IGX

Phaedrus wrote:

Kazuya Mishima wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:In all seriousness, though, this is all just a celebration of mental illness.

why do you think a man who calls himself a woman and has a tit job is mentally ill?

I know it seems obvious here at IGx, but it's a very unpopular opinion in my RL home of NY.

This really hits to the crux of the matter. Certain global agitators, left wing demagogues, and batshit crazy academics would have everyone believe that gender is some sort of socially constructed role that everyone learns in the sandbox and plays at for the rest of their lives in order to not upset the community apple cart. Doesn't take an astute observer to grasp the biological reality of the situation, and know that there are typical and atypical expressions of this very real phenomenon that stretches well beyond "some got penises, and some got vaginas". A man of this age (and hyper-masculine history) suddenly waking up and realizing, "Oh shit, I'm a woman" points to a very real and disturbing shift in this man's mental faculties with an origin that can only be explained by something going seriously haywire at the neural or hormonal level (and probably both). A truly human response would be "call a doctor and get every possible test run in order to figure out what's wrong before he starts believing he's the reincarnation of Elvis Presley". However, in the valueless landscape we find ourselves living in today where trans appreciation is an expected social courtesy rendered as blood payment for one's cis/white/male privilege, and otherkins are given equal voice at school gatherings because "gee, maybe they really are a penguin trapped in a human body", this atypical and disturbing behavior is now trumpeted as some sort of courageous act of personal expression and self-determination. All I see is a guy who has lost his goddamned mind, and the world seems more disturbed by my dismay than the very real disintegration of a man who used to represent the very flower of masculinity.

The day you wake up and realize you are a black woman is the day that I laugh and toast your name, my friend.

bennyonesix wrote:So you and Syaigh are arguing correlation without causation?

Or do you not think society is going to shit all around us?

Those are serious questions, not being facetious.

I mean, you may be right. Jenner's fame and approbation may be unrelated to the degeneration of society.

Or, society may not in fact be degenerating.

bennyonesix wrote:"Its the price of an overly civilized and affluent society, we find stranger and stranger ways to fulfill our needs to meet that survival instinct. Whereas it used to be about guarding the homestead with a rifle, now its having the most shoes. And that ultimately doesn't feel good to anyone."

100% yes.

But is the sensed crisis real?

bennyonesix wrote: Neurosis is not stable.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote: Look at homosexual marriage. I still can't believe that in such a short time the populace just accepted with a shrug a complete redefinition of a species-long tradition. Really, I can't believe it. It's some of the maddest Alice-in-Wonderland shit possible.

bennyonesix wrote:Do you distinguish between the cultural importance of the hijab case and Jenner?

syaigh wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:So you and Syaigh are arguing correlation without causation?

Or do you not think society is going to shit all around us?

Those are serious questions, not being facetious.

I mean, you may be right. Jenner's fame and approbation may be unrelated to the degeneration of society.

Or, society may not in fact be degenerating.

People are just getting more self-centered. And it makes them depressed. You see, people used to have to work really hard just to survive. Tragic shit was going on all around them, all the time. Now, the most tragic thing for most people is that they took a bad selfie. There's no challenge anymore. And the way this is scary to all of us is the rates of depression and suicide that are from a result of literally survival malaise. Its why people are seeking out more extreme versions of everything, they want to feel alive. They want to have value in themselves and there's not many people still around who can teach them how to go about it the right way. We coasted into the 70s-80s-90s, going "thank God we've survived this century and things are going to be better now!". But, we didn't realize that it was our very urge to survive that kept us going.

Its the price of an overly civilized and affluent society, we find stranger and stranger ways to fulfill our needs to meet that survival instinct. Whereas it used to be about guarding the homestead with a rifle, now its having the most shoes. And that ultimately doesn't feel good to anyone.

So, no wonder the christian right is praying for the end of times, we're all obsessed with zombie shows, and the gun enthusiasts are bunkering down with their weapons caches. We need some serious drama in our lives to feel like life is worth living.

Now, I don't think that has anything to do with Bruce Jenner. There have always been homosexuals and probably transgender people and not being either, I'd rather not opine about what its like to be either.

Phaedrus wrote:"brave" "stoic" "role model" "heroic" "fearless"

nafod wrote:

Phaedrus wrote:"brave" "stoic" "role model" "heroic" "fearless"

"Attention whore"

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote: Look at homosexual marriage. I still can't believe that in such a short time the populace just accepted with a shrug a complete redefinition of a species-long tradition. Really, I can't believe it. It's some of the maddest Alice-in-Wonderland shit possible.

Let me preface by saying...I give zero fux one way or another about famous trannies...nor should anybody with a job and a hobby..

but this statement in bold? Ummm...you high, Son.

As a species, we do not now nor have we ever practiced anything but theoretical monogamy and not for terribly long in human history at that. So, set aside the idea of contractual monogamy. As a species, what is "normal" is a massive range of behavior including but not limited to polygamy, polyandry, monogamy and outright long term buggery, situational buggery (LUG and Prison) and multilevel cross generational fornication...sometimes cross species with goats.

As primates we are rivaled only by the Bonobo with our fuckmonkey practicality. Not giving a fuck about Dem Gayz is a rare moment of fuckmonkey clarity for our culture....a moment that should be repeated with many other follow up moments of mind your own damn business and quite making stupid people famous.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote: Look at homosexual marriage. I still can't believe that in such a short time the populace just accepted with a shrug a complete redefinition of a species-long tradition. Really, I can't believe it. It's some of the maddest Alice-in-Wonderland shit possible.

Let me preface by saying...I give zero fux one way or another about famous trannies...nor should anybody with a job and a hobby..

but this statement in bold? Ummm...you high, Son.

As a species, we do not now nor have we ever practiced anything but theoretical monogamy and not for terribly long in human history at that. So, set aside the idea of contractual monogamy. As a species, what is "normal" is a massive range of behavior including but not limited to polygamy, polyandry, monogamy and outright long term buggery, situational buggery (LUG and Prison) and multilevel cross generational fornication...sometimes cross species with goats.

As primates we are rivaled only by the Bonobo with our fuckmonkey practicality. Not giving a fuck about Dem Gayz is a rare moment of fuckmonkey clarity for our culture....a moment that should be repeated with many other follow up moments of mind your own damn business and quite making stupid people famous.

I wasn't aware that monkeys have, or ever had had, a marriage rite.

Neither was I aware that our marriage rite - that of the Homo sapiens sapiens - permitted infidelity.

Unless you're just using the old canard of "apes do it so why can't we?" But, again, I'd ask, where ever have monkeys practiced the ceremonial rite of marriage? (And if they have, do they permit it for same-sex monkeys?)

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote: Look at homosexual marriage. I still can't believe that in such a short time the populace just accepted with a shrug a complete redefinition of a species-long tradition. Really, I can't believe it. It's some of the maddest Alice-in-Wonderland shit possible.

Let me preface by saying...I give zero fux one way or another about famous trannies...nor should anybody with a job and a hobby..

but this statement in bold? Ummm...you high, Son.

As a species, we do not now nor have we ever practiced anything but theoretical monogamy and not for terribly long in human history at that. So, set aside the idea of contractual monogamy. As a species, what is "normal" is a massive range of behavior including but not limited to polygamy, polyandry, monogamy and outright long term buggery, situational buggery (LUG and Prison) and multilevel cross generational fornication...sometimes cross species with goats.

As primates we are rivaled only by the Bonobo with our fuckmonkey practicality. Not giving a fuck about Dem Gayz is a rare moment of fuckmonkey clarity for our culture....a moment that should be repeated with many other follow up moments of mind your own damn business and quite making stupid people famous.

I wasn't aware that monkeys have, or ever had had, a marriage rite.

Neither was I aware that our marriage rite - that of the Homo sapiens sapiens - permitted infidelity.

Unless you're just using the old canard of "apes do it so why can't we?" But, again, I'd ask, where ever have monkeys practiced the ceremonial rite of marriage? (And if they have, do they permit it for same-sex monkeys?)

You are the one who used "species long tradition"...Species MutherFucker.

But if you're just sticking with recorded human history you're still wrong. There is no consistent practice wrt monogamy etc. in HUMAN History +/- 100k years. And yes...we absolutely allow for infidelity. In the most monogamous of all places, the West, divorce runs at close to 50%..and infidelity in major cities where people are willing to admit it it runs close to 30%. To discount actaul behaviour is like being a traffic engineer that assumes no one will speed. That's idiotic.

If you want to categorize behavior, you look at all the behavior. Discounting actual behavior is as stupid as discounting the black market in economics...Doesn't matter how you feel about it...it's normative behavior ..and it's what people have always done regardless of this arbitrary and fairly recent notion of "marriage".

Kazuya Mishima wrote:I AM TOO COOL AND BUSY WITH MY AWESOME LIFE TO COMMENT ON BRUCE JENNER BUT IM NOT TOO COOL AND BUSY WITH MY AWESOME LIFE TO GET ALL BUTTHURT AND COMMENT IN A THREAD ABOUT BRUCE JENNER

dead man walking wrote:there is an extensive record of societies in which fidelity is not required or expected in marriage.

my recollection is that there is an view that says once humans settled down and became owners of property, the economic bargain of marriage led to exclusivity (i don't want some other fucker's kids getting my land).