I Finally 'Get' The Fluidity of Gender Idea

I have always accepted the idea of a sliding scale of human sexuality, but it never quite 'clicked' with me until now. Thinking of men, if a 'straight' dude had a sexual experience with another man, people would say "well then he's gay, or at least bi" and I always felt the same way (I would have said bi) although I didn't ascribe  any morality to it. I could not understand how a 'straight' dude could fool around with a gay guy and still be 'straight.' I mean, if you like girls you like girls, right? If you are into guys how could you possibly be with one in that way?

And then today it dawned on me. Well wait, we don't ascribe any sexual categories or morality onto masturbatory practices. You're not into dildos or a man's hand (it's yours but it's a man's), watermelons, etc. You just use them to get off. Everyone accepts that. No one makes sweeping/black and white statements about your sexuality based on these factors. And it was this thought that sparked the realization that well wait, why can't a person of the same gender be used in that way? Given the right circumstances, I could see how a person could use someone of the same sex in that way and how that would not speak to their preferences in terms of attraction.

Happy Single Man Day!!!

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, jack got married.....and now Jack looks defeated. 


Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. "Jack fell down and broke his crown," Jill said. Ya right. "If I can't have you,no one can," Jill said before she shoved Jack down the hill. 


Charlotte's web... 'Nough said! 


Happy Single Man Day, boys (yes, it's my own invention). Buy yourself a video game, drink a beer, scratch your balls, pass some gas and revel in your utter disregard for class! 

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism

From wiki (link above):

Anthropocentrism is either the belief that humans are the central and most significant entities in the universe, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.[1] The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures.

I think of anthropocentrism when I have discussions with theists regarding evolution. There are a number of traits that exist (like intellect, speed, strength, climbing ability, climate adaptability, etc), and we are the best, for all intents and purposes, at some of them, but lacking in others. These traits allow different species to adapt and excell in different ways. There's no right or wrong. There's no superior or inferior. It's all about adaptation, propagation, and survival.

Yet people hold our specific attributes to such a high regard, and really, I find that to be nothing but anthropocentrism. I don't see the justification for the view that we are superior. Our intellect is as useful to us as is the ability to play dead, pose as a log, camoflouge oneself like chameleons do, etc to other species. Yet people state that we're so superior, and they use intellect, the thing that we happen to possess (convenient, much?), as the indicator of this.

To me, this is just a self serving viwepoint, borne of a pre-existing idea, and supported by taking one attribute from a field of many equally useful (in the right circumstances) ones and arbitrarily proclaiming that particular attribute to be of the utmost importance or usefulness. And why is this determination made? How is it supported? Why? Because we possess that trait!!! Isn't that just wonderfully circular?

It's circular, it's self serving. It's anthropocentric.

At least in my view. Feel free to disagree (or heap praise upon me!).