Jan 17, 2016
commented on Savage Love
I just had a conversation on Facebook about this very subject. I'll just copy and paste what I wrote to my friend on my thoughts on the subject of posting you preference on a dating app.
"Preference" is about what you TEND to like. Once you frame it in a negative it's not a preference any longer.
A preference for white blonds means that maybe 9 out if 10 times you find the white blond more attractive than any of the other guys. And that's fine. That's a preference.
But a preference like that does not equate to "no blacks". Trying to equate them IS racism.
And while there is nothing wrong with having a preference in what kinds of guys you are into, putting "no blacks" or "no Asians" in a dating profile isn't a preference either. It's an act. A racist act.
I think people need to understand that when a "preference" is treated as a rigid rule it's no longer really a preference. It's an arbitrary restriction based on race, which is pretty much the definition of racism.
Nov 20, 2015
commented on Moschino Barbie Boys
I had dolls, but not Barbie. I had the Knights of the round table, with cool armor, and Star Trek dolls with the bridge of the enterprise with the transporter thing that you spun around. I even had the Gorn doll.
But best of all were my Star Wars Action figures. My dolls mostly had light sabers and blasters, and Instead of a Dream Car or Beach House they had X-Wings and the Millennium Falcon. But even then it wasn't lost on me that I was playing with dolls.
And still do. I still have them all because I will never grow up.
I never got Barbie. Other than changing her clothes I never understood what she was supposed to do. Princess Leia was supposed to save The Republic.
Nov 7, 2015
commented on Mormon Church to Kids With Gay Parents: No Magic Underpants For You!
@23 yes they have a right to do it. But we have a right to comdemn them and point out we know exactly what they are doing.
Think about the insidious nature of this. This isn't simply about condemning gay relationships. This is about putting pressure on gay people who aren't members of the church to live according to church doctrine by going after their children who have been raised in the church.
For instance, a gay LDS convinces himself he is straight and married a LDS woman, has kids, raises them in the church with a strong LDS identity. Later he can't take it any longer. He comes out, gets excommunicated, has an amicable divorce, and retains good relationships with his kids.
But now he wants to get involved with another man. But if he does so his children, for whom going on a mission is considered the ultimate rite of passage, and for whom not going on a mission will hinder their chances of finding someone in the church to marry, are being told they can't go on a mission, can't be baptized, and can't be a member any longer because their father is in a same sex relationship.
Now dad has to make a choice. He either has to give up any chance at having a relationship or go for it and his kids basically get excluded from the only community they have ever known. If he persues a happy life he is the bad guy for not sacrificing for his kid's happiness.
This is what this is all about.
Do they have a right to do this? Yes.
But it's fucked up and blatantly evil, and the rest of us have a right to point out fingers at them and let them know we see how fucked up it is and that we condemn them, which is OUR right.
Nov 6, 2015
commented on Mormon Church to Kids With Gay Parents: No Magic Underpants For You!
I heard about this yesterday. It seems like the LDS is taking a page from the Catholic handbook.
Make a lot of noise about trying to be more inclusive towards gay people, and then do everything in their power to fuck them over.
I agree with Dan. This is actually good in the long run as it will motivate even more gay people and children of gay people to stay the fuck away from these institutions. The hypocrisy is strong with both.
Oct 27, 2015
commented on Processed Meats Give You Cancer, Testing Finds 2% of Hot Dogs Contain Human DNA
@12 The actually study does address quality indirectly. The reason red meat is believed to increase cancer risk is due to a component in the hemoglobin in the meat. There is a substance that causes damage to the lining of the intestines increasing the risk of bowel cancer because the increased damage requires cells to reproduce faster to repair it, and the increased cell reproduction presents more opportunities for DNA corruption that result in cells becoming cancerous.
So quality of fresh meat is irrelevant. If you get your steak from the local butcher or from the local supermarket it all still has hemoglobin in it.
The culprit in processed meat appears mainly to be nitrates. Again, pretty much all processed meat has nitrates so it's not the quality, it's the ingredients.
But as has also been mentioned, yes these things increase the chance of cancer. Not really news. This just confirmed that fact scientifically, but it has pretty much been accepted by most in the medical community before now.
But this just means that yes; there are things in processed meat that increase your chance of cancer. But just because processed meat and tobacco are both classified in group 1 together does not mean your risk form them is equal. And it's not like avoiding processed meat eliminates your risk of bowel cancer.
With all things, moderation is key. Eat your bacon and sausage, just not every day. Just like alcohol. Just like sweets. Just like most things you consume. A little here or there isn't going to significantly be detrimental.
Sep 4, 2015
commented on The Federalist: Baptists Aren't Christians
Yeah, that's what I don't get. Regardless of what she was before, the fact is she married a guy and now she is screwing a different guy. Despite her "conversion" she is still, according to the bible, committing adultery. Until she returns to her first husband she is an adulterer living in sin. And a hypocrite.
Aug 14, 2015
commented on Catholic Priest: We Can Reach Out to Gay People by Comparing Gay Sex to Shoving a Bagel in Your Ear
I'll give him credit for one thing. At least he is honest that the Church "reaching out" to gay people has nothing to do with helping gay people but rather is just their own self interest to not seem so out of touch people stop paying any attention to them at all.
What he doesn't realize is the way he "reaches out" to gay people does just that.
If putting a bagel in your ear got you off every freaking person in his audience would have been sitting there with a bagel hanging out their ear.
Thank you Riccardo for showing everyone that your church is, indeed, out of touch. Keep up the good work. With a little luck before long your backwards, medieval institution will be relegated to the dust bin.
Aug 3, 2015
commented on The Everlasting Death of Capitol Hill
Interesting. Living in San Francisco I don't know too much about Seattle's gay areas, but I have contemplated the place the Castro plays in gay life in San Francico. And while still a gay area for the most part, it has seen it's shifting from a place where gays partied to a place where families settle.
I know I don't go to the bars in the Castro any longer. These days they are populated by the very young, the very old, or the very meth addicted. That and the pretty prevalent racism, which has always been there but I would have hoped would have died down a bit over the past few decades but hasn't, make it a place I visit rarely.
But something else comes into play as well. In San Francisco when first Polk Street and then Castro street became gay centers gay people went there because it was the place to be safe in the city and be who you are openly. These days in San Francisco pretty much the whole city is a safe place for gay people. I run into gay people all over. We can eat out as a couple in virtually every restaurant in the city without being made to feel unwelcome. Every dentist, doctor, broker, plumber etc. is going to give you good service if you are gay or straight. They don't really care.
We don't have the same need for these gay neighborhoods any longer. They are still fun and novel, which is why I think they have hung on this long. But they are fading.
I remember a while ago, it was the Advocate I think or some other similar magazine, did a list of the "gayest" cities in the US and San Francisco didn't even make it to the top of the list. The criteria was things like how may gay Yoga studios, or gay bars, or gay specific stores, or gay accountants were advertised.
But I felt the opposite was true. San Francisco is the gayest city just because we don't have as many of those kinds of things. We don't need them because you can just be gay here, in general, in any neighborhood, and go to any dentist, or shop in any store, and go to any yoga class, and you will feel perfectly comfortable. Gay people and straight people integrate much more here.
I have to think that at some point in the not so distant future almost all gay neighborhoods are going to vanish except in a few places, and in those places it will be a sign of lingering hostility more than anything, forcing gay people to huddle for protection surrounded by the last vestiges of anti-gay territory.