well, i got my homo boots on tonight and went trawling for some juicy lucy text and i wasn't disappointed. i hit up on this article in The Advocate about serving members in the military being 'out' and not kicked out. odd that everyone claiming it will be dangerous to morale and be a risk to discipline are basing this on what?

there's hasn't been a situation where you can judge this from. therefore it is based on fear of what might happen, there is no empirical evidence for these claims. but there is evidence from other countries' whose military accept openly gay people serving, who, while somewhat of a novelty and focus factor, once the hullabaloo calms, end up integrating and performing just as well as their 'straight counterparts'. and honestly, saying such phrases makes me nauseous. this shouldn't even be an issue. the amount of military guys, and i mean the chick-fucking, beer chugging guys, who have either pushed the idea of going the rounds with me/someone else or actually have with others is a list i lost count of a long time ago. the joke and innuendos are a part of the culture, so even if there is name calling and someone is called 'faggot' in the army by a colleague because they are gay... well i'm going to go out on a limb here... so fucking what!

i mean, if you are in the army, sure there are always base levels of respect, but it's the goddam army for fuck's sake, not "Miss Prim's Proper School for Girls with Delicate Constitutions", so toughen up and get with it, deal with it, stop making it so sore by crying about it and rubbing it, let it go, show the ignorant buggers out there that it's no big deal, that's the quickest way to dissipate interest. i mean, so you got called a name about where you stick your dick, awww! people need to desensitize and lighten up. so you're a faggot, and guess what, he's a motherfucker in your eyes. i don't see why one name is worse than the other. to be honest, at least 'faggot' only involves you and doesn't drag somebody's mother and her personal life into the picture gratuitously. the power of normalization is always in the hands of the thing perceived as 'not normal'.

now, get this...

being innocent of so much in life it's always a pleasant surprise to come across a new depravity. figging. the practice of inserting peeled ginger root up one's ass. apparently the effect is amazing, if not a tad disconcerting.

"It takes a while to get going – I was surprised at first to feel almost nothing except a chilly, finger-like rod penetrating me – but once the sensation starts, it comes on a like a blowtorch and gradually builds in strength. It burns, and it makes you focus to an extraordinary degree on the square inch of your body that contains your rectum – that place becomes all you can think about."
Source: I found that description on some sort of spanking forum.

i'm going to walk around now wondering if i am talking to people who have done this. how does one introduce the subject in to a conversation and remain polite and appropriate? how will i find out?

urban dictionary has a precise and well thought of article on figging too although i am still a little lost as to why the use of ginger is referred to by the name of a differently fruit entirely.

buzzfeed alerted me to a slew of articles dealing with sexual prefs in youngsters, with headlines like "What do you say to your Gay Fourth Grader". The article deals with the how various LGBT groups steer very clear of talking about anyone who may have such components to their makeup that are pre-teen, presumably for fear of reinforcing the pedophile and depravity labels that gay people have rongly been labeled with.

The point the article makes is, gay people don't just appear when they are a teenager, and most when asked about childhood experiences can remember very distinctly and very early on that certain things alerted them to their situations.

So why don't we talk about gay children? Good question. And I'm not going to talk about it...

Leading from this was another piece about some time, in the not so distant future, when parents will be able to 'test' their fetus for 'gayness' as well as down's syndrome and other 'conditions'. This isn't news, when the topic surfaced a while back it was declared appalling and offensive. But where do we draw the line in what a parent can choose to produce? Is it ok to choose superficial things like eye color? What about illnesses? Is it ok to screen for horrible deformities and diseases? Where is the line?

I support a woman's right to choose. But do I support a mother's right to choose the sex life of her offspring? Do I support a parent's right to have a blond haired child? Do I support those same parents in making a choice not to bring a child with spina bifida into the world? What about bringing a child into a world that will be filled with prejudice against what his or her choices may be?

Loved this article also, for just the fact that it introduced an individual talking about his four moms. He has lesbian parents who split and who both then found other partners. So... two moms and two step-moms. Ain't life grand!

This entry was posted on Friday, June 22, 2007 at 1:44 AM. You can skip to the end and leave a response.