(Post a new comment)

	ladylisse 2003-12-17 06:50 am UTC (link)
	I only got through about half of that. Then my brain imploded. Yow. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	livviebway 2003-12-17 06:51 am UTC (link)
	Towards the end there's actually some more LOTR related wank of the "Oh come on, don't you see the sexual tension between all the characters?" "You only see sexual tension if you WANT to see sexual tension!" variety. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: ladylisse 2003-12-17 06:53 am UTC (link)
	Damn. Maybe I should start at the bottom and work my way up. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	iczer6 2003-12-17 07:00 am UTC (link)
	I loved the 'why isn't my bigotry accepted' wank. Dude wasn't there a law made about that? Anyone recall what it was? And is there any way to reply to that aside from saying 'you're an asshat'? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	livviebway 2003-12-17 07:03 am UTC (link)
	I know there's a law for "I have a friend who's gay..." Which one is that? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cleolinda 2003-12-17 07:26 am UTC (link)
	Is it the same law as "Some of my best friends are [ethnicity here]!"? I love that gambit. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	firedragon1234 2003-12-17 08:07 am UTC (link)
	TBQ's Law says that anyone who engages in gay-bashing with the excuse of "I have a friend who's gay" automatically loses the argument. I don't know if there's an ethnicity law like that. Maybe you're thinking of Stormfreak's Law or the Law of Acquaintance Irrelevance. Gotta love jurisimpredence! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	firedragon1234 2003-12-17 08:08 am UTC (link)
	Er, I meant jurisimprudence. My bad. (Reply to this)(Parent)

cleolinda
2003-12-17 08:11 am UTC (link)

Hmm... sort of like those, only it usually tends to come up right after someone is accused of being racist. "But some of my best friends are black/Hispanic/Asian!" Kinda sounds more like this one ("But I have gay friends!"), rather than the one about randomly bringing race up in the first place, or invoking your friends in Wankoffistan who give you so much credibility on the topic.

I swear, I need a law degree to keep all these straight.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	firedragon1234 2003-12-17 08:16 am UTC (link)
	I swear, I need a law degree to keep all these straight Jeez, I know! See comment below about digging though jurisimprudence every five minutes. Fandom wankers. We're like lawyers, in a way. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	photosinensis 2003-12-17 05:55 pm UTC (link)
	Ah yes, fandom_wank law school. It'd be perfect for all of those internet discussion laws. And I always thought f_w was more like the Supreme Court, in a way. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ecchaniz0r 2003-12-17 10:26 pm UTC (link)
	We are SO not like the supreme court. We have a collective IQ of more than fifty, so we're not like the supreme (gets shot repeatedly) Whaddaya call a lawyer with an IQ of twenty-five? Your Honour... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-17 11:20 pm UTC (link)
	49 of which belong to Sandra Day O'Connor. Not that I agree with her politics, necessarily, just that she works that swing vote like it's going out of style. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kookaburra 2003-12-17 07:42 am UTC (link)
	Errg, I'm all for freedom of speech, even hate-speech, but don't those people realise that they're on a PRIVATELY RUN MESSAGE BOARD, and so the admins can ban any kind of speech they choose? Ghuh. People sometimes >. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	firedragon1234 2003-12-17 08:18 am UTC (link)
	I loved the 'why isn't my bigotry accepted' wank. Dude wasn't there a law made about that? Anyone recall what it was? I think that's Mpoetess's Law of Intolerance. Is there an updated list of the law anywhere? Seems like I go through the archives of jurisimprudence twice a day to find the law I'm looking for (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	iczer6 2003-12-17 09:04 am UTC (link)
	YES! That's the one I was talking about. I nominate myself to apply the much needed bitch slapping in this case. Icz (Reply to this)(Parent)

bastet
2003-12-17 07:56 am UTC (link)

I read the whole thing, and it was almost worth it for this:

I'm gay myself, and can assure you, we are the master race. We have abilities that set us apart from normal humans. We are hated, despised, reviled, when all we want is a chance to share the world and teach the lessons that must be learned. We are ... X-Men!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	munchkinott 2003-12-17 04:43 pm UTC (link)
	fangirls your icon Murphy and Camier! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	panthea 2003-12-17 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	MURPHY AND CAMIER! ::fangirls:: Waiting for Borot, indeed. g (Reply to this)(Parent)

	amand_r 2003-12-17 08:44 pm UTC (link)
	Something smells like strawberries... ::dies:: (Reply to this)(Parent)

	maryavatar 2003-12-17 03:57 pm UTC (link)
	Damn, the mod has gone through and deleted all the good bits. pout (Reply to this)(Thread)

	rann 2003-12-17 10:57 pm UTC (link)
	Aieeeeeeeeeeeeee! Icon of psycho hose bitch! dives into hiding (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2003-12-17 05:51 pm UTC (link)
	My favourite quote is towards the end where the guy says that he couldn't imagine Gandalf being portrayed by a homosexual actor. Makes you wonder how he/it would react if they found out Alec 'Obi-Wan Kenobi' Guiness was a closet homosexual ... Brings a whole new meaning to "use the Force, Luke" I can tell you ... nonny (Reply to this)

	thoms 2003-12-17 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	blink Okay!! (Reply to this)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2003-12-17 07:34 pm UTC (link)
	:nods: Completely true about Alex Guiness - point is made in the most recent autobiography on him that came out (as it were) last year. Turns out he was arrested in Liverpool in the 40s but got away with it by providing a false name. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: thoms 2003-12-17 07:37 pm UTC (link)
	No, that's cool... I guess I just didn't clarify. Meant that the "okay!!" was at all the wankers at the IMDB threads. My bad. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2003-12-17 08:41 pm UTC (link)
	Oh no - sorry - my bad - wasn't paying close enough attention to the indent thingies on the replies. Sorry! Nonny (Reply to this)(Parent)

bunny
2003-12-17 07:02 pm UTC (link)

It was worth reading through that crap for these two comments:

Using the word "queer" as in sult was homophobic and childish.

They should have just called you a troll and been done with it.

and

I hate to break it to you, though his comments were not appropriate...
'queer' does not refer solely to homosexuals, it refers to anyone whose sexual fancies are queered between categories. It may be used towards homosexuals, but in educational and sociological discussions the word is used to encompass transexuals, transvestites, crossdressers, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, mormons, crossdressing necrophiliacs, bisexual crossdressers, gay crossdressers, straight crossdressers, gay mormons, people that are only aroused my hermaphrodites, people who love elephantitis of the genitals, priests, straight atheist men who dress up as priests and engage in necrophillic activities with dead hermaphroditic children that have been cross-bred with monkeys, people who imagine themselves making love to jesus when they make love to bearded truckers, and really any combination of the above. Oh yeah, also work in beastiality, bondage, pregnant chicks, watersports, paripalegics and republicans. Also if you are a man and enjoy watching lesbians go at it in movies (or even two straight women) you are queered. That is not a straight desire, the male urge to watch female on female porn is the representation of the male desire to be one of those women.

So saying that you are a CGI hating queer, though a viscious attempt to categorize you, might actually be applicable to your existence. (especially if you are catholic or republican)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	nokoru 2003-12-17 07:23 pm UTC (link)
	...Mormons? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-17 07:35 pm UTC (link)
	...polygamist Mormons, I guess. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2003-12-17 08:16 pm UTC (link)
	With a line like this: >>straight atheist men who dress up as priests and engage in necrophillic activities with dead hermaphroditic children that have been cross-bred with monkeys, >> ...they cannot be serious. Granted, I'm not howling in laughter, but I think the Mormon bit is a joke. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	nokoru 2003-12-17 08:24 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I know it's a joke. Just not a very funny one. I mean, is "Mormons" the best they can come up with? What about "clown porn enthusiasts" or "nudists with traffic cone fixations" or something? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2003-12-17 09:01 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, okay, I'm following now. Who knows, maybe they think it's instant comedy gold. Blech. Joke was driven into the ground and staked through the heart, anyway. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	bunny 2003-12-18 12:14 am UTC (link)
	What about "republicans"? We get instant-wank out of this guy's inclusion of mormons as not-straight, but none out of Republicans? For shame, people, for shame. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	yadda 2003-12-18 01:17 am UTC (link)
	Political wank in the comments? What do you think this is, otf_wank? (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2003-12-17 07:44 pm UTC (link)

*delurking, though not long enough to sign in ;)*
Also if you are a man and enjoy watching lesbians go at it in movies (or even two straight women) you are queered. That is not a straight desire, the male urge to watch female on female porn is the representation of the male desire to be one of those women.

That is very interesting in a slash perspective! :D (Almost as funny as slashphilosophy)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	rann 2003-12-17 07:49 pm UTC (link)
	Also if you are a man and enjoy watching lesbians go at it in movies (or even two straight women) you are queered. That is not a straight desire, the male urge to watch female on female porn is the representation of the male desire to be one of those women. Ah, broad psychological analysis by idiots... is there anything it CAN'T do? ^.^ (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-17 11:22 pm UTC (link)
	Wonder what they'd make of my boysex-fic-loving self. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ecchaniz0r 2003-12-18 02:05 am UTC (link)
	Something Freudian, probably. I never understood Freud. That's probably because I am Jung at heart... (is slain) Call me Id-chan. (poing!) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-18 02:44 am UTC (link)
	Fairy taaaaales... could come truuuuuuue... It could happen to youuuuuu... If ~~your animus is~~ you're Jung at heart... (Reply to this)(Parent)

De-Lurking Sociologist

(Anonymous)
2003-12-18 05:12 am UTC (link)

Hello. I felt the need, as a sociologist (or future one -- I'm working on the Ph.D.), to pop in and make sure that THIS PERSON HAS NO IDEA WHAT SOCIOLOGY IS!

OK, excuse my airing of personal issues:-) Than said, the word "sociology" doesn't mean "critiquing people who are different from you." There's some really interesting REAL social theory and research that's been done on sexuality, most of it much more exciting (to me) than biological debates. Everytime some jerk think's s/he's being sociological by pontificating about their own bigoted world view, I'm convinced that someone will forever equate the word sociology with judgemental pseudo-science and never actually find out what it's all about. And for the record, "queer theory" is a contemporary social theory. This is one of the few ways that I can imagine a sociologist using the word in academic life, unless quoting a participant in a study.

I'm back to lurker-dom, now. Please feel free to ignore my PR rant, and thank you all for the endless hours of amusement.

CJ

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: De-Lurking Sociologist

diamonde
2003-12-18 07:04 am UTC (link)

most of it much more exciting (to me) than biological debates

No! It can't be true! *cuddles biology*

But seriously. I think the seperation of sociological and biological perspectives on homosexuality are more a hinderance than a help. There's a lot of neat stuff that I found studying zoology and genetics which gets missed in the sociological studies because the people publishing the information are biologists and it doesn't occur to them that their research could be considered in that way. So it sits in the back of an animal behaviour journal without so much as a keyword reference. It's a real pity.

Like that for some monkeys homosexual relationships are socially quite important and doesn't have any effect on reproduction. But the monkeys had lesbian love affairs, it was so sweet. Hell, there's a paper out there published by one of my professors about the reproductive consequences of homosexual rape in nematodes. But all that research is done by biologists and often ones who have absolutely zero interest in humans. I mean, he just put 'homosexual rape' in the title because he thought that would make the other worm-researchers' eyes go all buggy for a minute. Which it did.

And I'm going to take my geekiness away now. *g*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: De-Lurking Sociologist
(Anonymous)
2003-12-18 07:44 am UTC (link)

"Like that for some monkeys homosexual relationships are socially quite important and doesn't have any effect on reproduction."

See, I think this is actually why the sociological is more interesting to me... there's no social stricture on who monkeys can mate with. In the past, homosexuality was unheard of in many societies -- not because it was verboten, but because it was simply not thought of as an aberration. Similarly, heterosexuality was not really constructed; hell, often it didn't matter if you liked or even knew your mate so long as you had enough kids to get the work done (or a son to carry on the family name if you were monied). The ideas of homo and heterosexuality came about with the idea of romantic love. The acts? always there. This is what interests me:-)

And now is the place where I apologize for spamming the thread.

CJ,
the social constructionist.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: De-Lurking Sociologist mrbimble 2003-12-18 07:14 pm UTC (link)
	and the history major in me is fascinated by this... so it's not the just the scientists that find biological/societal discussions of homosexuality interesting. you're not boring at all and I hope you continue to de-lurk often! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: De-Lurking Sociologist puipui 2003-12-19 09:51 am UTC (link)
	Hell, there's a paper out there published by one of my professors about the reproductive consequences of homosexual rape in nematodes. Who's got that nematode icon? Won't someone please think of the nematodes? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: De-Lurking Sociologist ecchaniz0r 2003-12-19 10:59 pm UTC (link)
	SMO! Gitcho' nematodes in here, womang! (poing sparkle) And, like...how can one tell whether or not nematodes are having consensual sex anyhow?? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	coyotegirl 2003-12-18 05:10 am UTC (link)
	Aw. It's gone! (Reply to this)