Dec 10, 2012
ankylosaur commented on The Wheels On the Bus Go Round and Round.
@42, I tend to agree with you. For what it's worth, here's my $.02 (worth $.02, I guess):
People think "sexual orientation" = "nature", "what I 'really' am", and "sexual identification" = "culture", "what I have become (in my society, through my choices)". Given that, in our culture (!), nature is better than culture, it follows that sexual orientation is better -- more ''legitimate'', ''deeper'', more ''who you are'' -- than "sexual identification" (never mind the word "identity" and its origin)...
Which is why people argue about that. To me, it's not really a question, but a claim about what makes people people, what makes them "who they are", plus a hidden claim about the nature vs. culture debate.
Some people feel a "choice" (for lack of a better word) as if it were their "nature" (culture -> nature; "I'm born gay/straight, there's nothing I can do about it"), whereas others don't ("I'm bi-curious, but it doesn't really do all that much for me", etc.). It may well be the case than in the gay-straight continuum the number of people with well-defined extreme preferences -- 100% gay or 100% straight -- are more numerous than along other continua (say, BDSM vs. non-BDSM, monogamous vs. polyamorous, etc.). So maybe there are more people who feel that they don't have a choice about being gay or straight than there are people who feel they don't have a choice about being BDSM or polyamorous -- and this would be in itself an interesting fact -- but I think it's a difference of degree, not of kind.
To sum up: it's not as the first commenter above said: "it's either dick or vagina or both, only 3 possibilities". Er, no. There are more. There are different intensities and combinations, for starters.
More...
People think "sexual orientation" = "nature", "what I 'really' am", and "sexual identification" = "culture", "what I have become (in my society, through my choices)". Given that, in our culture (!), nature is better than culture, it follows that sexual orientation is better -- more ''legitimate'', ''deeper'', more ''who you are'' -- than "sexual identification" (never mind the word "identity" and its origin)...
Which is why people argue about that. To me, it's not really a question, but a claim about what makes people people, what makes them "who they are", plus a hidden claim about the nature vs. culture debate.
Some people feel a "choice" (for lack of a better word) as if it were their "nature" (culture -> nature; "I'm born gay/straight, there's nothing I can do about it"), whereas others don't ("I'm bi-curious, but it doesn't really do all that much for me", etc.). It may well be the case than in the gay-straight continuum the number of people with well-defined extreme preferences -- 100% gay or 100% straight -- are more numerous than along other continua (say, BDSM vs. non-BDSM, monogamous vs. polyamorous, etc.). So maybe there are more people who feel that they don't have a choice about being gay or straight than there are people who feel they don't have a choice about being BDSM or polyamorous -- and this would be in itself an interesting fact -- but I think it's a difference of degree, not of kind.
To sum up: it's not as the first commenter above said: "it's either dick or vagina or both, only 3 possibilities". Er, no. There are more. There are different intensities and combinations, for starters.
Dec 10, 2012
ankylosaur commented on Savage Love.
@250(grizelda), hi! nice to see you here. Just back from the vet, where the cat (Main Coon, 3 1/2 months old, "official" name Cleopatra, "real" name kitty-kitty) got her second vaccination shots. The vet says we should de-worm her again (in case this is how you say it in English) just to be on the safe side. If my wife agrees, then perhaps we'll be doing that.
Cheers, merry Mayan end of the world to everybody, and a meow to the happy few! :-)
Cheers, merry Mayan end of the world to everybody, and a meow to the happy few! :-)
Dec 10, 2012
ankylosaur commented on Savage Love.
@245(kserasera), thanks for your kind words. (And sorry for the grammar mistake in the sentence you quoted from my post...)
And yet I am fascinated by others, and the ways in which they differ from me. I suppose there is a balance to be found between accepting yourself and being welcoming to others (and their quirks), and finding it -- so that you're not unfair, neither to yourself nor to others -- is one of life's many growth routes leading to enlightenment (if that's the word you like for the kind of thing this leads us to).
Happy holidays to all here. All in all, you're an interesting bunch.
And now it's time to take the cat to the vet.
And yet I am fascinated by others, and the ways in which they differ from me. I suppose there is a balance to be found between accepting yourself and being welcoming to others (and their quirks), and finding it -- so that you're not unfair, neither to yourself nor to others -- is one of life's many growth routes leading to enlightenment (if that's the word you like for the kind of thing this leads us to).
Happy holidays to all here. All in all, you're an interesting bunch.
And now it's time to take the cat to the vet.
Dec 10, 2012
ankylosaur commented on Savage Love.
@221(mydriasis), I tend to agree on the topic of children's false self-esteem (though I would be less quick on the "wouldn't kill themselves when bullied" -- it's true, but it seems to imply a certain blame-the-victim attitude that I'm sure you didn't want to imply).
From what I can see, the problem is a lot of child-raising these days is based on some sort of feeling of guilt, with tenous but threatening "future consequences" in terms of likeability, group acceptability etc. if you don't do what is expected. Without other things ("values", "right and wrong", etc.) to get support from when one happens to be different from the others, these vague threats become too overwhelmingly important --hence the children cutting themselves because of an A-. Or getting the exaggerated but superficial self-esteem of little brats who think the world revolves around them -- but will collapse at any sight of this not being the case. (South Park's Cartman comes to mind.)
To love yourself, you should to enjoy spending time with yourself--no matter who, or in what situation, you are.
More...
From what I can see, the problem is a lot of child-raising these days is based on some sort of feeling of guilt, with tenous but threatening "future consequences" in terms of likeability, group acceptability etc. if you don't do what is expected. Without other things ("values", "right and wrong", etc.) to get support from when one happens to be different from the others, these vague threats become too overwhelmingly important --hence the children cutting themselves because of an A-. Or getting the exaggerated but superficial self-esteem of little brats who think the world revolves around them -- but will collapse at any sight of this not being the case. (South Park's Cartman comes to mind.)
To love yourself, you should to enjoy spending time with yourself--no matter who, or in what situation, you are.
Dec 10, 2012
ankylosaur commented on Savage Love.
@231 -- it's not a sign of weakness per se, just like believing in Santa Claus is not a sign of weakness. It's just incorrect. That's a different thing.
I understand you don't like people trying to discuss happiness, what it means, and how to achieve it. So be it. But rest assured that your god, if he existed, would disagree with you. The Jesus you like so much would disagree with you. He was, you know, the welcoming type -- going around with prostitutes and stuff -- and always thought that people and their souls mattered more than mere sexual questions.
If the gates of paradise are closed to those who can't have sex the way you want them to, are they really the gates of paradise -- or are they the gates of another place?...
I understand you don't like people trying to discuss happiness, what it means, and how to achieve it. So be it. But rest assured that your god, if he existed, would disagree with you. The Jesus you like so much would disagree with you. He was, you know, the welcoming type -- going around with prostitutes and stuff -- and always thought that people and their souls mattered more than mere sexual questions.
If the gates of paradise are closed to those who can't have sex the way you want them to, are they really the gates of paradise -- or are they the gates of another place?...
Dec 10, 2012
ankylosaur commented on Savage Love.
Dan, I think the whole problem stems from a view that sexual orientation is "better", more "intimate", than sexual identification. People want their sexual personas to be "deeply them", so they will choose the words that describe them as more deeply intertwined with their inner selves. And I can accept that--it feels in the end truer to me than the distinctino you're trying to make (more on this below). I end up agreeing with Mahonia_aquafolium above.
Your distinction is between "who you can love" and "how you love". But consider how the "who you can love" parameter doesn't really seem more important or fundamental than the "how you can love" parameter. After all, we all have sexual preferences -- brunettes vs. blondes, bears vs. twinks, whites vs. blacks... If I say I just cannot feel any lust for, say, Black women, does that mean that "white-only" is my sexual orientation? If I can't lust after women who are too skinny (like fashion models -- sigh!...), is this also part of my sexual orientation? And what about women who look like my grandmother?
In other words, "sexual orientation" shades gradually into "sexual preference" when you look at phenotypes (physical types). Wouldn't you agree?
As for BDSM or poly being "how you love", well... many an action or activity is better defined by "how" you do it than by "what object" you do it to. You can dance with a guy, a gal, a child, or by yourself -- and it's all dancing, because of how you do it. What makes sex different?
I think, deep inside, the classification you propose, Dan, is really about "what you can change" and "what you can't change". You've famously said you couldn't lust after a woman (that one butch lesbian you once mentioned excluded) even if you wanted to; so it's your sexual orientation, something you can do nothing about, just like heterosexuals can do nothing about theirs. Whereas things like BDSM or poly, at least to those who don't "live" them, look like preferences that could presumably change throughout life.
And I'm willing to bet there are people for whome these are preferences that will change, just as there are bi-curious people who may "experiment with gayness" and then decide it isn't strong enough in them to warrant a lifestyle change. I'm even willing to say there are more such people-whose-preferences-will-evolve in areas like BDSM and poly than there are among the bi-curious.
But still--once something sets in so much that, for all intents and purposes, you feel that you simply no longer have any power to change it -- at that stage, what is the difference?
In conclusion: "how" and "who" are not hierarchical with respect to each other, and they are often intertwined in ways that defy clear-cut classifications. Which means that the differentiation between "sexual orientation" and "sexual identification" is a matter of degree, in the end a case-by-case classification (with some cases much more frequent, granted, but still).
Or perhaps we should change the terms? Not distinguish "orientation" from "identification", but, say, "strong identification" from "weak identification" (leaving all the intermediate slots open for those who want them)?
More...
Your distinction is between "who you can love" and "how you love". But consider how the "who you can love" parameter doesn't really seem more important or fundamental than the "how you can love" parameter. After all, we all have sexual preferences -- brunettes vs. blondes, bears vs. twinks, whites vs. blacks... If I say I just cannot feel any lust for, say, Black women, does that mean that "white-only" is my sexual orientation? If I can't lust after women who are too skinny (like fashion models -- sigh!...), is this also part of my sexual orientation? And what about women who look like my grandmother?
In other words, "sexual orientation" shades gradually into "sexual preference" when you look at phenotypes (physical types). Wouldn't you agree?
As for BDSM or poly being "how you love", well... many an action or activity is better defined by "how" you do it than by "what object" you do it to. You can dance with a guy, a gal, a child, or by yourself -- and it's all dancing, because of how you do it. What makes sex different?
I think, deep inside, the classification you propose, Dan, is really about "what you can change" and "what you can't change". You've famously said you couldn't lust after a woman (that one butch lesbian you once mentioned excluded) even if you wanted to; so it's your sexual orientation, something you can do nothing about, just like heterosexuals can do nothing about theirs. Whereas things like BDSM or poly, at least to those who don't "live" them, look like preferences that could presumably change throughout life.
And I'm willing to bet there are people for whome these are preferences that will change, just as there are bi-curious people who may "experiment with gayness" and then decide it isn't strong enough in them to warrant a lifestyle change. I'm even willing to say there are more such people-whose-preferences-will-evolve in areas like BDSM and poly than there are among the bi-curious.
But still--once something sets in so much that, for all intents and purposes, you feel that you simply no longer have any power to change it -- at that stage, what is the difference?
In conclusion: "how" and "who" are not hierarchical with respect to each other, and they are often intertwined in ways that defy clear-cut classifications. Which means that the differentiation between "sexual orientation" and "sexual identification" is a matter of degree, in the end a case-by-case classification (with some cases much more frequent, granted, but still).
Or perhaps we should change the terms? Not distinguish "orientation" from "identification", but, say, "strong identification" from "weak identification" (leaving all the intermediate slots open for those who want them)?
Nov 22, 2012
ankylosaur commented on Savage Love.
@101, yes, that's a possibility: the guy may not have known that he had a ballbusting fetish, and may have discovered it while helping a friend become more skilled in self-defense arts. But, as you yourself acknowledged, WKBFM's description of the way the situation evolved leaves very little doubt that a sexual component is now present.
He is, after all, paying for this. When have you last paid for helping a friend train her martial art skills with you?
If WKBFM's description is to be trusted, it's not simply that he LIKES to teach, but he rushes to the ball-kicking part of it. Betting on whether or not he can take it does not seem to be part of skill development.
But then again, my point is that this is not per se bad. If he didn't know about this fetish before, this may help explain the apparent tiptoeing around the issue (if not downright lying about it): he might be lying to himself, too. Like a closet gay man who pretends, even to himself, that his deep interest in a friend is only and always simply evidence of how good the friendship is. For his own sake and WKBFM's, he should stop pretending, or lying, to himself (and to her).
More...
He is, after all, paying for this. When have you last paid for helping a friend train her martial art skills with you?
If WKBFM's description is to be trusted, it's not simply that he LIKES to teach, but he rushes to the ball-kicking part of it. Betting on whether or not he can take it does not seem to be part of skill development.
But then again, my point is that this is not per se bad. If he didn't know about this fetish before, this may help explain the apparent tiptoeing around the issue (if not downright lying about it): he might be lying to himself, too. Like a closet gay man who pretends, even to himself, that his deep interest in a friend is only and always simply evidence of how good the friendship is. For his own sake and WKBFM's, he should stop pretending, or lying, to himself (and to her).
Nov 22, 2012
ankylosaur commented on Pat Robertson Warns Christians: Atheists Are Coming to Steal Christmas.
As is usually the case with different groups living together without open warfare, nobody is really trying to steal any traditions away from anybody else -- but, confronted with the difference, people often like to imagine that someone does. Why are we always so afraid that someone is going to come and take our most beloved toys away from us?
Nov 22, 2012
ankylosaur commented on SL Letter of the Day: Having His Baby.
@47(debug), @49(seeker), this really makes me think that all the overblown rhetoric from both MRA's and radfems about child support is not "what is really going on" in child support legislation, but, more simply (and more believably) a desire by all parts concerned to have someone else pay the bill. It seems that, even if bureaucracies, unlike corporations, aren't people, they certainly behave as if they were.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
I do not think I will be returning here, for obvious reasons, as you probably had already guessed. I made a couple of attempts, and it did not really work. The words never ceased to be just words. So I will make it official now, while also wishing you all the best.
Ankylosaur (actually, Sérgio) out.