The situation isn’t at all funny—a female volleyball coach was made miserable and discriminated against because of her sexual preferences, and there seems to have been (and probably still is) a nasty culture of male privilege in Fresno State athletics—but this piece of testimony against the associate AD, Randy Welniak, was just icing on the cake.
The one that sticks out was when Randy took me behind closed doors and said he had just learned of a situation where he just found out why Lindy was such a bitch. That he just learned she not only was a lesbian. She was an atheist.
Uh-oh. Multiple societal norms are being violated! Clearly, not believing in an invisible man in the sky and having no desire to be penetrated by a penis makes her not only incapable of showing people how to hit a ball over a net, but evil, a corrupting influence that must be purged from the athletic department. How can a women’s team hope to win if they don’t pray for victory and if their vaginas have not been bathed in blessed semen?
(via Monkey Trials)
You’re just trying to get a more respectable rating for the blog, aren’t you? :-)
Wow… a lesbian women’s athletic coach. That never happens. Next thing you know, we’ll get the startling revelation that there are lesbians in women’s golf. Why, I bet someone will even try to claim that there are gay women in Dykes on Bikes. The horror!
A man should be in charge of the women’s volleyball team anyways. I volunteer.
If the witness Stacy Johnson-Klein has credibility issues it has been stated by psychiatrist that people feel they have to say certain things in certain cliques so that the certain cliques accepts them as part of the clique.
I believe that more cultural clashes like these will be seen in the near future as the religious and other archaic cultural types lose their position of rule over others.
Pharyngula is rated PG-13 now. This post by itself yields a PG.
(shrugs)
Was PZ replaced by Amanda Marcotte overnight?
Well, yeah. You’d have to be insane to belong to a religion that condemns your sexual orientation — an inherent fact of your biology — as a sin that can only be corrected by biting the bullet, going through ex-gay counseling, marrying someone you’re not attracted to, and squirting out babies for Jesus until your vagina stops working. Whatever else this woman is, she’s no Ted Haggard. (And thank Tesla for that, because one of those was enough.)
Randy has left my fair state, thank goodness! He’s terrorizing Illinois now.
Randy Welniak joined Illinois State after a three-year stint at Fresno State as the associate athletics director for external operations.
http://goredbirds.cstv.com/genrel/welniak_randy00.html
I am confident that this charge is correct, but I’m confident it’s correct at most high schools, colleges, and universities. Fresno State is probably not exceptional in that respect. Am I wrong about that?
By the way, as a Central Valley boy myself, I know lots of people (and family members) who went to California State University, Fresno. The beloved Fresno State Bulldogs are a kind of regional religion, which always seemed weird to an asportual male like myself. Years ago I was on a faculty hiring committee that interviewed a candidate who was a Fresno State alumnus. When I mentioned my Fresno State connections during the introductions, the candidate jumped out of his seat and shouted “Go, Dogs!”
We didn’t hire him.
Shucks, I was so wrapped up in my little Fresno State story that I completely forgot to do a bit of blogwhoring. This is actually completely relevant. It was a Fresno State student who wrote a pontificating letter about the evils of atheism to his hometown paper. He said that his classes at Fresno had taught him that only Christianity made any sense or had high moral standards. I think he was serious, too. (His professors would weep.) Oh, yeah: and atheists can’t be moral because they lack fear of god. I quote his letter here.
I am reminded of the time I was flipping through channels and Jimmy Swaggart was, as usual, weeping like a lovesick teenager over Jesus and spouting vitriol about–and I quote– “all the rapists and the murderers and the homosexuals…”. I think he actually added more emphasis on the word homosexuals! Don’t you just love our country?
“Asportual male”? I need to remember that term! :-D
(I was quite out of place in school in Vienna. I can correctly pronounce Rapid is[t] meine Religion in a 12th-district accent, but I don’t mean it.)
“Asportual male”? I need to remember that term! :-D
(I was quite out of place in school in Vienna. I can correctly pronounce Rapid is[t] meine Religion in a 12th-district accent, but I don’t mean it.)
Silly MAJeff – Amanda has the power to mind-control any prominent member of the blogosphere whenever she wants. She’s already taken over Melissa McEwan to the point that right-wing reporters can’t tell them apart, and is now simply dabbling in biology for the fun of it. :)
I must confess that I never have figured out why religious conservatives are so terribly worried about how I use my genitalia. In a universe with some 10^11 galaxies, surely there are more important issues.
Carey, you would think taht, but oh how very wrong you would be. So very wrong.
Obviously the rest of the universe only exists to look pretty for us in the night sky.
Those aren’t stars. They’re glory holes in God’s firmament.
How well can you play volleyball with your hands clasped while on your knees?
This may be my favorite comment ever.
PZ, have those young ladies been married? If not, they’d best not be getting their vaginas bathed in holy semen until the vaginas have been sanctified in marriage. The semen’s still holy, of course, but the vaginas are icky, awful, and full of teeth until they’re magically transformed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster on a woman’s wedding night. That sheet’s not stained with blood — it’s spaghetti sauce.
I must confess that I never have figured out why religious conservatives are so terribly worried about how I use my genitalia. In a universe with some 10^11 galaxies, surely there are more important issues.
They:
1) Imagine using their genitalia in “icky” ways and it disturbs them, or,
2) Still feel ashamed about that time they drunkenly used their genitalia in “icky” ways.
That’s my guess.
Re: comment #10
Zeno, out of curiousity, what paper was this letter printed in?
Also, thanks for visiting my blog!….Scott
PZ, please, especially on Pride weekend, orientation. Preferences are about the color of the drapes or your desktop theme.
So what if it’s a preference? Would it make it somehow “wrong”? I personally like to think that I am choosing to be with my boyfriend.
—
They:
1) Imagine using their genitalia in “icky” ways and it disturbs them, or,
2) Still feel ashamed about that time they drunkenly used their genitalia in “icky” ways.
That’s my guess.
—
Stick with what you know, brother. Your guesses aren’t any good.
gabriel,
The term “sexual preference” has a long and sordid history. Using it to describe sexual orientation is 1) incorrect and 2) rude. Like a modern academic paper that fails to use gendered pronouns correctly or describes ethnicity in outdated terms, it reflects poorly on the author. I don’t ascribe motive, but I do point out the usage is not correct.
I’m also a stickler for singular/plural agreement (“The student will submit their paper” wrong; “The student will submit his or her paper” points for effort but wrong–gendered pronouns should be arranged alphabetically, e.g., “her or his”, “he or she”; “The student will submit her or his paper” correct but IMNSHO inelegant; “Students will submit their paper” correct and dodges the problem).
I don’t mean to derail the conversation, but I need some guidance on the topic of teaching high school students about the biology of sexual orientation / homosexuality, and thought this thread was a relevant thread to ask for help. I tried some internet searches but most results are about a religious interpretation or may have a religious agenda that is not so obvious, and I don’t want to spend all my time trying to figure out which sites are legit and which are trying to add spin to research.
Any links, papers, books that deal with this topic would be appreciated.
If this is an inappropriate place to ask for such help I apologize and please ignore.
I try not to go in for labeling large groups of people, but in my experience CalGeorge’s comments hit the nail on the head. I have never once in my life met a deeply religious christian who could be open and honest about sex, especially the taboo subjects. Or one who could justify or explain their interest in other people’s sex lives.
I grew up around enough bible thumpers to know that just as many (if not more) of them experiment with sexual taboos at some time or other. The main difference between them and an unchurched individual is that the religious person has endured the common misfortune of being viciously and repeatedly lied to by their parents and elders concerning sex. The indoctrination sets them up with a hefty dose of fear and guilt over any sexual desires that aren’t Bible approved. In the teens or twenties nature often gains the upper hand for a few years, giving rise to “temptation” on a daily basis; from what I’ve seen, very few make it through “pure.” Because of the hyperbolic warnings they’ve been force-fed from day one, the religious person reacts to their natural urges with disgust and with hatred (one could almost say jealousy) to those who are not so repressed. Funny consequence of all this though-many christians remain obsessed with taboo sex, and some even love to talk about it, as long as it’s something that “sinners” do. They can never even admit their own freaky side, except to ask forgiveness for it. Sad, sad, sad.
Sorry to rant on the subject, but the religious fear of sex has always bugged me. Christians in this country are constantly on the war path about anything outside their self-conceived norm, constantly worried about other people’s genitals and sex practices, and yet still have the absolutely ironic, self-deceiving, narrow minded gall to use words like “pervert” or “deviant” to describe anyone other than their own pathetic selves.
Whatever the case may be with you there Bisch, don’t stuff too much denial down that bag- you might scare the cat.
Wow, Neil, first you presume you know everything by declaring God doesn’t exist, and then you presume you know everything by telling me how I feel about sex.
With your plethora of naked assertions and your adhominem name calling to the collective of us christians, I believe you made the hat-trick. Top-notch effort. Well done indeed.
I’ll iterate my sarcastic advice to you, too. Stick with what you know.
So please enlighten us, Bisch: Why are “religious conservatives so terribly worried about how I use my genitalia”?
P.S. to Neil: Bisch’s advice was “sarcastic”, so you should do the opposite of what it says.
Rey, it was sarcastic in the manner of it being actual advice. I do recommend he does stick with what he knows.
I can’t speak for other religious conservatives. I personally don’t mind whatever manner of act in which you wish to engage your genitals. If I were to give you advice to keep from engaging in homosexual acts, it would be first a desire to keep you from doing what I believe my God doesn’t want you to do, but second, from a completely pragmatic approach, it would be to keep you from the myriad of health difficulties to which homosexuals subject themselves.
To a lesser extent, but along the same lines, it would be the same advice I would give to a heterosexual about refraining from sex until they are married. Not quite as hard on the body as homosexual sex, but still not as harmless as married sex.
Because perhaps a) oral sex performed on a male is so much harder on a homosexual male’s throat than woman’s or b) marriage confers a +4 girdle of protection to the participants in any sex act that occurs after the coupling has been blessed by a religious officiant (or recognized civil authority)? Wow. To heck with the legal benefits. If the mojo of protection is that good, no wonder gays want to get married.
if you’re such a stickler for singular-plural agreement that you won’t accept “they” as a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun, surely you ought to insist that your students will submit their papers.
(personally, i sidestep the problem by just accepting — by my own standards, as i’m no educator — “they” as an alternative third person singular. it may “look wrong”, but it does have some etymological history, and i feel it a lesser error than using gendered language in an accidentally sexist manner.)
Since you seem to be under the impression that linguistic conventions should never change no matter how awkward the correct form or how outdated the social assumptions underlying them, shouldn’t that have been delivered in, at the latest, Elizabethan English?
Becasue we all know that all gay people (lesbians included!) engage in nothing but teh buttsex, with hardcore fisting on Sundays. And straight,married people never do any of those things, or are perhaps protected by the magical ring. Once you’ve passed your finger through a band of gold, it’s that much easier to get your fist through a similar orifice.
Noeman, one too many rulers on the knuckles to ever be comfortable with “they” as a third person singular. I know one of the major style books now accepts it, but I view that as part of the overall decline of civilization. I’m aware of the arguments in favor, but I reject them as not convincing. If that makes me a creationist grammarian, so be it. I think of the argument more along the line of quibbling over details. I stand by the underlying point, how one handles little linguistic traps like that say a great deal about how their writing is perceived. (Ouch, that hurt to type.)
Azkyroth, I’m confused by your statement. The form I used in the example is contemporary and reflects the modern assumption that a student may be female or male (and my own bias–I find the alphabetizing rule preferable to alternating because it’s easier to keep track of in a long document and easier to proof if using a plural/plural construction is impractical).
Again, not wishing to lose sight of my original point, if I were to encounter a description of Barack Obama as a “blackamoor”, I’d assume the writer was being insulting. Not so in a discussion of Othello. Likewise, one hardly expects Mark Twain to have used “African-American” in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Conventions do change over time. Thirty years ago, “sexual preference” would have been infinitely preferable to “sexual deviant” (or the more common “pervert”). In current usage, “sexual preference” is used primarily by polite social conservatives to imply that unnatural attraction to members of the same sex is something that can be changed through application of an outside force such as aversion therapy or prayer. Sexual orientation is the preferred usage and has the additional virtue of being grammatically correct in more cases.
Now, if you really want to have some fun, let’s find a thread somewhere to review the reclaiming of the word “queer” in the 80s. (Or if you’re just looking to crank me up, let’s find a ring and discuss the use and misuse of “via”–No! It is not possible to send something via email. There is no town of Email that the message will pass through on its way to the recipient.)
Usagi:
Look up “their” in a dictionary. Every one I have checked supports the use of the plural pronoun where the sex of the antecedent is unspecified. Besides, it’s better than any of the alternatives.
“I believe that more cultural clashes like these will be seen in the near future as the religious and other archaic cultural types lose their position of rule over others.”
Oh, I wish I had your optimism.
Have some fun with sexual style!
Discuss it with the assumption of a Bell Curve squashed on a Kinsey Scale. The amusement comes from the quiet assumption of general ambisexuality in some degree. One is able to spring the obvious ad hominem suggestion in the guise of accomplished observation. Should one be “called” for citations then use Kinsey coupled with the general historical evidence that our primate-modified mammalian sexuality includes homosexuality. I leave it to you to deal with the red faced fundie by assuring him the of improbabability of a bi-modal model.
Married sex is less “harmful” how, exactly? Perhaps Bisch is talking about spiritual harm, but I never bought into that, either.
As for sex being more physically harmful outside marriage, it reminded me of my first visit to Planned Parenthood at the age of 17. During the lecture phase one of the girls asked the Nurse Practitioner whether it was possible to “wear out your vagina by having too much sex?” The NP laughed and told us that the only thing that “wears out” the vagina is giving birth vaginally.
So, to my mind, that means married sex comes out worse, physically speaking (more of the time, anyway.)
—
Married sex is less “harmful” how, exactly? Perhaps Bisch is talking about spiritual harm, but I never bought into that, either.
—
Speaking of the health harm, specifically the diseases to which one subjects himself or herself (almost typed it incorrectly, usagi…themselves!!!). The same end result could be attained by only having sex (heterosexual sex, mind you) with one person, but marriage clearly is the most likely vehicle for that monogamy.
And save yourselves the effort about the strawman of divorce statistics. I am aware that some marriages nowadays do not end with the death of one of the parties.
While marriage is the most likely vehicle for monogamy sex in and of itself need not be this big disease rampage you think it is. Likewise waiting to have sexual relations or marrying to have sexual relations can lead to a whole host of problems more serious than most STDs on the grand scheme of life.
The simple truth is the vast majority of people have sex before marriage and the the same folks rarely suffer disease for it. Is there a risk? Yes. Does waiting till marriage alleviate it sure. But is marrying to have sex healthy?
There is also a risk in driving down the road. Point being life has risks. Sex is one with risks that educated people can virtually eliminate. Which makes your argument fairly moot.
Many marriages. This is good and bad. It’s likely good when a shitty marriage ends giving both partners a new start. Sad because the dream and promise of the marriage may have gone unfulfilled.
Are you actually under the impression that
A) Homosexual behavior other than anal intercourse has a higher rate of disease transmission than vaginal intercourse and/or
B) It is possible for a homosexual act to transmit a disease with which neither partner is infected?
…….wow. Just…….wow.
What promise? If they only got married so they could screw without worrying about burning in hell for sinful fornication the marriage served its purpose.
It is? Is a given person less likely to cheat on their partner if they’re married, all other things being equal?
If you think it’s safer to sleep with fewer people, why not advocate that directly?
hot gay penguin action!!! (and many, many other animals)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
My natural genetic orientation is to drink excessively.
I am tired of being condemed for it. Its part of my genetic makeup.
As a lesbian I’m always amused by how discussions about same-sex sexual activity and/or relationships/ marriage always drifts (when certain men are in the discussion) to thinly veiled expresssions of fear of that butt thing. For heaven’s sake guys! Get your wife a strap-on, a copy of the video “Bend Over Boyfriend” and work out that fear directly. You’re getting boring!
So, it’s not so much a College Athletics Program, as a College Athletics Pogrom?
For Bisch-
Naked assertions: Check! (Love your phrasing, by the way.)
Although not as naked as you might think. These are opinions, yes, but opinions based on my entire life (and sex) experience. I’ve known plenty of gays, plenty of straights, and plenty of plain old freaks. But the only ones I’ve ever known to go completely Jekyll & Hyde with it were christians. Not only have I seen the guilt wallowing too many times to count, they always want you to join in and feel guilty too! As far as my views on religious sex taboos go, I stand by them. In have heard argument after argument from christians against homosexuality, pre-marital sex, porn, masturbation, you name it. I have yet to hear any arguments based on reality, with the exception of those who stick to earthly arguments such as unwanted pregnancies and s.t.d.’s- of course these are often presented as “punishments from god” instead of “consequences of irresponsible actions.” Mostly just irrelevant book-bashing and personal Icky Feelings. I assume that any Icky Feeling so strong must have deep roots. I may be wrong, but all of my experience (yes, anecdotal evidence, I’m a bad man) says otherwise. The only friends I’ve had that have had real problems with sex, gays, porn “addiction,” guilt over lust or masturbation, etc. are bible believers who can’t seem to “believe” their own bodies or common sense. Sucks to be them!
Collective Ad Hominem: Check! Although I would argue that it’s not an ad hominem if it’s true. Nothing to offer but more anecdotal evidence, of course. But the fact remains, I have never personally heard violent, impassioned anti-sex rhetoric from anyone who was not overtly religious. I have only heard vicious anti-gay sentiments from christians, muslims, and sixth graders who don’t want to be called “queer” on the playground. I have never known anyone whose mind was ravaged by guilt over sexual feelings who wasn’t programmed from birth to be ashamed of themselves just for having such feelings.
But alas I cannot claim the hat trick. I never said this was true of all religious folks-just pretty much all the ones I’ve known. I have no real idea how you feel about sex, but your blank denial seems interesting. Do you actually mean that the views I’m presenting are entirely foreign to you? You’ve never noticed how intrusive and over-the-top the devout can be when it comes to sex? Really? What is your planet like?
Also, I never claimed that there is no god. I sometimes resort to stating the obvious, but not when it’s entirely irrelevant.
Don’t worry about me following sarcastic advice. Sticking to what you know can be good advice at times. It helps one stay certain in their judgments. It also makes sure that you’ll never learn a damn thing. Of course once you’re tuned in to god, you must know everything you need to know, right?