?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile ABMann.net Previous Previous Next Next
The weather and news has me depressed today. Joy Cardin is talking… - Portrait of a Young Man as The Artist — LiveJournal
abmann
abmann
The weather and news has me depressed today. Joy Cardin is talking about the anti-choice legislation in South Dakota with Dr. Allen Unruh - founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. It's going to be signed by the governor within the next week. It's in direct contradiction to Roe v. Wade, of course; it's trying to overturn it with the new supreme court.

The legislation has no provisions for rape or incest; abortions will be legal only when the mother's health is at risk. South Dakota offers no protection to the mothers eother, or really strong anti-rape legislation. Because of this, the rapist could, in fact, sue the mother for parental rights to the child born from the rape.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

The next step, already under discussion is a ban on hormonal contraception. The hinging "fact" is that you are human from conception. According to Dr. Unruh, all research shows that babies are fully human at conception. (So... a blastocyst is a full human? Isn't pregnancy an infringement on the human's freedom?)

I want to beat Dr. Unruh, and so many other people, with a poo stick.



Wisconsin assembly passed the gay marriage ban Tuesday too, despite emphatic objection from many legislators.


Really not in a good mood today.

Klein Sexual Orientation Grid


I scored an average of 1.52

01 2 3 4 5 6
HeterosexualBisexualHomosexual

Meaning

This result can also be related to the Kinsey Scale:

0 = exclusively heterosexual
1 = predominantly heterosexual, incidentally homosexual
2 = predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 = equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 = predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 = predominantly homosexual, incidentally heterosexual
6 = exclusively homosexual

Summary

The idea of this excercise is to understand exactly how dynamic a person's sexual orientation can be, as well as how fluid it can be over a person's lifespan. While a person's number of actual homo/heterosexual encounters may be easy to categorize, their actual orientation may be completely different. Simple labels like "homosexual", "heterosexual", and "bisexual" need not be the only three options available to us.

Take the quiz

Tags: , ,

27 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
cassandraterra From: cassandraterra Date: March 2nd, 2006 02:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
Good thing I don't want to get married yet...but, HELL, if I wanted too... should be damn well able!

I was really sad that Michigan passed the ban as well. Soooo disapointed in my state.
abmann From: abmann Date: March 2nd, 2006 02:23 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm confident that we'll vote it down in November.

You should make sure you and everone on campus vote in November if they can.
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 04:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
What does "incidentally homo/heterosexual" mean?

I wouldn't worry about S. Dakota. It's the easiest staging ground for a run at the supreme court because there's like 3 people and a mule that live there. The interesting fight will start in washington late this year or early next year.
abmann From: abmann Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
I don't know. I think that's the explanation for few homosexual encounters adn general preference for social interaction, social confidance with either gender.


It's not that there will be a fight, I don't want there to be a fight. I'm worried what will happen in Washington when the case is heard adn after the decision.

Abortions for everyone!
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think they should change it to "accidently heter/homosexual" and it should really just be a judgement on that one time when you were drunk and you thought they were a boy/girl and well, now its uncomfortable and you don't go back to that bar again.


Now, don't get me wrong, I make it a point to kill three babies before breakfast every morning. And I'm firmly commited to allowing abortions up until the 32nd trimester.

but.

This is how american democracy works. There's some aspect of the system that people don't like and that has been shown to be too difficult to change through direct legislation. So they purposefully create a conflict situation in order to empower the issue and more specificaly their side to it. All in all, the tactics in S. Dakota are interesting, as are the fact that there is very little national attention being drawn to it. Though, I blame that second part on the fact that the Dakotas are just "lets-pretend" states.

Does the gay marriage ban automatically go into referendum in WI or does it have to be forced on the ticket through petition?
abmann From: abmann Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:47 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm 90% sure it's automaticaly on the ticket now because this was the second pass through the state legislators. Doyle vetoed it the first time so it goes to us now.
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
Gotcha.

Now you kids just need to rep your freedom-loving hoods.
abmann From: abmann Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:54 pm (UTC) (Link)
No doubt.
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:57 pm (UTC) (Link)

Pow! Right in the kisser!

Now I'm just commenting to increase my score and move up in your friendship ranking.
abmann From: abmann Date: March 2nd, 2006 06:04 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Pow! Right in the kisser!

You have a was to go, however you could probably top moocowrich easily these days.
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 06:06 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Pow! Right in the kisser!

Hey, any gain is a win. Especially if it's over rich.
abmann From: abmann Date: March 2nd, 2006 06:27 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Pow! Right in the kisser!

I thought you were the bottom in that relationship, sanchez?
moocowrich From: moocowrich Date: March 2nd, 2006 06:36 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Pow! Right in the kisser!

He is. Don't believe his filthy lies.
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 06:48 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Pow! Right in the kisser!

Whateva whateva. I'm the pitcher, he's the catcher.
attackdesire From: attackdesire Date: March 2nd, 2006 06:33 pm (UTC) (Link)

Exactly what it says.

Incidents - exploration (it happens a lot in childhood), and actual encounter or two, or just a few fantasies. The only reason that I have the next stage from incidental heterosexuality is lonelyness. I didn't get off, but I did perform the act.
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 06:47 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Exactly what it says.

What does "more than incidentially heter/homo" mean then? Is it an issue of intention? Amount of experience? Type of experience?
abmann From: abmann Date: March 2nd, 2006 06:57 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Exactly what it says.

I think "more than" implies active, repeated choice in encounter. So, you may have a few incidental encounters as exploration but if it happens frequently for extended time, I think it goes beyond incidentally. If you habitually choose men over women that is your prefence.orientation. Patterns of choice in partner, I suppose. Someone that is homosexual would likely choose many more same-sex partners than opposite-sex partners.

I read a study in high school that the "cut off" for experimentation is 18. Anything after that is active choice of sexual preference. Silly stuff.
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 07:08 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Exactly what it says.

Arbitrary cut offs and boundries make me feel safer as a human being. My issue is less about the actual definition and more about what the pragmatic reprecussions of a sliding scale.

though I do find the above to be kind of confusing in that it just seems to be so ad hoc. Like someone was all "um...okay, so guy/guy or girl/girl is homo...er...and...um...guy/girl aand girl/guy is hetero...and...um..oh yeah...guy/girl or guy and girl/guy or girl is bi...but...well...what about guy/girl but sometimes guy or guy/girl but sometimes girl or guy/girl or guy but mostly guy but sometimes girl too...and...um...well what about girl/mostly girl but also guy to but really only that one time except for those two other times and then what about that trangendered person and...er...*owe my brains*"
attackdesire From: attackdesire Date: March 2nd, 2006 07:11 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Exactly what it says.

That is the catagory I fit in because of number of experiences (due to lonelyness) and perverse rape fantasies. But that's just me - it referrs to whatever happening to happen possibly twice in a blue moon, or more often. I'd put myself in the blue moon category.
thecoweyed From: thecoweyed Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:06 pm (UTC) (Link)
Because of this, the rapist could, in fact, sue the mother for parental rights to the child born from the rape.

What do you suspect are the chances this would ever come up? I mean, the categories "rapists" and "people with parental instincts" don't really overlap in my mind, in the least.

But in case things do go badly, I 'spect we should start up a donation fund to help new mothers hire hit men to take out their rapists. 'Cause killing is obviously the solution to everything, when you start reading about things like this.

Though Nathan has a good point: they probably just want more people in general in South Dakota. Soon making babies will be mandatory.

TCE
abmann From: abmann Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm just illustrating a ridiculous situation that could occur under proposed legislation. It's more that it could happen but shouldn't.

I highly doubt a court would give a rapist any parental rights whatsoever. Unless it's a really fucked up judge that rtuly believe a child must have two parents to be raised properly - which could happen....
thecoweyed From: thecoweyed Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:20 pm (UTC) (Link)
Hm... plus, by the time the rapist is free to appear in court to sue for parental rights, the rapist's probably been let off the hook for one reason or another.

Maybe she was dressed too loosely.

Scandal!

TCE
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 05:36 pm (UTC) (Link)
Making babies should be manditory in the Dakotas! That would be the best law ever!

Incidently, to bring down to earth will's example, it would really be an issue of the vaguries in rape laws that could bring about that circumstance. For example, a couple goes out a few times, and something happens that only the couple was there to witness or participate in. The girl cries rape. The guy said she concented. There was no physical abuse involved. No alcohol or other drugs involved. In the medical exam a day and a half later, it is found that they did engage in unprotected sexual intercourse. The woman gets pregnent, the guy gets somewhere between probation and three years in prison depending on how conservative the judge is and what his politcal platform was last time he bid for appointment. The guy is pretty fundamentalist in his believes. The girl says she's going to get an abortion, the guy gets a 48-hour injunction to prevent her from doing so while there is a custody suit played out for the unborn child. Now, whichever way the suit goes, the guy's lawyers can easily extend the injunction until all appeals are exhausted. At which point, it's probably into the third trimester and/or the baby has been born. The mother, at that point, is probably going to either give the baby up or the guy's lawyers have a great case for how she doesn't want it and he should be given custody.

It's an easily possible situation now given the conjunction of some of the laws and precidents. It becomes easier when it's more difficult to get an abortion. The darkly amusing version of the above is where mommy is held in contempt of court for getting the abortion anyways, and perhaps murder if she's charged in the state that prohibits abortion.

The moral of this story is that state's rights are bs and federalism fucking sucks. The End.
(Deleted comment)
nathan_lounge From: nathan_lounge Date: March 2nd, 2006 06:17 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not sure how true that is. I mean, sure, debates would be quicker because nationalized decision making would be less of a sticky situation, but the supreme court is just as capible of impacting federal laws as it is state laws. And in theory the court runs in a politically blind mode.
annan_dum From: annan_dum Date: March 2nd, 2006 08:06 pm (UTC) (Link)
Great, thanks Will, now I'm depressed and I have a mid-term today. Great combo.

But that's alright; you and I and the others in our social circle will start an underground railroad into Canada where abortions can be performed in nice, safe, clean and legal clinics.
abmann From: abmann Date: March 2nd, 2006 08:11 pm (UTC) (Link)
Na. You can just give yourself an abortion. Less fuss.
From: que_emocionante Date: March 2nd, 2006 10:13 pm (UTC) (Link)
we actually discussed wisconsin's proposed gay-marriage ban in philosophy class today. the bottom line for me is that marriage in this country has mostly secular benefits (like insurance) and should be a different institution altogether.

otherwise, the abortion thing, poo stick is right. poo stick all around.
27 comments or Leave a comment