The Big Snoopy Thread of S-E-X



  • Since we've gotten on this topic in the Nerdy Jokes thread, we might as well get on with a separate topic for this.

    OK, Here are the questions (EDIT: I fixed the numbering, eventually):

    1. On the Kinsey Scale, what is sexual orientation?

    2. On the same 0..6 scale, what is your romantic/emotional orientation?

    3. What is your birth sex(es)? If you're intersexed, you don't necessarily need to go into detail about your anatomy, and in fact most people would probably prefer if you didn't (I don't care, but then I've had partners of atypical genitalia before).

    4. What is/was your assigned gender, that is, what were you raised as?

    5. What gender, if any, do you consider yourself to be? Answers are free-form, you can say 'truck' if you want to, just try to explain it if it is really complicated (BTDT).

    6. What gender do you present yourself in public as, if any?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    1) On the Kinsey Scale, what is sexual orientation?

    1. On the same 0..6 scale, what is your romantic/emotional orientation?

    2. What is your birth sex(es)? If you're intersexed, you don't necessarily need to go into detail about your anatomy, and in fact most people would probably prefer if you didn't (I don't care, but then I've had partners of atypical genitalia before).

    3. What is/was your assigned gender, that is, what were you raised as?

    4. What gender, if any, do you consider yourself to be? Answers are free-form, you can say 'truck' if you want to, just try to explain it if it is really complicated (BTDT).

    5. What gender do you present yourself in public as, if any?

     1. -100

     2. Don't understand the question.

     3. Male

     5. Male

     4. Chuck Norris

     5. Jedi


    Filed under: Interesting number ordering.



  • There are weird threads, uncomfortable threads, and then there's this.

    Besides, we're nerds. We transcendent the biological, psychological and social notion of gender and sexual orientation by not getting laid.


    Filed under: what do you mean we don't



    1. 3, edging towards 4 in practice - I've very much a bottom, and find it a lot easier to be approached by others than approach them myself, and most women aren't that forward. The fact that I weigh a ton and look like a road accident is probably part of it too.

    2. 3

    3 & 4) I am genetically and physiologically male, and was raised as such.

    1. I really don't know, and while I don't really consider myself either male or female, I am increasingly moving towards female.

    2. I present male, at least so far, because of, well, inertia. I look male, and can fake a certain amount of male behavior, but it's an act and I know it.



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    1) 3, edging towards 4 in practice - I've very much a bottom, and find it a lot easier to be approached by others than approach them myself, and most women aren't that forward. The fact that I weigh a ton and look like a road accident is probably part of it too.

    1. 3

    3 & 4) I am genetically and physiologically male, and was raised as such.

    1. I really don't know, and while I don't really consider myself either male or female, I am increasingly moving towards female.

    2. I present male, at least so far, because of, well, inertia. I look male, and can fake a certain amount of male behavior, but it's an act and I know it.

    @Kuro said:

    Main question here is: Why would anybody here care?

    <!--no soup for you-->

  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Wow, when you quote me out of context (and post order) like that, I sound like a dickweed (and not the pedantic kind).

    I just want to make sure that in no way am I downtalking the outing @ScholRLEA has been practicing. I am just not seeing the importance of this topic and the initial questions!

    Filed Under: If you quoted me to say the same thing but in a different context, thats fine. I just wanted to make sure :D


  • SockDev

    1. Male.

    2. Male.

    3. Male even if I do happen to like purple and occasionally some pink and things like that.

    4. Male.

    I am naturally the downfall of women in the IT sector (as per the misandry thread on the matter)



  • I'm a gender neutral otherkin. I rate a 3.4x1.5x-1.6 on the latest 3-dimensional Kinsey Scale (I'm aroused by sea clamps and the sounds of a bide flushing). My birth sex is "OH MY GOD KILL IT KILL IT", but I was raised a fire-hydrant (I get triggered at the sound of fire trucks, so warnings please!). I present myself using Power Point.

    Also, tumblr is that way :arrow_lower_right: :arrows_counterclockwise: :arrow_up_down:



  • Are those index card measurements?



  • I thought about typing a response that just answered, "I don't give a shit," or "I don't want to know" (in various humorous re-wordings) to every question, but then I got lazy and didn't.

    So just assume I did and laugh at how clever it would have been.



  • Hahahahaha! Hahah... ha!

    Oh blakey, never change.



  • Thank you.



  • @Kuro said:

    If you quoted me to say the same thing but in a different context, thats fine. I just wanted to make sure

    Pretty much so, yeah.

    It's just that we don't give a shit. Half of the people here are carefully crafted personas anyway. Half of the people here admit to various sexual acts involving each other and purple inanimate objects. Worst of all, those halves don't entirely overlap.

    Really, we don't look into your bed, or care whether you're male, female, or still working it out. It's the internet - you might as well be a cocker spaniel, and nobody would notice nor care as long as you produce quality posts.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    you might as well be a cocker spaniel, and nobody would notice nor care as long as you produce quality posts.

    That might be a way to identify cocker spaniels on this board! Just look for the quality pots!

    Filed Under: This post alone proves I am indeed not a cocker spaniel!



  • @Kuro said:

    Just look for the quality pots!


  • SockDev

    I might as well answer this... twice for reasons that will become apparent later.

    IRL:

    1. varies 0-3
    2. pretty solid 0, ranging to 2 in certain circumstances
    3. Male
    4. Male
    5. Male
    6. Male

    Online:

    1. Varies wildly, typically about 3.
    2. Irrelevant. Personality matters.
    3. Female (in so far as that's possible in cyberspace)
    4. Female
    5. Female
    6. Typically unspecified, if specified Female

    Long story about that split. I could be persuaded to tell it over PM if you are really interested.

    The short version was i created Accalia as a means of escaping a very rough high school experience and kept her going pretty much constantly since then to the point that I'm not "me" online if i'm not Accalia.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Since we've gotten on this topic in the Nerdy Jokes thread

    It's certainly right to split it off from there; it's not funny. Or interesting.



  • Trying to classify sex on a numeric scale is certainly nerdy though.

    Which value means "ladykiller studmuffin"? 27?


  • :belt_onion:

    i think this place just turned fullon 4chan.
    a zoequinn slutdramafest thread and now this.

    is it time to bookmark the likes topic and avoid reading the rest altogether?!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Trying to classify sex on a numeric scale is certainly nerdy though.

    Personally, I'm 3+7i.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    You should've gone for a full tensor.

    "Male or female?"
    "Neither; mathematician."



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    you might as well be a cocker spaniel, and nobody would notice nor care as long as you produce quality posts.

    Though cocker spaniel's would probably produce more entertaining posts then some of what goes on here.



  • I think this thread is a bit too... "progressive" for TDWTF. That's probably not the right term.



  • @darkmatter said:

    i think this place just turned fullon 4chan.a zoequinn slutdramafest thread and now this.

    Just?

    Par for the course.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Personally, I'm 3+7i.

    So what you're saying is that it's... complex?


  • SockDev

    It might be a little mature for TDWTF, given what i've seen of some members posting habits, but progressive? nah.

    and @dkf Actually i do find this interesting, but you are more than welcome not to read if you don't find it so.



  • @accalia said:

    It might be a little mature for TDWTF, given what i've seen of some members posting habits, but progressive? nah.

    You may be underestimating the conservatism of some of the most active members (judging by their output to date).

    Frankly, I'm at a bit of a loss here. Fundamentally, I agree with @Maciejasjmj. I don't think people here give a flying fuck - and rightly so.

    On the other hand, nobody's forcing them to read this thread, so why not?

    On the third hand (I keep it in my other jacket), opening up too much on a forum like this, where trolling and snark are rife, is probably asking for grief. Perhaps I'm underestimating the tact and empathy of the forum members now, but the progress of this thread does not fill one with optimism.

    I suppose the question is whether there's enough genuine interest to keep a thread like this going without devolving into something shameful. If not, perhaps it would be better to make it a private topic between those who are interested.


    Filed under: IDK, just throwing it out there


  • SockDev

    @GOG said:

    You may be underestimating the conservatism of some of the most active members (judging by their output to date).

    eeh, you are right about the conservatism of some. Of course I would welcome disputation with them if engaged with an open mind and willingness to learn/acknowledge the opposing side of the argument. I certainly would be holding an open mind (i also keep it in my other jacket).

    If they can't hold an open mind or acknowledge that my point of view, while different from theirs, is also valid. well in that case they're just bags of hot air and i can ignore them.

    @GOG said:

    On the third hand (I keep it in my other jacket), opening up too much on a forum like this, where trolling and snark are rife, is probably asking for grief. Perhaps I'm underestimating the tact and empathy of the forum members now, but the progress of this thread does not fill one with optimism.

    It may be asking for grief. I've dealt with that enough over the years and know how harmful that can be. I prefer to think that while we may spout vitriolic opinions about the correct text editor to use (ViM or death!) we know enough to stop ourselves from striking out against personal targets.

    I might be proven wrong, but until then i prefer to be optimistic. I'm usually pleasantly surprised.



    1. 1 (I can explain what this means to me if you really want, but you probably dont)
    2. 0
      Male for all the rest.


  • @dkf said:

    You should've gone for a full tensor.

    Never go full tensor.



  • @accalia said:

    @GOG said:
    On the third hand (I keep it in my other jacket), opening up too much on a forum like this, where trolling and snark are rife, is probably asking for grief. Perhaps I'm underestimating the tact and empathy of the forum members now, but the progress of this thread does not fill one with optimism.

    It may be asking for grief. I've dealt with that enough over the years and know how harmful that can be. I prefer to think that while we may spout vitriolic opinions about the correct text editor to use (ViM or death!) we know enough to stop ourselves from striking out against personal targets.

    I might be proven wrong, but until then i prefer to be optimistic. I'm usually pleasantly surprised.

    Last week at work we were "kindly asked" to auto-evaluate our teams against the "values" of the company, and one was something in the lines "We are respectful of each one's individuality" or something like that.

    I give you the same answer as I did to my team leader: as long you are not a complete stupid jerk, I'm ok with you1.

    From my early days dealing with like-minded people, I learned that we as a group just don't care. @accalia, @ScholRLEA or @Maciejasjmj might share what the "society" considers deviant behaviour (purple objects, really?), and some of us might have issues with that due to our beliefs and/or upbringing, but we'll respect the person you are and even more for your competence.2

    [1] At the time I used a more politically correct sentence. [2] Otherwise we wouldn't stand @blakeyrat


  • @accalia said:

    eeh, you are right about the conservatism of some. Of course I would welcome disputation with them if engaged with an open mind and willingness to learn/acknowledge the opposing side of the argument. I certainly would be holding an open mind (i also keep it in my other jacket).

    Mostly, progressives have no clue what conservatives think about things. I probably have different thoughts on this topic than most people, let alone conservatives.

    Mainly, I feel bad for practicing non-heterosexuals as they are effectively volunteering for Darwin awards, but in a less entertaining fashion than the typical winners. As most of these people are not related to me, it doesn't bother me too much, frankly. Though if you start to get into specifics, I'd likely get a little grossed out. But then you probably would, too, if you watched me eat buffalo wings.


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said:

    Mostly, progressives have no clue what conservatives think about things. I probably have different thoughts on this topic than most people, let alone conservatives.

    see? This is exactly why i'm interested in talking about things like that. + 50 internetz to you, as well as some of my cookies if i can figure out how to scan them into the internet.

    If you are willing to consider and learn about my position i'd love to learn about yours! the more we understand each other as the complex individuals we are the better everyone's life will be.

    or so I believe. You are of course welcome to have your own opinion, and i'd love to hear about it!

    slightly off topic: @GOG now that i think of it i'm somewhat surprised that you didn't use on 'the gripping hand' It seems rather apropos in this context to me.



  • @accalia said:

    If you are willing to consider and learn about my position i'd love to learn about yours!

    That's very wise. Whenever you're confused, just ask, what would @boomzilla think? You'll still be confused, but you'll probably be angry at me for my triggering ways and you'll realize that your original problem isn't a big deal.


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said:

    [snip]what would @boomzilla think?[snip]

    ROFL! WWBT~!

    that is going in my book of acronyms to use when confused. i hope you don't mind.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Careful, blakeyrat also starts with a "b"

    Filed Under: And boomzilla and blakeyrat don't always think the same thing!



  • @accalia said:

    i'm somewhat surprised that you didn't use on 'the gripping hand'

    I might have, had I been aware of the book before now.

    @boomzilla said:

    I feel bad for practicing non-heterosexuals as they are effectively volunteering for Darwin awards

    You are aware that carries the tacit assumption that propagation of the species is somehow valuable from an individual perspective?

    I posit it is wholly indifferent in the long run: non sum, non cura.


    Filed under: [t]rolling with Epicurus



  • This is definitely the wrong forum for this topic.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    WTF kind of thread did I just stumble in to? I consider myself an enlightened and open-minded person, but now I am not so sure because I don't even know what we are talking about...

    confused



  • @Intercourse said:

    I don't even know what we are talking about...

    So, just yer bog-average TDWTF thread, then?



  • I think we have enough varied answers here to confirm that meeting up for an orgy would work.

    who's organising it?



  • If anyone is really interested in this kind of stuff, by the way, there's this book that I haven't read but that I've heard people claim is good.

    Edit: fuck, how do you change the post you are replying to? Discourse not helping as usual.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Keith said:

    5. Jedi

    I'm relevant!


  • SockDev

    @Arantor said:

    5. Male even if I do happen to like purple and occasionally some pink and things like that.

    Nothing wrong with liking purple (as my avatar would attest to) :smile: Nothing wrong with liking pink either, tbh.

    As for my answers: 1, 0, male, male, male, male.

    ...and Dicsource fucked up the numbering in the quote.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RaceProUK said:

    ...and Dicsource fucked up the numbering in the quote.


    Filed under: That's just par for the Discourse


  • @GOG said:

    You are aware that carries the tacit assumption that propagation of the species is somehow valuable from an individual perspective?

    I am. It is certainly valuable to me. I've always been fascinated by how biology apparently encodes instinctual behavior. I mean, simple things like eating, OK. But from watching animals, it seems like there are many more complex things that get in there. The drive for procreation certainly seems to be there.

    This seems like something hard wired in us, as a species. Obviously, some people seem to get different instructions somehow, whether genetic, developmental (e.g., hormones in the womb) or perhaps a trauma (childhood abuse) or whatever. It's not clear how and why, but obvious (and not new) that some people go a different way.

    The radical feminists will tell you that no woman is naturally heterosexual. This seems like it would be self defeating if true. I think they need a lot more evidence than political screeds before that becomes plausible.

    We've managed to evolve as a society so that the majority of people otherly-wired can mostly live pleasant lives (as pleasant as it gets for any of us, at least). I'm not sure if that's as easily done for the groups that remain. Their issues seem to be as much personal as social.



  • @boomzilla said:

    The radical feminists will tell you that no woman is naturally heterosexual. This seems like it would be self defeating if true.

    Hardly. Bear in mind that evolutionary solutions do not need to be perfect - merely good enough. Anything that does not make the survival/propagation of a given set of genes completely impossible, may well be carried over across countless generations - and why not?

    @ScholRLEA brought up the Kinsey scale. Once we see sexuality as a continuum, we realise that only people who are 100% homosexual - and militantly so - would be lost to natural selection. The rest of the scale is pretty much fair game.



  • @GOG said:

    Hardly. Bear in mind that evolutionary solutions do not need to be perfect - merely good enough. Anything that does not make the survival/propagation of a given set of genes completely impossible, may well be carried over across countless generations - and why not?

    Of course. But I don't think the radfem theory fits this bucket. If every generation has to fight just to want to reproduce...you get pandas, apparently.

    @GOG said:

    @ScholRLEA brought up the Kinsey scale. Once we see sexuality as a continuum, we realise that only people who are 100% homosexual - and militantly so - would be lost to natural selection. The rest of the scale is pretty much fair game.

    Agreed. But according to the radfems (and Women Studies 101), our society (and pretty much all societies) is Rotherham writ large, grooming girls to go against their natures to love men and have babies.



  • @GOG said:

    Hardly. Bear in mind that evolutionary solutions do not need to be perfect - merely good enough. Anything that does not make the survival/propagation of a given set of genes completely impossible, may well be carried over across countless generations - and why not?

    @ScholRLEA brought up the Kinsey scale. Once we see sexuality as a continuum, we realise that only people who are 100% homosexual - and militantly so - would be lost to natural selection. The rest of the scale is pretty much fair game.

    Also, evolution doesn't necessarily optimize for every individual's genes to spread forward; only the majority. That's why you have things like altruism and self sacrifice.

    A hero sacrifices themselves to save many other people that are maybe genetically related, but not direct descendants. Hero's genetic line dies off, but some of the related genetic lines survive and carry some of those genes with them.

    So homosexuals might not see their genetic line continue, but their fashion advice can make the rest of us look fabulous as we move forward. :-)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    The radical feminists will tell you that no woman is naturally heterosexual.

    Wishful thinking on their part?
    @GOG said:
    Anything that does not make the survival/propagation of a given set of genes completely impossible, may well be carried over across countless generations - and why not?

    Evolution by natural selection only really predicts that for things that are zero cost. The greater the cost of a behaviour, the more likely it will get weeded out. Which isn't to say that homosexuality is that bad in evolutionary terms: if it increases the survival rate of nephews and nieces, it could indeed be quite strongly adaptive. Dawkins's insight about genes being the unit of selection, not people, is useful here.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.