It's not very popular.

report this user
1:36 PM vennominon commented on "Rape Exceptionalism" and Protecting Law Students from "Triggers".
I wonder how the anti-Savage sites will spin this one. Ms Cute, any ideas?
12:57 PM vennominon commented on Savage Love.
Ms Erica @40 - No disagreement. I do think Mr Savage occasionally over-pushes sameness.

Mr Ricardo @34 - We can give the questioner some credit for being up front about price of admission/dealbreakers, but the debit side is much greater. The harsh contempt of wanting Husband to "stop bothering me" speaks for itself.

My analogy: Questioner's position seems to be that Husband knew the terms when he bought the annuity. Mr Savage seems much nearer the mark in considering it similar to a recurring credit card charge; should H find himself in dire need of immediate funds that Q won't okay, there could be a call to 877-CASH-NOW and the selling of the annuity to J.G. Wentworth.
7:33 AM vennominon commented on Savage Love.
Ms Erica - When I was still socially active, in my neck of the woods "total bottoms" were the "receptive" partners in ALL climactic activity involving multiple people, not just the one you mentioned. My first thought went to a completely different climactic activity, one which is closer to universally performed among MM couples. I was really considering this as the end-of-the-spectrum version of the mild problem Messrs Ophian and Rhone will have because each of them has reported being extremely enthusiastic when giving oral and basically just being GGG or not much more when receiving it.

Had the questioner merely claimed "bottom" status, your argument would have had a good deal more force. If you were implying that many people who claim the T or the B are using it as a Get Out of GGG Free Card, I'd quite agree. I'm inferring that you think this mainly an equipment problem - that the questioner doesn't like to or can't be the active anal partner naturally and therefore should do it artificially. With most "total" bottoms though (at least in my area when I was socially activity), a claim of that status would be a forceful indication that penetrating his partner *by any means* happened to be a *total* turn-off.

I also inferred an equivalence between OS and SS relationships that I think you take a little too far, though not much. There are more fixed quantities in OS relationships. Whatever you've ever done with Mr Erica, you were always going to be the one who got pregnant. I'll avoid speculating about bi experience, but suggest that exclusive same-sexers are more likely than opposite-sexers to cling to sexual roles as a result of thinking that What We Do affects or even defines Who We Are, as we have fewer hard realities to which to tie a sense of self. Exclusive opposite-sexers are more likely to let Who They Are affect What They Do. I suggest that, while opposite-sexers may be just as invested in a constructed role as same-sexers once it's constructed, OS reluctance is more likely to be on the front end of a role-breaking activity and SS reluctance on the back end. They require a different approach, and the simple fact that Activity X works easily in a relationship with rather different dynamics doesn't mean it can carry over simply.

I can agree with your ends, but not the path by which you're trying to get there. (I could blame HUMP, but that would make for a very long post indeed.)
11:49 PM yesterday vennominon commented on SL Letter of the Day: Settle or Divorce?.
Ms Cute (if she materializes) - does this LW remind you at all of Mrs Allen?
11:44 PM yesterday vennominon commented on Savage Love.
Ms Erica - That questioner was annoying, and I do find there's something very Gordon Merrick about a total top/bottom mind set, but I think this is one area where same-sexers are going to know themselves in general rather more thoroughly than opposite-sexers might due to the lack of a default. Your straight woman who agrees to try it and finds she can get through it might well never really have thought about it much before the question was put to her (although, if she had and had concluded herself to be a total bottom, she'd have been as entitled to belief as the questioner). Same-sexers will have thought about it a great deal.

Additionally, calling oneself a total bottom tends to encompass other activities as well, but it's too late for me to go on and make much sense.
Dec 14 vennominon commented on Savage Love.
Mr Hunter - And Mr Limbaugh and I both appreciate Penelope Pitstop.
Dec 14 vennominon commented on Savage Love.
Ms Kitty - I don't think my experience proves anything, but only threw it in case you thought my response a bit touchy.

My point was that it has been proven for a long time that it is perfectly easy to "do religion correctly" without persecuting the left-handed. One was able over the course of history to dismantle that prejudice without pulling down the whole edifice of religion. Galileo was persecuted and has been forgiven, perhaps exonerated.

On the other hand (and the prejudice against sodomy is quite old enough for me), at best it's a division among faiths whether orientation/gender prejudices can be corrected while "doing religion correctly".

You are saying two prejudices are comparable because of the severity of expression, with which I don't disagree as far it goes. I am comparing the eradication of various prejudices to one of those games in which one pulls pieces out of a structure without its collapsing, that left-handedness happily proved to be one of those prejudices near the top that was able to be pulled off with relative ease, but that gender/orientation are prejudices right at the foundation, almost impossible to remove.

It's not the science, it's the people who end up in control of applying it. Solve the whole universe (like checkers, which I believe has been solved) if you like as long as it remains nothing but knowledge. If someone somewhere knows *the* exact cause of sexual orientation and has been sitting on that knowledge for it never to be used or shared, I salute that person as one might acknowledge the Sudoku World Champion. But I sincerely doubt that the entity funding that scientist would permit it to remain knowledge for its own sake.

Dec 14 vennominon commented on Savage Love.
Ms Erica - Whatever the possessive beginning in "z" happens to be; presumably it would have been part of the intro that one wouldn't presume gender from appearance as an equivalent to the desire to pronoun people correctly.
Dec 13 vennominon commented on Savage Love.
Ms Erica - Zed pronouns for choice for anyone who doesn't choose to declare a preference, off the top of my head. There's probably an improvement, but I just didn't like the professor's habit in that last link of yours of pressuring students into pinning their colours openly to a fixed mast.
Dec 12 vennominon commented on Savage Love.
Ms Kitty - I only brought up DS because I have seen extremely ugly denouncements from either side of those who either abort or don't abort. You asked for an example of knowledge leading to an increase in prejudice; if the knowledge to detect DS didn't exist, women would be spared ugly pressure to abort (which is not to say anything either way about whether the ability to detect is overall a net plus/minus/neutral).

The rest will be a little strained. Left-handedness was always a "soft" prejudice. (Actually, I got a bit lucky on that one; I was educated in the formative stage by rather enlightened nuns who didn't try to enforce right-handedness.) While sincere enough, and harsh enough in application, it was not particularly essential, and was just one among a number of prejudices used by bossy (if the word has not yet been banned) men to help maintain control of other people's lives. It was also based on demonstrable error which could be corrected without significant disturbance to the edifice of the faith.

Orientation is a very "hard" prejudice. It is based on essential points of doctrine - sacramental, as far as the RCC goes. Also, one might well contend that, if religion is done properly, once one accepts the original premise, prejudice against non-heterosexuality (and non-binary gender as well, presumably) is the natural and correct conclusion *for those who accept the original premise*. One can contend to the contrary as well.

Here's the scenario I see playing out should science ever discover *the* cause. Almost immediately, experimentation will start to see: can we alter it? Why? because we can. And, given the vast quantity of right-winger funds they'll receive, they'll find a way to alter it. Then the right-wingers of all parties who control the government will push to enforce universal eradication, and the vast majority of straight cisgender people in the middle who have managed to suppress the thought that they themselves would feel more comfortable if the whole world were straight and cisgender will let this happen while telling themselves that it's really for those poor people's benefit and they'll be much happier when they're just like everybody else.

Now the one thing that suggests to me that it won't play out this way is not some sharing of your optimism, but rather what I think of as the 1984 argument that Oceania requires was with either Eurasia or Eastasia on a permanent basis. Most of the religious powers that be may require a permanent problem rather than a permanent solution. I do, though, think that the general level of support for non-dominant genders/orientations, while probably sincere enough as far as it goes, is relatively shallow. Lots of elected officials give good and sincere speeches, but then undo much of the good effect when they later make jokes that they don't even realize to be heterosexist. (Remove the hetero prefix in the last sentence and the same is true about many people regarding women's - womyn's? - issues, only women, while perhaps not yet at critical mass, at least have significant representation in government.)

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