It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.
I'm so sorry that the world is so "confusing" to you. Imagine how "confusing" it is to children who are murdered and tortured by their parents because they are perceived to be gay. It happens way too much in this country. Again, sorry for inconveniencing you!
But, preach on brother. You are a dying, endangered species, and these are your last gasps, so make 'em good!
Being an obviously articulate and intelligent person, and now that he has decided to announce to the world his 'pride' at being 'gay', I would be extremely interested for Mr Cook to define what 'being gay' actually means in real terms.
Most people know what being gay means without being drawn a series of explicit pictures.
For men, does it mean preferring a man as a sexual partner? Does sex have to be involved, and is it necessary for a new category of 'marriage' to be invented, as opposed to simply having a 'gay' relationship recognised as having the same rights as a traditional marriage.
Marriage involves a set of legal protections. "Inventing a new category" for two people is not necessary just because society begins recognizing and accepting gays as having equal rights under law, just as a "new category" wasn't necessary to allow and recognize interracial marriages after years of that being considered illegal due to racist bigotry. Was non-interracial "traditional marriage" before that?
?And if you're alluding to the Bible, remember that "traditional marriage" in the Scriptures included polygamy, child marriage, being obligated to marry your sister-in-law if your brother died childless, forced marriage of slaves, and a variety of other ideas that are today considered "non-traditional" and barbaric. Andtraditionally, women were treated as chattel until very recently in human history. Tradition has a nice ring to it, but human history is often repugnant in hindsight
It troubles me how very young children will come to think about relationships and what criteria they themselves will use to decide if they are in fact 'gay' if respected people like Cook decide to be 'proud' about it but then become overtly coy. If he's going to make a big deal about it, is it reasonable for an interviewer to ask him if he has anal sex with his partner or does that then become a matter of privacy.
You could have made many of the same observations about interracial marriage 40 years ago. If children fluidly shifted their gender identity and attractions in response to what the Russians are calling "gay propaganda," we would be seeing tremendous statistical differences in sexual preferences between conservative religious states and liberal ones. Gay parents don't raise gay children, and straight parents can't seem to stop cranking out gays, even in ultra repressive communities where religious warps children into hating themselves over superstitious ideas of what the sky gods think.
Also, do you not know that straight couples also engage in anal sex? Do you think every public interview should include questions about what sexual practices a person has engaged in, or is your curiosity just limited to homosexuals?
Derrida made a big deal about how all words are signs and each sign is the meaning of another sign so that words like 'marriage' have no meaning without all the other words that go with it, one of those words being 'consummate'.
It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.
Children don't need explicit exposure to graphic sexual images to understand that some people are gay, just as they don't need to watch pornography to understand that some straight people marry and have sex for reasons other than producing offspring.
Have you ever been around children? They're often better at dealing with honesty than repressed adults who were taught that anything sexual is taboo and that they need to feel conflicted and upset about the knowledge that other people choose to live together because they love each other.
odd how Apple shows the same sexual intolerance towards sexually oriented material (that is non-pornographic, mostly educational) by removing their podcasts, apps & books from their stores as the some religious zealots show towards LGBT.
Apple's "intolerance of sexually orientated material" allows families to set parental controls for their children as they see fit, turning off web browsers if desired. There is no censorship of the web by Apple, but the company has the same rights to block sexualized, violent or racist content in the App Store that Macy's or Target has in choosing what sort of T-shirt graphics they choose to sell.
If there was no issue then there would have been no need to come out, no media coverage, and we wouldn't be discussing it now. Clearly Cook thought it was important.
You're confusing two very different topics. It's like if I asked, "So who is George Clooney getting married to?" and you responded with, "No one is against marriage!"
The only reason any of us are talking about it is because Tim Cook chose to make it public. Anything an Apple exec says makes news whether it deserves to or not.
Being an obviously articulate and intelligent person, and now that he has decided to announce to the world his 'pride' at being 'gay', I would be extremely interested for Mr Cook to define what 'being gay' actually means in real terms.
For men, does it mean preferring a man as a sexual partner? Does sex have to be involved, and is it necessary for a new category of 'marriage' to be invented, as opposed to simply having a 'gay' relationship recognised as having the same rights as a traditional marriage.
It troubles me how very young children will come to think about relationships and what criteria they themselves will use to decide if they are in fact 'gay' if respected people like Cook decide to be 'proud' about it but then become overtly coy. If he's going to make a big deal about it, is it reasonable for an interviewer to ask him if he has anal sex with his partner or does that then become a matter of privacy.
Derrida made a big deal about how all words are signs and each sign is the meaning of another sign so that words like 'marriage' have no meaning without all the other words that go with it, one of those words being 'consummate'.
It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.
The gay couples I know are much more vocal and articulate about their sex lives than any straight couples I know. And I'm speaking of the gay ones with children too-many here in NYC. They just don't discuss such things publicly to strangers just like straight people don't either.
However, the most important people, Apple stockholders do not care.
Billions? Please. The only people that think everybody cares about this issue are gays and their supporters in the media and left of center politicians. Everybody else just yawned and got on with their lives.
Why is it that people that proclaim to have a problem with gay people are so specific about sex acts and such. Why are these people so fixated on things they say they have a problem with. Most enlightened people view gay rights as about being free to share a loving relationship with whom they choose.
Why is it that people that proclaim to have a problem with gay people are so specific about sex acts and such. Why are these people so fixated on things they say they have a problem with. Most enlightened people view gay rights as about being free to share a loving relationship with whom they choose.
It is weird. They go into excessive detail like that Uganda guy talking about eating da poo poo.
I don't get the point of this article. Apple stock being at record highs just means nobody gives a shit that Tim Cook is gay or that he came out. Because it's not about HIM it's about Apple the company.
The point is that society still has massive problems with people making their own personal decisions.
Cook came out, sacrificing his own privacy and exposing himself to homophobic contempt and ridicule, to show the world that one of the most successful men in the US is also gay, and that being gay didn't lock him into some clownish stereotypical role as an effeminate wisecracking queen as popular media portrays, just as people of color don't have to follow some subservient role as comic relief cartoons.
Being able to point to role models that share one's own attributes is an empowering message for young people who are struggling with daily contempt and ridicule. Even if you've never dealt with first hand issues, you should be able to empathetically understand on some level that the freedoms you take for granted are not shared equally with everyone else in the world.
It is important to the universal ideal of equality that people of any race or other minority identity can achieve whatever they aim for regardless of how hateful or superstitious segments of society decide to be. If you don't get it, it only speaks to your own ability to support cognitive thought above a primitive level.
Apple has integrated parental controls for all accounts, and it should be the responsibility of parents to setup access accordingly. Also Apple allows sexually charged material such as Playboy on their app stores, so using this basis as reason to reject podcasts is simply not true.
The information on how to make parentally managed AppStore/iTMS accounts is easy to obtain and set up: and a simple pulldown within OSX or a click in iTunes itself.
Removing sex ed podcasts that inform is applying too broad a filter in the name of “protecting” a few. Children can not use these services without parental consent, nor do they legally own any property (unless they are emancipated) such as iOS devices (nor do they have rights to privacy) — their parents own all devices and are allowed to monitor their children’s activity. Pushing the responsibility to Apple thus denying legitimate content from reaching adults that is not pornographic (and easily flaggable as adults only—thus the filters available), so that people can access it and get informed about STDs and safe sexual practices and dispel stupid and dangerous immature beliefs such as “you can’t get pregnant the first time you have sex” and “if you do it standing up, you can’t get pregnant” — still widely believed is a disservice to proper education.
Any parent that objects is free to block such content from their own and their children’s account (check account settings, iTunes &/or app store prefs), and it is their responsibility to do so. Hiding behind sexually repressed ideology such as doing things a certain way “in the name of children” is a cop out pure and simple. Why should everyone be reduced to the lowest common denominator? Why should society be held back by the stupidest person in the gene pool?
Billions? Please. The only people that think everybody cares about this issue are gays and their supporters in the media and left of center politicians. Everybody else just yawned and got on with their lives.
Does caring include clicking on this thread? Does caring include all of his detractors and homophobic enemies? Does caring include every news feed both tech and non-tech? I think you need to visit some other tech sites to count the replies to such a non-story and compare them to the latest smart watch of the week to see what people really care about.
Being an obviously articulate and intelligent person, and now that he has decided to announce to the world his 'pride' at being 'gay', I would be extremely interested for Mr Cook to define what 'being gay' actually means in real terms.
For men, does it mean preferring a man as a sexual partner? Does sex have to be involved, and is it necessary for a new category of 'marriage' to be invented, as opposed to simply having a 'gay' relationship recognised as having the same rights as a traditional marriage.
It troubles me how very young children will come to think about relationships and what criteria they themselves will use to decide if they are in fact 'gay' if respected people like Cook decide to be 'proud' about it but then become overtly coy. If he's going to make a big deal about it, is it reasonable for an interviewer to ask him if he has anal sex with his partner or does that then become a matter of privacy.
Derrida made a big deal about how all words are signs and each sign is the meaning of another sign so that words like 'marriage' have no meaning without all the other words that go with it, one of those words being 'consummate'.
It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.
I remember being confused about oral sex when I first became aware of it being practiced between males. I was only a little kid of ten in the dark mysterious days of the early 1950s when nothing made sense and no one talked about such things. At that time I didn't even know how regular sex was done.
That the Russians are super up-tight about gays is so surprising to me... It's like they feel homosexuality is ... un-American.
Being an obviously articulate and intelligent person, and now that he has decided to announce to the world his 'pride' at being 'gay', I would be extremely interested for Mr Cook to define what 'being gay' actually means in real terms.
For men, does it mean preferring a man as a sexual partner? Does sex have to be involved, and is it necessary for a new category of 'marriage' to be invented, as opposed to simply having a 'gay' relationship recognised as having the same rights as a traditional marriage.
It troubles me how very young children will come to think about relationships and what criteria they themselves will use to decide if they are in fact 'gay' if respected people like Cook decide to be 'proud' about it but then become overtly coy. If he's going to make a big deal about it, is it reasonable for an interviewer to ask him if he has anal sex with his partner or does that then become a matter of privacy.
Derrida made a big deal about how all words are signs and each sign is the meaning of another sign so that words like 'marriage' have no meaning without all the other words that go with it, one of those words being 'consummate'.
It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.
What troubles me is how many ignorant people like yourself are out there. As an obvious heterosexual, is it appropriate for anyone to ask you if you eat your wife's pussy, or if you masterbate to photos in magazines, or if you do it doggy style? Or what your children would think if they knew? Go get a life and STFU.
Apple Censors content by removing apps, podcasts and books containing sexual-education material from their stores and their podcasts listed. If you doubt it a simple search for articles about this will confirm this.
Being an obviously articulate and intelligent person, and now that he has decided to announce to the world his 'pride' at being 'gay', I would be extremely interested for Mr Cook to define what 'being gay' actually means in real terms.
For men, does it mean preferring a man as a sexual partner? Does sex have to be involved, and is it necessary for a new category of 'marriage' to be invented, as opposed to simply having a 'gay' relationship recognised as having the same rights as a traditional marriage.
It troubles me how very young children will come to think about relationships and what criteria they themselves will use to decide if they are in fact 'gay' if respected people like Cook decide to be 'proud' about it but then become overtly coy. If he's going to make a big deal about it, is it reasonable for an interviewer to ask him if he has anal sex with his partner or does that then become a matter of privacy.
Derrida made a big deal about how all words are signs and each sign is the meaning of another sign so that words like 'marriage' have no meaning without all the other words that go with it, one of those words being 'consummate'.
It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.
Your marriage probably has no meaning, but two members of the same sex getting hitched only devalues your bigotry, not your marriage.
I don't get the point of this article. Apple stock being at record highs just means nobody gives a shit that Tim Cook is gay or that he came out. Because it's not about HIM it's about Apple the company.
The point is that society still has massive problems with people making their own personal decisions.
Non, non, moi cherri! Being gay isn't a choice, haven't you heard? It's a compulsion, like eating your own boggers, especially those big juicy "greenines."
There are a lot of things people do in private that I don't want to even entertain in my mind. Not just gays, but those who go about life as a perverted hetro-sexual. I'm not a conservative in my politics, nor do I feel how people express their sexuality is any business of mine or the state... I just don't want those images dancing in my imagination. Not that I have any longer any control over that due to the internet. It's a different world than the one I was born into and that's just the fact of the matter, and it's today's world and I might as well get used to it... that Genii isn't going back into the bottle any time soon and it's better then the oppressive dysfunctional way it once was.
Being an obviously articulate and intelligent person, and now that he has decided to announce to the world his 'pride' at being 'gay', I would be extremely interested for Mr Cook to define what 'being gay' actually means in real terms.
For men, does it mean preferring a man as a sexual partner? Does sex have to be involved, and is it necessary for a new category of 'marriage' to be invented, as opposed to simply having a 'gay' relationship recognised as having the same rights as a traditional marriage.
It troubles me how very young children will come to think about relationships and what criteria they themselves will use to decide if they are in fact 'gay' if respected people like Cook decide to be 'proud' about it but then become overtly coy. If he's going to make a big deal about it, is it reasonable for an interviewer to ask him if he has anal sex with his partner or does that then become a matter of privacy.
Derrida made a big deal about how all words are signs and each sign is the meaning of another sign so that words like 'marriage' have no meaning without all the other words that go with it, one of those words being 'consummate'.
It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.
What troubles me is how many ignorant people like yourself are out there. As an obvious heterosexual, is it appropriate for anyone to ask you if you eat your wife's pussy, or if you masterbate to photos in magazines, or if you do it doggy style? Or what your children would think if they knew? Go get a life and STFU.
I didn't find his post to be ignorant. It was a fairly intelligent musing of the questions many people pose in their minds; especially children who are discovering their own sexuality. Your post reminds me of how a closed-minded person goes about shutting down intelligent discourse that may veer off into a direction you can't control.
You seem to be awash in a sea of words and significance. That's no way to live. Strip things down to simplicities. Concentrate more on "looking." What do you actually see, as opposed to "think, think, think," or "symbols, symbols, symbols." If you must use symbols, the only one that really matters is "love" in its many manifestations most of which are quite obvious if one only "looks."
I'm am having a bit of difficulty in trying to work out what it is that you are trying to say. 'Thinking' is what I do, I can't help it. As the great physicist Richard Feynman says, "I can't help thinking, I get a kick out of it". I have a love of clarity because without clarity there is no understanding and without understanding there is no knowledge. This necessarily requires precision with words. Sometimes it's important other times less so, depending on what is being said, and by whom. Saying that I am 'awash with words and [their] significance' does not have any meaning for me.
'Love' is indeed the only emotion and every other emotion like hate, anger or jealousy for example, is but a perversion of love. Correct me if I am wrong but are you simply wanting to brush any significance that Tim Cook's official coming out may have (albeit in a small way) on impressionable young teens and their inevitable struggle with their own sexuality, aside. Do you wish that so called adults should abrogate their responsibilities to the coming generation. Because I think there are very serious issues regarding sex and sexuality in a world where the internet has turned Earth into a global village, that are not being addressed by so called adults who in my view are on the whole emotionally crippled children themselves.
One inevitable result of Tim Cook's coming out, and his subsequent silence on the issue, is that it gives homophobic governments like Russia, or dubious religious authorities, traction that they do not deserve.
Comments
It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.
I'm so sorry that the world is so "confusing" to you. Imagine how "confusing" it is to children who are murdered and tortured by their parents because they are perceived to be gay. It happens way too much in this country. Again, sorry for inconveniencing you!
But, preach on brother. You are a dying, endangered species, and these are your last gasps, so make 'em good!
Being an obviously articulate and intelligent person, and now that he has decided to announce to the world his 'pride' at being 'gay', I would be extremely interested for Mr Cook to define what 'being gay' actually means in real terms.
For men, does it mean preferring a man as a sexual partner? Does sex have to be involved, and is it necessary for a new category of 'marriage' to be invented, as opposed to simply having a 'gay' relationship recognised as having the same rights as a traditional marriage.
?And if you're alluding to the Bible, remember that "traditional marriage" in the Scriptures included polygamy, child marriage, being obligated to marry your sister-in-law if your brother died childless, forced marriage of slaves, and a variety of other ideas that are today considered "non-traditional" and barbaric. And traditionally, women were treated as chattel until very recently in human history. Tradition has a nice ring to it, but human history is often repugnant in hindsight
It troubles me how very young children will come to think about relationships and what criteria they themselves will use to decide if they are in fact 'gay' if respected people like Cook decide to be 'proud' about it but then become overtly coy. If he's going to make a big deal about it, is it reasonable for an interviewer to ask him if he has anal sex with his partner or does that then become a matter of privacy.
Also, do you not know that straight couples also engage in anal sex? Do you think every public interview should include questions about what sexual practices a person has engaged in, or is your curiosity just limited to homosexuals?
Derrida made a big deal about how all words are signs and each sign is the meaning of another sign so that words like 'marriage' have no meaning without all the other words that go with it, one of those words being 'consummate'.
It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.
Have you ever been around children? They're often better at dealing with honesty than repressed adults who were taught that anything sexual is taboo and that they need to feel conflicted and upset about the knowledge that other people choose to live together because they love each other.
odd how Apple shows the same sexual intolerance towards sexually oriented material (that is non-pornographic, mostly educational) by removing their podcasts, apps & books from their stores as the some religious zealots show towards LGBT.
Apple's "intolerance of sexually orientated material" allows families to set parental controls for their children as they see fit, turning off web browsers if desired. There is no censorship of the web by Apple, but the company has the same rights to block sexualized, violent or racist content in the App Store that Macy's or Target has in choosing what sort of T-shirt graphics they choose to sell.
Don't hurt yourself with those complex thought processes.
It is weird. They go into excessive detail like that Uganda guy talking about eating da poo poo.
I don't get the point of this article. Apple stock being at record highs just means nobody gives a shit that Tim Cook is gay or that he came out. Because it's not about HIM it's about Apple the company.
The point is that society still has massive problems with people making their own personal decisions.
Cook came out, sacrificing his own privacy and exposing himself to homophobic contempt and ridicule, to show the world that one of the most successful men in the US is also gay, and that being gay didn't lock him into some clownish stereotypical role as an effeminate wisecracking queen as popular media portrays, just as people of color don't have to follow some subservient role as comic relief cartoons.
Being able to point to role models that share one's own attributes is an empowering message for young people who are struggling with daily contempt and ridicule. Even if you've never dealt with first hand issues, you should be able to empathetically understand on some level that the freedoms you take for granted are not shared equally with everyone else in the world.
It is important to the universal ideal of equality that people of any race or other minority identity can achieve whatever they aim for regardless of how hateful or superstitious segments of society decide to be. If you don't get it, it only speaks to your own ability to support cognitive thought above a primitive level.
Apple has integrated parental controls for all accounts, and it should be the responsibility of parents to setup access accordingly. Also Apple allows sexually charged material such as Playboy on their app stores, so using this basis as reason to reject podcasts is simply not true.
The information on how to make parentally managed AppStore/iTMS accounts is easy to obtain and set up: and a simple pulldown within OSX or a click in iTunes itself.
Removing sex ed podcasts that inform is applying too broad a filter in the name of “protecting” a few. Children can not use these services without parental consent, nor do they legally own any property (unless they are emancipated) such as iOS devices (nor do they have rights to privacy) — their parents own all devices and are allowed to monitor their children’s activity. Pushing the responsibility to Apple thus denying legitimate content from reaching adults that is not pornographic (and easily flaggable as adults only—thus the filters available), so that people can access it and get informed about STDs and safe sexual practices and dispel stupid and dangerous immature beliefs such as “you can’t get pregnant the first time you have sex” and “if you do it standing up, you can’t get pregnant” — still widely believed is a disservice to proper education.
Any parent that objects is free to block such content from their own and their children’s account (check account settings, iTunes &/or app store prefs), and it is their responsibility to do so. Hiding behind sexually repressed ideology such as doing things a certain way “in the name of children” is a cop out pure and simple. Why should everyone be reduced to the lowest common denominator? Why should society be held back by the stupidest person in the gene pool?
Does caring include clicking on this thread? Does caring include all of his detractors and homophobic enemies? Does caring include every news feed both tech and non-tech? I think you need to visit some other tech sites to count the replies to such a non-story and compare them to the latest smart watch of the week to see what people really care about.
I remember being confused about oral sex when I first became aware of it being practiced between males. I was only a little kid of ten in the dark mysterious days of the early 1950s when nothing made sense and no one talked about such things. At that time I didn't even know how regular sex was done.
That the Russians are super up-tight about gays is so surprising to me... It's like they feel homosexuality is ... un-American.
What troubles me is how many ignorant people like yourself are out there. As an obvious heterosexual, is it appropriate for anyone to ask you if you eat your wife's pussy, or if you masterbate to photos in magazines, or if you do it doggy style? Or what your children would think if they knew? Go get a life and STFU.
Apple Censors content by removing apps, podcasts and books containing sexual-education material from their stores and their podcasts listed. If you doubt it a simple search for articles about this will confirm this.
Non, non, moi cherri! Being gay isn't a choice, haven't you heard? It's a compulsion, like eating your own boggers, especially those big juicy "greenines."
There are a lot of things people do in private that I don't want to even entertain in my mind. Not just gays, but those who go about life as a perverted hetro-sexual. I'm not a conservative in my politics, nor do I feel how people express their sexuality is any business of mine or the state... I just don't want those images dancing in my imagination. Not that I have any longer any control over that due to the internet. It's a different world than the one I was born into and that's just the fact of the matter, and it's today's world and I might as well get used to it... that Genii isn't going back into the bottle any time soon and it's better then the oppressive dysfunctional way it once was.
I didn't find his post to be ignorant. It was a fairly intelligent musing of the questions many people pose in their minds; especially children who are discovering their own sexuality. Your post reminds me of how a closed-minded person goes about shutting down intelligent discourse that may veer off into a direction you can't control.
You seem to be awash in a sea of words and significance. That's no way to live. Strip things down to simplicities. Concentrate more on "looking." What do you actually see, as opposed to "think, think, think," or "symbols, symbols, symbols." If you must use symbols, the only one that really matters is "love" in its many manifestations most of which are quite obvious if one only "looks."
I'm am having a bit of difficulty in trying to work out what it is that you are trying to say. 'Thinking' is what I do, I can't help it. As the great physicist Richard Feynman says, "I can't help thinking, I get a kick out of it". I have a love of clarity because without clarity there is no understanding and without understanding there is no knowledge. This necessarily requires precision with words. Sometimes it's important other times less so, depending on what is being said, and by whom. Saying that I am 'awash with words and [their] significance' does not have any meaning for me.
'Love' is indeed the only emotion and every other emotion like hate, anger or jealousy for example, is but a perversion of love. Correct me if I am wrong but are you simply wanting to brush any significance that Tim Cook's official coming out may have (albeit in a small way) on impressionable young teens and their inevitable struggle with their own sexuality, aside. Do you wish that so called adults should abrogate their responsibilities to the coming generation. Because I think there are very serious issues regarding sex and sexuality in a world where the internet has turned Earth into a global village, that are not being addressed by so called adults who in my view are on the whole emotionally crippled children themselves.
One inevitable result of Tim Cook's coming out, and his subsequent silence on the issue, is that it gives homophobic governments like Russia, or dubious religious authorities, traction that they do not deserve.