PSYCHOphancy Avatar

3 Notes

Oh, goody.

Been dealing with a headache and weird stomach pains the past couple days. Now I seem to be getting a fever too.

Joy!

3 Notes

Oh. My. God. :O

604 Notes

Louisiana House votes to uphold ban on sodomy

shell888888:

songsaboutjanie:

gaywrites:

The Louisiana House yesterday voted to uphold an unconstitutional state ban on sodomy — essentially political jargon for gay sex — as part of its “crimes against nature” law. 

In Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy bans are unconstitutional. But a handful of states, including Louisiana, refuse to change their anti-sodomy laws. While the statute technically can’t be used as a basis to arrest people, Louisiana deputies have reportedly made sodomy-related arrests recently, inciting a lawmaker to try to repeal it. 

Against all logic or reason, on Tuesday, the state House voted 66-27 to keep the anti-sodomy law in place. 

In a letter urging Louisiana lawmakers to reject the proposal, the influential Christian lobbying organization wrote, “Louisiana’s anti-sodomy statute is consistent with the values of Louisiana residents who consider this behavior to be dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral.”

In a hearing earlier this month, Bill Smith, a member of the Louisiana Family Forum, told committee members that anti-sodomy laws save the lives of gay people by decreasing their exposure to HIV.

"I have homosexuals in my family. I’m here out of love and concern for the health of these people," Smith said in April. “The fact is this opens up ways for them to really kill themselves.”

I want to scream and cry and throw things. 

:(

FUCK THIS SHIT
FUCK THIS SHIT SO MUCH

I can’t wait to see all the supporting scientific evidence Bill Smith presented to show how anti-sodomy laws “save the lives” of gay people.

What swell people they are, acting purely out of concern for gay men and with absolutely no ulterior motive whatsoever!

61530 Notes

2 Notes

tdkmatt replied to your post “Oh, update time.”

Seems pretty tough to find other poly people even in larger areas. Do they have much for meet up groups in LA?

There are quite a few meetup groups in LA. I don’t have any really solid numbers because there is some overlap, but throughout Southern California, membership seems to number well over a thousand people. The semiannual poly pool parties in West LA attract several hundred people every time.

And there’s a fairly sizable contingent of people on OKCupid and Tumblr, and probably many other sites if I were to go looking, who aren’t in any of the meetup groups.

So I’m fortunate to be in an area with a pretty large and relatively visible contingent of poly folks.

16 Notes

Oh, update time.

Not a great deal of goings-on in the ol’ dating life at the moment. I’ve been sending some more messages on OKCupid and have gotten the usual smattering of replies back. I think I’ve hit on a not-quite-copy-and-paste-but-take-a-fairly-standard-template-and-fill-in-some-personal-commentary formula that will allow me to churn out decent messages fairly quickly. Time shall tell if it’s anything that will work.

I haven’t talked to Bayou much after last Wednesday. But then, I’ve been entirely unmotivated to do so. I suppose things with her will fade out. I just don’t feel enough of a connection to try to get the sex thing right with her. Not with her all the way out in Long Beach, at least.

I’m supposed to get coffee with Auburn’s husband one of these days, and I suppose I should also get together with Auburn as well.

A couple days ago, Voodoo posted a video on Facebook of herself singing a song she had written and it’s been in my head since. Jeebus I love it when a girl can sing. :D

Carmen is hosting a party on Saturday night so I’ll be seeing her there. Blondie’s out of town so I’ll be going stag. Carmen’s been dating a poly guy who will be there with his wife. It turns out I somewhat peripherally know the wife; she had messaged me on OKCupid a couple summers ago and she had made some hints about her being interested in me, but she’s not someone I have any interest in. The poly world in L.A. is pretty big, but somehow it’s still pretty tiny sometimes.

I had a surprise evening with Blondie tonight, as her date wound up canceling late in the day. We didn’t do much besides have dinner at home and then walk to one of the local fro-yo shops, but it was a nice evening nonetheless. She’s pretty fucking awesome. <3

It’s almost 2:30 in the morning. I should probably call it a night and head off to bed.

128313 Notes

To all the Tumblr users who tend to use tags very liberally:

thejadedkiwano:

Let’s play a game.

Type the following words into your tags box, then post the first automatic tag that comes up.

you

also

what

when

why

how

look

because

never

Well that was disturbing.

68519 Notes

9 Notes

Just a regular, normal sleep schedule. Is that too much to ask?

79 Notes

stablercake:

I wish the mere suggestion that monogamy isn’t ideal for every member of the human race wouldn’t send some monogamous people into fits of rage.

No one’s telling anyone that you have to consider other partners if you don’t want to, all people are different. No one’s taking away monogamy as an option and no one’s saying all monogamy is inherently broken, it’s a suggestion that maybe monogamy isn’t for everyone and that people should make their own decisions instead of following something blindly. If one thinks critically and makes their own decision and they still came to monogamy as the right solution, then it’s the right solution for them.

Half of all marriages end in divorce, but that also means that half do not. Monogamy works for some, but for the moment it’s understood an enormous blanket solution for everyone. We don’t want to eliminate monogamy, we want to shed light on non-monogamy.

THIS

9 Notes

polyadvice:

Will it come off as manipulative to play a game of “How would you feel if I dated/slept with ____”? We’re getting started with poly again and he isn’t very good about communicating his needs, but I need to know his boundaries.

This one will be short and sweet:

1.) If you’re worried about whether something seems manipulative, it probably is. That kind of conversation isn’t necessarily manipulative (and should happen in any healthy poly relationship) - but if you’re doing it to trick, wheedle, coerce, etc. - then there’s a problem.

2.) If he’s not very good at communicating his needs, he’s not ready to be in a poly relationship. The onus is not on you to cajole him into communicating his needs and boundaries. If you’re this worried about how to have this basic conversation, the relationship is not ready to be opened up.

This issue here is not how to word specific questions - it’s the fact that you can’t have a clear, open, honest conversation about needs and boundaries. That needs to be solved, not patched over.

The last thing a couple who’s new to poly should ever think about doing is to bring unsuspecting new partners into a situation where the existing relationship has major communication issues. Remember that when one of you invariably fucks something up, it’s going to wind up hurting more than just the two of you.

5013 Notes

jackpowerx:

did-you-kno:

Source

Penn and Teller: giving no fucks since ever.

Desert Bus is the worst game ever. Which means it&#8217;s fucking AWESOME and I INSIST everyone play it. Especially if you&#8217;re drunk or high.
You can download the app on iTunes and Google Play, and apparently you can even play it in your browser.

jackpowerx:

did-you-kno:

Source

Penn and Teller: giving no fucks since ever.

Desert Bus is the worst game ever. Which means it’s fucking AWESOME and I INSIST everyone play it. Especially if you’re drunk or high.

You can download the app on iTunes and Google Play, and apparently you can even play it in your browser.

16 Notes

So I've read "Sex at Dawn" and "Sex at Dusk"...

thefinalmanifesto:

psychophancy:

Y’know, it’s funny. Granted, I’m not all the way through Sex at Dusk, but thus far I’ve found Dusk to be every bit as problematic as Sex at Dawn. I’ve scribbled some more detailed notes that I might go into later, but here’s a very quick glossing over of my complaints:

The first thing Lynn Saxon does in the book—literally the first thing—is to attack Chris Ryan and Cacilda Jetha’s professional credentials. Yet, absolutely no information is available on who Lynn Saxon is and even if he/she/they is a real person writing under a real name. As someone who spent more than a dozen years in scientific fields, I find this hugely problematic because one’s qualifications to speak on a topic are vastly important. All we have is Saxon’s self-proclaimed expertise in the field of evolutionary biology to go by.

So, as far as I’m concerned, that sets the tone for the rest of the content. To me, Dusk reads as a personal vendetta masquerading as scientific rebuttal. Saxon’s sneering, condescending language toward Ryan and Jetha far surpasses the mockery that Saxon accuses Ryan and Jetha of using in Dawn

Dusk is poorly and haltingly written, and prone to tangents that really do nothing to address the points the author is trying to make. Much of the arguments Saxon uses (at least in the first several chapters) seem utterly irrelevant, almost nitpicky. And, in fact, some of the things Saxon uses to rebut Dawn seem to be inadvertently supportive of Dawn.

Are there problematic aspects of Sex at Dawn? Absolutely, and any reader should be cautioned against believing what’s in there, word for word. Short-term social pair bonding does seem to be more the norm among humans, and I don’t necessarily buy the idea that early humans were little other than orgiastic hedonists (reproduction is an energy-intensive and risky activity in the wild, although it seems it would be less energy-intensive and risky—for males, at least—if physical competition between males was not an issue). But I would say that there are equally problematic aspects of Sex at Dusk that warrant scrutiny. Virtually every piece of written work—literary, journalistic, and even scientific—comes with a bias. Saxon’s biases are just as clear as Ryan and Jetha’s.

So, thank you for your well-reasoned critique, and I encourage everyone to click “Read More.” Honestly, in 16 paragraphs, you’ve done a much better job of summarizing the weaknesses in Sex at Dawn than Lynn Saxon did in 350 pages. If polyamorists deserve better advocates than Ryan and Jetha, then supporters of the “standard narrative” equally deserve better advocates than whoever Lynn Saxon really is.

I actually agree with you. I think Lynn Saxon fails to give Ryan and Jetha the benefit of the doubt many times. Also, “Sex at Dawn” is clearly the more entertainingly written of the two books (by far). Saxon misrepresents some of their arguments, but given that both books are pushing agendas with some vindictiveness against their opponents, I prefer the book that actually educates me on the current science. Part of it is that I felt betrayed by “Sex at Dawn”. I think that’s part of where Saxon’s vindictiveness comes from: “Sex at Dawn” doesn’t just construct an argument using out-of-context quotes and misinterpreted science, it also does so with more than a little venom for those that disagree with it. Ryan and Jetha come across as very smug in “Sex at Dawn”, in retrospect.

I can understand why seeing someone denigrate an entire scientific community while knowingly or unknowingly misleading their readers, might make someone angry. Still, I think other people would’ve done a better job. Unfortunately, like many pop-science books that simplify or distort evidence, “Sex at Dawn” has been ignored by academics. The evolutionary biologists who’ve read “Sex at Dusk” seem to find it entertaining because of it’s ire, because I think they feel similarly insulted by the tone and arguments of “Sex at Dawn”, and the arguments Ryan makes publicly, as well as the anti-scientific spite exhibited by some of its strongest supporters. (Just go read the 1-star reviews for “Sex at Dusk”, and you’ll see what I mean.)

I think as people who aren’t evolutionary biologists and evolutionary anthropologists, we ignore the attacks on “prudish” Darwin and other biologists, while are overly sensitive to attacks coming from the other direction. I’d rather both books were never written, but as long as “Sex at Dawn” is out there, it’ll need something pointing out its many flaws, even if that critique is flawed itself. If someone else were willing to write a less venomous version of “Sex at Dusk”, I’d be all for it, but I doubt that will happen.

(Actually, both books have made me want to publish a counter-counter-point: “Sex at High Noon” - i.e. the time of day when there’s the most light. Doubt that’ll happen for many years, so don’t hold your breath.)

OK. I finished Sex at Dusk this afternoon.

Much of the stuff Lynn Saxon presented was either information I had studied in the past and thus already knew, or information that was presented in a manner that made me feel like Saxon was torturing a lot of facts as well. There’s a fair amount of oversimplification, and a lot of misrepresenting what Ryan & Jetha had originally stated. (Funny that, in a book geared at proving how Sex at Dawn included so much out-of-context “proof,” Sex at Dusk had a lot of stuff that was taken out of context as well.) I think it was to some degree necessary for Ryan & Jetha to speak with more than a tad of hyperbole in order to get their points across, hence their many sweeping overstatements. But I do take issue with what seemed to be their blatant inaccuracies.

However, Saxon falls into some familiar traps, such as asserting that marriage exists in essentially every human culture (by applying that term uniformly across cultures, we make a lot of assumptions that may not be true). I also take issue with Saxon’s presentation of sexual jealousy as something that is absolutely intrinsic and ingrained in humans without ever offering any real substantiation to that claim. (Her arguments seem to present sexual jealousy as more of a resource jealousy, on account of what effort must be expended to obtain sex in the cultures she cites as proof. Certainly sexual jealousy is something that can be unlearned.) Saxon also repeatedly scolds Ryan & Jetha for failing to account for the several million years of evolution between when our ancestors diverged from the ancestors of the bonobos and chimpanzees; yet, Saxon seemed quite happy to write all those years off as irrelevant when it was convenient to her case.

Ultimately, it’s clear that both Ryan & Jetha and Saxon are writing from very biased (and nearly equally smug) positions. Honestly, I’m still convinced that I would really need to go back and read the source materials if I wanted a definitive answer as to the real data (noting, of course, that the authors of those original materials are not immune from their own biases as well). If all of Saxon’s claims are real, genuine, bona fide facts, it was difficult to tell through all the snark.

In short, I don’t feel like I gained all that much by reading Sex at Dusk.

Please do hurry up and publish Sex at High Noon, so I can start working on my rebuttal, Sex at Midnight. That’s perfect for me, since I don’t think very much of the sex I’ve had has occurred at dawn, noon, or dusk. ;)

Notes

rachiface replied to your photo “So I think I may have enough underwear.”

Have any helpful links for colorful fitting men’s undies? I’m looking for a good gift, and your style is superb.

To be honest, it’s all either from randomly clicking around on Amazon & eBay, or from Target.

16 Notes

So I’ve read “Sex at Dawn” and “Sex at Dusk”…

thefinalmanifesto:

Sex at Dawn constantly reminded me of a line from the novel Nice Work by David Lodge (1988):

"Literature is mostly about having sex and not much about having children; life’s the other way round."

Sex at Dawn is almost all about sex and not much about children, yet evolution is very much about reproduction - variation in reproductive success is evolution.

I have thoughts. Prepare to hear them.

TL;DR - “Sex at Dawn” is so deceptive, it’s hard for me not to think Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha are willfully misrepresenting the facts to push their agenda. Polyamorists deserve better advocates.

Read More

Y’know, it’s funny. Granted, I’m not all the way through Sex at Dusk, but thus far I’ve found Dusk to be every bit as problematic as Sex at Dawn. I’ve scribbled some more detailed notes that I might go into later, but here’s a very quick glossing over of my complaints:

The first thing Lynn Saxon does in the book—literally the first thing—is to attack Chris Ryan and Cacilda Jetha’s professional credentials. Yet, absolutely no information is available on who Lynn Saxon is and even if he/she/they is a real person writing under a real name. As someone who spent more than a dozen years in scientific fields, I find this hugely problematic because one’s qualifications to speak on a topic are vastly important. All we have is Saxon’s self-proclaimed expertise in the field of evolutionary biology to go by.

So, as far as I’m concerned, that sets the tone for the rest of the content. To me, Dusk reads as a personal vendetta masquerading as scientific rebuttal. Saxon’s sneering, condescending language toward Ryan and Jetha far surpasses the mockery that Saxon accuses Ryan and Jetha of using in Dawn

Dusk is poorly and haltingly written, and prone to tangents that really do nothing to address the points the author is trying to make. Much of the arguments Saxon uses (at least in the first several chapters) seem utterly irrelevant, almost nitpicky. And, in fact, some of the things Saxon uses to rebut Dawn seem to be inadvertently supportive of Dawn.

Are there problematic aspects of Sex at Dawn? Absolutely, and any reader should be cautioned against believing what’s in there, word for word. Short-term social pair bonding does seem to be more the norm among humans, and I don’t necessarily buy the idea that early humans were little other than orgiastic hedonists (reproduction is an energy-intensive and risky activity in the wild, although it seems it would be less energy-intensive and risky—for males, at least—if physical competition between males was not an issue). But I would say that there are equally problematic aspects of Sex at Dusk that warrant scrutiny. Virtually every piece of written work—literary, journalistic, and even scientific—comes with a bias. Saxon’s biases are just as clear as Ryan and Jetha’s.

So, thank you for your well-reasoned critique, and I encourage everyone to click “Read More.” Honestly, in 16 paragraphs, you’ve done a much better job of summarizing the weaknesses in Sex at Dawn than Lynn Saxon did in 350 pages. If polyamorists deserve better advocates than Ryan and Jetha, then supporters of the “standard narrative” equally deserve better advocates than whoever Lynn Saxon really is.