Dawn: Is that supposed to scare me? Spike: Little tremble wouldn't hurt.

'The Killer In Me'


Spike's Bitches 24: I'm Very Seldom Naughty.  

[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risque (and frisque), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.


vw bug - Jul 05, 2005 6:02:27 am PDT #8450 of 10001
Mostly lurking...

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


Cashmere - Jul 05, 2005 6:03:36 am PDT #8451 of 10001
Now tagless for your comfort.

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.


Susan W. - Jul 05, 2005 6:04:30 am PDT #8452 of 10001
Good Trouble and Righteous Fights

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


Fay - Jul 05, 2005 6:04:40 am PDT #8453 of 10001
"Fuck Western ideologically-motivated gender identification!" Sulu gasped, and came.

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!


beekaytee - Jul 05, 2005 6:11:19 am PDT #8454 of 10001
Compassionately intolerant

("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.


-t - Jul 05, 2005 6:14:55 am PDT #8455 of 10001
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration

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.


brenda m - Jul 05, 2005 6:19:03 am PDT #8456 of 10001
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

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.


Topic!Cindy - Jul 05, 2005 6:20:10 am PDT #8457 of 10001
What is even happening?

-t, I will try not to startle Walter, seeing as how he is your dog, and therefore a Buffista by proxy.

...

ION, all you new mothers who are diapering your babies, are bad, improperly attached, and completely inept. Good, caring parents of any quality at all, are now toilet training themeselves newborns. I read it on the internet(s), so it must be true.

@@ ... @@ ... @@ ... @@ ... @@ ... @@ ... @@ ... @@ ...


Beverly - Jul 05, 2005 6:21:13 am PDT #8458 of 10001
Days shrink and grow cold, sunlight through leaves is my song. Winter is long.

Erin, what about Julep, to go along with Gimlet? Take your ADs. And your anti-allergy stuff. Invest in swiffer cloths, or one of those wash-and-reuse magnetic dusting cloths.

I am a horrid environmentalist because I cling to my swiffers. There's something so relieving about seeing all that dust and crap go into the trash, rather than into the wash. There are nice things to be said about old houses, like oak flooring and wide millwork window and door casings and real plaster walls. But they produce more dust than you'd think possible, just by existing, and retrofitting can only go so far to help. I know I should vacuum more often, but my eyes are red and I'm sneezy for about 36 hours afterward each time, and I put it off because of that. I shouldn't.

Yay! for Tom and Nora settling in.


vw bug - Jul 05, 2005 6:28:18 am PDT #8459 of 10001
Mostly lurking...

Toto just got his very own e-mail address. He has a silly mom.