Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities

A Range of Languages: What's Most Useful? Name: Anne Dalke Date: 2003-09-15 14:55:54 Link to this Comment: 6481

This week we will be exploring a range of languages available to us for thinking/talking/teaching about sex: those of science, of social science, of literature...as well as the language of humor. How effective is each, what does each tell us, invite us to feel/think/know/do? Which do you find most effective, for what reasons? Which speaks most clearly to you? Teaches you the most? Speaks most evocatively to you? Puzzles you? Draws you on? Are there some languages representing sex that you think we might be better off without? Do some impede rather than facilitate understanding? What other languages might we draw on, aside from those listed here? There's film. Grannis mentioned music. And there are Sharon's watercolors.... Are there other languages for representing sex which we should be sure to include in this course? (What "counts" as a language, anyhow?)
Anne

sex and the second law Name: Anne Dalke Date: 2003-09-17 19:41:14 Link to this Comment: 6518

I was particularly struck, during our conversation yesterday about the "range" of (academic) languages available to us for thinking-and-talking about sex, by the range of your responses to the article by the mother-son team of biologists, Sagan and Margulis. As we were trying to explain to one another the interaction between our experiences of sex and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I flashed to an image we used in talking about the latter (we seldom--hm. never--discuss the former) in our Faculty Working Group on Emergence.

See The Essential Link Between Life and the Second Law of Thermodynamics for a more precise rendering than the one I drew on the board yesterday, to trace the movement in the universe from less probable (more organized) states to more probable (less organized) states--and see what fuels...
what we are talking about??

Name: Catherine Date: 2003-09-18 00:39:47 Link to this Comment: 6523

I believe, from reading the three different articles, that we need to have more than one perspective to understand sex. These take us out of our comfort zones, which sometimes seems to be a good thing.
I personally felt most uncomfortable with the biology-perspective article, which seemed to question human beings' intelligence. We undoubtedly assume on a regular basis that we as a species are somewhat more advanced than the rest, but this article seems to tell us that we are actually probably behind, in that we must still rely on sex to reproduce.
So far, having sampled many readings, I feel as though I am challenged to accept any sexual language I read because if I do not, I am submitting myself to socially constructed walls which keep me loosely in and others out. This is a challenge; I find myself talking back to points brought up by writers and trying to defend what is "normal."

leaving comfort zones... Name: Sarah Date: 2003-09-19 20:31:01 Link to this Comment: 6542

I agree with Catherine that it's important to get a variety of views and languages on sex (or on anything, really). It's easy in the humanities classes here at BMC to get all caught up in how everything is socially/culturally constructed and related to oppression/patriarchy/personal choice/etc and forget that sex does have a biological basis as well. Although I wasn't entirely comfortable with the Margulis/Sagan piece either (it isn't exactly flattering to think of myself as a relatively tiny and insignificant organism being driven by forces of nature), I think it's important to get that perspective once in a while.

I tend to live at the level of the Allison piece--what are MY desires, how can *I* become a more fulfilled person, what is sex like for ME? Then my feminist classes pull me out of that to the social level of the Fine piece, thinking about how other women in my society view and experience sex and how that can be changed if necessary. But the Margulis/Sagan uses a discourse with which I'm not really familiar (science--yikes!), and views humans not as the most important species in the world (or the only species worth analyzing) but rather as just another variety of animal. And indeed, isn't sex a lot more animalistic than we'd like to admit sometimes? Doesn't it often work better when you turn your brain off and just feel? Something about the Margulis/Sagan makes me feel a little less responsible for and obsessive about my sex life. After all, I'm just an animal...I don't know any better! :-) Which is, of course, why we also need the language of the social and the personal to give sex a little more meaning than that.

Sex, Language and Isabel Name: Ro. Finn Date: 2003-09-20 09:10:11 Link to this Comment: 6544

Hi All
It's so GOOOD to be back on-line with ELECTRICITY...not to mention the privilege of taking a shower. We're on a well, so no power=no water pump...drinking water, shower water, toilets--not gonna go there. Been without all of the above since Friday afternoon. Now all we have to deal with is a startlingly horizontal 90-foot shag bark hickory that fell from my neighbor's pasture onto our property. No buildings involved, just fencing and a few bewildered but unscathed horses. Some fun.

Oh yeah, Sex.

The anatomy of a joke is intriguing...what makes us laugh together, coming from diverse backgrounds and generations? I don't think it's as simple as saying a good joke has a surprise, a twist, brings tension then relief (like the act of sex itself?), or resonates with some aspect about sex with which we are not comfortable. Laughter is a release valve of sorts, but some of us (like Laurel and me) do not find "dirty jokes" funny most of the time. I don't know what that says about us, or about those who do laugh. Need to think more...and am thinking about us as a species that has/uses humor versus others that seem not to. Does our ability to be funny/respond to humor get in the way of a more "natural/accepting" ease with whatever our species does sexually?

For me, the most compelling and useful readings about languages for sex was the trilogy of articles that presented vocabularies in the universal community, the social community, and the personal space. I think that having that spectrum really rattled some "prejudice plaque" loose in the crevices of my brain. I think that seeing myself as infinitessimally small in the universal scheme of things sexual enables me to think more calmly/objectively about sex in a social setting. Not sure I buy that we're slaves to the second law of thermodynamics, but I like the notion that sex may not have come into play for the sole purpose of reproduction of a species. This is mind-freeing and allows me to contemplate the social ramifications of sex acts and preferences without the baggage of religious "shoulds/should nots" getting in the way.

That's all for now. Gonna pull on my leather gauntlets, join the guys, and rev up my chain saw (for the tree, silly)...hoping I look sexy while hacking off limbs.
See ya Tuesday!
Ro

Limerick Name: Ro. Finn Date: 2003-09-20 09:14:23 Link to this Comment: 6545

One more "joke" -- we didn't have any limericks, so the poet in me would like to offer this one (not mine):

There once was a fellow named Green
Who invented a fucking machine.
Concave or convex,
It served either sex
And played with itself in-between.

...wonder why it's always a 'fellow"?

Sex and language Name: KB Date: 2003-09-20 14:17:54 Link to this Comment: 6548

Hi, everyone! I am also dealing with having no power, and am at home this weekend since Glenmede has closed...but, onto the subject of the myriad ways to put sex into language.

I am also of the opinion that we should all consider and accept the many different perspectives from which one can put sex into language. Before coming to class on Tuesday, I was a bit skeptical about Margulis/Sagan article. I am not really a science person, and didn't want to allow myself to understand what they were saying...I thought of them as crazy scientists. This resistance had me thinking, "maybe this is what is wrong with sex ed teachers in our country, they only use the languages they prefer to teach students who may prefer a completely different type of languages." Definitely something to think more about...

In terms of the sex jokes, I left Thursday's class a little confused. Can't sex jokes just be sex jokes? Must we analyze everything? Can't we just laugh, or not laugh, or sigh, or be disgusted, and then move on?

Speaking of sex jokes, here is mine again:
A man walks into a bar with his pet octopus. He notices a piano in the bar and says to the bartender "I'll bet you $5. that my pet octopus can play that piano." Thinking he's about to win $5, the bartender agrees. The octopus sits at the piano and begins to play. Upset, the bartender runs into the back and gets an old violin, and tells the man that he'll bet him another $5 that his octopus can't play the violin. The man agrees, and the octopus starts playing the violin. The bartender decides to give himself one more chance to win his money back, and tells the man that he'll bet him that his octopus can't play the bagpipes. The bartender brings out the bagpipes, and sets them down in front of the octopus. The octopus looks quite confused. He starts rubbing his tenticles up and down the bagpipes, and when his owner asks him "what's wrong, why can't you play" the octopus replies "because I'm trying to figure out how to get her pjs off."

sex into language Name: Heather Date: 2003-09-21 15:29:08 Link to this Comment: 6553

My sex joke:
Johnny walks into a bar looking a little down. The bartender asks him, "What's up Johnny, you okay?" Johnny snaps back,"just give me a beer!", but when the bartender comes back with the beer, he starts to explain. "You know, I joined the military and killed 30 men, but did they call me Johnny the Warrior?...no. I went to school, became an architecht and designed the town library, but did they call me Johnny the Builder?...no. I had seven children and 30 grandchildren, but did they call me Johnny the Father?...no. ....but you fuck one goat!"

As for the articles on putting sex into language, I responded differently to the science one than others. It made me feel uncomfortable to be told that I am just part of a bigger machine, my actions predictable and adding to the acheivement of a greater goal. This view seems to be contradictory to the other two...is there really any value to individual experience? and is there any point to talking about sex or anything for that matter, if greater understanding cannot effect change?

sex in the daylight Name: Ali Date: 2003-09-21 17:39:03 Link to this Comment: 6557

So, according to the Sagan piece, could we all be having better sex in the daylight , to maximize energy? Just a thought =) But in all honesty I, like Heather, don't WANT to be part of some large "machine". I want to feel connected to other people while simultaneously retaining my (very personal/intimate) individuality. Why can't I have my cake and eat it, too? It was certainly interesting to consider sex and bodies from such a perspective, but I don't think science can necessarily explain such a complex experience as sex. Sexuality is also a significant contributor in the definition of individuality and identity.

on the ligther side....
"A pirate walks into a bar with a rather large, wooden steering wheel in his pants. The bartender takes one look at him and exclaims, "What's the deal with the steering wheel, buddy?" The pirate replies, "Arghhhh, it's drivin' me nuts!"

my joke... Name: Sarah Date: 2003-09-21 18:15:48 Link to this Comment: 6558

Two men are lost in the woods and decide to split up to find shelter for the night. One man finds a little cottage and knocks at the door. A very old lady answers and says she'll take him in for the night if he has sex with her. He grimaces but agrees. While she's in the bathroom preparing herself for bed, he goes downstairs and finds a corn cob to use instead of putting himself inside her. They do the deed in the dark, and when they're through he throws the corn cob out the window. The next day he meets up with his friend. "So, how'd you make out?" he asks. The friend shrugs: "I didn't find any shelter, but I did find some great cream of corn for dinner!"

Name: tia Date: 2003-09-21 23:18:09 Link to this Comment: 6559

here is my sex joke:
a man walks into a bar where he sees a horse sitting at the bar and in front of the horse is a pile of money. the man says to the bartender, "hey whats up with this horse?" the bartender tells the man that the horse is betting people that no one can make him laugh and cry. the man says that he can do that. so he and he horse go outside. the bartender hears the horse laugh loudly. then the horse runs into the bar crying. the man walks in and the horse hands him all his money and crys harder. the bartender asks the man "what did you say to make the horse laugh and cry?" the man says " well, first i told the horse my dick is bigger than his. then i showed it to him."

when things make us uncomfortable, humans often use humor tohelp ease the discomfort. we do that with issues of race and gender, so why not sex? i dont neccesarily argee with the idea that your favotie sex joke reveals your psyche. i think you just find a joke you agree with and go for it.

unconnect thoughts Name: Garron Date: 2003-09-22 09:04:13 Link to this Comment: 6562

1) When I read Katie's questions "Can't a joke just be a joke? Must we analyze everything?" I was reminded of what Freud supposedly said when was asked what his fondness of cigars might say about him on a deeper level. He said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Do I believe that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar? Do I believe that not everything has deeper meaning? I'm not sure. . .

2) As for my joke, "Little Red Riding Hood's mother comes downstairs one morning . . ." Just kidding. I'm not going to write the whole joke down because I don't want to be here all night. But if for some reason someone wants to hear it again I'm more than happy to tell it. If you don't want to hear that joke, but could use another sex joke/story I have one about two priests that you might enjoy. Come to think about it I also have a couple sex jokes involving ducks that I don't particularly like that much. This sex joke activity in class has made me remember sex jokes that I didn't even know I stored in my brain from times gone by.

3) I thought Heather asked some interesting questions, "...is there really any value to individual experience? and is there any point to talking about sex or anything for that matter, if greater understanding cannot effect change?"
Is there value to individual experience for whom? I certainly value my individual experience. I also value hearing about others. Why? Because I'm somewhat of a voyeur in that way . . . Because I want to learn from . . . Because I'm curious . . . Because I want to compare and contrast with my own experience . . . Because overall I believe individual experience has meaning on a group level because it is from many individual experiences that we form general themes, cultural norms, meanings, theories etc.
As for the point about the point of talking if greater understanding can't effect change, I wonder if Heather believes that greater understanding can't effect change. What about the rest of you? Is the goal of talking and coming to greater understanding about sex or anything else to effect change? What do you guys think our goal is for taking a course where we talk about sex in every class and every assignment? What is our goal when we talk about sex in other contexts? What do you guys think we're trying to get at here? I'm full of questions tonight aren't I?

4) As long as I'm on the question theme here, Anne asked if there were some languages representing sex that we'd be better off without, and whether some languages impede rather than facilitate understanding. I wonder what she had in mind. I know that there are some hurtful or offensive ways sex can be expressed, but whenever someone suggests excluding some language, any language, about anything I'm wary. I believe in explaining why a type of language might be hurtful or offensive or inappropriate, and I think its fine not to use it personally, but also I think I would be pretty uncomfortable telling others not to use a certain form of language. I don't want to censor . . .

Name: Jessie Date: 2003-09-22 12:59:33 Link to this Comment: 6566

The more I think about sex and language, the more I'm convinced that sex is by nature incommunicable. Sex is an inexplicable impulse, even a compulsory response to the Second Law of Thermodynamics according to Margulis and Sagan; it is an irrational, primitive, deeply rooted, personal yet universal drive. Language, in contrast, is essentially rational. In order to articulate an event, we must ascribe logical definitions and comprehend our thoughts according to reason. We can certainly talk about topics related to sex – we can talk about sexual identity, about physical intercourse, about sexual politics, about gender and biological sexes – but we cannot quite seem to define sex itself. Sex, I think, is a mode of expression in itself that, due to it's impulsive qualities, necessarily defies the logical nature of language...

Anyway, my joke: A woman has an appointment with a gynecologist. After the session, the gynecologist comments to the woman, "Your vaginal area is among the cleanest I've seen! What do you do?" And the woman replies, "Thank you; I have a woman in once a week."

Language Group Forum Name: Anne Dalke Date: 2003-09-22 15:35:14 Link to this Comment: 6571

While you're worrying about the capacities and limits of language... keep an eye on the Language Group Forum. Good jokes...and some provocative ideas along the way. Last week this group began discussing the notion of what the world looks like to the unconscious....and how THAT might be represented in language. As Grannis and I discussed in a conference today, this is MOST relevant to thinking/talking about sex....

taking a saw to the tree of language Name: Anne Dalke Date: 2003-09-23 13:53:12 Link to this Comment: 6586

Ro's quip that she was going to "rev up my chain saw (for the tree, silly)..."

was for me a delightful reminder of a recent exchange on the web page dedicated to Ursula Le Guin's 1986 Bryn Mawr Commencement Address, in which a commentator ( Robert Scholes, whom Garren called our attention to last week) observes

"The world resists language as the grain of a tree resists the saw, and saws take the form they do partly because wood is what it is. We sense the presence of things through this resistance....."

For more on THIS way of thinking about language, see http://serendipstudio.org/forum/newforum/leguin-read.html#6572

There are strong links here, I think, to today's post-writing-workshop conversation about that within each of us that both resists being "known" completely and (therefore?) resists being educated (by our parents? our teachers? those with longer experience in the world who claim thereby to have acquired "predictive" capacities...?) into what we "should" know...

Jokes and Reflection... Name: Grannis Date: 2003-09-25 15:30:29 Link to this Comment: 6631

I have enjoyed reading all of your comments... however, I must say that I was extremely struck by the piece that was co-authored by Margulies and Sagan. Personally, I am a huge fan of Carl Sagan (so this could partially explain why I so deeply enjoyed this piece written by his wife and son), and I felt that the essay had something very valuable to offer, in that it described sex on a biological level, in a more universal "big-picture" type context. The analogy of the sun being the source of all energy and of humans as being absorbers and transmitters (transmitting energy through sex, that is) was absolutely fascinating. After all, the reason why sex is so amazing on so many levels is because of energy that we generate and transmit to each other during intercourse.
The fact that this article described sex on a more instinctual, or animalistic level helped me to realize the importance of what Anne mentioned earlier: that is important to stay in tune with our unconscious, and examine what sex (and the world) look like to us on that level. If we understand that, maybe we can start putting those unconscious perceptions into language. Only when we can represent both the conscious' and the unconscious' views of sex will our discourse begin to make more sense and become more complete.
Anyway, here are some funny jokes- but none of them are anywhere near as funny as the "little red riding hood" joke :-).

A woman walked into the pharmacy and asked for a vibrator. The pharmacist gestured with 
her index finger and said, "Come this way." The woman replied, 
"If I could come that way, I wouldn't need a damn vibrator."

A guy walks into a bar and sees a beautiful woman
sitting alone. He says, "Can I buy you a drink?" 
She replies, "Yes, but it won't do you any good." 
Later he asks, "May I buy you another drink?" "Yes,"
she responds, "but it won't do you any good." After a
few drinks, he decides to ask her to his apartment.
Again, she replies, "Yes, but it won't do you any
good." 

In his apartment he turns to her and says, "You are
the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. I want you
for my wife." 
She replies, "Ohhhhh, THAT'S a different story!! Bring
her on out!!!" 

A dermatologist goes to work one day and his first patient comes in and says, "doctor, you've got to help me.  my boyfriend refuses to take off his letter sweater when we make love, and now i have this horrible rash."  she takes off her shirt, and sure enough, there's a big red itchy rash in the form of an H on her chest.
The doctor says, "this is interesting, i've never seen anything quite like it before.  i wonder why it occurred in such an unusual shape."
"He goes to harvard."  the girl answered.
"Ah, that would explain it."  he prescribes some lotion and sends her on her way.
The next patient comes in and says, "doctor, i hope you can help me with this rash.  it's a little embarrassing, but it's driving me crazy."
She takes off her shirt and displays a big, itchy, red rash in the shape of a Y.  the doctor raises his eyebrows.
"It's my boyfriend, he goes to yale, and is so into his new letter sweater that he never takes it off, even when we're making love.  is there anything you can do?"
The doctor prescribes calamine lotion and sends patient number 2 on her way.  the third patient comes in and says, "doctor, you've got to help me!"  she takes off her shirt and there on her chest is a big, itchy, red rash in the shape of an M.
"Don't tell me,"  says the doctor, "your boyfriend goes to MIT, and refuses to take off his letter sweater when you make love."
The patient looks at him with surprise.  "close."  she says, "i have a girlfriend, and she goes to Wellesley."

knowing sex? Name: Laura Date: 2003-09-30 03:27:28 Link to this Comment: 6702

"Sex has no history. It is a natural fact, grounded in the functioning of the body, and, as such, lies outside of history and culture. Sexuality, by contrast, does not properly refer to some aspect or attribute of bodies. Unlike sex, sexuality is a cultural production: it represents the appropriation of the human body and of its physiological capacities by an ideological discourse. Sexuality is not a somatic fact; it is a cultural effect. Sexuality, then, does have a history-though (as I shall argue) not a very long one."
From "Is There A History of Sexuality?" by David Halperin

History and language are funny "things" to me. Both have the power to distort and manipulate. History is the "language" that humanity has utilized to create a story of the "past". (by the way, I am using quotation marks liberally because I am a bit distrustful of words/language at this particular moment) Power is used to create knowledge, knowledge then becoming our (hi)story. -I contest the theory that knowledge gives power.

According to Halperin, sex has no history – it cannot be touched by man's power to create knowledge and fabricate a story. Sexuality is another issue. If sex has no history... it is untranslatable through language, than why do we seek to confine/put sex to words? Dorothy Allison alluded to sex as power (which disturbed me), but if that is the case, than theoretically power establishes knowledge and historically charts out the origin of sex through the present. Or that would be the case in a linear history, which is faulty in as of itself?

If sexuality does have a history, does that mean that sexuality has an origin, an ultimate truth? what is it? How do we verbalize that truth? "The origin lies at a place of inevitable loss... the site of a fleeting articulation that discourse has obscured and finally lost" (Foucault, "Aesthtics, Method, and Epistemology). Discourse dispels the idea of an origin while at the same time creating it. Is the origin of our sexuality the moment of conception? Are human beings sexualized in the womb? Is the origin of our sexuality the origin of our proposed history? Is there an ultimate truth to sexuality? Is that what the Margulis/Sagan piece was compounding upon? Or were they focusing more on the "natural fact" of sex, removed from history and culture? "Sex... takes on a different aspect, one that has as much to do with preserving identity as with destroying it" (Margulis and Sagan, "What is Sex?"). Sex preserves and destroys. Hummm, sounds a lot like the functions of words/history to me.

In his reflections upon Nietzsche's writing concerning genealogy, Foucault strips knowledge of the glory we tend to dress it with. "The historical analysis of this rancorous will to knowledge reveals that all knowledge rests upon injustice (that there is no right, not even in the act of knowing, to truth or a foundation for truth), and that the instinct for knowledge is malicious (something murderous, opposed to the happiness of mankind)." (Foucault, "Aesthtics, Method, and Epistemology). May I second that?!

Are we, in our quest to put sex/uality into words, accumulating available knowledge and histories in order to do so, actually mangling sex/uality? Delany says that "the sexual experience is still largely outside language" (139 "Longer Views"). Should we leave it there?

Okay, this is enough of my late night ramblings... my head hurts now. I propose that we hold a few class discussions somewhere around midnight, seeing as how my brain seems to operate (or malfunction) on a 11pm-5am routine, as opposed to 9-5... =)

To teach or offend Name: Anjali Date: 2003-10-06 00:28:48 Link to this Comment: 6804

Okay, to start I just have to mention that I did not fully appreciate the Margulis and Sagan piece. I'm sure it enlightened some people and amazed others, but I really found it convoluted and a little too...abstract. I just wasn't impressed. In fact, I became quite bored reading it. Sometimes in life I think people read too much into things...this is one of those times. But hey, to each her own.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there. I don't know why I felt the need to say it, but maybe what I'm getting at is that I felt this article impeded my ability to understand sex. I'm not sure if impede is the right word. Okay, I'm rambling, let me be clear. They write:

"What is sex? It confuses us not only because it literally has to do with the mingling of two distinctly different beings, opening us up to each other in the deepest way, but also because we tend to make mistaken extrapolations about sexuality's importance."

Now is that meant to be contradictory? Does it seem contradictory to anyone else? I mean, do the authors mean to place so much importance on the act of sex and then say, we "make mistaken extrapolations about [its] importance?" I just found this article a little too much for me. So I'm going to leave it and move on. In reference to what Katie said, "This resistance had me thinking, "maybe this is what is wrong with sex ed teachers in our country, they only use the languages they prefer to teach students who may prefer a completely different type of languages," I just think this language isn't the "right" one to teach me.

I think for me, the best way to discuss sex is with reality. I learn the most just sitting in a group with my friends discussing what we think or feel, want or have. And I don't just learn about sex, I learn about myself in relation to the rest of the world and in relation to just myself. I realize what I want or don't want, what I need or don't need and what I have and don't have. But I don't think there is just one right way to discuss sex or to learn it. I think we all learn from a variety of ways. The way one piece of music can inspire some, depress others and ignite yet others...this is one type of language which speaks differently depending on who is listening...it is the same, I think, with all languages. Even when someone is straight forward, sometimes we hear what we want to hear.

So when Garron told her joke, some of us heard repeatedly and loudly the word "fuck". Others heard the repetition of the lines, still others heard the coming punchline. Some heard a funny story and some heard an offensive one. How we hear is not dependent on words, but on ourselves, so what languages work for some, will not work for others. For this reason, mostly, I too, like Garron, am averse to censoring people. Because how do we really know the difference between one who teaches and one who offends?

Experience at Praxis Site Name: Megan Hill Date: 2003-10-08 21:16:05 Link to this Comment: 6853

I taught my first sex ed class for Planned Parenthood tonight and I had an experience that relates back to the language of sex. We were doing an activity about coming up with words about sex and words about sexuality. One of the phrases that one of the students offered was "facial sex". Huh? Even my co-facilitator, who's worked at PP for 6 years had no clue. When we asked the girls what it was they laughed at our stupidity. Apparently the term was common because all 6 girls (ages 12-14) knew what it was. Finally, one girl said, "It's when a man puts his penis in your mouth."

Oh, Oral Sex!!! I felt embarassed for not knowing a term that was common to these pre-teens. Not knowing their language definately created an initial barrier between the teachers and the students. The students didn't relate to us because they were put off by our lack of knowledge. Language bridges a cap between people and not being able to communicate is troublesome.

dirty jokes Name: Laurel Date: 2003-10-09 01:15:38 Link to this Comment: 6856

Q. what's the difference between snow men and snow women?

A. snow balls.

I think my lame attempt at telling a dirty joke matches my reaction to some of the dirty jokes. I don't like feeling as though I'm a prude, but I do like knowing I don't laugh at things that I don't think are funny. I know I used to. Humor is such an interesting way to test our boundaries, to explore why some of us are amused, some of us are offended, and some of us just don't care. It can become such a sensitive issue so quickly.

The more I think about the Margulis and Sagan article the more I realize how swept away I was by their very language. Some of their arguments are now falling through for me, but I think they write the way I want to have sex. Huh.