Closets and Noses

Recently, in a group I belong to (mostly for the purpose of raising my blood pressure) someone wished that all “deviants” would be forced “back into the closet.”


In the context of the thread, where the deviants were people with tendencies that definitely harmed others that was kinda sorta understandable.

You know what else?  I even understand not wanting to hear everything about everyone’s sex life.  I mean, I don’t want to hear anything about anyone’s sex life, except the guy I’m married to, and in that case I sort of want to be there for it.

Yeah, I’m also the sort of judging … woman who thinks that some sexual (and non-sexual practices) should be looked askance at.  Take the case of that farm in one of the states that turns out to have no law against bestiality.  Horses were raised to have sex with people and some people died of it.

Sure the humans consented (or paid for it.)  Sure, horses aren’t sentient or at least not in a legal way and if we start protecting their rights we get into “should we ride them? Have they given affirmative consent?”.  It’s still something that if it came up in my friend’s circle, I’d say “uh… I don’t think that’s a wholesome or healthy lifestyle.  Maybe you should talk to a therapist?  Or have you considered just having a rich fantasy life, instead?”

Also there was that guy who was having sex (I swear I’m not making this up) with the gas inlets in people’s cars in downtown Colorado Springs, where we lived at the time.  Not only did I not want to hear about it, I didn’t want him to do that to our car (because I wasn’t sure what that would do to the engine) and also, yeah, I think he needed psychiatric help.

But when we say that “all deviants” ought to be “driven” “Back into the closet” it’s important to think about why, and what it means.

Okay, I don’t want to hear about people’s sex lives, and by and large I don’t.  I have a friend who took a while to give up on shocking me, but that’s past.  Other than a few jokes, we just don’t mention that stuff.  Other than that, I leave such discussions at parties, skim past them in books, etc.  So people’s tendency to overshare — which affects “normal” (in the sense of majority) and “deviants” in equal measures, it seems — doesn’t affect me at all.

Other than that, what my friends like in bed or out of it is none of my business, so far as I don’t want to have sex with them, and don’t think of them as sexual people.  Sometimes I have to remember a new significant other, or a plural one as far as party invitations or plus ones at get togethers, but that’s it.  I might think their choices in life are unwise, but no one has made me queen of how people live (thank heavens.)

So… deviants and closets.

It occurs to me that for certain people it is profoundly uncomfortable to have people do things they disagree with/don’t think should be done, and not even be ashamed of them.

Most of the time I see this in the context of the left wanting us “political deviants” back in the closet, because the fact that we think the way we do, while belonging to one or more of what they consider “naturally leftist” groups makes their teeth itch.  It challenges their world view to have us be otherwise decent people, and educated and yet not agree with them on welfare or “social justice.”  Their simplistic and tidy worldview doesn’t accommodate us, and so we should be destroyed or “keep decently quiet.”  How many times have you heard people say “I used to like you, but now you’re just a full on right winger” and you go “I’ve barely even started to talk tack.  I just used to put up with your unhinged rants with no protest, and now I protest?”

But it is not just on the left.  Frankly, though bigotry is rarer on the right (defined as American right, smaller government, more laisse faire, more individualism) I still make many heads explode as a foreign born woman who tans, with an MA in languages, who nonethless pegs pretty close to the Libertarian end of the spectrum (except for not believing in open borders and thinking collective self-defense is a right too.) There are people nominally on our side who wish I’d go back in the political closet too.  Then they could imagine me to be a leftist liberal and their world view could be tidy again.

Honestly, I think this is what the person was clamoring for — the deviants he meant in this case were not only people whose sexual habits harm others but everyone who deviates from average, as he made abundantly clear — that everyone who is (as a lot of members of this group are) conservative/libertarian and say gay (there are other “deviances, but he was aiming at that) go back into the closet, because they were messing up his tidy little world, in which if you’re off-beat in any way, you belong to the left.

Me?  I think this is crazy-cakes.  We’re conceding to the left not just the sexual deviants, but everyone who is a minority and off beat.  And then we’re shocked when they identify was left.  Or consider them the enemy because they’re left.  After all, they’d be perfectly welcome… in the closet.

Look, my closet was political, but the staying in the closet thing implied living a lie so thorough that I had to watch everything that came out of my mouth, every minute of the day.  Social situations became debilitating: both not debunking the falacies other people spouted, and watching my every expression and eye movement.  It made me ill with stress.  It’s no way to live.

And yet, just as the left wants people “back in the closet” a lot of our side wants a lot of “off beat” people (not just sexually) back in the closet.  Because it’s easier on US.

Now, there is a flip side.  People who are out of the closet often go through a crazy phase, where EVERYONE MUST BE INFORMED.  I tried to control that, and I try not to do things like, say, rub my political beliefs in my lefty brother’s face.  Sure, he reads my blog at his own risk (and going to mom and telling me to stop won’t work, because, as before, she just laughs.) But in family occasions, I don’t spout about politics, and he has to do far more than a casual comment for me to respond.  (Look, when he said the Chinese were less racists than Americans and that’s why they were making headway in Africa, I just ran to the basement to dial a friend in the US and laugh my head off, okay?  I didn’t start a big argument there, over the Sunday roast.)  Because I’m not going to change his mind, he’s not going to change mine, and why make everyone around us uncomfortable?

I find my sane gay friends have the same attitude.  They might refer to their SOs, or even hold hands in public, but they don’t feel the need to chase after parents and older friends going “Look, look!  You have to praise me for this.”

So called activists are a different matter.

The thing is, liberty means allowing people to do and be things we don’t approve of.  So long as they’re not actively hurting us, WHY should we want people to live a life of duplicity and concealment?

Sure, if one of my friends took up a life of screwing gas pipes, I’d rather he didn’t talk about it.  Or maybe not, since we’d have to know so we could get him to see a psychiatrist.  And I have no need to hear about what people do in bed.  But if my friend is in a long-term, committed relationship, why would I wish him to keep that absolutely secret? Or pretend to be single?  Wouldn’t that be painful for everyone concerned?

And why would I want that in an at-large society.  I believe sunlight is better than pretense, anyway. If things are out in the open, it’s easy to see the flaws.

And if I really like someone who has — say — taken up an unhealthy interest in pain killers, I might try to get them to see it’s not healthy.  But only if I know about it.  If they’re keeping it secret, I’ll only know when it gets really bad and they die.

But more importantly, if you desire people would hide what YOU consider objectionable, have you consider that other people might want you to hide what THEY consider objectionable?  And that the society this ends up in is a pretense, where much worse perversions and strangeness flourish under cover.

Yeah, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind and not being rude and rubbing our weirdness (this includes some writer-stuff, btw.  You’d be amazed how many people are weirded out by it) in other people’s faces is a good thing.

But closets?  Oh, hell no.  I favor the truth.  To the extent people need to know, tell the truth and shame the devil.

And get your nose out of your neighbors’ affairs.  Leave a decent and moral life as you conceive of it.  Give your opinion when asked for.  Other than that?  It’s none of your business.  Stop pushing people to a left which, should it take control, will enforce a bizarre and totalitarian conformity.

You’re a lover of freedom.  Remember this means freedom for others as well as yourself.


320 thoughts on “Closets and Noses

  1. Back in the days before the reification of gaydom, Clive James once wrote in the Observer after one BBC program(me) that he “wished the live that dared not speak its name would remember how to shut up” once in awhile. Sometimes your freak flag is just fine folded up politely in your pocket.

    1. That’s the source of the quote. I was trying to remember where it came from.

      And yes. Because people who insist that their sexual preferences are the central, most important thing in their lives and that said preferences must determine all social and political activities…. are really boring. I wish the activists would get hobbies besides that, just so they’d have something else to talk about.

      1. They do. They just tend to drag that into the hobby and crowd out the original intent of the hobby. See much of conventions

      2. Bingo! I especially loath the people who insist on interpreting everything through the lens of sexual preference. So, Victorian Men who prefered the company of men must have been homosexual, probably repressed.

        Sex just ain’t that important. You can give yourself an orgasm. OTOH friendship requires two.

        I remember reading Charlton Heston’s autobiography. When he was cast as Michelangelo in THE AGONY AND THE ECSTACY he read up on the man as much as he had time for, amd so far as he could see, Michelangelo had tries women, tried men, and for sheer transcendent pleasure prefered carving marble.

        1. There’s been a surge of ‘If you are not attracted to transgender people, you’re a bigot and discriminatory against them.’

          The same people: If you find animated/2d girls attractive but not trans women, then you’re being unfair because animated girls aren’t really female. You HAVE to accept that trans women are women.

          And apparently, anything to the contrary is ‘unreasonable.’

          Me being a very deep cynic, in the wake of the screech of Henry Cavill’s statements (and really, Morgan Freeman’s ‘staring too intently’ at an interviewer) and similar examples, I forsee that there will eventually be laws where people will be forbidden from having sexual preferences that do not include transgender men or women, and that it’ll be illegal to ‘refuse’ women if the activists get their way. MGTOW will probably get WGTOW as well. It’s just too damn risky to be in relationships now.

    2. Years ago I saw a British cartoon of a rather flamboyant gentleman with the text:
      Once it was a felony,
      then a misdemeanor.
      then frowned upon,
      then accepted.
      We aren’t going to stop until it becomes mandatory!

      1. It’s begun. With its being “homophobic” to refuse homosexual advances, and “transphobic” to refuse transsexual ones.

          1. I find solace in a great moment from the Thin Man which the movie took straight from the book, when a character announces: “I don’t like crooks. And if I did like ’em, I wouldn’t like crooks that are stool pigeons. And if I did like crooks that are stool pigeons, I still wouldn’t like you.”

            I find that this can be paraphrased for most social occasions.

    3. Sometimes your freak flag is just fine folded up politely in your pocket.

      See also “freaking the mundanes”.

      1. As many of the mundanes are carrying their freak flags in their pockets or have long since stowed them away, freaking them is sometimes appallingly difficult to do.

        It also ranks as a thoroughly stupid past-time, akin to rattling the lions’ cages. While the lions may be mostly satisfied and indolent, disinclined to bestir themselves to respond, mostly does not equal entirely.

        1. It’s ungracious to make people uncomfortable on purpose. To “rub their noses in it.”

          Some people might think that even *noticing* is having your nose rubbed in it, though. That’s wrong. But recognizing that this is wrong doesn’t mean that we also can’t recognize that there’s levels of sharing that really don’t have a place in polite company and it matters not at all what you’re oversharing about.

          Also, Get a room!

  2. I even understand not wanting to hear everything about everyone’s sex life.

    I wistfully await the day when people’s private lives become just that once again.

      1. It is one of my guiding principles; “What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom, with adult volunteers, is your business and none of mine. Please KEEP it none of mine by not making it impossible for me to ignore.”

        1. Yep. Its a two waystreet. If someone does a minor screwup and apologizes or decides they are unable to do something, take them at their word and let it be. It does not mean “i get to shock the squares” and “they have to take it and be able to read my mind”. (This tends to be my nonprofessional concern over pronouns. I’m gonna go by impressions. But good faith efforts don’t count with folks looking for confrontation)

          For the reducio ad absurdum example, no you may not have actual or simulared sex in the middle of the public convention space, in easy view of others. Doesn’t matter with who, what or why. Yes, it happened, yes there were way too many people defending it.

          1. no you may not have actual or simulared [SIC] sex in the middle of the public convention space

            That’s what dance floors are for.

            1. Umm, I have one word for you, grinding. My elder daughter is an 8th grade teacher. Its amazing what she has had to break up at what are essentially junior high dances. Hell when I was in 8th grade most
              boys and girls were afraid to talk to each other let alone rub their crotches on each other…

              1. Grinding, twerking and all the rest — I am aware, which was the premise for the jest. It’s been going on since the Eighties, if not before (Disco moves tended to be slightly subtler, IIRC. Pop Tarts since Madonna shed her training bra have been trolling strip joints to steal pick up “dance moves” to incorporate into their routines.

              2. I have heard that the time they get old enough for raves at cons there is the occasional couple that has to be separated and escorted off the premises.

        2. The banging of the headboard against the other side of the wall is hard to ignore. Moaning, groaning, and screaming is pretty tough too. I like sex, but I don’t like audiences, I can’t stand crowds, and with a one-track mind, I can only pay proper attention to one person at a time.

      2. Sadly I come from a generation where many found that the demands of decorum chafed. The arguments expressing a desire for decency was responded to with derisive cries of, “You are a prude!” Disinclined to make a scene, many of the polite persuasion, simply let it slide.

        1. Nobody ever accused me of Prudishness. To bad; it would have been hilarious.

          I did get a few accusations of Homophobia, usually from guys trying to pick me up (before I got old and moderately ugly). I found that quoting from THE BUTTERFLY KID, “Oh, go paint yourself purple and moo!” was sufficiently baffling to make them go away.

          1. I usually snarled and hefted my motorcycle helmet meaningfully, in case they didn’t get the message that “no” translated to “NO, and I’m prepared to insist.”

            I’m fine with what people want to do on their own time. I’m more particular about what they do with -me-. Because ew.

          2. quoting from THE BUTTERFLY KID, “Oh, go paint yourself purple and moo!”

            TBK is one of my favorite books, read and re-read many times, but I don’t remember that line occurring in it anywhere. (In TBK by Chester Anderson; is there another TBK?)

      3. Exactly. I have zero problem with a couple holding hands or similar (either sex orientation), I just don’t want to see them sticking their tongues down each other’s throats. Nor do I want to hear their sex life.

          1. Oh, sometimes I don’t mind. Two teenage girls staging a mutual tonsil exam at the local mall to shock the squares, it was quite a performance. I applauded, and they gave me -such- a dirty look! 8/10 for enthusiasm. ~:D

  3. “deviants” would be forced “back into the closet.”

    I suspect for some of them, the “closet” would be an insane asylum. After all, people like them love the “scientific” studies that show that conservatives/religious people are insane. 😦

  4. “Back into the closet”

    Some people would prefer not to be confronted with things that make them uncomfortable.  They want to live in a world that has been ‘sanitized’ for their own convenience.

    We seem to have gone from one extreme to another. I don’t think that closeting is healthy for society, but when confronted by those who insist on sharing with everyone else their particular twist — in detail — and insisting that we affirm them, I admit I have sympathy for the ones who want to reinstate the closet. 

      1. Sadly, activists of all stripes would appear to be in short supply of such basic decency. In your face is more their style. They’re not after acceptance, but rather to crush and demonize anything short of active approval.
        Otherwise why on earth would a gay couple seek out a religious baker and demand he create for them a custom gay wedding cake? It was never about a damn cake, it was all about creating fear in the hearts of anyone who dared express anything less than complete support. Glory in our lifestyle or we will destroy your business.
        I have a good many gay friends. I have attended and participated in unity ceremonies back when marriage was not an option. What I cannot condone is the bullying that the radical fringe always seem to resort to.

        1. Otherwise why on earth would a gay couple seek out a religious baker and demand he create for them a custom gay wedding cake?

          Note also that in at least one such court case the gay couple had been buying from the baker for years and they had been on friendly terms. The baker saw it as a betrayal. Such behavior tends to cause others to see gays as potential enemies rather than friends.

          1. To be clear, he viewed the lawsuit in response to an “I can’t do that, I think it’s wrong” and offer of a pre-made cake to be betrayal.

            Makes it pretty clear who thought of whom as a friend, huh?

  5. Sexual behaviors; “As long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!”

    The problem these days is that doing whatever they want isn’t enough; they want to do it in public and force other people to watch. That’s where I would draw the line; do whatever you like, but not in front of me.

          1. And some of the activists are straight as the proverbial arrow, have utterly no personal skin in the game, and live to be assh*les in the service of their chosen group of “oppressed.”

        1. What about getting some friends together with score cards to hold up like judges in the Olympics? 🙂

          (I would have recommended one also having only low-value cards and a GDR flag pin on their clothing, but it would be lost on many today, some of whom weren’t even born yet when Germany reunited.)

    1. The problem these days is that doing whatever they want isn’t enough; they want to do it in public and force other people to watch. That’s where I would draw the line; do whatever you like, but not in front of me.

      Yeah. Pretty much my attitude too. But apparently ‘keeping it in the bedroom’ was too much of an ask and now it’s oppressing their sexuality.

      Mind, I’m seeing now not quite so tentative articles on pedophile acceptance and ‘ethical cannibalism.’

        1. Q. What item does the staff in a cannibal restaurant never want to see on an order.

          A. Chef Salad

        2. May have been salon a year or two ago that tried to rehab kiddie porn.

          One of those things that make the conspiracy theories plausible.

          1. Salon was on its way to normalizing these kinds of things…until they decided to take down Milo Yannapolis. Then they scrubbed their site of all those pro-pedo-normalization articles….

        3. Response should not be “fuck off”. Should be “Go to Hell!”. Yes, I know about never give an order you are not willing to enforce.

          1. Somehow, I am not surprised. Then again, with the whole ‘love is love’ slogan and … ‘philosophy’ this was a bit inevitable. Going back some years, I was reading about how some adult incest people were trying to get their relationships decrimminalized by using the same arguments used for gay marriage and recognition. When that happened, I figured it was only a matter of time for the pedophiles to rear their head again.

            Mind, having read the article linked in that tweet, I do note that some of the stories describe (second hand/third hand) that some of the individuals having recognized their attraction to children and do not want to harm anyone, but are having trouble seeking therapy. This seems to me as somewhat counter-strategic because the individual in question is looking for help to keep them from hurting someone else. Essentially turning themselves in before they can commit a crime. At the same time, I can see how difficult something like this would be fix, but it’s not something that should be ignored. =/ I’m not sure how it can be helped or fixed or such though.

            And to clarify because I know there are people out there who will take this out of context anyway, I do not think pedophilia is something that should ever be considered ‘acceptable’ or remotely normalized. Do I think that the ones who haven’t hurt children and are seeking help to make sure they never hurt any children should be helped? Yes, specifically because they recognize what they want is wrong, and want to be stopped.

              1. Going by the headlines, it doesn’t seem to help all that much.

                Just sayin’.

                1. Predators looking for opportunities to be in a position of trust over their targets =/= folks who want to be far, far away from temptation.

            1. On your latter point, it ought be unnecessary to point out that children, by definition are not, repeat, N.O.T., consenting adults. Those who get their jollies by corrupting innocence earn surgical therapy, preferably with dull shears.

              On the prior matter, it is clear that Western Civilization has lost the distinction between love (phileo) and sexual attraction (eros) slash lust. That we use the same word to label both desires is corrupting of thought and a barrier to reason. Perhaps love is love, but phileo is not eros.

              Love, properly recognized, entails a desire to elevate its object, to enrich and enhance them. Lust, OTOH, is a desire to possess its object, to use it as a means of satisfying one’s own urges to utilize and possess. The former elevates, the latter debases.

              1. Large portions of it. I have actually read people recommend The Four Loves prior to shipping debates.

              2. Those who get their jollies by corrupting innocence earn surgical therapy, preferably with dull shears.

                It’s awful hard to draw a hard and fast line between “freak the squares” and “corrupting innocence.”

                Yeah, there’s the teasing side– but there’s also the “how dare they preserve their innocence” side. Say, like the “chicks have dicks” guy in Canada.

                Mind-reading motives is notoriously difficult

      1. It’s not pedophile anymore, it’s “minor attracted people” or some other such nonsense.

        If the left wants to stop “rape culture” maybe they should start by not raping the gorram language!

        1. They haven’t the slightest interest in doing squat about “rape culture” — they want to distract attention from personal irresponsibility by using misbehaviour as an excuse to remake the culture. It’s simply one more activation of the Otter Defense.

          Not that this is a new ploy by them; they’ve been distracting attention from individual criminality by ranting about “Social Injustice” (while ignoring the many people equally “victimized” by “social injustice” who’ve never the less lead honest, productive lives) for as long as I’ve been alive. [exit stage right, singing, “Gee Officer Krupke …”]

              1. closest i have seen them make is some burnt and/or runny scrambled eggs with bits of shell in it that they tried ti tell me was an omelet.

  6. I think a lot of the resentment against sexual minorities is fueled by the ones who go out of their way to annoy or stick pins in “the straights”—the endless wedding-cake brouhaha comes to mind here. Whipping up online mobs to smash small businesses who just don’t want to bake that cake, or photograph that event, does not go over well with a lot of people.

    Their habit of endlessly moving the goalposts also grates on people. At first, all they wanted, to hear them tell it, was to be let alone. They got that. Then they wanted to be treated, socially, as just-like-straight-couples. They got that. Then came a huge howl for “gay” “marriage,” which I notice they got, not by way of convincing majorities of the voters, but by howling to the courts. Ann Coulter was right when she said we’d have been much better off if we could have treated the court decisions that got rid of Jim Crow as once-off, emergency exceptions to the rules, and not treated them as precedents.

    1. Yes, sure, but a ton of this is not the average gay (or whatever) person. It’s the “activists.” My hatred of the activists is unequaled. And trust me, I’ve met (sigh) Portuguese activists trying to hyphenate me (and they got their nose pushed in.) But they’re not me, and I’m not them.

      1. But the activists are the ones that drive it and the ones that get the results. And there is a large chunk of goose-gander equalization here as well. Saying that not wanting to use ahistorical pronouns and have build-a-bear sexuality is worse than the KKK marching through skokie drives people to these all or nothing stances.

        Until either guilt by denunciation is brought down or there is realization that courtesy doesn’t mean “you acquiesce to my demands” this will build.

      1. Of course they do. Their entire support industry is based on using the tribal identity of non-heterosexual sexuality to support liberal causes. Just as the borders movement is, just as antiwar is.

      2. I believe it. For every Milo who is gay and “fabulously!” anti-statist, semi-conservative and willing to be the lightening rod, you probably have at least a hundred men and women who don’t dare disagree with the politics of the activists. They know exactly how “vehement” those activists can be.

        It’s like an essay I read about arguments abusers use to keep their victims from leaving. One was basically that since leaving would mean coming out as gay/lesbian, it would destroy the victim’s [family/career/physical safety] because “everyone knows” people in [the city/town/state/victim’s family] all hate gays. Only the abuser would keep the victim’s secret safe.

        1. The activists goal is to bring about 1984’s Oceania with themselves as the Inner Party and with everyone else being the ones being crushed by the state’s boot, forever. Everything they are doing is simply a tactic towards that goal..

      3. People are not good at subtly. They want easy categories, and just the latest form of stereotyping. So you get statements such as a real feminist is pro-life and those who aren’t for affirmative action must be for segregation. This isn’t just a way of getting people to tow a particular party line, although it does serve to do that. It is a lazy human way of navigating a all too complex world.

      4. Well sure, didn’t we learn with Sad Puppies that conservative/homophobic/misogynist/religious extremist is all really just one word?

      5. Saw a video not long ago that mocked this. Son goes to visit his parents (leaving his supportive male companion in the car), and tells them he has something important to announce. They think he’s voing to announce he’s gay, and are very supportive. But instead he announces he’s a conservative. And the parents, as well as their daughter, immediately self-destruct . And they blame their son for their self-destruction.

        Sadly, I don’t remember any details on the video like the name, or who created it.

    2. The proper response to a question about whether a pizza place would cater a gay wedding is: I would hope that people, gay or otherwise, have more class than to serve pizza at their wedding reception.

      1. Unfortunately I can imagine the kind of person who would serve pizza at their wedding. It’s the kind of person who is only getting “married” as a way to try and mock the squares.

        1. There was an element of gay-marriage to destroy marriage. We know because there were activists who said that it was a stepping stone to that.

          Getting someone to violate his conscience baking the cake fits in nicely with that.

  7. The current tactic seems to be simply opening the sluice gates and making more and more people bend like reeds to satisfy the activist wing. And people note the favoritism and special privileges that get doled out to the “persecuted groups”. Buy a cake that says _________ suck. Depending on what that first word is among any of the following: white, black, portugese, spanish, russians, straights, gays, etc will determine if it is a hate crime to make it or to refuse to make it. As the list of oppressors and oppressed continue to become less and less believable one of two events happen. Either the desired snap happens and the groups being bent over collapse and fall to bended knee before the overlord or a (imo less likely) snap back happens against the folks controlling the sluice and those who benefitted from them.

    There is no bully like someone taking revenge.

    1. Which is why some of us were so tickled at the whole Chick-fil-A rebound.
      Run your business according to your beliefs and say so publicly, get excoriated by all the “right” people, then find that support from all us deplorables doubles your business.

      1. A friend who works at Chick-fil-A has said that they were always busy, but that they had never been busier during the buy-cot.

        1. Husband and I use “hatechicken” as a shorthand and eat it gleefully. Both our local Chik-fil-As have lines halfway around the building at off-peak hours, and more than completely around at lunch and dinner. Such a shame how that worked out for them… 😀

            1. I like the peach Hate-shakes. Also hate-lemonade, which is the only non-homemade lemonade I’ll drink.

      2. I support Chick-fil-A every chance I get. Of course it helps that they have an excellent chicken sandwich.

            1. I have become very fond of their salads, served with strips of fried (or grilled, if you wish) chicken on a very nice bed of lettuce (spring mix, IIRC) and vegetables. My preference is the Cobb Salad, but the Spicy Southwest Salad is very nice for those who fancy roasted corn and black beans on their salad. The Market Salad commits the sin of adding fruit – fresh berries, apples – to the bed of lettuce, but for those who tolerate such obscenities it is quite tasty.

              1. Mmmm. I love a salad of mixed lettuce and tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries, and raspberries with cottage cheese. Don’t even need to add any dressing.

      1. That’s why they put the happy face of “free” college, healthcare, etc and photogenic victims in front of that. They do have a very good pr machine.

      2. Okay, so here’s the plan. First off, we mandate that the Democratic Socialists provide 100% of all costs and resources to care for those illegal aliens, we completely withdraw all police protection from them (they get robbed or beaten up, tough beans), we take away all their toys so they have even less than slaves or early Christians for that matter no cars, no nice clothes, no cell phones, nothing), we blacklist all of them so they aren’t allowed to work anywhere, and since they want no compromise, we no longer need to ever listen to them.

        I know, sounds insane. But that’s what I hear they want.

        1. They aren’t allowed to won anything. After all, they said they want no private property.

          And they aren’t allowed to work for any corporations, so they all have to quit their jobs at Starbucks.

    2. “a (imo less likely) snap back happens against the folks controlling the sluice and those who benefited from them. ”
      This is what is scary that it will apply to all the beneficiaries as well. And it is not just “deviants” either. Feminism has put all women square in the cross-hairs of this. Likewise “minorities”. I cannot even argue against it. The beneficiaries have brought it on themselves by their consent to taking the benefits the activists get them.

      1. Right? Yeah, there’s that. Why do you think I don’t want us to get to a shooting war. What comes after will lump me in with “women” and “latin.” In fact anyone not outright northern European in APPEARANCE will get lumped in.

        1. The sane leftists should be happy they ONLY got Trump. What they would have gotten after 8 more years of Obama-Hillary overreach would scare even Col. Kratman

          1. Their goal had Hillary won was to rig things so that the Democrats would be able to achieve permanent single party rule and they would have used Venezuela style methods to achieve it. They have made it very clear that they seek power uber alles, and that they intend to let nothing stand in their way of achieving it. They have decided that 1984 was a how too guide.

          2. It’s not the sane ones I worry about; and we may dread the consequences of a civil war but the Left has never felt the same.

        2. Start a rumor that bathing in the fresh blood of a progressive is effective treatment for psoriasis and eczema.

          Just don’t miss any spots because a leaf fell on your back.

      2. And no, we haven’t brought it on ourselves. WTF do you suggest I do about crazy feminists or Latin activists?
        THIS is the problem. You can convince yourself this is right, but it’s not. I have gay friends who rave and rant on line about how pissed off they are at the activists (most of my gay friends are on the right politically) but come the snap back, they’ll get lumped in.

        1. Agree.

          Plenty of innocent gays will suffer.

          Heck, as much as one particular gay on the Bar annoys me, I don’t want to see anything bad happen to him.

          1. Live by the Court, die by the court!
            What the court gives, the court can take away!

        2. That is true, you haven’t. I would be surprised if you had taken an AA position since you came to America (you probably could not avoid it before). Any professional woman at a large corporation, or in government, or at a non-profit however, even if they don’t want the advantage.

      3. Exactly. This is where the ‘back into the closet’ mindset comes from. Admittedly i think this is the less destructive of the two in general. One will disproportionally harm minority populace while other will harm all but the most ruthless

      4. The beneficiaries have brought it on themselves by their consent to taking the benefits the activists get them.

        They keep telling me I’ve got all these benefits, damned if I can see them… mostly I have both sides assuring me that I think things that I don’t, no matter what I say.

        Mostly the “benefit” seems to be that I get stuck with the bill for stuff I don’t want that was granted before I was born, usually in response to something that was an obvious bad idea like no fault divorce.


    Speaking of intolerant rabid assholes, this is tangentially related. Revealed this week, University of BC was forced to pay $167,000 to one of their profs of creative writing who was falsely #MeToo-ed. Buddy has a big long whinge about it in the National Post today, and it confirms everything we all think about SJWs and the type of people who write and read “literary fiction”. They are vicious, vindictive pricks.

    Forcing “deviants” back into the closet is going to be a whole big pile of exactly what the guy in the story here went through. Lots of mentally unstable shit heads pointing fingers at people like ME, people who do not act exactly, perfectly normal 100% of the time. Having been falsely accused of doing or being Something Bad a couple times in my life already, I know that all it takes is one bitch having a bad day, and your reputation is at stake.

    So, as an Odd and an old white guy, I really like being self-employed. Because if somebody screams “J’accuse!” at me, I can laugh at them and give them the finger. Or more likely, both fricking fingers.

    1. Having said that, there are some behaviors that should come with consequences:

      People with odd tastes in sex are one thing. Consenting adults, etc., I don’t care. Seriously. I don’t want to know, because ew, but as long as you’re not on my lawn, I don’t care.

      But, there are some pursuits that are both dangerous and corrosive. People start winding up dead, maimed, or going insane and killing themselves after “sex”, that’s different. That’s perversion.

      But presently we are all being told this is perfectly acceptable, and we all need to shut the hell up and Celebrate Diversity!!! This is certainly a convenient situation for perverts in high places, yes?

      They call it “perversion” because its bad, y’know.

      1. The BDSM clubs in L.A. aren’t ‘pop up’ by any means. Many of the venues have been in business for years if not decades.

        the rest of my statement to you regarding that is best left unsaid.

    2. I was reading some things today and found out the Britain prosecutes women who make false rape claims and sends them to JAIL.
      Why don’t they do that here. I understand that in some states they can but it is almost unheard of.

      1. The argument against it is that jail time for false rape charges makes it less likely for a woman to let the authorities know she’s been raped if she thinks that she won’t be believed (and therefore a possible defendent in a false rape charges case).

        It’s a really bad grey area either way.

          1. Making a false police report is a crime. Qualified immunity is the cops and prosecutors.

        1. I think there should be a clear standard: if there’s evidence that the guy raped her, he should be put in jail. If there’s evidence that she made up the charges, she should go to jail. If it’s nothing but he-said she-said — there’s no way to prove what happened, one way or the other — then we’d have to drop the issue altogether.

          This isn’t exactly rocket science. *Particularly* since it’s not at all hard to find examples where it’s demonstrably *provable* that someone lied about rape.

          And there’s moral justification for it, too: someone lying about rape will *prevent* women from being believed — and thus, will prevent women from speaking up, when they really *are* raped.

      2. Sometimes.

        Even when it can be proven, sometimes they don’t.

        And of course, both here and there, inability to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean ability to prove a false rape claim beyond a doubt.

        1. I would propose that if you can’t prove a false rape claim beyond a reasonable doubt, then it should be treated as when you can’t prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt: the matter should be dropped.

          However, there are times where it’s *provable* that someone lied about rape. *Those* people should be charged.

  9. We really need to revive the idea that there are steps between embracing something and making it illegal. I don’t, for example, want to prevent Kim Kardashian making her little public stirs. Acting like a little roundheeled tart should not be illegal. But I reserve the right to call her ‘tacky’, and goddamnit, doing so is not a ‘hate crime’. (I also want to slap a collar on her and do things most unwholesome to her. This is why keeping ones sex fantasies private is good.)

    I don’t want to make Rap Music illegal (although I think anything Rappers have to say was said, rather batter, in 1959, by Gwendolyn Brooks). OTOH, it is often vulgar, and I decline of apologize for saying so.

    It should not be illegal to parade about in revealing leather gear, showing off one’s BDSM Gay lifestyle, but the imbeciles who do so should hardly be surprised that many people conclude them to be tacky arrested adolescents with poor impulse control.

    Most people have unattractive thoughts. Pleasant interaction with the neighbors depends on keeping those to their proper settings.

    1. The caveat i’ll toss on the revealing clothing one is just that it should be treated no differently than someone doing the same without a group identity attached.

      1. Oh, yes. My position isn’t “Those fools who go to a Gay Pride event dressed in assess chaps and exposed nipple rings should be jailed” it’s “Those fools should told in no uncertain terms that acting like drunken college frat boys does nothing to advance the cause of tolerance for Gays”

        1. I’m just saying if it’s public indecency for a drunk frat kid, treat em the same. If legal, go ahead and be an idiot and poster boy for your cause (although media will cover for you. See zombietime). If illegal they should see the same citation.

          1. What I would like to see, since I know and like a substantial number of Gays, is the day that a jerk turns up at a pride event in his leather playtime gear and is told by the organizers, “Go home and change. That’s for the bedroom.”

            1. So two old Brits with a donkey are called pants, but if they’re assless, then they’re chaps. None of this teally helps me chase the cows, but, okay…

        2. I was trying to get through the comments to make sure this hasn’t been posted yet, and then post it as a top comment, mentioning that “This is what happens when you get into someone’s face. It reminds me of this Onion article about Gay Pride Parades setting the movement back 50 years“, but this is the perfect response to your comment!

          Basically, the article quotes people essentially saying “yeah, I was totally fine with accepting gays, but then I went to this parade and oh, the horror!”

  10. In many cases I think you’re right, but there are definitely things that I think belong in the closet. I’m a big fan of a certain type of hypocrisy, specifically, the “tribute vice pays to virtue” type. I can imagine a number of behaviors where the harm is minimal, as long as everything is kept secret, but can be far more damaging if brought out in the open.

  11. I believe a quote from good Old Professor Kirk is proper here. “My dear girl, there is one thing that no one has suggested, but which is well worth trying… We might all try minding our own business.” ~Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.

    Sadly people forget that ‘minding your own business’ as much means keeping your business your own as it does not sticking your nose into other people’s affairs.

    1. Cons should mention if they are going to have people wearing in public BDSM clothing and accessories. Just so you can tell if a certain con would be safe for your child,

      1. safe?please specify the danger. is simply knowing how furries roll harmful?
        jump in j van stry?if you’re here?

        1. There is a difference between someone in suit, even with harness or a pup hood and someone wearing nothing but pup hood and diaper or obvious genetalia.

          My guess is that this is aimed more generally but can see similar concerns with some cosplay.

        2. “is simply knowing how furries roll harmful?”

          It is to children. That’s why we don’t tell them about that kind of thing.

          Remember: consenting -adults-.

          1. Yeah. If you can’t explain it to a kid too young to care where babies come from in a comprehensible way, keep it private.

            It’s not good for any sexual behavior to be shoved in teens’ faces, either. They have enough trouble with hormones without stimulating them, and will go looking anyway, without suggestions from others, all on their own initiative, for what they want to know more about.

            Or, like Emily said, let attendees know clearly that this is what’s up. If not, I would conclude you want to display your sexuality to children.

            1. Young teens are likely more vulnerable than smaller children simply because they’re on point to notice and have the hormones to react but don’t have the mind-space to comprehend. It’s why we have an “age of consent” after all. Smaller children are less likely to react at all.

              And I DO think that if something is billed as a “family” event rather than an “adult” event, that the adults with any decency would figure out how to keep their public expression at a level that doesn’t require a parent to explain sexual deviance.

              And small children LOVE furries! Big fuzzy animals are the best thing ever. No part of that means they need to be exposed to “how they roll.” (And from what I’ve heard, not all furries roll that hard anyway.)

              1. The problem is, there are lot of adults who do not want decency.

                The whole POINT is that they get to force you, and the child, to participate in their activity, especially when you do not want to.

                It’s a matter of power, if I remember the pop psychology right.

      2. I was taking my nephew–my sister’s son– to a con. I don’t mean in private. I mean in public areas of the con. I would want to know if people would be naked or scantily clad (don’t mean bathing suit) too.It’s up to my sister or my brother-in-law, not me to talk to him about sex. Label a con family friendly or adults only. Truth in advertising.

  12. Sigh. It was the turn-of-the-last century actress, Mrs. Patrick Campbell, who is supposed to have originated the very wise and sensible principle: “I don’t care what you do in the bedroom, as long as you’re not doing it in the streets and frightening the horses.”
    Words to live by. I just wish that more people did.

    1. I am no spring chicken.  One day I was sitting in a reading nook at Barnes and Nobles chatting with Ms. Peggy, a Southern gentlewoman a generation older. 

      Two young persons who were quite obviously at a stage of embracing the upset of the horses as a life style came over and sat together in a chair in the nook.  They proceeded to make comments, attempting to insert themselves into the conversation.  Then they tried wrapping themselves around each other.  After some time they grew board and left. 

      Peggy turned to me, shrugged, and said, ‘You’d think from how they behaved that their generation invented sex.’ 

  13. What I can’t figure out is that the anything-goes acceptance of really far off mainstream behavior seems to be associated with liberals that just love socialism/communism. (I include both since the will argue endlessly the fine shadings of each they perceive) Yet the actual communist states have been among the most prudish and restrictive of any governments. Did nobody tell them?

    1. It’ll be different this time.

      Although the reason is probably because both aspects come from wanting to get back at stereotypical society.

      1. The dynamics of the soviet state cult. The lies currently in fashion among the inner party must be chorused whole heartedly by the outer party. The inner party here desires the destruction of society, and sees the sex stuff as a means to that end. The inner party there desired to preserve their society, and hence banned the weird sex stuff. But with their mad technocracy, it didn’t matter.

        1. They identify it as anything that told them “no”. So having to provide value as defined by someone else to get goods and services or that they can’t act like a dog in heat.

          Almost as if they fail to see others as deserving benefits commensurate with ability.

    2. My belief, shouted to anyone who listens, is that the Left uses the increase in sexual freedom as a substitute for all of the freedoms that they’re determined to take away. They use the fact that they want you to be free to screw anything that moves to hide the fact that they DON’T want you to be free to do anything else.

      As far as the Communist societies go, the fact is that you pretty much need the traditional sexual arrangements in order to keep a society going, particularly a society that needs to steal as much as possible. The Party is not going to let their utopia fall merely because the plebes are more interested in gay sex than in raising the peasants of the future.

      1. It is the idea of keeping people distracted with pleasure while you use the rest of them. Same as the return of silicon valley to the company store model (sure you work 10-12 hrs per day and are reliant on their transportation but you havefree red bull and ping pong tables)

        They think that they will be able to enjoy libertine sexual mores while importing serfs from abroad from Africa, Middle East and South America as nations continue to outstrip their resources

        1. In addition to the company store model, which is absolutely a thing, do not ignore the foundational Silicon Valley practice of indentured servitude via the H1B visa system. The vast number of imported technical labor with restrictions on their mobility job-to-job suppresses the natural market pressure in skilled technical labor so that the native born young tech employees do not realize they could buy their own darn lunch and Red Bull if they got the pay their scarcity in the labor market would actually merit.

          Silicon Valley would look very, very different if the H1B visa system were reformed.

          1. Yep. Instead of outsourcing to india they just outsource india to here. Not only is standard of living lower and a bit more ‘flexible’ on how to write resumes but the US government subsidizes wage by including the visa.

      2. Yep. There are a disturbing number of people who I suspect would live in a ten foot by ten foot cell as long as they got free food, free weed, and free sex.

        1. That’s the next step beyond UBI.

          The Democatic Party already flew their “right to own a home” platform under the Previous Incumbent, and surely the “right to health care” covers weed and hookers? I mean, if it’s going to cover contraceptives and sex changes, what’s the problem?

          1. All healthcare plans under Obama care have to cover sex change. WHY do you think it became so popular suddenly with brainless teens. It’s free so you don’t have to think twice on that, and they don’t think twice on anything.

            1. What’s really annoying about this is the assumption that if you think you’re the gender you’re currently not, then (1) you’ll *always* think this way, and (2) you’ll *never* change your mind.

              Never mind that reassignment surgery doesn’t seem to fix the person — the suicide rates both before and after surgery remain pretty much the same — and that the surgery mutilates the body, making it impossible to have children afterward. Nope, this highly invasive surgery will *always* fix the individual!

              I have seen suggestions that we should apply horomone therapy to children who think they are trans. This particularly horrifies me, because something like 80% of children decide, as they are growing up, they aren’t really trans after all! This particular solution will break those 80% to help the 20% who never change their mind.

              I saw a clip from a video where Steven Crowder had a “there are two genders, change my mind” where a trans person he was talking to asked him “so, do you think I’m broken?” I didn’t see Steven’s answer to the question, and so I’ve had some thoughts of how I might answer this, and I think I’d answer it something like this: First, yes, trans people are broken — otherwise, why is surgery an answer to fixing them? Whole people need no fixing. If someone is trans, it’s merely a question of “what are we going to do to ‘fix’ the person?” and there are no easy answers. Second, just because you’re broken, doesn’t mean that you’re any less of a person. I have a sister with schizophrenia, my back is permanently hurt, and my wife has some sort of arthritis. Are we any less of a person than someone healthy? I would go so far as to say *everyone* is broken in some way, and perhaps even in multiple ways….

              1. I would go so far as to say *everyone* is broken in some way, and perhaps even in multiple ways….

                Sounds like the old joke– there’s been one perfect man born, and he didn’t marry!

      3. “They use the fact that they want you to be free to screw anything that moves to hide the fact that they DON’T want you to be free to do anything else.”

        Yes, this.

    3. Right? It makes NO sense. or rather it does. They use these groups to undermine the mainstream, but then destroy them because… well… they’d undermine THEIR mainstream. Same for us odds, btw.

    4. It helps break down society.

      As the USSR learned the hard way. By Stalin’s era they were pushing a family structure that Mrs. Grundy would have approved of.

      1. I like traditional structure in society. I’ve been happily married for 17 years. However having to defend my decision not to have children was sometimes difficult. I’d think that getting married at 40 it’d be quite difficult to start attempting to have children. My sister and brother have children, my sisters-in-law all have kids. I’d not be leaving the family childless.

        1. For what it’s worth, you “come across” as mature but not old– I suspect that folks have you mentally pegged so they’d figure you married “old” like my mom (30s,) not “married late” in your 40s.

          Even when they KNOW THE NUMBERS, that kind of stuff sticks.

          1. It’s everyone is an identical widget from the right. They had no concept of an exception to the rule. arrghh!

            1. It sounds as if you are the one having authenticity issues, refusing to conform to the identity they have defined for you. Shame, shame on you for insisting on being an (yechhhh) individual.

        2. Dearest, even if either of us had wanted them, there’s no way you would have been able to carry to term.

          I’m with Lazarus Long:

          “Go to hell!” or other insult direct is all the answer a snoopy question rates.

          The correct way to punctuate a sentence that starts: “Of course It is none of my business but–” is to place a period after the word “but.” Don’t use excessive force in supplying such moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.

  14. C and I got married in 2016, after 31 years of unmarried cohabitation. (Happily, it seems not to have harmed our relationship; it often seems to have improved it.) No one complained about our insisting on shoving our heterosexuality into everyone’s faces. . . .

    1. “No one complained about our insisting on shoving our heterosexuality into everyone’s faces. . . .”

      What would you say to the person who did?

      1. Well, that’s an interesting question. I rather hope that I won’t have to answer it any time soon, though I suppose it would be evidence of the continuing self-destruction of the puritanical Left.

    2. Well, now that you mention it! 😉
      No. My complaint is not of people getting married but of those who insist on telling us what they do in bed. Mind you most of them are on youtube and easy to avoid.

      1. Oh, I agree. But back when I still had my corporate job, and same-sex marriage first came on the horizon, there was a woman working there who found it offensive that it should even be mentioned on the news, because she didn’t want to have to tell her children about what those people were doing to consummate their marriages. Which was really a bit odd, because I doubt she told her kids what heterosexual couples did in the privacy of their bedrooms (or living rooms or offices or gardens); our culture has long had “suitable for children” explanations of opposite-sex marriage, right?

        But I heard this at second hand and didn’t have the opportunity to ask logical questions, which was probably just as well; she was a co-worker.

        1. No idea if she does the same, but I’ve had to explain that men and women “make babies” when they’re married; they’re young enough the mechanics aren’t of interest, but we’ve also had to do some quick-steps to prevent guys being informed that they aren’t going to be able to make a baby without a girl.

          The phrase “it’s complicated,” “it’s not nice to talk about,” and “you’re not old enough to understand it yet” gets used a lot.

          Haven’t come up with a good answer for “if they don’t want us to talk about it, why do they keep doing that?”

  15. On a somewhat related vein:
    Q: How do tell if someone is a vegan?
    A: You don’t, they’ll tell you.

    1. I ate vegetarian (but was not a Vegan) for a couple of years in the ’90s. Vegans haven’t changed, alas. I tend to equate Vegan lectures with Vogon poetry. 🙂

      1. When I read “Have Space Suit — Will Travel” I had a hard time remembering that “Vegan” in the context of the book was “someone from Vega” and NOT “someone who eschewed all forms of meat”.

    2. “An atheist, a vegan, and a CrossFit person all walked into a bar. We know because they told everybody in the first five minutes.”

  16. I am not sure “misunderstand” is the proper word … more like misrepresents or flat out distorts. “Misunderstands” implies a degree of inadvertence.

    The Left Misunderstands the Purpose of the Constitution. Again.
    By Sarah Hoyt
    The left doesn’t understand the Constitution.

    We’re not even talking about the text. They question the purpose of the Constitution and a nation of laws. This is not news; Obama himself went on a ridiculous tirade about the superiority of his imagined “positive rights” over mere equal rights. And just witness their panic at the idea that the Supreme Court might get taken over by constitutionalists.

    Part of the reason they don’t like the Constitution is that it limits what they view as the ability of the government to be benevolent and look after everyone. (Perhaps it is just my impression that these people mostly come from broken homes and want the government to be their daddy, or want the government to be daddy and mommy for others.)

    Recently some on the Left have been circulating the below graphic on Facebook, as their self-reinforcing pat-on-the-back reason why strictly adhering to the Constitution is a bad thing and we’re bad people for wishing it.

    Like most of the Left’s memes, it’s very simple (not to say simpleminded) and you have to dig under it to realize the levels and levels of wrong its cutesy drawings hide:

    1. Given that I refuse to get a Discus account, I’ll toss my comment here:

      When did “Justice” get redefined as “removing systematic barriers”? Whether the fence is right or wrong, fair or unfair, sure I could see arguments on both sides depending on how you interpret the picture, but it no matter how you feel about that, I can’t see that it’s an issue of “justice” unless you’re simply using the word to mean, “things I feel good about.”

      1. Probably safer than commenting there. Half the comments seem to be one or another poster who solely toss ad hominems and bs (e.g. ZOMG trump’s shredding constitution)

        1. I find it interesting to see various trolls camping out on certain topics and authors. The one who infests the Live Blog is both annoying and boring. One suspects it’s his job. Literally.

            1. I seriously wish they’d let someone do similar over there– just one person to go through and identify “oh, yeah, that guy is totally either spam or troll” and fix it.

              1. Foxfier, there’s a simple reason they don’t do that, and this case is an example of why.

                ” As a private company, they certainly have that right. However, I also figure that also means speech they don’t interfere with somehow does conform to their own ideology.”

                If they start censoring trolls, then that will move them from “common carrier” not liable for content to “publisher” liable for content under section 230 CDA. Or at least that’s the argument someone can make, just like the Pulse nightclub victims are here since YouTube, etc. don’t seem to block Islamist content the way they do conservative content.

                1. Solution being the standard comment rules that mention people will be blocked if they’re generally disruptive, as the purpose is for conversation.

                  1. Now provide an objective definition of disruptive.

                    It’s remarkably like defining “hate speech”.

                    1. “Actions causing interruptions to an event, activity, or process.”

                      IE, making it difficult to communicate…say, by incessantly posting unrelated memes, deliberate misunderstandings, picking silly fights, all things that have multiple practitioners over at PJ media, and which all but vanish when you block them.

                      It doesn’t require reading motivations. It requires looking at actions.

                    2. So you ban “violence inciting” X but not “violence inciting” Y. Someone who is hurt by someone believing in Y who mentions he read it on your blog can make the claim that because you didn’t censor Y, you support the violence. If you censor NEITHER, you have a CDA 230 “Common carrier” defense where your motives cannot be questioned; because you censored only one, you become a CDA liable :”publisher”. You don’t have to agree with that, but that’s how the law looks at it.

                    3. Where on earth is “violence inciting” coming from?

                      Your example utterly misses the point– people being upset doesn’t have anything to do with it.

                      The substance is not involved, it’s the manner of posting.

                      Sort of like when some twit tries to go and say they were kicked out of a store for “discussing (hot issue of day)”, and then it turns out they were walking up to people and screaming in their faces.

                    4. The article I started with (that you didn’t read) was about Facebook being sued by Pulse nightclub shooting survivors because the shooter was getting and distributing ISIS / Islamist propaganda on Facebook. The original lawsuit was thrown out because Facebook was treated as common carrier and thus not liable. After a plethora of examples of Facebook censoring conservatives for “Islamophobic” content while leaving jihadis and their sympathizers alone, they are asking that the suit be re-instated because Facebook’s failure to censor jihadists with the same consistency proves that they contributed to inspiring the violence.

                      And since you didn’t read it before going after me, we’re done.

                    5. And since you didn’t read it before going after me, we’re done.

                      Since you didn’t bother to read what I actually wrote on the dang page, we never got started.

      2. It’s like how “fair” got debased from “just” to “an outcome I like,” now they’re debasing “justice” to mean the same sort of nothing as “fairness.”

  17. I wonder sometimes if anyone notices how bored most of us are about others sex lives? (Don’t care if hetero, homo, deviant etc etc.) Or am I alone in this thought?

    1. Sexual appetites can be fairly specific to the person. Little is more boring than listening to someone excited about a thing to their taste, that isn’t to yours.

  18. There’s a related question.

    The old joke is ‘left California before it becomes mandatory’.

    There is some reason to think that sexual attraction to a thing can be learned behavior. Homosexuality is not quite mandatory these days, but the social pressure to identify as LBGT et cetera seems to be having an effect. I’m skeptical of the purely biological origin hypothesis, because some fetishes are fairly specific, which translates to a lot of data to be storing in DNA. Or wherever.

    How can the variation be explained? 1) Largely coincidental biological changes due to some factor like birth control hormones in water. 2) Gays oppressed into thinking they are straight. 3) Some capacity in some part of the population for developing different tastes depending on environment. 4) People who are not naturally LGBT pressured into a false positive self evaluation.

    The equation of autistics with LGBT, and some of the ‘you may be transsexual if you are intelligent, solitary, isolated and lonely’ might be evidence of 4. If four is true to some degree, one might expect an increase in suicide rate among effected parties.

    I tend to think that, all else being the same, there are fewer people who would kill themselves because they are traumatized by not having sex than there are people who would kill themselves because they are traumatized by having a sexual experience that they should not have had. So I would prefer certain messaging biases in instruction on such for youngsters.

    Case four is really the devil in this set of details. If it is true to a large enough degree, then the scenario where homosexuals are killed whenever identified may actually be better than the status quo, at least in the ‘minimizing harm’ sense. Is there a stable situation between ‘homosexuals are routinely put to death’ and the status quo? Is the current situation an unavoidable result of ceasing to institutionalize homosexuals?

    The original comment could be a very badly posed version of this. If a possibility isn’t discussed carefully and rigorously by someone with the intellectual background to do so, people will still intuit things, and may speak them in horribly incorrect ways. MAGA’s success is undoubtedly partly because of the systemic suppression of voices who were pointing out Obama’s bankrupt Carterian Catalinian foreign policy.

      1. Research, what there is of it, seems to show females are much more fluid in their sexuality. Males tend to stay in the same direction.

        1. That makes sense in other ways. If this is the case, there might be two different mechanisms involved, which tend to be sex linked. Different mechanisms potentially mean different side effects. In which case, there might be societies that care more about oppressing homosexuals of one sex than another. Of course, we aren’t restricted to the possibility of two mechanisms and associated behavioral clusters. Brains can be abnormal in a lot of different ways, and very different defects can apparently cause similar symptoms.

          We know so very little about this.

          1. Consider for instance that a talent for learning foreign languages is strongest (judging by the numbers of professional translators) in women and gay males. Uh.

        2. Females also can be attracted to the “guy everyone is attracted to”. It’s part of that evolutionary favored “fitting into group” for females.

        3. I remember reading an article quite a while back that touched on this. The women being discussed were bisexual. But they weren’t the “happy hedonist” of popular conception. Rather, their primary driver was interest in a long-term monogamous relationship, and they’d take one with either gender.

          Also according to the article, lesbian activists HATE these kinds of women, and refuse to acknowledge that they exist.

      2. For males, possibly the Parkland shooter is of a type. I meant to mention him as a possible case four situation. That said, there have long been a lot of fairly disturbed or evil people.

        1. Probably, yes, though I understand that these days an increasing number of nominally mixed colleges have substantial majorities of women students. Men are starting to view colleges as a hostile environment for some reason. . . .

      3. What women “get” out of sex tends to be different than what guys “get” out of sex, on a shallow level– LUG tends to make it “ok” to have physical contact/cuddling because it’s sexual, and you can tell the male slut guys to buzz off without making yourself a target.

        “Male slut until graduation” doesn’t really have the same ring, too many guys think it sounds like an awesome thing forever…..

    1. Oh Bob. In 55 years of live I haven’t EVER seen sexual attraction be learned behavior. How it’s expressed and how loudly, sure. But the attraction? Bah.

      1. How do I put this? There’s some anecdotal evidence that over time consumption of pornography can change tastes in pornography.

        Or is that what you mean by expression of attraction?

          1. Can’t people also become jaded with sexual activity with other actual human beings?

            1. I find that the more I know about other human beings the less I am inclined toward any interaction with them, sexual, intellectual or otherwise.

              There is nothing with which people cannot become jaded, provided they survive their experience a sufficient length of time.

          1. Pornography is too wide, and the specific tastes too narrow, for that model to be really plausible. It seems rather like being destined from birth to like a particular type of video game, yet to be invented. If you are comfortable with Calvinist theology on predestination, and the elect and reprobate, you can be comfortable with such a view. But if you prefer other models of neural networks, learning seems a bit more plausible.

        1. situational homosexuality, aka deprivation homosexuality (which also happens in all girls/all boys boarding schools) is not an orientation. It’s just humans being horny. There is no change. They’d still prefer the other sex if it were available. It’s not. So they make do.

          1. There is a distinction between “in search of sexual gratification” and pursuit of a partner. It doesn’t matter who’s rubbing your erogenous zones if all you are about. Forming a life partnership requires a little more attention and is more truly reflective of your “orientation.”

            Reduce the matter to mere genital stimulation is overlooking the most important point. It ain’t about “romping through Cupid’s grove” no matter how much they push that fishwrap.

        2. “It’s not gay when you’re underway!” There’s also the fact that, among guys at least, there’s a difference between “pitching and catching” as it were.

          This is also why you have the phenomenon of the “ship boo” and “ship 10” now that we’ve got mixed crews.

    2. The suicide arguments have always irked me. Wanting to kill yourself because the world doesn’t match what your mind says it should is sorta the reason for suicide. Why is it different if person A does it because they don’t like their sex and because person B doesn’t like politics and person C dohates other opeople. All require others to change interactions with them to suit their desires.

    3. I’ve heard the case made that same-sex attraction *has* to be natural, because why would someone feel that way when societal pressure is trying to steer them otherwise?

      The problem I have with this reasoning is that it’s not all that difficult to get a funny idea in your head, and then run with it. I’m convinced I’m a mathematician, but I’m not entirely convinced there’s a good natural explanation for that. Similarly, people die for their religions — if having a literal extermination order against you for what you believe isn’t societal pressure to abandon your belief, I don’t know what is! — and a particular religious belief clearly isn’t biological.

      Now, I would support the claim that tendencies can be built in (while specific religious belief isn’t biological, generic religious belief probably is, for example), but humans are flexible, and they can learn all sorts of behaviors, and accept all sorts of things about themselves as natural.

  19. There are people for whom “freaking out the squares” is their fetish. You see this a lot in the BDSM world. It’s a form of exhibitionism, they get off on parading around with their freak flag specifically trying to get a shocked or horrified reaction.

    For example, it’s not uncommon for male transvestites to get into their kink clothes and then call for a pizza delivery or other such service, so they can display themselves to the delivery driver. (On the plus side, most of them at least tip well.)

    Unfortunately, many of them latch onto a political justification for their kink. They call it “raising awareness” and then, after they have deliberately done something to offend people, claim to be the victims when someone complains about their behaviour.

    Being someone who believes very strongly in the concept of consent, I used to get a lot of arguments with people over this kind of behaviour. Involving people in your scene who have not consented is simply wrong. The issue isn’t whether or not you have a right to do it, the issue is whether or not your involuntary audience has a right not to be involved.

    And I’m sorry, if you get off on being watched, you are using the people who are watching sexually. Using someone sexually who has not agreed to it is sexual assault.

    1. I can shrug if (in case where it is obvious that there is not controlled entry that makes the activities obvious e.g. fetish night at club vs normal night) when called out the activity ceases with apology. Where I kinda sit with “tolerance”. You get benefit of doubt for first breach of social protocol. After that is malice. And if course if you go into the strip club and complain about nearly naked people you’re in the wrong.

      The only thing I keep coming back to as the intractable problem is where to draw the line. I’ll know it when I see it doesn’t work and I am not sure if there is a common culture anymore

    2. One of the arguments against open-carry “raising awareness” events is the fear that getting into people’s faces produces a backlash. Indeed, there have been times where such events have backfired, and resulted in *more* gun control.

      I have sometimes wondered if there are good methods to open carry yet avoid the in-your-face “awareness” that leads to backlash. One idea I had was to have a muster where at least some of the people wear Colonial clothing and some carry muskets, and not necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence (ie, have some non-Colonials carry muskets, and some Colonials carry more modern rifles), and then eat at a restaurant afterwards, carrying with extreme care their rifles into the restaurant — ideally, as hunters stopping in for something to eat, unwilling to leave their rifles in the car.

      In other words, be as discreet as you possibly can when you have a rifle on your shoulder without making any sort of scene — and this makes sense, if this is what you want to normalize. The moment something happens that makes this an “in-your-face” moment, you should apologize and make things right, so that you don’t force other people into your activism….

      Unfortunately, there are gun rights “activists” who insist on the “in-your-face” approach, and if gun rights advances, it does so *despite* these “activists”, not because of them.

  20. I’m a firm believer that homosexual behavior is a choice, not inborn. But let’s assume for the moment I’m completely wrong, and next week scientists conclusively prove it’s in the genes, and can identify the DNA that transmits it. How many minutes after that discovery before it becomes both unlawful to test babies in the womb for it and to abort any baby that carries the mutation? Might be the only abortion restriction liberals would agree to.

    1. If there are genes, it’s a set of them. I’m very much against the idea it’s a CONSCIOUS choice though. Why? Because it persists in places where the penalty is death.
      So, no.

      1. People choose to practice Christianity (or other religions) where the penalty is death. Or to leave their birth religion where the penalty is death. Or to insult the supreme leader where the penalty is death. All of which kind of weaken that argument.

        1. no. It’s different because it’s not a belief. Humans can do anything for a belief. It’s just a behavior.
          It’s also about the same rates everywhere, as far as we can determine. Defiance isn’t.
          Another thing that weakens your argument is that about the same rates “homosexuality” exist in all great apes. Sorry. We’re built on an ape frame. The clay gets a say.

          1. The thing that pops out in this, though, is that there has been a shift in identification of teens claiming alternative sexuality. And an increase in transgender individuals as publicized (part of it is probably the overdiagnosis but not all). My guess is that there is an aspect where it is used as an identity and this is the popular ‘I’m special’ for right now.

            1. yeah, among teens it’s mostly being propagandized and trying to be special. I was talking adults. Teens are always …. weird and susceptible.
              For instance a study shows kids who identify as transgender tend to be smart, maladjusted, and trying to find SOMETHING that will make them socially accepted.
              Couple that with pumping these kids full of hormones that will make it hard for these kids to come to sanity/reproduce as adults, and…
              Yep. It’s genocide. They found a way to trap young Odds and exterminate them.

              1. There is a social aspect, just as closeted gays had families and such. Not sure what extent but from personal experience its tangible. Run into a bunch of tension over the ‘just haven’t tried me yet’ pseudojoke (goes both ways but its more socially acceptable applied toward normies than abnormies.

                1. There is some number of bis who might choose one way or the other depending on socially acceptable in their times/places, yes. BUT there’s a constant.

                  1. Both sides have a core percentage but there is a malleable middle. Know too many people who shifted completely to be just changing lean.

          2. Opportunistic/situational/deprivation homosexuality exists in many (most?) mammal species (as any dog owner knows), including great apes. I’m sure same-sex stable pair-bonding is much rarer, in species where it exists at all…

            1. Absent societal pressure aka marriage, I am also sure that opposite sex stable pair-bonding is rare.

    2. You can get some wildly inconsistent positions out of leftists in the arena of sex selection abortions too.

      1. Note that there is one segment (the dominant one) of the pomo left that insists orientation is inborn (while gender is a social construct, go figure) and another that claims everybody is bi/pansexual but some of us just don’t want to explore that part.

    3. I believe that sexual response is learned in much the same way language is learned, and can change in much the same way.

      You don’t wake up one morning and decide to start speaking Japanese, it takes a long time to change your mind’s way of working to accommodate a new language. Changing the erotic cues that you react to is a similar process.

      People aren’t aware of learning to be homosexual or heterosexual in the same way that we don’t remember learning our native language. And most of us never change out sexual preference in the same way that most people don’t ever learn to be fluent in a new language.

      But both can change, if the person wants to change and has the resources available.

      Most homosexuals that I have known well enough to discuss the matter have had experiences with older men while they were adolescents. It’s not talked about outside the homosexual community, but it’s common enough that it’s an accepted part of the culture–reframed as the older homosexual helping to “awaken” an identity that the boy was unaware of until the seduction.

      Like language use, sexual identity is reinforced by immersion. I believe that is one reason why the homsexual culture is so insular–when you identify as “gay” you go to gay bars and gay events and in so much as it is possible only associate with gay friends.

      I don’t suggest that anyone be forced to change sexual preferences–I don’t think it can be done against one’s will in any event. But people who want to stop reacting sexually to one sex and start reacting to another can do it. If therapy to change one’s sexuality didn’t work the Left wouldn’t be so anxious to criminalize it.

      1. Similar question. Is my bloodymindedness innate or learned? Was I born to be bloodyminded and to seek for complex problems a simple solution through piles of bodies? Was I destined, foreordained from the time of creation, to become someone with my particular flavor of politics? Do the standards of tolerance espoused by the left for LGBT naturally also extend to my own case? Does the justification for gay marriage naturally also justify making significant legal changes to justify my idiosyncratic deviances in politics and problem solving, despite how few adhere to them? Does the justification for abortion naturally extend to legalization of mass murder as part of fully recognizing that I have rights?

        Or could I have gone down a different path, even with some of the early tendencies that pushed me in this direction? Have some of my experiences with guided thinking convinced me that the way I experience the world can be shifted in some ways, for good or for ill?

        In conclusion, it seems that I have actually changed my mind some over the years.

    4. Been saying that for a while. Certainly the statement that “there are no gays in Iran” will become true quite quickly.

  21. How many times have you heard people say `I used to like you, but now you’re just a full on right winger`

    I do not believe I have ever heard anybody say they used to like me. Which is not to say nobody likes me but rather that nobody has ever had much doubt about my views on most things.

    Mae West said it best:
    Judge: ‘Miss West, are you trying to show contempt for this court?’
    Mae West: ‘On the contrary, your Honor, I was doin’ my best to conceal it.’”

    1. Heard it, seen it, and seen it rip apart relationships when the “full right winger” hasn’t moved an inch in opinions

      1. Cf. the current POTUS — leaving his style and manners aside, his actual stances and actions are those of a populist conservative Democrat of just a generation ago…

          1. Yes, his stance on gays was pro before Hillary OR Obama said they were pro. OF COURSE EVERYBODY KNEW they were PRO but they just couldn’t SAY IT.

        1. That was part of the driver I think. His platform outside of foreign trade was a pretty general one. Get govt out of the way, protect borders and put citizens first. Most of my life the answer to the question of what govt would do was ‘what benefits wall street and silicon valley’ now just add in San Francisco and the medallin cartel.

        2. > his actual stances and actions are those of a populist conservative Democrat of just a generation ago…

          He *is* a populist conservative Democrat of just a generation ago!

          If nothing else, it’s a sign of how far the Republican Party has progressed in their “roll Left and die” platform…

          1. I view it as more of an indictment of how far Left the Democrats have rolled. Trump has merely joined the line formed by Al Capp. Ronald Reagan, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and others who’ve declared: “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me.”

            When DiFi and Gov. Moonbeam are (relatively) conservative you get a good indication of how deeply into the leftward ditch that party has driven.

  22. liberty means allowing people to do and be things we don’t approve of

    Heck, I don’t even much approve of many things I do!

    I do not want to care about things you do and I would rather you not care about what I do — and the easiest way to arrange that s to maintain a discreet veil of privacy.

    If you do not go one about the wonders of Democratic Socialism, tantric sex or high colonics I don’t have to (suppress the urge to) say you’re ignorant of economics, in need of a bucket of ice water or are full of …

  23. who nonethless pegs pretty close to the Libertarian end of the spectrum (except for not believing in open borders and thinking collective self-defense is a right too.

    And you’re the closest I’ve ever seen coming to an exact match of my own political position.

    On the “back in the closet” stuff, there’s the old saw about the squeaky wheel getting the grease. People forget the grease is not a reward. It’s a statement of the wheel that gets noticed, that is a problem, gets dealt with. I think the Japanese proverb gets the idea across better: “The post* that sticks up gets pounded.” (*sometimes it’s “nail” rather than “post”.)

    There was a Japanese animation series that I was quite fond of back in the day, “Irresponsible Captain Tyler” (like to find a copy of that again someday–and maybe translations of the novels if they exist). Near the end one of the antagonists is talking to another about monkeys how there’s often an “odd” monkey that is always picked on by the other monkeys but for some reason (it’s been better than 20 years since I’ve seen it and I don’t remember details) this oddball monkey was necessary to the group. (Other person makes thinks this is supposed to be a reference to Tyler but first immediately denies that. As viewers, however, we’re apparently supposed to take away that that’s exactly what it meant.)

      1. So I worked at a largish Silicon Valley semi manufacturer years ago where I reported relatively high up the chain, and there was this group manager who every darn week went on and on and on about how his team had soooo much to do, and sooo many problems, and it was soooo hard to fulfill his reposibilities, and on and on and on. Every week.

        The rest of us resolved our teams problems, fulfilled our responsibilities, and reported progress, and only brought up problems when we actually needed help across boundaries or attention from on high.

        Then came major (>10%, so had to be announced publicly) layoffs. The group headed by the complainer basically lost no-one. The others, including my group, got slashed.

        Lesson learned: The complainer squeaky-wheeling had prejustified his department’s job as soooo hard that they could not possibly cut anyone there.

        I always thought that the VP I reported to was basically a sucker for buying into the whinging, but I wonder how much of that was cultural – both the complainer and the VP were from the same subcontinent, so maybe it’s a Raj thing – I don’t know, and never will, because I was included in that RIF, and didn’t bother to stay in touch.

        1. In my experience, Indian managers will hire Indians first and lay them off last.

          1. Oh yes.

            And when a prior layoff had included a number of Indian H1B employees, the wailing and gnashing heard around the campus from the remaining subcontinentals about the horror of those ex-employees having to (shudder) move back home if they didn’t shortly find another job here was loud and sustained.

            As an odd coincidence, fewer subcontinentals were included in my round of RIFs.

  24. My concern with the notion that “anything goes” sexually between consenting adults, is that it invariably and inevitably spills over to those who do not consent and those are who not adults. Sad to say, that’s
    the nature of the beast.

    1. In which case we prosecute those. Non deviant sexuality between consenting adults also spills to non-consenting and non-adults. Humans are fallen creatures.

      1. I think he may have been getting at divorce and remarriage, and the issue of children? I would guess that your position is that child molestation should be criminalized, and that divorce should not, but divorce is often a bad idea anyway?

        1. I have often seen and fully agree with the quote from historians Will and Ariel Durant:

          `No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss customs or institutions of his society, for these are the wisdom of the generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history. A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he`s unchecked by custom, morals or laws, he may ruin his life before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group.“

          The Lessons of History (1968), 35–36

  25. I am going to present two instructive anecdotes.

    1. At the first con that I worked on as a non-gofer, there were a number of other events taking place that weekend at our hotel. The most notable was a Baptist/historically black church prayer breakfast on the tail end of Sunday morning. We were a small con and it was our first year, so we asked every fan to use decorum in public.

    A young woman of paleness decided that she needed to get exhibitionist with her chainmail bikini. On Sunday morning, which is not exactly a big hall costuming time. She made absolutely sure that every church lady and male pillar of the church got an eyeful, and she lost us our hotel. (We eventually found another hotel in town that would take us, but the contract wasn’t all that great and neither was the hotel.) The con ended after its second year.

    But she sure showed those hypocritical church breakfast people, who had paid good money to have a nice meeting in a nice hotel!

    The moral of the story is that, if somebody uses extremely poor judgment in costuming presentation, they will probably show just as poor judgment in basic manners, and in life and business matters. If you can’t teach them better in a day, you have to chaperone them and hold their wittle hands — or they will destroy a lot of things around them.

  26. The second instructive anecdote is about a non-fannish convention I did not attend, but heard a lot about from my fellow members who did.

    There’s a mostly-Catholic group called the Church Music Association of America. They have a week-long symposium/music boot camp every year, and it travels around the country, spending several years in each town that hosts it. If you want to learn chant or advanced organ techniques, they will set you up.

    After many years of lobbying, the CMAA came to Indianapolis. Perfect setup, right? Famous for convention hotels, lots of downtown churches with good organs and practice spaces, nearby class spaces in a college for cheap. By getting con rates in a hotel instead of staying in Catholic college dorms over the summer, people could actually sleep on good mattresses and have temperature control! Yay!

    But the convention hotel messed up, accidentally or on purpose for humor. The room block for a few hundred church musicians was mixed with the room block for several hundred swingers. Both conventions were notified of the mixup, and asked to be understanding.

    I wasn’t there. But reliable witnesses say that practically every real monk, nun, sister, friar, priest, and family man/woman, from old to young, got propositioned, often without being discouraged by the word no. People with kids visibly in tow also got propositioned.

    As the week went on, the propositions died down a little, but angry insults and one-sided confrontations increased. CMAA people had to walk in groups for safety, or at least less embarrassment and harassment. Some members of the hotel staff were unsympathetic or expressed openly anti-Catholic sentiments. All kinds of stuff happened. Many people left the hotel and stayed anywhere they could find, as long as it was elsewhere.

    (To be fair, there were apparently plenty of folks at the swingers convention who were discreet and pleasant, and of course there are always unshockable musicians and clergy who are good at turning confrontations and propositions into opportunities to change minds. These sturdy souls had a good time chatting with everybody. But usually music boot camp doesn’t mix well with anything stressful.)

    The CMAA symposium will probably never come back to Indianapolis. (The hotel chain apologized, but they didn’t give back money.)

    1. To be fair, there were other reasons not to hold a colloquium in Indy in the summer. (You have to book hotels way in advance, because it is a convention and sports event city. You can’t use dorms, because the visiting sports teams are using them. You are likely to experience crowding and sometimes drunk people wherever you go. And con rates are not all that cheap, unless it’s a really big con like Gencon.)

      Also, nobody got seriously traumatized or anything. The level of music and class presentation was fondly remembered by everyone, and the unexpected opposition created cameraderie. But still, a PITA, and volatile at that.

    2. The hotel chain apologized, but they didn’t give back money.

      Had they given a refund, I’d say there was no need to name the hotel chain publicly. But since they failed to perform the most elementary customer service, I’d say they deserve being publicly named, so that others might be able to avoid them.

      Which chain was that, if you know?

      1. It was the Sheraton City Centre in Indianapolis.

        But this was back in 2014, so one imagines the turnover in employees and management has been pretty complete.

  27. Related to the damage that activists have done to causes and perceptions, have an interesting article:

    Part of the evidence that is cited in court, but buried in the end of news articles (which are rather long, interestingly enough) is that the perpetrator of the attacks is a male to female transgender who started having psychological issues after starting hormone therapy related to transitioning. It is not merely political correctness, I don’t think, that is a problem here.

    1. The human brain is a delicate thing. But the hormone stuff is hardly the only area where the culture Hollywood promotes in America is shockingly callous about the fragility of brains.

  28. I have a philosophy on this matter that I have developed after many years of work with employees on all levels.
    I refer to it as my “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
    I promise not to ask about your sex life.
    You have to promise not to tell me about it.

Comments are closed.