so, i mean...

if you could completely control the environment in every possible way, including perfectly understanding the "machine learning" in your brain, could you create your uber mensch, after all?

probably. yeah.

but good luck with that.

but, to be clear - am i picking nurture over nature? no. i'm redefining the debate, and not in the usual "it's a complicated mix" sort of cop-out way.

the debate is usually between whether you're born a certain way and can't change it, or whether you're subject to gramscian conditioning and can be completely defined by your masters.

i don't think either of those things are true. what i think is that the premise that you can control the laboratory conditions in this experiment is horribly naive! so, it's almost like a heisenbergian reanalysis of the basic question: how well can we control the environment, in the first place? how much of this is subject to randomness in ways that are not inherent, but that no amount of nurture can possibly overturn? are there paradoxical and ultraparadoxical phases linked to the nurture argument, and how much of this is triggered in ways that can't be controlled for, either?

so, i don't want a nature v nurture argument - i think this is deprecated. biological determinism is absurd. rather, what i want is a nurture v error argument, a controlled v uncontrolled debate, and then i'll argue that error is the evolution of nature in the equation.

and, then we can talk about how it's complicated.

so, what causes all of these things like asexuality and transexuality?

it's randomness. chance. error.

accepting that what our dna does is turn us into smart machines that can be more efficiently programmed by the environment essentially puts us at the whim of the universe, itself. as individuals, we're just the sum of our experiences.

so, there isn't a normal sexuality or a normal gender expression, relative to our dna. this arises solely and exclusively through the "machine learning" we go through as we actually exist. if heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality, it is only as a reflection of the dominant society. if we decided that homosexuality was normal, then we'd all be programmed that way by society, and we'd all grow up gay.

so, i'm essentially taking a tabula rasa position on this. 

and, what it means is that things like historical statistics are kind of meaningless, because the assumption should be variation rather than stasis.

humans are indeed basically computers. but, we're not like the simple computers that we created when we first started messing around with programs.

to begin with, we're quantum computers. second, we're capable of machine learning - we're a complicated ai, not a linear code, or a recursive functional program.

so, when i talk about pavlovian conditioning, that doesn't exactly bring in a concept of free choice. we're still being programmed, but we're being programmed by the universe as it exists, in real time, rather than sprouting from some detailed instructions.

dna codes for proteins, which means it determines how the mechanics of our biology operates. and, it fucks this up. all of the time. look at all the diabetics. and, what is evolution? it's a function of errors in transcription. if you're imagining dna as this perfect set of instructions, that's completely flawed - it's haphazard and error-prone.

and, it simply doesn't code for actual behaviour - it just produces the conditions to allow for the universe to actually program us, as a reaction to stimuli in real-time.

and, as we evolve, it will be to become more reactive, more adaptive, not less so.

my perspectives on this are not in the mainstream of science at the moment, although as more evidence debunks the genetic basis of sexual orientation there is going to be a need to look at different approaches, but the easy deduction from her life experiences is that she essentially wasn't taught to be sexual, whereas the other kids around her were.

reducing it to a choice - like what you're going to eat for breakfast - is a little overly simplistic. but, i think that if you were to look at her life experiences that much more carefully, you'd pull some things out. for example, i'd bet she watched less tv and was broadly less exposed to specific types of media than the kids around her. further, i'd suspect that her mother was less sexual than the mothers of some of these other kids. they probably never really had that old talk. if you want to reduce it to a single, specific factor, it could very well simply be that her role models were not sexual, so she grew up into a non-sexual identity. yes, there is some concept of choice here, but it's hopelessly intertwined with the inputs defining the choice, meaning you're looking more at a type of pavlovian conditioning.

the basic point that i think so many people get wrong here is that they assume that this is all programmed, all hard-wired. the evidence is slowly overturning this perception. but, the remnants of social norms are still kind of lingering around. 

my position is that all of these things that we assume are inherent have to be taught, and if you don't teach them then they just don't happen. i'm convinced, personally, that one of the reasons that i ended up identifying as female is that nobody ever really taught me how to be a male. it's not that simple. the mere absence of instruction is not enough to imply a specific outcome. i could have decided to pursue that path on my own, and sought different role models. but, being born xy doesn't necessarily imply you'll grow into a man - you have to be taught, somehow, one way or the other. it doesn't just happen. it's not innate, not automatic, not inherent.

likewise, sexual attraction is not something innate. it doesn't just appear out of our genome. mammals need to be taught almost everything by their parents, and sexuality is really no different. if you don't teach your kids about sex, they won't necessarily learn about it on their own - they might decide they'd rather do something else, or they might build up walls and barriers and stigmas. they may even take solace in their isolation, and elevate it to a part of their identity.

she could probably change her mind if she wanted to, but the older you are, the harder it gets. and, she can't get back the life experiences that she didn't have when she was younger.

is asexuality essentially just another way to say you're sexually immature, then? by definition, perhaps. but, accepting diversity and autonomy and agency means it's ok to be immature and ok to accept that immaturity as an identity - that there isn't a correct path to follow in life.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a9088917/womankind-asexual-woman-sexual-attraction/

to make the point clear. i have to do this every little while.

...although it really should be obvious.....

...but i don't actually have sex, ever, with anybody, at all. i have had a single sexual partner in my life over 2002-2006, and what i learned is that it's not worth it. it took me a few years to realize it and make a conscious choice on the matter, but i've been consciously celibate by desire since roughly 2009. i have had essentially no interest in sex, at all, with anybody, in well over ten years.

i take a large amount of testosterone suppressors that make it physically impossible for me to get an erection. i couldn't fuck you if you begged me to. and, i wouldn't want to. i take these drugs because this is what i want. i find male sexuality, in pretty much any context, to be completely revolting.

i have never hit on or made sexual advances towards anybody of any gender, wanted or unwanted. there have been situations where i've realized that an advance has been wanted, and i've avoided making it. there have been situations where i've had to reject or avoid passive advances. there have also been situations where i've had to aggressively reject aggressive advances, and in fact from women more often than men. i even think i was raped once. but, i don't make sexual advances towards anybody, ever, at all, of any gender, under any circumstance, because i actually honestly seriously don't want to. anybody of any gender that is convinced i was hitting on them is just misinterpreting the situation....

so, i don't know what else to tell you.

i'm asexual; i don't seek sex, because i don't want it. and, you're just confused, if you're convinced otherwise.

so, i crashed around 7:00 and wasn't up until after 15:00. that was actually the longest that i've slept in a good while, though. 

that just means i slept off the wait. but, i got lazy last night and i need to make sure the laptop is, in fact, booting by the end of the night.

how was alessandro cortini, though?

he mostly did social network style stuff, which was predictable, but maybe not what i was expecting. he was on late and finished late. and, then, i was essentially stuck there listening to dubstep (which i can't stand) until the buses started running again.

when the works shut down, it seems to have opened up a void that is still kind of settling. but, it freed the scene up and gave rise to marble, which is a bar that has both a crowd and a stylistic focus that i greatly prefer over the works. like most of detroit, i actually hated the works - i hated the atmosphere, i hated the djs and i hated the scene. it was a gross, disgusting place full of gross, disgusting people - and very, very bad music. but, on some nights, it was the only party in town, and people seemed to not want to put on other parties because everybody was going there, anyways.

i've noticed recently that the dubstep kids are migrating to marble, and i'm hoping they don't settle in there. marble was great precisely because it wasn't full of the old works crowd of dubstep people. it was an older and less shallow audience, over all. it might be too late, though, and if they settle in, and the management embraces them, i might find myself needing to look somewhere else. for now, i've got plaid coming up at the start of the month and we'll see what happens next year...

personally, i think that the leland club is a better spot for the dubstep kids. those goth nights are always dead, and they've been upstaged by small's, anyways. they could save their bar by becoming the new works, and that would be fine with me, if it means protecting marble from the wubbz invasion, and everything that means. 

however the dust settles, i'm just hoping there's a consistent way to avoid dubstep on a weekly basis. for a while, there wasn't, and i ended up hanging out in a place that i didn't actually really want to be in - and, as it turns out, didn't really want me there, either.

i mean, what they told me was that i was "making people uncomfortable". not a specific person, but "people", in general.

i asked for them to be more specific, and they declined. i was not able to properly decode the statement, and i've never been able to build the full context.

my perception of myself is that the only people that i tend to make uncomfortable are homophobic men - and i know that's a real thing. so, when somebody comes up to me and says "you have to leave because you're making people feel uncomfortable", and then declines to elaborate, i can't draw any other real deduction - i must have been thrown out for upsetting the men in the bar.

and, the bar was almost entirely full of men at that point, as well, which is probably why i became the focus of attention - there were all these guys looking around for girls, and i was what was there. if there were more women in the bar, i probably would have escaped notice.

as mentioned - that's the only example i have, because i don't actually like to go to upper class type places, anyways.

but, i'm not going to put a shirt on. i'll go somewhere else, instead. sorry.

the reality is that i don't think it's ever actually come up, because i don't tend to be drawn to those kinds of places, anyways. i don't recall ever being turned away anywhere. but, i don't have any memories of actually going anywhere that would make it an issue or want to turn me away, either. 98% of the time that i'm in a bar, it's to see a concert and, for the other 2% of the time, i would naturally avoid a place like that out of reflex, and seek out the dive bar down the street, instead. i've never had a group of friends that would say "let's go to this bar with a dress code", either - i've always preferred social groups that consist of anarchists, punks and nerds that would rather hang out in dive bars, in the first place.

that night that i got thrown out of the works probably had a lot do with what i was wearing, but it was a gender expression thing. i never really got a straight answer, but i appear to have upset some guys at the bar via a combination of turning on their girlfriends and confusing them about what my gender was. i was there on that night to see allessandro cortini, and he seems to have attracted a lot of heteronormative meatheads to what is generally a sleazy dance bar. so, yes - they probably threw me out for what i was wearing, but it was more of a gender thing than a class thing, and all i can do is point out that it reflects exceedingly poorly on the bar owners and management. the bar has since closed.

i have no other examples.

and, my only request to the new detroit is that they tell me before hand so i can avoid anywhere that wants to put one down.

actually, my perspective on dress codes is to request that you publish them ahead of time so i know to avoid your party or establishment. obviously, nobody likes meeting a bouncer that is going to refuse you entry based on your clothing. it's a frustrating and embarrassing situation for everybody. but, i'm not the kind of person that is going to change my appearance to fit it, or want to spend time in a place that enforces rules on what you can or can't wear. further, i fully reject all kinds of hierarchy - i'm an anarchist. so, i'm not going to like the people there any more than they're going to like me. the disinterest is mutual. i do not want to be at a party with a dress code.

if you publish it ahead of time, you can save everybody the hassle - i'll go somewhere else. and, i can launch into an argument about property rights, but it's ultimately inconsequential, in context. the best outcome is that we avoid each other.

i'd just request that communication around the issue be upfront and clear, well ahead of time.

just to update the status on the drive.

it boots. it's not broken. i'm copying everything over.

it was probably the registry, and it's probably going to take a while to figure it out. i got distracted this morning...it's not going to be until tomorrow, now.