patrick.net

@curious2, how can person evaluate and critically analyze something if xe has no education in the field?

There are more red flags in course description:

disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature, and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.

Drawing from traditions as diverse as evolutionary biology, LGBTQ+ movements, feminist science studies, and environmental justice, this course will highlight the complexity of contemporary biopolitics,

This is bat-shit crazy crap. Biology will be analyzed based on "LGBTQ movements"? WTF?

dr6B says

how can person evaluate and critically analyze something if xe has no education in the field?

That's a good question, and I would be curious to see the reading materials and the direction(s) of student research, but all advances in every field have come from people who learned things they had not been taught in school. For example, Thomas Edison had attended only a few months of school. His mother taught him at home, and he read books, and he visited Cooper Union, but he had no formal degree of any kind. Nobody taught him how to make a light bulb, or even that it could be done, and yet he did it.

Automan Empire says

Everything that follows relegates to "Fruit of the Bullshit Tree."

I personally think that re-imagination of evolutionary processes in light of queer theory and heterosexist discursive is the ultimate Fruit of Bullshit

disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature, and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.

curious2 says

For example, Thomas Edison had attended only a few months of school.

Edison did not re-imagine light bulb in light of queer theory and heterosexist discourse.

dr6B says

curious2 says

For example, Thomas Edison had attended only a few months of school.

Edison did not re-imagine light bulb in light of queer theory and heterosexist discourse.

He re-imagined light. In one of his early demonstrations, he hired people to wear light bulbs on their heads. Onlookers were shocked, because it looked like the wearers' heads were on fire. Nobody had ever seen anything like it before.

He had also a major role in the development of motion pictures. One of the first showed a train on a track, and the track turned toward the camera, and the train approached the camera. Audience members ran out of the room. They had never seen a train moving directly toward them unless it was an actual train moving toward them.

Turning to the OP course description, a serious research area in the developed world involves the evolving methods of reproduction. IVF, for example, was opposed by the Vatican, but is now ubiquitous in the west. (I miss @turtledove, who could explain in greater detail.) Japanese researchers can convert skin cells into eggs or sperm cells. Within a decade, we will probably see an artificial uterus. That involves re-imagining heterosexuality.

curious2 says

That involves re-imagining heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality yes, but not heteroSEXIST discourse, which is one of keywords for SJW nonsense. I think you are too non-cynical and kind in believing that a course such as this will contain anything other than FWM basing. Teacher has gone through SJW education, has extensively published SJW nonsense masquerading as research, has not published a single biology-related article, and description of course is full of SJW terms. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is duck.

dr6B says

I think you are too non-cynical and kind

Thanks - you are the third person in as many days to call me too kind, the others being IRL. As for being cynical, IDK, I presume innocence wrt the New School, having met extremely smart people who studied there years ago.

dr6B says

has not published a single biology-related article

I agree with you that is a bad sign.

curious2 says

Within a decade, we will probably see an artificial uterus. That involves re-imagining heterosexuality.

Really?

Just because science can sew a dick onto a chick, doesn't mean I need to "re-imagine the sexes".

Just so crazy how less than half a percent of the population who have some clear biological and/or psychological abnormalities requires us to "re-imagine" immutable biological facts.

socal2 says

less than half a percent of the population

Most of the demand for new reproductive technology comes from women, especially the growing number who postpone childbirth for various reasons. Women are a majority of the population. Again, I wish @turtledove were here to explain these facts to you in greater detail.

curious2 says

Most of the demand for new reproductive technology comes from women, especially the growing number who postpone childbirth for various reasons.

Does this mean we can have even more single mothers!

The liberals did a great job "re-imagining" the nuclear family and look what it got us over the last 30+ years. Vast majorities of African Americans and Hispanics born to single parents and guaranteed poverty, crime, dysfunction and a lifetime need for government assistance.

socal2 says

Does this mean we can have even more single mothers!

Is that a question, or an exclamation? If you have a question, then perhaps you should read more widely or ask IRL. The advancing technology means more people can become parents if they want to. That includes married women, who are likely most of the customers. Again, if @turtledove were here, she could provide greater detail.

dr6B says

I personally think that re-imagination of evolutionary processes in light of queer theory and heterosexist discursive is the ultimate Fruit of Bullshit

disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature, and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.

Calm down there, Archie Bunker!

Obviously YOU see no utility in not seeing the universe solipsistically in terms of human gender and reproduction.

Examples of usefulness of other paradigms have already been brought up. Science fiction writers imagined non-binary reproductive biologies such as two males and a nonsentient female for one example. I read these during my formative years and it didn't harm my heterosexuality but enriched my imagination.

So, WHY does it matter to you that these ideas are discussed?

NuttBoxer says

Every society that has embraced homosexuality on a mass scale has soon after found themselves at the bottom of the food chain.

LOL such backwards ignorance. The Spartans became the most powerful Greek state until the Athenians, and then the Romans, and all three embraced ubiquitous homosexuality. The Roman republic had same-sex marriage for centuries, founded the western world, and ruled for 1,000 years. Rome's big mistake was allowing Constantine to impose Christianity, which Nietzsche called slave morality. Christian Rome prohibited homosexuality, and then declined and fell.

curious2 says

Christian Rome prohibited homosexuality, and then declined and fell.

Embrace the ghey - or decline and fall!

It's history!

I wonder if that is what the Vatican was thinking when they embraced gay priests?

No society 'embraces' homosexuality because homosexuality is in every human population and society. It's there whether it is 'embraced' or not.

Automan Empire says

Science fiction

The course in question is most definitely not science, and at best very poor fiction. Questioning currently established understanding of biology because of "heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature" is what I consider being equal to religious right.

Automan Empire says

Science fiction writers imagined non-binary reproductive biologies such as two males and a nonsentient female for one example. I read these during my formative years and it didn't harm my heterosexuality but enriched my imagination.

I really do not care if this or anything else would or would not change your or anyone's else sexuality. What I have problem with is that people with no biology background try to reinvent biology based on their ideological leanings.

socal2 says

I wonder if that is what the Vatican was thinking when they embraced gay priests?

Please address that question to the Vatican, not me. IIRC, the Vatican has a 'don't ask don't tell' policy requiring gay priests to be closeted and chaste for 3 years before becoming priests. IOW, the Vatican acknowledges the need for gay priests, but insists on secrecy.

curious2 says

The Spartans became the most powerful Greek state until the Athenians, and then the Romans, and all three embraced ubiquitous homosexuality.

Not only that, but they embraced also pedophilia. Ancient Greece is the origin of Western Civilization as we know it today despite all of this which apparently did not prevent their progress.

In any case, the issue here is not homosexuality as such, or if it is right or wrong (I'd say depends on religion person belongs to), but the fact that Social Justice Warrior without biology education is trying to reinvent biology.

dr6B says

Automan Empire says

Science fiction

The course in question is most definitely not science, and at best very poor fiction. Questioning currently established understanding of biology because of "heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature" is what I consider being equal to religious right.

Automan Empire says

Science fiction writers imagined non-binary reproductive biologies such as two males and a nonsentient female for one example. I read these during my formative years and it didn't harm my heterosexuality but enriched my imagination.

I really do not care if this or anything else would or would not change your or anyone's else sexuality. What I have problem with is that people with no biology background try to reinvent biology based on their ideological leanings.

100% agreed. However they seem to be privately funded - albeit non profit - so they can exercise their free speech and for profit teaching of falsehoods.

mell says

privately funded

Student loans might not be private, although I agree with sentiment.

dr6B says

mell says

privately funded

Student loans might not be private

True. I'm against their existence anyways.

mell says

dr6B says

mell says

privately funded

Student loans might not be private

True. I'm against their existence anyways.

It would be appropriate to limit student loans to fields that are in high demand, e.g. if we do have a STEM shortage, or to limit payment to a % of taxable earnings. The tech sector seems to need more software engineers all the time, so it would be a reasonable investment to finance CS degrees and have the IRS collect repayment as a function of revenue. You could deputize private companies to make the loans but only the government has the power really to collect.

Young Guys getting their dicks sucked by younger guys kept them from trying to sneak into the homes of Older Guys and banging their young wives. Gave them something to do while they waiting in line to get married. In return they were supposed to coach the young kids. But there's reason to suspect this was a rich person thing and not something the tradesmen or ordinary farmers did.

Regardless, An older married man still chasing after Young Dudes OR a Young Dude being the passive partner of a younger dude was considered a subject of much tittering. "Time to Grow Up". A 30-year old married man still chasing about 17-year old boys would be considered the same as a 30-year old collecting GI Joe and watching the Smurfs, today.

One of the reasons Socrates was despised was because he was married, older, but still chasing young guys togas.

In Rome it was Okay to Be Gay, but it took away from your Manhood to be the passive partner. The Romans thought that all excessive sexual activity depleted your spirit, though, whether it was male or female.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

There is no shame in beating anyone to death and raping their still-warm asshole for entertainment, dismembering the body and feeding your family and pets with the remains, exactly as the Founding Fathers recommended.

I thought this is what the Philistines did after a successful battle: identified the still living, sodomized them alive, then cut their throats, and enjoyed the death throes and twitches on their phallus.
The Founding Fathers were Philistines!

curious2 says

LOL such backwards ignorance. The Spartans became the most powerful Greek state until the Athenians, and then the Romans, and all three embraced ubiquitous homosexuality. The Roman republic had same-sex marriage for centuries, founded the western world, and ruled for 1,000 years. Rome's big mistake was allowing Constantine to impose Christianity, which Nietzsche called slave morality. Christian Rome prohibited homosexuality, and then declined and fell.

Rome never allowed homo-sexuality except in the case of slaves. Just because some revisionist history propagandist wants to push gay as normal doesn't mean you should pull your pants down and assume the position. But maybe you can explain to me how being gay in the modern sense creates heirs to continue the empire..?

Thought so.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/roman-law-and-banning-passive-homosexuality-00832

Monogomy isnt natural.

Sex w at least 2 women at once is the only solution

Ceffer says

No society 'embraces' homosexuality because homosexuality is in every human population and society.

Yes, people have free choice in every society in history, but that doesn't mean cultures are ambivalent about the subject. Societies still held views on the act, the same way we do today. Such a nihilistic statement.

CBOEtrader says

Monogomy isnt natural.

Maybe.

But monogamous cultures are much more successful and peaceful than the polygamous and tribal cultures where a few powerful or rich dudes hoards all the women leaving a bunch of dudes with no sexual partners and often end up like cannon fodder.

China is going to have real problems since their idiotic forced abortion program created a massive gender imbalance since many aborted their baby girls.

NuttBoxer says

Rome never...

That's false. Your own link says "declared illegal" in 390AD, i.e. during the final century of Rome's 1,000 year reign. Centuries prior to that time, Nero was married twice to men, once as the bride. Hadrian, the third of Rome's "five good emperors," was gay exclusively and devoted to Antinous; Hadrian adopted his two successors, both of whom went on to distinguish themselves as good emperors in their own right. Yale History chair John Boswell cited Cicero in writing that the Republic had same-sex marriage. Rome rose as a republic with freedom of religion, continued to prosper as a polytheistic empire, then became Christian, then declined and fell.

Prior to Rome, add the Spartans, Athenians, Thebans, etc.

These people built western civilization.

curious2 says

"declared illegal" in 390AD

Probably due to Christianity (worship of Roman gods was made illegal in 391).

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

This is why AMERICA! elected a PRECEDENT! who spends all his time sucking PUTIN'S cock until his ear drums shatter, exactly as the Founding Fathers commanded.

Exactly as Family Values Protector Larry Craig ordered!

Ceffer says

No society 'embraces' homosexuality because homosexuality is in every human population and society. It's there whether it is 'embraced' or no

That's true, but it can be "embraced" by the process of what Daniel Patrick Moynihan described as "defining deviancy down": "Defining Deviancy Down (DDD) was an expression coined by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1993. Moynihan based his phrase on the theory of Emile Durkheim that there is a limit to the bad behavior that a society can tolerate before it has to start lowering its standards. In ’93, the senator applied his slogan to the “moral deregulation” that had eroded families, increased crime, and produced the mentally ill “homeless” population."

This principle was also applied in the 1970's when the American Psychological Association under tremendous political pressure from the gay lobby removed homosexuality as a disorder.

P N Dr Lo R says

American Psychological Association

There was pressure to uphold science. The "disorder" classification was an anachronistic presumption that had no basis in science. It had originally been intended partly to divert criminal defendants (e.g. Alan Turing) from incarceration to 'treatment', but of course the treatments were ineffective because there was no disorder to treat. Compared to Henry VIII's capital punishment on the basis of Leviticus, the chemical mutilation of Alan Turing might have seemed less bad, but either way there was no scientific basis to call him disordered.

P N Dr Lo R says

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I voted for Senator Moynihan, and remember his record well. He stood among the minority of Senators who opposed the unconstitutional and badly misnamed "Defense of Marriage Act," which Bill Clinton signed in the middle of the night between sessions with a certain intern. Senator Moynihan, who had argued genuinely in defense of marriage for decades, opposed that bill because it was actually against marriage. It prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage until SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional in 2015. As for "defining deviancy down," which was mainly about crime and serious mental illness, you might want to read your list of examples, because you seem to imagine something else being on the list when it isn't actually.

Deviance and Variance are not the same thing, especially since Deviance carries some baggage in terms of pejorative implications based on subjective reaction.

Ceffer says

Deviance carries some baggage in terms of pejorative implications based on subjective reaction.

And deservedly so. I can tell you for sure that our parents and grandparents wouldn't have had any trouble calling it deviant. But that's not the point, it comes from the larger sphere of the cultural Marxists wanting to remake society in its own image. And here again I bring on David Horowitz and his explanation of how ideology resulted in the AIDS epidemic:

"Who but a sexual radical would have failed to realize in 1969, the year of "Gay Liberation," that promiscuous anal sex, conducted with strangers, was unsanitary and dangerous and a threat to public health? Yet, gay liberation was so defined, that sex was transformative and challenged the heterosexual and monogamous norms of the Judaeo-Christian culture. Gay activists rejected the idea of integration into a normal functioning civil order, and instead maintained a defiant promiscuity in order to overthrow bourgeois morals and sexual restraints and, consequently, bourgeois standards of public hygiene."

Here's the complete text:

https://www.jpands.org/hacienda/horowitz.html

The article is pretty militant and blame seeking. The epidemiology of diseases would not indicate that gays were solely responsible for the spread of AIDS, although anal promiscuity certainly created rapid vectoring spikes. AIDS originated and spread quite effectively in African heterosexual societies. Also, AIDS would have become a major health hazard eventually with or without the lab rats who first spread it. It is just not true that draconian clamp down on gay sex would have prevented an epidemic. It is more along the lines that the epidemic first grossly manifested in obvious ways amongst promiscuous urban gay males.

In 1969, ALL sex was open season whether gay or hetero. Heterosexual sex had the usual constraints of female salesmanship and extortion, which made it still more expensive and less common, even in a liberated environment in which birth control was introduced to ease the nominal restrictions. However, birth control did not eliminate ancient built in circuits determining the sexual relationships between men and women. It is somewhat strange that heterosexual males take credit for restraint, when it was actually constraint imposed by women. If the average heterosexual male could pick up the phone, and have sex within an hour with a reasonably attractive and willing female partner with no strings, do you really think that most would not? That's not moral behavior, that's being clubbed off by female vetting.

Is there any such thing as 'clean' sex? The purpose of sexual behavior is to promulgate a selective genetic infectious transfer ultimately with the inducements of pleasure and release in the process. Go to any of the ubiquitous porno sites, and it seems that heterosexual anal sex is the fondest fantasy of the typical male judging from the content. Also, incest fantasies are extremely common, indicating that standard male sex fantasies are anything but 'moral'. If anal sex is the metric, than judging from the content, heterosexual men are starved for it, probably because of the not so admirable fantasies of dominance, conquest and possession. So how much is left to judge anybody's interest in anal sex?

Obviously, nature has rewarded heterosexual pair bonding with a higher degree of successful reproductive results. It's healthier, two individuals are ideally suited to aid one another in life's struggles, and accumulation, division, and transfer of assets can be reasonably assessed. However, no matter what anybody asserts about unconditional love and mutual regard, it is a highly contractual and conditional relationship. Judging from the number of divorces, it is also not nearly as satisfying as heterosexuals claim. It seems to accomplish the infatuation, fuck, reproduce then move on time frame of seven to ten years before psychologically expiring.

In 1969, in addition to the cyclic societal trend toward general permissiveness in sex, there was the perception that ALL venereal diseases had been conquered by science, and there was no reason to worry about them any more when it came to indulging sexual appetites. Mother Nature, as usual, delivered the whammy that humbled everybody.

socal2 says

CBOEtrader says

Monogomy isnt natural.

Maybe.

But monogamous cultures are much more successful and peaceful than the polygamous and tribal cultures where a few powerful or rich dudes hoards all the women leaving a bunch of dudes with no sexual partners and often end up like cannon fodder.

I had a bunch of biology classes in college and learned many boring things, and a few interesting things. One of the interesting things is that in any animal species, having physically larger males than females is a reliable and proportional sign of polygyny (one male monopolizing more than one female). Since human males are somewhat larger than human females, it is quite likely that polygyny was the norm throughout much of our recent evolution. There have been calculations derived from human genetic variation that concluded that for the last million years or so, only about half of all men had the chance to mate and have children, while the other half got two women on average. All women capable of reproducing did so, not necessarily voluntarily.

But it does also seem true that this would make it difficult to have a stable society in the modern sense, given a large pool of men with no sexual outlet. One of the innovations of Islam is that the younger men without wives are strongly encouraged to go capture and then marry or enslave women from non-Islamic societies, the same way Mohammed did. And in turn raising sons who also need to go out and do the same. It was effective at keeping Islam stable until they ran out of non-Islamic women. The current strategy seems to be to flood into Europe.

NuttBoxer says

Rome never allowed homo-sexuality except in the case of slaves. Just because some revisionist history propagandist wants to push gay as normal doesn't mean you should pull your pants down and assume the position. But maybe you can explain to me how being gay in the modern sense creates heirs to continue the empire..?

That's high status.

Romans were always worried about losing their virility, especially in the leadership class. However, being the pitcher was never considered unmanly UNLESS you did so at the expense of regularly schtuping your wife and make children, which was considered not doing your duty to family and society.

In other words, bend over any dude you want, so long as you're making children. You can take dudes, but if you do it too much, it comes at the expense of tittering.

Caesar was accused of taking it in the butt, but it didn't kill his career because his military victories and legendary adulteries with powerful women offset it.

Ceffer says

AIDS originated and spread quite effectively in African heterosexual societies.

This is always brought up, the straight AIDS in Africa. The virus doesn't observe sexual orientation, all it knows is environment for it to propagate. It would have remained dormant indefinitely unless people began having large numbers of partners which greatly increased the chances of infection. The same high levels of promiscuity in this country among the gay male population were the same in Africa that existed among heterosexual men who left their villages for higher paying jobs in cities and encountered prostitutes since they no longer had access to their wives. There is also a huge stigma against homosexuality in Africa and indeed among the black population in general and few AIDS cases in Africa were going to be acknowledged as coming from male on male sexual activity.

Ceffer says

Is there any such thing as 'clean' sex?

Ceffer says

Go to any of the ubiquitous porno sites

In these cases, probably not.

Aphroman says

people who are bothered by other people being homosexual. Until i read the study that showed that 100% of those type of people get a raging hard on when watching gay porn

Larry Craig etcetera