Should Bisexuality be Retired?

Laci Green is the host of Sex+, a youtube channel dedicated to learning and talking about sex freely and in a positive manner. In this episode, she defines her sexual orientation, pansexuality. Yeah, she's so totally attracted to that pan. Check out her stuff! She has a lot of awesome things to say. Go ahead. I'll wait. Okay, did you watch? Good. And now, on to the article.

As Laci Green states in the video I posted, there are various interpretations of bisexuality, including: liking same and different gender, two genders, men and women, or liking all genders.

There's also the emerging term pansexuality, which generally either means: attraction to all genders or attraction by personality.

Whoa! That's a lot of different interpretations! No wonder people get so confused. Laci takes the stance that it's up to you what you define labels as, and that labels don't get to define you. While I agree with that, I'd like to go one step further and say that we really need to take a look at our definitions and start settling on what the words "bisexual" and "pansexual" mean.

To me, I've taken to identifying as bisexual. I'm attracted to either gender/sex (that includes MTF or FTM, genderqueer and intersex), and I'll even like masculine females or effeminate males. I'm aware not all bisexuals feel that way, and some would even tell me I'm pansexual. But let's think for a moment about heterosexuality and its definition, as it's been established and focused on for quite some time now, being the most common and traditionally accepted "norm".

A heterosexual can pretty much like anyone from the opposite sex, even someone whose gender expression falls elsewhere.

(Gender expression and gender identity are different terms. Identity being who you identify with and expression being how you want to dress and act, but not necessarily who you identify as. Cross dressers are an example of gender expression of the opposite gender.)

It seems these days you can even be heterosexual and open yourself up to transpeople who identify with the gender you're attracted to. Or if that doesn't float your boat, you can just identify queer, which has become a catchall as of late for anyone who rejects the definitions all together. Or you could be heteroqueer, someone who both identifies as heterosexual and queer.

So, I don't count gender expression or physical sex in my sexuality. However, what about genderqueers? I'm attracted to people not on either side identity wise. But some bisexuals would just stick with either end of the binary and nothing between or outside of it.

(Again, queer has become a catchall of sorts, and in this case appears no different. If you're genderqueer, you essentially are checking the "other" box when asked what gender you are. You neither identify male or female, but rather something between or entirely different.)

Well, this is where the argument for pansexuality's existence comes in most strongly. Pansexuality includes every gender identity, including genderqueer and that's generally something all people agree on. Then there's intersex, which is a bit like genderqueer only the physical version of it. People who are intersex may identify as genderqueer, male or female, and not all bisexuals would be attracted to an intersexed individual. However, not all pansexuals would either, but many people would consider themselves pansexual over bisexual if they were attracted to intersex.

Then there's people who are attracted to transsexuals (MTF or FTM). Sometimes, due to this, they may call themselves pansexual in order to include transsexuals. However, I strongly disagree with this assumption. I must remind you that transsexuals don't want to be considered "other gender"; they want to be considered as "opposite gender of the sex they were born as". I want my girlfriend to call me her boyfriend. I want to be considered a man, a sir, a he, and not differentiated merely because I was born as the opposite sex I identify as.

I can only imagine that some intersex, specifically those whose gender identity is either male or female, experience a similar reaction to my own. They'd prefer to be considered the gender they identify with, not what sex they were born with. And therefore, these particular people may also find themselves insulted by people having to be considered pansexual merely to be attracted to them.

So again, genderqueer appears to make the best argument for pansexuality, whether that genderqueer's sex is female, male, or intersex.

But for me, I like genderqueer people, yet I still pick bisexuality. Why? Because, well, I'm not certain. I suppose according to my own argument, I'd be pansexual.

I think I pick bisexual for more emotional reasons. It irritates me that some people would solely consider themselves pansexual because they'd date an FTM or MTF, as if they're an "other" and not the gender they desire to be identified with.

So, that finally brings me to the title of this entry. Should bisexuality be retired? Should we just make up some new definitions? As more and more people find themselves constrained by our outdated definitions, will we finally come together and come up with something better?

Only time will tell. Until then, we're all going to have to be a little more specific when we define our sexual orientations.

Love you guys! Lemme know what you think! And if you've got some new definitions, hit me with them in the comments below!

Dick Touching is so GAY

Dick touching. Docking. Sword fighting. Is it inherently gay? Arin Hanson says intent is more important than the act itself.

Arin Hanson (better known as Egoraptor) is the co-founder of the Let's Play/Podcast show Game Grumps on Youtube. On the show, he came out to his friend and co-star Danny Sexbang of the comedic band Ninja Sexparty that he had in fact "sword fought" with another man. What makes this really funny is that Dan, being aware that Arin is a straight man married to Suzy Berhow, didn't even believe him at first.

Here's an animated version of that very hilarious conversation pulled from the GG episode Ninjabread Man.

I highly recommend you check out both of their channels right now! They're 

awesomely talented and also super cool dudes. And nice, really super nice.

For those of you who didn't click the video, Arin explained to Dan that he has in fact "sword fought" with another man, with their actual dicks. An incredulous Dan was then explained about the wonders of the D Club, a little gathering Arin and some friends invented due to being made fun of for being gay, despite being straight. In this club they would prove how comfortable with their sexuality they were by whipping out their dicks periodically to one another and then deciding "nope, still not gay." Occasionally it would become more than that, and one time, things escalated to the point where they used their semi-hard dicks as swords for fun. Dan's reactions to this are absolutely hilarious.

In a later video, Arin and Dan, as they were playing Katamari Damacy, got into a rather heated debate over whether or not touching dicks is "gay". Dan swore up and down that yes, it is, and Arin defended that no, in his experience, it was not a "gay" act, and even went so far as to claim that they should probably have a D Club powwow. You can experience their debate in the following video.

A serious debate on an otherwise hilarious show.

 
If you know me, then you already know whose side I've taken in this argument. In my opinion, Arin is totally right, and I feel Dan's opinion exposes the ignorant fear he was brought up with in western society, its roots in sexual shaming and the idea that the naked body is sinful. No, I'm not offended, but boy do I find it annoying that there are so many people who would side with him. These people are all prisoners of the penis.

Personally, I think a D Club meeting would be really good for Dan.

Rather than explain my point of view directly, as Arin already has so well, I'd like to illustrate it by giving you all some Story Time! In today's tale, you are a heterosexual male raised in the United States, where even hugging can be considered a gay act if done for "too long", and you've got to be careful not to "send the wrong messages", lest you be mercilessly picked on by society, or WORSE, get hit on by a gay guy (gasp).

You've got a really close group of friends and you're all having a sleepover, right? Instead of slowly taking the time to each go to the bathroom to change, you all decide, "fuck it, we're dudes and we trust each other" and all change in front of one another with promises not to look. That becomes the norm due to its functionality.

Then, after some time, you guys joke about how everyone's so scared to look at each other's dicks because it's funny and helps release the tension. Then, you dare people to look at one another's dicks and realize it's just a body part and it's not a big deal. Then, at some point, y'all are so comfy together you hang out naked together as a mixture of a bonding experience (trust building) and confidence building.

At some point, you joke about dicks touching and then you dare to touch dicks, and realize that it doesn't turn you on, but it's hilarious that it's so taboo for straight guys to experience, even though it does nothing bad. The world doesn't end and you're not suddenly gay, and your buddy and you have this closeness because you trusted one another to experience something many people would totally judge you for, and yet you did it anyway, together.

You both weren't turned on at all. The attitude of the room is so jovial because this situation is ridiculous, so like true men, you take it to the next level by sword fighting with your floppy manhoods just to prove how stupid society can be. Nothing bad happens. You're still buddies with the other dude. You don't suddenly gain an attraction to men. It's all... all right.

Dicks no longer have power over you. They're just dicks and you no longer give a single shit over seeing them, or even touching them.

It feels amazing since overcoming fear and anxiety is very good for you. It feels even better because society was wrong, and it makes you feel like the ultimate fearless badass for doing so.


That's all for today. Think about it guys. Who do you side with, and why? Like, comment, subscribe.

Google+ Comments Replacing Youtube's, HORRIBLE, RIGHT?! ... Right?

In case y'all didn't notice, a long time ago in 2006 when smart phones were just emerging from the murky abyss, internet giant Google bought Youtube, causing a huge buzz among anyone who cares about internet freedom, AKA pretty much everyone else.

People were rightly concerned that Google was getting a little too big for their comfort. Elder folks and historians brought up the very valid point that television and radio both started out as an easy market to join, but certain companies snowballed until they ate up the little people. And we all lost out because of it. All of us. At present day we've got the bloated, commercialized, homogenized and frankly BORING entities we know today.

I was among that group of concerned citizens, and it turned out initially we had little to worry about. Youtube still was capable of being "You" tube, albeit with a few more commercial entities to potentially distract you and waves of issues with copyright placating, some of which continuing to this day. Fair use?! Whoever heard of that?!

Anyway, we're not here to talk about that today. We're here to talk about monopolies.

I hate that Google owns my second favorite entertainment website (first being ThatguywiththeGlasses.com, which branched off of Youtube a long time ago due to Fair Use rights being violated), my blog, my search engine, my map directions engine, and my awesome gmail account.

Even worse, they tried to buy Facebook, but thankfully, that didn't happen. So now, they're pulling a pathetic imitation of the internet changing sensation in response, Google+.

We were not impressed.

But hey, they're Google, and they own us (or at least, they think they do until we remind them AGAIN), so they forced our hands, replacing the heinous battlefield that is the Youtube comment section with their Facebook wannabe.

I'm all for stopping the inevitable reign of Google as Master of the Internet, so initially I was a bit miffed about the youtube comments and user homepage being replaced by Google's desperate reply to Facebook. I was all up in arms, ready to fight the good fight.

However, I got to thinking. Gee, this is really starting to hold people accountable for their comments. Sure, you can still make a Google+ account purely for trolling, but now there's a sense of generally increased visibility. These aren't just youtubers anymore. They are Google+ users. That makes me a user of this Facebook clone too, albeit unwillingly, and the thing about Facebook that separates it from things like 4Chan (bleh) and Youtube is a real sense of accountability and... community.

Honestly too, I feel Google+ is an upgrade in comparison to Youtube's old comment section. What are we really fighting for? Would I even freaking miss that hateful, bigoted ignorant comment section? I didn't even use it regularly until the past few weeks. Huh...

So, again, Google's treatment of Youtube is a mixed bag. On the one hand, we all hate it owning everything, knowing everything, and even owning the livelihood of our entertainment, but... I just don't know! Good play, Google. We're in check again.

Google, we're watching you too.

Very closely.

America! FUCK YEAAAH!!

America, the best country in the world.

Best? For whom exactly?

People have had a legal right to discriminate against me until hopefully 2014, when maybe civil rights will be granted for every citizen. Oh, and let's bring up ageism, how the elderly are horribly mistreated and discarded in general, or how about the jails being filled with non-violent offenders who turn violent after release? Also, the rich literally get away with murder, while I haven't been able to get a decent paying job for several years (despite having a Bachelors degree that I still haven't paid off) because so many people are misinformed about the statistics and effects of minimum wage being increased and I happen to be too young to be "experienced" and apparently degrees don't count for that any more, so therefore employers still get to offer me pay below the poverty line, or perhaps my favorite, offer me jobs where I work for free in exchange for job experience (how am I supposed to survive?!). But hey, at least I've still got EBT to feed myself with. Hey wait! Rich people, stop scraping away at my grocery money!

...

Crap! Now I need to eat ramen for dinner instead of something healthy, but at least being unhealthy later on in life won't--

Crap, that'll be way overpriced thanks to a free market running rampant. How much is your life worth, anyway? Can the free market determine that? How can I refuse to pay? And don't tell me I can just go to a competitor, because despite promises of breaking up monopolies, trusts and backroom deals, I don't see the United States government cracking down on these things in any significant way.

Despite all of this and more, I still love my country, but I wouldn't go so far as to  call it "the best". That poops all over a bunch of other countries who have much better ideas than we do about how to run a nation.

And trust me, there are a lot of good ideas we can use to improve ourselves, but first, we need to stop assuming we're the best.

Elementary, My Dear Friend

For those of you who haven't heard of CBS's new series 'Elementary', here's a basic synopsis from Deadline.com:
Aidan Quinn is set to co-star opposite Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu in CBS’ drama pilot Elementary. The project, written by Robert Doherty, is set in present day and stars Miller as eccentric Brit Sherlock Holmes, a former consultant to Scotland Yard whose addiction problems led him to a rehab center in New York City. Just out of rehab, Holmes now lives in Brooklyn with “sober companion” Joan Watson (Liu) while consulting for the NYPD. Quinn will play NYPD Captain Gregson who worked with Sherlock at Scotland Yard after 9/11 and was so impressed with his work that he has invited him to work as a consultant to the police in New York City. Gregson grew accustomed to Sherlock’s “eccentricities” in the U.K., but knows they won’t necessarily fly in the Big Apple.

'Sherlock' fans love the Bromance!

It sounds terribly familiar. Isn't there some show going on in Britain like that? Yes, that's right. BBC's 'Sherlock' has been somewhat of a phenomenon over the past few years, amassing a pretty impressive fandom. Just to give you an idea; fanfiction.net has over 20,000 'Sherlock' fanfics, with over 1,000 of them being at least 20,000 words long. Deviantart.com has nearly 50,000 fanart/fanfiction entries (and growing). If you're unfamiliar, which I kind of doubt, here's the synopsis according to TVrage.com.

Based on the books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, this updated version of the Sherlock Holmes stories is modern, edgy, and dangerous. Set in present day London, Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch) is as brilliant and arrogant as ever. His loyal friend Watson (Martin Freeman) served in the Afghanistan war as an army doctor. Together, they embark on thrilling, funny, and outrageous adventures.

Anyway, many 'Sherlock' fans (including myself) have been asking why 'Elementary' even exists. 'Sherlock' isn't exactly an easy act to follow. Worse yet, it seems as though it's riding on the popular show's coattails, seeming to expect something of an easy ride.

Maybe it's not that bad. Sure, the plot sounds like something a 15 year old fanfiction writer would come up with. Yes, Holmes looks like a slightly younger Gregory House if he fell asleep drunk in a tattoo parlor. But looks can be deceiving!

What is that thing on his arm?

 Skeptical, I watched the first episode (twice now), and here's my two cents. First, let's judge it solely based on its own merits. The show takes place in a bizarre reality where consultant detectives are called out to what appear to be average break-ins. Sherlock Holmes is more intelligent than the cops, but so is Watson and so am I because the cops are incompetent. Watson is nearly a wallflower, barely even speaking. We all feel bad for her, having to deal with this pompous asshole.

'Elementary's' Holmes is just another antisocial genius jerk combo for the American audience to gobble up, while Watson is there to look pretty, be innocuous and get used. (House and Cutti/Wilson?) To top it all off, at the end of every predictable (and I do mean predictable) episode, the show plays us off with some "witty" or "ironic" music to wrap things up in a cute little bow. I'm getting really tired of this trend; it's been going on for far too long. It's like the modern day laugh track- seriously folks, really?

Now, as a fan of the books, and also of 'Sherlock', I will address a few additional things. Sherlock Holmes and Joan Watson have about as much chemistry as a rock and a melon. I won't even get into Liu's less than stellar performance. I mean, what could she have done to save this plot? Their relationship, instead of being voluntary like in all other reincarnations, is forced. Watson isn't following by request; she's forced to come along. This changes the dynamic without granting us any semblance of a payoff for it. In fact, quite the opposite. Watson looks like a prisoner when Holmes is being a petulant boob to her!

And let's get this elephant in the room over with. John Watson was changed into an Asian woman. Why? Do we, the audience, get anything out of this? No. Does the story benefit from this? It doesn't look like it. In fact, it takes away from Holmes's character since him finding women and sex detestable is suddenly awkward (and relatively meaningless). This 'whimsical' decision has led to a number of plot holes. Can you not choose the gender of the sober companion that's going to live and eat and breathe with you every day? Did Sherlock choose to have a woman tailing him, or did his father? Is Sherlock's father just a mean spirited jerk in choosing a woman? Was he hoping Sherlock would fail?

Regardless, now it's going to have to be addressed and gotten over, right? Is he just going to be a jerk to Watson all of the time now just because the plot needed to be so different? Why didn't they just make both characters women?? Why was Holmes relatively unchanged and Watson just changed at a whim? Why wasn't she brought about until after Holmes had already established himself? It cheapens Watson's worth in the story! The original Watson propelled Holmes by authoring his escapades, and this Watson's just there to clean up the ensuing mess Scotland Yard left him in. (Am I correct to presume that Holmes is in this mess because this series occurs in a parallel universe where Holmes is unfortunate not to meet Watson earlier?)

Also, about the whole Watson the wallflower thing. We're supposed to identify with her, as she is the narrator character, the normalcy that Holmes can be compared to, but it doesn't translate well. Sure, she begins to ask some questions, but her dialogue is so dry and boring. How can anyone see honey dripping from the walls of their place of residence and be so blase? Why is Watson no longer ex-army? Does her being an ex-surgeon having killed a patient, getting fired for malpractice suddenly make her more interesting? I'll answer that. NO!

Also, who in the hell calls anyone by their last names nowadays? Holmes and Watson constantly address each other as such, and its the only antiquated thing that remains, sticking out like a sore thumb. Speaking of sore skin, why does Holmes have a tattoo? No, really. I'd like to know. Is it because he's bohemian? Is it symbolic of something important or is it just there to look pretty?

When making an adaption, changes must be made with careful consideration, as modern tropes will generally cheapen it. 'Sherlock' is an example of a well made adaptation, whereas 'Elementary' is nauseatingly boring and idiotic, pulling from some of the most cliched and uninspired popularity of the past few years.

Freeman's Journey

So it appears I can blog via Opera on my phone, though in a somewhat limited fashion at this moment.

My dear Watson and I went on an amazing journey, starting last Sunday. To celebrate her last day of retail Hell, we had decided to go camping. What was originally to be a simple trip out into familiar territory became a 3 day trek as freemen, going wherever our whims took us and taking what travel brought us. We went to Bear Mountain, but the trail was closed so we slept in the car. It rained anyway.

The next day Watson awoke bright eyed while I was tough to start. Turns out it was barely 6am at the time. We decided against mountain hiking, perhaps influenced by our late night and early start, and headed out for coffee and a hot breakfast.

On the way we encountered a Revolutionary War battle site, something dearest enjoys very much, so we went there. We met a very friendly turkey while enjoying the view of the Hudson. The gas prices were horrible, so we stopped in Jersey to make someone fill up the tank. (Ha ha ha.) How they mandate by law attendants fill the tanks while being 30c cheaper I do not know.

We decided on another whim to try camping again, and went to Beaver Lake (or something like that). The camp was so froufrou! There was a well maintained outhouse near our site with plumbing and showers! Also, we got to park the car at our campsite! A beautiful lake full of lifeguards and sandy beaches awaited us, and then we cooked hotdogs on a fire pit with a grill. I've got to practice starting fires. Wet wood is horribly difficult. We slept so well that night.

This adventure gave us so much more than memories. It gave us confidence, experience, and most importantly, bonding. We worked as a team. We spoke from our hearts. We never got tired of each other. I learned we should bring lighter fluid and mouthwash.

I'm a little sick from a jaw infection caused by my wisdom tooth. Oh, and Frankenputer (my computer made of many parts) is dead, hence my need to post via mobile. Fried hard drive. Do motherboards sometimes fry HDs? This is number 3. There will not be any high quality art updates at this moment. Apologies. At least I didn't lose anything this time. I may post cell pictures if I can figure out how.

Survival of the Richest

Humanity comes from a long line of predator prey behavior within its own kind.

Primates are brutal. I watched the manipulative and abhorrent behavior of baboons (not directly related to us) as they used others' young as collateral and I was disgusted. "Humanity doesn't accept such behavior. It is counter productive. Only by working together and helping each other adapt do we truly become great as a species."

I was wrong.

There's actually still plenty of predator prey behavior within mankind. Scammers scam. Commercials lie. Banks put college kids in 10-30 years of indentured servitude (except for the rich ones, who pay off their loans so quickly they pretty much only pay what was owed). The banks... Oh the banks. They are the ultimate predator, preying on the weak with their smiles and promises.

A system that makes the unfortunate pay more and the fortunate pay less is broken. It works out for the banks and for those who make our laws (rich people), but it doesn't work out for the average recent college graduate, who may wish to start a business or invent some new lifesaving medicine but can't all because they owe the banks money. I figured since I was going to a state university that I was so smart and fiscally responsible. I thought that having a degree would make employers clamor over me (like I was promised over and over again). I thought it MATTERED. My very smart sister-in-law never got a chance to complete college, much to her dismay, and so 2005 on she was working. She's worked herself up to a position where she's in charge of others and making a reasonable wage. She paid off her year's worth of private college debt and is free.

She is working right now. I am not. Employers quickly pass me up for someone with "experience", even within my own field of study. No one equates my degree with $30,000 worth of experience, which is an entire year's worth of salary in my field. I am an indentured servant to a bank and I cannot declare bankruptcy as it is government loans, unlike those who were tricked by private credit card companies. I was tricked just as horribly, but I have no way out. Banks are like baboons, holding our youth hostage for their own benefit.

I don't pray, but right now I'm just going to make a general plea. Please publish me. Buy my work. I am a talented and extremely passionate mad genius who has big ideas for this mad mad world.

The American Dream does not apply to the poor, only the lucky.

Fortunately for the rich, most of the poor still believe in the fallacy, because we all still have the right to protest, and we would if only the lies didn't run so deep.

When I finally make it, I'm going to help others (perhaps like that 20 under 20 guy). Hell, I help people now and I have nothing. I am a beautiful human being with big beautiful dreams, and no amount of debt will stop me.