Sunday, January 29 2012 @ 02:10 AM GMT+4 Contributed by: Vidda
In the “gay” world, it seems some homosexuals are uncomfortable with the notion that being gay can be a choice as opposed to being born with it. They feel that the claim gay people are born that way, right or wrong, is safer territory than someone making a conscious choice to indulge in same-sex.
It’s meant to tell gay unfriendly people that gay folks are okay because they were born with it.
When gays are told they can be cured, gay people can then say: Why do I need to be cured? I was born gay.
Indeed. What an odd and impractical way for someone to have to justify their sexual behavior.
What we are really born with is this: The innate nature of a pansexual mammal.
No one is born straight or gay and no one can be cured of being gay. These tired old claims help to keep this dangerous confrontation in play. With the battle lines drawn by the straights and gays, there can never be hope of peace between them.
If we had sexual peace in the world there’d be no need for opposing groups like gay-values versus family-values. Moreover, there would no need for gay or family value "funding and programming."
We’d be so busy with our thriving sex-lives that it wouldn’t make sense to spend time and money on what would otherwise be a non-issue.
One of the smart things about being bisexual/pansexual is that you have it all. When you welcome people of all sexual orientations you get to freely embrace everyone. By not judging or begrudging other people’s sexual interests there are no artificial conflicts to resolve. The manmade and man-perpetuated sexual bias has no standing in a pansexual world.
Once again, I call for gay people to stop arbitrarily including bisexuals and pansexuals in their artificial grouping. We don’t belong being included in a situation or group that builds or carry-on a wall of separation between our sexual sisters and brothers.
The gay faction only serves to cut us into pieces. You cannot make us whole again. Only pansexualism can do that. ~Vidda
Being Born So Gay - The Sad State of Affairs | 66 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they may say.
Being Born Vegetarian - The Sad State of Affairs
Authored by: joeslin on Sunday, January 29 2012 @ 02:06 PM GMT+4
Yay! Madlibs.
...If we had culinary peace in the world there’d be no need for opposing groups like vegetarians versus carnivores. Moreover, there would no need for PETA or Beef Council "funding and programming."
We’d be so busy with our thriving food-lives that it wouldn’t make sense to spend time and money on what would otherwise be a non-issue.
One of the smart things about being omnivorous is that you have it all. When you welcome people of all foodological orientations you get to freely embrace everything. By not judging or begrudging other people’s cuisine interests there are no artificial conflicts to resolve. The manmade and man-perpetuated nutritional bias has no standing in a pan- or pot- or casserole-cooked world.
Once again, I call for vegans/vegetarians to stop arbitrarily including vegetable-eaters in their artificial grouping. We don’t belong being included in a situation or group that builds or carries-on a wall of separation between our pan-menu sisters and brothers.
The vegan faction only serves to cut/dice/mince/julienne us into pieces. You cannot make us whole again. Only omnivorousness can do that.
-Sorry, couldn't help it. Deep and authentic apologies to the original author, I appreciate your passion and idealism, I just have heard this argument before with topics other than the one you chose. For the record, I totally respect your right/desire to love anyone you would like to. And, um, again, sorry to make light. Oh yeah, and sorry if I offended any vegetarians, too. Or beef lobbyists.
Authored by: Vidda on Sunday, January 29 2012 @ 04:04 PM GMT+4
Gee Joe,
Why don’t you share your humor with Matthew Sheppard or Tyler Clementi or Stuart Walker, or the kids in school who are terrorized and taunted (until some of them kill themselves), or with those who are demeaned by “you can be cured” attacks, or those victimized by gay conversation therapy, or victims of “lesbian rape”... or other horrors not shared with the dichotomous vegetarians versus carnivores "pieces."
You have a whole, large laughing audience out there. Stroke that mike!
As the author, I guess I don’t see the need for clever humor in this particular topic….despite your mild and disingenuous handwringing at your conclusion.
Authored by: NOleman on Sunday, January 29 2012 @ 04:11 PM GMT+4
There are more ways to run, walk or crawl away from this one.I can't count the the thoughts that this triggers but Mom always said "If you got nothing good to shoot at leave the safety on" and your mouth shut. Will some body get the gas can away from him , he's smoking hot.
Authored by: joeslin on Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 12:37 PM GMT+4
I've been away from iBrat for a little while so sorry for the late reply to your reply.
(Also, I would have thought this whole thread would have died days ago.)
Anyway, the Madlibs idea still applies:
-pick topic you espouse
-choose one that will push as many buttons as possible
-rant
-rinse
-repeat
I have read your model of communication on countless blogs from Breitbart to TPM. Its goal is to incite without offering any real insight.
The basis of your argument is, "I believe this, you should too." Its the same basic concept that every other ideologue uses.
You threw in some righteous indignation and manufactured victimization (are you really that put off that the LGBTQ folks might include pan-sexual rights too? Really?).
I won't be back to this thread. I'm not interested in investing any more time or thought in your solipsism.
Authored by: Vidda on Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 02:12 PM GMT+4
Hey Joe,
Since you won’t be back, and that’s just as well, this reply then is for our other readers and commenter’s.
Sex sells.
Sex reads well.
It always did.
It always will.
That’s why, in some part, up to 730 people have visited this story (most of them are silent readers).
If it’s true, as alleged by you, that you’ve read my “model of communication on countless blogs from Breitbart to TPM,” (you know, all those whom you accuse of self-absorption), then either you’re a fool to spend the countless times or you’re a glutton for verbal abuse.
Naturally, I suspect what you really did was just jump on what you perceived as and labeled as a “Madlib” and you never advanced further than that. You do like your sandbox.
Authored by: KenS on Sunday, January 29 2012 @ 04:26 PM GMT+4
Well, let's see..."So Gay" was in the title of the thread AND this was a huge topic of conversation on this week's episode of "This Show is So Gay"(http://thisshowissogay.com/node/373)...what an unbelievable coincidence!
I think we're right back to where we were months ago with this thread: my bristling at your attempts ("we") to speak for the entirety of the Bisexual and Pansexual community when many members of that community see the power in an LGBT coalition to achieve the thousands of rights denied to us.
That said, regarding being born gay - (1) Yes, I believe to the core of my soul that I was born gay and (2) I have never once started a topic with it of used that fact to achieve a goal in a conversation. The only time it has ever come up for me is when I am responding to someone either asking or asserting the opposite.
Authored by: KAlden on Sunday, January 29 2012 @ 06:24 PM GMT+4
I agree with Ken- I think your repeated attempts to speak for the entire bi/pan/trans/sexual communities is inappropriate and more than a little arrogant. In the late 90s I was very active within the Boston gay and lesbian community. I was a member of Boston Gay Pride and was the coordinator of both the Boston Gay Pride Parade (one of the largest in the country) and the 2 day Pride Festival on Boston Common. At that time there was constant dialog and ill feelings between the gay and lesbian community and the alleged exclusion of bisexual and transgendered people from the Boston Pride organization. After more than 3 years of difficult (for some people) conversations and compromise the Boston Gay Pride organization and parade officially became "Boston Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Pride". This has since been modified to officially include the words "Queer" and "Questioning" or Boston LGBTQ. Obviously the bisexual and trans community wanted to be a part of a larger organization/community and fought to be included in not only the demographics of the Pride organization but the actual wording. Most people-myself included-thought this was a good thing. It strengthened the entire "not heterosexual" community and there was -and always will be -strength in numbers. It also moved the gay and lesbian community to take a hard look at some of the internal biases and prejudices that were rampant in that community at that time. Personally I feel that adults should be able to be in a consentual physical relationship with any other adult that they want. If your sexuality manifests itself by including many different alliances of various orientations-that's fine with me. I don't want to -nor do I think I'm entitled to-impose my own sexual orientation on anybody else. And, I do strongly believe that the inclusion of many different types of sexual beings in one community can only bring about more understanding and compassion. I guess I'm a little puzzled by your anger that bi/pan sexuals are being included in the ever broadening "Gay and Lesbian" banner. If you don't want to consider yourself a part of the larger community then don't. Live your life and express your sexuality in what ever way you wish. No one is trying to take that from you. Some of us feel empowered by being part of a larger, stronger community. Nobody is forcing you to agree or to be a part if you don't want. But please speak for yourself-not for the entire bi/pan/trans community.
Your life is just that-yours- to live the way you choose to. But your decsions are not the only way to live -as you seem to be saying. Let others live their lives the way that makes them the most fulfilled and happiest.
Authored by: Vidda on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 02:16 AM GMT+4
I don’t mind trigging emotional responses from people who reply, but not at the expense of losing the main point. For those interested in this topic I repeat:
"What we are really born with is this: The innate nature of a pansexual mammal."
One of the ways I can tell that KenS and KAlden missed the point is….instead of accusing me of arrogantly speaking for all bisexuals and pansexuals, you should be accusing me of speaking for "all of humanity."
“The innate nature of a pansexual (human) mammal” applies to all humans, and, not at all a mechanism to change or convert gays.
The topicality of my piece is based two articles - One was the recent KenS article in The Commons (hence, the “So Gay” copy) and another LA article about an actress taking flak from the gay community for expressing her gayness as a choice, not being born with it.
If anyone believes “to the core of (your) soul that (you were) born gay” I say, fine.
But if anyone attempts to speak for “all” gay people that they were born with it, I’m afraid you’ve been preempted.
What we “all” are born with is this: <The innate nature of a pansexual mammal>
Authored by: KAlden on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 01:16 PM GMT+4
"You cannot make us whole again. Only pansexualism can do that. "
With this sentence you are attempting to do exactly what you so often accuse the gay and lesbian community of doing -impose your way of thinking and your personal sexual life on others.
Despite your erroneous assumption that I am not old enough to have any "frontline sexual history" you are wrong. I have spent decades speaking out and battling -often on those "front lines" for equality for all human beings-not just a chosen few or a specific group. I am well aware-and have been part of-the ongoing struggle for people of all sexual orientations to have the same basic human rights as heterosexuals do. And, yes, there were -and are- many, many prejudices and biases within the gay community against bi sexuals; transgendered people and all of the sexual idenities that don't fit neatly into boxes.And, yes, many bisexuals had no desire to be lumped in with gay men or lesbians-they were -and are- happy to be who they were. And no one is forcing anyone to be a part of anything that you don't want to be apart of. But the daily, endless struggle by all people who identify sexually
as anything other than heterosexual to be treated with repect and dignity and to be granted the same rights as any other person has will continue. I strongly believe that the more people who are united together to fight that battle the better chance we have of winning. History proves that there is strength in numbers. This is what I think, Vidda - I think some people are straight and some people are gay and in between those two is a huge, ever changing spectrum of all types of sexuality and gender identities and all of them are worthy of existing and people should be able to participate in and enjoy whatever sexual lives they want (again, assuming it's consensual and there are no children involved) But you seem to feel that unless we are all having sex with both men and women. with people from all sexual orientations and proclivities -that we are somehow less whole than you are. I know many, many people who identify as gay, lesbian, transsexual; queer; asexual; who feel that they are whole. They are complete and they don't need someone to tell them that they need to embrace another choice to be a whole human being. Stop trying to force your sexuality on the rest of us. Just live your life howver you want and allow others to do the same.
Despite your often vocal assertions to the contrary you are not the expert on everyone else's sexuality.
I hope this response was not too "emotional"
Authored by: Vidda on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 03:12 AM GMT+4
Both KenS and KAlden apparently are not old enough to have some frontline “sexual” history behind them.
But I am and I do.
In the period roughly 1967 – 1979 too many bisexuals were ridiculed by gay men as being “queers just like them.” The denial of bisexuality by gays was palpable back then (and still is to some degree today). It always struck me as strange that straights back then did not seem antagonistic to bisexuality in the way many gay people were.
(Note: the term Pansexual was not in “common usage” back then. Neither was Transgender or Questioning.)
As KAlden reveals in the comment above, look how long it took the Boston Pride group to “include” bisexuals in the coveted “title.”
1969 to the early 1990’s is a long time of exclusion.
Ironically, religion worked its way into the gay parades long before bisexuality did.
(Dignity was an early notable, but all the Jukrislim religions have gotten into the “gay” act, in one way or the other.)
The bisexual-exclusion period back then suited me and other bi's just fine. I never thought that people who are attracted to both genders should be “lumped” in with gays or straights anyway. Back then, I referred to gays and straights as idiotic for denying the pleasure of sexual company from half of humanity.
I feel the same way now.
We are, biologically speaking, pansexual mammalian animals, the alleged "core of your soul" notwithstanding.
Authored by: stoneynhvt on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 09:03 AM GMT+4
You can add me to your "not old enough" group but during my 35 years of "frontline sexual history", I thought the continuum of human sexual experience was a good thing. How foolish of me.
I made a cake yesterday. Any bi/pan sexuals want a slice?
Authored by: Vidda on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 05:29 PM GMT+4
There was nothing I wrote to make you feel foolish. I agree with and state the same thing as what you wrote: “the continuum of human sexual experience (is) a good thing.”
The phrase “continuum of human sexual experience” is the same thing as pansexualism, which I clearly think is a “good thing” too. How did you misread that?
Authored by: stoneynhvt on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 06:28 PM GMT+4
The reason for the foolish feeling was for including bi/pan-sexuals in my life when, according to you, they didn't want to be. Hence, I could have saved myself a hell of a lot of time.
Authored by: stoneynhvt on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 06:34 PM GMT+4
Guess the invitation to cake and eating it too was pointless?
It's alright if bi/pan's don't want to be included under the "gay" umbrella. Just don't integrate yourselves with us or go to "our" pride events, dances, businesses, cruising areas or websites.
Authored by: KenS on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 12:55 PM GMT+4
Still using the trump card of age, eh?
Again, the real focus word in my believing something to the core of my soul is "my". You get to march in your "Everyone is pansexual!" parade and I get to ride a float in another one.
Authored by: Vidda on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 05:44 PM GMT+4
Maybe so Ken.
But there is no biology of the soul. Maybe human animals have a soul, but, maybe not.
What they do all have in common, without question - is sexuality. There is no room for disputing the claim.
Therefore my message is directed to common humanity from a scientific (and philosophical) standpoint. And, it is not intended to be conjecture or opinion.
Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 06:04 PM GMT+4
Are you saying we all have an equal capacity for anything
sexual? As in, we all have obsessions with feet, or exotic
oils, or being tied and gagged, when we are born but we
don't yet know it?
For me, there is a disgust factor at play. Some things I
have no real interest in doing. Somehow my brain says
"ick" to certain options that others enjoy, yet says "sure,
all day long" to things I like.
Perhaps human DNA holds the potential for all options, but
at the time our individual DNA is set, so is our position on
that continuum. In that way, maybe Vidda is right that we
have it all, but Ken is right that we are born a certain
configuration.
My own recollection is that I don't recall any such feelings
one way or another at birth, but did propose to Jeanine in
2nd grade. : )
Authored by: Vidda on Monday, January 30 2012 @ 11:24 PM GMT+4
Thanks Chris, for your Solomon-like POV.
But, biologically speaking, we are not born with a certain sexual configuration such as gay, straight or bisexual. We are born “sexual.” Just sexual.
So I’m saying “we all have an equal capacity” for multi-gender sexuality.
I don’t say that everyone will be into feet, or oils or being tied or any other particular interest. Those little particulars are what follow when the originating innate attraction to one and/or both genders is established.
It’s the potentiality of the two-gender confluence that I see as the prime mover in the human sexuality continuum (and other mammals as well).
Being attracted to both genders opens the door, a natural pathway you might say, to sex, love, romance, and companionship with all the variations you’d expect when mutual sexual attractions occur.
I guess, by whatever name you call it, it amounts to a form of free love. We didn’t commonly use phrases like pansexual or polysexual when I was young.
Back then the word bisexuality sufficed to describe the sexual openness to both genders.
Authored by: imhennessy on Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 01:22 AM GMT+4
Vidda,
If you're going to start throwing around words with actual meanings, (biology, biologically), you had better have something to actual to back them up.
My personal take is that you're an ass. And I mean that in the biological sense: you remind me of a donkey. You seem to have no capacity to see the world as it is, and instead are shocked that others fail to see it as you do.
If you want people to see pansexuality as 'mammalian,' I suggest you dig up some sort of evidence that shows that there is no (or negligible) evidence for non-cultural preference for sexual activity with one gender or the other among individuals of ANY mammalian species. Basically, I'm calling bullshit on your pseudo-scientific trappings.
I agree that 'born this/that way' is a poor response to hate speech, but your unfounded, poorly thought out, blindly self-righteous take is useless.
Authored by: imhennessy on Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 02:35 PM GMT+4
Reports are mixed. Furthermore, we probably ought to consider what other factors are involved, since it it rare for a single behavior in one aspect of life to correspond directly with a specific behavior in another aspect. Assuming we establish a correlation between promiscuity (I don't intend the term to be prejudicial) and reduced violence, we still need to determine causality.
Consider the sexual lives of dolphins. They exhibit a wide array of sexual behaviors, including between members of the same gender and species, and between members of different species, and yet their culture is not without violence, including sexual violence, and infanticide.
Authored by: Vidda on Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 12:44 AM GMT+4
Stoney, you might want to read my response to Chris Grokte above this.
One of the reasons I don’t relate to the LGBTQPP, etc, etc. is because it confuses people to take the “rainbow” a little too literal and seriously.
Rainbows aren’t necessarily a good thing, if they divide us as much as unify us.
Embracing sexuality under an umbrella of say, pansexuality, as an example, simplifies and unifies things, and, lets us get on with our lives, in all its glorious vagaries and variations, with predjudice.
Authored by: stoneynhvt on Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 07:41 AM GMT+4
Rainbows aren’t necessarily a good thing?!? Are you mad?!?
In your original post, you want pan-sexuals to be excluded from the gay grouping but in a later reply, you want to include that same gay grouping under your pan-sexual umbrella. That's called Hypocrisy in my book. Sex between same gender partners is still "gay sex" or is it not?
It's been my experience with bi/pan individuals that when push comes to shove (stop snickering), they choose the opposite sex.
Authored by: Vidda on Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 02:15 AM GMT+4
Ivan
I have never made any claims to be a scientist. I do, however, have a philosophical point of view like many people.
I also never claimed “there is no (or negligible) evidence for non-cultural preference for sexual activity with one gender or the other among individuals of ANY mammalian species.”
You’re out of line trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say or imply.
If you really need to have the word biology (or other words “thrown” around) explained to you, maybe you should consider another topic to comment on.
I am a stranger to your noisy foul mouth. I like it that way...
Authored by: imhennessy on Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 11:24 PM GMT+4
Do you find 'ass' and 'bullshit' to be as offensive as assertions that homosexuality can be cured? Actually, let's exclude 'ass,' since I specified that I was referring to the animal. So, is the word 'bullshit' so bad that it rises to the level of offensiveness I attribute to the insistence of some that they know and understand the sexuality of others better than those others?
I really do view you as in the same league as those who would help people to overcome their desire for sexual contact with members of the same sex.
You're pretty vague about what you mean, but, as best as I can tell, you're saying
-
“we all have an equal capacity” for multi-gender sexuality.
-
Since you keep insisting that this is a mammalian thing, I have to assume you mean that 'we [mammals] have an equal capacity.' So, do mammals without the cultural structures we have exhibit your so-called pan-sexuality? Some individuals do, most don't. I don't know where you see this 'innate nature of a pansexual mammal,' but it's not obvious in any mammal I'm aware of.
Meanwhile, you're a shining example of 'judging or begrudging other people’s sexual interests.' It's quite strange to me that you can say: 'We don’t belong being included in a situation or group that builds or carry-on a wall of separation between our sexual sisters and brothers.' While claiming to speak for all humanity, in opposition to several members of that group, who repeatedly insist that you're not speaking for them.
Here's the thing, all it takes is one person to say that they weren't born with an innate sense of pansexuality, and your claim is falsified. I suppose you could just say they're wrong, but it's your word against theirs, on a topic you know squat about (their own internal experience).
Since I don't want to offend you, I'll summarize my analysis of your 'philosophical point of view': pomme de rue.
Authored by: Vidda on Saturday, February 04 2012 @ 03:49 AM GMT+4
Ivan wrote: “Since I don't want to offend you, I'll summarize my analysis of your 'philosophical point of view': pomme de rue.”
I probably shouldn’t revisit this, but “pomme de rue” translates as Apple Street. ??
But since you said you're not revisiting this story, I’ll just say that one thing is for sure, I hope and I don’t think very many other people reading this chain has misconstrued me as badly as you have.
You never did fully understand that my comments were not about the individual experience, nor was I attempting to tell 7 billion human individuals what to do with their sex lives.
Authored by: Vidda on Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 02:58 PM GMT+4
Stoney,
If you’re going to quote me please do so in context. I wrote: “Rainbows aren’t necessarily a good thing, if they divide us as much as unify us.”
I reread my piece and never once did I use the word “exclude” in reference to BIPANS.
The umbrella I referred to - used pansexual as an “example.” Naturally the better grouping is “Just Sexual” as I used in my reply to Chris.
We humans get a little carried away with classifications. Just sexual says it all, although, just for the heck of it I think I’ll call myself a Bipan from now on.
Stoney, you wrote “it’s been my experience with bi/pan individuals that when push comes to shove, they choose the opposite sex. “ Really? How many bipansexuals do you know for statistical purposes?
Is it possible you miss the point here? If the famous “sexual continuum” is what we are all operating on, then “choose” is always temporary…until they choose again. You make the word “choose” sound so final (after the proverbial push comes to shove, of course).
Authored by: Vidda on Tuesday, January 31 2012 @ 08:20 PM GMT+4
Stoney, if you read and understood what I wrote about, you would have known that I was speaking for humanity, not telling you personally (or anyone else) how to live.
But since you were talking at me, not with me, you were never really in the “conversation.”
Authored by: louc on Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 02:51 AM GMT+4
I was very lucky, I had a very enlightened Father, especially since he
was over 50 when I was born. He always taught us, mostly by
example, to accept all people as they are, and never pronounce
judgment on someone different than you. Some of the best friends I
have ever had or now have are gay. I don't give a damn if they were
born that way or it was acquired, all I care is that is they were and are
good people. If more people stopped analyzing and
compartmentalizing and just accepted people without labeling them,
our world be a lot better.
The Sexuality Label Wars - Another Unnecessary Battle...
Authored by: Vidda on Thursday, February 02 2012 @ 11:53 PM GMT+4
LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - One Million Moms -- a project of the American Family Association -- is very angry at JC Penney….because the Texas-based department store has hired Ellen DeGeneres as a spokeswoman. And DeGeneres is -- cue the scary music -- gay, and open about it.
"Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families," the million (or so) moms write on their website. "DeGeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. “
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-ellendegeneres-idUSTRE8111Q420120202
Authored by: dunder on Friday, February 03 2012 @ 01:22 AM GMT+4
Cole Porter, anyone?
When the little bluebird
Who has never said a word
Starts to sing Spring
When the little bluebell
At the bottom of the dell
Starts to ring Ding dong Ding dong
When the little blue clerk
In the middle of his work
Starts a tune to the moon up above
It is nature that is all
Simply telling us to fall in love
And that's why birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Monday, February 06 2012 @ 02:32 PM GMT+4
So far, this has been a failry amusing thread, but "I was speaking for humanity," is probably the best thing I've read on iBrattleboro in a long time.
But the thread starts with a false premise: that "homosexuals are uncomfortable with the notion that being gay can be a choice" because "the claim gay people are born that way ... is safer territory than someone making a conscious choice to indulge in same-sex."
Don't you think people, homosexual and heterosexual, are "uncomfortable" with the notion of sexuality as a choice simply because "choice" isn't their experience?
What I find interesting is that some people insist that they way they are "wired" is the universal state of being, and anyone else's deviation from that can be explained by "choice." It seems the epitome of egocentrism and narcissism on one hand, but on the other hand maybe it's just self-doubt. That's usually what I think when it comes from the homophobes, anyway.
---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Authored by: dunder on Monday, February 06 2012 @ 01:59 PM GMT+4
While I may or may not agree with everything everyone said here, it was an interesting article with interesting comments (except the personal attacks). I don’t think Vidda was talking about any particular individual but in a broad context. I would also more readily view him as a philosopher rather than a scientist.
Authored by: Vidda on Monday, February 06 2012 @ 05:44 PM GMT+4
Thank you dunder.
I was going to respond to Maus but decided to let his “amusement” roll on, except to say, as usual, he does not really know what I’m talking about (as an ex: if he is trying to relate me to homophobes…).
Thanks tomaidh for the Bonobo thread [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo ]. I’ve been studying the Bonobo’s since the mid-eighties. They, in fact, have played a significant role in the development of my human sexual philosophy, particularly since I agree with Jared Diamond [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee ] that we are one of three chimpanzee primate species. Being a human chimpanzee makes more sense to me then being created in the image of a manmade god.
There is a lot this aggressive, overly testosteronic, violent human culture can learn from Bonobo’s. Unfortunately, we are rapidly destroying their habitat in central Africa and they are an endangered species.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Monday, February 06 2012 @ 09:06 PM GMT+4
***if he is trying to relate me to homophobes…)***
Not at all. At least, I don't think you're an anyone-phobe.
But you make a similar claim (the birthright "innateness" of your favorite brand of sexuality, anything else being a "choice") and back it up with similar reasoning (because you're OBVIOUSLY right, and if everyone else would smarten up and listen to you, they'd be able to see it, too). But I'll give you this, at least there are no bible quotes.
---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Authored by: Vidda on Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 02:01 AM GMT+4
Maus,
I don’t have my “favorite brand of sexuality.” Bipansexuality (as I now call it) is not meant to be a personal brand, but it is an all encompassing term. It can and does simply work for all humans who are interested. Please see the Bonobo links referenced here.
It is my “opinion” that we humans would be saner and less dangerous to each other if we replaced our “death culture” with a Bonobo-like “sex culture” (the Jukrislims dirty sex mentality notwithstanding…).
Neither do I assume my reasoning is “obviously right” (with or without caps). Most of the people reading my submission here don’t need me to “smarten up,” so I imagine they’re already ahead of you in this matter.
One of the reasons why I’m not dogmatic about my philosophy is that when it comes to the possibility of humans bettering themselves, I’m of the mind that, unfortunately, “It’s Too Late.”
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 03:11 AM GMT+4
***One of the reasons why I’m not dogmatic about my philosophy***
Ha! You don't think you're dogmatic about your "philosophy?" Now
we're back to amusing again. Your "philosophy" is the very definition
of dogma!
---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 01:08 PM GMT+4
Good! Maybe you'll add some kind of argument, or facts, or
observations, or thoughts, or whatever, to support your claims instead
of simply telling everyone that objects or holds a differing view that
they "don't understand." Maybe you'll answer my original question:
"Don't you think people, heterosexual and homosexual, are
uncomfortable with the notion of sexuality as a choice simply because
choice isn't their experience?" Or do you really think the basis for a
good discussion of an issue is for you to make what has every
appearance of an absurd and insulting statement, then, rather than
explain it or expand upon it, tell anyone who takes issue with it that
they simply "don't understand?" How could they? By mind-reading?
If this is just an exercise in ego, or if you're simply looking for like-
minded individuals, it would be common courtesy to let us know from
the get-go. Maybe something like a disclaimer at end of the post.
---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Authored by: joebob on Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 03:28 AM GMT+4
dogma |ˈdôgmə|
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as
incontrovertibly true : the Christian dogma of the Trinity |
the rejection of political dogma.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via late Latin from Greek dogma
‘opinion,’ from dokein ‘seem good, think.’
As the public information officer for all sentient beings
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 12:24 PM GMT+4
Exactly! And:
dog·mat·ic (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or
unprovable principles. See Synonyms at dictatorial.
---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Authored by: Vidda on Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 02:20 PM GMT+4
Maus, you have one of the longest and most consistent records of being confrontational with me about what I write – more than anyone else, I think.
And, it doesn’t matter what topic I write about – your combativeness on “auto-drive.”
Of course, my articles are meant for a broad audience. So, whether one or twenty people jump on my case, or whether one or twenty people agree with my case is not important in the big picture, particularly since me and you and a handful of the others are the “usual suspects” who often click the comment button.
I think we provide, aside from good information and opinions, a type of sitcom drama and humor for most of our readers, who, like the TV audience, can turn us on or off, and who reside mostly in the background, unseen and unheard.
Oh, I’m sorry, now, what was that you were saying about dogma…..?
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 03:48 PM GMT+4
Well, isn't that what you want? I mean, when you take a confrontational approach from the very first post, aren't you explicitly inviting confrontation? To be so confrontational and then to recoil with faux indignation when confronted is just passive-aggressive bullshit.
I'd just like to hear you support your claims with an argument, a reasonable formulation of thought that others can follow, an explanation of why you believe such things about people. I may not agree, but at least I'll be able to respond with my own thoughts and arguments - yes, perhaps aggresively, I'm an aggressive debater, just as I suspect you'd be, too. We both might learn something, although it might not be what the other wants us to learn.
---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Authored by: Vidda on Wednesday, February 08 2012 @ 01:14 AM GMT+4
No, it’s not what I want! I don’t write to “invite” confrontation!
My concern for the two-headed dominance of the straight vs. gay war is quite real and longstanding. I could have written the same article many years ago. (I certainly spoke up about it enough times over the years, and so have many others.)
I consider my article a “reasonable formulation of thought” as it is. If my position isn’t clear to you after reading my article here, and my subsequent replies, I wonder if that doesn’t say more about your thought-process than it does about my thought-process?
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, February 08 2012 @ 03:05 PM GMT+4
Wait, wait, wait: that's your "position?" Oh. Well, now I do feel foolish. I thought you actually believed these things you were saying about other people. I thought you actually believed you had some kind of knowledge about the attributes with which all humans are born. I didn't realize it was just a "position." Sort of like taking the position that the chicken came before egg.
My apologies, but I'm sure you can see that when someone makes broad and sweeping statements such as "gays do this because of this" or "all humans are born the way I say and I don't need to offer any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to support it" it sounds - at least to simpletons, like me, who tend to take things literally - like you're presenting what you believe to be incontrovertible fact - dogma. While "I think all humans were born innately bipansexual because bi-pan-galactic-sexuality is the only way we'll get past our differences" doesn't make any logical sense to me, it IS, inarguably, a position.
I disagree with your position. My position: the conflict you reference isn't really about sexuality.
I think the only way we get over the "gay vs. straight" conflict and the gay versus bi versus straight conflict for that matter, is to change the thinking behind the "versus." And I think that's what people have started to do over the last decade or two. We can all be different. We can even be born different. That's not the source of conflict. Simply taking the position that we're all born "pansexual," whether it's true or not, has no potential to change any conflict regarding human sexuality.
---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Authored by: Vidda on Wednesday, February 08 2012 @ 07:13 PM GMT+4
Maus said: “I disagree with your position. My position: the conflict you reference isn't really about sexuality. “
Please let me inform you that what I really I said was “our sexual - rights - conflicts can be avoided.
The key word there is Rights, but any or all sexual conflicts are inherently understood generally because of their prevalence in our media.
As an aside, if it’s true that “your” position is: the conflict you reference isn't really about sexuality “ you might want to reread(?) a book that has undue and stress-making influence in our culture: Leviticus.
My overall article, though, is not as simple as “the conflict you reference (is) about sexuality.”
As Ivan says,” Complexity is complex.”
Though, I think maybe, dare I speak universally(?), that when people take off their clothes and close the door, the friction is of another kind…. :)
Dunder’s Cole Porter entry seems apropos anon -
And that's why birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 12:13 PM GMT+4
Fair enough, but you also said this: "My concern for the two-headed dominance of the straight vs. gay war ... "
***As an aside, if it’s true that “your” position is: the conflict you reference isn't really about sexuality “ you might want to reread(?) a book that has undue and stress-making influence in our culture: Leviticus.***
Ah, well, "I" was raised heathen, in a fourth-generation heathen household. Having never been poisoned by any religion, I can't say Leviticus has had any direct influence on me. But yes, I've heard people trot out the famous "abomination" verse when looking for a biblical or historic excuse for their anti-social behavior. Some say Leviticus was mistranslated. But I think anyone who gives it just a little thought will see that the incessant out-of-context quoting of a biblical passage thousands of years old isn't really about sexuality, nor is the passage itself. It isn't even about religion. If it was, the religious folk would be just as fanatical about all the rest of the old testament prohibitions, as well.
I think the conflict is more like ... tribalism, or something similar. It's probably something innate in all of us humans, there from birth, unavoidable, except through careful social training ;D
---
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Authored by: Vidda on Wednesday, February 08 2012 @ 02:10 AM GMT+4
The gay marriage issue is a good example of where the straights and the gays are, once again, embroiled over exclusive rights. (See article link below.)
Have you ever heard of a bisexual marriage law? Can three people marry? Is the institution of marriage for straights and/or gays the best way to “regulate” domestic relationships?
I’m suggesting that our sexual rights conflicts can be avoided if more people were pansexual, similar to the bonobos, but from our human perspective.
I've never said that everyone would be pansexual, only that we'd benefit from not having to constantly resolve our discord between sexual preferences if we were predominantly pansexual (as opposed to the straight vs. gay world we live in now).
By ADAM NAGOURNEY LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court panel on Tuesday threw out a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage passed in 2008, upholding a lower court’s ruling that the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated the constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians in California. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html
Authored by: tiny on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 02:08 PM GMT+4
You know vidda, I have been following this thread with
interest. Not getting slapped around by Maus, but really
considering what you have to say and the silence coming
from gays on this issue.
You have thrown a lot of stuff at the wall, so it is hard to
respond to it all....
As the gay marriage issue has been discussed in the media,
it is an unwritten assumption that humans are born
heterosexual or homosexual. Of course we hear about
transsexuals but that is always treated as a novelty, almost
like a sideshow (man gives birth to a baby, Chaz Bono) by
the media. Personally I find these people to be heroic
bringing their deeply personal stories to the public, but I
digress from Pansexuals.
So I read about this actress lately who was married to a guy
for years and had babies and then decided she wanted to
enter into a lesbian relationship because she said she was
bisexual. She said she "choose" to have a lesbian
relationship because she was bisexual. It seemed to throw
out the window the issue of being exclusively oriented one
way or another at birth and caused a bit of a kerfluffle in
the media. It seems to me the bigger problem was the
writer didn't have the knowledge to address the issue
because of all the preconceived notions
that are out there.
Then I was thinking about Senator Santorum's remarks
regarding gay marriage and that legalizing it would open the
door to legalized polygamy (Mormon style) and your
suggestion that pansexuals can marry a man and a woman.
Now Vidda, I am not suggesting you and the Senator are
simpatico, but the fact is you both are raising similar
thoughts.
This is a very tricky subject, what do you think of what I
have said? I admit I am ignorant on the subject, but I don't
feel that bad as I am in the same boat as others.
Authored by: Vidda on Friday, February 10 2012 @ 12:53 AM GMT+4
Tiny…
“Slapped around by Maus”… lol !!!
Ivan is better than Maus at that. :)
Thank you for your introspective Tiny. I appreciate the sensitivity and awareness you bring to this topic. I can’t say I’d agree with you being ignorant. You’re not.
Ingrained beliefs, as you know, are taken for granted and indeed, perpetuated. I think most humans start their sex life with sexual fantasies, before they engage physically, usually with themselves (masturbation) before moving on to mutual sex with someone. My experience is that when my sexual fantasies started (about eight?), they were explicitly male and female. When I was “informed” later that that was considered wrong (even a “sin”), I shrugged it off and went by my instincts. I have stayed true to myself my whole life with no regrets, and lots of fun! I absolutely adore the human body, both male and female. (I have to interject here that I am sorely disappointed with the obesity trend, which I do not adore.)
When I started to study our cousin chimps the Bonobos it helped me to understand that BiPan primate sex was likely innate, not an aberration. And, let’s face, humans, unlike the Bonobos, have most of our naked flesh exposed and ready to be touch, etc. What lucky creatures we are. Too bad our naked flesh has been a battleground instead of a playground.
Tiny, I think you are the only person who wrote about the “silence coming from gays,” except, of course, from our stalwart, yet throwback gayman KenS. I would add to that, the silence coming from bisexuals, as well.
There’s not one answer for all 7 billion horny humans, but I think we’d leap forward if we could get the godawful Jukrislims off of our backs.
Authored by: tiny on Friday, February 10 2012 @ 02:55 AM GMT+4
Jeez Vidda, I wanted to advanced this conversation but I
get frustrated when you go to this chimp thing. It reminds
me of a dear born again christian friend (no disrespect to
my Christian friends but she was true a little "c" christian)
when I was talking to her about creationism/darwinism
and she told me "I aint related to no chimp." So, let's just
say we are cousins with your chimps pals you refer to, like
two roads diverged in a yellow wood kind of related,
maybe a couple times removed, like a cousin of a cousin.
Perhaps related a bit more than a sea urchin but not as
related as a chimp. I don't want to get all Dr. Leaky about
this chimp thing, but i think there was a time way back
when there was a divergence of an human like being
where chimps went one way and humans went another.
As for the silence from the gays things, lets just say, I
think they are as dumbfounded about some of the stuff
you put out there as I am. Or maybe some think we are
just wacky. Whatever. This has been interesting. I hope
this doesn't become a pivotal election issue, LOL!
Sexuality isn't the problem labels, ignorance and intolerance are
Authored by: Azrael on Friday, February 10 2012 @ 12:28 AM GMT+4
Being that Vidda is involved in this converstaion I know I'm going out on a limb here but what the hell. My title really says what I want to get across. Honestly what's with all the labels? who really cares if your pan/bi/gay/straight/trans or whatever label someone comes up with next? I don't and neither should anyone else.
Sexuality isn't the problem labels, ignorance and intolerance are
Authored by: Vidda on Friday, February 10 2012 @ 01:12 AM GMT+4
Azrael concurs with some of the other people who have commented here.
If I were to philosophize, say, in terms of Nets with Subnets, then I would describe pansexuality (or polysexuality) as the net heading of a stylistic, all encompassing category.
Individual preferences would then be the Subnets under the Net, i.e., bi, gay, lesbian, straight, and, any of variation of sexual preferences desired.
I’m not sure it is the labels that are the problem, so much as how we use them (sometimes for or against each other).
I think ignorance speaks for itself.
Intolerance…well, we all know where that originates from….don’t we?
Sexuality isn't the problem labels, ignorance and intolerance are
Authored by: Azrael on Friday, February 10 2012 @ 01:42 AM GMT+4
To me I still don't see a point to the labels. I know I hate it when people try to label me anything and I try and avoid labeling myself. Christian, Liberal, even straight, I don't like being labeled and never have. It would be nice if we could just see each other as humans but i suppose that's way to much to expect in this messed up world we live in.
Authored by: dunder on Thursday, February 23 2012 @ 04:03 AM GMT+4
The more I read articles and research like this one below the more I think Vidda has a good point when he writes: “One of the smart things about being bisexual/pansexual is that you have it all. When you welcome people of all sexual orientations you get to freely embrace everyone. By not judging or begrudging other people’s sexual interests there are no artificial conflicts to resolve. The manmade and man-perpetuated sexual bias has no standing in a bisexual/pansexual world.”
There’s no question, in my personal opinion, that in a bisexual/pansexual society the conflicts described below would have a higher probability of not being prevalent in raising kids and the lack of those conflicts would be beneficial throughout adulthood and society.
I also looked more at some of the people’s comments where some very good points were made.
I’m not saying that Vidda is the perfect communicator. But the worst thing about reviewing this article and the comments again, was not what he said, but the personal attacks he received from a few people. He’s not alone in suffering unnecessary barbs against his person by commenter’s on iBrattleboro.
But, Vidda’s barbs seem to “mostly” be directed to a culture, a society, or some law that shouldn’t be on the books, such as victimless crimes, marijuana lwas, etc.
CNN ARTICLE: Kids who veer from gender norms at higher risk for abuse - CNN By Madison Park
A study published in Pediatrics this month showed that children who do not conform to gender roles are more likely to be abused, increasing the likelihood they will have post-traumatic stress disorder by the time they're in their 20s.
Gender nonconformity means that an individual tends to associate with roles, behaviors and activities of the opposite gender, rather than those of his or her biological sex. This could be a boy who grows his hair long or paints his nails, or a girl who only wears male clothing. These issues are often confused with transgender identity, but they are not the same thing.
Gender nonconforming behavior occurs in one out of 10 children, according to the study. A vast majority of these kids do not need medical interventions, because the behavior tends to fade as they grow older.
The results showed "very clear patterns," said S. Bryn Austin, one of the study's authors. "The young people who as children were most nonconforming were much more likely to report mistreatment or abuse, within the family, by people outside the family. They were targeted for abuse." http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/20/health/child-gender-nonconformity/index.html
Billie Joe Armstrong has identified himself as bisexual, saying in a 1995 interview with The Advocate, "I think I've always been bisexual. I mean, it's something that I've always been interested in. I think people are born bisexual, and it's just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of 'Oh, I can't.' They say it's taboo. It's ingrained in our heads that it's bad, when it's not bad at all. It's a very beautiful thing.” In a later interview for OUT magazine's April 2010 issue, Armstrong stated: "There were a lot of people who didn't accept it, who were homophobic." Armstrong continued, saying, "The fact that it's an issue is kind of phobic within itself. At some point, you gotta think, this should be something that's just accepted." Armstrong added: "I don't really classify myself as anything. And when it comes to sex, there are parts of me that are very shy and conservative. I want to respect my wife." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_Joe_Armstrong
...If we had culinary peace in the world there’d be no need for opposing groups like vegetarians versus carnivores. Moreover, there would no need for PETA or Beef Council "funding and programming."
We’d be so busy with our thriving food-lives that it wouldn’t make sense to spend time and money on what would otherwise be a non-issue.
One of the smart things about being omnivorous is that you have it all. When you welcome people of all foodological orientations you get to freely embrace everything. By not judging or begrudging other people’s cuisine interests there are no artificial conflicts to resolve. The manmade and man-perpetuated nutritional bias has no standing in a pan- or pot- or casserole-cooked world.
Once again, I call for vegans/vegetarians to stop arbitrarily including vegetable-eaters in their artificial grouping. We don’t belong being included in a situation or group that builds or carries-on a wall of separation between our pan-menu sisters and brothers.
The vegan faction only serves to cut/dice/mince/julienne us into pieces. You cannot make us whole again. Only omnivorousness can do that.
-Sorry, couldn't help it. Deep and authentic apologies to the original author, I appreciate your passion and idealism, I just have heard this argument before with topics other than the one you chose. For the record, I totally respect your right/desire to love anyone you would like to. And, um, again, sorry to make light. Oh yeah, and sorry if I offended any vegetarians, too. Or beef lobbyists.