OkCupid on Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex

I've had OkCupid's Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex blog post linked to me multiple times in the past week. Now, there are clearly some major flaws in it in terms of generalizability. OkCupid's users make for a very specific sample, the people who answer particular questions make for an even more specific sample, and there's no discussion of the characteristics of that sample outside all the graphs they present. There's also no discussion of what counts as gay or straight, where the bi people are, where the trans people on, and so on. It's shoddy as research and it is definitely a post for straight people rather than a post for the LGBTQ community (but hey, it's OkCupid; we already knew that would be the bias, didn't we?). And even though I don't like some of it straight out -- the Profile Correlation to the Norm in particular is a meaningless waste of space that seems like it should be taken out of a How to Lie with Statistics book -- some is pretty and interesting. Like this:

What are your sexual inclinations? (straights only)

That is possibly now one of my favorite maps. Much more interesting than, say, this one:

What are your political inclinations?

Mississippi is literally unbelievably un-gay-uncurious, and I will be keeping my eye on them for in the next 15 years, as a generation that must be driven by fear and homophobia more than by internal curiosity gains in power. Scary shit. And New Mexico, well, on the basis of these two maps, I may consider moving there. I hadn't realized it was such a bastion of liberalism and open-mindedness. Must be the Western live-and-let-live mentality. Or a tiny sample size left unmentioned by OkCupid staffers.

faith in humanity!

Here are my most recent three attempts to find parking:

1. I've been circling the parking lot for 15 minutes, waiting for a meter to open up. Finally a guy walks up and goes to a car, and it's in my zone! I put on my turn signal and thank god that I will have 5 minutes to walk to my appointment once I park. A guy behind me gets out of his car, knocks on my window, and tells me that he has made a deal with the car pulling out to get the spot; there's some sort of line at the front that he has been waiting in. Yeah, whatever. I let him have the spot and circle for another 15 minutes -- in time to get that same man's spot upon his return to his car -- and a glimpse of his cheeky grin.
2. I park at a meter, already running late, but thankful that the meter gods smiled on me and I was able to find a spot quickly. I pump it full of $1.25 in quarters. It jams. I add another quarter -- still not loosened up. I add another quarter, just in case. Bam, "FAIL" starts blinking on the meter, and I have to go find and feed another one.
3. Today, after I circle around meters for 10 minutes, I give up and drive over to a parking garage where you pay after you park. As I enter, I pause to wait for someone with his backup lights on pull out. That car doesn't move, but a guy walks up behind me and asks if I intend to park. He tells me he had paid until 3.5 hours into the future, but his meeting was canceled. He gives me his parking pass for the evening(!!!!!!).
   

So, today I will not bitch. I am happy. Somehow, it seems, there are still nice people in the world. Thank you, Mr. Kind Man. You made my evening.

*jaw on floor*

This. That. The other thing.

So, again, how are more people not offended by this show? Everywhere I turn they hit another place I can't start believing they went to. (And, ten to one, I bet someone from the show -- and lots of its devotees -- will argue this is female empowerment. *does the flail dance*)

"and my partner"

I swear, the next time some young straight person casually mentions their "partner", I'm going to roll my eyes or shoot a dirty look. The thing is, often they're trying to use that word in solidarity, so it's just not nice to go off on them. But oh, how I want to. Here are the problems I have with it:

1. It's appropriation. (Sure, it's a useful concept, but it's appropriation nonetheless.)
   


2. The concept becomes, by usage, just one more step in the progression between "dating" and "married". (How many straight people do you know who have called each other "partners" for, say, the past ten years, without getting married? The vast majority give in and sign the paperwork.)
• This means that gay people's relationships still aren't equal to straight relationships -- the top tiers are no longer parallel. Gay people end up using the words "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" longer, and they are cut off from the top two tiers of societal relationship recognition -- engagement and marriage.


3. The very neutralness of the word renders gay people invisible again. Visibility = progress; invisibility = impediment to progress.
   


4. Straights who use the word "partner" seem to want most to look "trendy", to artificially inflate the recognition given to their relationship, or both. These potential motives put a horrid taste in my mouth. They often haven't thought through the full implications for themselves, though they may be trying.

The counter argument, of course, is that "partner" was a second tier word, and the only way for it to become fully respected was for straights to use it. After all, straights are fully respected and gays aren't. I don't buy that. I'm sure acceptance of the word happened quicker when straights started appropriating it left and right (thereby diluting the denotational and cultural meanings of the word), but it seemed to be making significant progress as an acceptable or paperwork-neutral alternative to "spouse" on its own, right alongside the progress that gay people ourselves have made.

I'd love to see a little more critical thinking. I'll stand by your right to choose whatever terminology you want, once I know you've given serious thought to the full implications of your decisions.