The Rainbow Connection [LGBTS Club]

You guys are so hardcore, with game plans and tech and all.

Shining Raichu said:

I've told you before and I'll tell you again Q, Grindr. Yes, a lot of the people there are looking for sex and nothing more but now you've moved a little closer to civilisation I think you should give it another shot. I live in a coastal area where there isn't much of a gay community so Grindr and other similar phone apps are the only real way to meet other gay/bi people. And you get to talk to them online first so you get a general idea of what they're about before you go to the trouble of meeting them lol

Click to expand...

I've only had about two decent conversations from using Grindr. I suppose it depends on where you live though. When you stay in one place, you get the same people most days.

QuilavaKing said:

I have. There's no one I'd be even remotely interested in talking to around here. I'm going into town today actually... I guess I could pick some people out and talk to them later, but I'm not really sure how well that would work out, considering I live 30 minutes away.

Click to expand...

If you have to travel 30 minutes you have to travel 30 minutes, it's better than where you were living before lol. But you have to give people a chance, don't just look at the profiles and make your judgment on a picture or a silly few sentences that you have to write about yourself. Give it a chance!

I just don't like Grindr because there is less information to judge a person on. I don't like to waste my time when I know myself and another person have incompatible goals. Based on a brief bio and pictures, I can really only tell if I am physically attracted, well assuming the pictures are an accurate depiction of what the person looks like currently.

Anyway, though I am abstaining from dating for several more months while I am finishing up undergrad, I would suggest to others to ALSO give okcupid a try. Though, be cautious. With more information you need to be careful how you use that information. Also, filters in general can cut out people that you might be really compatible with, so make sure to try various search methods. I just never had success finding a compatible person because of geographical location, which should change relatively soon.

Okcupid is the best FREE site. Since, you actually get to compare questions and the bios are more complete. Again, be careful not assume anyone is completely ingenuous, that is what the in-person dating is for! Rather, it's a nice way to filter out people that state incompatible goals or traits and provide a basis for date discussions (given you know a bit about their interests), and even a way to slip in some followup questions for any potential red flags. This person may have a great justification.

But the more options the better. I would say, try both. See which one works best for you, and put yourself out there.

--

So, I have a bit of interesting things to say after class today.

Apparently, women are significantly more likely to have homosexual children after extreme stress. The study was conducted on women that were pregnant during WWII, in Germany. That study, with some of the other studies, that indicate that women are more likely to give birth to homosexual males if she has already given birth to male offspring (progressively with each birth).

Biologically, it makes sense. In order for a women to ensure her genes success, she needs offspring that will reproduce. Upon having several boys, it becomes less likely that she will be able to provide not only enough, but more resources for her sons than other mothers. Therefore, homosexual offspring are more altruistic for their relatives, reproductive success, and thus, their own genetic success (siblings share on average 50% of the same genetics). They are less invested in their own reproductive success putting forth more energy into relatives. Likewise, during war, or any sort of stress, it may be more advantageous to have a homosexual child of either sex that will invest more into the family and siblings than on parental investment of their own children.

Therefore, mothers that had this trait, were more likely to survive and produce children that would produce children, and thus why homosexuals exist today, as well as other animal species. It's simply a very advantageous trait to possess from a biological standpoint and has survived the process of natural selection.

Thought that would be 'fun' to share.

I read of another theory.

Basically, male proteins are foreign to a female's body. As a result, it's possible for the mother to create antibodies that would attack these male compounds. Every time a woman has a male child, her immune system is primed with the presence of foreign protein and her response would increase with each child. So each subsequent male child is subject to a higher concentration of anti-male antibodies. Oh, and antibodies are designed to neutralize the antigens they correspond to. So each subsequent male child is subject to a higher level of destruction of their male compounds. It would give an alternate explanation to the observation listed above.

BlahISuck said:

I read of another theory.

Basically, male proteins are foreign to a female's body. As a result, it's possible for the mother to create antibodies that would attack these male compounds. Every time a woman has a male child, her immune system is primed with the presence of foreign protein and her response would increase with each child. So each subsequent male child is subject to a higher concentration of anti-male antibodies. Oh, and antibodies are designed to neutralize the antigens they correspond to. So each subsequent male child is subject to a higher level of destruction of their male compounds. It would give an alternate explanation to the observation listed above.

Click to expand...

Actually this is a proximate cause. These are the biological effects of having more male children. Every time a woman has a male her immune system will produce more anti-male antibodies. However, the ultimate phylogenic outcome, to explain why women would possess genetic information that would instruct the immune system to react in this manner, can be explained by natural selection, in that women that didn't possess this physiological reaction would have had more male offspring competing against each other and therefore not yielding as many offspring, as the women that did inherit this trait.

So, we both could be right. It's just a matter of synthesis of the two, proximate and ultimate, causes. I am glad you brought that up! It helps better explain the ultimate causes.

Fenneking said:

Actually this a proximate cause. These are the biological effects of having more male children. Every time a woman has a male her immune system will produce more anti-male antibodies. However, the ultimate phylogenic outcome, to explain why women would possess genetic information that would instruct the immune system to react in this manner, can be explained by natural selection, in that women that didn't possess this physiological reaction would have had more male offspring competing against each other and therefore not yielding as many offspring, as the women that did inherit this trait.

Click to expand...

I like where you're going with that. The logic is sound.

BlahISuck said:

I like where you're going with that. The logic is sound.

Click to expand...

SPOCK! Gawd I love Zachary Quinto. I was all for Team Sylar in Heroes!

I wonder how he's doing that thing with his eyebrows. Is it fine muscular control or does he just have that emotion or expression set? He looks permanently edgy, like you're expecting him to do something interesting every moment.

So gay marriage in Australia is in a bit of a precarious position right now. The ACT, which is a tiny tiny state in the middle of New South Wales, is passing a bill legalising same-sex marriage, which will make it the first state in Australia to do so. However, the new homophobic Federal Government in power has said that it will challenge the new laws in the High Court of Australia, which has made the ACT lawmakers amend the bill to create a separate status of marriage for same-sex couples to give it a better chance of surviving the challenge.

I don't know whether to be happy or enraged...

Same-sex marriage is now in New Jersey though - gotta take the bad with the good :P MURCA!

They can always amend it in the future. I don't think things like this tend to be set in stone, just a feeling. Once it gets passed it'll be a political victory having obtained some change, but the people affected by the law won't be satisfied. My calculation is that they'll score the victory now while they can, and then just ride along popular support as it grows. It's all gain, no loss.

Shining Raichu said:

So gay marriage in Australia is in a bit of a precarious position right now. The ACT, which is a tiny tiny state in the middle of New South Wales, is passing a bill legalising same-sex marriage, which will make it the first state in Australia to do so. However, the new homophobic Federal Government in power has said that it will challenge the new laws in the High Court of Australia, which has made the ACT lawmakers amend the bill to create a separate status of marriage for same-sex couples to give it a better chance of surviving the challenge.

I don't know whether to be happy or enraged...

Click to expand...

Be both. The people of Australia voted in a homophobe because they cared more about their own personal issues than they cared about the plight of an oppressed minority. It's reactionary politics at its worst. I'm almost to the point where I'm just shrugging my shoulders now because the electorate seems to be becoming less and less informed about issues than ever before, and quite frankly, I think they deserve the government they get. Maybe if they begin opening their eyes and start tuning in to what's going on around them and not being so selfish things will start getting done. Instead all I keep hearing from the same old politicians is the same old arguments and the electorate that keeps falling for the same old lies. I guess it's true what they say, you never can teach an old dog new tricks.

Australia doesn't seem like the kind of place that would backslide and start becoming more hostile to gay rights so it could be a halfway victory. (But what do I know about Australia?)

It's okay to feel annoyed and upset that you're not getting what your rightfully deserve while also feeling a little accomplished if you get something that's imperfect but still better than what was before. Just gotta keep it up.

The thing is though, I don't actually care so much. Australia is nothing. It always has been and always will be. It simply doesn't matter, so I don't care too much what happens here. My happiness/rage is more on principle, the way you get pissed off when the wrong person gets evicted on Big Brother.

I know gay marriage will be legal here by the time I actually manage to hunt myself down a man lol

Have you guys heard about Russia's policy regarding gay rights?
I didn't know much about Russia but I was completely shocked when I read a newspaper article about the situation of homosexuals in Russia. The government is constantly restricting gay rights. For example, at the beginning of this year, a law was passed that prohibits showing homosexual relationships openly in the public, as "to protect" minors. In the article I read, some homosexuals were quoted who can no longer live without fear. One of them said that she can't hold hands with her girlfriend on the streets anymore because people will stare with disgust. There has been a clear increase in violent attacks against gay people as well.

What shocked me most, though, was a comment made by the state television's Vice-Secretary-General Dmitri Kisseljow during a TV show. He said something like: "I think it's not enough to punish gay people because of gay propaganda around minors. Gay people should not be allowed to get semen or blood donations and after a fatal car accident, you need to bury or burn their hearts as they are unsuitable for a prolongation of life-no matter for whom."

Reading all that, it's impossible to think that just about 10 years ago, the famous (apparently) lesbian duo "t.A.T.u." was Russia's contribution to the Eurovision Song Contest.

Yeah, Russia is a bad place. I can only suppose that there is enough unrest among people that the government has chosen gay people to be a scapegoat and work up the dregs of their society to support Putin and his crowd.

It's been in the news a bit since they're hosting the Olympics and there's been talk back and forth about whether people should boycott, or how safe it would be for gay athletes or visitors. I know I'm not going to watch the games this time.

^ After reading the above, I think I'll be boycotting the Olympics as well. That's horrible. No one should have to live in those conditions. That's psychologically damaging. :(

Does anyone else get tripped up by labels? I just realized that I have recently described myself as pansexual (because my romantic attraction to people is based on their personality), bisexual (because I tend to be romantically attracted to both genders), but also asexual (I don't seem to be sexually attracted to anyone ever.) It's confusing. After looking at the term bisexual, I guess I can't really apply that to myself because it implies sexual attraction. Bi-romantic would be more accurate? I know a lot of people kind of hate these extra labels, but I personally love them - I need that extra nuance or else I'm just misrepresenting myself.

To be honest I feel like labels should either be kicked out entirely or they should be really nuanced. If we stop using them then we'll have to get to know people individually, but if we keep them then we give everybody the chance to find something that works for them.

I guess if people use labels and how they use them is entirely up to them. I personally don't see a point in looking for the "right" orientation desperately. So, I wouldn't overuse (is this even a word?) labels like Magic Christmas Lights does but if you feel best that way, then why not? I just call myself bisexual but sometimes, I think it'd be best to go without a label. I just like people. That's it. It doesn't really matter to me if I'm attracted to guys more romantically and to girls more sexually. I don't see a point in making a fuss over my orientation like that. It took me long enough to realize that I like both anyway XD

LaVida said:

I guess if people use labels and how they use them is entirely up to them. I personally don't see a point in looking for the "right" orientation desperately. So, I wouldn't overuse (is this even a word?) labels like Magic Christmas Lights does but if you feel best that way, then why not? I just call myself bisexual but sometimes, I think it'd be best to go without a label. I just like people. That's it. It doesn't really matter to me if I'm attracted to guys more romantically and to girls more sexually. I don't see a point in making a fuss over my orientation like that. It took me long enough to realize that I like both anyway XD

Click to expand...

When the big three (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual) both don't describe you and would actually misrepresent you to others, it's hard not to "overuse" labels.