Lady Savage's Grumpy Chronicles

[Chimneyfish]

I ended up in a gay bar on accident once too. Didn't realize it until I stood up and a guy asked if he could push my stool in.

[BeerMakesMeSmart]

I ended up in a gay bar on accident once too. Didn't realize it until I stood up and a guy asked if he could push my stool in.

Wow, 1987, let me laugh.

[Chimneyfish]

Wow, 1987, let me laugh.

For some reason I keep reading your posts in the voice of the comic book guy from The Simpsons. Can you post a picture so I can correct the image I have in my head?

[Savage]

Anyway, my life would have been a lot more less stressful, if I had gone the popular 19th century spinster route. Bluestocking, I believe they would have called me. Of course, there is always the sex drive and the urge for maternity. Damn. We, females and males, I suppose, are doomed to suffer. It is our lot in life. Probably has something to do with Original Sin, or some other such bullshit.

[Screwball]

Here's some rabbits jumping over some stuff just to prove a point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNPOdffkkLo

[Wingman]

Wouldn't the conditions of childbirth be evidence of homosexuality being based on environmental factors instead of genetic factors?

yes! i didn't say it was genetic, just not a choice.

you guys are all a bunch of fags. except for that limey dude, and he's a pussy.

[Milspec]

I dont think anyone would choose to be feared and hated by half the u.s. population..on the other hand though writting it off as a scientific anomolly is about the same as calling it a mental illness. why not just let some people love the cock..i know im a big fan of mine.

[Fool Ishy]

Ahh, sorry I missed this earlier! Damn drunken internet surfing!

Before I was a drunk I was working on my Phd in Biological Anthropology studying human evolution under one of the leading Population Geneticists of this generation. I can definitively tell you there is no gene for "gayness", or anything else for that matter. Phenotypes (the physical and behavioral expression of genotypes) are never based on a single gene. Hell, eye color is based on (from what I remember) over a dozen different loci (places on a chromosome). Each locus has numerous alleles (variations), so the "genes" involved are ridiculously high. And that's just for eye color!

Oh, and most loci (or genes) are used over and over during development, kind of like ingredients in recipes. You can use flour to make cake, cookies, biscuits, corn bread, whatever. Same with genes. So there really is no such thing as a "gene" for anything.

Now, in my opinion, "homosexuality" is a cultural definition. To wax Foucaultion and all post-modernistic, we as a culture define what we consider "deviant" behavior. Consider the ancient Spartans, the baddest motherfuckers to walk the face of the Earth, each and everyone of those bastards was buggering a young boy. Look it up. Were they gay? Hell no, they were masters of their universe and defined their behavior any way they damn well wanted. We might call them gay (or "bisexual"), but that would be imposing modern norms on an ancient culture.

My point is, all of this is moot. As someone said earlier, an individual's attraction to one gender or another (and the difference between sex and gender is a whole other conversation!) is both biological and cultural. Attraction is defined by both physical and cultural indicators. Homosexuality (or "gayness") is completely defined by cultural norms.

Hell, even Bonobo chimps have same-sex sexual interactions. Wonder if they ever call each other fags?

Ok, drunken lecture is now over...

[ThirstyDrunk]

Ahh, sorry I missed this earlier! Damn drunken internet surfing!

Before I was a drunk I was working on my Phd in Biological Anthropology studying human evolution under one of the leading Population Geneticists of this generation. I can definitively tell you there is no gene for "gayness", or anything else for that matter. Phenotypes (the physical and behavioral expression of genotypes) are never based on a single gene. Hell, eye color is based on (from what I remember) over a dozen different loci (places on a chromosome). Each locus has numerous alleles (variations), so the "genes" involved are ridiculously high. And that's just for eye color!

Oh, and most loci (or genes) are used over and over during development, kind of like ingredients in recipes. You can use flour to make cake, cookies, biscuits, corn bread, whatever. Same with genes. So there really is no such thing as a "gene" for anything.

Now, in my opinion, "homosexuality" is a cultural definition. To wax Foucaultion and all post-modernistic, we as a culture define what we consider "deviant" behavior. Consider the ancient Spartans, the baddest motherfuckers to walk the face of the Earth, each and everyone of those bastards was buggering a young boy. Look it up. Were they gay? Hell no, they were masters of their universe and defined their behavior any way they damn well wanted. We might call them gay (or "bisexual"), but that would be imposing modern norms on an ancient culture.

My point is, all of this is moot. As someone said earlier, an individual's attraction to one gender or another (and the difference between sex and gender is a whole other conversation!) is both biological and cultural. Attraction is defined by both physical and cultural indicators. Homosexuality (or "gayness") is completely defined by cultural norms.

Hell, even Bonobo chimps have same-sex sexual interactions. Wonder if they ever call each other fags?

Ok, drunken lecture is now over...

Queer

[Fool Ishy]

Ahh, sorry I missed this earlier! Damn drunken internet surfing!

Before I was a drunk I was working on my Phd in Biological Anthropology studying human evolution under one of the leading Population Geneticists of this generation. I can definitively tell you there is no gene for "gayness", or anything else for that matter. Phenotypes (the physical and behavioral expression of genotypes) are never based on a single gene. Hell, eye color is based on (from what I remember) over a dozen different loci (places on a chromosome). Each locus has numerous alleles (variations), so the "genes" involved are ridiculously high. And that's just for eye color!

Oh, and most loci (or genes) are used over and over during development, kind of like ingredients in recipes. You can use flour to make cake, cookies, biscuits, corn bread, whatever. Same with genes. So there really is no such thing as a "gene" for anything.

Now, in my opinion, "homosexuality" is a cultural definition. To wax Foucaultion and all post-modernistic, we as a culture define what we consider "deviant" behavior. Consider the ancient Spartans, the baddest motherfuckers to walk the face of the Earth, each and everyone of those bastards was buggering a young boy. Look it up. Were they gay? Hell no, they were masters of their universe and defined their behavior any way they damn well wanted. We might call them gay (or "bisexual"), but that would be imposing modern norms on an ancient culture.

My point is, all of this is moot. As someone said earlier, an individual's attraction to one gender or another (and the difference between sex and gender is a whole other conversation!) is both biological and cultural. Attraction is defined by both physical and cultural indicators. Homosexuality (or "gayness") is completely defined by cultural norms.

Hell, even Bonobo chimps have same-sex sexual interactions. Wonder if they ever call each other fags?

Ok, drunken lecture is now over...

Queer

Yes...

Oops, I thought you said Queen, my bad.

Same difference... bitches!

Actually, I wouldn't mind be "homosexual" or "bisexual." At this point in my life, any "sexual" at all would be a good thing.

[Savage]

Here's some rabbits jumping over some stuff just to prove a point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNPOdffkkLo

OMG. I just died from the cute overload. You now owe Grumpy the cost of one funeral. With cool music, if you please. I especially liked the bits when the bunnies came upon the puzzlement stations. I could almost see the little wheels turning in their heads. And then came the one who balked, and had to led aside and talked to--threatened with a lifelong loss of carrots, or what not--and then it jumped like a champion. And of course, the spectators, applauding as if it were a golfing match, which is about comparable to the seriousness of this, as I see it. Except that bunnies are way funnier and better entertainment than people waving metal sticks about and slapping at balls.

[Savage]

And by the way, my first post died. No idea why, and no way to retrieve it. So much for the whole "The internet is forever. BEWARE!"

[Wingman]

Before I was a drunk I was working on my Phd in Biological Anthropology studying human evolution under one of the leading Population Geneticists of this generation.

well isn't that just too fucking convenient?

At this point in my life, any "sexual" at all would be a good thing.

like woody allen said, "one thing you can say about bisexuality, it doubles your chances of a date on friday night."

[DeeboCools]

Ahh, sorry I missed this earlier! Damn drunken internet surfing!

Before I was a drunk I was working on my Phd in Biological Anthropology studying human evolution under one of the leading Population Geneticists of this generation. I can definitively tell you there is no gene for "gayness", or anything else for that matter. Phenotypes (the physical and behavioral expression of genotypes) are never based on a single gene. Hell, eye color is based on (from what I remember) over a dozen different loci (places on a chromosome). Each locus has numerous alleles (variations), so the "genes" involved are ridiculously high. And that's just for eye color!

Oh, and most loci (or genes) are used over and over during development, kind of like ingredients in recipes. You can use flour to make cake, cookies, biscuits, corn bread, whatever. Same with genes. So there really is no such thing as a "gene" for anything.

Now, in my opinion, "homosexuality" is a cultural definition. To wax Foucaultion and all post-modernistic, we as a culture define what we consider "deviant" behavior. Consider the ancient Spartans, the baddest motherfuckers to walk the face of the Earth, each and everyone of those bastards was buggering a young boy. Look it up. Were they gay? Hell no, they were masters of their universe and defined their behavior any way they damn well wanted. We might call them gay (or "bisexual"), but that would be imposing modern norms on an ancient culture.

My point is, all of this is moot. As someone said earlier, an individual's attraction to one gender or another (and the difference between sex and gender is a whole other conversation!) is both biological and cultural. Attraction is defined by both physical and cultural indicators. Homosexuality (or "gayness") is completely defined by cultural norms.

Hell, even Bonobo chimps have same-sex sexual interactions. Wonder if they ever call each other fags?

Ok, drunken lecture is now over...

YOU WIN THE THREAD

[peetie44]

I ended up in a gay bar on accident once too. Didn't realize it until I stood up and a guy asked if he could push my stool in.

That'll happen when you go into a bar called "The White Swallow."