Forum: Author Hangout

I'm a 12 year Army vet who spent some time with the Special Forces guys (a couple of years assigned to sixth group as an intel specialist).

I get it.

Yeah, that kind of training tends to stick with you.

Military service tends to stick with everyone who has experienced it, regardless of what they did in the service. The only thing Ex-Military means is you are no longer on active duty.

Some, yes, but that kind of advanced training does something else.

I was changed by Airborne training, in a big way. Before I went to Ft. Benning the Army seemed like a club to me. Yeah there was the physical stuff. Hell I had recently been to the Defense Language Institute for 18 months to learn Arabic. Probably one of the most difficult courses mentally in the service. Think of it as college, six classes a day, five days a week, all on the same subject.

Then by absolute craziness I ended up in Airborne school, I didn't volunteer, (and yes, long story, that's not supposed to happen). What training like that does is push you so far beyond what you thought you were capable of. Two weeks later I was in Air Assault school, because, of course, my Airborne training got me sent to the 101st Air Assault Division, go figure.

Later I would go through something even crazier, open water survival training. Imagine, being blindfolded, oh yeah, actually blindfolded, sat into a metal cylinder and strapped in. That device then dropped you into a pool. Then it rotated you 180 degrees until you were upside down. Then and only then you unstrapped yourself, and had to get out of that cylinder by a pre-selected route. Not the closest, you might be in the right-rear cabin seat and be assigned to go out the left front pilot's door. Obviously divers were standing by :p

Stuff like that redefines what you thought you were capable of. That ability to redefine yourself is what sticks with you, not necessarily the skills you gain.

Our military training was vastly different. What you underwent changed you and you carried those changes with you into civilian life.

My units mission was classified Top Secret; it has since declassified, but I don't discuss it for a variety of reasons. I was not allowed to talk about anything that I did during and after my active duty period. Since I have never been re-briefed, I am still not supposed to talk about it. The experience changed me in many ways by reinforcing my introverted personality. Something I have overcome in the past 30 years.

My units mission was classified Top Secret

Well yeah, all that, but if I told, say, an infantry soldier what my base job classification was, he'd tell you that I was "an intel weenie".

What I did in actuality was far more difficult than he could imagine.

base job classification

The only thing someone could have determined from my AF MOS code was I worked as an electronic maintenance man. Nothing else was mentioned. My discharge papers list me as working in a career field other than the one I actually worked in. During basic I was given the choice of 2 career fields. One was a classified unit and no information about what I would be doing. The second option would have had me working in an exposed position at the top of tall towers in Vietnam. I figured that would make me sniper bait, and my life expectancy was longer with the first option.

My units mission was classified Top Secret; it has since declassified, but I don't discuss it for a variety of reasons. I was not allowed to talk about anything that I did during and after my active duty period. Since I have never been re-briefed, I am still not supposed to talk about it. The experience changed me in many ways by reinforcing my introverted personality. Something I have overcome in the past 30 years.

You sound like my late father-in-law. He would never talk about what he was doing when he was in the Air Force - even though we all knew where and when he was deployed, and what we were doing there at that time.

My own service was simple, not classified, although I did have a TS clearance. I'm NBC - nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare. Because of when I was in, I knew way too much about Soviet plans and capabilities in the mid-80's, as well as the effects of ... everything. Sort of like the old saying in our corps - did Saddam have WMD? Of course he did - we kept the receipts. I know guys that were exposed to stuff over there before the war while acting as UN guards - that's one reason he kicked the UN out, their 'guards' were trained NBC troops. Duh.

I'm certainly guilty of the instant wealth thing. :p

In that case, could you share the results of your ill-gotten gains with the rest of us. After all, you still have another couple lives to recoup even more. ;D

Either because they never settled down for some reason, or because of some "tragic event" in their past.

Or 'the bitch' traded up to a sleazy politician/lawyer, not realising the protagonist was a secret millionaire and had a sex repertoire that would leave a porn star envious.

AJ

Someone who died was killed by a drunk driver.

Absolutely!

I came up with a bridge that was hit by a barge in one of my stories just to avoid the drunk-driver thing. :p

I came up with a bridge that was hit by a barge in one of my stories just to avoid the drunk-driver thing. :p

Let me guess, the barge driver was drunk. 'D

Penny's From Heaven

Greengrocer's Apostrope ;)

AJ

Finally there's the Trope Trope trope, where someone decides to lambast the exact same tropes that everyone else attacks, bringing nothing new to the conversation. 'D

Like I said, don't attack them, just have fun with them. When visiting that TV-Tropes site I found a dozen of them in my own writing.

I don't judge because they exist in your writing or anyone elses.

Like I said, I thought I made some of this shit up on my own, only to find a whole site dedicated to it.

Dead baby-sister is actually on the site. So, guilty again.

I don't judge because they exist in your writing or anyone elses.

Agreed. They are certainly in my stories.

Like I said, don't attack them, just have fun with them. When visiting that TV-Tropes site I found a dozen of them in my own writing.

I don't judge because they exist in your writing or anyone elses.

Like I said, I thought I made some of this shit up on my own, only to find a whole site dedicated to it.

The key to that realization isn't to avoid a whole category of popular stories, instead it's to recognize the weaknesses in the existing stories, and to present an additional challenge in recognizing them, and trying to work around them without weakening the underlying strength of the sub-genre.

Sometimes, recognizing a problem within a story is enough to win over doubtful readers, while taking a different tact will delight those already familiar with the tropes.

Just because it's been done a lot doesn't mean it can't be done well.

The key isn't that tropes are dead, but that they need to always be looked at with fresh eyes, occasionally turning them on their heads, inside out, or having them fail miserably when they're most needed (i.e. the Special Ops agent falling flat on his face, leaving the 'terrified girls' to save his sorry ass).

However, if it's already been done a thousand times, chances are, people are already sick of it, so you need to try something new!

However, if it's already been done a thousand times, chances are, people are already sick of it, so you need to try something new!

I will never get sick of those stories/movies. If they're done well, that is.

I will never get sick of those stories/movies. If they're done well, that is.

Ah, that's the key. Part of doing a story well is understanding what's been done previously, and presenting an original interpretation of it, as opposed to merely regurgitating another of the same story, already endlessly repeated.

We enjoy these tropes, not because they're so predictable, but because they continue to surprise and intrigue us.

In my current work-in-progress novel, the protagonist is ex-Army Ranger/Special Ops. It worked for Jack Reacher

Jack Reacher would be the first to tell you he is a former Army MP, and that his metabolism is such that he's tall and fit and doesn't have to work out---aside from throwing bad guys around, I guess---to stay that way.

It's the main reason Tom Cruise didn't seem like a good fit, although I think he's done a fairly credible job. Books are better than the movies, however.

bb

Jack Reacher would be the first to tell you he is a former Army MP

I know he was an MP, but he must have been something else too because they couldn't find any record of him other than collecting his pension (only saw the movie). It was the skills he had that I was referring to, like the Liam Neeson character in "Taken."

It was the skills he had that I was referring to, like the Liam Neeson character in "Taken."

He certainly has the skills, you're right in that, but if we are to believe Mr. Childs and the Jack Reacher Internet Military-Industrial Complex, he was in the Army, MPs, for thirteen years. That's it. No secret SEAL training, Marine Force Recon, LURP* teams, etc., etc. There is some indication he learned to fight when he was a kid, apparently.

Virtue of the creator: endow your character with whatever you want. The movies may have taken their own liberties. I've only read three or four of the novels.

*That's a phonetic spelling.

bb

Most people read to escape their daily life, so they want something that's different to what they see each day, they want the larger than life character - so we authors deliver them such characters.

Ah, the 'wish-fulfillment' theory of fiction writing. Though it completely ignores the 'allowing the reader to see parts of themselves they never considered' or the 'imparting broader messages about readers' lives' schools. 'D

Sometimes, reminding readers that they can still achieve great things, even though they're no longer in their prime, is important too. (Consider that an alternate wish-fulfillment.)

I've just read yet another female columnist moan about how uncomfortable thongs are to wear. Since schools routinely make PDAs nigh on impossible (unlike SOL schools, where there's always an empty classroom or closet for a quickie), I'm pretty sure most real life schoolgirls dress for comfort. I'd be willing to conduct an official survey - in the interests of science, of course! :)

AJ

another female columnist moan about how uncomfortable thongs are

It has never made much sense to me for a person, male or female, to select and wear the current fashion trend and then complain about discomfort, and that is especially true, when common sense would tell them that similar prior garments were uncomfortable, so this garment will probably be uncomfortable also.

It has never made much sense to me for a person, male or female, to select and wear the current fashion trend and then complain about discomfort, and that is especially true, when common sense would tell them that similar prior garments were uncomfortable, so this garment will probably be uncomfortable also.

This goes to the previous argument about art reflecting life. The more unattractive girls (i.e. those heavier than normal) tend to find thongs more uncomfortable, simply because they don't fit as well and don't 'hold everything in the right place', while those who are already model thin don't mind the minor discomfort because of the positive reinforcement they provide their ego (something the less attractive wouldn't appreciate).

Just imagine a two-hundred pound teenage girl showing off her new thong and the male protagonist having to bit his lip, lest they curl in disgust. 'D

The cuter the teenage schoolgirl, the more likely she is to wear a thong to school or no underwear at all.

Again, that fits into the 'fiction reflecting reality' argument, as few fat girls would ever be caught dead in a thong.

as few fat girls would ever be caught dead in a thong.

Really? I thought the purpose of a thong was not to show a panty line and it would be more apparent with a large butt.

Really? I thought the purpose of a thong was not to show a panty line and it would be more apparent with a large butt.

I suspect that's largely a common myth, as I can't imagine a thin string digging into your flesh not standing out worse than an indention spread out across a larger area.

if your underwear is leaving welts or otherwise leaving any kind of significant impression upon your skin, you're either doing something wrong, or wearing a compression garment.

Or simply aren't a size "0" fashion model with zero body fat. Most people require a certain amount of 'support', even in the best of circumstances, thus they'll end up with specific bulges when their underwear tries to constrain certain body parts.

Again, for those of us who can wear those garments (like Speedos) without an issue, they're fine, but I dislike when discussions like this disregard 80% of the population just because they're not our ideal fantasy partner.

I'm assuming SB meant a pantyline over their pants/short/whatever while you mean a pantyline digging into their skin.

I understood what he intended, as many people espouse how thongs look better by not showing the the panty line through the clothes worn over them. However, my point is, for slightly heavier people, the logic seems to fail, as they're more likely to dig into the skin, producing bigger bulges through the clothes. However, I don't have much personal experience with them (my wife and kids always refused to wear them, though I always wore Speedos (aka: "banana-hammocks") anytime I visited a beach requiring clothing.

But you don't normally wear them in the crack of yer ass ... unless I'm wildly misinformed about the Aussies!

Oh, sometimes a person wears a thong in their arse, but only after the angered someone enough the person kicked them in the arse so hard the thong got stuck there.

here in Australia what we call thongs you in America call flip-flops

I actually got corrected on that mistake in a story. Although "panties" and "briefs" are plural, "thong" is not. When it is, it's the flip-flop.

I actually got corrected on that mistake in a story. Although "panties" and "briefs" are plural, "thong" is not.

So they'd say a person has a drawer with a dozen thong in it? I doubt it. I can understand when a person puts on a single unit where you'd say a person puts on panties you'd now say she put on a thong. But when you're referring to multiple units I'm sure the word is thongs.

them thongs is pretty sexy things

The thongs or what is in them? :)

Why not a pair of bras though?

The very early coverings that were the ancient predecessors of the bra were a single band of cloth tied around the upper female torso to help hold the breasts in place and protect them while working . it was a single item.

Early pants and pantaloons were tubes of cloth which a person put one of each on each leg and tied the top to the bottom of the shirt, then a version with string threaded through them keeping them together in a pair and they tied the string around their wist. In both these early versions they only covered the thighs and posterior and weren't joined in the centre. Thus the plural terminology.

if you call it's tail a leg?

Is that what is meant by a leg up? :)

How many legs does a dog have if you call it's tail a leg?

That's easy. The number of legs a dog has if you don't call its tail a leg, then add one. Unless, like a dodgy coin, the dog has two tails, for which you'd need to conduct a two-tailed statistical test.

AJ

New reality check - if a man starts wearing women's clothes and calls himself a women, that makes him a woman. To say otherwise discriminates against transgender people and constitutes a hate crime.

So by precedent, a thing is whatever you call it :(

AJ

New reality check - if a man starts wearing women's clothes and calls himself a women, that makes him a woman. To say otherwise discriminates against transgender people and constitutes a hate crime.

^--- Demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding and compassion about what being Transgender is. Transgender people (of both sexes) recognize that something is wrong from early childhood - long before they know what Transgender is.

^--- Demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding and compassion about what being Transgender is. Transgender people (of both sexes) recognize that something is wrong from early childhood - long before they know what Transgender is.

And bitching about 'thought police' dictating speech is out-of-line. In case you haven't noticed, there are no hate crime regulations or protections concerning the transgendered. Instead, there's a movement (mostly among the younger generations who've grown up with many of them) trying to change the preconceptions of the older generations (much as they did concerning blacks in the 60, woman for centuries and gays in the 90s.

there are no hate crime regulations or protections concerning the transgendered

Although it is largely up to individual police forces, most in the UK now treat attacks on transgenders, verbal or physical, as a hate crime.

BTW, the professionally offended will probably take issue with your use of the word 'transgendered'. I suggest you duck.

AJ

BTW, the professionally offended will probably take issue with your use of the word 'transgendered'. I suggest you duck.

Sorry, "transexual". "Gender" is a fairly nebulous term when dealing with transfolk, as it refers to societal expectations more than anything else. Still, I suspect you're coming 'professionally paranoid' about the supposed 'professionally offended'. People take offense when someone says something either completely ignorant (not simply typos) or make outright bigoted and hateful comments. There's a BIG difference between having an opinion and trying to marginalize and harm people.

Still, I suspect you're coming 'professionally paranoid' about the supposed 'professionally offended'.

With the current trend for 'safe spaces' and 'no platforming', I can see why the current generation are being labelled 'the snowflake generation'. Perhaps political correctness isn't such a rampant juggernaut in the US.

AJ

Perhaps political correctness isn't such a rampant juggernaut in the US.

Again, I'd argue it's not so much "political correctness" as it is "generational blindness". In a country where one side can't agree with anything the opposition stands for, you can't expect people to 'politely disagree'. Hell, they shoot people for not putting their blinkers on, and gay and transfolk are more likely to be murdered than to raise their voice in a public forum, so I think—all things considered—that we're doing fairly well as it is.

@Ross at Play

I suggest CW, especially, has no reason to duck.

Thanks for that. It's nice to know that taking a stand counts for more than merely making yourself available as a punching bag by the offended/offensive.

ignorant/lazy(can't be bothered to change their habits) crowd

I don't recall the exact words, but one Trump supporter was quoted as saying -Yes I know Trump is a liar, but I believe he is telling me the truth.

If someone wants something badly enough, if you tell them you can give them what they want, they will believe you.

A certain someone famously said, "If you tell a big enough lie, everyone will believe you." What's most telling, is that even as he was saying that, they believed everything he said. By the way, that behavior led to his government's downfall, and sealed his fate (though I can't remember whether he was executed or died in prison).

I agree with you DS. Wishful thinking is very powerful and it has led many of us into disastrous situations.

There is a reasonable argument that says there can be instances when there is not time for that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a common protest, but the argument isn't against making quick first impressions about someone, it's the ability to set those first impressions aside after encountering someone and allowing their behavior and personality to change your opinion that defines you as a human being. Otherwise, your value as a human is no more valuable than a simple Google search algorithm.

long before they know what Transgender is.

I agree Wheezer.

Transgender is nothing more than a label for what some people feel about their gender. That feeling sometimes conflicts with the gender assignment society forces on them, but it doesn't mean they are wrong or that their feeling are incorrect or improper.

Demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding and compassion about what being Transgender is. Transgender people (of both sexes) recognize that something is wrong from early childhood - long before they know what Transgender is.

Sorry if it's not politcally correct, but I call bullshit.

There was a lawsuit in Colorado. Interesting article about a a couple suing the local school system because their son wasn't allowed in the the girl's bathroom. Seems the couple decided their son "identified" female because he played with dolls. Even had a picture of the lovely child.

That five-year-old boy did NOT buy the dress he was wearing, nor did he dye his hair pink, nor was he old enough to make intelligent decisions on such things.

Nurture is much more important to children than Nature. I have ZERO doubt in my mind that the parents chose this child's sexual identification.

Seems the couple decided their son "identified" female because he played with dolls.

And a lot of other things, according to this article on Coy Mathis:

Then one night in January 2010, Kathryn was tucking him in for bed under his pink quilt, and Coy, then three, seemed upset. "What's wrong?" she asked. Coy, his head resting against his kitty-cat-print pillow, hugged his pink stuffed pony with the glittery mane that he'd gotten for Christmas and said nothing, his mouth bent in a tight frown. "Tell me," Kathryn urged. Coy's chin began to quiver.

"When am I going to get my girl parts?" he asked softly.

"What do you mean?"

"When are we going to go to the doctor to have me fixed?" Coy asked, tears now spilling down his cheeks. "To get my girl parts?"

--
Still, there is a cultural component to such things. I was wondering which restroom the fa'afafine of Samoa use. Apparently nobody in Samoa really cares.

Clearly not testimony from Coy himself. 3 year olds know nothing about sexual feelings or the purposes of 'girl parts'. Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

AJ

Still, there is a cultural component to such things.

I'm sorry, I understand everyone's concern about children being 'forced', but who the hell would 'choose' to be gay if they actually had a choice. Transfolk have the highest suicide rate of any other group (except possibly dentists), and no one wants to be rejected by their families, fired from their jobs, or beat up in the street to the cheers of nearby cops.

As we've mentioned before, for those concerned about 'forcing kids', the standard now is to wait children are 18, but it's essential to act soon, otherwise they'll NEVER transition properly. Once the natural hormones kick in, they'll always look like their original sex. The solution is to take a drug to prevent their 'normal' hormones from taking effect until they're able to 'decide' they want to reverse their decision (which very few do).

@awnlee Jacking

3 year olds know nothing about sexual feelings or the purposes of 'girl parts'. Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

That's simply ignorant nonsense. Among the gays/lesbians I know, most (at least half) knew as children, same as young as 5 - 8. Much of those who didn't, only figured out they were 'gay' after multiple failed marriages.

So even going for the "early intervention" route, you're still not looking at 6 year olds needing anything from the medical side. (At least, that's likely to be helpful at this level of medical expertise)

Please, NO ONE ever suggested a medical intervention at six years old. I was addressing the point that 'no one knows anything about sex as a child', and I countered that many of the gays and lesbians I've known KNEW they were gay near those ages, so your (collective you) assumptions are clearly wrong. It's NOT about a desire for sex, it's knowing that you're not 'wired' the way the rest of the world is.

They're not about to go off an join an orgy at that age, but it also doesn't mean that they don't realize they don't fit into the mold that society tries to force them into.

That's why the current trend is to put off medical a legal decision until they're old enough, but that decision necessitates a medical intervention before they reach early puberty (i.e. 14, 16 or 18 is much too late). They don't require surgery at that point, but they need something which delays the onset of puberty. It can always be reversed later (though there are surprisingly few cases of anyone 'changing their minds', aside from cases of family applying extreme pressure for them to 'recant' their sexuality), but it eliminates the risk of their not being able to make the decision for themselves until it's already irreversable (i.e. they'll always like a man in or dress or a woman in hiking boots).

Seriously, you people call yourselves authors? How about doing some research on these topics you're so quick to spout off on?

@Crumbly Writer-
I think I need to make myself clear on the "cultural component" part, and apologize for my goof.

I was thinking of more AMAB (assigned male at birth) identifying as female in modern United States culture vs. AMAB identifying as fa'afafine in Samoan culture - that's why I included the link.

Someone identifying as "girl" in Atlanta might have identified as "fa'afafine" had she been raised in Apia. That's a distinction based partly on societal differences, which is where the "cultural component" I mentioned comes in.

The dynamics will be different among the Dineh (Navajo), who traditionally had five gender categories. Due to Western influence, there are even more ways a member of the Dineh nation may experience gender identity. Wesley Thomas' book on the topic sounds interesting; I'll have to get it through interlibrary loan.

transition properly

If Western society had nadleeh categories, would the concept of transitioning even come up? I don't know.

I imagine it is becoming reasonable to say there probably will be a reproductively viable (artificial, human) hermaphrodite within the next 100 years,

I suspect not. For the male side to function, the body needs large doses of testosterone. For the female side to function, the body needs large doses of oestrogen. Oestrogen neuters the male organs (it has been used for chemical castration and to control prostate problems) and testosterone has been used to assuage female problems, although with consequential infertility.

I don't think it's feasible to have a human body simultaneously capable of male and female reproductive functionality. Except on SOL, obviously :)

AJ

If Western society had nadleeh categories, would the concept of transitioning even come up?

I'm pretty sure it would. Nadleeh categorises current appearance/functionality. Transgender people don't identify with their current appearance and functionality.

The article says that younger Navajo have adopted Western classifications - I see that as acceptance of a system with a better scientific basis rather than through coercion or cultural appropriation.

AJ

The article says that younger Navajo have adopted Western classifications - I see that as acceptance of a system with a better scientific basis rather than through coercion or cultural appropriation.

The article also says that closeness to traditional Dine/Navajo culture plays a role in what classifications are adopted.

Power relations between societies would also be important; the United States had committed genocide against the Navajo nation. If Western society had the nadleeh, and the Dine a strict male/female binary, would young Dine identify as nadleeh rather than gay/lesbian?

There's also some coercion. Everything from driver's licenses to college admissions tests have just the M/F choice for gender; that's a powerful incentive to adapt to the system.

Going elsewhere - same-gender relations weren't viewed as a problem in Japan until the Meiji Era, when Japan started to adopt Western norms. Why were the norms adopted? Even though they hadn't conquered Japan, the Europeans held much more military power. It had nothing to do with having a better scientific basis.

If Western society had the nadleeh, and the Dine a strict male/female binary

Under those conditions, you're probably right.

Here in the UK, the record number of gender options on an official government form stands at 22. I think people have a much better chance of finding a gender option that suits them from 22 rather than binary M/F or even 5.

AJ

Here in the UK, the record number of gender options on an official government form stands at 22. I think people have a much better chance of finding a gender option that suits them from 22 rather than binary M/F or even 5.

Once again, no one is claiming we perform sex-reassignment surgery on any five years olds. My assertion was that many gays and lesbians, and a few public cases of recent transgendered, have expressed their 'knowing' at very young ages (as young as 3, in many cases). The decision to undergo is almost always held off until they are able to legally make the decision for themselves. That was never my point (that children should decide at age six to change their sex).

Instead, it's been demonstrated repeatedly that waiting until someone is of legal age to take any action at all guarantees those results will be abysmal failures, since the onset of puberty includes physical changes in the body which are incredibly difficult to 'undo'. (Those efforts include the shortening of leg bones, 'shaving' the the jaw bone, surgery to reduce the Adams Apple, and other extreme and largely unsuccessful attempts.)

In fact, the largest limit on such things isn't legal, it's financial, as the costs of undergoing sexual reassignment (even at it's most basic) can easily rival the cost of a new house, something that few can afford, and no medical insurance policy will even consider honoring. In fact, there are few American or European medical experts even qualified to offer surgeries (they do, but the best results are often found in the far east, increasing the costs substantially).

Once again, no one is claiming we perform sex-reassignment surgery on any five years olds.

Where did you get that from? Did you misinterpret my reference to the 5 categories of the nadleeh?

Oops! I saw the following:

I think people have a much better chance of finding a gender option that suits them from 22 rather than binary M/F or even 5.

and assumed you were discussing legal age restrictions, rather than the number of choices (since they so closely resembled the aforementioned 6-year-olds and 21-year legal limits.

For those with a head for heights there's the Thai trope

Ah, one of my favorite dishes. Almost as good as their "Trope Surprise" by General Mungle!

I don't know if you are a parent or not Crumbly. That bundle you bring home from the hospital is an open book.

You write in that book, and hope to hell you write the correct things.

These parents wrote "girl" into a boy's book. I actually, to this day, advocate corporal punishment (just a smack on the hand that reaches for a stove or electrical outlet or a leg that begins to step into traffic) for children under the age of 5. The reason is that their brains aren't yet mature enough to reason (they also can't reason enough to understand where that punishment came from). They need a Pavlovian response at that age to keep them safe.

No five-year-old has any idea, nor has come to any conclusion, that he is a girl in a boy's body. It's his parents that have decided that for him.

That bundle you bring home from the hospital is an open book.

I'm not convinced that has been settled. Some research seems to suggest genetic factors might influence orientation of sexuality.

Having said that, for a child to know that they're different, they have to know what they're different from. A five year old can probably spot that they're stuck in a wheelchair while their peers are running around kicking a football. But they're not going to know they have a different sexual orientation from most of their peers when the sexual feelings of all those concerned won't develop for several years.

AJ

I'm not convinced that has been settled. Some research seems to suggest genetic factors might influence orientation of sexuality.

That's never been documented. It's a favorite assumption, but 'they've never found a 'gay' gene, and while you frequently have more than one gay/lesbian person in the same family, studies that include those results couldn't correlate any basis for it beyond random chance.

However, as far as what kids know or don't know, it's clear your and EzzyB are going to ignore whatever I say on this subject, so I'll quit telling you what many people have told me over the years. If you want to believe that the mean is made of green cheese, or that Trump won the Presidency because he was the most qualified candidate, they you're free to live in your own fantasy world. Just don't expect the rest of the world to accept the nonsense that you're spewing.

Case in point: look at how many generations it took to convince the world that homosexuality isn't a severe mental disorder, best controlled by eliminating the person from the genetic line! Some things people simply want to believe, regardless of easily refutable facts.

Note: In contradiction to the above statement, I've never seen the 'age of sexuality' come up in a legitimate scientific study, mostly because children are not about to admit that they feel like freaks to their parents. So that argument is difficult to iron down with document fact other than self-reporting long after the fact. Yet, I've heard it so often, often by people who can't agree with whether sexuality is genetic or not, that it's difficult to discount.

In the end, the argument boils down to the old 'homosexuality' isn't natural argument. Anyone who's ever lived on a farm, or had pets, has likely encountered homosexual animals of all stripes, even though many 'farmers' refuse to accept the idea (I always imagine them beating the animals over the head until they quit their 'disgusting behavior'). It ends up being a 'convincing argument' for both sides.

While there are no documented cases of such genes in humans,

There has been a claim that a gay gene had been found. Other research tends to support the sceptical view, although as logicians know, proving something doesn't exist is problematical. I reckon the issue has some way to go before being definitively resolved.

AJ

I wasn't referring to a gay gene as such, but rather to genes that exist in both genders with distinctly different effects on each gender.

You mean like: establishing menstrual periods and improving prostate health? 'D Or maybe: remember details (where your spouse screwed up) and improves males ability to remain emotionally at the age of 12 all their lives. :-)

One of the biggest problems with the idea of homosexuality being genetic is how such a gene could persist, how would it avoid being bred out of the gene pool.

Actually, there was a recent study which drew interesting parallels between gays and sibling cohesion, which might go a long way in explaining why a 'gay gene' would lead to success, especially in familial families (i.e. families related by family). Essentially, by having gay members, the female members of the tribe would be more fertile (better fed and better able to bear children), thus leading to the families genes having better chances overall. Add to that, that the genetic link is indirect, it probably requires a sequence of different genes, each of which is activated by different conditions.

If you combine that with your study (which I haven't seen done so far), it might be a reciprocal benefit (gays help women have more kids, which then produces more gay kids).

So keep that in mind when your mother, sister, or daughter complains about your smell.

"Son, you stink! Go take a bath."
"Ah, Mom, you just love the smell of bikers to clean-cut studious types."
"No, whoever you are, when you don't wash, you smell like shit. Go wash it off!"

I'm more inclined to think that nature found an "evolutionary advantage" in favor of bisexuality, and that certain populations may have "expressed" it via different ways through genetics. As such, the "homosexual" outcome is merely the event of somebody happening to get hit with "enough" of the right combinations of the "bi" genetic markers that they skew strongly in favor of their own gender.

If that were the case, they homosexuality would be limited to certain cultural enclaves, say Hebrews or the Greeks, rather than being evenly distributed across all cultures/races/sexes.

Also, the claim that 'bisexuals' account for more people self-reporting as 'gay' in nonsense, as most people will, given a free choice, will select the easiest choice. If you can marry a man and face losing your job, your home, your career and your family, or settling with a woman you're equally attracted to, three guesses what they'll do. They'll go with being straight, rather than being gay.

Other than religious conservatives, few continue arguing that being 'gay' is a personal choice. Bisexuality is more open, but no one is going to chose to be hated by self-identifying with an oppressed minority.

In addition to your case, there were many ancient Greeks who proposed the 'superiority' of gay and heterosexual love, but what they all agreed was that getting married and raising children was part of a social obligation, necessitated by society, so even if you were gay, you still got married and treated your wife well, even if you fooled around on the side.

It also stands that if you go with "sexuality being a spectrum" and the possibility that there are a multitude of genetic triggers that are "indifferent" as to gender that influence sexuality, as well as a number of others that are "keyed" to specific gender traits, you then end up with a very broad "sexual spectrum" indeed.

Given the numbers we're discussing, compounded by those involved rarely volunteering such information, we can only use overly broad amalgamations of disparate groups.

As for the 'cured homosexuals' actually being bi has been pretty roundly rejected by science, as the 'cure rate' is horrendously low, and is mostly limited to involuntary or 'heavily influenced by outside forced'. There's also no evidence that it's limit to 'bi' men (in fact, the 'targets' are often selected because they're effeminate, not because they like women.

Finally concerning 'bi-bashing within the gay community', it's not 'being bi' that they object to, it's the tendency of many 'in the closet' to cast aspersions (i.e. "I'm not like them because I'm ... something else?").

The bi have long had a home within the gay and lesbian communities, but the anti-gay forces claiming to be 'bi' rank up there with anti-gay politicians caught soliciting same-sex partners in public restrooms. In the hypocrisy and damage they inflict that's being damage, not their identification.

I've never seen the 'age of sexuality' come up in a legitimate scientific study,

Interesting. One got a mention in my paper today and it reported that the average age a young person became sexually aware was 12. Okay, it was a really crap study but research has and is being done.

AJ

Without having made my through the rest of today's postings just yet, I'd just like to flag this one. While they may not have found any "gay" genes just yet. They have found "transgendered" ones. Although rare, it is possible for someone with XX chromosomal pairs to end up with the genetic "flag" for growing a penis, but as much of the other relevant genes for making the penis do much seem to in that Y chromosome, it can result in a "XX Male" that is sterile from birth. There are a few other genetic markers and flags that can likewise result in (sterile) "XY Females" as well. Although most cases of the XX/XY and birth sex confusion still seem to be widely held as being "gestational in nature" rather than genetic. (But that may just be a matter of they haven't found the relevant gene sequences yet)

While XYX and XXY chromosome combinations are a factor, they don't fully explain the majority of transgender cases—even when you take in the multiple cases of 'hidden' duplicate chromosomes (where certain chromosomes only exist in certain parts of the body but not in others). However, I'm fairly convinced that there are more direct links overall with the transgendered than there are for gays and lesbians.

I agree that gender roles and gender identity can be incredibly confusing, but that argument ventures into the old canard 'if being gay is a choice, then why would anyone elect to be hated and despised'. Being gay is hardly like buying the latest iPhone, and while certain parents may be more receptive to potential sexuality issues, I seriously doubt there are many who hope their kids are 'one of those neat new transgenered ones!'

Again, even if a few go off the rails, pushing their kids into something they're not inclined to do, that's largely taken into account by restricting treatments until they're of legal age. Few kids will continue listening to their parents once they reach the age of 18, though the cases of parents forcing gay teens into 'medical cures' of homosexuality way outnumbered those who might want someone with an indefinite sexuality.

Again, I disagree. Children under five or six years of age have very little or no capacity to reason. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them not to stick their fingers in that power socket. They can't make something so abstract into a danger.

I had a different response with corporal punishment. We took in my sister-in-laws kids, who wasn't able to raise her kids because of alcohol and drug issues. As a result of developmental issues, they never learned empathy (which is generally learned around age five, and if not learned early, can lead to life-long problems). As a result, the only thing they responded to was corporal punishment, which the youngest one saw as her only evidence of emotional connection to her parents, so it was a complex relationship.

We eventually recovered their empathy, though it took a LOT of sustained effort. We also managed to break the whole 'punishment is love' connection in the youngest (she's in a very healthy relationship now, though her sister (the one without the issue) didn't do as well.

As a result of developmental issues, they never learned empathy

Dear God that had to be rough man.

My main goal in raising children was "love them into submission". Not sure what I would have done if that didn't work.

I don't know if you are a parent or not Crumbly. That bundle you bring home from the hospital is an open book.

I agree completely. I've always said, "children's personalities seem to fall from the sky", because they'll all be similar, and the other will be completely different, so you never know what you're getting.

I also agree with you about corporal punishment. Once they get old enough, kids always learn enough from school to threaten to call 'protective services' and report you for abuse. Both my wife and I respond the exact same way: "go ahead, but don't expect to come back home again if you do. By the way, I don't think the foster home has all the nice things we provide." That shuts their power play down cold!

However, my comment about kids knowing their sexuality at an early age is based on actual research, rather than my 'gut response'. As I've said repeatedly here, most gays/lesbians and transfolk (but certainly not all) know by an incredibly young age that they either don't fit the role that's been assigned to them, or that there's something wrong with their bodies. And that realization has little to do with sex at that age. Pretending otherwise is just keeping your head in the sand so you won't have to hear what life is like for those people.

So by precedent, a thing is whatever you call it :(

Trump would probably define that as an "Alternative Definition".

Sort of like his term "Alternative Fact", which means "I can believe anything I want to believe and call you a liar if you disagree with me".

I thought it was "Slings for the Mammaries".

I thought it was "Slings for the Mammaries".

My sisters, both rather well endowed, called them "boulder-holders".

Over the shoulder bolder holder.

Otherwise known as a "sling", at least slightly better than tripping over them. :(

Isn't there a song, "Thongs for the mammaries"?

nah, you're confusing it with the military song of 'Tanks for the memories.'

Is a person who hates tropes a misantrope?

No, they're "illiterate". You can't have literature (or drama, comedy, non-fiction, etc.) without encountering tropes. People might dislike certain ones, but you can't hate them all, otherwise you might as well live in a cave (without a cellphone) for the rest of your life.

That is what most thropes believe.

Nope. "Thropes" are what story tropes tie themselves up with when they play B&D, not to make assumptions about anyone's story, that is. :-)

The patron saint of tropes is Saint Tropez.

AJ

I have no problem with a child choosing whatever they want at an adolescent stage. I still think it is highly influenced by their upbringing, but hey, if girl wants to love girl, or boy wants to love boy, or even become the opposite sex, whatever. Live and let live, and God knows I'd still love my own daughters if they made that choice.

But a five-year-old? Not buying it.

Again, they (the ones who recognize such things early) aren't ready to act on it for years, but it seems to be a common trend not experienced by the cisgendered. What's more, they NEVER admitted it to their parents (although it's sounding like, as attitudes change, they're starting to now).

The point is, it really doesn't matter how you treat them. The point is, action needs to be taken before pubescence, otherwise it's largely too late. (i.e. you don't have to believe 6-year-olds think about such thing, though you do have to act around 10 to 12 years of age (to delay puberty).

Even worse, denying sexuality is a leading cause of suicide, as gays, trans and others feel unsupported and don't see options.

That's an easy one Ezzy.

Some parents nurture their children and help them grow.

But then there are the ones who pay no attention to their children and let them do anything they want to do, or the ones who think their children are property that they own and can compel to do what they want them to do.

Have you ever seen a 3-5 year old, boy or girl, with body piercings, I bet their parents are pierced also. What about a boy with no hair, was his dad a skin head? A kid trying to have fun in Pop Warner football with a Dad who sits on the sideline screaming at the son for flubbing the play.

This second group of so called parents aren't into being good parents. They want to relive their lives through their kids by controlling what they do.

Nearly all kids will play with dolls at some point. Aren't GI Joe, Star Wars figures and Batman all dolls?

Even beyond the 'masculine doll' trend (remember the scars they permanently etched into GI Joe's face?), many boys play with girls' dolls because of the prevalence of Disney films like "Frozen", where they're trying to recapture the magic of the fantasy. That doesn't make them transgendered, and any attempt to force them into that roll will result is their utter rejection of the idea.

So confusing. You say the kid knows it, but the parents do not? But this kids parents at least they think they know it. So they put the boy in a dress, dye his hair pink, and tell him he should be a girl?

I have a problem with this based on modern society. If a boy-child shows a nurturing aspect, plays with dolls, or whatever why is that no longer masculine?

I suspect you're reading more to this than there is. It's not like the parents see the boy playing with a doll once and immediately shove him into a dress and start putting pink nail polish on his fingers. Instead, the parents typically ignore it, or make snide comments at first, but as the child persists, they may start asking questions. But even if they don't, since the kids know that something is wrong, they'll often insist.

Some little girls are just tomboys, wanting to play rough in the woods (remember the days when children actually played outside?), but some just resent being treated as girls at all. Then you have some who are, for want of a better term, 'masculine lesbians' (if any lesbians out there know a better term for this, please let me know). They like being rough and tumble, but they're not interested in being men. But for an incredibly small minority, they feel they were trapped in the wrong body, and they resent any attempts to pigeon hole them into roles which just feel wrong to them.

By the way, my sister not only wore combat boots most of her career, but whenever her young child with Asperger's has trouble sitting still, she'd tell him to 'give her five' and he'd happily drop to the floor and do five pushups, refocusing his attention and allowing him to behave in a socially appropriate manner for some time afterwards.

It's not that these parents insist on gender identification, forcing 'girlie men' into dresses as punishment (although there are plenty of those out there too), it's that the child insists on more (or if the parents don't approve) they do it in secret—which is often worse, as they're more likely to commit suicide that way.

To me it's the age though. That was my objection. Plenty of those Tomboys, hell most of them, hit that hormonal stage and realize they want to be girls after all.

None of them at five-years-old though.

Decisions they make later in life may seem odd to me. After all, I have no frame of reference. I mean Bruce Jenner is a girl, that's so bizarre as to be incomprehensible to me. Sonny and Cher Bono's absolutely adorable little daughter is now a boy, WTF?

I'm perfectly fine, if a bit baffled, no frame of reference again, with these later-in-life decisions. But not letting parents making them for children.

Ezzy

I'm perfectly fine, if a bit baffled, no frame of reference again, with these later-in-life decisions. But not letting parents making them for children.

Once again, my earlier misstatements were later qualified by someone more knowledgeable on the topic.

Parents don't make those decisions for the children. Instead, they postpone the 'change by date', so the child has a chance to mature, so that if they decide to go through with it (and I can't imagine a single parent who wouldn't LOVE a 'normal' child rather than one they have to stumble over trying to explain), they won't look like freaks because the parents refused to honor their requests early enough to avoid disaster.

NO ONE IS MAKING PERMANENT DECISIONS for their kids, they're simply postponing any decision until the children become old enough to legally decide for themselves.

As these mothers often declare when questioned about it: "I'd rather have a living daughter than a dead son!"

NO ONE IS MAKING PERMANENT DECISIONS for their kids, they're simply postponing any decision until the children become old enough to legally decide for themselves.

Dressing your boy in a girl's dress, dying his hair pink, and suing the state to allow him into the girl's bathroom? Oh, that parent made a permanent decision.

I have a sister, who, when young, was left-handed. It drove my father absolutely nuts. Apparently "ladies" are not left-handed (he didn't have a problem that I was also). Anytime she reached for something with her left hand it got slapped. Today, she is right-handed.

My oldest daughter is left handed; she didn't get her hand slapped by her daddy.

My oldest daughter is left handed, she didn't get her hand slapped by her daddy.

That's one prejudice I've very glad is being eroded. But even today, lefties can find it difficult/expensive to obtain suitable equipment. Left-handed golf clubs, for example.

In an ideal world, parents would teach their children a degree of ambidexterity. Research shows that it activates the other side of the brain from normal, leading to better mental balance. It's also recommended as a brain-health exercise for those getting on in years, although I've yet to see convincing evidence that it can postpone dementia :(

AJ

I wonder whether any socialist countries have passed equality legislation forbidding price differences between left- and right-handed equipment. Such a proposal was once made in the UK but it didn't get government support.

AJ

teach their children a degree of ambidexterity.

That is actually a very good idea. When I was 12, I was hospitalized for about 5 weeks with an infection in my lymph system. I am right handed and my right shoulder joint was basically immobilized by a swollen lymph gland in my right armpit.

Being active boy in a military hospital with no kids ward, I wandered around and found a group of servicemen playing Ping-Pong. I had never played the game, so I learned how to play it using my left hand.

Since then, I have made a conscious effort to do other things left handed such as write with a pen and paper.

the rubber on one side was extremely fast and generated a lot of spin, but the other side was very slow with almost no spin

Shouldn't that be in reverse? The fast side has no spin and the slow side is all spin? Red is fast and no spin and black is all spin and no speed?

That's how the ones that I've used were.

It works the other way as well.

I have a nephew (actually my nephew's son) who is decidedly right-handed. His father is a baseball coach. The minute the boy picked up a baseball bat his dad turned him around and taught him from the start to hit left-handed (even though he plays the field as a right-hander.)

Kid seriously hit .497 in his senior year (hell he hit .385 as a freshman on the varsity team) in high school.

We seriously underestimate the effect we have on our children (same old nature vs. nurture argument.)

I tend to think of them as an open, unwritten book. Others see them as a finished product, waiting to grow up.

Kid seriously hit .497 in his senior year (hell he hit .385 as a freshman on the varsity team) in high school.

I have absolutely no idea what those numbers signify but, having read some charming stories in the 'Take me Out to the Ballgame' series, I recognise them as being impressive.

AJ

Left-handed golf clubs, for example.

That reminds me of this old joke. Husband and wife are sitting around talking, wife asks husband if she dies tonight and he remarried, would his new wife use their bed? He says yes, it's a perfectly good bed. She's disturbed, but then asks, okay, if I die tonight and he remarried, would his new wife use the same cookware? He says sure, it's perfectly good cookware. She's really perturbed now, and says, if I die tonight, would his new wife use the same golf clubs? He replies, No, she's a leftie.

"Dressing your boy in a girl's dress, dying his hair pink,"

Here is a picture of a three-year-old.

This is a picture of the same person as an adult.

Moral: Clothing and hair are not permanent.

Moral: Clothing and hair are not permanent.

True, but molding their self image is.

But not letting parents making them for children.

CW is right about some children sensing a difference between themselves and other children. If left alone, most of these children will work through their feelings and come to a decision about their appropriate gender. CW may also be correct that some of these children just know their current gender assignment is wrong.

The main problem with parents stepping in and making a gender decision for their child is that the decision skews the child's perception of the issue, their feelings, and the world in general. If such a child had been left alone, they may have struggled with coming to a decision, but it would be their personal decision. A Good Parent could then be supportive of the Child's decision. When a Parent makes a gender assignment for their child, they force their child toward one gender, and that is wrong. That is doubly wrong if the Parent's decision is subsequently determined by the Child to be the wrong gender assignment for them.

As a thought exercise, I pondered what sort of study would be needed to put CW's claims on a solid scientific basis.

It would have to be a blind study, with the identities of the subjects hidden from the analysts.

Current best estimates of the scientific community put the proportion of people who are 100% gay rather than bisexual at about 1%. So to have any hope of statistical significance from the results, a study population of 100,000 might be a reasonable starting point.

Each 5 year old would be asked whether they felt different from their peers (and with today's parenting culture,where every child is made to feel special, that would probably be the majority) and, if so, why they felt different.

The test subjects would then be monitored for decades, until their sexual orientations were reasonably secure.

At that point, the proportions of subjects saying that they felt different without knowing why at 5 years old would be compared between the heterosexual and gay populations and tested for being statistically significant from the overall proportions of heterosexuals and gays.

A very large and expensive study. With no guarantee of success, given that researchers have been looking for early indicators of homosexuality for decades.

AJ

Each 5 year old would be asked whether they felt different from their peers (and with today's parenting culture,where every child is made to feel special, that would probably be the majority) and, if so, why they felt different.

Several problems with your described approach.

First of all, focusing a study's participant on the intent of the study contaminates the study participants, which invalidates the study's results.

A 5-year old may sense a difference, but I doubt they have the life experience and reasoning power required to determine what the difference is and explain why they feel different.

First of all, focusing a study's participant on the intent of the study contaminates the study participants, which invalidates the study's results.

Although I was trying to explain how a study could provide scientific backing to the claim, the study itself would naturally be broader in scope and examine many potential indicators for future sexual orientation. It would be stupid to carry out an expensive study only to ask two questions.

A 5-year old may sense a difference, but I doubt they have the life experience and reasoning power required to determine what the difference is and explain why they feel different.

That's why it's important to compare heterosexuals against gays, so it's like versus like. If there's no statistically significant difference between the proportions of those who feel different then who turn out gay and heterosexual from the overall proportions who turn out gay and heterosexual, then the null hypothesis should be accepted.

AJ

It would be stupid to carry out an expensive study only to ask two questions.

The point I was trying to make is if you ask a person any questions (2 or 2000), the person tries to give an answer. That answer may not be an accurate reflection of their thoughts (i.e., if they don't have a specific feeling about the topic, they respond how they think you want them to respond). Those types of answers skews the data the study is collecting, and can invalidate the study's conclusions. A person providing this type of an answer would be especially true of a 5-year old answering an adult's questions because most young children want to please an adult.

True. It would take a very skilled interviewer to ask the questions in a neutral way, and parents shouldn't be present when the children are questioned, which in itself is problematical.

One question that ought to be on the list is to solicit each child's favourite colour. Current research on the link between girls and the colour pink has resulted in mixed results. Personally I suspect it's down to nurture rather than nature - little more than a century ago, pink was still considered a strong, masculine colour.

AJ

One question that ought to be on the list is to solicit each child's favourite colour. Current research on the link between girls and the colour pink has resulted in mixed results. Personally I suspect it's down to nurture rather than nature - little more than a century ago, pink was still considered a strong, masculine colour.

Actually, the latest research argues that there's no innate sexual bias in the colors pink and blue. Instead, they've both the most calming colors, so parents typically expose their kids to them simply because it makes them easier to manage. That applies even if you surround little girls with blue and little boys with pink. That also explains why parents inundate kids with the two colors, the fact that girls get pink and boys blue seems to be a random cultural choice which also strengthens sexual stereotyping (of kids, so they know what's 'expected' of them).

A 5-year old may sense a difference, but I doubt they have the life experience and reasoning power required to determine what the difference is and explain why they feel different.

In most cases (at least that I'm aware of), they know precisely why they feel as they do, as they feel pressured to fit into specific binary roles they don't feel they fit, and thus, like most children, they elect to lie, in order to avoid condemnation for something they have little control over (i.e. there's no incentive for them to 'come clean' to their parents, doctors or medical researchers).

They know, even at that age, that they're being judged for who they are, but aren't able to defend their decisions so they seek to escape the spotlight.

Their numbers are not large enough to state there is overwhelming evidence of their continued existence across all societies for a very long time.

The anecdotal evidence doesn't go back terribly far (primarily limited to the publication of national newspapers in the 19th century) but there are numerous historical examples. The Civil War and the U.S.'s westward expansion allowed many to abandon their hometowns (the their familial baggage), and there were several infamous examples of women taking on the role of men, only to be exposed once they finally died, often after living successfully as men, often including marriage to women.

Sadly, the examples of men dressing as women are mostly negative, as we only know of them via derisive attacks at exposed 'cross-dressers', although WWII made such actions widely acceptable for some time, including numerous examples on TV at the time.

And as previously mentioned, nature has plenty of examples of that to point towards in terms of animals "being gay" in certain circumstances.

My local pet superstore has a notice on its pen for male hamsters saying that males mounting other males does not indicate homosexuality, it's an assertion of status.

My inclination is to side with scientists who claim there are no truly gay animals; what gay activists claim to be examples of gay behaviour in animals is just status assertion.

AJ

I'm not convinced. In a societal group there's only one alpha male, and even future alpha males are subservient to him. That would mean all male hamsters are bisexual.

I think it's purely a dominance issue, with no sexual enjoyment involved.

Ever watched a dog humping a table leg? Does that make it a tablelegosexual? How do you determine the gender of a table leg to decide whether the dog is gay or heterosexual? I think extreme caution is needed before branding animals with sexual orientation labels.

AJ

I have ten cats, six males and four females.

If, one day, you suddenly find yourself a cat short, your neighbour Conrad is the likely culprit.

How do I know this?

Because Con cat ten ate.

AJ

Would you like to buy a bridge? Or a tower? Both have had only one careful owner.

AJ

Speaking of the Brooklyn Bridge, which I assume is the bridge you have in mind, why isn't it also the Manhattan Bridge? It goes between both boroughs.

The Brooklyn Bridge's original names were the East River Bridge and the New York and Brooklyn Bridge, the latter referring to the two cities the bridge connected. Brooklyn wasn't part of New York City then, and Manhattan was just an island, not a borough.

There is a separate Manhattan Bridge nearby. It has given its name to the Brooklyn neighborhood of DUMBO, an acronym for Down Under Manhattan Bridge Overpass.

Did Conrad mount the rear end of the cat on his wall?

Not unless he was deaf ;)

AJ

I thought it was a play on caterwaul :(

AJ

The end of the word 'rear' is 'ar'.

cat-ar-wall.

AJ

As EB said, you would still need a bunch of cats to make a cat arse wall. :)

I had been picturing them lying head to arse, but with your comment I had a picture of the cats lying side by side with them alternating between facing this side or the other, so you end up with two alls of alternate cat heads and cat arses to have two walls of cats meowing all the time.

I had been picturing them lying head to arse

Given the amount of time cats spend on autoanalingus, I wonder if that would present an opportunity to learn 69ing.

AJ

Given the amount of time cats spend on autoanalingus, I wonder if that would present an opportunity to learn 69ing.

Believe me, once a cat's learned ass, it never goes back! 'D

I thought it was a play on caterwaul :(

I'm fairly sure a caterwaul is a wall you build by gluing a lot of cats together in a way similar you glue bricks together with mortar.

I'm not convinced. In a societal group there's only one alpha male, and even future alpha males are subservient to him. That would mean all male hamsters are bisexual.

I think it's purely a dominance issue, with no sexual enjoyment involved.

Ever watched a dog humping a table leg? Does that make it a tablelegosexual? How do you determine the gender of a table leg to decide whether the dog is gay or heterosexual? I think extreme caution is needed before branding animals with sexual orientation labels.

Another word for 'dominance' achieved through sexual acts is "rape". What you're talking about, with purely abstract language, is the tendency for animals to rape each other throughout history. And while most rapists aren't overly concerned with sexuality (i.e. it's 'a power trip'), they aren't concerned with strictly social sexuality norms, just as pedophiles aren't.

Let's call a damn spade a spade and stop beating around the proverbial burning bush (talk about jock itch)!

For people who bitch so much about the 'politically correct', you're venturing well into their territory with this entire discussion.

Statistically speaking the "medical cases" are very rare, often in the 1 in 100,000 range, although some are in the mid to high 1 in x0,000 range. So in that respect, even a 1 in 50,000 prevalence in a given population suggests it's either a "new trait" (that hasn't had a chance to spread) or it is a trait that hasn't been particularly successful at perpetuating itself.

I suspect your numbers are off. I haven't checked them lately, but some time ago, they determined that the number of mixed genome (ex: XYX, YXX, XXY, etc.) has been vastly underreported because researched never knew what to look for. Often, those chromosomes aren't spread evenly across the body, instead they express themselves in certain stray parts of the body, so your liver might have an extra X chromosome, while your kidney doesn't.

Oh, and another trope based on a story I'm reading.

ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS AT HEART

That was my entire reason for writing my Great Death series, to shift the focus of those stories from raping, pillaging and killing to more human conflicts, like wanting to be left alone vs. trying to ensure everyone's survival.

That seems a more compelling conflict, even if it's more difficult to set up and establish.