Columns Dec 23, 2015 at 4:00 am

Cock Locked

Comments

106
@81 CMDwannabe: Okay---but it almost doesn't sound like I really mean it. Anyway, here is your apology with a laugh: Ha-ha! I'm sorry.
Really--please do forgive me, though, CMD. I haven't been "69'd" in a long time and couldn't resist the humor.
107
Philo. Disagree with Alison here.
Your words and interpretations are understandable to me. I enjoy the younger, less burnt perspective you bring to the thread, that some of us older women have.
It is heart warming to see a woman in her 30s, seemingly so in charge with her emotional life.
108
Alison [98] - I can be polite, considerate of other's feelings, and recognize that they have different opinions than I do, without feeling the need to change my own opinion. I don't see how I'm hurting anyone.

Alison & BDF - CMD asked for my opinion, and I gave it. Arguing gives me a headache. And I don't even believe that my way is the one right way to think. But it is the way I think, and how I speak about relationships, and scolding me about not valuing bi visibility or trans visibility enough, or that using straight and hetero as synonyms is too confusing, or confidently stating that relationships should be described by each member's orientation and maybe degree of poly or degree of kinky and not just the genders involved, isn't going to invite discussion or change my mind.

Happy holidays. Enjoy your Flatland :)
109
Philophile @108,

What opinion?

I’ve discussed utility and fact; I’ve asked you for declarative statements; and I’ve asked you to reconcile apparently disparate statements. In no place have I referred to anyone’s opinion, so when you introduce this word I have no idea what it refers to.
111
@110: I am inclined to agree with Eudaemonic's one point about Donald Trump. He lives for publicity, no matter how directly it exposes his level of corruption, greed, and stupidity. It has gotten to the point of insanity to where if I see his ugly face on Yahoo, I delete the article and /or scroll down. I am wondering, though, if sullying Trump would indeed make his idiotic supporters ---and so many blue collar voters who have the most to lose by endorsing Trump!---even more rabid and paranoid than ever.
112
Alison - What opinion?
My opinion that a transwoman/transman relationship can be called "straight". That is the main description I would use. If I knew that they were trans, that might be a secondary description, but usually none of anyone's business.

CMD asked my opinion, and hasn't asked me to call some specific relationship she was conducting as a transwoman with a transman a "queer relationship" instead of a "straight relationship". I would if requested. I don't see how this subject is any of your business. As far as I know you're not trans.

If this is some weird way of asking me not to describe your relationships with men as "straight", fine. I don't see why it would come up, anyway.

I’ve asked you for declarative statements; and I’ve asked you to reconcile apparently disparate statements.
I've answered the only 2 questions you asked me. I find starting from the position "you are wrong" about unproveable ideas to be rude. "I think differently" is polite. Or "I'm concerned about the harm to X if you do Y." Anyway I would rather drop the subject.
113
In addition to Trump = Dump, I hereby submit:
Herr TrumpenFührer!

Gawd knows, his politics are similar.
114
Yes, why don't we drop it? Once again I'm getting overwhelmed by all those definitions. Wish I could just get laid as enthusiastically by all those passionate arguers here and elsewhere, or at least score a virtual 69 just like Aunt Zelda did this week.
And just for the record, my comments this week were all in good, festive spirit so no need to apologize.

Hunter- how about "The Year in Review" next week?
115
Sean @102: "I do think it's valid and useful to be able describe the orientation of a relationship independently from that of its members. I wouldn't assume a lesbian relationship, for example, is any less lesbian if one of the members is bisexual. That would be disrespectful to the relationship, wouldn't it?" No! Quite the opposite. Labeling a bisexual a "lesbian" because she is dating a woman is just as much bi erasure as labelling her "straight" if she is dating a man. A same-sex monogamous relationship is no more "gay" if it includes two bisexuals than an opposite-sex one is "straight."
If I was dating a lesbian, and she insisted on calling ours a "lesbian" relationship, she would be denying my sexuality and not respecting who I am as a person. If lesbians don't want to date bi women, that's fine; but they should not attempt to convert us.

Now, I am speaking for me. I do know bi women in monogamous same-sex relationships; they may be happy to effectively renounce their orientation to prove that bi women don't always cheat with men. You'd have to ask them whether they consider their relationship a "lesbian" one or a "same-sex" one.

It is an interesting question: do relationships even have orientations? I think of people as having orientations (G/L/B/S etc) and relationships as having structures (mono, poly, monogamish etc).

Philo @108: Well, I'm disappointed to hear that you won't change your mind now that you've been enlightened by one of the very people you've been mis-labelling. I thought you were one of the open-minded, progressive ones. But I suppose, you've halfway said that while you'd throw the straight label around in your head, you'd use the preferred terminology for any individuals, which I suppose is what we all do without being so openly stubborn about it.
116
omg, we need a glossary.
117
It would be up to a transwoman and a transman to decide how their relationship was labelled.
118
Lava @117: Absolutely right!
120
Legalizing gay marriage hurt bisexuals. Back to the drawing board.
122
Did Japan pick me?
123
@114 CMDwannabe: Though my scoring a virtual 69 on SL was unanticipated, our comment exchange made my week. Happy holidays and many thanks.
124
BDF @115, You often make valuable contributions to the forums, but I don't understand what you (or Alison) are trying to accomplish in this thread.

Sean did not say that he would describe the people in that hypothetical relationship as lesbians. He said he would describe their relationship (between a bisexual woman and a lesbian woman) as a lesbian relationship. Why would he do this? Because that's what a sexual relationship between two women is usually called in the English language. If he called the bisexual woman in that relationship a lesbian, that would be wrong because that's not what she is. And if he called their relationship lesbian to their faces after being asked not to, that would be rude, even it is accurate.

Nobody owns the English language. It's a means of communicating in which it is helpful if we all use the same words in the same way, but you can't send anyone off to the gulag because they use words differently than you do. Neither Sean nor Philo are hostile to bisexuals or did anything to erase bisexuals. They just chose to describe same-sex relationships that include bisexuals as lesbian relationships (Sean) and opposite-sex relationships in which both participants are trans as straight relationships (Philo). Neither suggested that a bisexual woman should be called a lesbian (your false accusation against Sean) because she's in a relationship with a woman or that trans people's identity should be ignored because their partner has different genitalia than them.

The only actual person that either of them was discussing (CMD) did ask for Philo's opinion and wasn't offended by it.

So, please lighten up. You're among friends here and attacking them for things they didn't say isn't helping accomplish whatever your goal is.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.