Monthly Archives: August 2011

Jadis Argiope “On The Topic Of Sexuality”


It is my belief that humans are born with an incalculable capacity for sexuality: And Straight, Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual don’t even cover a fraction of the sexual palate we are capable of.

Now, it is important to note: this is merely a capacity, not a hardwired predisposition. And that capacity is rightly organic and dynamic. And regardless of liberty or oppression, we should expect this capacity to diminish and increase countless times throughout our lives; closing off old avenues, opening up new ones; occasionally revisiting places we’ll swear never to return, only to find it different this next time around. And of course, some avenues may also be sealed off permanently, never to be opened again; and for this, there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation, or none at all.

Now this is not to suggest that we do not have our own genetic and biological inclinations. Certainly those are still factors, and often conflict (or perhaps compete is a better word) with such capacities. But that is a matter that we tend to resolve on our own. And no man or woman or God can make that call for us. This is most especially so because, as you’ll come to see, even when we write it all out in black in white, it never really remains all black and white.

Human sexuality is a remarkable thing, for it is truly undefinable. And it does not follow any particular set of rules; not even among those of the same culture or biological gender. Yet the formula is different from person to person, which is why any attempt to pathologise it is a mistake.

And I know, so many of us would have you believe that it is strictly biological, that we are merely “born this way”. But that is a gross over-simplification of the matter. And were there any validity to it, it would be downright depressing. That’s as bad as being told that heterosexuality is your only natural capacity which, to me, is nothing short of oppression. Either direction conforms to a narrow, rigid binary system, which amounts to the same ugly lie. But the bold and beautiful truth is, we have a lot more say in our sexuality, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not being honest with you, or themselves. All they are doing is shifting the burden of blame where no blame is to be had. There is no guilt. There is no culprit. Who the Hell is anyone to put us on trial for such a thing? So why are we pointing fingers? Our sexualities are own creations that we came by naturally, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of. So why not own up to our Selves, instead of running and hiding behind the guise of biology?

If anything, by shifting the blame onto nature, we only burden ourselves, because that is something that we cannot change, and thus should come to resent when persecution falls upon us. In such times, it comes to be viewed as a handicap, which it certainly is not. Yet is it any surprise that it is this very reason that so many of us are so reluctant to come out of the closet?

Now I know what you’re going to say, “if it’s not biological, it must be a choice, which means you all can still change.” And while that is dualistic thinking, I’ll give you half-credit, because that is half-true. We may still change. Allow me to repeat myself: WE MAY STILL HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CHANGE; or, rather, the ability to change our capacity.

However, as I said earlier, if certain avenues are cut off, they may be cut off for good, and trying to push a sense of normality on someone would only do them a disservice, as this rejection of their sexual validity could only be interpreted as an attack on their individuality (that inalienable right to one’s own sense of self-determination), and that goes against the very ideals that our forefathers fought and stood for. Ideals that have to come to fruition, and that you get enjoy, each and everyday.

No, any changes in someone’s sexuality has to come naturally through his or her own relationships within their respective environments (both internal and external), and by the values thy assign to the variables within those environments. Not through their relationship with Jesus Christ. And not through their relationship with their father or any special bonding events in the attempts to man them up — it just doesn’t work that way.

Change cannot be forced or coerced into being. Just as one cannot force you to enjoy certain foods you find unpalatable, you cannot force a gay man into enjoying intimacy with a woman, as much as you may try. He has to come to develop those desires on his own. So while tastes may change over time, you certainly cannot rush them.

But I would also like to emphasize that it works other way around.  Just as a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual individual may have the potential to develop a heterosexual lifestyle, so too can they develop the other way around. In fact, in recent years, it has become clearer to me that this is more often the case.

As the stigma upon such sexualities is lifted, more men and women are finding themselves at liberty to explore those other avenues of their sexualities; a perfect example of the aforementioned avenues closed, now re-opened. And I think that’s a good thing. It only justifies my feelings of just how much we truly aren’t hardwired by nature. Instead, it proves to me that any argument outlining how heterosexuality is the only natural conclusion (while rendering all others unnatural deviations) is, consequently, fallacious.

Now I’ve just said a lot, and I’m sure you all have your opinions of your own that you would like to share. So I will take this opportunity to invite you do so now, leaving them in the comments below.


On The Topic of Reform


An unpopular Sage once said: “If you are righteous, people will want to agree with you all the way up until you contradict their way of life; no one wants to hear that they’re part of the problem.”

So the question remains: How do you get the guilty to surrender some of the comfort that they’ve grown so accustomed to — a comfort that comes at another’s expense?

Forgive me, my dear audience. I have addressed a problem without offering a solution. But then, I don’t have enough pieces to construct such a thing. Not yet. Perhaps you could offer me some material to work with?

Please leave any suggestions in the comments below?

It’s About….



•Create a need (disaster)

•Market that need (Faux News. Unfair. Unbalanced.)

•Anonymously or, otherwise, indirectly offer your solution (how best to attend to that need)

•Refrain from supplying that need until the public demands it (Artificial Restrictions)

•Hold off just a little while longer (Time=Pressure)

•Give the people what they want (Mission Accomplished)



Teabagger rant translated and put into perspective:

“Why do Democrats, who insist on keeping Creationism out of the classroom — while pushing Evil-lution — also insist on expanding healthcare to the poor, the sick, the needy, the decrepid and elderly, with tax dollars not being taken from the rich and powerful Elite?

“That’s just hypocritical, if you ask me. It goes against nature. You know, survival of the fittest? We’re only helping the weaker dogs to live yet another day, so that the big dogs still have fresh meat for their left-overs for those days when they’re too tired or lazy to catch their own prey.”