I agree, but more fundamentally, without assuming the binary - what are “men” or “women” in the first place? The biology is like a car, it doesn’t tell you anything about who is inside. To me, there are basically two sexes: RNA and DNA, and each person is both, making them hermaphroditic. The other biological differences are superficial.
I guess I’m somewhat gay.
Or just repressed about porn.
No, I’m really not repressed. I think my taste in porn is partial to imagining that it could be my dick doing that. No dicks means that fantasy is impossible.
But repressed? No. Although my porn viewing has gone down a bit, a lot of that has to do with depression and depression meds kind of killing my sex drive.
I see what you did there!
Sure it is LOL! It might seem insensitive of me, but it’s hard for me to imagine some slight dietary gynecomastia as being equivalent to a “gender bending nightmare”. To each their own, I suppose.
1 Like
Or could it be due to those straight men being exposed to “normal” sized cocks via porn?
“All the dicks I see are more than 8 inches, why would I buy one smaller?!” o_O
2 Likes
Wow! Love the casual misandry in that article!! >.<
1 Like
Don’t apologize! It was the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Interesting and funny.
FTA:
1% Alien.
4 Likes
I read it as:
‘all those who like girl-on-girl porn are male heterosexuals’
rather than:
‘all those who are male heterosexuals like girl-on-girl porn’.
Someone cleverer than me could probably write it out in formal logical notation. Or draw a Venn diagram.
Wait, so you’re telling people how they should associate with their gender/preferences? I identify as a “straight man”, but you’re telling me I’m not because some theory you hold. People can identify with what they want to identify with.
I know men men and women who identify as straight, I know ones who identify as gay, and I know ones who identify as " all/none of the above". Who am I to tell them they are wrong?
Labels are useful. “Straight” is easier to say and think about as opposed to me saying: “I am a biological male, born with biologically normal genitalia with hormonal levels within the average bounds for said gender, who has never shown the inclination of same-sex sexual contact or intercourse, nor have I ever acted upon such an impulse as of this time. And I have no feeling of overt psychological conflict on any of these facts either through upbringing or inate genetic, chemical, or biological programming.”
1 Like
How/where do I do this?
Not at all. Nobody IS their identity, people are what they are, while identity is a mere construct, an abstract model they’ve made about how they like to see themselves. Or how they imagine others see them. The map is not the territory.
Of course they can. But that doesn’t make their identity real in any objective sense. This process usually results in humans becoming deluded, because there is a relationship between their model and the outside world, so it is easy to confuse one with the other even though they aren’t the same. Manipulating one’s model only changing things in one’s head, the subjective frame of reference.
Personal identity is popular, but I think it’s a waste of time.
They can be. Even erroneous labels can be used to reach a consensus. But I think that they are ultimately only as useful as they are accurate.
It might be easier, but I don’t think either of these really say anything meaningful. YMMV, apparently.
Not to get into an argument, I see your point and don’t disagree with it completely, but you responded to someone saying they know straight people who … With saying that “straight isn’t real” (basically). I admit, I might be reading more into this than I need too, but that is the impression I got from the comment and the context.
People are somewhat their identity. Identities are are self reaffirming, identities can be aspirational, and identities applied because of features based in reality. If I walk like a straight man, talk like a straight man, and select my mates like a straight man,; is it really a fiction to call myself a “straight man”? Yes, thing can go from clear cut to hazy, to downright foggy, but some portion of the population will fit within that label. So how is that label wrong?
I am a collection of labels. Some of these are completely accurate, some of these are of convenience, some of them are rough approximations, and some of them are unwanted stereotypes or ways of inflicting power from outside. I also am none of these things. Were agruging linguistics and philosophy now. Things are not what they are called, nor the mere collection of attributes applied to them. Things are noumenal, unknowable, things-in-themselves. But we need to talk about them, we need to reduce them to characteristics so they can be the objects of thought.
If people remember that it is only a label for convenience, then no, it can’t be “wrong”, as such. But that’s the problem with using the process of identification as a shortcut in thinking, people chronically confuse their models with reality as part of this process.
I agree. But what confounds me is that people are often eager to apply superficial, or even fabricated labels to social realities. Maybe it makes more sense to describe people in terms of what they do, rather than what they look like - which is usually not relevant to much of anything (ie sex, race, etc). Since people begin the same way, I interpret the genitals as a superficial characteristic, not unlike height or hair color. The differences are real, but IMO not usually relevant to any given scenario. Since I think of the two sexes as being RNA and DNA, the idea of “which one” somebody is doesn’t mean much to me. Using these people can express a continuum of superficial sexual characteristics.
Embrace the MAKER culture – I DIY:
2 Likes
As a sometimes data scientist, I’m pretty sure you’re taking this “study” in entirely the wrong way – i.e., seriously.
It’s supposed to be fun, not particularly insightful (a little tip-off: he probably wasn’t really wearing two gimp masks as he wrote the article).
tl;dr: I think you missed the joke. I don’t know, maybe gender is in your No Joke Zone…
I wouldn’t be so sure, I enjoy divers kinds of meaningless nonsense.
Maybe it went over my head. Or maybe I simply didn’t find it humorous.
