Dolly Alderton (via mrsfscottfitzgerald)
Searched my 6000 favorites for this post
Okay so most of this is pretty good but this one line really rankles me:
If they don’t have sex with you they’re not interested in you.
Um, what? Some people are not interested in sex. Some people are, in fact, repulsed by the idea of sex, but would still like to be in a relationship. They can be interested in dating you and cuddling you and laughing with you over silly things and making you soup when you have the sniffles and just not want to have sex with you because it’s not their thing. It doesn’t mean they don’t care. It just means that they’re not into sex.
Even people who are into sex might be cautious about moving too quickly with someone they really like because of past experiences where moving too fast messed things up. Like, maybe if you’re gonna dump someone because they’re not jumping into bed with you, you’re the one who’s not into them? Just a thought.
Okay, tumblr, here’s the deal. I’m trying to collect stories of ridiculous acts of rebellion—Things you did to break the rules simply because you felt a need to break the rules. Not because you were taking a moral stand against rules you felt were unfair. Not because the rules hindered your fun. Not because you felt destructive. I’m looking for instances of rule breaking that accomplished nothing aside from that sense of satisfaction you get from showing that you can.
My story: The high school I attended had a dress code that required everything to be solid color, even your socks. I had a pair of red and black striped thigh-high socks that I would wear a few times a year, just because sometimes I need to break a few rules.
Do you have a similar story to share? If so, please either reblog this post and add it or submit it to my blog. The reason behind this is related to a conversation I had with a coworker today.
Thanks for your help!
Rules: Give us five random things about yourself; pass it on to ten of your followers. Repost, don’t reblog. I was tagged by guardian-of-heart.
The only people I know for sure will actually care if I tag them in this are professormcguire and geeksaurusrex. If you are a person who wants to do this and follows me and didn’t get tagged, go ahead and pretend I tagged you.
Short answer: Hella ridiculous.
Long answer: Time for some birthday math!
(Note: This post will use some of the probability stuff explained in last year’s birthday post, so go there if you need a refresher.)
Alright, so the first bit of information that would be useful to have here is what percent of the population is actually heterosexual. Unfortunately, most of the studies on sexual orientation seem to omit that information, to the point that when you try to google stats on heterosexuality, all of the links are about non-hetero orientations. So we’ll have to do a bit of work.
Here’s some data from a survey by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (using just how they actually identify, not what sorts of attraction they report)(1,2):
Since the paper specifies that they did include heterosexuality as an option, I’m going to assume that “other” includes only other non-hetero orientations, like asexuality and pansexuality. ”No response” doesn’t allow for that kind of assumption, so I’ll total only the first three rows to determine what percent of the population actively identifies as something other than heterosexual.
So it looks like on the whole, roughly 8% of the population actively identifies as something other than heterosexual. If we assume that the rest are heterosexual(3), then that means 92% of the population is heterosexual.
Okay, but what does that actually mean? You may be thinking, “Gosh, 92% is pretty high. This means that for any one randomly selected person, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of them being heterosexual.” Which is accurate if all you’re ever going to deal with is one randomly selected person, but most of us deal with at least several dozen people on a daily basis.
Suppose you’re in a meeting with nine people whose sexual orientations you don’t know. The odds that all nine of them are heterosexual are .92^9, which comes out to about 0.47, or 47%. This means that there is a 53% chance that at least one of them is NOT heterosexual. With only nine people, the odds that at least one is non-hetero are already more than half.
That’s a small group, and already heteronormativity is looking a bit silly. What happens with larger groups?
The school where I teach has a total of 117 students in grades 5 through 8. The odds that they’re all heterosexual are .92^117, which comes out to 0.0000579, or 0.00579%. This means that there is a more than 99% chance that at least one is non-hetero (and in fact we’d expect about 9 of them to be non-hetero if the school demographics accurately reflect the demographics of the larger population).
So when, for example, you’re discussing relationships or teaching a sex ed class to a large group of people, it is NEARLY CERTAIN that there is at least one person present whose needs are not being met by a conversation that focuses on relationships involving exactly two people who are both heterosexual.
In conclusion, if you want the conversation to be relevant to everyone you’re talking to, then heteronormativity is hella ridiculous.
(1)The reason I’m using stated identity rather than reported attraction is because these numbers are lower (leading to a higher estimate for what percent of the population is heterosexual), and I want to demonstrate that even with a high estimate for the prevalence of heterosexuality, heteronormativity is hella ridiculous.
(2)I realize that there are more options for gender identity than simply women and men, but this is how the paper presents the results.
(3)I realize this is a silly assumption, but again, the point is to get a high estimate for the prevalence of heterosexuality and then show that heteronormativity is still hella ridiculous.
okay so we know about jesus when he’s a baby, and jesus when he’s an adult, but does the bible ever mention his rebellious teenager years?
‘jesus, go feed the donkey.’
‘yOU’RE NOT MY REAL FATHER’
the ground shakes a little, and a voice comes down from the sky
‘do what your stepfather says you little shit’
When he was 12, Jesus ditched his parents to argue theology in the Temple. When they found him (a solid couple of days later) and were all upset at him for ditching, he was just like “Did you not figure I’d be in my father’s house?”
And they were just like “What the hell dude you’re like 12.”
I have some complicated feelings about this one.
There were a lot of small details that were a bit troubling.
Clara’s comment to Danny (why is all of tumblr calling him Mr. Pink when he has a first name?) about “killing people and then crying about it afterward” was wildly insensitive. And I get that most people Clara’s age who don’t know any combat vets might make a flippant comment like that without thinking about it, but Clara is not most people. She’s a teacher. As a teacher, she should know better than to pick on anyone about crying (even just hypothetical crying). She should know better than to shame people for their emotions or to question the validity of their emotions. And if she does slip up and say something insensitive, she should apologize as soon as she realizes that her comment had upset him, rather than saying it was meant as a joke and then asking him out.
That said, I really like that the new character is a math teacher (for entirely selfish reasons). I also liked the way that Clara got the Doctor to reexamine his conclusions (“That is not what we learned today”) because it was the first time we got to see her acting like a teacher. Rather than handing him the answer, she made him get there himself, which means first that he will be more comfortable with what he’s learned than if the source were external, and second that he’ll remember this lesson better in the future.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that this Dalek was a good Dalek because it wanted to commit the “right” kind of genocide. The Doctor I fell in love with uses killing only as a last resort, and wouldn’t support anyone who uses killing as their first response, no matter who the enemy was.
Related to that, the line about the Doctor being a “good Dalek” just really didn’t sit right with me. It was reminiscent of the Dalek in “Dalek” telling the Doctor that he would make a good Dalek, except that the tone was completely different. In 2005, the Doctor was telling the Dalek to kill itself because of his hatred for the Daleks, and the Dalek was trying to hurt him by pointing out the similarities between the Doctor’s behavior and the Daleks’ violence. This time, it felt like it was meant as a compliment? ”You thought I was a good Dalek but you were wrong because that was just a malfunction. You are a good Dalek because your disdain for what the Daleks do is not a malfunction.” It doesn’t seem like the type of thing that anyone should expect would be comforting.
And then we’ve got the Doctor’s response to Journey’s request to come with him. ”Here’s a list of all your great qualities, but the fact that you’re a soldier means you’re beyond redemption in my eyes.” I get that Nine and Ten were decidedly uncomfortable with the military, and one of the big complaints about Eleven was how comfortable he was barking orders at soldiers, but I don’t think that fixing that means that the Doctor should automatically condemn anyone who has ever picked up a gun. The Doctor always gives you a chance, and Journey had already demonstrated that she wasn’t the type to blindly follow orders or to shoot first and ask questions later.
Aside from these complaints, I did think this was among the better episodes we’ve gotten since season 5. We got the Doctor dealing with a moral dilemma and we got Clara being genuinely helpful (and having a life outside the Doctor! and being a teacher!) AND when Clara called the Doctor out on his bullshit, he actually listened. This season seems to have potential.