nocutename
Berkeley, California
report this user
Feb 21 nocutename commented on Savage Love.
@Hunter: I don't think it is "politically incorrect" to be interested in a thumbnail of some famous person's sexuality or sex life. I just think that that trying to ascertain why someone is the way she or he is, is a waste of time and energy and ultimately, sets up a "this is normal and we don't need to wonder why it occurred" vs. "this is not normal/this is an aberration and why did it occur?" mindset which I think stands in the way of equality and promotes discrimination, hate, and fear.
By all means, be as salaciously interested in sex as you want.

@BiDanFan: I think we must be misunderstanding each other. I am not interested in sport, and even the most rabid sports fans accept easily that I am just one of those people who doesn't have an interest in sport. We are legion, and those who are passionately interested in sports are quite familiar with the non-sports-fans in their lives. I have an interest that borders on a passion for antique Georgian jewelry. I completely understand and actually expect that virtually no one I have ever met or will ever meet shares that interest.

Asexual invisibility means that most of us know very few people who are asexual (or know that we know them), and we have not only our own sex drives informing us of its importance in our own lives, but we look around and see all the people who are seemingly at the mercy of theirs, and I think it is harder for us to understand that lack of drive. That's why I am grateful for those who are eloquent about their own experiences and feelings and why I think that it is helpful for more asexuals to be open about their asexuality.

@auntie grizelda: I think you misunderstood me: I completely get that sex is not a driving force in your life.
More...
Feb 20 nocutename commented on Savage Love.
I don't know enough asexuals (or know which of the people I know are asexual) enough to be able to generalize. I would imagine that people's asexuality exists on a spectrum, much like a Kinsey scale or like libido strength. Surely there must be some people who have had horrific experiences in which their abuse was carried out sexually and they have turned off to sex. Just as probable, there must be tens of thousands of people who just aren't that into sex or who aren't really attracted to anyone. I don't think it is a useful exercise to generalize about the why of anyone's sexuality. Why is George straight, and John gay, and Herman bi, and Joaquin pansexual? Why does Martha like to be tied up and Lupe likes to smash pies in her girlfriend's face, and Lesley doesn't like anything but soft, gentle, missionary-position sex with lots of soulful eye-gazing? Why does Hortensia adore anal, and Arthur knows that Monique will not tolerate it? Why does Florence like strawberry ice cream, and Desi likes cookies and cream, and Maribel doesn't like ice cream at all, and Josiah is lactose intolerant and still eats it, anyway?

Why ask why?

Why theorize why someone else is the way he or she is. If you want to do a bout of self-examination and identity-searching, that's one thing, but if someone tells me that s/he is asexual, it's not my place or my job to try to figure out why. It's my job to respect them and to make sure they are treated equally.

@BiDanFan, I understand the point you're making, but I have to say that sexual orientation and sex drive are profoundly different from sports or skydiving. A love of sports is in many ways culturally conditioned, and a keen interest in skydiving is an expensive pastime that doesn't control the lives of billions of people. Sex is a driving force in many people's lives, that exists beyond rational thought or social conditioning. I think the sheer power it has over those of us who are sexual makes it difficult for us to understand how it can be a "take it or leave it" or even "no way" thing for asexual people.
More...
Feb 20 nocutename commented on Savage Love Letters of the Day: Reader Advice Round-up.
@43: But . . . but . . . can't you tell that Andy Warhol wanted to sex with Campbell's Soup
And Jasper Johns clearly wants to fuck a flag.
And I don't want think what that sick pervert Monet was up to with all those haystacks!

For fuck's sake.
Feb 20 nocutename commented on Milo Yiannopoulos: Girls Are In Danger When Adult Trans Women Use Public Toilets But 13-Year-Old Boys Can Benefit From Giving Head To Adult Males.
He is an attention whore who uses shock to get that attention. As Catalina Vel-DuRay said, he's trying to be Ann Coulter with a twist. Tomi Lahren is doing much the same thing.
The thing is when Bill Maher puts him on tv and when Dan devotes an item to him, they're giving him what he wants: fame, notoriety, celebrity. What he fears most of all is to be irrelevant and ignored. Which is why he should be ignored.
Feb 19 nocutename commented on Savage Love.
Thank you, Ava Z (@68) for that comment. I don't think a lot of those who make those "are you sure" or "you just haven't met the right person" comments have no idea how insulting they are, and hopefully this educates them. More important, and poignant, was reading about how difficult even having ordinary platonic friendships are when you're asexual.

You say you are 39 have been reading Dan since you were 14. That means you've been reading him since you were 25. Ironically, I don't think the 1992 version of Dan would have given quite the same advice to someone who said s/he was asexual as it did in this column. I guess we're all learning and growing, Dan included, and not only is his column a place where that happens, but sometimes I think some of the most growth-making learning takes place in the comments section.

It's heartening to see that at 39, you are honoring who you are rather than forcing yourself to be someone you're not, and I hope that you can come out of your hermitage at some point and interact socially again.
Feb 19 nocutename commented on Savage Love Letters of the Day: Reader Advice Round-up.
@35: BiDanFan, your saying: "What difference does it make what Michelangelo's sexual orientation was? We can't ask him. His art is beautiful and has inspired countless gay/bi men with the message that it is okay to appreciate the beauty of the nude male form. That is all I need to know," reminds me of Keats' "Ode on A Grecian Urn": " Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Except I would amend your statement to read: What difference does it make what Michelangelo's sexual orientation was? We can't ask him. His art is beautiful and has inspired countless people with the message that it is okay to appreciate the beauty of the nude male form. That is all I need to know.

After all, inspiration and appreciation should be equal opportunity employers.
Feb 19 nocutename commented on Savage Love Letters of the Day: Reader Advice Round-up.
@33: Reg Eur, that was what I had been taught. Michaelangelo was a Renaissance sculptor, inspired by the Classical Greeks, who associated large penises (at least in sculpture) with more animalistic men, and small penises with more noble-born and also refined men. This is a helpful read and it starts with a close-up of Michaelangelo's David's out-of-proportion, small dick to illustrate. Actually, David is unrealistic in other ways: his hands are disproportionately large, because the statue is about the moment when he was about to take down Goliath.

I don't have an opinion on Michaelangelo's sexuality, and I don't think it makes a difference to understanding his art. The only reason I can suppose it's relevant is that historically under-represented populations (in this case the LGBT, especially the G) should see themselves represented and those representatives should be positive. So if that community wants to claim Michaelangelo as one of theirs, fine.

But.

I also think that Dan's overriding an actual art historian in favor of Google, and dismissing the responses he didn't like because he wants the famous artist to have been gay was insulting. Particularly now, when we live in an era where opinions and beliefs count for more than facts or when the very idea of "facts" is that they are just opinions arising from worldviews and political bias, I think a man who is on the editorial staff of a newspaper should not be suggesting that scholars' research holds as much weight as the contents of a Google search that you happen to agree with. That's a dangerous attitude.

Lastly, the idea that anyone can know the sexuality of anyone else, especially someone who lived over 450 years ago, in a time and culture that may have had different notions of sexuality and sexual orientation than we do and to which we are not privy, simply by looking at their artistic output and seeing the skill and talent of the artist and then deciding that said artist was probably suffering from internalized homophobia, etc., is simply too silly to take seriously.
More...
Feb 18 nocutename commented on Savage Love Letters of the Day: Reader Advice Round-up.
Ricardo, i wasn't referring to climate change, and I wasn't referring to hygiene. I was referring to the part of the letter Dan got which said:
"But what's really got me is your assumption about Michelangelo. I am also an Historian and an Art Historian. From all his letters, poetry, and other primary sources of the period, there is no evidence that he was homosexual." (emphasis mine)

It may be impossible to know with any certainty what Michaelangelo's sexual orientation was, but to dismiss a scholar's expertise because of a Google search was insulting and frankly, I think, irresponsible of Dan, considering that we are living in an era when beliefs supercede facts.

Actually, on second thought, the climate change analogy is pretty good.
Feb 18 nocutename commented on Savage Love Letters of the Day: Reader Advice Round-up.
I'm a straight woman who has a mighty fine appreciation for the female form. I'm not a sculptor, but if I was, one of my subjects would be female nudes, which I would render (if I could) "lovingly."
The fact that Michaelangelo's male nudes are beautiful says absolutely nothing about his sexual orientation.

And it was seriously obnoxious and disrespectful of Dan to dismiss an art historian, who has devoted years of study and has amassed a lot of knowledge with a "Google says" response. WTF is right.