xkcd

by **Sarr** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:11 pm UTC

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/01/ ... iage-bill/ This makes my day a lot better than it was about 5 minutes ago.

by **joshz** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:17 pm UTC

Huh. Cool. Go, Maryland!

Maybe this'll motivate DE to do something about it.

by **nthj** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:07 am UTC

There was never anything here.
Also, We've always been at war with Eastasia.

by **Nordic Einar** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:57 pm UTC

nthj wrote:I've noticed there are several bi guys posting here who are currently in a straight relationship. Bit of a personal question: are you strictly monogamous or in open relationships?

As much as I hate to further the bi-slut stereotype (or even identify with the bisexuality label, which I don't) I am currently in a polyamorous relationship. I'd like to point out, however, that a polyamorous relationship can/often is very different from an open one, so it isn't necessarily freesex all day errday.

My heterosexual partner and I both identify as non-bi, however, so the idea of being monogamous to one another is just unbearable. Things get further complicated when non-sexual romantic relationships with one or several of our primary's other partners get involved - I wouldn't describe our girlfriends as "her girlfriends", ever, because it devalues the strong romantic but non-generally-nonsexual relationship I have with them.

tl;dr - it's complicated

by **Whelan** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:20 pm UTC

Being a single bi guy, I would say that I'm with the person I'm with, and that's that. I don't see how having two girlfriends is different to one girl and one boy. If everyone involved is okay with it, then sure, but I'm not sure I could be.

by **Virtual_Aardvark** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:46 pm UTC

Yeah, I don't want to jump down your throat here, but why only bi guys? I've seen numerous straight/gay/whatever relationships that are also open or poly in some form. The only grounding for this that I can see is guys who say their girlfriends can date other girls but not other guys (and vice versa) because they don't feel the lesbian third of the relationship counts as much. So...um...kindof bi stereotyping and such even if that wasn't the intention.

by **Jessica** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:24 am UTC

Virtual_Aardvark wrote:Yeah, I don't want to jump down your throat here, but why only bi guys? I've seen numerous straight/gay/whatever relationships that are also open or poly in some form. The only grounding for this that I can see is guys who say their girlfriends can date other girls but not other guys (and vice versa) because they don't feel the lesbian third of the relationship counts as much. So...um...kindof bi stereotyping and such even if that wasn't the intention.

I know people like that. Fucking heterosexist BS...
sorry.

by **Nordic Einar** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:37 am UTC

Virtual_Aardvark wrote:Yeah, I don't want to jump down your throat here, but why only bi guys? I've seen numerous straight/gay/whatever relationships that are also open or poly in some form. The only grounding for this that I can see is guys who say their girlfriends can date other girls but not other guys (and vice versa) because they don't feel the lesbian third of the relationship counts as much. So...um...kindof bi stereotyping and such even if that wasn't the intention.

Jessica wrote:I know people like that. Fucking heterosexist BS...
sorry.

I'm certainly not comfortable w/ my female partner dating an opposite sex individual, and the same rules apply to me as well. It has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with me believing her relationships with her female partners are "less valid" than a relationship with a male.

Be careful judging the particular relationship dynamics that the individuals have agreed to in a relationship that isn't yours. Not feeling threatened by your partner having a same sex relationship doesn't make you automatically heterosexist because you are uncomfortable with an opposite sex relationship.

by **Virtual_Aardvark** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:45 am UTC

I don't mean to say it's an invalid choice or condition in every case. I'm speaking more from personal experience where an ex let me date girls because as it turned out he didn't take G/G relationships seriously if one or both the girls were bi. He considered it either "experimentation", a source of personal pleasure for him, or occasionally to reinforce slut stereotypes about bi girls.

I'm sorry I didn't intend to come off as rude. I've observed it to be the prevailing attitude in many relationships set up that way but certainly not all and I should have made myself clearer.

by **Nordic Einar** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:57 am UTC

How many of your experiences with relationships of that dynamic self-identified as members of the "poly" community? Because that certainly hasn't been my experience in the movement itself.

by **Virtual_Aardvark** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:36 am UTC

In retrospect many of these relationships occurred among highschool or recently graduated people. As far as I know none of them identified with the poly community. As I only have peripheral contact to the poly community and never a relationship with that set up in particular I certainly can't comment on that. I will say that the people I have met from the community have all been reasonably mature and even minded as far as relationships go. I was reacting more to the combination of bi men and open relationships than to any poly setup. I really am sorry if I offended.

by **animeHrmIne** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:10 am UTC

Since it's out there, a question about polyamory: I've been thinking lately, and I don't think that I would mind having a poly partner. I don't want a relationship with more than one person at a time, but I just feel like I would be okay with having a partner with multiple other partners of varying degrees of seriousness. Where would that put me on the poly scale?

Then again, as I've never been in a serious relationship, for all I know I could become a raging jealous bitch. I hope not, though, because that idea doesn't sit well with me.

by **Nordic Einar** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:36 am UTC

@Virtual_Aardvark

It's all good. It's just frustrating that, being a (perceived) bisexual member of the poly community, I often get shit from the gays for being bi, the straights for being bi, the gays for being heterosexist, the straights for being a slut, etc etc etc.

This tends to make me a tad defensive, especially since the unique relationships I've built are almost invariably described as "not real", or my lesbian partners are constantly mocked for not being "real lesbians".

animeHrmIne wrote:Where would that put me on the poly scale?

Then again, as I've never been in a serious relationship, for all I know I could become a raging jealous bitch. I hope not, though, because that idea doesn't sit well with me.

It would put you as an arm on a V, and there are lots of relationships composed similarly. The V is one of the most common forms of polyamory. As per the jealousy, well... extensive, explicit communication is key to making a polyamorous family work. By being forced to talk about everything, I have actually become less and less of a jealous person as time moved on. My individual relationships have improved because of it, truthfully.

by **Shivahn** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:21 am UTC

I'm at least bisexual. I don't think I could date most men, but there are certain looks and such that are very eyebrow raising.

No revelation, no story. It's not a huge part of my identity, even, just something that's there that I feel should be said.

by **Sarr** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:03 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:I'm at least bisexual. I don't think I could date most men, but there are certain looks and such that are very eyebrow raising.

No revelation, no story. It's not a huge part of my identity, even, just something that's there that I feel should be said.

I'm basically the same. I find some guys attractive and would be perfectly willing to sleep with a guy, but I've never really had a crush on a guy. The way I think about it, I kinda feel that I'm bi-sexual, but not necessarily bi-amorous (which is not to say that it couldn't happen, just that it hasn't yet, and I do tend to prefer the ladies).

by **Shivahn** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:14 am UTC

Sarr wrote:
Shivahn wrote:I'm at least bisexual. I don't think I could date most men, but there are certain looks and such that are very eyebrow raising.

No revelation, no story. It's not a huge part of my identity, even, just something that's there that I feel should be said.

I'm basically the same. I find some guys attractive and would be perfectly willing to sleep with a guy, but I've never really had a crush on a guy. The way I think about it, I kinda feel that I'm bi-sexual, but not necessarily bi-amorous (which is not to say that it couldn't happen, just that it hasn't yet, and I do tend to prefer the ladies).

I'm a bit different, in that I can get little crushes on a guy, but don't think I could sleep with any. I feel weird calling that bisexual, but I fit far better in the ambiguous middle categories (in general) than the points on the far ends of the spectra.

by **joshz** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:18 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:I'm at least bisexual. I don't think I could date most men, but there are certain looks and such that are very eyebrow raising.

No revelation, no story. It's not a huge part of my identity, even, just something that's there that I feel should be said.

Have you heard of the Kinsey scale? Not everyone fits into the "straight-bi-gay" trichotomy. It's a continuum of sorts. It sounds to me from what you said that you might be Kinsey 1-2. Regardless, welcome, and *hugs*.

by **Sarr** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:39 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:
Sarr wrote:
Shivahn wrote:I'm at least bisexual. I don't think I could date most men, but there are certain looks and such that are very eyebrow raising.

No revelation, no story. It's not a huge part of my identity, even, just something that's there that I feel should be said.

I'm basically the same. I find some guys attractive and would be perfectly willing to sleep with a guy, but I've never really had a crush on a guy. The way I think about it, I kinda feel that I'm bi-sexual, but not necessarily bi-amorous (which is not to say that it couldn't happen, just that it hasn't yet, and I do tend to prefer the ladies).
I'm a bit different, in that I can get little crushes on a guy, but don't think I could sleep with any. I feel weird calling that bisexual, but I fit far better in the ambiguous middle categories (in general) than the points on the far ends of the spectra.

I can understand that. Simple labels, while wonderful in theory, are generally a not-so-great way of actually explaining things. I, for example, call myself bisexual, am actually pansexual (but not everybody knows what that means, thus calling self bi), and while I'm perfectly ok with the idea of sleeping with most people I'm attracted to, it takes something kinda special for anything more, which generally means I need to have been friends with them for a while.

by **Aaeriele** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:01 am UTC

joshz wrote:Have you heard of the Kinsey scale? Not everyone fits into the "straight-bi-gay" trichotomy. It's a continuum of sorts. It sounds to me from what you said that you might be Kinsey 1-2. Regardless, welcome, and *hugs*.

Shivahn's been around the thread for a while joshz.

by **Shivahn** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:07 am UTC

Aaeriele wrote:
joshz wrote:Have you heard of the Kinsey scale? Not everyone fits into the "straight-bi-gay" trichotomy. It's a continuum of sorts. It sounds to me from what you said that you might be Kinsey 1-2. Regardless, welcome, and *hugs*.

Shivahn's been around the thread for a while joshz.

Haha, I have not been active recently I guess. Plus most of my participation is about.. different issues

Sarr wrote:I can understand that. Simple labels, while wonderful in theory, are generally a not-so-great way of actually explaining things. I, for example, call myself bisexual, am actually pansexual (but not everybody knows what that means, thus calling self bi), and while I'm perfectly ok with the idea of sleeping with most people I'm attracted to, it takes something kinda special for anything more, which generally means I need to have been friends with them for a while.

Yeah. Fuzzy labels give fuzzy results. I'm closer to bisexual than "true" gynephilia though. Incidentally, I've been in a relationship for a while, so I'm not sure what it takes to sleep with people anymore. I'm willing to bet that I'm the same as you.

joshz wrote:Have you heard of the Kinsey scale? Not everyone fits into the "straight-bi-gay" trichotomy. It's a continuum of sorts. It sounds to me from what you said that you might be Kinsey 1-2. Regardless, welcome, and *hugs*.

I will accept and return your *hugs*!

Yeah, I'm probably somewhere there. I just tend to treat the edges as well-defined hetero/homosexual points and "bisexual" as a catch-all category, though I know others define things differently. I guess I'm just coming out and saying that I don't think most people would call me "straight" really.

by **joshz** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:28 pm UTC

Aaeriele wrote:
joshz wrote:Have you heard of the Kinsey scale? Not everyone fits into the "straight-bi-gay" trichotomy. It's a continuum of sorts. It sounds to me from what you said that you might be Kinsey 1-2. Regardless, welcome, and *hugs*.
Shivahn's been around the thread for a while joshz.

<_<
>_>
I...was testing you? To see if you'd catch my totally on purpose mistake?

by **AnnaArmour** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:11 am UTC

Just trying to make sense of things.
I'm sure this has all been said before, so feel free to ignore it.

Spoiler:

And, so this isn't a total waste of space: http://revelandriot.com/news
(LGBTQ-related news)

by **Jessica** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:17 am UTC

AnnaArmour wrote:Just trying to make sense of things.
I'm sure this has all been said before, so feel free to ignore it.

Spoiler:
I know I like women. I don't know if I like guys. I suck with people, and I've been trying to differentiate between who I'm comfortable around and who I'm actually attracted to. Kids are conditioned to be friends with people of their gender, so maybe I'm averse to guys because I view them as more intimidating and women as more accessible. I've always been kind of defensive regarding guys, like I don't want anyone to think I'm a boy-crazy, shallow teenager. Physically, women are more familiar and men are kind of foreign. So I guess I'm just wondering how social anxiety factors into this. I just don't want to perpetuate bullshit stereotypes about lesbians. Someone here said a while back that they worried they just identified as queer because they wanted to be "special." I've considered that too, but I figure it's impossible to control what you like.
Anyway, I'm not in a hurry to define my orientation. At this point, if I like someone, I like them. Regardless of gender.

This probably should have gone in a journal entry, but I doubt my problem is unique, so... Yeah. Thanks for reading this shit.

*hugs*
It's not easy. But, I know you can do it. Just see what happens and have an open mind. In the end, it doesn't matter who you like, or what you like, just as long as you're happy. If girls make you happy then cool. If boys do, then awesome. If they both do or neither do, then awesome!

But, we're glad to be here for you if you need us.

by **joshz** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:29 am UTC

What Jessica said.

Don't feel like you have to constrain yourself or necessarily choose a label. You are who you are. If you fall in love with a woman, great. If you fall in love with a guy, great. But there's no need to feel pressed to make your decision now, if you don't want to.

*hugs*

by **poxic** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:06 am UTC

Also, what you feel today might be different from what you feel tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or a decade from now. You might decide on one thing ("I like girls!"), and this feels good for a while. And then you might meet a man who totally upends your ideas about what you like. Or, y'know, vice versa.

Human sexuality is complicated and often fluid. So is attraction, which can totally be different from sexuality -- who you want to snuggle up to might not be the same as who you want to fuck, because that happens. Humans are bloody complicated sometimes. And we often refuse to stop changing, despite our own best wishes.

And this is all okay. You're just trying things out, finding out what works for you now. You will probably stress out about it all, and that's okay too, because that's what people do. We stress out, then we figure things out, then we change and stress out all over again. Just practise taking it all in stride. Life is like that. :wink:

by **nthj** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:01 am UTC

There was never anything here.
Also, We've always been at war with Eastasia.

by **Aaeriele** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:50 am UTC

http://www.lyon-martin.org

Lyon-Martin Health Services Announces Fundraising Appeal

SAN FRANCISCO - January 26th, 2011 - Lyon-Martin yesterday announced its intentions to close its doors due to financial crisis. A community forum, organized in response to yesterday's announcement, has generated grassroots mobilization and fundraising aimed at keeping Lyon-Martin's services available to its nearly 2,500 patients. "We're thrilled at the response we've gotten from key decision makers in San Francisco, and from the overwhelming community support pouring in," said Dawn Harbatkin, the clinic's Interim Executive Director. "The community's actions show how important Lyon-Martin's survival is to so many people." Since the press release yesterday, the clinic had already raised $28,000 in donations and pledges. The immediate overall goal is $250,000.

by **joshz** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:19 am UTC

Bi guy here in a long-distance relationship (with a woman, if it matters). I haven't directly told any of my friends about being bi, but have updated my Facebook with my orientation.

by **Monika** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:48 pm UTC

AnnaArmour wrote:This probably should have gone in a journal entry, but I doubt my problem is unique, so... Yeah. Thanks for reading this ****.
And, so this isn't a total waste of space: http://revelandriot.com/news (LGBTQ-related news)

*hugs* This is a great place for writing such things. Actually I would say it's the greatest place ever.

Maybe you are lesbian, maybe you are bi, maybe you are something in between or something different ... any is fine, don't worry about going with or against some stereotypes. You are you and the stereotypes can stuff it. As the others have said: You don't have to decide, you don't have to decide now and you don't have to fix your mind forever. *more hugs*

And I like the Revel and Riot news, thanks for linking that!

Aaeriele wrote: http://www.lyon-martin.org Lyon-Martin Health Services Announces Fundraising Appeal

This blog article http://mnomedenimp.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... -away-now/ made me realize how horrible healthcare can be for transpeople and how important specialized clinics are. *goes donate*

by **TheGrammarBolshevik** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:15 pm UTC

The Crimson, I am disappoint.

by **Monika** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:38 pm UTC

Hardvard Crimson wrote:While we remain concerned about the continued exclusion of transgendered and intersex individuals from military service, we do not feel that this is sufficient justification for singling out the military for campus opprobrium. Furthermore, as such objections to ROTC only emerged in the public discourse after the repeal of DADT, to base rejection of ROTC on them now would be disingenuous and erode the credibility of Harvard as a good faith actor in this debate.

:-/

I don't know, didn't the reasons for banning ROTC move from discrimination of people of color to compulsoriness of enlistment to gay rights in the past? Just because the most recent focus was Dont-ask-dont-tell, how can that be a reason for stopping there?

I guess it goes to show that it has to be a fight for LGBT rights from the beginning, saying we go for LGB rights first and then do T next once the heteronormative cissexist society has swallowed the first bit doesn't work, it just leads to sorry excuses like the above b.s.

by **tentacleTherapist** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:58 pm UTC

So, uh, tomorrow morning for me is going to be...interesting. Last week I told my best friend that I wanted to talk to her about something (my being trans/queer), but every time I tried to bring it up again I got scared and chickened out. So today, I wrote a brief letter instead and stuck it in her pocket. I didn't get to meet her again later in school so I don't know if she's even read the thing; I spent the whole day worrying that it might have fallen out and some douchebag found it instead, or that it had gotten thrown in the bin and all sorts of ridiculous stuff. I guess I'm just scared of how our friendship might change, positive or negative <_>

And in other news, I accidentally outed myself as bi to my mum. I was showing her how some stuff worked on Facebook and she asked what sort of things would be on the Info page, so I showed her mine, only to realise that she'd see the contents of the 'Interested In' field...Her reaction was a mixture of shock and semi-incredulous laughter (that's not a very good description, I know) and interspersed with questions of whether I was really bi, or gay, or if I had put it there as a joke, or if I was just confused, or greedy (etc :evil:

) so after I recovered from the discomfort of suddenly having to come out (and fed up with her weird-ass questions) I just said, "Yes, I am sexually attracted to both men and women, there." (well actually I'm pan but I knew if I tried to explain it we would be there all day). A few days later she then casually outed me to my sister in a complete non sequitur, without asking me whether it was ok to do so. So while I'm glad she reacted positively (and my sister too) her complete cluelessness makes me facepalm HARD.
oh and thanks for reading this crap guys

by **TheGrammarBolshevik** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:03 pm UTC

Monika wrote:I don't know, didn't the reasons for banning ROTC move from discrimination of people of color to compulsoriness of enlistment to gay rights in the past?

No, I think the military integrated racially some time during World War II. The ROTC was changed to an extracurricular activity at Harvard (as it had previously been a for-credit program) under pressure from anti-war/anti-military/anti-imperialist/hippie students, although I can't find the reasoning of the governing body itself. The military then withdrew the ROTC program itself, as the law (at least of the time) did not allow the ROTC to exist as an extracurricular program.

But, yeah, it is true that the reasoning shifted from anti-war sentiment to pro-equality sentiment. The only arguments against not continuing to uphold that principle seem to be "It would be better to engage with the military and fix it than wait for it to be perfect" and "Gee Willikers stfu liberals."

by **Nordic Einar** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:10 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Monika wrote:I don't know, didn't the reasons for banning ROTC move from discrimination of people of color to compulsoriness of enlistment to gay rights in the past?

No, I think the military integrated racially some time during World War II.

The order was following WWII, and most of the actually integration happened during Korea (due to the need for manpower).

by **TheGrammarBolshevik** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:39 am UTC

Either way, that would have been well before Harvard excluded the ROTC in 1969.

by **nthj** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:43 am UTC

There was never anything here.
Also, We've always been at war with Eastasia.

by **The Mighty Thesaurus** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:26 pm UTC

A few days later she then casually outed me to my sister in a complete non sequitur, without asking me whether it was ok to do so

This is why I am scared of coming out to any of my family: if I tell one, I tell them all.

by **GraphiteGirl** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:31 pm UTC

Of interest - Nepal's added a third gender to its census. What do you think? It seems like they're trying to be more inclusive and also more conscious of their trans population, which is certainly a good thing, but if the listing is "male, female or trans", that sort of denies trans people's desire to just identify as their self-identified gender, does it not?

by **Brace** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:10 pm UTC

GraphiteGirl wrote:Of interest - Nepal's added a third gender to its census. What do you think? It seems like they're trying to be more inclusive and also more conscious of their trans population, which is certainly a good thing, but if the listing is "male, female or trans", that sort of denies trans people's desire to just identify as their self-identified gender, does it not?

Trans people with target genders inside the binary maybe, but not necessarily genderqueer or genderfluid people, whether specifically trans or otherwise. Also, I don't see why trans people can't continue to use the existing male and female categories if they really want to, it's not like they're losing that ability right? I would be more nervous about my government knowing specifically that I'm TG and where I live and etc. Call me an alarmist but whatever, just doesn't feel right.

by **NecklaceOfShadow** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:56 pm UTC

Okay, embargo is over. That’s it. I’m posting. Wall of text ahead.

Spoiler:

tl:dr; I’m selling the rights to my auto-biography to any takers trying to get new ideas for soaps.

Who is online