![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 21st, 2005 06:52 pmBallet dancing hippos and super!stealth!crocodiles are never going to cease to be funny.
(Yes, I have hit three pages. Go me, I'm sure.)
(Yes, I have hit three pages. Go me, I'm sure.)
May. 21st, 2005
(no subject)
May. 21st, 2005 07:27 pmIn the newspaper today, there's an debate about the artifical insemination of lesbians and single women, which is interesting for three reasons:
1. Using the phrase "lay back, spread your legs and think about the homeland" seriously. Granted, about how lesbian women should just find a random man and do as above, but it still made me giggle.
2. Mentioning mpreg. And the slipperly slope theory
3. In all seriousness suggesting that giving lesbian the right to artificial insemination is discriminating. Against men. Because see, if women can just get inseminated without all that mess with a man, wouldn't she? And so we can conclude that if women can have babies without men ---> men will disappear from the face of the earth. Yeah. I'm just getting to let that stay there for a while. Read it again. Wonder at the indisputable logic. Possibly bang your head repeatedly against a wall. Wouldn't recommend that last one.
In all seriousness though, that's one of the things that annoys me most about this whole debate. It's a lot like the arguement about how the child of a lesbian couple would have no male influence on it's life. Lesbian does not actually equal man-hater. Most of us do not live in colonies where we never, ever see men. Hell, I'd bet that a good 99.9% of lesbians have a close male friend and/or family member. We have fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins and friends of the male gender. Not so much with the hating of men. And the arguement above, in 3? Look, I know plenty of heterosexual women, bisexual women and so forth, that are with men because they love them. Believe it or not, I also think many of those women would find it preferable to babymake the old school way. Why, some of them don't even want babies and they're *still* with men. Amazing, isn't it? To think that some women choose to be with men just because they like them! But if that were true, wouldn't it completely invalidate the arguement in 3?
Yes. And if *I* can see a hole in your logic, well...
1. Using the phrase "lay back, spread your legs and think about the homeland" seriously. Granted, about how lesbian women should just find a random man and do as above, but it still made me giggle.
2. Mentioning mpreg. And the slipperly slope theory
3. In all seriousness suggesting that giving lesbian the right to artificial insemination is discriminating. Against men. Because see, if women can just get inseminated without all that mess with a man, wouldn't she? And so we can conclude that if women can have babies without men ---> men will disappear from the face of the earth. Yeah. I'm just getting to let that stay there for a while. Read it again. Wonder at the indisputable logic. Possibly bang your head repeatedly against a wall. Wouldn't recommend that last one.
In all seriousness though, that's one of the things that annoys me most about this whole debate. It's a lot like the arguement about how the child of a lesbian couple would have no male influence on it's life. Lesbian does not actually equal man-hater. Most of us do not live in colonies where we never, ever see men. Hell, I'd bet that a good 99.9% of lesbians have a close male friend and/or family member. We have fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins and friends of the male gender. Not so much with the hating of men. And the arguement above, in 3? Look, I know plenty of heterosexual women, bisexual women and so forth, that are with men because they love them. Believe it or not, I also think many of those women would find it preferable to babymake the old school way. Why, some of them don't even want babies and they're *still* with men. Amazing, isn't it? To think that some women choose to be with men just because they like them! But if that were true, wouldn't it completely invalidate the arguement in 3?
Yes. And if *I* can see a hole in your logic, well...
