Erin, Tulip is an excellent name. I hope you stop sniffling soon.

That's right. My mom's robin Bob has, sadly, passed. Now I'm trying to work it so that she sees Cat and is all "Aww, we can't just leave her. She comes with us!"

I can dream.

Anyone else having trouble getting into gmail?

Someone on my flist is, so it's not just you.

gmail's down for me, too.

gmail's been fine for me. Although, now that I say that, it'll probably start giving me trouble.

Mac is going to die bloody today. She was barking like a maniac at someone walking by and woke both me AND Owen up barely an hour into our nap. Grrrrrr.

Hopefully that means it's a big enough problem that they're scrambling desperately to fix it. And just yesterday I was saying how wonderful gmail was. Grr. t PMS I want my fucking email NOW! t /PMS

goes to read the article Brenda linked to.

Okay, yes, that's DUMB. Although perhaps it's just that the article is too brief and biased, but it certainly sounds dumb.

The researchers asked the men about their sexual desires and rated them on a scale from 0 to 6 on sexual orientation, with 0 to 1 indicating heterosexuality, and 5 to 6 indicating homosexuality. Bisexuality was measured by scores in the middle range.

Seated alone in a laboratory room, the men then watched a series of erotic movies, some involving only women, others involving only men.

Using a sensor to monitor sexual arousal, the researchers found what they expected: gay men showed arousal to images of men and little arousal to images of women, and heterosexual men showed arousal to women but not to men.

If this is how they're judging? I'd register as a gay man. Well, unless they were showing Bound. Then we'd be talking 50/50. Talk about your super simplistic and reductive attempts at representing sexuality, though - sheesh!

("Please accept these burnt offerings").

This would charm the heck out of me.

Much relief ~ma to Nora from a veteran of the UTI. Glarg. Awful feeling. Heavy on the aw HELL, not again.

gmail is working for me.

my dog got out the front door this morning and led DH on a merry chase, so now he is banned from the bedroom during the day. Um, the dog is. DH could theoretically go into the bedroom if he wasn't, you know, at work. Anyway, this means Walter (aforementioned dog) will not be able to crawl under the bed when it starts thundering, as it is supposed to do all day. Poor dog. I hope he figures out he can still hide under the coffee table.

If this is how they're judging? I'd register as a gay man. Well, unless they were showing Bound. Then we'd be talking 50/50. Talk about your super simplistic and reductive attempts at representing sexuality, though - sheesh!

Plus they recruited their teeny tiny sample from ads in gay newspapers - skew much? And a third - a third - of their sample gave them no data at all, which of course "did not affect the outcome of the study."

And while I personally find the Kinsey scale to be pretty resonant, am I wrong in thinking that in scientific circles it's not considered usable?

What really gets me is not that people are doing crappy research, but that the Times is putting this stuff front and center. As beth said

so the conclusion to the story brenda linked to is : we don't understand bisexuality. actually, as you read further - we don't understand sexuality - esp the part where physical brain and other organ interact.

but you have to get pretty far into it, and bring a fair bit of your own understanding of useful methodolgy, to get that. Slate linked it (uncritically) too.