorts appears on my right
shoulder and tells me "how evil of you to generalize! How evil
of you to exercise any standards in who you'll date. Better
ask her out anyway or she'll know you're EVIL." And the hemp
guy's been wrong just often enough.
Yelling at me will only reinforce that gut feeling. I'm afraid it
might not go away unless I find a better way to avoid crazy women.
John Schmidt
> The idea that people's sexuality changes over time, that worries me because
> that's the whole basis of these religious groups that claim to be able
> to cure homosexuality.
No, their claim that sexual orientation is a *choice* is the basis for
their ridiculous claims. Changing over time does not imply decision
making. Is it really surprising hateful whackjobs are unable to grasp
the (not at all subtle) distinction?
Also, "curing" homosexuality makes as much sense as "curing" right
handedness. A person *is* or *isn't* right handed - it's just that simple.
Those left handed bastards really piss me off, though.
> I hate to see fundies being right.
NGGGGGHHHHH!!! MUST... RESIST... GREEN... PARTY... REFERENCE...
JS
Marc Goodman
> No, their claim that sexual orientation is a *choice* is the basis for
> their ridiculous claims. Changing over time does not imply decision
> making. Is it really surprising hateful whackjobs are unable to grasp
> the (not at all subtle) distinction?
>
> Also, "curing" homosexuality makes as much sense as "curing" right
> handedness. A person *is* or *isn't* right handed - it's just that simple.
In my not-well-informed opinion, it's a lot like food preferences.
I've liked certain foods since before I can remember. Other foods,
I used to hate as a child but have developed a tolerance for over
time with exposure. Still other foods have always made me gag at
the very thought (pickled beets).
I believe the analogy is apt because food preferences are the
result of some combination of genetics and environment, and
are subject to a limited amount of change with exposure (just
like the dinosaurs in leather bars posting). But, at bed rock,
either you like certain foods or you don't, and no amount of
discussion about how you should like ginger snap cookies is
ever going to change your mind about whether you like ginger
snap cookies.
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>Exercise 1: Use "interrobang" in a sentence, as a verb.
I'd interrobang 'er.
Nick Bensema
James "Kibo" Parry <ki...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Actually, recently, in some places it is ' 'cool' ' for teenage girls
>to claim to be bi. This is really how coolness begins -- kids start
>doing something that would normally mark them as deviates / outsiders /
>a minority, just for shock value, and then that becomes the new norm
>within their clique. In other words, "bi" is the new "goth".
>
>Actually, I guess "bi" is the old "goth" too.
OK, remember the top 5 scary girls list?
One was a pagan. And poly. And left much chaos in her wake. She
ruled her two husbands with an iron fist and rampant mood swings,
until one day she suddenly left them to join a witches' coven in
Pennsylvania. Well, not so suddenly; the men thought she'd just
be bringing two women into the "family". She's #2.
The top one was really into body modification at one point, and had a
weird-color-lipstick phase, and lots of fetish phases. I don't know
if she was ever officially "goth" though.
Otto Bahn
> If that's Durham, then that would put (3) very near Apex, NC, and near my
> house (no, I won't post more exact directions). I, for one, agree with
> Mr. Bahn's findings.
Wow, now I can have an Arkple with more than just myFNARR!
--oTTo--
Even the meaning of FNARR! has changed
Nick Bensema
>
>"Nick Bensema" <ni...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
>news:D_WdnZPX9Lv...@io.com...
>> In article <37i33rF...@individual.net>, Nicko <duh....@kriho.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Nick Bensema" <ni...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
>> >news:WvmdnR92IYm...@io.com...
>> >> >It just depends on which disease kills you first.
>> >>
>> >> fighting it out.
>> >
>> >Thanks for the heads up on that one, Pent. I'll make sure I never think
>of
>> >it again.
>>
>> Dom Irerra came up with that comeback first, too. Right before he had me
>> thrown out of the show.
>
>Touche!
>
>a-and FUCK YOU!
That was first uttered by a megaphone crooner in the 1920's, who coined
the phrase. Everyone's saying it now, of course.
Nick Bensema
>>
>> Henry Rollins once spoke of a magazine for bi's, titled "Anything That Moves".
>
>Ah, we used to call one guy's orientation "Anything Warm".
>Lizard sex did not occur to us.
Jeepers. You could at least stay safe from the "Anything that Moves"
people by staying relatively still.
Otto Bahn
> > There's no bi *anything*! It makes sexually aloof Spot cry!
>
> Henry Rollins once spoke of a magazine for bi's, titled "Anything That Moves".
Ah, we used to call one guy's orientation "Anything Warm".
Lizard sex did not occur to us.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
> The only reason I care at all about bisexuality, is that I wish to
> avoid becoming heavily involved with women who may be harmful to
> my health, psychological or otherwise. And while it's politically
> incorrect for progressives to espouse sexual-orientation-based
> prejudice, a guy in a NASCAR hat and a down vest appears on my
> shoulder and tells me "watch your step! bi girls are danger! stay
> out of arm's reach! if she asks you out, tell an adult immediately!"
> and then a guy in a ponytail and hemp shorts appears on my right
> shoulder and tells me "how foolish of you to generalize! How dumb
> of you to exercise any standards in what 'involved' means. Better
> boink her and run away or she'll know you're WIMPY." And the hemp
> guy's been laid just often enough that he's seen them bring their SO.
IFYPFY.
--oTTo--
More hemp guys, less rednecks
Nick Bensema
Marc Goodman <marc.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I believe the analogy is apt because food preferences are the
>result of some combination of genetics and environment, and
>are subject to a limited amount of change with exposure (just
>like the dinosaurs in leather bars posting). But, at bed rock,
>either you like certain foods or you don't, and no amount of
>discussion about how you should like ginger snap cookies is
>ever going to change your mind about whether you like ginger
>snap cookies.
when I have the time, I need to go through BoingBoing and see if
I can find those articles they linked to, regarding scientific findings
on such topics as:
* How genetic homosexuality is possible when homosexuals don't reproduce.
* How our tastes in food change through out lifetime.
* The "gay voice" and its cousin, the "fannish accent". I never saw one
explaining the "redneck voice" identified by David Cross.
Otto Bahn
> >Actually, I guess "bi" is the old "goth" too.
>
> OK, remember the top 5 scary girls list?
>
> One was a pagan. And poly. And left much chaos in her wake. She
> ruled her two husbands with an iron fist and rampant mood swings,
> until one day she suddenly left them to join a witches' coven in
> Pennsylvania. Well, not so suddenly; the men thought she'd just
> be bringing two women into the "family". She's #2.
>
> The top one was really into body modification at one point, and had a
> weird-color-lipstick phase, and lots of fetish phases. I don't know
> if she was ever officially "goth" though.
Why did you stop mid-story...?!
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
> More hemp guys, less rednecks
My apologies, Wiblur, there's no reason we cannot both
FNARR be official hippies.
Anybody who googles for a Grateful Dead album cover
is okay in my book anyway.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
> >> Henry Rollins once spoke of a magazine for bi's, titled "Anything That Moves".
> >
> >Ah, we used to call one guy's orientation "Anything Warm".
> >Lizard sex did not occur to us.
>
> Jeepers. You could at least stay safe from the "Anything that Moves"
> people by staying relatively still.
Involuntary sex with him and a lizard did not occur to us either.
Thanks, I think.
--oTTo--
This *is* alt.religion.kibology...?
James Kibo Parry
|
| Glitter Ninja (sta...@xmission.com) wrote:
| >
| > Women are, too, but I have a problem with women not shutting the
| > fuck up enough.
| > It's completely sexist to say that, but goddammit, how many times have
| > you heard some lady yammer on and on and on about pantihose or her best
| > girlfriend or the brand of oven cleaner she uses... shut the fuck up!
| > We don't care!
|
> This isn't a bi,gay or even sexist thing,you know.
> It's why I wear my headphones at work (99% women) for 8
> full hours until my ears hurt listening to U2 over and over and
> over,sometimes at ear damaging decibels to drown it out. (Which reminds
> me,I'm sick of U2 and REM now and am going to start wearing the headset
> made for shooting loud guns before I have to start learning sign
> language.)
Don't get those silly placebo "noise-cancellation" headphones that
cost a fortune at Sharper Image and Brookstone. They bascially take
out the background rumble of the air-conditioner but leave all conversation,
so they would actually seem to make the speech louder. The companies
don't print this on the box: "WARNING: THESE MAKE WOMEN LOUDER!"
> > I shot her in the head with my crossbow. Teh enb.
>
> Can I borrow that for awhile? I'll return it when there's
> SILENCE in the workplace! Or at least some occasional muted yet
> intelligent conversation that doesn't involve clothes or makeup.
> Even politics would be okay except most of these women think CSPAN
> is an infomercial for spandex and an engineer is the guy who drives
> the choo-choo train.
Makeup is something us guys will never understand (well, most of us.)
If women really have figured out exactly how they want to recolor their
face down to using this thing on the edges of the eyelids, this thing
on the upper eyelid, this thing on the eyebrow, etc., why don't they
just get tattoos? Tattoos are better because you can make 'em say
clever things just like bumper stickers, and you don't have to worry
about them washing off if you ever take a bath.
-- K.
Let's talk about
potato chips. What
color do you think
they should be?
White, beige, yellow,
tan, or brown?
And what brand makeup
would you put on them
to make them that way?
James Kibo Parry
>
> I had a theory that attempted a unification with the "everyone's
> 10% bisexual" theory. My theory, which is mine, is this: Men's 10%
> is most likely to come out in long prison sentences. Women's 10%
> is most likely to come out when they're filled with seething rage.
Actually, I think the men in prison who play their stupid little
rape games may not actually be bi, just very, very horny. I doubt
there are any actual romantic feelings involved. ("Gay" and "bi"
are not sexual positions.) So guys in prison may not be expressing
their orientation, just desperation.
Women, on the other hand, turn bi on purpose just to spite you.
I don't mean to spite men in general. I mean just you.
BISEXUALITY IS ALL YOUR FAULT, NICK.
> The only reason I care at all about bisexuality, is that I wish to
> avoid becoming heavily involved with women who may be harmful to
> my health, psychological or otherwise. And while it's politically
> incorrect for progressives to espouse sexual-orientation-based
> prejudice, a guy in a NASCAR hat and a down vest appears on my
> shoulder and tells me "watch your step! bi girls are danger! stay
> out of arm's reach! if she asks you out, tell an adult immediately!"
> and then a guy in a ponytail and hemp shorts appears on my right
> shoulder and tells me "how evil of you to generalize! How evil
> of you to exercise any standards in who you'll date. Better
> ask her out anyway or she'll know you're EVIL." And the hemp
> guy's been wrong just often enough.
Um, Nick? About your alter-ego in the NASCAR hat and down vest? With the
suede work boots and the jeans with the hankie tucked into one pocket?
I think he may be working for The Agenda. You might want to listen to
Hippie Nick instead because hippies are all straight.
> Yelling at me will only reinforce that gut feeling.
Who's yelling at you? And what did you do to her?
> I'm afraid it might not go away unless I find a better way to avoid
> crazy women.
NICK, TWO WORDS: LESS INTERNET.
-- K.
The Internet is like
a giant magnet that
attracts crazy.
James Kibo Parry
|
| James "Kibo" Parry (ki...@world.std.com) wrote:
| >
| > Quick, we need to get some other alternative lifestyle groups to
| > claim the hippie and punk looks before they go extinct.
|
> Hey now, for historical purposes, I hereby volunteer to be ARK's official
> hippie.
I think that the moment you "volunteer" to be an "official" anything,
you're no longer a real hippie, narc.
> There are still lots of us around, we just went (further) underground, only
> to surface when the Dead are on tour, or when the Rainbow Family Gathering
> comes around. It's more fun that way and getting beat-up for having long
> hair is almost unheard of anymore.
Who are the Dead? Were they some group that used to be popular in the 1990s?
-- K.
Not that I'd trust
your answer to that
question, narc!
Matthew L. Martin
>
> Makeup is something us guys will never understand (well, most of us.)
> If women really have figured out exactly how they want to recolor
> their face down to using this thing on the edges of the eyelids, this
> thing on the upper eyelid, this thing on the eyebrow, etc., why don't
> they just get tattoos? Tattoos are better because you can make 'em
> say clever things just like bumper stickers, and you don't have to
> worry about them washing off if you ever take a bath.
>
You don't get out much, do you?
<http://www.infoplasticsurgery.com/permmakeup.html>
> Permanent Make-up Permanent Eyeliner, Lipliner, Lipstick, and
> Eyebrows
>
> Permanent make-up is possible through a procedure called
> micropigmentation, which is similar to tattooing. It can mimic
> eyeliner, eyebrow pencil, lip liner, and lipstick. When performed by
> a trained medical professional, permanent make-up can appear natural
> and attractive. Advantages of Permanent Make-up
>
> Permanent make-up is ideal for on-the-go women who always need to
> look their best but cannot afford the time to apply make-up
> throughout the day. At the end of the day, your make-up looks as
> though it was just freshened. You can select your color of make-up
> from a wide variety of shades, or a new shade can be created for you.
> Disadvantages of Permanent Make-up
>
> The greatest disadvantage is that it is permanent. So, unless you are
> certain that it is what you wish, you should not have it. Further,
> there is a big risk in having this procedure performed by an
> inexperienced person. It can be hard to tell who has experience and
> who does not, so be sure to ask to speak with previous patients.
--
Matthew
I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
James Kibo Parry
| > official hippie.
>
> Prepare to get your ass kicked.
>
> --oTTo--
>
> Ark's Official Hippie since 2002
Lookie here, maw! Hippie fight! They's gonna be shootin' each other
with the rifles with the flowers in 'em barrels. Yee-haw!
Let's us prepare to cook us up a messa hippie stew!
-- K.
This is sort of if
"Mr. Show" and "Deliverance"
were the same thing instead
of just very similar things.
James Kibo Parry
>
> The idea that people's sexuality changes over time, that worries me because
> that's the whole basis of these religious groups that claim to be able
> to cure homosexuality. I hate to see fundies being right.
I don't think you can "cure" homosexuality, for the simple reason that
if someone is in love with someone else, you really can't "cure" them
out of that. If we could go to the drugstore and buy a cure when we
didn't want to be in love with someone, the world would be a much happier
place. Also the stuff would come in straight and gay versions, so
some of the pills would be shaped like Fred and some like Barney.
Whoops! Sorry, Barney, didn't mean to out you. But come on, that
lace-up suede tube top?
> That Sexuality Timecube is probably something they'll have to teach
> in public schools before people can wrap their heads around it.
> Then you have people like Eddie Izzard, who dress like women but
> identify as men, and it becomes a hypercube.
I deliberately omitted transvestites when I included transgendered
people, simply because transvestitism is such a complex thing (and
I'm not really qualified to understand it at all.) I think of it
this way: It might be a sexual orientation thing -- OR it might
just be a wacky costume -- depending on the person and the event
and other stuff.
Let's talk about pirates. ARRRR! I said ABOUT pirates, not talk
LIKE pirates. There are people who wear a pirate outfit once a year
on Halloween to shock people with a silly costume. Then there are
people who like to play pirate and dress up as one on Saturday nights
at the club but the rest of the week they don't let anyone know they
have a separate pirate life. And then there are the lifestyle pirates
who dress like a pirate all the time and consider themselves to be pirates.
Now switch "pirate costume" and "dress". Go ahead, I'll keep the
pirates from hurting you when you take their clothes away.
> So, for squares like me, many of these combinations are so hugely
> rare that I can only name one celebrity.
DAME EDNA IS NOT A CELEBRITY!!!
> There's someone on LJ who used to be a lesbian but is now an FTM
> transsexual, which would have driven me bonkers if he hadn't broken
> it down that, when all the math and hormones and creative reconstruction
> is done, he'll be just another straight guy. That's simple enough
> that even I can understand it.
The big question behind all this is -- why do we feel we have to
understand this? If someone is running around in a pirate outfit or
a Darth Vader outfit or dressed like Marilyn Monroe smoking a cigar,
why do we worry about it so much? I feel that living out one's
fantasies about who one wants to present oneself as is the most
pure form of free expression there is. And I acknowledge that I
will never understand why some people do the things they do -- but
it's okay for them to be into different things than I'm into.
There are people who get really upset over knowing other preferences exist
("Hey! Stop that! Stop enjoying Weird Stuff That I'm Annyoned I Can't
Figure Out How To Enjoy!") which, of course, can be part of the fun for
people who are confident enough in their own preferences to do what they
want in order to shock other people. Some drag queens enjoy the
puzzled/horrified stares they get from tightly-wound dorks, and some don't.
We all have an innate drive to try to figure out how other people's
minds work because we want to know how our own minds work (and we assume
that other people are similar) and when we see someone who is not only
doing something incomprehensible to us but also getting great satisfaction
out of it, well, that burns our toast if we're repressed types who know
we never have any fun but if we did it wouldn't be _that_ kind of fun.
> There was someone else on LJ who's female, has a long-term boyfriend,
> is heavy into m/m slash fiction, but got offended when she was
> mistaken for "straight".
>
> You see? You see? My stupid mind! Stupid! Stupid!
Yay! You're quoting one of the world's loudest actors, Dudley Manlove!
Yes, that was the name he acted under! Dudley Manlove! And then he
eventually turned into Bill Murray, but only after first appearing
in "Creation Of The Humanoids", which Andy Warhol once said was his
favorite film! And Andy Warhol turned into... me! In Trader Joe's!
And I used a whole lot of exclamation points in one paragraph and
used them all up so nobody else could! Ed Wood cried! The End!
-- K.
That Dudley Manlove
sure liked Bromo-Seltzer.
plorkwort
>face down to using this thing on the edges of the eyelids, this thing
>on the upper eyelid, this thing on the eyebrow, etc., why don't they
>just get tattoos? Tattoos are better because you can make 'em say
>clever things just like bumper stickers, and you don't have to worry
>about them washing off if you ever take a bath.
That thread is going on RITE NOW, IYKWIM, on alt.gothic.fashion.
plorkwort.
--
A girl and a boy bump into each other -- surely an accident.
A girl and a boy bump and her handkerchief drops -- surely another accident.
But when a girl gives a boy a dead squid -- *that had to mean something*.
-- S. Morganstern, "The Silent Gondoliers"
James Kibo Parry
|
| Nick Bensema (ni...@fnord.io.com) wrote:
| >
| > The idea that people's sexuality changes over time, that worries me
| > because that's the whole basis of these religious groups that claim
| > to be able to cure homosexuality.
|
> No, their claim that sexual orientation is a *choice* is the basis for
> their ridiculous claims. Changing over time does not imply decision
> making. Is it really surprising hateful whackjobs are unable to grasp
> the (not at all subtle) distinction?
The more important question is whether the people who subject themselves
to such "cures" really are straight people trapped in gay people's bodies
or just the victims of peer pressure. (Someone should get these people
better peer groups, _stat_.) One of the best things about the Internet
is that people who were considered "deviate" decades ago -- gay/lesbian
people, foot fetishists, furries, whatever -- can immediately discover
that there are thousands, millions, of other people out there with the
same sort of "deviance". In the 1970s, if you were a "whatever" and
didn't live in a town that had a "whatever" bar, you'd probably feel
alone and that your interests were just plain wrong. Now, you can figure
out that you may be different from most people, but still a member of
a very large community of people who don't seem to be living in padded cells.
> Also, "curing" homosexuality makes as much sense as "curing" right
> handedness. A person *is* or *isn't* right handed - it's just that simple.
What about ambidextrous people? What about people who can doodle with
their feet? (I'm pretty good at writing with my feet, but I can't type
with them -- big toe is too big. I can work a cigarette lighter with
my feet, but this is of no practical value because I don't smoke.)
-- K.
I should start a "whatever" bar.
We'd let in every type of perve,
fetishist, or weirdo and the only
people we'd bar would be those
who asked what a "whatever" bar is.
It's the bar that's only for people
who don't care what type of bar
it is, you square!
James Kibo Parry
|
| John Schmidt (j...@radix.net) wrote:
| >
| > Also, "curing" homosexuality makes as much sense as "curing" right
| > handedness. A person *is* or *isn't* right handed - it's just that simple.
|
> In my not-well-informed opinion, it's a lot like food preferences.
> I've liked certain foods since before I can remember. Other foods,
> I used to hate as a child but have developed a tolerance for over
> time with exposure. Still other foods have always made me gag at
> the very thought (pickled beets).
>
> I believe the analogy is apt
Yay! An analogy I introduced is apt! (Kibo does the "MY ANALOGY IS APT"
dance for a while.)
> because food preferences are the result of some combination of
> genetics and environment, and are subject to a limited amount of
> change with exposure (just like the dinosaurs in leather bars
> posting).
I don't think that was quite the point I was trying to make. If you
could turn someone gay by exposing them to something, wouldn't everyone
who watched "Knight Rider" now be a flaming bitch queen?
> But, at bed rock, either you like certain foods or you don't,
> and no amount of discussion about how you should like ginger snap
> cookies is ever going to change your mind about whether you like
> ginger snap cookies.
Sure, but you might eventually just start or stop being interested in
ginger snap cookies for no one reason.
You can be one of a pair of Siamese twins who had the same parents,
were raised in the same environment, digested the same food, and _still_
wind up with different personalities and therefore different preferences.
Our preferences are part of our personalities, and our personalities are
unique and not wholly dependent on our genetics or environment, and since
our personalities change over time as we grow and mature and redefine
ourselves, it's understandable that all our preferences can shift
without us being able to point to a reason why. Some gay people "have
always known" they were gay, some "discover" they're gay, some "turn" gay,
no amount of analogies can explain why gay people exist or why some
people keep their orientation and some people evolve from one to the other.
Yes, there are certain foods that you only develop a taste for if
you've had them enough times to get used to them, but that's not
what I was going for. There are foods that you like or dislike
that are different from those that other people like or dislike,
and these preferences can (but don't have to!) change over long
periods of time (I'm talking decades, not weeks.)
I bet there are some foods you used to like when you were six that
you would detest if you tried them now, just because your preferences
shifted. If you don't believe me, try some SpaghettiOs or some
Lucky Charms. Betcha haven't had a craving for Pixy Sticks in a while.
Worst of all, McNuggets.
I used to like Burger King but now I like White Castle. Oh, and
I can't believe I ever enjoyed "Knight Rider".
-- K.
That show's worse
than Burger King.
Joseph Michael Bay
>Well, staying out of Africa would work too. Not that I have a choice;
>I'd probably burst into flames upon stepping off the plane. And also
>staying off heroin would be useful. Using condoms is useful not just
>to keep AIDS out, but to keep my precious genetic material in.
Condoms are also useful for keeping heroin in, as long as they don't
open up whilst in one's colon. Also, avoid the 'spearmint' kind for that.
--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ fhqwhgadshgnsdhjsdbkhsdabkfabkveybvf
Marc Goodman
> You can be one of a pair of Siamese twins who had the same parents,
> were raised in the same environment, digested the same food, and _still_
> wind up with different personalities and therefore different preferences.
> Our preferences are part of our personalities, and our personalities are
Clearly you underestimate the importance of being on the RIGHT
side, it's nothing like being that bastard on the LEFT side.
James Kibo Parry
> > in their 30s or 40s or 50s. (A lot of middle-aged gay guys used
> > to be married.)
>
> Sometimes correlation really *is* causation.
Whoa! I'm gonna call you Dolly Madison 'cause you just make a Zinger!
(The people in the peanut gallery who scream "EWWW!" at any mention
of shredded coconut now have coconut-covered squishcakes permanently
linked to middle-aged gay guys in their brains. Hey, sometimes I
like to make people form permanent neural pathways because I'm evil.)
Note that when I said "used to be married", I meant "used to be married
to women". These days in Massachusetts (and most of Canada) it's okay
to get married _after_ you fall in love with someone of the same gender.
By the way, am I the only one who finds the term "same-sex couples"
annoying? It's "same-gender couples", dammit -- gender is whether
you're male or female, and sex is something you do between TV programs.
To me, a "same-sex couple" is any couple where they both like the
same type of sex -- some hetero couples do, and some don't; some gay
couples do, and some don't. "Same-sex couple" means me think,
"Aw, how sweet, he found a woman who's also into farting on cakes."
You also never hear a "regular" marriage called a "different-sex couple".
Maybe gay activists should start using the phrase "straight marriage"
in conversation.
-- K.
P.S.: coconut coconut coconut
Joseph Michael Bay
> Also, why is it okay for the
> chubby chasers to seek out
> fat women but it's not okay
> to wear a "NO FAT CHICKS" hat?
Also, since fat people can't run that fast, is it fair to call
it "chubby chasing"? Or are they riding Rascals or something?
Joseph Michael Bay
>There's someone on LJ who used to be a lesbian but is now an FTM
>transsexual, which would have driven me bonkers if he hadn't broken
>it down that, when all the math and hormones and creative reconstruction
>is done, he'll be just another straight guy. That's simple enough
>that even I can understand it.
Well, a straight guy with a bicycle pump, anyway.
>There was someone else on LJ who's female, has a long-term boyfriend,
>is heavy into m/m slash fiction, but got offended when she was
>mistaken for "straight".
Anyone who is into slash fiction is kinked enough not to be "straight",
although "het" should be fine UNLESS SHE'S IN DENIAL or something.
I wish there were stories where goat-legged ugly doods get it on with
hawt chyxors. That would be the best.
Glitter Ninja
>In other words, "bi" is the new "goth".
>Actually, I guess "bi" is the old "goth" too.
>I am so glad I'm not bi and/or goth. I chose a style
I DIDN'T CHOOSE THIS. Even if I did, I wouldn't automatically be lame
just because I was bi. Like I don't have enough problems as it is,
everyone's all like "bi is stupid" and "bi is teeny goth crap".
LIST HERE WHAT ALL I SHOULD BE SO IT MEETS WITH YOUR APPROVAL -->
Stacia
Marc Goodman
> LIST HERE WHAT ALL I SHOULD BE SO IT MEETS WITH YOUR APPROVAL -->
I want one of those Portuguese Water Dogs. They're
really cute.
Oh, you meant that rhetorically. Never mind.
James Kibo Parry
| > is heavy into m/m slash fiction, but got offended when she was
| > mistaken for "straight".
|
> Anyone who is into slash fiction is kinked enough not to be "straight",
> although "het" should be fine UNLESS SHE'S IN DENIAL or something.
So if you're a straight guy who likes to watch tapes of lesbians making
out, does that also make you "not straight"?
'Cause I know what's under your bed.
-- K.
Or in some cases,
who's under your bed.
Joseph Michael Bay
>Let's talk about pirates. ARRRR! I said ABOUT pirates, not talk
>LIKE pirates. There are people who wear a pirate outfit once a year
>on Halloween to shock people with a silly costume. Then there are
>people who like to play pirate and dress up as one on Saturday nights
>at the club but the rest of the week they don't let anyone know they
>have a separate pirate life. And then there are the lifestyle pirates
>who dress like a pirate all the time and consider themselves to be pirates.
And play on a true underdog dodgeball team.
Also there are pirates who just wear kind of regular slightly shabby
clothes and ride boats around the South China Sea and the Moro Island
area killing people and taking their stuff, and they don't even have
the decency to say "arrr". Bastards.
>Now switch "pirate costume" and "dress". Go ahead, I'll keep the
>pirates from hurting you when you take their clothes away.
Can we just switch "pirate costume" and "flouncy silk blouse"?
Joseph Michael Bay
>LIST HERE WHAT ALL I SHOULD BE SO IT MEETS WITH YOUR APPROVAL --> goth
bi
bad-tempered
congenial
easy to read
post-combat
shakes
compulsive
behavior
(gambling)
(12)
You should also have at least one survival (terrain) skill at 12 or higher.
Joseph Michael Bay
>You can be one of a pair of Siamese twins who had the same parents,
>were raised in the same environment, digested the same food, and _still_
>wind up with different personalities and therefore different preferences.
Buddy Hackett once said "Whenever I'm having a bad day, I always
think of the Siamese twin whose brother is gay ... and they share the
same asshole". Probably he said that a bunch of times, because hey,
Buddy Hackett.
Joseph Michael Bay
>By the way, am I the only one who finds the term "same-sex couples"
>annoying? It's "same-gender couples", dammit -- gender is whether
>you're male or female, and sex is something you do between TV programs.
"Gender" is a grammatical distinction that also refers to sex, whereas
sex is a real thing that can be an attribute or an act. It would be
less ambiguous to refer to the attribute as gender, but the other way
is really the "right" way, which is dumb.
>To me, a "same-sex couple" is any couple where they both like the
>same type of sex -- some hetero couples do, and some don't; some gay
>couples do, and some don't. "Same-sex couple" means me think,
>"Aw, how sweet, he found a woman who's also into farting on cakes."
Or "Oh no, they both want to be on top!"
>You also never hear a "regular" marriage called a "different-sex couple".
>Maybe gay activists should start using the phrase "straight marriage"
>in conversation.
I think they do that. Just the activists, though.
Joseph Michael Bay
> -- K.
There's two bunnies and enough bunny hair to make a third, at least
mass-wise. They are both girls and do spend a lot of time licking
each other, but it's not *that* interesting to watch, merely cute.
But yeah, I guess because of lesbians, heterosexual guys have a
nearly-universal kink. Interesting.
James Kibo Parry
|
| > out, does that also make you "not straight"?
| >
| > 'Cause I know what's under your bed.
|
> mass-wise. They are both girls and do spend a lot of time licking
> each other, but it's not *that* interesting to watch, merely cute.
>
> But yeah, I guess because of lesbians, heterosexual guys have a
> nearly-universal kink. Interesting.
Come on, the only weirdos out there are the ones who falsely claim that
they have no kink. In America, you're _required_ to like long blonde hair,
large breasts, a small waist, and high heels if you want to be a
Normal Straight Man. If you like redheads better? Or like legs instead
of breasts? Those are fetishes and you're deviant, you pervert!
All normal guys are supposed to require their women to have bleached hair
and six-inch stiletto heels and breast implants and anorexia. That's
just healthy.
The sooner you admit that absolutely everyone is weird in every way,
the sooner we can move on to more interesting topics, such as why
ice cream costs the same amount whether you buy a pint or a half-gallon.
It's a lot like Elmer's glue. Hey, wait a minute...
-- K.
If I owned an ice-cream
company, I _would_ sell
a white peppermint ice
cream flavor named
"Library Paste".
Theresa Willis
wrote:
>Glitter Ninja <sta...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Oh crap. I just said what Kibo was going to say in the future. Sorry.
>
>Please to be using this power only for good and/or wacky, never for evil
>and/or boring.
>
Well, alright, a little evil would be OK.
Theresa Willis
Ninja) wrote:
>Theresa Willis <tdwi...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>I sort of tried to make this point at work once. There's this guy who
>>likes to complain about how our companies health care now covers gay
>>couples who live together because "he shouldn't have to subsidize that
>>lifestyle". I figure, hey, they're subsidizing health care for bigots,
>>so it evens out, right.
>
> Oh do I get this all the time. Complaints that people shouldn't have to
>pay for insurance that covers fatbutts *for any reason* because we
>fatbutts are running up the cost of healthcare, US News said so in a
>pretty color article!
> So can I get healthcare that doesn't cover bigots who perpetuate harmful
>stereotypes? Can my healthcare exclude people who do naughty things like
>drive over the speed limit, drink too much Budwiser on the weekends, and
>eat McDonald's every day because they're too lazy to make a pot of ramen?
>I want healthcare that refuses benefits to old people because they're sick
>all the time, and to black people because genetically they are predisposed
>to a lot of nasty diseases, and to women because they are predisposed to
>have all these "pregnancy" costs which quite frankly is unfair. *I*
>haven't had a kid! Why should I pay because YOU have a uterus and used
>it?
And these folks never act on their "principles" to the point of
rejecting the company-sponsered healthcare.
Somehow being willing to suffer for your principles seems a bit more
noble than being willing to let someone else suffer for your
princples.
I DUNNO. MAYBE THAT'S JUST ME.
>
>>Did he get the point? Doubtful, but at least he doesn't come yapping
>>at my desk with this stupid crap anymore.
>
> I need you at my work so bad.
>
Careful what you wish for; apparently I am really annoying in person.
Theresa Willis
<Spam...@Spamburgers.com> wrote:
>"madge" <deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> Kevin I take it that everyone knows that the initial S in your name
>> stands for SugarRay.
>>
>> Kevin SugarRay Wilson. (Scares the bejeebus out of me)
>
>The hivemind is pretty frickin' eerie, but I wouldn't
>eggzactly call it scary.
>
Then, sir, you are a FOOL.
Theresa Willis
wrote:
>
>There was someone else on LJ who's female, has a long-term boyfriend,
>is heavy into m/m slash fiction, but got offended when she was
>mistaken for "straight".
>
>You see? You see? My stupid mind! Stupid! Stupid!
Aw, you should try an have fun with this. Like, get all offended if
someone mistakes you for someone who is not into Angry Dishwasher Sex.
David DeLaney
>The idea that people's sexuality changes over time, that worries me because
>that's the whole basis of these religious groups that claim to be able
Two different versions of 'changes'. Theirs is "you can start liking this and
stop liking this, we'll show you how, it only involves a LITTLE electroshock
therapy and -some- drugs", while the real world's is much more an additive
thing - you can find out there are things you like that you either never
thought about or tried before, or actively disliked earlier, but that usually
doesn't STOP you liking what you liked before, it just displaces it a little
or a lot with a new obsession. (And WHY are children not TAUGHT IN SCHOOL that
orgasms are ADDICTIVE, I ask you?)
>So, for squares like me, many of these combinations are so hugely
>rare that I can only name one celebrity.
Hollywood Trapezoids: ISAGN.
>There's someone on LJ who used to be a lesbian but is now an FTM
>transsexual, which would have driven me bonkers if he hadn't broken
>it down that, when all the math and hormones and creative reconstruction
>is done, he'll be just another straight guy. That's simple enough
>that even I can understand it.
He's changing his body, but not changing (or trying to change) what he likes.
Simple, though full of niggling little details.
>You see? You see? My stupid mind! Stupid! Stupid!
It's not like you've got the ONLY stupid mind among pu-ny hu-mons everywhere.
Dave "or even amongst albinos - why, just look at Elric" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>> I believe the analogy is apt
>
>Yay! An analogy I introduced is apt! (Kibo does the "MY ANALOGY IS APT"
>dance for a while.)
<snap> <snap> <SNAP>
>> because food preferences are the result of some combination of
>> genetics and environment, and are subject to a limited amount of
>> change with exposure (just like the dinosaurs in leather bars posting).
>
>I don't think that was quite the point I was trying to make. If you
>could turn someone gay by exposing them to something, wouldn't everyone
>who watched "Knight Rider" now be a flaming bitch queen?
Yeah. If it was THAT easy, we'd have CONQUERED the world by now. (But them-uns
are afraid it IS that easy - insecurity, combined with lack of self-examination
and knowledge of own motivations, is a terrible thing...)
>Sure, but you might eventually just start or stop being interested in
>ginger snap cookies for no one reason.
Right! And then you might accidentally find you liked them with devilled ham
spread on them, only to find that nobody else anywhere had ever tried this...
>Yes, there are certain foods that you only develop a taste for if
>you've had them enough times to get used to them, but that's not
>what I was going for.
Beer. (Also semi-strongly involved in the 'turning gay' portions of this
narrative's examples, in some cases...)
>I bet there are some foods you used to like when you were six that
>you would detest if you tried them now, just because your preferences
>shifted. If you don't believe me, try some SpaghettiOs or some
>Lucky Charms.
Still like them.
> Betcha haven't had a craving for Pixy Sticks in a while.
Last time I had a Pixy Stix was some time last year, I think, and it was one
of the superjumbo size ones. No, two years ago, because it was at work. OH
MI GOD HIS WORKPLACE IS ATTEMPTING TO STANDARDIZE HIS FOOD PREFERENCES!
>Worst of all, McNuggets.
Semi-ick.
>I used to like Burger King but now I like White Castle. Oh, and
>I can't believe I ever enjoyed "Knight Rider".
How about the Hasselhoff Recursion?
Dave "and then there's Astro Boy" DeLaney
David DeLaney
>my feet, but this is of no practical value because I don't smoke.
Kibo, Kibo, Kibo. I'm _surprised_ you haven't figured this one out yet...
Dave "not just for lighting cylinders any more" DeLaney