Yeah, it's a copy of that.

I Hate Screen Names
report this user

Bio

I really do.

in the past few hours I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
@232
3. Sex is not a right, but a privilege.
I wonder if this is something (decent) dudes have an easier time understanding, because we have to internalize it to avoid being a raging, entitled asshole. (I've noticed that the "you have to date trans people" arguments seem to come primarily from the ladies, both straight and gay.) I actually remember repeating stuff like this to myself as a teenager:

1. You are not entitled to sex.
2. It's possible no one will ever have sex with you. You have to be OK with that.
3. At no point does anyone owe you sex, no matter what you do for her.
4. Scholastic or sports achievements still don't entitle you to sex. Sex is not a prize to be won.

Etc. So the notion of anyone else being entitled to sex, no matter how marginalized, runs counter to the mantra I repeatedly beat myself over the head with.
7:14 PM yesterday I Hate Screen Names commented on I, Anonymous.
Wait, an "I, Anonymous" that isn't spewing vitriol? That's actually happy about its described interaction? I'm confused.
5:40 PM yesterday I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
Quoth Star @201:
The implication I have gotten so far is that I'm a hypocrite because there's all these people I wouldn't sleep with either. And I think it is a red herring because I have never really had a type, so things don't work like that for me. I've always dated men but that hasn't ever really even been a requirement.
Well, that's actually illuminating.

You seem to be pansexual, which is great and awesome and more power to you. But you also don't seem to recognize that most people aren't pansexual. Most of us have very definite sexual types, some of which fall under sexual orientation, and some of which don't. And since you don't have any experience with having a "type", you assume that they're exclusively motivated by bias/social conditioning/whatnot.

Umm, no. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a type is just a type.
3:14 PM yesterday I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
Quoth @189:
I also see a pretty firm line in the sand between "the population from which you choose your sex partner" and the actual choice to have sex. A roomful of people can be "possible partners." None of them is an actual partner until you cross that line.
Sure. But how I choose that initial population, and how I choose which subset of that population that has sex with me, is nobody's business but mine and the people I'm having sex with. It is most certainly not the business of those I reject from the initial population, or those I refrain from choosing for sex. And it is definitely not the business of anyone concerned about the hurt feelings (if any) of the rejectees, or those who want to make society a better place.

So. If I refuse to even consider someone forty years older than me: my business. If I reject Republicans out of hand: my business. If I have a huge fixation on redheads: my business and the business of anyone I am fucking or want to fuck. If I don't want to date dudes: my business. If I won't look at a Pisces, or a single mom, or someone with an even number of letters in their first name, or Italians: all my business.

That's a big part of the resistance you're running into, not some ingrained transphobia. Or to put it another way: that someone disagrees with you is not a mark of transphobia. It may mean they disagree that their or anyone else's sexual activity is open to discussion.
More...
1:32 PM yesterday I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
@180: I think your response proved my point back in 161, which I'll requote:
I'm guessing Star has been privileged enough not to experience the Bad Old Days, which are still the reality in large parts of the world. That's why she can't seem to grasp the notion that consensual sexual conduct is off limits in social discussions.
I'm not arguing that the notion is sacrosanct, some rule of discourse granted from on high. What's I'm saying is that the notion exists. That those of us who were not so privileged, who lived through times of massive sexual shaming, instinctively recoil from prescriptive discussions of sexual conduct.

You seem baffled by this attitude, and keep conflating issues regarding sexual preferences for trans* people with every other issue regarding trans* people. I'm not saying you have to agree with the "sex off the table" rule, but it would behoove you to acknowledge it exists, and to understand the reasons why.
12:54 PM yesterday I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
Quote @165
Actually, the opinion that someone should be having sex with someone has been attributed to me, I have very clearly stated several times that I don't actually believe that.
I think you missed my point in 161. I'll restate: people's consensual sexual conduct is off-limits in any liberal discussion. We stay the fuck away from that. Do you agree or disagree?

A (hopefully) clarifying example: most Americans only have friends within their ethnic group. We can talk about how that's probably a bad thing, how it's intellectually helpful to be buddies with people of different races, how ideally we would all be color-blind with regards to friendship. We can even get to individual conduct, like challenging ourselves to make friends with people of different races. In that discussion, no one would say "You, Star, must become friends with Jack over there, otherwise you're a racist." We're not mandating specific friendships. But that overall social discussion is worth having.

A switch: most Americans also only date within their ethnic group. We can note that reality and how it's slowly changing, but that's the end of the conversation. No talk about how dating within your ethnic group is a bad thing, how we should all be willing to date outside our race, and god forbid, no challenges to expand your dating pool. Unlike our social lives, our sexual lives are off the table, because it's not society's business whom we fuck. Because when society gets involved, bad things happen.

See the difference?
More...
12:23 PM yesterday I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
Quoth @165
my opinion about who you should have sex with shouldn't matter to you.
This isn't the silver bullet you seem to think it is.

Suppose a homophobe gets on his soapbox and loudly rails against "dem homos havin da buttsex", and how it's gross, unnatural, against God's will, etc. When confronted about it, he responds "my opinion about who you should have sex with shouldn't matter to you." Should we let his hate go unchallenged?

If you think yes: suppose it's not one homophobe, but millions. Not necessarily on their soapboxes, but constantly chipping away at "homosexual conduct." You know, like what actually happens. Should we leave that be, since "[their] opinion about who [gays] should have sex with shouldn't matter to [them]?
11:48 AM yesterday I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
An observation: trying to influence people's sexual behaviors, whether through legal or social pressure, has historically been very harmful. It's the same argument conservatives make in urging gays to live celibate lives, in urging the polyamorous to be monogamous, in urging transpeople to act in their assigned gender, etc. The liberal attitude-- that society's interests end where the bedroom door begins-- is only recently becoming mainstream, and then only in liberal enclaves.

I'm guessing Star has been privileged enough not to experience the Bad Old Days, which are still the reality in large parts of the world. That's why she can't seem to grasp the notion that consensual sexual conduct is off limits in social discussions. I suppose this is a triumph of sorts for liberalism, but I worry that illiberal liberal attitude might undo our recent advances.
May 20 I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
@113: I don't think that's necessarily true. I've heard of people who realized they were trans when they were toddlers, before their orientation or gender preference had developed. A transwoman who identified as trans her entire life would insist that she was always (a) a woman or girl, and (b) attracted to men (if straight) or women (if lesbian). Any hormones or surgeries would just change her body to match her identity. They would not change her identity.
May 20 I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
@99: Sometimes disclosing your own characteristics will not get you there. For instance, many women, of all sizes, are exclusively attracted to tall men. There really isn't any way to clue potential partners about that other than flat-out saying it. E.g., one of my exes, who is 5'3'', only dates guys who are at least 5'10''. Saying "I'm 5'3''" on her profile would not clue a 5'6'' dude that he had no chance with her. On the flip side, I have a friend who is 5'10'' who is totally into dating shorter guys. It would be awful if disclosing her height meant that those guys thought they shouldn't bother.

In other words, I certainly see the benefit in subtly describing what you want by discussing your own life-- if you can pull it off. If you can't, however, then I don't see the problem with being up-front.
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy