it'll leave you breathless or with a nasty scar

I'm spending some time tonight culling inventory, and tonight it was notecards. Some I'm sorting and keeping, many I'm deleting, but some are just odd enough to be passed on. I have no idee when I got this one; it's simply called "Magnus's slave rules", and it arrived in inventory on September 11, 2007.

A submissive’s lessons:

I will not glue pretty rhinestones to Master’s floggers.
I will not aim for Master’s head.
I will not yet “FIRE!” every time Master lights a candle.
I will not slap Master with my bra.
Punishment is neither boring nor pointless.
I will not call Master “Dr. Death”.
I will not tell Master “You hit like a girl”.
I will not eat all of Master’s MandMs while he is at work.
I will not call Master “spud head,” “butt head” or any kind of head. Masters ARE perfect.
Mud is not an acceptable side dish for dinner for Master.
I will not peek out of the blindfold.
There is no such thing as “slave immunity”.
I did not win an Oscar for my last session.
I will not hide all of Master’s toys.
I will not say “Oh Master, you’re the bestest and biggest” just to get a spanking.
I will not give Master the bent fork no matter how mad I am at him.
I will not hide a mouse trap inside Master’s toy chest.
My last assignment was not stolen by one-armed net hackers.
I will not scare the newbies by telling them “All REAL subs like bullwhips”.
I will refrain from saying “Hail Satan” when I don’t like Master’s orders.
I will not use Master’s bondage table for a skateboard ramp, or a slide into the pool.
I will not bite my Master on the bottom every time He says “Bite me”.
I will not put superglue on the whip handle, or the inside of Master’s boots.
I will not leave post-it notes on my behind for my Master.
I will not correct Master’s grammar while he is correcting me.
I will not tie Master to the bed while He is sleeping.
I will not put dead batteries in my Master’s cattle prod.
I will not switch a glue stick for Master’s chap stick.
I will not stick out my tongue at Master when he’s not looking.
I will not use the pages from Master’s Dom Handbook to start the grill.
I will not yell “Yellow!” in the grocery store.
I will not count by twos when counting strokes of the flogger.
I will not put Alka Seltzer in my mouth before a scene and scare Master by frothing at the mouth.
I will not drop my jaw and answer with, “You want me to do WHAT?!”
I will not sabotage anything in Master’s bag of tortures...

...having me as a sub is torture enough!

I won't lie, some of these made me giggle rather a lot.

it gets so hard sometimes to understand

Continuing from the first part, we're picking up with binkey's reply to Matt Sierra:

"From an evolutionary point of view, humanity has been practicing monogamy for no time at all. That and the fact that as a species we're actually not very good at it, makes me doubt that it has had much of an effect on us as a species at all.

Anyway, your arguments are all just conjecture. If you can demonstrate your position with any evidence, I'd be interested in studying it more.

There is also a big difference between arguing for same-sex marriage and arguing for polygamy. Banning same-sex marriage is fundamentally unequal. You are saying that one group of people is allowed to do something that others cannot (marry one person of their choosing). There is nothing unequal about a law against polygamy. That law is applied equally to everyone.

Fundamentally though, I'm not sure I understand I get your economic argument. If you were arguing against the state sanctioning of all marriages, I would get it. But fundamentally you are saying 'Yes, I understand that banning same-sex marriage is unfair, but allowing it would cost me financially, so I'm opposed to it.'

There was a huge financial cost involved in getting rid of slavery, but eventually people recognized that it was fundamentally wrong and stopped doing it. As a species we have a much more solid and much longer tradition of slavery than we do of restricting marriage to being between one man and one woman, but no one (at least no one reasonable) would argue that because of that, we should go back to it."

I agree. And I also love how often Matt's sneaking in that polygamy reference, as if he's thinking we're going to start equating same-sex marriage with polygamy, oh teh shock and horror.

Matt's response:

"'If you can demonstrate your position with any evidence, I'd be interested in studying it more.'
lets see what happens when traditional marriage is let go of by a culture:
http://www.ibtimes.com/japan-encourages-young-people-date-mate-reverse-birth-rate-plunge-it-may-be-too-late-1562867
if a society does not support same sex marriage i dont see anywhere near the same repercussions. im not saying that im against seeing evidence for same sex marriage to be equally beneficial to society. but at this point i have not

His argument here seems to be "See? Japan allowed gay marriage and look what happened!" Except, that's nothing close to what happened. While there are, yes, gay relationships in Japan, for the most part few talk about it. And they have nothing to do with actual marriages among the population. What that article discusses is not homosexuality, but delay--in specific, that Japanese people are choosing to defer marriage until they're more financially stable, and concentrate on their careers in the meantime. As Japan thinks in terms of what happens decades after the now, in economic and sociological terms this is kind of a big deal. But it has nothing to do with same-sex pairings at all. Invalid argument. Next.

From Ella Mongrella:

"What's the difference between paying benefits for a straight couple who can't have kids of their own and a gay couple? Lots of straight marriages are childless."

Excellent question. Matt's response:

"weather taxes increase or not wont change weather the government gets less income or insurance companies get less money from same sex couples. it wouldnt make sense for married couples to file jointly if they ended up paying more. im not saying that same sex marriage will be a detriment to society or even that it will not have a net positive effect but to say that it has an equally good effect on society as traditional marriage is at the least unproven and therefor shouldnt just be blanketed with the same benefits. tax and insurance benefits are not a 'right' they are a 'privilege' that that the government should carefully weigh who to distribute to, rather than dole out so as not to hurt peoples feelings."

What?

First off, that would be "whether", not "weather", but how exactly, does that work in Matt's head? The government and the insurance companies get less money from same-sex couples? Why? Sure, currently, without formalized gay marriage in many states, same-sex couples do not suffer the 'marriage penalty' on taxes that heterosexual couples do--but by and large, they pay more because they're having to do everything by proxy that married couples get by fiat. Tacitly, the case can be made that for certain benefits, overall taxation might go down, but with the increase in marriages overall, taxation would stabilize at a higher, more consistent rate. Also, issues of partner death or illness, joint holdings of assets, and child-rearing would gain strong protections--which in turn would likely lead to more consistent taxation payments. He's just wrong on all counts.

From Ela, again, in a Google+ response:

"'tax and insurance benefits are not a "right" they are a "privilege" that that the government should carefully weigh who to distribute to'
So you are actually saying that gay couples should be denied a 'privilege' that straight couples can have. You're not making yourself sound any better.

He's really not.

Matt's response to that:

"yes, which is to say the same tax and insurance benefits that a single person like myself would experience. traditional marriage fulfills a vital role that same sex marriage or single people like me do not or at the least have not been shown to. would you actually say that single people should be denied a privilege that same sex couples should have? why shouldnt me and some random person just be able to file jointly or why cant i be covered by some random persons insurance benefits just because im not married? (protip: because it's dumb to just give out benefits so that people dont feel excluded)"

That's...pretty dumb as an argument, actually. Moreover, nothing does stop him--beyond filing feels, court costs, and hours of booked time with an estate lawyer--from filing jointly with another random person. It is possible, legally, to gain nearly every benefit of "traditional" marriage in contract law, because--guess what--"traditional" marriage as it is currently interpreted in the United States is contract law. Moron.

There was more back and forth arguing, mostly about taxation and insurance costs, but Matt steadily lost coherency, so I'm done with him.

Peter Peterson said:

"You know Hank, the fact that you don't understand the Anti-Gay point of view is why you are unable to effectively argue against them and change their point of view. To actually change someone's point of view you have to understand why someone believes something and the context of the situation rather than just throwing your arguments at someone. People don't believe in Gay Marriage because they believe God hates it. They don't understand that attempting to ban it is the equivalent of voiding the right of freedom of religion, or if they do they likely believe that to allow Gay Marriage is not upholding God's laws/values, and they must uphold God's values regardless of what laws are put forth in our Constitution.

Remember that Christians (Catholics & High Church Protestants in particular*) are often told stories about Martyrs sacrificing their lives to fight the government for the Glory of God, so the 'Government/Constitution says you can't ban it' argument won't be overly effective.

Similarily, Christians (Low Church Protestants and Evangelicals in Particular*) are heavily entrenched in their beliefs and the culture surrounding their beliefs, so attempting to challenge the underlying biblical beliefs are, while possible, quite difficult.

Merely deflecting their arguments in a hostile fashion will simply make them see you as a non-believer and cling to their beliefs even more. Instead you must see the world from their view, and work to change that view in the issue you want to change it in.

Unless you just want to 'win' an internet debate, which I would argue is impossible since the other side usually runs away screaming 'I CANT HEAR YOU' after hours of arguing, if that was your ultimate goal.

*For reference, the "High Church" Protestants are generally considered to be Lutherans, Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, Presbyterian, Methodists and Calvinists occasionally while "Low Church" Protestants are considered to be Baptists, Pentecostals, Evangelical Anglicans, and most of the smaller Evangelical & Liberal churches. However, the line is a bit fuzzy; there are some low-church Lutherans and high-church Evangelical churches, though the latter is much rarer than the former."

I think Hank's point was more that, however tenacious the "traditional" religious types are about this, that our government as a whole should not allow themselves to be swayed by religious interests. (Which is hard, because they are so annoyingly vocal, EVERYWHERE, right now.) That whole separation of church and state is kind of a big deal to many of us, and seeing it chipped away year by year is hurtful. We are more diverse a population than the fundamentalists care to understand--they just want things to go their way. (But the problem inherent in that is even among hardcore fundamentalists, their perceptions of 'their way'/'the RIGHT way' to do things varies WIDELY.)

From Isabel Greene in response:

"f you can find a place in the bible where it says that god doesn't like gay people. i will applaud you. :P And I agree that it's impossible to argue it w/o understanding their view point, but i also think that this country is supposed to have a separation of religion and state and that anti-gay marriage laws clearly violate that in most cases. YES there are arguments about how having two of the same sex parents can be bad for a kid, but a) not being married doesn't mean they can't have kids, so it doesn't matter, and b) there's not a lot of good evidence to support that."

There are passages that are widely interpreted--which is the key word, here--to reference homosexuality. What's problematic about all of them is that, as the NALT Christians Project clearly points out, what we understand today as homosexuality--and heterosexuality, for that matter--didn't exist in the times in which the Bible was written. It's mostly Paul in various letters in the New Testament giving specifics, anyway, about what constitutes abhorrent and un-approved behavior for other Christians, and nowhere in anything that he writes does he ever, not once, refer to a happy, committed gay relationship as sinful or against God. What he does reference, and often, is the behavior of Roman statesmen, who were the main oppressors of the emerging Christian faith at the time. And what were Roman statesmen mainly known for? Having sex with their slaves as a diversion. Anyone who is enslaved cannot give consent, even if they are not morally opposed to what's being asked of them. They are enslaved, forced to another's will, and thus lack agency in any way. Plus, many of the preferred sexual slaves of choice were young boys, which adds on a whole separate layer of non-consensuality.

The Bible, through the writings of Paul, rightly, I think, condemns these forced "relationships" as against God for various reasons. But these relationships have nothing to do with homosexuality as we understand it now. So this entire line of thinking is wholly specious and without merit.

From Andrew Whythe:

"If somebody wants to marry their brother?

spamvicious in response:

"That's illegal because it would be incest, regardless of their gender."

Andrew's reply:

"Yes it's illegal - but if they want to. You're not supportive of marriage equality?"

Here's the thing about marriage equality, Andrew, and it's the same argument that can be made for incest, bestiality, and polygamy (not that these things are related, just listing other proposed 'married states' that usually crop up in Christian arguments). If something is illegal for all citizens, then it's not something that impacts equality. Everyone's already equal in that no one is allowed to marry their siblings, marry goats, or marry groups. How'ver, the fact that a man can marry a woman, but a man cannot marry a man (or a woman a woman) in some states means that they do not have full equality. Does that make sense, Andrew, or do I need to dumb it down further?

Jocelyn Bowling

"That is illegal more for the factor of mutation that would come of the offspring over what the person 'wants.' Incest creates medical issues that are purely avoidable, which is why it is made illegal."

Absolutely. To which Andrew replied:

"And homosexuality does not? The point is, it's inconsistent to forbid (thus far) incestuous or pedophiliac, polyamorous etc. marriages and enshrine this one."

Err, no, because incestuous and pedophilic relationships are already illegal, and that's not likely to change. And while I, personally, would like polyamorous relationships to be legalized, I can cope that the majority of people do not want them to be, and since--again--polyamorous relationships are not allowed marriage rights for all citizens, there's no inequity involved.

Jocelyn in reply:

"Homosexuality cannot biologically produce offspring so thetefore no, homosexuality does not give potentially deadly preventable diseases to babies. Sorry."

And it's true. While, at some point in the far future, we may be able to genetically engineer two sperm or two eggs to create reproductive ability, in a lab, I'm fairly sure it's never going to happen "in the wild", so to speak. So she's right, there.

Andrew in response:

"The life expectancy, incidence of STDs, alcoholism and other things are way higher in the homosexual community. And who are you to tell people who want to marry their sister (and vice versa) that they can't, what sort of bigot are you."

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were just an idiot. Turns out you're a troll. Right. Done with you, too.

From Sara St. Clair:

"Also in a homosexual relationship both people know what they are getting into and any children adopted or surrogated will be okay. But in a brother and sister relationship the child that may be produced has no way of controlling the brain defects and other diseases you have a chance of forcing on them. This is why it's wrong because it is literally genetically wrong."

A very good point.

From Kaci Smith:

"Marriage should be between two people who love each other. A man and a woman marrying that arent in love is worse than teo people of the same sex marrying... A few decades ago marrying outside of your race was illegal. For example an African American could not marry a white person. It was also illegal for a black person to drink from the same water fountain as a white person.. To most of us these laws seem ridiculous, barbaric and unconstitutional yet not allowing same sex couples to marry is ok.. In a few decades people will look back at how same sex couples are treated and have the same thoughts that we do about how African Americans were treated in the past. They will wonder how and why so many ppl were so ignorant and full of hate... Ill never understand why ppl believe same sex couples getting married will harm them. Even if youre a Christian you should believe that God is the one and olny person who can judge them and if God believes same sex couples are a sin then he will deal with it. Just because Fred and Bob get married and have sex it doesn't mean everyone in the world is going to hell.... If anything thr bible says ur suppose to love all of Gods creatures not just the ones who have sex with the opposite sex... In my opinion religion breeds more hatred than love and acceptance... Who Bob, Fred, John, Jacob, Ashley, Amanda, Victoria, Suzie etc decide to have sex with and or marry is nobodies business except the person they decide to marry or have sex with... Sex before marriage is also a sin and yet 97% of Christians have premarital sex.... Stop judging others and pointing out their "sins" and pay attention to your own sins... Religion is one thing ive spent years studying and disliking... The more I learn, the more i dislike it..."

Also a good point.

stfwho responded:

"the right to marriage is not the same as the right to drink water. The act of drinking water wasn't created specifically for linear reproduction and raising of offspring. Marriage was designed to be between a man and woman specifically because of the awesome power that men and women have when they combine their lives and their sex organs. One man and one woman have sex, and a life is created that they both need to stick together to nurture and raise. Two men have sex, and they walk funny the next morning. One of these could really NEED marriage, the other just needs lube. That's really the only logical reason to say marriage should be exclusive to heterosexuals... it's their ritual that works well with their superpower of creating life. Gay people should have all the same rights as regular people. It's just that marriage itself isn't so much a right as it is a ritual and practice based on a need for an answer to a sexual issue. Thank you for your time."

So, from your perspective, only those who can breed should be allowed to marry? What if the heterosexual couple can't? Or doesn't want to? Would you have the government force sexual testing on all potential marriage partners? And what happens to children who are orphaned, or abandoned? Are you saying because they weren't born into a household with a man and a woman who fathered and gave birth to them, specifically, that they don't matter?

They continue:

"Ever wondered why it's a sin to have sex before marriage? Cuz it creates chaos and disorder. If everyone waited until marriage, we would never have any bastards or abandoned single mothers or kids whom the mother doesn't know who the father was. All of that is because of sex. Why is the only legitimate reason for divorce in the bible sexual infidelity? Because if your wife sleeps with another man, your sexual exclusivity is broken. That would lead to confusion as well. Now of course all of these things are of course going to be broken by everyone, but the rules do make perfect sense from a mathematical view. That's why marriage exists; in a perfect world, we'd have perfect order, and an incredibly big part of that would be the whole practice of marriage. It's where the next generation would come from. Raised by their biological parents in a nuclear family setting. That's why marriage is so special and that's why it isn't just about love and feelings. It has a practical purpose that was designed for a reproductive couple. If you think marriage is all about love, why has arranged marriage been a normal thing in the world far longer than our modern idea of marriage?"

So, in a perfect world, they're saying, everyone would wait until they were old enough to marry (impossible), there would be no rape (ludicrous, considering the rape statistics), no incest (REALLY ludicrous considering that one in EVERY four women in the US has been sexually abused or raped), and only single, virgin men would marry single, virgin women and immediately begin to raise children for the coming generations. That's...that's baffling to me, just how wrong-headed that is.

Plus, arranged marriage everywhere had nothing to do with love or reproduction--it had to do with property rights and estate wealth. Virtually everywhere you look throughout history, it was a trading game. In India, the family of the bride traded the bride--a burden on the family economically, but a valued unpaid servant--for economic gain, thus supplanting that servant to both increase the family's coffers, and potentially buy another servant to take her place. In Western Europe, plots of land typically were retained--though not legally "owned"--by women, and by marrying them, men gained legal rights to their holdings, and thus, any economic gains received. We see this pattern over and over, and it has nothing to do with babies in the least.

From steve cannon:

"Marriage was originally about property rights. The woman became the property of her husband and all her property became his. Marriages were arranged so that property would be kept in families. Marriage assured that the children of the couple would be the "legitimate" heirs and bastards wouldn't be able to inherit. That's what marriage was about in the earliest years, not love or God, property. If procreation were the goal, people who were barren would not be allowed to get married (like older folks who can't have kids and people who marry but decide NOT to have kids), only folks of child bearing age with the ability to have kids would be allowed to get married. Before you start talking about biology and morality, get your facts straight (sic)."

Yes, exactly, thank you for echoing my points.

From Henry Wallace:

"If you're talking in a mathematical point of view, the best way to create a 'next generation' is where one man has several wives because a man can produce sperm on a daily basis but it takes 9 months for women to produce babies. This means that if one man were to have, say 5 wives, he would be able to produce 5 babies every 9 months rather than one. Maybe Islam got it all right...."

As strange as that would make America, and as much as people on all sides of the issue would carry on about it, from a purely biological point of view, he's not wrong.

From Granticus3000:

"It is against my religion to allow gay marriage. Marriage is meant for a man and a woman, that's how God made it. I don't expect everyone to believe in my religion and I know many people don't believe in my religion, but that doesn't mean I have to support gay marriage. Really that argument is being hypocritical, it's saying that not every believes in your religion so we should not base laws on it, but we should allow gay marriage because I believe in it. Not everyone believes in gay marriage so stop using that argument, it's hypocritical!

Thank you, Granticus, for completely missing the point of the entire video. Ffffft.

And while I was willing to go on into part three, I think you get the point from here. Gay marriage remains an incredibly divided issue, and the closer religion's a part of the mix, the more the other side just fails to hear anything clearly.

This country abolished slavery because we felt it to be wrong--but not just morally wrong; it was economically and sociologically wrong, as well. It took several years of struggle before full rights were granted to blacks, including both the right to marry citizens (of any skin color), the right to enter establishments owned and operated by white people, the right to serve in the military...the list goes on. And there are still hardcore, defiant racists to this day who feel this country made the wrong decision.

Now we have gay marriage, another situation where one sector of the population is being restrained from full legal rights to marry and engage with other citizens in chosen contractual obligations, and while great strides have been made, these types of attitudes are exactly why we're having the struggle in the first place: because again, it's not just a moral issue, it's an economic and a social one, as well. In the end, I think we will look back as a society and realize how pointless this all was, and how much easier it would have been if we'd just allowed it in the first place.

everybody knows what you will say

So, Hank Green of the Vlogbrothers put this video out in May of 2012. I still think the points are sound, though, and I've also decided to transcribe it, for reasons that will become obvious later.

"Morning, John! A rather...complicated morning, John, because stuff's been going down this week...As you know, the state of North Carolina, where our parents live, just decided to just outright ban gay marriage, like stick it in the Constitution--

"Opposing gay marriage is not a viewpoint that I understand, and I know that this video is going to piss people off, but I don't care anymore. This isn't a political issue, it's just deciding that we're going to treat some citizens of our country differently than other citizens. That's wrong!

"So I want to go through some of the arguments that I hear, and why they're crazy.

"ONE!" [Onscreen flashes "Why Can't Gay People Just Be Committed Without Marriage"] "'What's the big deal, why can't gay people, just, you know, have a party and say they're committed to each other? Why do they gotta come in on our thing?' IRRELEVANT! This isn't complicated! If some people can get married, and other people can't, then that's wrong.

"TWO!" 'But..God...'" [Onscreen flashes the same two words] "Marriage can be a religious thing. It can also be a secular thing. And guess what--not everyone in the world is of the same religion. Preventing gay people from getting married is not an expression of religious freedom, it's an expression of religious oppression. Because in the religion of the gay people getting married, presumably their god thinks it's okay, and you are oppressing them.

'But...the Bible...'"[Onscreen flashes the same words.] "The Bible is not a legal document. Our country was founded upon the idea of a separation between church and state. The Bible is also very explicit on the rules of farmers selling their daughters as slaves. It may be not the best document to base our laws on. 'Gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage.'" [Onscreen flashes the same words.] "This is a thing that I've named, I've created a name for it in my head, because I see them all the time. I'm calling them 'hypothetheories'."

"So a hypothesis is a question that you ask. You say, 'I wonder if gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage?' That's a hypothesis, that you can then go out and test, in any number of ways. And then, if you confirm that it is true, that it explains the phenomenon, then you can eventually convert that into a theory. If you skip the middle step, and just assume that you have a true-statement-of-fact 'theory', then you have created what I call a 'hypothetheory'!

"I could make the exact opposite hypothesis, and it would be just as valid, because it would have just as much testing behind it! I could say that not allowing people who love each other to get married, that is undermining the institution of marriage! That that seems like a valid thing; now let's go test it!

"So stop saying this as if it is truth! Because you just made it up and you're like, 'Oh, that makes sense to me! Why does that make so much sense to me? It does, whatever, it must be true! It makes sense!' And you know why it makes sense? Because of the biggest actual complaint that people have about gay marriage, which is 'It's unnatural'." [Onscreen flashes the same two words.]

"'It doesn't feel right to me.' And maybe to you, it doesn't seem right--because we build our worlds, we build the rules of the world that we live in; that's how we understand this place. And I think to a lot of people, it feels like this is a big, messy, grey world, and at least, there are some sharp distinctions. Like the distinctions between genders, and sexual orientation, and those are just lines that shouldn't--they should be always be hard lines. But saying that that simplicity is 'natural' is idiotic, because the most natural thing in the world is complexity, and gender, and sexual orientation, are proven over and over again to not be firm lines. The whole world is grey, and if you just appreciate that, if you understand it and appreciate it, then it's beautiful.

"But if you try and spend your whole life fighting against it, then you're going to be bitter about the world actually being more complicated than it is, and you're going to make other peoples' lives less awesome. Which is exactly what this boils down to. Because there are a hundred arguments against gay marriage; you can come up with--with all kinds of hypothetheories, and just spout them off, and people will say 'nod nod, yes yes yes'. But to me, there's only one argument that matters for gay marriage: that all people in our country should be seen as equals in the eyes of the law. So North Carolina, and all of the thirty other states that have passed laws like this, you better check yourselves. Because we can't live in a society like that, and call ourselves Americans.

"John, I will see you on Tuesday."

Now, some of the dimensions, state by state, have shifted in this debate, some states going further, some states retracting, but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the comments that Hank Green got after posting this video.

From Matt Sierra:

"so im not really against same sex marriages having the same rights i just dont want to pay more for taxes and healthcare because they are getting the same benefits as opposite sexed married couples, i haven't really seen anything that shows that same sex marriage or polygamy having the same benefits to society as one man one woman marriage. im certainly open to seeing data that shows polygamy or same sex marriage to society but at this point I'm not convinced."

I'm wondering what's wrong with supporting all marriages the same way? If two people wish to marry, raise children, share a home together, get involved in joint tax returns--who's Matt (or anyone else) to say that they can't do just that? Again, that creates a sub-class of citizens, and to date, the only real sub-class of citizens we have that's likely not to change is the criminal class. (And there are even some arguments that, after a set number of years back in society without further criminal behavior, their full citizen rights should be restored.)

How'ver, in reply to that, Nimulos Maltibos asked,

"What benefits do you mean? Children? Check the orphanages. Other than that I don't get what you could mean by benefits, care ot enlighten me?"

Matt answered:

"no, because man/woman married couples are better able to pass on favorable genes they have evolved to complement one another and society so as an example there is a domesticating effect that women have on men that lowers crime rates and increases a drive to work and produce. i dont think that most of the societal effects that opposite sex marriage have are as easy to quantify but the ability to adapt and pass down complementary traits are not something that same sex married couples have. we dont give tax and insurance benefits to married couples because they are some sort of inherent right, it's because we know from history that societies do better when there are more opposite-sex married couples."

...Right. A "domesticating effect". Tell that to the girlfriend of the Florida man who dreamed his girlfriend was cheating on him, so spent the entire day after he woke up beating her. Not kidding, this happened. "Domesticating effect", my ass.

In a Google+ comment, ShadoWolf0913 stated to Matt:

"I'm sorry, but by "favorable genes," I have to assume you mean heterosexual genes (which is not simply a genetic thing, anyway), because that is THE only difference between gay and straight people. Otherwise, people are people, regardless of whether they like men, women, both, or neither. A male/female marriage, assuming they do decide to have a child (which many do not,) certainly doesn't mean that child will have "better" genes.

A gay couple can be quite beneficial to society in terms of children by adopting orphans/unwanted kids and raising them in what can be as much a loving, dedicated family as any other. Those children, once grown, can offer every bit as much potential to society as a child raised by heterosexual parents. Should gay couples receive the same benefits as straight couples? I don't see any reason why not. Just because two men or two women cannot physically produce a child together doesn't mean they are less useful to society than a man/woman match. (There are also options like surrogacy to consider. A gay person, assuming they don't have a medical problem that would prevent it, would be in no way unable to reproduce if they chose to. Sexual orientation does not affect fertility, nor the quality of a person's genes.)

That wives somehow have an effect on men that "lowers crime rates and increases a drive to work and produce" I'm not even going to get into, except to say I think that's a pretty sexist statement that isn't backed by any statistics I have personally seen, and which implies only men commit crimes and won't/can't stop or be productive unless they are married to a woman. If nothing else, there are plenty of female and married male criminals out there."

Exactly. Witness Zach Wahls' rather passionate defense of being raised in a non-traditional family, in which he states unequivocally that being raised in a caring, loving environment by his two mothers gave him the moral compass he has today.

Matt goes on:

"I'm not talking about an opposite sexed couples ability to have kids but their ability to provide a greater chance of passing on favorable genes and reducing the chance of passing on negative genes through natural selection. because of this a man and a woman are more likely to complement one another then two men or women or one man or woman or one man and several woman etc. this is why we give tax incentives to married couples but not single couples or polygamy couples even though there is nothing to make me believe that polygamy is any less valid to a secular society than man-woman marriage or same sex marriage. im totally fine with same sex couples having the same benefits for having kids but also the same marriage benefits as polygamists."

That's actually the first thing he's said I agree with, that all marriage constructs should be equally valid, but again, that's not the point. I'm wondering where he's getting this "favorable genes" theory in the first place. In 2013, Bjorn Carey published an article on the livescience blog about the developing rules of sexual attraction, as perceived by heterosexuals. The big three? Symmetrical features (visual perception), a specific hip-to-waist ratio in women (a subconscious understanding of the potential levels of energy to care for offspring, plus her ability to easily bear children), and scent (which comes down to gut-level olfactory perception of pheromones, which we have zero conscious control over). But here's the thing--these are rules for heterosexual people. Are there rules for homosexual attraction?

Well, sort of. For gays, it mostly comes down to olfactory perception, in initial studies from 2001 and 2005. Later, in 2010, a study of Samoan homosexuals posits that "unaffiliated" (at least genetically) men involved in non-reproductive relationships with other men still substantially aided the children of heterosexual couples to whom they were related.

Which is all well and good that there may actually have been an evolutionary reason for same-sex affiliation to evolve, but again, doesn't give me any understanding of that "favorable genes" argument. Either my Google-fu is failing, or he's holding a completely irrational belief set.

In answering someone else's question, Matt replied:

"'What do you mean by "favorable genes," exactly?'- the way that men and women are different in such a way that they complement one another, though it is possible for two men or women or men and women in a polygamy relationship to exhibit slimier traits, to expect them to inherently would go against what science can observe about us. i havent seen anything to show same sex marriage to be anymore valid or useful than polygamy as such i dont want to pay more for health insurance or taxes because they pay less. what makes me less entitled to similar tax or health insurance breaks as a single man?"

I'm going to go out on this limb and assume he meant similar traits, not slimier ones, but even so, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Matt again:

"'If I were making the laws, I would probably allow it because if people find happiness with that kind of relationship, that's their business and not mine' it is my business though because i am spending more on taxes and healthcare. what makes those more worth the benefits then my choice to be single? society is where it is because of the classic male female dynamics of society, i do believe that men and women are different and complement one another. men tend to be more explorative but without the feminine drive for stability social structure and justice would not develop, for example. if all were masculine society would not develop, if all were feminine the race would die in its infancy. we needed that dynamic and that is why the roles developed."

So basically, in spite of everything else he's said, his objection is that he'll take a larger hit in taxes as a single man? What? Because the same argument could be made if heterosexual society--the marriages he's claiming to defend--generates a great upswing in marriages suddenly. That same tax hit would happen. Is he against that, too? Or just the "gay ones"?

From a Google+ comment by binkey:

"You say 'there is a domesticating effect that women have on men that lowers crime rates and increases a drive to work and produce'

"This sounds like another "hypothetheory". What evidence do you have that women have that effect on that men at all? Even if you show that men who are married to women are less likely to commit crime and more driven to work, you have to remember that correlation is not causation. It could be argued that the reason for this discrepancy is that women are just more likely to marry lawful, hard working men, than they are to marry lazy criminals.

"Assuming that you prove that it is actually women having a "domesticating effect" on the men they marry, you would have to show that a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman would not have the same effect. To do that you need married gay people, but if gay marriage isn't allowed then how could you do that study?

"You say that heterosexuals are better able to "pass on favourable genes." But the fact is that heterosexuals are also better able to pass on unfavourable genes. Besides, reproduction is not impossible for homosexual couples. I live in Canada where same sex marriage is legal* and I know a lesbian couple who through a sperm donor were able to have children of their own. Sure the children don't share genes with both parents, but I don't see how that would interfere with their ability to raise the children. They seem to have managed to pass on their favourable (and perhaps some unfavourable) genes just fine.

"* So far I haven't noticed a big any effect on the taxes I pay. In fact the tax rate has gone down since gay marriage was made legal—not that I'm suggesting a causal link."

Which are also great points--there is nothing that stops two gay men from fathering children, or two lesbian women from giving birth to them, but actual infertility or a complete lack of desire to raise kids in the first place. It's a specious argument to insist that just because a couple cannot breed, they cannot marry. That also leaves out a great chunk of marriages among the infertile--who may or may not know that at the time of their marriages--as well as marriages occurring later in life, where childbirth may no longer be possible due to age.

Matt starts going off the rails here:

"he point was because our species has such a solid tradition of monogamy and solidarity, that i think a man and a woman will be prone complement one another in such a way that i wouldn't expect a polygamy marriage or incest or same sex marriage to. not that those forms of marriages cannot but that on average they won't be as complementary and useful to society. im not opposed to seeing evidence to the contrary but im not just going to be ok with giving people special benefits that i dont have access to because of my choice to be single on some vague principle that all marriage should be treated the same."

Wait. Okay, first, what's a "prone complement", I don't understand that term. But second, who mentioned incest?? While the rules are growing lax in some states regarding the marriages of first cousin to first cousin, which I personally find fairly creepy for genetic reasons, there is no state that allows incest to occur--let alone incestuous marriages, which is what I think he's leading up to implying.

We're moving on to part II.

how come they're all living in places with too much snow or too much sand?

The Funny Puppet Fair opened May 11th, and I missed a great deal of it, but once I remembered, I had to go see what it was like. The first thing I noticed--and really, really liked--was that outside of the individual stores, everything's the same set of textures. I'd even take it one farther and say that everything on the parcel is the same texture, just retinted, so even though practically everything's mesh, it loads quite speedily. I had more problems getting individual vendors to load inside the stores than I had loading in the ground, the walls, the roofs, and the swooping fences. It also gave the entire grounds a charmingly cartoonish feel, without being overly precious or cute to the point of toxicity.

So, a few things about this fair. First, there's a free set of little mesh sorta-puppet avatars at the beam-in point--one's ostensibly "male" (as in, plain, no details, nice texturing, simple construction), and the other's ostensibly "female" (same body shape, but the torso's tinted pink and there's blushing on the cheeks). I'm not sure why they felt the girl version had to be blushing, but hey, their call.

The entire fair's separated into four swooping sections, with separate half-circles scattered throughout for small cart stands, and gacha stations (while some stores have their own gachas, most of the makers put their gacha machines in one central area per section). There's a L$1 hunt through the grounds, too, but the main problem I had with that is I've come to expect (for events and mall hunts, both) signs notifying which stores have prizes, and which don't. The problem with this hunt is that half the stores didn't have the sign up, and had prizes anyway. Plus, some of the carts had prizes, too. Probably the gacha areas have prizes.

I ended up (after today's trip through) with forty of the prizes; I'm fairly sure there are more. So take that under advisement. (Also keep in mind that many of the teeny stars really are teeny--like, the size of my avatar's thumb teensy. Not even kidding, some designers really sized them down. It's not Twisted hunt-hard--nothing is--but it's not easy.)

(from the events album; the crop tops from Spoiled/Rotten at the Funny Puppet Fair.)

Also, there's some disparity on what qualifies items for the "funny puppet" aspect. SL being SL, there seems to be a pretty even split between quasi-legitimately young girls' concerns (Lolita shoes, frills, lace, cutesy furniture items, holdable plushies) and adult women playing fetishized little girls. (Y'know, this versus this, say. And don't worry, both pictures are SFW.) In that case, there's a lot of pastel pink or teal or pale peach fabrics imprinted with cute foodstuffs, dessert items, or adorable baby animals, but everything's either cleavage to the waist or a miniskirt that hits the upper thighs.

The crop tops shown above are from Spoiled/Rotten, and they're found in section A. These retail for L$100 each, and come in four varieties: Panda (pink), Lamb (grey), Friendly Sushi (Teal), and Kitty (Tan Leopard on White).

(from the events album; the shorts from NS at the Funny Puppet Fair.)

Case in point, these are the shorts being sold on the left, and the full-body "modeled" shot featuring the shorts, and a top that is likely found in the main store, but not available in the event store, on the right. And for me, it's the top that pushes this outfit over the edge.

While they're a little lower than hip-huggers--okay, a staggering lot lower than hip-huggers--that's not exactly my issue. The mesh template is good, the texturing looks sound and well-shaded. As far as it goes, even the top looks well-made, but....well, let's just say the design does not exactly suggest melting ice cream to me, y'unnerstan? Especially as it's equipped with Lolas Tango appliers.

The "Cool Summer Shorts" from NS, found in section B. They retail for L$100 individually, or you can buy the HUD version which packs in all seven patterns in one pair of shorts for L$250.

(from the events album; the Dolly Doll avatars from Duck or Swan at the Funny Puppet Fair.)

Changing directions in a whip-snapping way, how about these anime-inspired Dolly Doll avatars? From head and hair to boots, with the mesh body in between, this is one of the better avatar deals you're going to find. It comes in four different variations (I think the boots are also sold separately, but I'm not entirely sure they'll fit anything other than this avatar), these are sweet and cute and largely innocent compared to half of everything they're surrounded by. I'm extremely tempted, not just because they actually do look like young girls, without looking like the wet-dream pouty-teenager version of 'young' we've grown accustomed to seeing on the grid--but because they look so much like adorable little dolls we can walk around in.

The Dolly Doll avatars from Duck or Swan can be found in section C. These retail for $350 per avatar (boots, hair, hairbow, dress, body and head included).

(from the events album; the Kawaii Candy t-shirt dress from RD Style at the Funny Puppet Fair.)

And we whiplash back for the last one I wanted to show off--the "Kawaii Candy" t-shirt mesh dress from RD Style. This is more of what I meant by the Fair splitting into two pretty clear camps: this is an outfit that plainly couldn't exist off the grid. There is zero way, zero way that dress would be held up at all with that plunging a neckline. But of course it's festooned with cutesy little candy motifs, because it's that fetishized little-girl thing again. Which would be sort of understandable, ish, save for the 19th-century-style gartered stockings. The hair (which is gorgeous--is it from Ploom or somewhere else?) can be worn by a young girl or an adult woman; the stockings might be able to be worn by an upper-ages teenager or an adult woman; but that dress can only be worn by an adult woman, because young girls just do not have that cleavage, and, frankly, shouldn't.

The Kawaii Candy outfit from RD Style in section D. This retails for L$120 and includes low-cut t-shirt dress, stockings with garters (including SLink appliers) and two "kawaii" tattoos. (Some outfits also include shoes for an equivalent price; this one does not.)

Overall, I liked the Funny Puppet Fair; I'd like to go back before it closes on the 25th and buy some things, because I like most of the offerings, too. It's pretty well organized and efficiently laid out, and I was able to cover everything at a nice, even stroll in about ninety minutes--and that included backtracking and picture-taking time. I just think we need to be careful that we don't oversexualize events that are supposed to have children in attendance (even if those children are only ones by SL standards).

You can find out more about the Funny Puppet Fair (including much better pictures than mine) on these blogs:

• Be Happy in SL
• Bitacora Viajera (some really excellent shots of the grounds, and an overhead full view)
• Cally's Closet
• Cheryl Blossoms
• chocolate Atelier's notebook
• Daring Girl
• Diary of ines Lauria (see also this entry and this entry, also)
• Done wiv a Twist (see also this entry
• FabFree (archive list)
• Fashion-Kawaii-Colors (see also this entry)
• Funny Puppet Fair on Facebook
• Gacha Goodies (see also this entry, this entry, and this entry)
• Goth1co
• Hanaya
• JesyDream's Flickr (this image pertaining to the Fair)
• Kittywitchin' (archive list)
• Livin' SL
• My Sweet Life
• Nimue Style (archive list)
• Ninja Girl's Style
• Pink Acid SL (see also this entry)
• Pixel Barbie (archive list)
• Poison Girls (see also this entry, this entry and this entry)
• Punk Is Fashion
• Reh Dragovar (RD Styles' blog)
• Second Social
• SL Breedables
• SL Fashion Addict (see also this entry, this entry, and this entry)
• SL Fashion Directory (archive list)
• SL Fashion Stylez
• SL Frees & Offers (also see her coverage of the ArisAris offering)
• SL Style Academy
• SL Top Fashion (archive list)
• Someone Like You
• Terra do Nunca SL
• The Wandering Faun
• Threads and Tuneage
• The Thrifty Bondmaid
• Ticklemetummy
• Unisex Fashions SL
• Urban Street
• Veronique's View of SL Fashion

...and, goodness, that's now page 8 on Google search, I think that's plenty! You get the idea, anyway.

There's also a Youtube video on the fair, but...again, it's predominantly pitched to children, I think. Someone's missing the point...or ignoring it.

Still, that's hardly new to the doll community at large, is it? We have always been a widely diverse group of individuals. Young dolls, rag dolls, wooden dolls, cyborgs, gynoids, sexbots, porcelain dolls, littles, fetish dolls...and somehow, some way, we all manage to keep staggering together in a semi-united fashion. It takes a village...well, maybe if our village contains Bedlam. Still, it all works out.

In its own way, this does too. Check it out.

toil and trouble, grief and pain, nothing ever changes, always stays the same

Stepping away from Hair Fair coverage for the nonce...

[18:06] lxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: sorry to spam but this is important
[18:06] lxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: brief notice from linden labs ,theres a group call 2nd life shop going around, giving away free ao's
[18:06] lxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: after you accept and wear ao would steal your avatar id and would take all your lindens , please becarful and dont accept this ao pass the word around to friends ty

Since I logged in, I've seen this a total of six times. It's just more rumorspam; it means nothing. And it was starting to get severely irritating.

[18:07] hxxxx Zxxx: Thats bulls***
[18:07] jxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i saw this same message in like 4 other groups in the past 30 mins
[18:07] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: lolwat
[18:07] hxxxx Zxxx: Theres no way for an object to take linden without permission that you have to grant with a dialog message.

Seriously, there isn't. There never has been.

[18:07] ixxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: ban the spammer plz
[18:07] Emilly Orr: No no no no no no no.
[18:07] Emilly Orr: Not important, not from Linden Labs, sixth group I've seen this in today, plzstopplzplzstop.

On reflection, yes, that could easily be read as a hostile reply. I'm overstressed, overtired, and undermedicated RL, and most of those conditions are likely to continue for at least another week to full month. It's very, very easy right now for me to lash out, though--at the time this happened--I didn't see it as lashing out.

[18:07] mxxxxxx Wxxxxxx: You need to accept the message to give lindens away
[18:08] lxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: true or not at least people know now
[18:08] Emilly Orr: It doesn't MATTER what they know.
[18:08] lxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: god contraption is full of jerks
[18:08] Cxxxxx Mxxxxxx: I wish ppl would do a little research before mass spamming and raising everyones blood pressure. Aint nobody got time for that.

My thoughts exactly. And I'd said much the same thing in five other groups before this happened.

[18:08] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: if it was a message from linden labs they wouldn't need you to spread the word
[18:08] Emilly Orr: Look. The message to take Lindens from your account is ALWAYS yellow, is ALWAYS directly from Linden Labs.
[18:08] axxxxx Kxxx: agreed
[18:09] axxxxx Kxxx: bunch of nasty people. hes trying to warn people and your all treating him like crap

And okay, fine, on reflection, I acknowledge we jumped on him for this. I at least was tired, was not in the best mood to be in world in the first place, and was really, really, tired of hearing this over and over.

[18:09] cxxxxxx Lxx: Actually there is some truth to it.

Where? Point me the link that says yes, attaching an AO can, with no further drop-down warning or security request, just randomly take all your Lindens and scamper off, muahahahaha. Show me somewhere official it says that that can ever, at all, under any conditions, be true.

[18:09] Cxxxxx Mxxxxxx: Is there a secondlife snopes?

Not as far as I know. But oh, how I wish there was.

[18:09] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: people aren't jerks, it's just what you are saying is complete crap
[18:09] mxxxxxx Wxxxxxx: Its because... that old ao thing getting your lindens...
[18:09] mxxxxxx Wxxxxxx: it tires after a time
[18:09] hxxxx Zxxx: If his warnign had any factual parts to it i would.
[18:09] cxxxxx Dxxxxxxxx: Not to take sides here, but you guys should chill out.. he/she came with good intent just trying to inform others. - Besides, some are silly enough to accept permissions from items; think about how people refuse to read bright red signs. lol

I remain unsure. On the one hand, this is true, because by and large, people--all of us, at one time or another--are dumb. We do stupid things without thinking. The thing is, it's a big leap from "X hacker attacked Linden Lab and stole the credit card database file" (which did happen, several years back) to "logging in and putting on an AO can drain all your Lindens, ohNO" (which just can't happen unless you, personally, grant those permissions to the object).

[18:09] Emilly Orr: If you're not a merchant working on a vendor, and you see a yellow drop-down asking for permission to take L$ from you, just decline.
[18:10] Jxxxx Fxxxxxxx: Amen Cxxxxx
[18:10] ixxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: that message has been going around for years hes not informing anyone of anythign real
[18:10] Jxxxx Fxxxxxxx: now enough of this conversation !
[18:10] cxxxxxx Lxx: If you put on the AO, it does prompt you to click something.

And if it does, and you see that it's prompting you to click "accept permission to access your Lindens", and it's a BRIGHT YELLOW DROP-DOWN, then DECLINE. How hard is that?

[Brief insert for correction: apparently in the official V3 SL client, it's not a yellow drop-down window, it's a black drop-down window. Because all the drop-down windows are now black in the V3 client. Still, though, it has bright orange text, so that's still a separation from the norm...it's just not as obvious a separation. Which, personally, I think is a huge mistake on LL's part, but hey, it's not the first one they've made.]

[18:10] axxxxx Kxxx: ive never heard of it before and ive been on sl for years
[18:10] Emilly Orr: I think many of us have seen this many times today, and it's getting old. It's inaccurate information. No one's bothering to verify it, they're just passing it along.
[18:10] bxxxxxx Fxxx: good god! This stupid paranoia s*** has been spamming up everyone of my groups.
[18:10] sxxx Cxxxx: yes, thank's Word. I'm sure there's some less experienced reidents who finds this info useful... both the warning and the info following debunking it

And...then the chat started going sideways.

[18:11] Jxxxx Fxxxxxxx: Ok so someone tried to be nice and got jumped all over for it, That's usually the case in SL. Take what info you find here and use it or not but stop bitching about it for GOds sake .
[18:12] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: complaining is great, if everyone jsut closed everything rather then tackling it head on like a champion, everything would be boring, and people like wxxx would not learn.
[18:12] Jxxxx Fxxxxxxx: no complaining is NOT great Bxxx
[18:12] dxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: just shut up and get over your selves if your going to complain about a warning :V if you really think its s*** then just close the f****** chat we dont need your two cents on how stupid someoen is or something

I don't think any of us said that the initial poster was stupid.

[18:12] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: complaining is fantastic jules
[18:13] mxxxxxx Sxxxxx: i should write a book about how gay all of you are for crying in some store chat about people being mean to you

It took me a minute to catch that.

[18:13] Emilly Orr: Dxxxxxx, I'm not complaining. I am doing what I can to stop the spread of misinformation.
[18:13] Jxxxx Fxxxxxxx: fixes the chat so that I only get infor from the group owner and not from anyone else here from now on
[18:13] Emilly Orr sighs. Oh, and that's all we need, a gay slur for no reason.

Because seriously, as tired as I am of hearing that spam "notice" go around, I'm ten thousand times more tired of "gay" being a catch-all "this is stupid" word.

[18:13] dxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: then dont get all agro about it
[18:13] dxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: calmly state that it may not have truth
[18:14] mxxxxxx Sxxxxx: gay as in happy lady god dont get all torn up about it
[18:14] Emilly Orr: That's not how you meant it, though.
[18:14] mxxxxxx Sxxxxx: how do you know ?

Because every time someone uses "gay" to mean "lame", or "bad" or "dumb", they're using the word wrong. And it is terribly pervasive, in at least American culture, in many places. Someone doesn't want to spray-paint a wall in an urban area: "Don't be a fag". Someone does something another player doesn't like in an online MMO: "dude, you're so gay". This equates "gay" as being the worst thing someone can be, and it's literally the first slang word many of us reach for, whether we want to or not, because we hear it all the goddamn time.

Example. I watch a lot of Rooster Teeth videos. They're a group of guys who never really evolved out of high school, but they have fun, and they play games I'll likely never have the consoles for, so I can watch them play and get my gaming fix that way.

But seriously, some videos, every two minutes one of the guys is saying to another of the guys that they're gay, or fags, or that they take it up the ass...it's like breathing for them, it's the culture they've been steeped in, online and off, for over a decade.

How do we fight prejudice like that? How do we fight prejudice that demeans us even in things that are supposed to be fun, relaxing, escapes from our daily stress? If it's that pervasive, to the point that we have members of our communities simultaneously saying they support gay rights, then on the other hand, call a player who shot them a faggot...what does that tell us? How can we trust the words of support if they're still using other words to tell us that we don't deserve those rights, that we aren't human enough to have them?

[18:14] dxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: we arnt talking about the context of how they used gay

Actually, yeah, for me at least, the conversation had very definitely moved in that direction. But I was still responding to other comments; the whole 'gay' debate hadn't yet sunk in. I'm slow when I'm stressed.

[18:14] mxxxxxx Sxxxxx: you all seem very happy fighting in a pixel world
[18:14] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: rxxx didn't mean gay as in queer either.
[18:14] dxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: or how they are obviously trying to get your goat
[18:15] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: why does any of this even matter lol
[18:15] Emilly Orr: Fine, whatever, scream about AOs taking your Lindens, go have mass fun.
[18:15] dxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: because this is secondlife and EVERYTHING MATTERS
[18:15] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: when someonesays something is gay as an insult, they dont literally mean it is homosexual.

Yes, actually, they do. Every single damn time. That's exactly what they mean, and if you don't think so when you hear it, or if you don't think so when you do it, then, friends and neighbors, YOU ARE WRONG. Because that's what the word means. That's one more thorn in our sides, every time we hear the word used. Of course that's what they meant, because THEY CAN'T MEAN ANYTHING ELSE.

[18:15] txxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx allows her palm to become familiar with her forehead.
[18:15] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: that would be absurd
[18:15] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: and makes no sense
[18:15] mxxxxxx Sxxxxx: lol
[18:16] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: no need to get so deffensive
[18:16] Emilly Orr: It's never made any sense. People still do it, though. They seem to think "gay", "faggot", "fag" and "queer" just mean "lame".
[18:16] ixxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: oh piss off you nazi bastard
[18:16] Emilly Orr: .....

I admit, at this point, I just stopped for a moment. I'd been taking pics for Hair Fair, answering chat in another screen, and suddenly, everything stopped for me. We'd started out trying to correct a spammer, and now we were gay for our efforts, and Nazis. I was in shock.

[18:16] mxxxxxx Sxxxxx: i was just saying you guys seem to be havin alot of fun thats all i need to write a book about happy people to inspire myself and others to be as happy as you are
[18:16] ixxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: oh i didnt mean nazi as in THOSE nazis
[18:16] dxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: everyone calm your tits and boners tentacles wing boners etc.

How? How are we supposed to calm down from these things? We live in a country where our technology tracks our conversations, our concerns, and our largest software firms have handed over all the keys to the intricacies of their programs, for easier access to the new Big Brother. We live in a country where stalking someone, and shooting someone, even if they were unarmed and underage, is fine as long as you're male, and white. We live in a country where hackers get more jail time than rapists, where any of us, at any time, can be declared an enemy of the state and dragged out of our homes, and taken to a place with no access to legal defense and no charges placed.

And when we dare to speak up, about the smallest of these issues, we're hit with vituperative insults--and then told we're being oversensitive when we see them for the savage imprecations they are.

[18:16] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: words evolve
[18:16]oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: they do

While yes, they do, in this case, no. This word has not evolved. It still means what it's always meant, but people just don't care to think it through. They don't care what it says to the gay community, because--surprise!--they don't care about gay people.

But at this point, I was done. I had officially hit my stress limit for the day.

[18:16] Emilly Orr: Okay, suddenly I'm on the "you people are all jerks" side.

Not enough to leave the group, but enough for me to pretty much close the window every time it opens, or remove myself from the ability to send and receive chat. Because...maybe my skin's a little thin, today, but there's no reason for anyone to go on that heavy an attack just for me trying to stem the tide of spam. No reason.

None.

dimensions twist and turn amidst the whims of one foreseen

The Girl Genius Kickstarter grinds on, trilobite by trilobite--they haven't locked in $200,000 yet, but I'm still assured they will. I'll be watching, along with many readers, I'm sure, and I'm both astounded and ecstatic that of the twelve books that desperately needed reprinting, only two remain. Yay for fans.

Also, this is a fascinating idea--harvesting paper from many different printing companies, as well as artists and writers, and rebinding it into "resketch" pads--notebooks that can easily be used for more drawings, more sketches, but that can also be used by artists of any stripe as inspiration pages. With anything from cardstock to brilliants to old map sections in any given book, that--along with the repurposed existing art in each book, and inspirational pushes from the creator of Shawnimals--makes this a very intriguing concept indeed. Even better? Today was the first I'd heard of it, it has twenty-seven days to go--and it's already fully funded!

That Girl Scouts are better than Boy Scouts--or, at least, more accepting, both historically and currently--is pretty much obvious; but the reason this is news is that the Boy Scouts National Council is voting today to allow openly gay Scouts to serve in the Boy Scouts. Annoyingly enough, whether or not they vote to allow gay Scouts to continue to be Scouts, they won't budge on allowing openly gay Scout Leaders to be Scout Leaders.

Which is still tragic, because the gay and bisexual Scouts I've known have, to a man, been honest, forthright, true, and would rather cut their own throats than harm a child in any way. They are devoted to the Scout ideals, and the BSA has done them a disservice for decades.

Boing Boing, in support of this issue, had an article last year on the (then small, but growing) push for recognized Eagle Scouts to send back their awards to the BSA in protest. They've now updated that article, with more letters.

Just remember, it's easier to help, than it is to obstruct. And you get less grief for it in the long run.

Minecraft LPers were the first to notice that the new change to YouTube's ID system has resulted in some aberrant behavior. Baj isn't the only one to notice, either. This was released back in February, but--apart from sounding eerily like one of Torley Linden's cheerier missives--didn't contain much, if any, real information.

Basically, though, it's the same problem as when Second Life adopted display names, with a difference--viewers no longer get the account name, just the channel title. Now, for me--because I'm lazy--my channel title IS my account name, so it's the same either way. But Baj, for instance? His channel's called Minecraft made easy. Now, that's the name shown to any prospective viewer!

How is this supposed to help anyone find people? Answer: it's not. And a lot of folks are getting very upset by this change.

Oh, and there's a petition, if you want to sign. Not sure it'll actually do anything, but there is one.

Meanwhile, Scott Bradlee has put out a video using "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" to show the progression of popular music. It's a lot of fun.

And I have no words for this one save it's a great tribute for YouTube's Comedy Week.

songbird, take me home

So, in addition to IndieGoGo (independent/music projects), Kickstarter (music/technology/art projects), Rockethub (science and technical projects along with many international relief efforts), GoFundMe (personal donations of any kind), Razoo (nearly entirely charitable causes), and others, there's also Fundrazr, which I know scathingly little about. How'ver, a friend tipped me to this project, which is fairly simple--a family looking to save their dog.

Now, spending part of Second Life as a neko, I think it's fairly well established that I'm a cat person--sometimes literally--but I have owned dogs as pets (RL) in the past. And, beyond breed or species, I know that pets are very important to many of us, and can feel like--or simply be--part of our families, essential to our survival as living, breathing, emotional beings.

I have faced the staggering cost of medical surgery, and (in our case, because our RL finances are notably absent a large percentage of the time) had to make the excruciating decision to euthanize those animals, rather than make them struggle on in pain and illness. It has never been an easy decision. One of my family members owns ferrets, and--due to their much shorter life span--she's faced this decision nearly once every two years. It takes its toll, definitely.

But in this case, Maggie's not at the end of her life, she's at the beginning. She hasn't grown out of puppyhood yet, and if they fail to raise the funds, she won't reach adulthood at all. They have a very low target they're trying to reach, and forty-eight days remaining on the funding drive. Please help if you can.

In other news, sources are saying Picasa Web Albums are on the way out as a service, transiting soon to Google+ Photos. What does this mean to those of us who do not have, nay, cannot have a Google+ account? I don't know, but just in case, I'm keeping my eyes open for new image hosting services.

The main problem with that is it will end up breaking a TON of content, on a blog that goes back several, several years now. I'm not sure I'm up to the daunting task of recoding every image I've ever posted.

Moving to comics, over on Bleeding Cool, there's an interesting article by Natalie Reed on the (slightly) increasing presence of transsexual characters in comics. While I like her analysis of what it means to a traditionally homophobic (and transphobic) field, I do take exception to one of her examples.

(from the media album; Lord Fanny from Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles")

This is Lord Fanny, from the comic "The Invisibles". While Ms. Reed seems to think...how did she put it...that Fanny is "wildly inaccurate and generally exploitative", I strongly disagree. I've known trans women like Fanny. These are not quiet, demure, reserved, politically-active transsexual ladies of stature--women like Fanny had to fight for every step of gender correction along the way. Some I've known became prostitutes, or sold (or helped to distribute) drugs; some stole, some flung themselves into bad relationship after bad relationship, mostly for struggling issues of insecurity and self-esteem, but also, because if your only criteria is who can afford to pay for your hormones, when no insurance in town will touch you, you do what you have to.

(from the media album; Lord Fanny from Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles"; pencil sketch drawn by Phil Jimenez)

More than that, though, Lord Fanny's a guerrilla fighter on the edges of perception, and I mean that quite literally. The universe of the Invisibles is one in which reality can change, alter, distort at a moment's notice. There is no good and bad, specifically--there's only nature and destruction. The Invisibles fight on all fronts--gender, mind, spirit, flesh--and they fight at all times, and in all realities. Because most of the time, what they fight has no gender, little mind, and is nothing our minds can comprehend without serious pharmaceutical help.

Like it or hate it--and Morrison, like his comics, is similar to Warren Ellis in this regard: there are very few people lukewarm in their feelings for him--"The Invisibles" is a comic series that was absolutely different from anything seen before its arrival, and still holds up fairly well to this day. And I'll stack Lord Fanny side by side with Neil Gaiman's Wanda and David Hine and Doug Brathwaite’s "Doll", as a powerful, empowering depiction of transgender life.