Posts Tagged ‘sexuality’

via blue tea leaves


I find this to be very comprehensive, and not nearly as polarized/binary as we often paint these constructs to be. I had a long conversation this weekend that touched on this diagram and why I thought it made sense, and why I believe that many people collapse (polarize) themselves even though they’re a bit more complex than they allow themselves to be.


Are you a lesbian?

Posted: January 9, 2012 in Everything
Tags: , , ,

via bluetealeaves


This reminds me of this scene in ‘Mean Girls’

Cady: Hey!
Regina: Why were you talking to Janis Ian?
Cady: I don’t know, I mean, she’s so weird, she just, you know, came up to me and started talking to me about crack.

Regina: She’s so pathetic. Let me tell you something about Janis Ian. We were best friends in middle school. I know, right? It’s so embarrassing. I don’t even… Whatever. So then in eighth grade, I started going out with my first boyfriend Kyle who was totally gorgeous but then he moved to Indiana, and Janis was like, weirdly jealous of him. Like, if I would blow her off to hang out with Kyle, she’d be like, "Why didn’t you call me back?" And I’d be like, "Why are you so obsessed with me?" So then, for my birthday party, which was an all-girls pool party, I was like, "Janis, I can’t invite you, because I think you’re lesbian." I mean I couldn’t have a lesbian at my party. There were gonna be girls there in their *bathing suits*. I mean, right? She was a LESBIAN. So then her mom called my mom and started yelling at her, it was so retarded. And then she dropped out of school because no one would talk to her, and she came back in the fall for high school, all of her hair was cut off and she was totally weird, and now I guess she’s on crack.

James and Daniel Kelly

The two teenage boys sitting on the sofa opposite are different in almost every way. On the left is James: he’s black, he’s gay, he’s gregarious, and he’s academic. He’s taking three A-levels next summer, and wants to go to university. Daniel, sitting beside him, is white. He’s straight, he’s shy, and he didn’t enjoy school at all. He left after taking GCSEs, and hopes that his next move will be an apprenticeship in engineering.

So, given that they are diametrically opposed, there is one truly surprising thing about James and Daniel. They are twins. They were born on 27 March 1993, the sons of Alyson and Errol Kelly, who live in south-east London. And from the start, it was obvious to everyone that they were the complete flipside of identical. "They were chalk and cheese, right from the word go," says Alyson. "It was hard to believe they were even brothers, let alone twins."

The boys’ colour was the most obvious, and extraordinary, difference. "When James was born he was the spitting image of Errol, and I remember seeing his curly hair and thinking – he’s just like his dad. It was another two hours before Daniel was born: and what a surprise he was! He was so white and wrinkly, with this curly blond hair."

It wasn’t the first time nature had shocked Alyson and Errol. Daniel and James were the family‘s third set of twins: Errol and Alyson each already had a set with a previous partner. Errol’s first set are fraternal boys, Shane and Luke, who are 21; Alyson’s are identical boys, Charles and Jordan, 20. The only singleton in the house is the couple’s youngest child, and only daughter, 14-year-old Katie. "Apart from her, it’s twin city," says Alyson. "At least life was made a bit easier by the fact that we always had two of everything."

But it was clear that having one black and one white twin was going to mark the family out, wherever they went. "We’d go on holiday and people would say, ‘Is that one a friend you brought along?’" says Alyson. For Errol the response of strangers was harder to deal with. "People didn’t believe Daniel was mine," he says. "They didn’t always say anything, but I could tell it was what they were thinking."

So how does it happen that a white and a black partner – who would usually produce, as Alyson and Errol did in their other children, black-skinned offspring – have a child who is as white as his mum? I spoke to Dr Jim Wilson, population geneticist at Edinburgh University – and his first question was, "What is Errol’s heritage?" Errol is Jamaican – and that, says Jim, is the basic explanation.

How fascinating is this? I remember back to when I was inspired by stories like these to study genetics. Now, I’ve realized that study people and the one-off genetic differences and how it manifest culturally and what ‘aberrations’ experience. Amazing. (more…)

Life Explained

Posted: August 17, 2011 in Food for Thought
Tags: , ,



Pope Benedict XVI x Homosex

Posted: December 9, 2010 in Politics
Tags: ,

The Pope makes some interesting points here….you know if the Church were an institution – a highly politicized one. I’m just not sure I’m on board since religion is such a guiding principle/way of life for people who trust his word. Either way, he does have interesting points to make.


“The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful.
The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.”

“Sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual. We could say, if we wanted to put it like this, that evolution has brought forth sexuality for the purpose of reproducing the species. The same thing is true from a theological point of view as well. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman

And, in this way, to give humanity posterity, children, a future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality’s intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age …
Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation.

Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway.”

“But there is no doubt that homosexuality exists in monasteries and among the clergy, if not acted out, then at least in a nonpracticed form.”

“Well, that is just one of the disturbing problems of the Church. And the persons who are affected must at least try not to express this inclination actively, in order to remain true to the intrinsic mission of their office.”

“The issue at stake here is the intrinsic truth of sexuality’s significance in the constitution of man’s being. If someone has deep-seated homosexual inclinations–and it is still an open question whether these inclinations are really innate or whether they arise in early childhood–if, in any case, they have power over him, this is a great trial for him, just as other trials can afflict other people as well. But this does not mean that homosexuality thereby becomes morally right. Rather, it remains contrary to the essence of what God originally willed … For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off centre, and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken.”


via Goodbye forever fatty


Before the days of Wendy Williams as a tv show host, she was one of the greatest radio personalities for how much dirt she dug up and shit she talked. And she had a hilarious, bi-sexual sidekick named Artie aka ‘Artie like of the party’.

One of the funniest things he said that goes perfectly with the image above was a song about his sexuality.

How you doin, how you doin.
Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey
A finger is a finger and a toe is a toe

Sexuality & Power

Posted: August 11, 2010 in Ramblings
Tags: , ,

I was doing a whole stream of consciousness thing when I was looking at a wall-to-wall on Facebook between these two girls. They were sharing their sexuality in reference to a specific event. Anyway, that got me to thinking about the nature of sexuality as a function of power.

It’s been shown that females are more likely to be bisexual than are males, where bisexuality in these studies usually includes a near equivalent preference for men and women both sexually and emotionally. Studies like that are inherently flawed in part because it’s considered a societal normal for females to share emotions in the way that they do and for it to not be considered abnormal, and that the fluidity of female sexuality is considered more acceptable in our society.

I would normally dismiss something like that because it suggest that societal influences create a situation that makes it easier for females and by that nature it would seem likely it’s unequal playing grounds. But then I considered that it doesn’t have to just be causal in one direction (society –> behavior).

What if the difference in the bisexuality, where it reflects a true non-preference for either males or females (indifference is how I want to view it), is a reflection of our power structure and that by itself can actually make (true) male bisexuality nearly impossible. Consider the fact that we live in a patriarchal society, and that men have held power for the majority of human existence. Thus women have fallen into a de facto powerless position (but only relatively).

I should preface that the following argument will assume that there is a choice component of sexuality, which I’m not necessarily saying but makes the following argument a lot easier. A female is more easily able to gain an advantage from being bisexual instead of being homosexual in terms of resources (financial, emotional, etc). Women also gain power (technically) if they’re in a heterosexual relationship compared to a homosexual one. If you have an equivalent preference then it seems likely that you can chose whichever situation best suites you. And it should be noted that this preference can change over time, as female’s sexuality is considered to be more fluid with reference to time than it is for males.

In the same type of scenario it would appear to be beneficial for a male to choose another male, as their combined power is synergetic. Male sexuality is usually considered more stable than females’, going in one linear direction over time. Does it become easier to just stay in that type of relationship (societal discrimination, etc aside)? This mechanism to me is a lot less clear, but I wonder if it has anything to with our patriarchy. Would we see an opposite pattern for fluid sexuality if we lived in a matriarchal society?

Background: I’m sure the above seems all too speculative and that’s probably fair. However, consider one study we discussed in my Psychology of Relationships class. In one study, they looked at a round of speed dating. In the study, males rotated to different females (as is the case with the majority of all speed dating where one partner rotates) and they described a mechanism where the process of rotating created confidence.

That confidence was cited as making males more aware of reciprocal female interests. Females perform more subtle indicators of interests than most males recognize, as males often misinterpret female interests; as a result, males are often very bad at recognizing if there is chemistry. Yet, if a male and female are shown a similar dating scenario via video tape they are both equally likely to guess reciprocal interests. In other words, when you’re in the situation and you’re male, you’re going to be awful at reading the social cues for interest or lack thereof.

Now on to the interesting part. They had women rotate in this speed dating round, and found that the differences in perception of interests were now equaled. Or that once females had to be active, exhibiting approach behavior more indicative of males and what society has ingrained, they were at the same level of interpreting (perceiving) romantic interest. So where does the confidence argument go when it doesn’t help females in decoding the simple, indications of male interest?

It would seem that the ingrained act of males’ approach behavior, either a symbol for submission to another (philosophically) or dominance, is really about power. Women can be, or should I say have to be, more subtle with their rejections or indicators of romantic chemistry because they are considered powerless. You can’t just reject a king and expect to keep your head right? So it’s about power, that inversion of power in that moment yet the pervasiveness of the power structure. Now when a woman would approach she doesn’t have power to lose by asking a male out or seeking his romantic approval in this scenario; it is societally a given that she is not in power anyway.

It’s an interesting effect to see that merely changing who alternates in a round of speed dating can influence romantic interest perception, which is likely to be based on power. So that is kind of how I’m attempting to tie together the argument of what would sexuality be like if we lived in a patriarchy? I’m sure that we’d be a lot less violent.

Chimpanzees are one of our closest ape relatives, and they are patriarchal. And some of their females exhibit partnership-like behavior with each other. And then there are bonobos who live in a matriarchal society, and are actually just ‘dwarf’ chimpanzees (closely related cousins). Bonobos are more peaceful than chimps and have a lot more sex, they have sex to quell arguments and to generally promote pro-social behavior. It’s interesting to see how socially these related species differ based on something seemingly as simple as socio-power structure as it relates to gender.

Bonobos are also more similar in body size between genders than are chimps, who exhibit more sexual dimorphism. Gorillas are an ape extreme, where the males are huge and females small. You can’t as easily tell the sex of a bonobo. And aside from our attire, how sexually dimorphic are humans really?

I’ve rambled on a lot, but isn’t this intriguing in some way? This is actually something I would love to hear feedback on. I have my (limited) analysis from the psychological, super subjective point of view, but what about something that’s say more grounded in ‘reason’? Comment below or leave something anonymously via formspring (link).

Hmm…Lincoln Lover?

Posted: August 9, 2010 in Politics, Ramblings
Tags: , ,

I was recently watching an episode of “American Dad,” the younger brother of “Family Guy.” Not nearly as funny of a show, but much more politically-centered. It’s sorta like FG’s style but with Colbert’s take on ‘news.’

The particular episode I watched was called “Lincoln Lover” and centered around Stan wanting to speak at the RNC. He goes through a lot to do it, and unwittingly puts on a play about Abraham Lincoln’s life that is codified as a ‘gay romance.” The entire episode alluded to Lincoln being gay, and that being the reason why the Log Cabin Republicans have taken on their name.

So I of course was interested in what this could be based on: truth, fiction, or fan-fiction. And Google did not let me down, as I found a few links on this very controversy. If you have 20 minutes, I would highly recommend reading or skimming this particular article. A quick summary of it: the verdict is inconclusive about his sexuality (not that it matters). However the most interesting part of the article in addressing those who firmly stand behind Lincoln’s heterosexuality:

Abraham Lincoln’s, to me inescapable, homosexuality raises this just as Thomas Jefferson’s vaunted connection to Sally Hemings comes up anew. Few now deny the central relevance of solving the problem: if that forty-one year old widower took to bed a teen-aged mulatto slave and fathered five children by her, if so emblematically reasonable and unafraid a man chose to make yet worse use of the powers of darkness which history forced upon him as he toiled for the enlightened future, then it darkly illuminates the nation’s founding age

I am really just a huge fan of how history is now reinterpreting itself, or should I see looking things over with a different focus than it previously had. I don’t care about Lincoln’s sexuality, but the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings connection does call to attention how frequently certain aspects of history are overlooked and later revisited. Obviously history is told in a way consistent with the way that particular historian sees it, but again it’s just interesting to (finally) see the practical use and reflection within the historical and scholarly community.

So I read this article some time ago, and kept it for a time that made since to reblog it. I think that time is now.

Where Are All The Bisexual Men?

This weekend Vanessa Carlton followed in the footsteps of female celebrities like Lady Gaga, Anna Paquin, and Megan Mullally and came out as bisexual. Congrats! But why is this well-intentioned announcement always made by ladies? Aren’t there any bi guys?

The funny thing about telling the world that you enjoy having sex with or are attracted to members of both sexes is that it is kind of like announcing to a room full of Americans that you are Canadian. Just like Canadians are basically Americans with a few subtle differences (healthcare, politeness, love of hockey) bisexuals are basically just straight people who like to get a little funky. Just look at Paquin and Mullally who are both in monogamous relationships with men. Sure, they might think about a little lady love every once in awhile, but they’re basically in the same relationship as every other breeder on the planet. Lady Gaga admits that she’s never actually let another woman ride on her disco stick, and her Sapphic proclivities seem to be a way to bind her closer to the gay community that she fights for and that continues to play remixes of every one of her singles at every one of their social gatherings.

Famous women coming out as loving both peen and vag is kind of nice, in a way. It may be a little meaningless, but it’s like breaking in the public for hardcore homosexuals. If we can get all the right-wing crazies in the flat parts of the country to embrace people who like both sexes, maybe they’ll get a little more comfortable with those who only jones for members of the same sex. Bisexuals are sort of like queer training wheels, weaning people off of their narrow vision of sexuality to open them up to the world of difference that exists outside of their “traditional marriage.”

Bisexual women are especially powerful in this regard because people don’t really care if a female has fluid sexuality. In fact, most straight guys would actually prefer imagining that Anna Paquin will not only sleep with them, but will bring her best girlfriend over for a three=way. Yes, there is nothing icky about lady-on-lady action. This is not true with male-on-male intercourse. People are not just disgusted by the people, they’re disgusted by the act.

And that’s why there are no essentially straight guys who come out as bi either to support gay rights (like Gaga) or for a little bit of a publicity bump (yeah, Vanessa Carlton, we’re looking at you). We’ve been on Craigslist enough to know that bisexual men really do exist, but there aren’t any in the public sphere because acknowledging that they have or have thought about bumping uglies with another dude would garner a collective, “Ew! You want to put that where?!”

Thanks in part to our famous bisexual women who are married to men, the world seems to think of bi women as ladies who will venture to the Sapphic side for fun or to please a man. Because butt sex is an unthinkable taboo for so many (especially men who have never tried it and don’t know what they’re missing), bisexual men are seen as gay guys who are clinging on to women so they won’t seem too faggy.

It’s a horrible double standard and it’s one I think we should end. How? Well, we need some famous dudes to come out as bi. We know you’re out there, guys. And even if you’re not, can’t you pull a Gaga and just pretend for the sake of the cause? Thanks!

And then, I read another article (same great site, ONTD).

Hollywood heart-throb Tom Hardy has revealed he had a string of gay flings as a teenager.

The 32-year-old Inception star, who is engaged to British actress Charlotte Riley, 28, and also has a two-year-old son with a former girlfriend . But asked if he’d ever had any sexual relations with other men, the broody actor said: ‘As a boy? Of course I have. I’m an actor for ****’s sake.

‘I’ve played with everything and everyone. I love the form and the physicality, but now that I’m in my thirties, it doesn’t do it for me. I’m done experimenting but there’s plenty of stuff in a relationship with another man, especially gay men, that I need in my life.

‘A lot of gay men get my thing for shoes. I have definite feminine qualities and a lot of gay men are incredibly masculine.’

London-born Tom found big-screen fame with Star Trek Nemesis, and in the 2009 hit Bronson, where he played the notoriously violent criminal Charles Bronson to critical acclaim. In Guy Ritchie’s hit Rock’n’Rolla he starred as gay gangster Handsome Bob, and had a crush on Irish hearthrob Gerard Butler. He then starred as Heathcliffe in a BBC remake of Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, where he met stunning fiancée Charlotte.

In an interview with Now magazine, the former party-boy who has battled drink, drugs and crime to turn his life around, added: ‘A lot of people say I seem masculine, but I don’t feel it. I feel intrinsically feminine. I’d love to be one of the boys but I always felt a bit on the outside.
‘Maybe my masculine qualities come from overcompensating because I’m not one of the boys.’

Overall, it’s an interesting dialogue taking place here.