by JanieM
PS: Open thread!
*****
nous, from downstairs: Sick puppies. So full of hate and disdain for women.
Sex is so fraught, for so many reasons and in so many ways. Someone on another blog I used to read once wrote that everyone has a right to have sex — she was trying to be compassionate to lonely people (summarizing madly) — but there was shockingly little discussion of the fact that you don’t in fact have a “right” to use another person’s body for your own purposes without their consent. And surely this little problem is at the heart of the hatred and disdain for women that that particular kind of sick puppy feels.
A mess.
So I’m posting this ancient page from a 1995 issue of the Whole Earth Review as a starting point (or 17 starting points) for discussion of a difficult topic. Maybe too difficult for a public blog, or maybe we can thread that needle.
If you click on the image, your browser might supply a bigger version.
If you click on the image, your browser might supply a bigger version.
I partially agreed with #1. I got to 6-7 before I bailed on whatever that was.
Sex can be a standalone thing. Personally, I think it’s a component of intimacy. Mostly, I think it’s none of my damn business what anyone else thinks about it – so long as they don’t push it on anyone else.
[Looking directly at you, SCOTUS.]
I partially agreed with #1. I got to 6-7 before I bailed on whatever that was.
Sex can be a standalone thing. Personally, I think it’s a component of intimacy. Mostly, I think it’s none of my damn business what anyone else thinks about it – so long as they don’t push it on anyone else.
[Looking directly at you, SCOTUS.]
If you click on the image, your browser might supply a bigger version.
And once you have another image, you can zoom in on it (ctrl +) as well.
If you click on the image, your browser might supply a bigger version.
And once you have another image, you can zoom in on it (ctrl +) as well.
so long as they don’t push it on anyone else
See also #11
so long as they don’t push it on anyone else
See also #11
To clarify, it can be a component, but it is not a requirement.
To clarify, it can be a component, but it is not a requirement.
See also #11
Yeah, no. I’m dumb enough already.
See also #11
Yeah, no. I’m dumb enough already.
This isn’t threading the needle, and I’m not saying I disagree with all (or even most) of it, but it reminds me powerfully of being expected to sit at the feet of charismatic men holding forth on what the world is, or sex is, or what women’s sexual experience is or more usually, should be. Boy I’m glad those days are over.
(This may be very unfair on George Leonard. I’m just giving you my first reaction!)
This isn’t threading the needle, and I’m not saying I disagree with all (or even most) of it, but it reminds me powerfully of being expected to sit at the feet of charismatic men holding forth on what the world is, or sex is, or what women’s sexual experience is or more usually, should be. Boy I’m glad those days are over.
(This may be very unfair on George Leonard. I’m just giving you my first reaction!)
It is rather pompous, isn’t it? In a style that I came to dislike, as time passed, in a lot of what came out of the Whole Earth world. But let me not get sidetracked to *that* topic.
Reading behind the tone, though, I think Leonard’s points can trigger a lot of interesting thought trains. Particularly, I’ve always loved the punch line, and have found it relevant to a lot of what I’ve seen of people’s stories, and the love affairs and scrapes they (we) get into.
The juxtaposition of all the abstract pontification with the punch line reminds me of the juxtaposition in this delightful little clip (hat tip BJ, i can’t remember whose post). Kinda like Obama’s anger interpreter.
It is rather pompous, isn’t it? In a style that I came to dislike, as time passed, in a lot of what came out of the Whole Earth world. But let me not get sidetracked to *that* topic.
Reading behind the tone, though, I think Leonard’s points can trigger a lot of interesting thought trains. Particularly, I’ve always loved the punch line, and have found it relevant to a lot of what I’ve seen of people’s stories, and the love affairs and scrapes they (we) get into.
The juxtaposition of all the abstract pontification with the punch line reminds me of the juxtaposition in this delightful little clip (hat tip BJ, i can’t remember whose post). Kinda like Obama’s anger interpreter.
Ok, I went back and read that dreadful mess & I guess I’m too benighted to get the insight there, but by my reading it has all the depth of a “Live, Laugh, Love” chalkboard in HomeGoods.
Ok, I went back and read that dreadful mess & I guess I’m too benighted to get the insight there, but by my reading it has all the depth of a “Live, Laugh, Love” chalkboard in HomeGoods.
I remember that sort of manifesto from the health food stores and metaphysical bookshops that dotted Santa Fé in the early/mid ’90s, but all that was inflected through being at a small campus on the outskirts of town with a large and vocal LGBTQ+ contingent and a whole lot of us punks who were their allies. The AIDS crisis really added a sharper edge to the counterculture. We had more of an Act Up orientation.
Visibility is becoming a necessity again. It’s becoming an act of survival, both for the people who are under attack and for those of us who are their allies. Maybe moreso for the allies because we are not in the same danger as our LGBTQ+ friends and family just for being ourselves in public. It’s back to the same fight that I remember from the late ’90s when the skinheads came for the gay punks of color. It’s time to stand up to the push and make them think twice about how much this will cost.
So I’m not worried about any fuzzy New Age sheen. I’ll put up with all manner of bullshit to be seen and counted and reckoned with.
Battle song from the ’90s: Jane’s Addiction – No One’s Leaving
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnrkbVlN7xw
I remember that sort of manifesto from the health food stores and metaphysical bookshops that dotted Santa Fé in the early/mid ’90s, but all that was inflected through being at a small campus on the outskirts of town with a large and vocal LGBTQ+ contingent and a whole lot of us punks who were their allies. The AIDS crisis really added a sharper edge to the counterculture. We had more of an Act Up orientation.
Visibility is becoming a necessity again. It’s becoming an act of survival, both for the people who are under attack and for those of us who are their allies. Maybe moreso for the allies because we are not in the same danger as our LGBTQ+ friends and family just for being ourselves in public. It’s back to the same fight that I remember from the late ’90s when the skinheads came for the gay punks of color. It’s time to stand up to the push and make them think twice about how much this will cost.
So I’m not worried about any fuzzy New Age sheen. I’ll put up with all manner of bullshit to be seen and counted and reckoned with.
Battle song from the ’90s: Jane’s Addiction – No One’s Leaving
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnrkbVlN7xw
Trying to flesh out why I posted George Leonard:
1.
Sick puppies. So full of hate and disdain for women.
People will fuck.
The juxtaposition of these thoughts was what prompted me to dig out the Leonard piece.
A variation that links them: People want to fuck — but oftentimes can’t find someone willing to join them. The strength of the need and the difficulty or impossibility (for some people) of finding someone to help fill it can be a volatile circumstance.
2.
Roe is related to sex. The misogyny is obviously related to sex. Attitudes about LGBTQ+ people are almost totally about sex, if you dig a millimeter below the surface. There are sex-related aspects of racism. We even link guns to sex with words like “ammosexuals,” and the framing of guns as compensation for certain relevant body parts being small, or the fear of their being small.
And yet, in a culture awash in sex (certainly compared to when I was young!), how often does it get talked about seriously? (Which, in George Leonard’s defense, I think is what he was in part trying to do.)
All of that (to me) relates to what nous said in his 7:51. The closet they want to rebuild won’t be just for gay people, it will also be for public affirmation that sex exists and might even be a good thing.
Trying to flesh out why I posted George Leonard:
1.
Sick puppies. So full of hate and disdain for women.
People will fuck.
The juxtaposition of these thoughts was what prompted me to dig out the Leonard piece.
A variation that links them: People want to fuck — but oftentimes can’t find someone willing to join them. The strength of the need and the difficulty or impossibility (for some people) of finding someone to help fill it can be a volatile circumstance.
2.
Roe is related to sex. The misogyny is obviously related to sex. Attitudes about LGBTQ+ people are almost totally about sex, if you dig a millimeter below the surface. There are sex-related aspects of racism. We even link guns to sex with words like “ammosexuals,” and the framing of guns as compensation for certain relevant body parts being small, or the fear of their being small.
And yet, in a culture awash in sex (certainly compared to when I was young!), how often does it get talked about seriously? (Which, in George Leonard’s defense, I think is what he was in part trying to do.)
All of that (to me) relates to what nous said in his 7:51. The closet they want to rebuild won’t be just for gay people, it will also be for public affirmation that sex exists and might even be a good thing.
Visibility is becoming a necessity again.
Apologies if I’m missing the point, but I think visibility is the problem. Things were all well and good when the gays knew their place and kept to the shadows. Like the blacks. And the women.
The insane backlash we see is precisely because it has become obvious to a bunch of knuckle-dragging white guys that they have to stand on an increasingly even footing (still not even remotely true) as the rest of a multicultural society which used to hold them in high privilege. This is not revelatory. But their feelings of marginalization, however misguided, are distilling to an increasingly unstable compound.
*****
Upvote for Jane’s Addiction.
Visibility is becoming a necessity again.
Apologies if I’m missing the point, but I think visibility is the problem. Things were all well and good when the gays knew their place and kept to the shadows. Like the blacks. And the women.
The insane backlash we see is precisely because it has become obvious to a bunch of knuckle-dragging white guys that they have to stand on an increasingly even footing (still not even remotely true) as the rest of a multicultural society which used to hold them in high privilege. This is not revelatory. But their feelings of marginalization, however misguided, are distilling to an increasingly unstable compound.
*****
Upvote for Jane’s Addiction.
Ok, before I get called out on it, yes, “distilling […] compound” is just awful. But my brain is shot and I can’t words good today.
Ok, before I get called out on it, yes, “distilling […] compound” is just awful. But my brain is shot and I can’t words good today.
The insane backlash we see is precisely because it has become obvious to a bunch of knuckle-dragging white guys that they have to stand on an increasingly even footing (still not even remotely true) as the rest of a multicultural society which used to hold them in high privilege.
I think the critical bit is that they are massively insecure, and don’t think they can compete. The only reason to get upset about women/blacks/gays/etc./etc. is if you believe that they are better than you are. So you have to force them into an inferior position.
A white guy who actually believed the bigotry he spouts wouldn’t worry about the competition.
The insane backlash we see is precisely because it has become obvious to a bunch of knuckle-dragging white guys that they have to stand on an increasingly even footing (still not even remotely true) as the rest of a multicultural society which used to hold them in high privilege.
I think the critical bit is that they are massively insecure, and don’t think they can compete. The only reason to get upset about women/blacks/gays/etc./etc. is if you believe that they are better than you are. So you have to force them into an inferior position.
A white guy who actually believed the bigotry he spouts wouldn’t worry about the competition.
nous can speak for himself, but I took his point to be that we can’t take our right to be visible for granted, we have to keep asserting it all the more when the knuckle-draggers threaten it.
nous can speak for himself, but I took his point to be that we can’t take our right to be visible for granted, we have to keep asserting it all the more when the knuckle-draggers threaten it.
And in this case, by “we” I mean LGBTQ+ people and their allies.
Which was probably obvious from context, but is worth saying explicitly as well.
And in this case, by “we” I mean LGBTQ+ people and their allies.
Which was probably obvious from context, but is worth saying explicitly as well.
we can’t take our right to be visible for granted, we have to keep asserting it all the more when the knuckle-draggers threaten it.
It’s worth noting that gay rights really took off when a critical mass of gays came out of the closet. Visibility made a difference.
we can’t take our right to be visible for granted, we have to keep asserting it all the more when the knuckle-draggers threaten it.
It’s worth noting that gay rights really took off when a critical mass of gays came out of the closet. Visibility made a difference.
I took his point to be that we can’t take our right to be visible for granted
That was my takeaway as well, but the “again” part clouded it a bit. And it’s a point well-heeded. Remember when Obama was President and racism was dead and we didn’t need the Voting Rights Act anymore?
I took his point to be that we can’t take our right to be visible for granted
That was my takeaway as well, but the “again” part clouded it a bit. And it’s a point well-heeded. Remember when Obama was President and racism was dead and we didn’t need the Voting Rights Act anymore?
Speaking of misogyny — remembering the brief discussion of J.D.Vance earlier, I’m wondering who Gaetz thinks his audience is…. Maybe he overestimates the percentage of the population made up of woman-hating knuckle-draggers.
And speaking of Vance, maybe I was wrong about his lust to win a Senate race.
Speaking of misogyny — remembering the brief discussion of J.D.Vance earlier, I’m wondering who Gaetz thinks his audience is…. Maybe he overestimates the percentage of the population made up of woman-hating knuckle-draggers.
And speaking of Vance, maybe I was wrong about his lust to win a Senate race.
A white guy who actually believed the bigotry he spouts wouldn’t worry about the competition.
Well… yes and no. I don’t think you get bigotry without some underlying insecurity, so I don’t know that that person exists.
A white guy who actually believed the bigotry he spouts wouldn’t worry about the competition.
Well… yes and no. I don’t think you get bigotry without some underlying insecurity, so I don’t know that that person exists.
My “again” was in the context of the AIDS crisis. Stonewall had its own energy, but what I remember about my LGBTQ+ friends in the ’90s was the refusal to die – silent, unseen, and unmemorialized – in the shadows.
It was the era when Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl (despite being straight) spent the cold close for SNL snogging, just to stick it to the homophobic frat boys who were going to be watching (and SNL working to keep them off-camera and reshooting because gay kisses did not happen on network TV – don’t ask, don’t tell).
So that “again” is the acknowledgement that we may again be at the point where gender and sexual preference are going to kill people. But this time the disease is going to be people, not a virus.
My “again” was in the context of the AIDS crisis. Stonewall had its own energy, but what I remember about my LGBTQ+ friends in the ’90s was the refusal to die – silent, unseen, and unmemorialized – in the shadows.
It was the era when Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl (despite being straight) spent the cold close for SNL snogging, just to stick it to the homophobic frat boys who were going to be watching (and SNL working to keep them off-camera and reshooting because gay kisses did not happen on network TV – don’t ask, don’t tell).
So that “again” is the acknowledgement that we may again be at the point where gender and sexual preference are going to kill people. But this time the disease is going to be people, not a virus.
I don’t think there was ever a time when people weren’t one of the diseases.
This feels like a quibble, but I think it’s important not to forget it.
I don’t think there was ever a time when people weren’t one of the diseases.
This feels like a quibble, but I think it’s important not to forget it.
So that “again” is the acknowledgement that we may again be at the point where gender and sexual preference are going to kill people.
Understood. Dobbs has made it quite clear that 50+% of the population needs to be visible. It’s insane. I spent most of the 90s in NYC in the graphic design world. Homosexuality was about as remarkable as blue pants. 30 years later and it’s not hyperbole to say that Gilead is a possible future. I can’t get my head around it.
So that “again” is the acknowledgement that we may again be at the point where gender and sexual preference are going to kill people.
Understood. Dobbs has made it quite clear that 50+% of the population needs to be visible. It’s insane. I spent most of the 90s in NYC in the graphic design world. Homosexuality was about as remarkable as blue pants. 30 years later and it’s not hyperbole to say that Gilead is a possible future. I can’t get my head around it.
Now that I think about it, blue pants were rather remarkable. Because they were designers. Everyone wore black.
Whatever. My point still stands! 😉
Now that I think about it, blue pants were rather remarkable. Because they were designers. Everyone wore black.
Whatever. My point still stands! 😉
I don’t think you get bigotry without some underlying insecurity, so I don’t know that that person exists.
That was kind of the point I was aiming at. You only spout bigotry because, deep down, you believe the opposite. Otherwise, no motive to spout off on how inferior they are; bigotry is, as much as anything, an attempt to convince the bigot himself.
I don’t think you get bigotry without some underlying insecurity, so I don’t know that that person exists.
That was kind of the point I was aiming at. You only spout bigotry because, deep down, you believe the opposite. Otherwise, no motive to spout off on how inferior they are; bigotry is, as much as anything, an attempt to convince the bigot himself.
Now that I think about it, blue pants were rather remarkable. Because they were designers. Everyone wore black.
That would likely have been the IT staff in blue jeans. 😉
Now that I think about it, blue pants were rather remarkable. Because they were designers. Everyone wore black.
That would likely have been the IT staff in blue jeans. 😉
bigotry is, as much as anything, an attempt to convince the bigot himself.
Agreed. Akin to the projection seen from those corners. Gaetz and that mall troll from Alabama? Must be the Dems who are groomers & pedophiles.
That would likely have been the IT staff in blue jeans.
I have been found out!
bigotry is, as much as anything, an attempt to convince the bigot himself.
Agreed. Akin to the projection seen from those corners. Gaetz and that mall troll from Alabama? Must be the Dems who are groomers & pedophiles.
That would likely have been the IT staff in blue jeans.
I have been found out!
I have been found out!
Probably because of how many IT folks there are here. We can recognize the traditional ethnic garb.
I have been found out!
Probably because of how many IT folks there are here. We can recognize the traditional ethnic garb.
Sex is so fraught
This has been stuck in my mind and I can’t sleep, so…
I think that’s too vague. Sex as a biological imperative? Sex in a relationship? Sex between a sex worker and a client? Is going to a strip club a form of sex? Pornography?
I think sex as an aspect of intimacy is the opposite of fraught, at least ideally. Or even in a FWB situation, assuming everyone’s on the same page.
I’d argue that sex is fraught only when it’s unhealthy. Maybe that’s tautological. Painting broadly, unhealthy attitudes toward sex seem to be inextricably entwined with religion, and to my mind it’s all born from the same insecure tree. The obsession with virgins. The burka… Dude, if seeing a little ankle gets you all rapey, maybe the person who needs to not be in public is you.
One of my exes was an attorney in NYC. Her firm had a lot of Hasidic clients. She couldn’t shake hands because she might be “unclean”. Sorry, but that’s fucked up. I can’t imagine what sex looks like to someone with that world view.
Sex work is illegal because… what again? Same reason I can’t buy beer between 4AM and 8AM on Sunday*. Not my thing, but I don’t think it should be illegal. Frankly, I think the pros (if you’ll excuse the pun) outweigh the cons.
I dunno. Sex between mature adults may be awkward, but it’s informed consent. I think it’s better to say that immaturity, or arrested development, is fraught. And that’s not just a problem of sex.
*Ok, look, occasionally I go fishing and we leave early and there are no stores in the Atlantic Ocean so you have to shop befo- don’t judge me!
*****
Also, Levis and a button-down are the song of my people!
Sex is so fraught
This has been stuck in my mind and I can’t sleep, so…
I think that’s too vague. Sex as a biological imperative? Sex in a relationship? Sex between a sex worker and a client? Is going to a strip club a form of sex? Pornography?
I think sex as an aspect of intimacy is the opposite of fraught, at least ideally. Or even in a FWB situation, assuming everyone’s on the same page.
I’d argue that sex is fraught only when it’s unhealthy. Maybe that’s tautological. Painting broadly, unhealthy attitudes toward sex seem to be inextricably entwined with religion, and to my mind it’s all born from the same insecure tree. The obsession with virgins. The burka… Dude, if seeing a little ankle gets you all rapey, maybe the person who needs to not be in public is you.
One of my exes was an attorney in NYC. Her firm had a lot of Hasidic clients. She couldn’t shake hands because she might be “unclean”. Sorry, but that’s fucked up. I can’t imagine what sex looks like to someone with that world view.
Sex work is illegal because… what again? Same reason I can’t buy beer between 4AM and 8AM on Sunday*. Not my thing, but I don’t think it should be illegal. Frankly, I think the pros (if you’ll excuse the pun) outweigh the cons.
I dunno. Sex between mature adults may be awkward, but it’s informed consent. I think it’s better to say that immaturity, or arrested development, is fraught. And that’s not just a problem of sex.
*Ok, look, occasionally I go fishing and we leave early and there are no stores in the Atlantic Ocean so you have to shop befo- don’t judge me!
*****
Also, Levis and a button-down are the song of my people!
The classic study on homophobic insecurity:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-843X.105.3.440
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35 ) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
My brother had a best friend in high school who came out to him several years later, only to be met with anxiety and rejection from my brother. I suspect this study sheds some light on that.
Male homosexual porn has never done anything for me. That might have made it easier for me to get over the tremendous amount of homophobic hazing baked into popular culture in the 80s. I didn’t live in fear of having my secret shame found out because I had no secret to hide.
The late 80s/early 90s was also when I ended up reading Starhawk’s The Spiral Dance and started really thinking about feminism as a thing men should practice. The rest was all just trying to live up to the standards of fairness and empathy that I found I had fallen short of.
Long, slow trip, that.
The classic study on homophobic insecurity:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-843X.105.3.440
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35 ) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
My brother had a best friend in high school who came out to him several years later, only to be met with anxiety and rejection from my brother. I suspect this study sheds some light on that.
Male homosexual porn has never done anything for me. That might have made it easier for me to get over the tremendous amount of homophobic hazing baked into popular culture in the 80s. I didn’t live in fear of having my secret shame found out because I had no secret to hide.
The late 80s/early 90s was also when I ended up reading Starhawk’s The Spiral Dance and started really thinking about feminism as a thing men should practice. The rest was all just trying to live up to the standards of fairness and empathy that I found I had fallen short of.
Long, slow trip, that.
I’d argue that sex is fraught only when it’s unhealthy. Maybe that’s tautological. Painting broadly, unhealthy attitudes toward sex seem to be inextricably entwined with religion, and to my mind it’s all born from the same insecure tree.
About a decade ago, when the whole issue of consent on campuses became a big public dialogue, one of my mentors from my undergrad years started to get twitchy.
He was a feminist, and a full-on screaming lefty, but he could not imagine, having grown up in the 70s, what an adventurous sexual relationship could look like if all engaged were up front about their desire and what they actually wanted. He railed about how that took all the mystery and excitement out of the pursuit and rendered everything so vanilla and inevitable.
By this point, though, I had made friends with some people who were BDSM professionals who were far more kinky and adventurous than my mentor ever would be. My mentor was just a dude that watched too many tough guy films and identified a bit too much, and never quite managed to shed the hold it had on his imaginary whatever his gender ethics might be. Meanwhile, the BDSM people just nodded through the whole consent conversation, having long ago realized that it was the only way to make their lifestyle safe and sustainable.
All of that seems pretty fraught to me, and not much of it of a religious nature.
I’d argue that sex is fraught only when it’s unhealthy. Maybe that’s tautological. Painting broadly, unhealthy attitudes toward sex seem to be inextricably entwined with religion, and to my mind it’s all born from the same insecure tree.
About a decade ago, when the whole issue of consent on campuses became a big public dialogue, one of my mentors from my undergrad years started to get twitchy.
He was a feminist, and a full-on screaming lefty, but he could not imagine, having grown up in the 70s, what an adventurous sexual relationship could look like if all engaged were up front about their desire and what they actually wanted. He railed about how that took all the mystery and excitement out of the pursuit and rendered everything so vanilla and inevitable.
By this point, though, I had made friends with some people who were BDSM professionals who were far more kinky and adventurous than my mentor ever would be. My mentor was just a dude that watched too many tough guy films and identified a bit too much, and never quite managed to shed the hold it had on his imaginary whatever his gender ethics might be. Meanwhile, the BDSM people just nodded through the whole consent conversation, having long ago realized that it was the only way to make their lifestyle safe and sustainable.
All of that seems pretty fraught to me, and not much of it of a religious nature.
Levis and a button-down are the song of my people!
Spoken like someone who’s been looking thru my wardrobe.
Levis and a button-down are the song of my people!
Spoken like someone who’s been looking thru my wardrobe.
“Pursuit”, I think, gives the game away. I find it difficult to reconcile that notion with feminism. Is it possible there’s more at work to be found there?
“Pursuit”, I think, gives the game away. I find it difficult to reconcile that notion with feminism. Is it possible there’s more at work to be found there?
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
I haven’t had a chance to read the study. But I wonder about a couple of things. First, what was the age range of the participants? And, related, what was the culture they were raised in? A relatively young American grew up in a culture which was moving rapidly towards acceptance. Someone a couple of decades older had a very different upbringing. (And that’s before we get to non-American cultures.**)
Second, how was that “association” manifested? That is, did they see this association consistently? Or above chance, but not drastically? Or what?
Third, how did the authors define and determine homophobia? Behavioral history? Self-classification? Some kind of test (validated how?)?
Why do I care? I find that I personally am a reflection of the culture I grew up in. Which is to say, two men kissing makes me twitchy. And just the thought of gay sex makes my skin crawl. Which, it seems to me, ranks pretty clearly as homophobia.
On the other hand, I know intellectually that it’s an irrational, emotional reaction — albeit one which I simply can’t shake. So I try not to manifest that reaction. In fact, I was endorsing the idea of gay marriage in the late 1980s, which was definitely ahead of the curve. So, how would the authors categorize me in their study?
I guess what I’m saying is that the whole question isn’t really as much a simple binary as it tends to be portrayed. And I think trying to change how people feel about the subject is less productive than trying to change their behavior. Also what is considered socially acceptable behavior, which can shift attitudes in future generations.
** Psychology: the study of the minds of American (and European) college undergraduates.
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
I haven’t had a chance to read the study. But I wonder about a couple of things. First, what was the age range of the participants? And, related, what was the culture they were raised in? A relatively young American grew up in a culture which was moving rapidly towards acceptance. Someone a couple of decades older had a very different upbringing. (And that’s before we get to non-American cultures.**)
Second, how was that “association” manifested? That is, did they see this association consistently? Or above chance, but not drastically? Or what?
Third, how did the authors define and determine homophobia? Behavioral history? Self-classification? Some kind of test (validated how?)?
Why do I care? I find that I personally am a reflection of the culture I grew up in. Which is to say, two men kissing makes me twitchy. And just the thought of gay sex makes my skin crawl. Which, it seems to me, ranks pretty clearly as homophobia.
On the other hand, I know intellectually that it’s an irrational, emotional reaction — albeit one which I simply can’t shake. So I try not to manifest that reaction. In fact, I was endorsing the idea of gay marriage in the late 1980s, which was definitely ahead of the curve. So, how would the authors categorize me in their study?
I guess what I’m saying is that the whole question isn’t really as much a simple binary as it tends to be portrayed. And I think trying to change how people feel about the subject is less productive than trying to change their behavior. Also what is considered socially acceptable behavior, which can shift attitudes in future generations.
** Psychology: the study of the minds of American (and European) college undergraduates.
And I think trying to change how people feel about the subject is less productive than trying to change their behavior.
I must say, I completely agree with this. Despite having zero problem, psychological or otherwise, with any aspect of gay sex, I use the example of racism. You can’t eradicate prejudiced thought or feelings at all easily, but if you eradicate prejudiced behaviour (including speech) I believe it is more likely that prejudiced thought and feelings will be (mostly?) gone in a generation or two.
And I think trying to change how people feel about the subject is less productive than trying to change their behavior.
I must say, I completely agree with this. Despite having zero problem, psychological or otherwise, with any aspect of gay sex, I use the example of racism. You can’t eradicate prejudiced thought or feelings at all easily, but if you eradicate prejudiced behaviour (including speech) I believe it is more likely that prejudiced thought and feelings will be (mostly?) gone in a generation or two.
Pete, above:
First: it’s a blog post, not a Ph.D. dissertation.
But secondly: I stand by my summarizing statement. Sure, sex is fraught except when it isn’t, and especially if you confine what you’re talking about to an activity between two people who find it fun and satisfying and don’t have hang-ups about it.
But my listing of major issues of the day (Roe, LGBTQ+ rights and visibility, even guns and racism, and let’s not forget contraceptives and interracial marriage as possible items on the SCOTUS table) was meant to flesh out what I meant by my briefer statement.
Major bodies of law are built around the urge to control, regulate, proscribe, encourage, and define sex and things relating to sex. Many religious traditions, as you (Pete) recognize, are obsessed with sex. Wars have been fought over who gets to mate with (and let’s face it, own) whom. If the misogyny that drives the current lunacy around abortion isn’t partly about sex, and especially about controlling women’s sexuality (BUT HELLO, NOT MEN’S, NO, NEVER MEN’S), what else is it about?
Pete, above:
First: it’s a blog post, not a Ph.D. dissertation.
But secondly: I stand by my summarizing statement. Sure, sex is fraught except when it isn’t, and especially if you confine what you’re talking about to an activity between two people who find it fun and satisfying and don’t have hang-ups about it.
But my listing of major issues of the day (Roe, LGBTQ+ rights and visibility, even guns and racism, and let’s not forget contraceptives and interracial marriage as possible items on the SCOTUS table) was meant to flesh out what I meant by my briefer statement.
Major bodies of law are built around the urge to control, regulate, proscribe, encourage, and define sex and things relating to sex. Many religious traditions, as you (Pete) recognize, are obsessed with sex. Wars have been fought over who gets to mate with (and let’s face it, own) whom. If the misogyny that drives the current lunacy around abortion isn’t partly about sex, and especially about controlling women’s sexuality (BUT HELLO, NOT MEN’S, NO, NEVER MEN’S), what else is it about?
nous @12:56 am — glad you mentioned Starhawk. I have drifted away from what I learned from her, partly because I don’t think I’ve ever lived up to the challenge.
But I have been thinking often lately of The Fifth Sacred Thing. I won’t go into it here, because 1) it’s off the present topic; and 2) the part that I’m thinking about involves spoilers. I might just have to rereread it, though.
nous @12:56 am — glad you mentioned Starhawk. I have drifted away from what I learned from her, partly because I don’t think I’ve ever lived up to the challenge.
But I have been thinking often lately of The Fifth Sacred Thing. I won’t go into it here, because 1) it’s off the present topic; and 2) the part that I’m thinking about involves spoilers. I might just have to rereread it, though.
wj: And just the thought of gay sex makes my skin crawl. Which, it seems to me, ranks pretty clearly as homophobia.
If what you mean is that the thought of having sex with another guy is unpleasant, I’m not sure that’s homophobia. The thought of having sex with anyone at all that I don’t want to have sex with is unpleasant to me (and surely to a lot of people?), and I don’t think that’s any kind of phobia.
If that’s not what you’re talking about, if instead you’re talking about “gay sex” as some particular sexual practice that grosses you out, then whether it’s homophobia or not, I would respond that there’s no such thing. All sorts of pairings and combinations of people do all sorts of things with their various body parts….
wj: And just the thought of gay sex makes my skin crawl. Which, it seems to me, ranks pretty clearly as homophobia.
If what you mean is that the thought of having sex with another guy is unpleasant, I’m not sure that’s homophobia. The thought of having sex with anyone at all that I don’t want to have sex with is unpleasant to me (and surely to a lot of people?), and I don’t think that’s any kind of phobia.
If that’s not what you’re talking about, if instead you’re talking about “gay sex” as some particular sexual practice that grosses you out, then whether it’s homophobia or not, I would respond that there’s no such thing. All sorts of pairings and combinations of people do all sorts of things with their various body parts….
In the abstract, I find the idea of having sex with another man very interesting. Who would know better what to do with me than another guy? I’ve just never met a guy I wanted to anything like that with. Only women… lots and lots of women. (That I’ve wanted to with, of course. Not with whom I’ve actually gotten to. I’m no Lothario!)
In the abstract, I find the idea of having sex with another man very interesting. Who would know better what to do with me than another guy? I’ve just never met a guy I wanted to anything like that with. Only women… lots and lots of women. (That I’ve wanted to with, of course. Not with whom I’ve actually gotten to. I’m no Lothario!)
Janie, ha! You went there! But delicately….I had considered it, and decided not to risk it.
The thing is, does the increased normalcy of e.g. heterosexual anal sex change the ik factor for straight men? I ask, because in my experience that is the main kind of sex straight men really associate with gay male sex. Perhaps because “penetration” is the thing most men in our society have been socialised into thinking their sexuality is about. On the other hand, maybe I am talking about attitudes of a previous generation (my informants, wj etc).
I think there’s also the issue of identification. What I mean is, can you observe (or think about) an activity, without imagining yourself in it or doing it? So most men have no problem (understatement!) thinking about lesbian sex because they see themselves as observers. Whereas perhaps they can’t see any form of gay male sex (or in wj’s case even men kissing) without automatically visualising themselves as an actual participant. It would be interesting to get wj’s views on this, if he was willing to comment.
Janie, ha! You went there! But delicately….I had considered it, and decided not to risk it.
The thing is, does the increased normalcy of e.g. heterosexual anal sex change the ik factor for straight men? I ask, because in my experience that is the main kind of sex straight men really associate with gay male sex. Perhaps because “penetration” is the thing most men in our society have been socialised into thinking their sexuality is about. On the other hand, maybe I am talking about attitudes of a previous generation (my informants, wj etc).
I think there’s also the issue of identification. What I mean is, can you observe (or think about) an activity, without imagining yourself in it or doing it? So most men have no problem (understatement!) thinking about lesbian sex because they see themselves as observers. Whereas perhaps they can’t see any form of gay male sex (or in wj’s case even men kissing) without automatically visualising themselves as an actual participant. It would be interesting to get wj’s views on this, if he was willing to comment.
if instead you’re talking about “gay sex” as some particular sexual practice that grosses you out, then whether it’s homophobia or not, I would respond that there’s no such thing. All sorts of pairings and combinations of people do all sorts of things with their various body parts…
Actually, no. There are all kinds of things that some people do (probably not a comprehensive collection) where my reaction is more a baffled “why would anyone want to do that???” But it doesn’t particularly bother me that they do.
Sort of like I don’t get groups above two. I know several cases of folks in a ménage à trois, some of which have lasted for decades. As long as they’re all happy, not a problem. (On the other hand, pretty much every case I’ve encountered of groups of 4 or more have broken apart in under 2 years, with bad feelings all around. Maybe it could work, but I’ve never observed it doing so.)
But gay sex? There I have a reaction as noted.
if instead you’re talking about “gay sex” as some particular sexual practice that grosses you out, then whether it’s homophobia or not, I would respond that there’s no such thing. All sorts of pairings and combinations of people do all sorts of things with their various body parts…
Actually, no. There are all kinds of things that some people do (probably not a comprehensive collection) where my reaction is more a baffled “why would anyone want to do that???” But it doesn’t particularly bother me that they do.
Sort of like I don’t get groups above two. I know several cases of folks in a ménage à trois, some of which have lasted for decades. As long as they’re all happy, not a problem. (On the other hand, pretty much every case I’ve encountered of groups of 4 or more have broken apart in under 2 years, with bad feelings all around. Maybe it could work, but I’ve never observed it doing so.)
But gay sex? There I have a reaction as noted.
Thanks for the reply, wj.
Thanks for the reply, wj.
So most men have no problem (understatement!) thinking about lesbian sex because they see themselves as observers.
Nope. There are two desirable people getting off. It almost doesn’t matter what’s getting them off, but the fact that there are (at least) two of them and they’re both (all) desirable is that much better. Also, too, there’s the fantasy that you’re going to get to join in the fun with more them, all worked up as they already are. (Or maybe that’s just me, though I doubt it.)
So most men have no problem (understatement!) thinking about lesbian sex because they see themselves as observers.
Nope. There are two desirable people getting off. It almost doesn’t matter what’s getting them off, but the fact that there are (at least) two of them and they’re both (all) desirable is that much better. Also, too, there’s the fantasy that you’re going to get to join in the fun with more them, all worked up as they already are. (Or maybe that’s just me, though I doubt it.)
It would be interesting to get wj’s views on this, if he was willing to comment.
I’m not at all sure I understand the question. That said, I don’t think it’s about picturing myself personally involved. Vaguely more like observation (but then, observation generally does nothing for me). However, even separate from observation (and I’m pretty sure I’m not even imagining everything that goes on), the very idea bothers me. As I say, a reflection of the culture I grew up in (specifically mid-20th century, semi-rural trending suburban, Northern Californis).
It would be interesting to get wj’s views on this, if he was willing to comment.
I’m not at all sure I understand the question. That said, I don’t think it’s about picturing myself personally involved. Vaguely more like observation (but then, observation generally does nothing for me). However, even separate from observation (and I’m pretty sure I’m not even imagining everything that goes on), the very idea bothers me. As I say, a reflection of the culture I grew up in (specifically mid-20th century, semi-rural trending suburban, Northern Californis).
hsh: I’m no Lothario either (or whatever the female version is), but having come to adulthood at a time when, as my Irish girlfriend put it, “everyone was supposed to sleep with everyone else, and did,” I have a bit more experience than I might otherwise have had — and it has been with both men and women.
From that vantage point I would say, a bit cheekily, that your theory is quite sound. Who would know better what to do with me than another woman?
Then again, though sex was at the center of my rebellion against my upbringing (puritanical Catholicism with a strain of Baptist thrown in, not to mention that I grew up in the straitlaced fifties), being human, I brought my upbringing with me, and it took a long time for the effects to wear off, if indeed they ever completely did.
So to repeat: I do think women know what pleases other women more readily than men do. (And likely men with men, similarly.) But I also think that’s a vast, unfair, and pre-judging generalization. We’re all individuals with our own particular histories, which also shape our experience. And part of the fun of sex is learning how to please each other. It doesn’t matter where you start, you just head on down the road and eventually you’ll get somewhere. 🙂
hsh: I’m no Lothario either (or whatever the female version is), but having come to adulthood at a time when, as my Irish girlfriend put it, “everyone was supposed to sleep with everyone else, and did,” I have a bit more experience than I might otherwise have had — and it has been with both men and women.
From that vantage point I would say, a bit cheekily, that your theory is quite sound. Who would know better what to do with me than another woman?
Then again, though sex was at the center of my rebellion against my upbringing (puritanical Catholicism with a strain of Baptist thrown in, not to mention that I grew up in the straitlaced fifties), being human, I brought my upbringing with me, and it took a long time for the effects to wear off, if indeed they ever completely did.
So to repeat: I do think women know what pleases other women more readily than men do. (And likely men with men, similarly.) But I also think that’s a vast, unfair, and pre-judging generalization. We’re all individuals with our own particular histories, which also shape our experience. And part of the fun of sex is learning how to please each other. It doesn’t matter where you start, you just head on down the road and eventually you’ll get somewhere. 🙂
Nope.
You’re quite right of course hsh! I should have said “observers, and with any luck participants”.
Nope.
You’re quite right of course hsh! I should have said “observers, and with any luck participants”.
(or whatever the female version is)
Lotharia. Duh… ;^)
(or whatever the female version is)
Lotharia. Duh… ;^)
wj, you understood enough to answer my question, so thank you!
sex is so fraught
But totally fascinating. Even when the urge itself diminishes, the endless questions around and about it continue to hold interest.
wj, you understood enough to answer my question, so thank you!
sex is so fraught
But totally fascinating. Even when the urge itself diminishes, the endless questions around and about it continue to hold interest.
But totally fascinating.
Agreed.
And that’s without even mentioning how fascinating relationships are in their own right….
But totally fascinating.
Agreed.
And that’s without even mentioning how fascinating relationships are in their own right….
Lotharia. Duh… ;^)
Duly appreciated. 🙂
Lotharia. Duh… ;^)
Duly appreciated. 🙂
In answer to wj’s questions about the study I linked to earlier – the study had mostly caucasian men between the ages of 18 and 31 with no reported homosexual experiences who probably lived in and around Athens, GA. The study had the subjects fill out a Kinsey homosexual/heterosexual scale questionnaire, an index of homophobia questionnaire, and an aggression questionnaire, before sitting them down to watch some gay porn and measuring their physiological responses.
For the purposes of the study, homophobia was looked at as negative personal affective response to gay individuals, not negative intellectual responses to homosexuality (homonegativism).
Most of your questions arising from the study strike me as being outside the scope of what was being studied. What the study showed was that among their subjects, the ones who self reported as homophobic were more physically aroused by the gay porn than were those who self-reported as non-homophobic. And while they talk about what this might mean within various psychological models, it’s about responses, not causes.
As far as the lesbian porn question goes, I respond strongly to the representation of female sexual arousal. It’s not a participation fantasy or an observation fantasy, it’s just a straight up response to the women’s sexual enjoyment unobstructed by boring male physiology.
In answer to wj’s questions about the study I linked to earlier – the study had mostly caucasian men between the ages of 18 and 31 with no reported homosexual experiences who probably lived in and around Athens, GA. The study had the subjects fill out a Kinsey homosexual/heterosexual scale questionnaire, an index of homophobia questionnaire, and an aggression questionnaire, before sitting them down to watch some gay porn and measuring their physiological responses.
For the purposes of the study, homophobia was looked at as negative personal affective response to gay individuals, not negative intellectual responses to homosexuality (homonegativism).
Most of your questions arising from the study strike me as being outside the scope of what was being studied. What the study showed was that among their subjects, the ones who self reported as homophobic were more physically aroused by the gay porn than were those who self-reported as non-homophobic. And while they talk about what this might mean within various psychological models, it’s about responses, not causes.
As far as the lesbian porn question goes, I respond strongly to the representation of female sexual arousal. It’s not a participation fantasy or an observation fantasy, it’s just a straight up response to the women’s sexual enjoyment unobstructed by boring male physiology.
First: it’s a blog post, not a Ph.D. dissertation.
Well, whose fault is that?
😉
I do think the major issues you cite are ultimately about preserving or reestablishing privilege and control – over everything, sex included. But it also seems part of a larger phenomenon that includes revisionist history and book banning and a general dumbing down of education if not outright derision towards it. I can’t tell if it’s just another wave or cycle of reactionary “conservatism” or if there’s something different about this strain. But it feels like it’s all of a piece. Have the people advocating for this considered what society might look like if they get what they want? Or do they actually want a dystopian nightmare that they assume they’ll be in charge of, or at least outside of?
I don’t recall there being an incel movement when I was growing up. Obviously, those people existed, but not in any noticeable way I was aware of. I suspect social media and dating apps like Tinder have raised the temperature for those who feel marginalized. The sense of entitlement is different, especially as it sours into a violent supremacist subculture. The idea that someone deserves a sexual partner as a birthright is just nuts. And terrifying.
First: it’s a blog post, not a Ph.D. dissertation.
Well, whose fault is that?
😉
I do think the major issues you cite are ultimately about preserving or reestablishing privilege and control – over everything, sex included. But it also seems part of a larger phenomenon that includes revisionist history and book banning and a general dumbing down of education if not outright derision towards it. I can’t tell if it’s just another wave or cycle of reactionary “conservatism” or if there’s something different about this strain. But it feels like it’s all of a piece. Have the people advocating for this considered what society might look like if they get what they want? Or do they actually want a dystopian nightmare that they assume they’ll be in charge of, or at least outside of?
I don’t recall there being an incel movement when I was growing up. Obviously, those people existed, but not in any noticeable way I was aware of. I suspect social media and dating apps like Tinder have raised the temperature for those who feel marginalized. The sense of entitlement is different, especially as it sours into a violent supremacist subculture. The idea that someone deserves a sexual partner as a birthright is just nuts. And terrifying.
nous, thanks for the input.
nous, thanks for the input.
The idea that someone deserves a sexual partner as a birthright is just nuts. And terrifying.
Pete, I’m not clear where you are going with this. If you mean the idea that someone deserves a particular sexual partner, regardless of that other person’s preferences, then I completely agree.
But if you are saying that it is terrifying to suggest that there should be someone, somewhere, for everyone, I can’t see that. Anyone may be unsuccessful in finding said partner (depending, I suppose, on how picky they are, and how generally desirable). But that’s a different issue.
The idea that someone deserves a sexual partner as a birthright is just nuts. And terrifying.
Pete, I’m not clear where you are going with this. If you mean the idea that someone deserves a particular sexual partner, regardless of that other person’s preferences, then I completely agree.
But if you are saying that it is terrifying to suggest that there should be someone, somewhere, for everyone, I can’t see that. Anyone may be unsuccessful in finding said partner (depending, I suppose, on how picky they are, and how generally desirable). But that’s a different issue.
No, no. To every sock a match! Everyone deserves to be happy and if that involves a partner, great!
But I’ve had the misfortune of coming across some incel stuff on Reddit & elsewhere and some of them really believe that if they have the right car and the right clothes, etc, women should just submit to them. It’s very disturbing.
No, no. To every sock a match! Everyone deserves to be happy and if that involves a partner, great!
But I’ve had the misfortune of coming across some incel stuff on Reddit & elsewhere and some of them really believe that if they have the right car and the right clothes, etc, women should just submit to them. It’s very disturbing.
some of them really believe that if they have the right car and the right clothes, etc, women should just submit to them. It’s very disturbing.
My old guru Danaan Parry used to say that we’re all characters in each other’s movies. I add to that: adulthood isn’t so much a goal as a process of facing and accepting the fact that other people are both truly real, and truly other. I think the people you’re describing haven’t even started down that road, and yes, it’s disturbing. similarly for people in abusive relationsihps: disturbing, and terrifying, to be treated as nothing but a character in someone else’s movie.
“Submit” is an interesting choice of words to describe their goals, and their framing of connections with other people. Sounds fraught…. 😉
some of them really believe that if they have the right car and the right clothes, etc, women should just submit to them. It’s very disturbing.
My old guru Danaan Parry used to say that we’re all characters in each other’s movies. I add to that: adulthood isn’t so much a goal as a process of facing and accepting the fact that other people are both truly real, and truly other. I think the people you’re describing haven’t even started down that road, and yes, it’s disturbing. similarly for people in abusive relationsihps: disturbing, and terrifying, to be treated as nothing but a character in someone else’s movie.
“Submit” is an interesting choice of words to describe their goals, and their framing of connections with other people. Sounds fraught…. 😉
The incel edgelords have been fed all sorts of evolutionary psychology woo by Peterson and his ilk, and that leads them to believe that they are operating on genetic inevitability.
They all want some ironclad order of existence so long as they get to be near the top, and they are willing to wait their turn as long as no one beneath them gets out of line.
The incel edgelords have been fed all sorts of evolutionary psychology woo by Peterson and his ilk, and that leads them to believe that they are operating on genetic inevitability.
They all want some ironclad order of existence so long as they get to be near the top, and they are willing to wait their turn as long as no one beneath them gets out of line.
some of them really believe that if they have the right car and the right clothes, etc, women should just submit to them.
Ah, the power of advertising! Which sells cars, clothing, etc. on exactly that premise/promise. (Although somehow neither vendor not their ad agency seem to offer up their own employees as a guarantee of fulfillment.)
some of them really believe that if they have the right car and the right clothes, etc, women should just submit to them.
Ah, the power of advertising! Which sells cars, clothing, etc. on exactly that premise/promise. (Although somehow neither vendor not their ad agency seem to offer up their own employees as a guarantee of fulfillment.)
As far as the lesbian porn question goes, I respond strongly to the representation of female sexual arousal. It’s not a participation fantasy or an observation fantasy, it’s just a straight up response to the women’s sexual enjoyment unobstructed by boring male physiology.
Though it’s by no means an absolute, I tend to prefer female partners. And yet I’m the opposite of that.
And back to your mention of BDSM earlier — there was an essay in CoEvolution Quarterly or Whole Earth Review many years ago by someone writing about S&M. The condensation of her point as I remember it was: it’s not about pain, it’s about intensity of experience. I wish I could find that article, but I don’t have time to dismantle my attic looking for it (assuming i even still have that issue), and I haven’t been able to find it online. Anyhow, I really appreciated what you said about BDSM and consent.
As far as the lesbian porn question goes, I respond strongly to the representation of female sexual arousal. It’s not a participation fantasy or an observation fantasy, it’s just a straight up response to the women’s sexual enjoyment unobstructed by boring male physiology.
Though it’s by no means an absolute, I tend to prefer female partners. And yet I’m the opposite of that.
And back to your mention of BDSM earlier — there was an essay in CoEvolution Quarterly or Whole Earth Review many years ago by someone writing about S&M. The condensation of her point as I remember it was: it’s not about pain, it’s about intensity of experience. I wish I could find that article, but I don’t have time to dismantle my attic looking for it (assuming i even still have that issue), and I haven’t been able to find it online. Anyhow, I really appreciated what you said about BDSM and consent.
“and yet I’m the opposite…”
Actually, it’s not opposite, right? We both respond in certain ways to representations of the gender that’s not our own…..
“and yet I’m the opposite…”
Actually, it’s not opposite, right? We both respond in certain ways to representations of the gender that’s not our own…..
I’m not sure what you mean, Janie. Are you saying you respond to gay male porn?
I’m not sure what you mean, Janie. Are you saying you respond to gay male porn?
Not specifically, and i have never seen much of it, but I respond more generically to what nous called “boring male physiology.” 🙂
Representations of women making love with each other are boring. Tastes differ, obviously, which was my main (and obvious enough) point.
Not specifically, and i have never seen much of it, but I respond more generically to what nous called “boring male physiology.” 🙂
Representations of women making love with each other are boring. Tastes differ, obviously, which was my main (and obvious enough) point.
Gotcha. I think the opposite/not-actually-opposite thing got me twisted up in the old grey matter.
Gotcha. I think the opposite/not-actually-opposite thing got me twisted up in the old grey matter.
yeah — i should have been clearer. Opposite in that nous responds to representations of women and i respond to representations of men.
But similar (i.e. not opposite!) in that we both respond to the opposite gender from our own.
yeah — i should have been clearer. Opposite in that nous responds to representations of women and i respond to representations of men.
But similar (i.e. not opposite!) in that we both respond to the opposite gender from our own.
…some of them really believe that if they have the right car and the right clothes, etc, women should just submit to them.
What’s the old Dudley Moore movie where the patients at the insane asylum are somehow hired to write advertising copy because they’ll be blunt rather than going for innuendo? The one I recall is the expensive convertible where the voice-over is something like “Buy this ridiculously expensive car and women you don’t even know will give you blowjobs.”
…some of them really believe that if they have the right car and the right clothes, etc, women should just submit to them.
What’s the old Dudley Moore movie where the patients at the insane asylum are somehow hired to write advertising copy because they’ll be blunt rather than going for innuendo? The one I recall is the expensive convertible where the voice-over is something like “Buy this ridiculously expensive car and women you don’t even know will give you blowjobs.”
Also, Levis and a button-down are the song of my people!
Once long ago, the VP of Marketing instituted casual Fridays for his people. When someone asked what that meant, he told them to dress like the engineering staff. Once we found out, we instituted Hawaiian shirt Friday — the gaudier the better — because the VP wouldn’t let them go quite that far.
Showing my age, I once suggested that since marketing firmly believed the engineers only wore a coat and tie if either (a) they had a meeting with marketing or (b) they were going on a job interview, we should pick a day and all wear coat and tie. Marketing would know we weren’t meeting with them, so would have heart attacks at the thought that all the engineers were leaving.
Also, Levis and a button-down are the song of my people!
Once long ago, the VP of Marketing instituted casual Fridays for his people. When someone asked what that meant, he told them to dress like the engineering staff. Once we found out, we instituted Hawaiian shirt Friday — the gaudier the better — because the VP wouldn’t let them go quite that far.
Showing my age, I once suggested that since marketing firmly believed the engineers only wore a coat and tie if either (a) they had a meeting with marketing or (b) they were going on a job interview, we should pick a day and all wear coat and tie. Marketing would know we weren’t meeting with them, so would have heart attacks at the thought that all the engineers were leaving.
On sex, I have always believed that I had enough trouble worrying about my own sex life to take on the effort of worrying about other people’s (with exceptions for non-consenting and children).
I shared a house with a gay man when I was in graduate school because we got along well. We just automatically agreed on the practical thing: if a man I didn’t know wandered out of Bill’s room on Saturday morning, or a woman Bill didn’t know wandered out of mine, show them where the clean towels and a robe were and ask them what they wanted for breakfast.
On sex, I have always believed that I had enough trouble worrying about my own sex life to take on the effort of worrying about other people’s (with exceptions for non-consenting and children).
I shared a house with a gay man when I was in graduate school because we got along well. We just automatically agreed on the practical thing: if a man I didn’t know wandered out of Bill’s room on Saturday morning, or a woman Bill didn’t know wandered out of mine, show them where the clean towels and a robe were and ask them what they wanted for breakfast.
I had enough trouble worrying about my own sex life to take on the effort of worrying about other people’s
An echo of my favorite passage from legislative speeches during the first same-sex marriage debate in Maine in 2009. He was a D rep from a fairly conservative rural district, a deacon in his church — he said he had enough trouble worrying about his own sins, he didn’t have time to worry about anyone else’s. He voted in favor of SSM. If only that attitude could be made contagious….
I had enough trouble worrying about my own sex life to take on the effort of worrying about other people’s
An echo of my favorite passage from legislative speeches during the first same-sex marriage debate in Maine in 2009. He was a D rep from a fairly conservative rural district, a deacon in his church — he said he had enough trouble worrying about his own sins, he didn’t have time to worry about anyone else’s. He voted in favor of SSM. If only that attitude could be made contagious….
I have always known I was somewhat strange. Some other people came to the same conclusion at a party one evening. Someone who thought I was part of the conversation a group had been having asked me who my people were. I wasn’t part of the conversation, and was also distracted by something else, and what fell out of my mouth was, “The applied mathematicians.”
They were expecting something like the Scots or the Southern Baptists, I think.
I have always known I was somewhat strange. Some other people came to the same conclusion at a party one evening. Someone who thought I was part of the conversation a group had been having asked me who my people were. I wasn’t part of the conversation, and was also distracted by something else, and what fell out of my mouth was, “The applied mathematicians.”
They were expecting something like the Scots or the Southern Baptists, I think.
Michael Cain: how very civilised!
The incels are a truly terrifying phenomenon. They think sex is their right, and if women are refusing to sleep with them that proves that women are all bitches, and need to be violently dealt with. The overlap with other anti-social attitudes is notable, but not essential. Apparently, the sites on which they gather and interact are truly horrifying, including glorification of fellow incels who have perpetrated mass killings after frequenting the same or similar sites.
Michael Cain: how very civilised!
The incels are a truly terrifying phenomenon. They think sex is their right, and if women are refusing to sleep with them that proves that women are all bitches, and need to be violently dealt with. The overlap with other anti-social attitudes is notable, but not essential. Apparently, the sites on which they gather and interact are truly horrifying, including glorification of fellow incels who have perpetrated mass killings after frequenting the same or similar sites.
“How very civilised” referred to the housemates’ partners’ greeting, but frankly I adore “the applied mathematicians” too! If I had been there, I would have been utterly delighted.
“How very civilised” referred to the housemates’ partners’ greeting, but frankly I adore “the applied mathematicians” too! If I had been there, I would have been utterly delighted.
“How very civilised” referred to the housemates’ partners’ greeting, but frankly I adore “the applied mathematicians” too! If I had been there, I would have been utterly delighted.
“How very civilised” referred to the housemates’ partners’ greeting, but frankly I adore “the applied mathematicians” too! If I had been there, I would have been utterly delighted.
… we should pick a day and all wear coat and tie. Marketing would know we weren’t meeting with them, so would have heart attacks at the thought that all the engineers were leaving.
LOL! Dare I hope that you actually tried it (at least once)?
… we should pick a day and all wear coat and tie. Marketing would know we weren’t meeting with them, so would have heart attacks at the thought that all the engineers were leaving.
LOL! Dare I hope that you actually tried it (at least once)?
They think sex is their right, and if women are refusing to sleep with them that proves that women are all bitches
Whoda thunk treating people like objects and unbridled self-absorption that screams “WORST SEX EVER!” would be a turn off?
They think sex is their right, and if women are refusing to sleep with them that proves that women are all bitches
Whoda thunk treating people like objects and unbridled self-absorption that screams “WORST SEX EVER!” would be a turn off?
+1 @Pete
Of course, acknowledging that would conflict with their imperative to always be the victim.
I confess that people refusing to accept that they have agency seems odd. I mean, I have no problem with accepting that some things are beyond my control. But everything?
+1 @Pete
Of course, acknowledging that would conflict with their imperative to always be the victim.
I confess that people refusing to accept that they have agency seems odd. I mean, I have no problem with accepting that some things are beyond my control. But everything?
LOL! Dare I hope that you actually tried it (at least once)?
I couldn’t ever convince enough people to make it worth while. I admit that I had a rather unique relationship with marketing — when I had my “technology intelligence” hat on I wrote unpopular white papers. My boss came back from a meeting once and said, “You are the only person I know where someone in the meeting suggested it might be a good idea to kill you before you went to work for the competition, and for a moment it seemed like they were going to consider it seriously.”
LOL! Dare I hope that you actually tried it (at least once)?
I couldn’t ever convince enough people to make it worth while. I admit that I had a rather unique relationship with marketing — when I had my “technology intelligence” hat on I wrote unpopular white papers. My boss came back from a meeting once and said, “You are the only person I know where someone in the meeting suggested it might be a good idea to kill you before you went to work for the competition, and for a moment it seemed like they were going to consider it seriously.”
it might be a good idea to kill you before you went to work for the competition,
Another of life’s mysteries: Why it never seems to occur to them to do what seems so obvious. Rather than worry about you going to the competition, why not just have you do whatever they are worried about right there. For them. If it’s that big a deal, they could even decide to pay you more. Radical, but….
it might be a good idea to kill you before you went to work for the competition,
Another of life’s mysteries: Why it never seems to occur to them to do what seems so obvious. Rather than worry about you going to the competition, why not just have you do whatever they are worried about right there. For them. If it’s that big a deal, they could even decide to pay you more. Radical, but….
“Sex is so fraught, for so many reasons and in so many ways.”
That must explain all the literature about it. Well said.
“Sex is so fraught, for so many reasons and in so many ways.”
That must explain all the literature about it. Well said.
I share wj’s feelings about (male) gay sex, though my aversion has greatly reduced as I’ve got older.
I thought about GftNC’s question a few weeks ago about why RWNJs are oppose to contraception (but haven’t commented on it before now).
I think these two things are somewhat related. Some people, and I am one, are uncomfortable with anyone in a large category being on the receiving side of penetrative sex.
That category is all men, our daughters, and anyone sufficiently like our daughters. (When it comes to my daughter, I’m broadly in favour of parthenogenisis.)
There’s another category, which for men is our lovers, and people we’d like to be our lovers. To be clear, there need be nothing negative about our feelings here, one can of course be deeply in love with one’s lover.
A lot of things make sense in this framing. Lesbian sex, no problem (yes, I know, there are some practices…). Gay sex, bad. Heterosexual sex, complicated, because who’s in which category is unclear.
Liberals like me resolve this by recognising that our feelings about other people’s sex lives are unimportant. So there’s no need to tell me that my feelings are illogical.
RWNJs want to resolve it by having all sorts of restrictive rules from which they, and people like them, are implicitly exempt. Restricting access to contraception, for example, is not supposed to affect them or the people they care about. For everyone else, babies are good, sex is bad, so maximising the ratio is exactly the consequence they want.
I share wj’s feelings about (male) gay sex, though my aversion has greatly reduced as I’ve got older.
I thought about GftNC’s question a few weeks ago about why RWNJs are oppose to contraception (but haven’t commented on it before now).
I think these two things are somewhat related. Some people, and I am one, are uncomfortable with anyone in a large category being on the receiving side of penetrative sex.
That category is all men, our daughters, and anyone sufficiently like our daughters. (When it comes to my daughter, I’m broadly in favour of parthenogenisis.)
There’s another category, which for men is our lovers, and people we’d like to be our lovers. To be clear, there need be nothing negative about our feelings here, one can of course be deeply in love with one’s lover.
A lot of things make sense in this framing. Lesbian sex, no problem (yes, I know, there are some practices…). Gay sex, bad. Heterosexual sex, complicated, because who’s in which category is unclear.
Liberals like me resolve this by recognising that our feelings about other people’s sex lives are unimportant. So there’s no need to tell me that my feelings are illogical.
RWNJs want to resolve it by having all sorts of restrictive rules from which they, and people like them, are implicitly exempt. Restricting access to contraception, for example, is not supposed to affect them or the people they care about. For everyone else, babies are good, sex is bad, so maximising the ratio is exactly the consequence they want.
When it comes to my daughter, I’m broadly in favour of parthenogenisis.
This made me smile.
When it comes to my daughter, I’m broadly in favour of parthenogenisis.
This made me smile.
Rather than worry about you going to the competition, why not just have you do whatever they are worried about right there.
It was in the early days of individual on-demand video. We could deliver it in a straightforward way over our hybrid fiber-coax network. The conventional wisdom was that it would be many years before the satellite companies could do anything similar. What I did was show how different technologies were all reaching the point where the satellite companies would be able to provide a similar, although not identical, service in about three years.
As I recall, the first satellite-based on-demand service didn’t show up for five years. Not unreasonable, since they needed component prices to come down and make the service not just technically feasible, but profitable.
Marketing hates it when you tell them their monopoly on a service is going to go away in three years, not ten.
Rather than worry about you going to the competition, why not just have you do whatever they are worried about right there.
It was in the early days of individual on-demand video. We could deliver it in a straightforward way over our hybrid fiber-coax network. The conventional wisdom was that it would be many years before the satellite companies could do anything similar. What I did was show how different technologies were all reaching the point where the satellite companies would be able to provide a similar, although not identical, service in about three years.
As I recall, the first satellite-based on-demand service didn’t show up for five years. Not unreasonable, since they needed component prices to come down and make the service not just technically feasible, but profitable.
Marketing hates it when you tell them their monopoly on a service is going to go away in three years, not ten.
Open thread, so: this is a lovely article about James Lovelock, by his biographer. I knew there was a lot more to him than Gaia, but not quite how much more.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/29/conversations-with-james-lovelock-the-scientist-at-the-end-of-the-world
Open thread, so: this is a lovely article about James Lovelock, by his biographer. I knew there was a lot more to him than Gaia, but not quite how much more.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/29/conversations-with-james-lovelock-the-scientist-at-the-end-of-the-world
A great line from San Jose (CA) Mayor Sam Liccardo, who just tested positive for covid (for the second time this quarter; the omicron variant seems to do that):
“Symptoms are minor, with intermittent grumpiness”
Gotta love a politician with a real sense of humor.
A great line from San Jose (CA) Mayor Sam Liccardo, who just tested positive for covid (for the second time this quarter; the omicron variant seems to do that):
“Symptoms are minor, with intermittent grumpiness”
Gotta love a politician with a real sense of humor.
Goddamit.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the end of Roe v. Wade represents a “major loss of rights” for women, a Washington Post-Schar School poll finds, but those who support abortion access are less certain they will vote this fall — a sign of the challenges facing Democrats who hope the issue will motivate their base in the midterms.
***
But the poll also provides evidence of an enthusiasm problem for Democrats: Those who reject the idea that the court’s ruling is a loss for women are 18 percentage points more likely to express certainty they will vote in the midterms — 70 percent compared with 52 percent of those who do see such a loss, according to the Post-Schar School poll conducted July 22 to 24.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/29/abortion-roe-midterms-poll/
Goddamit.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the end of Roe v. Wade represents a “major loss of rights” for women, a Washington Post-Schar School poll finds, but those who support abortion access are less certain they will vote this fall — a sign of the challenges facing Democrats who hope the issue will motivate their base in the midterms.
***
But the poll also provides evidence of an enthusiasm problem for Democrats: Those who reject the idea that the court’s ruling is a loss for women are 18 percentage points more likely to express certainty they will vote in the midterms — 70 percent compared with 52 percent of those who do see such a loss, according to the Post-Schar School poll conducted July 22 to 24.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/29/abortion-roe-midterms-poll/
On the other hand
Republican voters are not that excited about Republican candidates
Also
Blindsided veterans erupt in fury after Senate Republicans suddenly tank PACT Act
A temper tantrum, obviously. But the kind of tantrum that veterans may well remember come November.
And finally,
The Political Environment Might Be Improving For Democrats
So depression may not be warranted quite yet.
On the other hand
Republican voters are not that excited about Republican candidates
Also
Blindsided veterans erupt in fury after Senate Republicans suddenly tank PACT Act
A temper tantrum, obviously. But the kind of tantrum that veterans may well remember come November.
And finally,
The Political Environment Might Be Improving For Democrats
So depression may not be warranted quite yet.
About two-thirds say overturning Roe represents a major loss of rights for women in America
1. Did they try to find out how many of those people who recognize the major loss of rights think that’s just dandy?
2. By the numbers they gave, if you took 100 people and assumed that 52% of those who recognize the loss of rights would vote one way and 70% of those who don’t think it’s a loss of rights would vote the other, the former will have 33.8 votes and the latter will have 24.5.
3. The poll results fit quite nicely with the fact that the right has been more lockstep and focused on this issue for a very long time.
4. The election is more than three months away.
About two-thirds say overturning Roe represents a major loss of rights for women in America
1. Did they try to find out how many of those people who recognize the major loss of rights think that’s just dandy?
2. By the numbers they gave, if you took 100 people and assumed that 52% of those who recognize the loss of rights would vote one way and 70% of those who don’t think it’s a loss of rights would vote the other, the former will have 33.8 votes and the latter will have 24.5.
3. The poll results fit quite nicely with the fact that the right has been more lockstep and focused on this issue for a very long time.
4. The election is more than three months away.
PS feel free to check my math. 😉 (You know who you are.)
PS feel free to check my math. 😉 (You know who you are.)
the right has been more lockstep and focused on this issue for a very long time.
Although I’m seeing indications that a lot of the support on the right was tribal, rather than heartfelt. (Easier to rally around when you think there’s no chance that what you are “supporting” might actually happen.) Even so, polls show that a majority, a narrow majority but still over 50%, of Republicans support access to abortion.
The far/Christianist right did want it. But having gotten it, they may find it a poisoned chalice.
the right has been more lockstep and focused on this issue for a very long time.
Although I’m seeing indications that a lot of the support on the right was tribal, rather than heartfelt. (Easier to rally around when you think there’s no chance that what you are “supporting” might actually happen.) Even so, polls show that a majority, a narrow majority but still over 50%, of Republicans support access to abortion.
The far/Christianist right did want it. But having gotten it, they may find it a poisoned chalice.
Just popping in, intensely interesting topic, but (shout out to Fermat) the comment box is too small to contain my marvelous conjectures on all this.
I will note that the thread is a trip to scan, I saw someone quoting someone else (I leave it to the interested to sort out who is saying what) saying
LOL! Dare I hope that you actually tried it (at least once)?
which had me furiously going back to re-read and see if I missed something.
In other news, I’m on the back end of a 10 day covid home quarantine, amazingly, my wife and daughter didn’t get it. 2 days of feeling sicker than I have ever felt in my life. Here in Japan, it seems to be the BA.5, taste and smell weren’t affected, high fever, sore throat and cyclically stuffed nose were the symptoms. It was the last week of classes here, and I was able to do them (abbreviated) on zoom, which was no problem for the students as we had a ton out because they were sick or were close contacts. Unbelievable how long this has been going on.
Stay safe all!!
Just popping in, intensely interesting topic, but (shout out to Fermat) the comment box is too small to contain my marvelous conjectures on all this.
I will note that the thread is a trip to scan, I saw someone quoting someone else (I leave it to the interested to sort out who is saying what) saying
LOL! Dare I hope that you actually tried it (at least once)?
which had me furiously going back to re-read and see if I missed something.
In other news, I’m on the back end of a 10 day covid home quarantine, amazingly, my wife and daughter didn’t get it. 2 days of feeling sicker than I have ever felt in my life. Here in Japan, it seems to be the BA.5, taste and smell weren’t affected, high fever, sore throat and cyclically stuffed nose were the symptoms. It was the last week of classes here, and I was able to do them (abbreviated) on zoom, which was no problem for the students as we had a ton out because they were sick or were close contacts. Unbelievable how long this has been going on.
Stay safe all!!
lj — Sorry you’ve been sick, glad you’re on the back end. My son (triple-vaxxed, last March) said the same thing about covid: it was the sickest he had ever been in his life.
Funny story about the side effect of skimming the thread…. The conversations do wander, which is part of the fun.
Come back soon!
lj — Sorry you’ve been sick, glad you’re on the back end. My son (triple-vaxxed, last March) said the same thing about covid: it was the sickest he had ever been in his life.
Funny story about the side effect of skimming the thread…. The conversations do wander, which is part of the fun.
Come back soon!
PS feel free to check my math. 😉 (You know who you are.)
Not me, that’s for sure! As I have often remarked, I’m almost innumerate compared to most of you. Janie, your 09.48 cheered me up, therefore.
PS feel free to check my math. 😉 (You know who you are.)
Not me, that’s for sure! As I have often remarked, I’m almost innumerate compared to most of you. Janie, your 09.48 cheered me up, therefore.
lj, I second Janie’s well wishes. So sorry to hear how unpleasant it was, but very glad it didn’t last any longer. I saw a friend the other day who had tested positive, after a period of being out and about a lot, and quarantined for a week until negative, all without experiencing any symptoms at all (with the possible exception of very slight cold-like symptoms on the first day). And she is also fully vaccinated and boosted.
Stay well, and see you here soon!
lj, I second Janie’s well wishes. So sorry to hear how unpleasant it was, but very glad it didn’t last any longer. I saw a friend the other day who had tested positive, after a period of being out and about a lot, and quarantined for a week until negative, all without experiencing any symptoms at all (with the possible exception of very slight cold-like symptoms on the first day). And she is also fully vaccinated and boosted.
Stay well, and see you here soon!
By the way, as I scanned back to see what lj was so fascinated by (I guess we should talk about sex more often!), it occurs to me to say this.
After my first visceral (not guttural) reaction to the tone of Janie’s linked George Leonard dicta, I must say that actually I do agree with her that there are (buried among the prophet-from-the-mountain pearls of wisdom) some interesting points. In fact, there is not much if anything there that I truly disagree with. For the record, and FWIW.
By the way, as I scanned back to see what lj was so fascinated by (I guess we should talk about sex more often!), it occurs to me to say this.
After my first visceral (not guttural) reaction to the tone of Janie’s linked George Leonard dicta, I must say that actually I do agree with her that there are (buried among the prophet-from-the-mountain pearls of wisdom) some interesting points. In fact, there is not much if anything there that I truly disagree with. For the record, and FWIW.
The only one of Leonard’s points that really makes me roll my eyes is #12. Come on, George, people aren’t that simple. (To put it politely.)
The rest are at least a little bit thought-provoking, even if I don’t exactly “agree” with all of them. If they had been written now, and maybe by someone who wasn’t a straight white male guru type, the emphasis would likely be different, but a lot of the same headings would be important to touch upon.
The only one of Leonard’s points that really makes me roll my eyes is #12. Come on, George, people aren’t that simple. (To put it politely.)
The rest are at least a little bit thought-provoking, even if I don’t exactly “agree” with all of them. If they had been written now, and maybe by someone who wasn’t a straight white male guru type, the emphasis would likely be different, but a lot of the same headings would be important to touch upon.
I must say that actually I do agree with her that there are (buried among the prophet-from-the-mountain pearls of wisdom) some interesting points. In fact, there is not much if anything there that I truly disagree with.
Ok, I went back and read it again, because I’m procrastinating instead of mowing the lawn even though today is probably the coolest chance I’ll get to do it. I’m not trying to trash Mr. Leonard – I don’t know anything about him. But I just don’t see anything profound here. In some ways it reminds me of reading a horoscope. Just a random sampling because – as has been pointed out – this is not a “Ph.D. dissertation”, even though and with no small measure of irony, those are actually my initials. ;-p
2. If that’s true, how would you know?
4. Ok. Whatever.
6. Feelings aren’t trivial. Got it.
12. Live, Laugh, Love. Really? The dishes?
14. Love conquers all. Never heard that one before.
17. I’m no Vonnegut, but “people will die” seems pretty inarguable even if I’m not entirely sure what it “sums up”.
I’ll admit I have something of a pet peeve for this kinda stuff. It feels very “The Secret”/Oprah Winfrey pop philosophy-ey.
What am I missing here?
I must say that actually I do agree with her that there are (buried among the prophet-from-the-mountain pearls of wisdom) some interesting points. In fact, there is not much if anything there that I truly disagree with.
Ok, I went back and read it again, because I’m procrastinating instead of mowing the lawn even though today is probably the coolest chance I’ll get to do it. I’m not trying to trash Mr. Leonard – I don’t know anything about him. But I just don’t see anything profound here. In some ways it reminds me of reading a horoscope. Just a random sampling because – as has been pointed out – this is not a “Ph.D. dissertation”, even though and with no small measure of irony, those are actually my initials. ;-p
2. If that’s true, how would you know?
4. Ok. Whatever.
6. Feelings aren’t trivial. Got it.
12. Live, Laugh, Love. Really? The dishes?
14. Love conquers all. Never heard that one before.
17. I’m no Vonnegut, but “people will die” seems pretty inarguable even if I’m not entirely sure what it “sums up”.
I’ll admit I have something of a pet peeve for this kinda stuff. It feels very “The Secret”/Oprah Winfrey pop philosophy-ey.
What am I missing here?
lj, glad you got thru it.
The current variant is (supposedly) milder than the original. But far more contagious. To the point that, like regular flu, you can get it multiple times. Aided and abetted by the fact that a lot of people, even in this fairly open minded area, seem to have decided that taking any preventative measures is no longer necessary. Hoping that the next big wave holds off until after the elections….
lj, glad you got thru it.
The current variant is (supposedly) milder than the original. But far more contagious. To the point that, like regular flu, you can get it multiple times. Aided and abetted by the fact that a lot of people, even in this fairly open minded area, seem to have decided that taking any preventative measures is no longer necessary. Hoping that the next big wave holds off until after the elections….
What am I missing here?
Some of us like pop philosophy?
We got a pretty fun and unusual thread out of it? (Though tastes obviously differ.)
*****
But more seriously, starting with a story that I may have told before, although maybe not because we don’t actually talk about sex much at ObWi… (understating the case considerably).
I have a vivid memory of walking with my son down an avenue on the campus where he taught in China, at a moment in a conversation when he took me to task for (to oversimplify) the loose sexual mores of my generation.
I said, “I was taught [in Catholic school] that we would burn in hell in unimaginable agony for all eternity for kissing our boyfriends. That took a lot of rebelling against.”
Of course, that’s only my story, and it’s an oversimplification, although not really an exaggeration. The sexual revolution that came about roughly during my coming of age years happened for many reasons, and even my younger siblings didn’t get the same hellfire and brimstone messages about sex that I did. (I was an exceptionally rule-following child, plus they lived under the rule of a different pastor than I did.)
Sex wasn’t talked about by the adults in my world when I was a kid. I was the kind of child that none of the other kids brought it up with, either. (Heaven help me.) I barely knew there was such a thing as homosexuality before I first realized, during college, that the term might apply to me.
Whether because of all that alone, or also because it’s one of the most interesting of topics (connected, as I’ve said a couple of times already, to almost everything else that’s important in human existence), I think it’s a fun and interesting topic to talk about. I used George Leonard as a trigger for conversation because his points are pithy and cover a lot of major headings relating to sex.
If you don’t like chocolate ice cream, you don’t have to eat it. 😉
What am I missing here?
Some of us like pop philosophy?
We got a pretty fun and unusual thread out of it? (Though tastes obviously differ.)
*****
But more seriously, starting with a story that I may have told before, although maybe not because we don’t actually talk about sex much at ObWi… (understating the case considerably).
I have a vivid memory of walking with my son down an avenue on the campus where he taught in China, at a moment in a conversation when he took me to task for (to oversimplify) the loose sexual mores of my generation.
I said, “I was taught [in Catholic school] that we would burn in hell in unimaginable agony for all eternity for kissing our boyfriends. That took a lot of rebelling against.”
Of course, that’s only my story, and it’s an oversimplification, although not really an exaggeration. The sexual revolution that came about roughly during my coming of age years happened for many reasons, and even my younger siblings didn’t get the same hellfire and brimstone messages about sex that I did. (I was an exceptionally rule-following child, plus they lived under the rule of a different pastor than I did.)
Sex wasn’t talked about by the adults in my world when I was a kid. I was the kind of child that none of the other kids brought it up with, either. (Heaven help me.) I barely knew there was such a thing as homosexuality before I first realized, during college, that the term might apply to me.
Whether because of all that alone, or also because it’s one of the most interesting of topics (connected, as I’ve said a couple of times already, to almost everything else that’s important in human existence), I think it’s a fun and interesting topic to talk about. I used George Leonard as a trigger for conversation because his points are pithy and cover a lot of major headings relating to sex.
If you don’t like chocolate ice cream, you don’t have to eat it. 😉
Pete, if your pet peeve is what I think it is, I hate it too with the added bonus of having had to endure quasi-mystical claptrap from guru-types who were a) in love with themselves, and b) mainly using it as a way to get into girls’ knickers (or as you would probably say, pants). But nonetheless, I think that back in the day a few of these points were not at all typical of the genre, and did indeed need saying. I’m thinking of 9 and 13 in particular. Most of the rest is pretty obvious, I agree.
Pete, if your pet peeve is what I think it is, I hate it too with the added bonus of having had to endure quasi-mystical claptrap from guru-types who were a) in love with themselves, and b) mainly using it as a way to get into girls’ knickers (or as you would probably say, pants). But nonetheless, I think that back in the day a few of these points were not at all typical of the genre, and did indeed need saying. I’m thinking of 9 and 13 in particular. Most of the rest is pretty obvious, I agree.
An interesting and wide-ranging thread, for sure, Janie. The generational thing is interesting to me. I didn’t come from a religious or otherwise puritanical background, and my parents were remarkably open (clearly as a policy they had decided on before becoming parents) about nakedness, the facts of life etc etc. I don’t remember anything from them about homosexuality, but given the way I was brought up and the time in which I went through adolescence and young adulthood, my cohort were (by later standards – even comparatively few years later) extremely promiscuous and sexually adventurous. And, on the gay thing, we all thought (and I still think) that human sexuality is usually somewhere on the continuum, with comparatively few people exclusively straight or exclusively gay.
I have no regrets, and no disapproval of the way we were. My only reservation is that the pill, and the pre-feminist cultural climate, meant that many young women were subjected to invidious sexual pressures which girls today would immediately recognise for manipulation, and have a far healthier sense than most of us ever did of their own desires and sexuality.
An interesting and wide-ranging thread, for sure, Janie. The generational thing is interesting to me. I didn’t come from a religious or otherwise puritanical background, and my parents were remarkably open (clearly as a policy they had decided on before becoming parents) about nakedness, the facts of life etc etc. I don’t remember anything from them about homosexuality, but given the way I was brought up and the time in which I went through adolescence and young adulthood, my cohort were (by later standards – even comparatively few years later) extremely promiscuous and sexually adventurous. And, on the gay thing, we all thought (and I still think) that human sexuality is usually somewhere on the continuum, with comparatively few people exclusively straight or exclusively gay.
I have no regrets, and no disapproval of the way we were. My only reservation is that the pill, and the pre-feminist cultural climate, meant that many young women were subjected to invidious sexual pressures which girls today would immediately recognise for manipulation, and have a far healthier sense than most of us ever did of their own desires and sexuality.
My only reservation is that the pill, and the pre-feminist cultural climate, meant that many young women were subjected to invidious sexual pressures which girls today would immediately recognise for manipulation
I remember specific instances, in fact… As if there couldn’t possibly be any other reason for declining a guy’s advances besides fear of pregnancy, and now that that was taken care of, well….
Hmmmm. Q: What did this post start out with? A: A comment from nous about incels and misogyny.
The more things change…..
I agree that many girls today would recognize the manipulation, but I doubt they’re all proof against it. The wish to be liked is strong, and people are … complicated.
My only reservation is that the pill, and the pre-feminist cultural climate, meant that many young women were subjected to invidious sexual pressures which girls today would immediately recognise for manipulation
I remember specific instances, in fact… As if there couldn’t possibly be any other reason for declining a guy’s advances besides fear of pregnancy, and now that that was taken care of, well….
Hmmmm. Q: What did this post start out with? A: A comment from nous about incels and misogyny.
The more things change…..
I agree that many girls today would recognize the manipulation, but I doubt they’re all proof against it. The wish to be liked is strong, and people are … complicated.
I agree that many girls today would recognize the manipulation, but I doubt they’re all proof against it.
Well, I think you’re right and I’ve been thinking about that since I posted. My informants tell me that modern, mainstream heterosexual porn is overwhelmingly, misogynistically semi-violent (slapping, quasi-strangulation, spitting), and apparently young girls report being under increasing pressure for what is being represented to them as “normal sex”. I fear for them, and the young men who are being indoctrinated in this way.
I agree that many girls today would recognize the manipulation, but I doubt they’re all proof against it.
Well, I think you’re right and I’ve been thinking about that since I posted. My informants tell me that modern, mainstream heterosexual porn is overwhelmingly, misogynistically semi-violent (slapping, quasi-strangulation, spitting), and apparently young girls report being under increasing pressure for what is being represented to them as “normal sex”. I fear for them, and the young men who are being indoctrinated in this way.
The sexual revolution that came about roughly during my coming of age years happened for many reasons
My recollection, having also live thru it, is the relatively sudden availability of contraception kicked it off.
Thru the early 60s (i.e. high school for me), pretty much the only method we knew about was condoms.** Which were only likely to be available near a port or military base, and even then required you to ask the pharmacist to get them from behind the counter. Which, if you were young, and weren’t visibly a sailor or a soldier, he likely wouldn’t.
But in the late 60s (college), the pill was abruptly readily available. And the world changed. Before that, young people still had sex. But we knew the risks were non-trivial. For example, one boy in my high school got his girlfriend pregnant in the middle of our senior year. Both dropped out immediately, got married, and he got a job. (They did let him, but not her, come back for a week in June so he could graduate. Job prospects without a high school diploma being dire.) Any plans for their later lives, which in my school universally included college — gone.
** Abortions were (then, as once again now) mostly illegal. And hard to find, even where they were legal. Certainly nobody advertised them.
The sexual revolution that came about roughly during my coming of age years happened for many reasons
My recollection, having also live thru it, is the relatively sudden availability of contraception kicked it off.
Thru the early 60s (i.e. high school for me), pretty much the only method we knew about was condoms.** Which were only likely to be available near a port or military base, and even then required you to ask the pharmacist to get them from behind the counter. Which, if you were young, and weren’t visibly a sailor or a soldier, he likely wouldn’t.
But in the late 60s (college), the pill was abruptly readily available. And the world changed. Before that, young people still had sex. But we knew the risks were non-trivial. For example, one boy in my high school got his girlfriend pregnant in the middle of our senior year. Both dropped out immediately, got married, and he got a job. (They did let him, but not her, come back for a week in June so he could graduate. Job prospects without a high school diploma being dire.) Any plans for their later lives, which in my school universally included college — gone.
** Abortions were (then, as once again now) mostly illegal. And hard to find, even where they were legal. Certainly nobody advertised them.
Sex wasn’t talked about by the adults in my world when I was a kid.
As a member of the WASP tribe, we deny all bodily functions. To the death. Pretty sure we’re the ones who came up with that whole “stork” business.
Pete, if your pet peeve is what I think it is,
You got it. I’m really trying to “never give up on my dream” of the lawn mowing itself, but I may sadly have to abandon it.
I get that it’s dated, but I still think even 9 & 13 are too…?
9. I dunno what the “dictum of sexual liberation” is, but it sounds authoritative. I’m on board with the whole “keep an open mind” thing if that’s what he means by “Nothing forbidden”. But after that initial part, a whole lotta stuff is forbidden, namely everything and anything that isn’t mutually consented to.
13. Sex can serve hedonistic and recreational ends. What exactly is the point here?
As for 12, I’m thinking, “If you really want a preview of how someone will be in bed, check out if they can tie a knot in a cherry stem with their tongue or suck a golf ball through a garden hose. What’s up with the dishes?” YMMV.
We got a pretty fun and unusual thread out of it?
And I wouldn’t be all over the comments if I wasn’t enjoying the conversation. 🙂
Sex wasn’t talked about by the adults in my world when I was a kid.
As a member of the WASP tribe, we deny all bodily functions. To the death. Pretty sure we’re the ones who came up with that whole “stork” business.
Pete, if your pet peeve is what I think it is,
You got it. I’m really trying to “never give up on my dream” of the lawn mowing itself, but I may sadly have to abandon it.
I get that it’s dated, but I still think even 9 & 13 are too…?
9. I dunno what the “dictum of sexual liberation” is, but it sounds authoritative. I’m on board with the whole “keep an open mind” thing if that’s what he means by “Nothing forbidden”. But after that initial part, a whole lotta stuff is forbidden, namely everything and anything that isn’t mutually consented to.
13. Sex can serve hedonistic and recreational ends. What exactly is the point here?
As for 12, I’m thinking, “If you really want a preview of how someone will be in bed, check out if they can tie a knot in a cherry stem with their tongue or suck a golf ball through a garden hose. What’s up with the dishes?” YMMV.
We got a pretty fun and unusual thread out of it?
And I wouldn’t be all over the comments if I wasn’t enjoying the conversation. 🙂
Pete, what number 9 is saying, at least to me, is what I was getting at before about invidious pressure: none of the activities are forbidden if consensual, but none are required either. i.e. it is emphasising what you say about consent.
13 is saying that what whereas sex can be hedonistic and recreational as a matter of free choice, never forget that it can also be used to repress and subordinate, and reinforce oppressive norms, even when this is subtle and unspoken.
At least, this is my reading. Anyone else? Janie? nous?
Pete, what number 9 is saying, at least to me, is what I was getting at before about invidious pressure: none of the activities are forbidden if consensual, but none are required either. i.e. it is emphasising what you say about consent.
13 is saying that what whereas sex can be hedonistic and recreational as a matter of free choice, never forget that it can also be used to repress and subordinate, and reinforce oppressive norms, even when this is subtle and unspoken.
At least, this is my reading. Anyone else? Janie? nous?
GftNC — your readings make sense to me….
GftNC — your readings make sense to me….
@GftNC,
Aside from the pomposity of the “dictum” part, I actually appreciate the inclusion of “nothing required”. I guess it just seems obvious to me, but that could also be attributable to the age.
13 is a good starting point for the ways in which sex can be and is used for subordination and oppression. That’s an important discussion to be had (and to continue having). But to just hang it out there like it has some inherent wisdom on it’s own gets back to my peeve. I dunno. Maybe it’s just the style I find grating.
@GftNC,
Aside from the pomposity of the “dictum” part, I actually appreciate the inclusion of “nothing required”. I guess it just seems obvious to me, but that could also be attributable to the age.
13 is a good starting point for the ways in which sex can be and is used for subordination and oppression. That’s an important discussion to be had (and to continue having). But to just hang it out there like it has some inherent wisdom on it’s own gets back to my peeve. I dunno. Maybe it’s just the style I find grating.
…but again, I don’t really care what George Leonard meant. I’m interested in what we here think about all of it.
…but again, I don’t really care what George Leonard meant. I’m interested in what we here think about all of it.
I actually appreciate the inclusion of “nothing required”. I guess it just seems obvious to me
Speaks well of you, Pete, but alas is not remotely obvious, even today, to young women. As noted @12.34 above.
On 13, you’ve got to remember that at the time, one might have been forgiven for thinking that sex was newly invented, and exclusively for and by the newly liberated young. See Larkin’s not-quite jokey “Sexual intercourse began in 1963/Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles first LP”
I actually appreciate the inclusion of “nothing required”. I guess it just seems obvious to me
Speaks well of you, Pete, but alas is not remotely obvious, even today, to young women. As noted @12.34 above.
On 13, you’ve got to remember that at the time, one might have been forgiven for thinking that sex was newly invented, and exclusively for and by the newly liberated young. See Larkin’s not-quite jokey “Sexual intercourse began in 1963/Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles first LP”
Further to which, how old are you, Pete? If you don’t mind me asking….
Further to which, how old are you, Pete? If you don’t mind me asking….
I either missed or read it wrong, but I just realized that page was from a 1995 issue. I would have guessed this was a piece from the ’70s.
I’m a coupla years to the bad side of 50.
I either missed or read it wrong, but I just realized that page was from a 1995 issue. I would have guessed this was a piece from the ’70s.
I’m a coupla years to the bad side of 50.
I would have guessed this was a piece from the ’70s.
Me too! I think I did see it originally, then forgot it. However, as we have seen, some of this stuff still needs to be borne in mind.
Thanks for age answer. A mere youth and stripling!
Anyway, leaving George Leonard aside, I’m with Janie on this. What the folks here think is the interesting thing, and so it has proved.
I would have guessed this was a piece from the ’70s.
Me too! I think I did see it originally, then forgot it. However, as we have seen, some of this stuff still needs to be borne in mind.
Thanks for age answer. A mere youth and stripling!
Anyway, leaving George Leonard aside, I’m with Janie on this. What the folks here think is the interesting thing, and so it has proved.
I think I did see it originally, then forgot it.
I saw it because Janie mentioned it in the opening post. But it really does seem from an earlier time….
I think I did see it originally, then forgot it.
I saw it because Janie mentioned it in the opening post. But it really does seem from an earlier time….
A mere youth and stripling!
Tell that to my knees. And my shoulder.
Back to the original topic on the question of sex, I guess put me in the “in favor of it” column. Otherwise, I’m not clear on the topic. Or was it pants? If so, also “in favor of it” column.
I’ll always remember my first crush. She was blonde, played drums in a band, and had this adorable high-pitched giggle. And she had this thing where her ears would wiggle when there was danger about. It could never work, of course. After all, I was 4 and she was a cartoon. Still, I dreamt about how we would travel through space solving mysteries and stuff, because I didn’t know what sex was. I will never forget you, Melody.
So in a way I guess Melody was sexy to me, even though I didn’t know what that meant. Somewhere upthread were comments about what people find arousing and what people actually want to (or don’t want to) participate in.
So what’s the difference between sexy and sex?
A mere youth and stripling!
Tell that to my knees. And my shoulder.
Back to the original topic on the question of sex, I guess put me in the “in favor of it” column. Otherwise, I’m not clear on the topic. Or was it pants? If so, also “in favor of it” column.
I’ll always remember my first crush. She was blonde, played drums in a band, and had this adorable high-pitched giggle. And she had this thing where her ears would wiggle when there was danger about. It could never work, of course. After all, I was 4 and she was a cartoon. Still, I dreamt about how we would travel through space solving mysteries and stuff, because I didn’t know what sex was. I will never forget you, Melody.
So in a way I guess Melody was sexy to me, even though I didn’t know what that meant. Somewhere upthread were comments about what people find arousing and what people actually want to (or don’t want to) participate in.
So what’s the difference between sexy and sex?
I started skimming back through the thread and found several things I’d like to circle back to if I get time. But this, from nous, particularly popped out at me:
There was something that bothered me about that description that I couldn’t quite bring to consciousness at first. But now it’s leaping out at me: it implies that the guy couldn’t imagine having good sex in a long-term relationship, or, to put it the other way around, in a long-term relationship that included good sex.
Because if you’re with anyone for any length of time, surely satisfaction (and adventure, as nous says!) comes from something other than the mystery of the unknown.
There’s intimacy and then there’s intimacy, I guess.
I started skimming back through the thread and found several things I’d like to circle back to if I get time. But this, from nous, particularly popped out at me:
There was something that bothered me about that description that I couldn’t quite bring to consciousness at first. But now it’s leaping out at me: it implies that the guy couldn’t imagine having good sex in a long-term relationship, or, to put it the other way around, in a long-term relationship that included good sex.
Because if you’re with anyone for any length of time, surely satisfaction (and adventure, as nous says!) comes from something other than the mystery of the unknown.
There’s intimacy and then there’s intimacy, I guess.
correction for my 4:28:
…having
ina long-term relationship that included good sexcorrection for my 4:28:
…having
ina long-term relationship that included good sex…having a long-term relationship that included good sex
There isn’t a lot to go on but it sounded to me like that guy had some weird ideas about relationships and people in general. How does one not get that people grow and change and develop new interests and curiosities?
…having a long-term relationship that included good sex
There isn’t a lot to go on but it sounded to me like that guy had some weird ideas about relationships and people in general. How does one not get that people grow and change and develop new interests and curiosities?
George Leonard is a piece from the 60s/70s, so he was still in his mode when trying to address the issues of the 90s. He’s going to swing pretty much everything he sees in line with his ideas of the Human Potential Movement.
I take nine to be a sort of statement similar to the biblical “all things are permitted, but not all things are edifying.” I take thirteen to be a statement that even though something might be a reaction against one form of involuntary domination, that does not mean that the response is not itself just another form of involuntary domination.
Going back to the whole “it’s fraught” side of things, I’ve been thinking more about the consent/BDSM side of this all, filtered through my philosophical inclinations towards shamanic/animistic cosmologies. The idea in living is to find one’s place and one’s power within the network of beings. (Sorry if this sounds all guru-y, it’s mostly just a product of a whole lot of reading of nordic mythology under the influence of Deep Ecology a la Arne Næss and Sigurd Olson.). We try to grow and thrive as individuals, but we have to negotiate the space and resources for that (physical, social, metaphysical) with the others within our world. We are never alone, and we have to find a way to live within the constraints of that shared space. Not all the beings we share space with are human.
All this being prelude to me introducing this pop psych article, occasioned by the then-popularity of the 50 Shades… books (none of which I have read):
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201502/shades-play-trauma-reenactment-versus-trauma-play
What I valued in this piece was this distinction:
Trauma reenactment is when people recycle the events and relationships from childhood, repeating old wounds by placing themselves at emotional risk or in physical danger in a compulsive mimicry of the past. An example of this may be a man who was physically beaten by his mother, who finds himself in relationship after relationship with physically abusive women. This is obviously unhealthy and we work with clients to stop engaging in behaviors that put them in harm’s way.
Trauma play is when someone learns how to “play” with their childhood traumas without putting themselves in danger or stunting emotional growth. A person learns to transcend his or her past rather than having it inflicted upon them. Using the example of the man who was physically beaten as a child, he may have some sexual kink in which he becomes physically aroused by being spanked or whipped. This is possible in a non-abusive relationship between consenting adults. Just as an artist may use past trauma to express herself in her work, a person may use past trauma to express herself in the bedroom. Nobody tries to get an artist to stop expressing past traumas!
Within some shamanic cosmologies trauma is conceptualized as “soul loss.” Part of the individual’s animating spark has been removed and has become inaccessible to them. This could be abuse or it could be some form of mourning – the individual having invested some of their spark in something outside of themself as a way of increasing their power/joy/spark. The loss of that, and the violation of the narrative of the world that goes along with it, becomes a scar and a source of pain.
Is there a point in all this for me? Dunno. I’m mostly just processing this out loud in public, trying to wrap my head around it.
But it seems to me that the people who are backlashing hard against women, and consent, and sex as anything other than procreation, and kink, and permissive attitudes towards gender roles, are interested in causing trauma, are reenacting trauma, or both, and they do not have the power and awareness to play in ways that will allow them to grow or to restore themselves.
Hopefully this adds something to the overall conversation.
The issues that arise in BDSM are really productive, philosophically, for thinking about human relations in general, even if you, like me, are not all that interested in personally exploring kink.
George Leonard is a piece from the 60s/70s, so he was still in his mode when trying to address the issues of the 90s. He’s going to swing pretty much everything he sees in line with his ideas of the Human Potential Movement.
I take nine to be a sort of statement similar to the biblical “all things are permitted, but not all things are edifying.” I take thirteen to be a statement that even though something might be a reaction against one form of involuntary domination, that does not mean that the response is not itself just another form of involuntary domination.
Going back to the whole “it’s fraught” side of things, I’ve been thinking more about the consent/BDSM side of this all, filtered through my philosophical inclinations towards shamanic/animistic cosmologies. The idea in living is to find one’s place and one’s power within the network of beings. (Sorry if this sounds all guru-y, it’s mostly just a product of a whole lot of reading of nordic mythology under the influence of Deep Ecology a la Arne Næss and Sigurd Olson.). We try to grow and thrive as individuals, but we have to negotiate the space and resources for that (physical, social, metaphysical) with the others within our world. We are never alone, and we have to find a way to live within the constraints of that shared space. Not all the beings we share space with are human.
All this being prelude to me introducing this pop psych article, occasioned by the then-popularity of the 50 Shades… books (none of which I have read):
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201502/shades-play-trauma-reenactment-versus-trauma-play
What I valued in this piece was this distinction:
Trauma reenactment is when people recycle the events and relationships from childhood, repeating old wounds by placing themselves at emotional risk or in physical danger in a compulsive mimicry of the past. An example of this may be a man who was physically beaten by his mother, who finds himself in relationship after relationship with physically abusive women. This is obviously unhealthy and we work with clients to stop engaging in behaviors that put them in harm’s way.
Trauma play is when someone learns how to “play” with their childhood traumas without putting themselves in danger or stunting emotional growth. A person learns to transcend his or her past rather than having it inflicted upon them. Using the example of the man who was physically beaten as a child, he may have some sexual kink in which he becomes physically aroused by being spanked or whipped. This is possible in a non-abusive relationship between consenting adults. Just as an artist may use past trauma to express herself in her work, a person may use past trauma to express herself in the bedroom. Nobody tries to get an artist to stop expressing past traumas!
Within some shamanic cosmologies trauma is conceptualized as “soul loss.” Part of the individual’s animating spark has been removed and has become inaccessible to them. This could be abuse or it could be some form of mourning – the individual having invested some of their spark in something outside of themself as a way of increasing their power/joy/spark. The loss of that, and the violation of the narrative of the world that goes along with it, becomes a scar and a source of pain.
Is there a point in all this for me? Dunno. I’m mostly just processing this out loud in public, trying to wrap my head around it.
But it seems to me that the people who are backlashing hard against women, and consent, and sex as anything other than procreation, and kink, and permissive attitudes towards gender roles, are interested in causing trauma, are reenacting trauma, or both, and they do not have the power and awareness to play in ways that will allow them to grow or to restore themselves.
Hopefully this adds something to the overall conversation.
The issues that arise in BDSM are really productive, philosophically, for thinking about human relations in general, even if you, like me, are not all that interested in personally exploring kink.
or it could be some form of mourning – the individual having invested some of their spark in something outside of themself as a way of increasing their power/joy/spark. The loss of that, and the violation of the narrative of the world that goes along with it, becomes a scar and a source of pain.
The whole 4:50 comment gives me a lot to think about, but this is especially powerful / meaningful as it relates to my own tendencies in relationships.
Thanks, nous.
or it could be some form of mourning – the individual having invested some of their spark in something outside of themself as a way of increasing their power/joy/spark. The loss of that, and the violation of the narrative of the world that goes along with it, becomes a scar and a source of pain.
The whole 4:50 comment gives me a lot to think about, but this is especially powerful / meaningful as it relates to my own tendencies in relationships.
Thanks, nous.
The whole 4:50 comment gives me a lot to think about
Yeah, thanks a lot, nous. You gonna follow up my Melody story with that??!
Welp, down the Deep Ecology/shamanistic cosmology Wiki hole I go. Followed by a reexamination of my entire relationship history, not to mention my comments history.
At least I’m keeping that lawn-mowing-itself dream alive.
The whole 4:50 comment gives me a lot to think about
Yeah, thanks a lot, nous. You gonna follow up my Melody story with that??!
Welp, down the Deep Ecology/shamanistic cosmology Wiki hole I go. Followed by a reexamination of my entire relationship history, not to mention my comments history.
At least I’m keeping that lawn-mowing-itself dream alive.
As for my mentor, I fully believe that he is a feminist, but like all of us (and especially all of us male feminists) a flawed one.
He was a good looking guy who grew up in the 70s and had a lot of sexy times during the heyday of the Sexual Revolution. It was the old school dating scene, but with sex as an open subject and a primary pursuit. He found that fun and exciting as a young person.
He could not imagine what it would be like to be a young male in search of sexual recreation in an era where all of the intentions and possibilities were known and acknowledged ahead of time. The risk of a stolen kiss and the rush as it is reciprocated is a powerful drug, and the harm for an unreciprocated response may seem small and easily passed over.
I was a bit surprised by his response on this as well. It doesn’t make me doubt his commitment to feminism or any other issue of social justice, it just shows me that he still had some blind spots where his privilege was concerned, that those of us who grew up a decade later didn’t seem as hung up on.
As for my mentor, I fully believe that he is a feminist, but like all of us (and especially all of us male feminists) a flawed one.
He was a good looking guy who grew up in the 70s and had a lot of sexy times during the heyday of the Sexual Revolution. It was the old school dating scene, but with sex as an open subject and a primary pursuit. He found that fun and exciting as a young person.
He could not imagine what it would be like to be a young male in search of sexual recreation in an era where all of the intentions and possibilities were known and acknowledged ahead of time. The risk of a stolen kiss and the rush as it is reciprocated is a powerful drug, and the harm for an unreciprocated response may seem small and easily passed over.
I was a bit surprised by his response on this as well. It doesn’t make me doubt his commitment to feminism or any other issue of social justice, it just shows me that he still had some blind spots where his privilege was concerned, that those of us who grew up a decade later didn’t seem as hung up on.
I haven’t read 50 Shades either, nous, but I also think there’s a lot that’s extremely interesting about the BDSM world.
And I too thought the distinction you excerpted was very resonant. The bit that Janie mentions spoke to me as well, but in addition I thought the following was a very positive way to look at something which often involves shame or disgust, not only when exhibited by puritanical moralists, but also self-inflicted by those involved who may not have consciously worked through just what they are doing:
Just as an artist may use past trauma to express herself in her work, a person may use past trauma to express herself in the bedroom. Nobody tries to get an artist to stop expressing past traumas!
I haven’t read 50 Shades either, nous, but I also think there’s a lot that’s extremely interesting about the BDSM world.
And I too thought the distinction you excerpted was very resonant. The bit that Janie mentions spoke to me as well, but in addition I thought the following was a very positive way to look at something which often involves shame or disgust, not only when exhibited by puritanical moralists, but also self-inflicted by those involved who may not have consciously worked through just what they are doing:
Just as an artist may use past trauma to express herself in her work, a person may use past trauma to express herself in the bedroom. Nobody tries to get an artist to stop expressing past traumas!
If you want some of the philosophical framework of the risk of investing personal happiness in other mortal beings with their own agency from an Aristotelian, rather than an animist/shamanistic perspective, Martha Nussbaum’s The Fragility of Goodness is always a great exploration of the topic.
If you want some of the philosophical framework of the risk of investing personal happiness in other mortal beings with their own agency from an Aristotelian, rather than an animist/shamanistic perspective, Martha Nussbaum’s The Fragility of Goodness is always a great exploration of the topic.
Italiexo!
Italiexo!
He could not imagine what it would be like to be a young male in search of sexual recreation in an era where all of the intentions and possibilities were known and acknowledged ahead of time. The risk of a stolen kiss and the rush as it is reciprocated is a powerful drug,
Well, now I have to reverse course a bit and say that this reminds me vividly of the first time I made a tentative step toward intimacy with the woman who became my first girlfriend.
I once read an essay about that moment, and the larger process that might follow it, from the point of view of the old days, where many people had no notion that gay relationships existed, or even if they did, they didn’t know any gay people, and so in that sense they had no modeling to either guide them or constrain them as to what such a relationship might be like. The line I remember from the essay was, “You get to wing it.”
It was a “Let there be light” moment, like nothing else I have ever experienced.
And with gay people visible, and even taken for granted by a lot of the population, that particular kind of thrill is no longer available.
I’d say it’s worth the trade-off, but still…the memory of it helps me see your mentor’s point a little better.
He could not imagine what it would be like to be a young male in search of sexual recreation in an era where all of the intentions and possibilities were known and acknowledged ahead of time. The risk of a stolen kiss and the rush as it is reciprocated is a powerful drug,
Well, now I have to reverse course a bit and say that this reminds me vividly of the first time I made a tentative step toward intimacy with the woman who became my first girlfriend.
I once read an essay about that moment, and the larger process that might follow it, from the point of view of the old days, where many people had no notion that gay relationships existed, or even if they did, they didn’t know any gay people, and so in that sense they had no modeling to either guide them or constrain them as to what such a relationship might be like. The line I remember from the essay was, “You get to wing it.”
It was a “Let there be light” moment, like nothing else I have ever experienced.
And with gay people visible, and even taken for granted by a lot of the population, that particular kind of thrill is no longer available.
I’d say it’s worth the trade-off, but still…the memory of it helps me see your mentor’s point a little better.
I’m a coupla years to the bad side of 50.
Not to worry. A couple more years and you’ll make it to the good side!
I’m a coupla years to the bad side of 50.
Not to worry. A couple more years and you’ll make it to the good side!
The risk of a stolen kiss and the rush as it is reciprocated is a powerful drug.
Yes. I’m rather glad I wasn’t young in an era where men felt they had to conscientiously ask before they kissed you. And I do realise how this makes it clear that it was always that way around between the sexes in those days!
The risk of a stolen kiss and the rush as it is reciprocated is a powerful drug.
Yes. I’m rather glad I wasn’t young in an era where men felt they had to conscientiously ask before they kissed you. And I do realise how this makes it clear that it was always that way around between the sexes in those days!
I’m rather glad I wasn’t young in an era where men felt they had to conscientiously ask before they kissed you.
The alternative is a world in which the cost of that thrill is paid by all of the people who wished to remain unkissed, but were expected to treat that boundary as if it were unmarked, or be seen as villains if they protected that border. I think the tradeoff makes for a more ethical world, and we can probably find some (fairer) compensatory thrills to balance the scales.
I also suspect that a lot of the incel crowd are people who had a hard time figuring out those ambiguously enforced borders and had been stung by rejection and treated as creepers in the process, and they resent all those who did transgress and were rewarded, but blame the women for having preferences.
And the people who insist on perpetuating the fun of the game (because they are good at the signals, or they are manipulative enough to make the receiver feel powerless to object) and continue to win become the proof to the incels that women are all lying and hurtful.
(And this is the point where I sit and question my word choice, and wonder if there are any female or homosexual male incels.)
I’m rather glad I wasn’t young in an era where men felt they had to conscientiously ask before they kissed you.
The alternative is a world in which the cost of that thrill is paid by all of the people who wished to remain unkissed, but were expected to treat that boundary as if it were unmarked, or be seen as villains if they protected that border. I think the tradeoff makes for a more ethical world, and we can probably find some (fairer) compensatory thrills to balance the scales.
I also suspect that a lot of the incel crowd are people who had a hard time figuring out those ambiguously enforced borders and had been stung by rejection and treated as creepers in the process, and they resent all those who did transgress and were rewarded, but blame the women for having preferences.
And the people who insist on perpetuating the fun of the game (because they are good at the signals, or they are manipulative enough to make the receiver feel powerless to object) and continue to win become the proof to the incels that women are all lying and hurtful.
(And this is the point where I sit and question my word choice, and wonder if there are any female or homosexual male incels.)
And as JanieM reminded us upthread, gay men risked losing their lives if they got those signals wrong. Those borders and their permissions are absolutely fraught, the more so the farther from the social norms you wander.
And as JanieM reminded us upthread, gay men risked losing their lives if they got those signals wrong. Those borders and their permissions are absolutely fraught, the more so the farther from the social norms you wander.
(And this is the point where I sit and question my word choice, and wonder if there are any female or homosexual male incels.)
I don’t know about gay men, but I certainly know a couple of straight women who 1) haven’t ever been in serious relationships but would like to be, or at one time thought they’d like to be; and 2) kind of generally don’t like men, although they tend to blame that on specific men’s failings rather than seeing a general pattern.
The trouble is, it’s impossible to tell which is the chicken and which is the egg. And the women do present very differently from what I know (which isn’t much) of male incels.
(And this is the point where I sit and question my word choice, and wonder if there are any female or homosexual male incels.)
I don’t know about gay men, but I certainly know a couple of straight women who 1) haven’t ever been in serious relationships but would like to be, or at one time thought they’d like to be; and 2) kind of generally don’t like men, although they tend to blame that on specific men’s failings rather than seeing a general pattern.
The trouble is, it’s impossible to tell which is the chicken and which is the egg. And the women do present very differently from what I know (which isn’t much) of male incels.
And when I say “specific men’s failings” I of course mean from the POV of the women in question, who don’t tend to factor in their own failings when they make these judgments.
And by failings I mean: being human.
And when I say “specific men’s failings” I of course mean from the POV of the women in question, who don’t tend to factor in their own failings when they make these judgments.
And by failings I mean: being human.
blame the women for having preferences.
I don’t think that they blame women for having preferences, per se. What they blame women for is having preferences that don’t include them.
blame the women for having preferences.
I don’t think that they blame women for having preferences, per se. What they blame women for is having preferences that don’t include them.
Not to worry. A couple more years and you’ll make it to the good side!
I like the cut of your jib, sir!
And this is the point where I sit and question my word choice, and wonder if there are any female or homosexual male incels.
It’s probably important to make the distinction that ‘incel’ describes a specific, rather toxic group, whereas “involuntarily celibate” describes a self-identifying condition. There must be women in the second group, but I’ve not come across any who exhibit the violent tendencies of the first. My Adirondack chair psychology guess, which is worth what you paid for it, says homosexual males of the first group may actually present as militant homophobes. Surely there are homosexual males in the second group, likely more so in conservative areas precisely because of Janie & nous’ point about signals.
Not to worry. A couple more years and you’ll make it to the good side!
I like the cut of your jib, sir!
And this is the point where I sit and question my word choice, and wonder if there are any female or homosexual male incels.
It’s probably important to make the distinction that ‘incel’ describes a specific, rather toxic group, whereas “involuntarily celibate” describes a self-identifying condition. There must be women in the second group, but I’ve not come across any who exhibit the violent tendencies of the first. My Adirondack chair psychology guess, which is worth what you paid for it, says homosexual males of the first group may actually present as militant homophobes. Surely there are homosexual males in the second group, likely more so in conservative areas precisely because of Janie & nous’ point about signals.
Re: the conversation about incels and men (I think the incels are men) to access to women.
Remember that illegal immigrant who murdered a young woman who was out riding her bike in the countryside somewhere around Iowa city, Iowa? Rightwingers jumped right on it as proof that immigrants were an evil threat to white American womanhood.
That individual was evil–but I remember thinking about the context. He was a minimum wage worker who lived in a dorm set up on a farm with other male minimum wage workers who had very little hope of every having a wife and a family due to not having enough money. Rural Iowa has plenty of immigrants from Central America and Mexico, so the lack of access to a normal family life wasn’t completely due to language barrier or racism; however, the employment situation of that immigrant was one that reduced men to workers with no life outside of work, including no prospect of a family life and no prospect of sex in the context of affection. THey had no vehicles, no way to date, no housing for a sexual encounter, nothing. Some of the men had wives back in Mexico or Central America and came up seasonally, so they had a family to go back to. Others hoped, I suppose, to get a better paying job where they can get their own place to live.
Of course, I’m not justifying murder. I don’t even know if poverty had any influence on that particular murder. I’m just mentioning something I thought of at the time because the murder reminded me of a theme in folk music: the man who kills the girl he yearns for. Those songs come from a period of history in the British Isles when many men had no expectation of every being able to support a wife. Some used prostitutes. Some impregnated women and abandoned them. Some became enraged?
I’m suggesting that the feeling of being entitled to sex, or the condition of having a sex drive with no way to gratify it due to poverty making it impossible to support a family, is most likely going to lead to use of prostitutes, rape, or seduction and abandonment but could also lead to misogyny and murder.
I’m just speculating, and I don’t think the incels are poor. My limited understanding of them is that they are guys who are for various reasons not likeable to very many women and have decided to avoid responsibility for their own behavior by blaming women.
Re: the conversation about incels and men (I think the incels are men) to access to women.
Remember that illegal immigrant who murdered a young woman who was out riding her bike in the countryside somewhere around Iowa city, Iowa? Rightwingers jumped right on it as proof that immigrants were an evil threat to white American womanhood.
That individual was evil–but I remember thinking about the context. He was a minimum wage worker who lived in a dorm set up on a farm with other male minimum wage workers who had very little hope of every having a wife and a family due to not having enough money. Rural Iowa has plenty of immigrants from Central America and Mexico, so the lack of access to a normal family life wasn’t completely due to language barrier or racism; however, the employment situation of that immigrant was one that reduced men to workers with no life outside of work, including no prospect of a family life and no prospect of sex in the context of affection. THey had no vehicles, no way to date, no housing for a sexual encounter, nothing. Some of the men had wives back in Mexico or Central America and came up seasonally, so they had a family to go back to. Others hoped, I suppose, to get a better paying job where they can get their own place to live.
Of course, I’m not justifying murder. I don’t even know if poverty had any influence on that particular murder. I’m just mentioning something I thought of at the time because the murder reminded me of a theme in folk music: the man who kills the girl he yearns for. Those songs come from a period of history in the British Isles when many men had no expectation of every being able to support a wife. Some used prostitutes. Some impregnated women and abandoned them. Some became enraged?
I’m suggesting that the feeling of being entitled to sex, or the condition of having a sex drive with no way to gratify it due to poverty making it impossible to support a family, is most likely going to lead to use of prostitutes, rape, or seduction and abandonment but could also lead to misogyny and murder.
I’m just speculating, and I don’t think the incels are poor. My limited understanding of them is that they are guys who are for various reasons not likeable to very many women and have decided to avoid responsibility for their own behavior by blaming women.
I don’t think that they blame women for having preferences, per se. What they blame women for is having preferences that don’t include them.
Sorry, I was being an omniscient narrator with a quaint editorial stance about women being people, not a third person limited narrator.
And Laura, your comments made me think about the plight of the Filipino farm worker during the first half of the 20th C. as well, where those conditions were the norm for anyone coming here from the Philippines.
I don’t think that they blame women for having preferences, per se. What they blame women for is having preferences that don’t include them.
Sorry, I was being an omniscient narrator with a quaint editorial stance about women being people, not a third person limited narrator.
And Laura, your comments made me think about the plight of the Filipino farm worker during the first half of the 20th C. as well, where those conditions were the norm for anyone coming here from the Philippines.
a minimum wage worker who lived in a dorm set up on a farm with other male minimum wage workers who had very little hope of every having a wife and a family due to not having enough money.
For those who honestly care about families and family values [/snark], increasing numbers of women arriving, legally or otherwise, from the same areas has to be accounted a plus.
a minimum wage worker who lived in a dorm set up on a farm with other male minimum wage workers who had very little hope of every having a wife and a family due to not having enough money.
For those who honestly care about families and family values [/snark], increasing numbers of women arriving, legally or otherwise, from the same areas has to be accounted a plus.
Kipling had a lot to say about the plight of native English common soldiers in India. Usually banned from marrying and definitely from marrying native Indian women (and the ‘import’ of English women was frowned uopn) they had little choice but frequenting prostitutes. Depending on the unit and time ‘inofficial’ stable relationships with native girls were either tolerated as the lesser evil (don’t ask, don’t tell) or suppressed with prejudice (pun intended). At times there were controlled regimental brothels (controlled mainly for STDs). But there wwere also times when religious fanatics and know-nothings took control leading to the closing of said brothels, strictly enforcing the ban on inofficial families and a deliberate ban of all information on STDs (what Kipling called ‘the order that rotted out the armies’). ‘For the wages of sin is death’ was the implicit reasoning: you have sex, you (should) die (hopefully in a very unpleasant way).
STD rates skyrocketed, sometimes to a degree that units became inoperable.
The religious fanaticism was of course not limited to that. One viceroy saw no other option than to demand the immediate recall of a bishop back to England because the guy would otherwise trigger the next Indian Mutiny (said bishop was very vocal about his perceived need to stamp out Hinduism and Islam in India during his term of office).
Feel free to draw parallels to the US.
While we are at it: During the UN mission in ex-Yougoslavia different nations handled the problem of soldiers and sex quite differently. The French were open and had official brothels for their men. The Germans went for ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ (officers on patrol made themselves conspicuous and the soldiers kept someone on watch, so his comrades could leave through the backdoor safely*). This policy was partially motivated by not wanting to waken bad memories about WW1&2 and partially because most soldiers had families (or at least girlfriends) back at home and it would look bad, if it was known that those soldiers with official backing visited prostitutes). US forces were of course supposed to be chaste, naturally with the usual results (rape**, STDs etc.).
Btw, there is a popular urban legend in the German armed forces that their food is deliberately laced with anti-aphrodisiacs.
*always checking that there IS a backdoor of course being part of the scheme.
**both of local women and female comrades (not that many of those around yet at the time, I’d presume)
Kipling had a lot to say about the plight of native English common soldiers in India. Usually banned from marrying and definitely from marrying native Indian women (and the ‘import’ of English women was frowned uopn) they had little choice but frequenting prostitutes. Depending on the unit and time ‘inofficial’ stable relationships with native girls were either tolerated as the lesser evil (don’t ask, don’t tell) or suppressed with prejudice (pun intended). At times there were controlled regimental brothels (controlled mainly for STDs). But there wwere also times when religious fanatics and know-nothings took control leading to the closing of said brothels, strictly enforcing the ban on inofficial families and a deliberate ban of all information on STDs (what Kipling called ‘the order that rotted out the armies’). ‘For the wages of sin is death’ was the implicit reasoning: you have sex, you (should) die (hopefully in a very unpleasant way).
STD rates skyrocketed, sometimes to a degree that units became inoperable.
The religious fanaticism was of course not limited to that. One viceroy saw no other option than to demand the immediate recall of a bishop back to England because the guy would otherwise trigger the next Indian Mutiny (said bishop was very vocal about his perceived need to stamp out Hinduism and Islam in India during his term of office).
Feel free to draw parallels to the US.
While we are at it: During the UN mission in ex-Yougoslavia different nations handled the problem of soldiers and sex quite differently. The French were open and had official brothels for their men. The Germans went for ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ (officers on patrol made themselves conspicuous and the soldiers kept someone on watch, so his comrades could leave through the backdoor safely*). This policy was partially motivated by not wanting to waken bad memories about WW1&2 and partially because most soldiers had families (or at least girlfriends) back at home and it would look bad, if it was known that those soldiers with official backing visited prostitutes). US forces were of course supposed to be chaste, naturally with the usual results (rape**, STDs etc.).
Btw, there is a popular urban legend in the German armed forces that their food is deliberately laced with anti-aphrodisiacs.
*always checking that there IS a backdoor of course being part of the scheme.
**both of local women and female comrades (not that many of those around yet at the time, I’d presume)
…there is a popular urban legend in the German armed forces that their food is deliberately laced with anti-aphrodisiacs.
British soldiers in the first world war thought there was bromide in their tea. French soldiers imagined it was in their wine. Germans believed it (iodide for them) was in their coffee.
…there is a popular urban legend in the German armed forces that their food is deliberately laced with anti-aphrodisiacs.
British soldiers in the first world war thought there was bromide in their tea. French soldiers imagined it was in their wine. Germans believed it (iodide for them) was in their coffee.
…there is a popular urban legend in the German armed forces that their food is deliberately laced with anti-aphrodisiacs.
In Marine Corps boot camp, this was the go-to explanation for the psychological impact of boot camp on the male anatomy. Saltpeter in the mashed potatoes perhaps…
…there is a popular urban legend in the German armed forces that their food is deliberately laced with anti-aphrodisiacs.
In Marine Corps boot camp, this was the go-to explanation for the psychological impact of boot camp on the male anatomy. Saltpeter in the mashed potatoes perhaps…
The alternative is a world in which the cost of that thrill is paid by all of the people who wished to remain unkissed, but were expected to treat that boundary as if it were unmarked, or be seen as villains if they protected that border. I think the tradeoff makes for a more ethical world, and we can probably find some (fairer) compensatory thrills to balance the scales.
I’m sure it won’t surprise you to hear that a woman who has lived a life, and came of age in the 70s, understands very well the issues surrounding the question of consent. And as for men who “get away with” intuitive understanding of when a kiss may or may not be acceptable being the indirect cause of the incels’ resentment, I am afraid the cause is very (very) much broader than that. A culture in which young women are principally valued for their looks, and implicitly (or explicitly) seen as agency-less playthings for men’s use, ensures that men who are regularly rejected will harbour resentment and aggression at being balked of their “rightful” male reward. A very broad change indeed in the cultural conception of the sexes is needed to change this situation, and at the moment much change seems to be in the wrong direction. Indoctrinating young men with the understanding that consent is necessary, and must be sought, is certainly one part of the puzzle, but only one. And, as I said, I am glad I came of age at a time when intuition was allowed to play a part.
The alternative is a world in which the cost of that thrill is paid by all of the people who wished to remain unkissed, but were expected to treat that boundary as if it were unmarked, or be seen as villains if they protected that border. I think the tradeoff makes for a more ethical world, and we can probably find some (fairer) compensatory thrills to balance the scales.
I’m sure it won’t surprise you to hear that a woman who has lived a life, and came of age in the 70s, understands very well the issues surrounding the question of consent. And as for men who “get away with” intuitive understanding of when a kiss may or may not be acceptable being the indirect cause of the incels’ resentment, I am afraid the cause is very (very) much broader than that. A culture in which young women are principally valued for their looks, and implicitly (or explicitly) seen as agency-less playthings for men’s use, ensures that men who are regularly rejected will harbour resentment and aggression at being balked of their “rightful” male reward. A very broad change indeed in the cultural conception of the sexes is needed to change this situation, and at the moment much change seems to be in the wrong direction. Indoctrinating young men with the understanding that consent is necessary, and must be sought, is certainly one part of the puzzle, but only one. And, as I said, I am glad I came of age at a time when intuition was allowed to play a part.
The old cliche is that the first kiss is to be answered by a slap in the (male) face independent of whether it was wanted or not.
The old cliche is that the first kiss is to be answered by a slap in the (male) face independent of whether it was wanted or not.
My dad told me that the base where he was deployed handed out condoms literally by the barrel. The barrels were set up by the exit so that soldiers could grab a handful on their way to the nearby village.
My dad told me that the base where he was deployed handed out condoms literally by the barrel. The barrels were set up by the exit so that soldiers could grab a handful on their way to the nearby village.
One viceroy saw no other option than to demand the immediate recall of a bishop back to England because the guy would otherwise trigger the next Indian Mutiny (said bishop was very vocal about his perceived need to stamp out Hinduism and Islam in India during his term of office).
Feel free to draw parallels to the US.
Parallels:
1) Supreme Court Justices who see a similar duty to stamp out sin and heresy (as they see it thru their particular personal theology).
2) Potential for things to get messy if puritanism keeps going.
Non-parallel:
Nobody resembling a viceroy who is in a position to successfully demand their recall from office.
One viceroy saw no other option than to demand the immediate recall of a bishop back to England because the guy would otherwise trigger the next Indian Mutiny (said bishop was very vocal about his perceived need to stamp out Hinduism and Islam in India during his term of office).
Feel free to draw parallels to the US.
Parallels:
1) Supreme Court Justices who see a similar duty to stamp out sin and heresy (as they see it thru their particular personal theology).
2) Potential for things to get messy if puritanism keeps going.
Non-parallel:
Nobody resembling a viceroy who is in a position to successfully demand their recall from office.
Nichelle Nichols, 1932-2022
RIP, Lieutenant
Nichelle Nichols, 1932-2022
RIP, Lieutenant
And Bill Russell.
And Bill Russell.
Both tremendously important to civil rights.
Both tremendously important to civil rights.
Yes, someone at BJ was mentioning today that Nichols recruited astronauts, including Ron McNair, who died in the Challenger disaster.
Yes, someone at BJ was mentioning today that Nichols recruited astronauts, including Ron McNair, who died in the Challenger disaster.
Not that that’s all she did, but I didn’t know it. I was never a dedicated Star Trek fan, so didn’t know much about her at all.
Not that that’s all she did, but I didn’t know it. I was never a dedicated Star Trek fan, so didn’t know much about her at all.
Wow. Just when you think they can’t go any lower, this.
And here I thought “legitimate rape” was the height of misogyny. Failure of imagination on my part.
Wow. Just when you think they can’t go any lower, this.
And here I thought “legitimate rape” was the height of misogyny. Failure of imagination on my part.
https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2022/08/02/covid-and-blue-people-in-red-states/
Looks like Jabbabonk was at least partially right for once, athough it was not sufficient to tip the elections in his favor.
But I guess for the likes of deSantis it would not have much of a difference as far as mishandling the pandemic went. Just an added bonus.
https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2022/08/02/covid-and-blue-people-in-red-states/
Looks like Jabbabonk was at least partially right for once, athough it was not sufficient to tip the elections in his favor.
But I guess for the likes of deSantis it would not have much of a difference as far as mishandling the pandemic went. Just an added bonus.
Please insert ‘made’ between ‘have’ and ‘much’.
Please insert ‘made’ between ‘have’ and ‘much’.
I’m wondering what the commentariat think of the assassination of Zawahiri? Anybody interested in giving their reaction? I’m prepared to give mine, when I’ve thought it through…
I’m wondering what the commentariat think of the assassination of Zawahiri? Anybody interested in giving their reaction? I’m prepared to give mine, when I’ve thought it through…
Kansas! — is there hope after all? People are mad as hell and they’re not going to forget they’re mad as hell?
One of my friends who has been deeply involved in politics-adjacent work, though not directly in electoral politics, used to say that the Rs really don’t want Roe reversed, because they want to use it to keep riling up their base forever.
They lost the run of themselves, as my Irish girlfriend used to say. All because of that fanatic Sammy Alito. Or maybe his paymaster, Leonard Leo.
Kansas! — is there hope after all? People are mad as hell and they’re not going to forget they’re mad as hell?
One of my friends who has been deeply involved in politics-adjacent work, though not directly in electoral politics, used to say that the Rs really don’t want Roe reversed, because they want to use it to keep riling up their base forever.
They lost the run of themselves, as my Irish girlfriend used to say. All because of that fanatic Sammy Alito. Or maybe his paymaster, Leonard Leo.
Although that’s not quite right; i don’t think Alito needs any payment for what he’s doing besides the satisfaction of ruining other people’s lives for his concept of religion and the cruel deity he has created in his own image.
Although that’s not quite right; i don’t think Alito needs any payment for what he’s doing besides the satisfaction of ruining other people’s lives for his concept of religion and the cruel deity he has created in his own image.
Kansas! — is there hope after all?
See the new Open Thread
Kansas! — is there hope after all?
See the new Open Thread
I’m wondering what the commentariat think of the assassination of Zawahiri?
I will shed no tears for that hate hollowed shell of a human. If his remains were in my possession, I’d bury him face down in a lead filled coffin in an unmarked grave. We are well rid of him.
Problem as always, though, that the US continues its policy of de facto assassination. It makes any stance we take against MBS ring hollow, even though Khashoggi was merely a critic of MBS and Zawahiri was a terrorist. The use of state power is the same even if there is no moral equivalency between the targets.
It would be far better for the US’s reputation as a world leader if we did not have these moments of sovereign DGAF where international law was concerned.
The likelihood of us stopping these sorts of extrajudicial assassinations, though, is somewhere in the neighborhood of us getting our shit together on our impending environmental collapse.
I’m wondering what the commentariat think of the assassination of Zawahiri?
I will shed no tears for that hate hollowed shell of a human. If his remains were in my possession, I’d bury him face down in a lead filled coffin in an unmarked grave. We are well rid of him.
Problem as always, though, that the US continues its policy of de facto assassination. It makes any stance we take against MBS ring hollow, even though Khashoggi was merely a critic of MBS and Zawahiri was a terrorist. The use of state power is the same even if there is no moral equivalency between the targets.
It would be far better for the US’s reputation as a world leader if we did not have these moments of sovereign DGAF where international law was concerned.
The likelihood of us stopping these sorts of extrajudicial assassinations, though, is somewhere in the neighborhood of us getting our shit together on our impending environmental collapse.
Yup, that’s pretty much where I am on the subject. I deplore extrajudicial killings, but this guy was obviously (and openly) a blight on humanity, so I can’t regret it too much.
Yup, that’s pretty much where I am on the subject. I deplore extrajudicial killings, but this guy was obviously (and openly) a blight on humanity, so I can’t regret it too much.
They may have avoided collateral damage in this case. His wife, daughter, and grandkids appeared to have escaped from the house after it was struck.
They may have avoided collateral damage in this case. His wife, daughter, and grandkids appeared to have escaped from the house after it was struck.
Biden deserves some credit for requiring that the killing cause as little danger to others as could feasibly be managed. (I’m assuming here that the initial reports from the US are accurate in this case, recognizing that the US has a rather poor ethos where these reports are concerned.) Could not have been easy to wait and to work with so many contingencies, especially with his poll numbers looking the way that they do.
I wonder how much – if at all – Carter’s failed Operation Eagle Claw weighed on Biden’s thoughts?
Biden deserves some credit for requiring that the killing cause as little danger to others as could feasibly be managed. (I’m assuming here that the initial reports from the US are accurate in this case, recognizing that the US has a rather poor ethos where these reports are concerned.) Could not have been easy to wait and to work with so many contingencies, especially with his poll numbers looking the way that they do.
I wonder how much – if at all – Carter’s failed Operation Eagle Claw weighed on Biden’s thoughts?
[nooneithinkisinmytree is banned from my threads. He wrote not long ago that he had respected that ban, as if it’s up to him to honor it or not. It’s not up to him. — ETA: signed, JanieM, as if it might not be obvious]
[nooneithinkisinmytree is banned from my threads. He wrote not long ago that he had respected that ban, as if it’s up to him to honor it or not. It’s not up to him. — ETA: signed, JanieM, as if it might not be obvious]
Several problems here:
– there is no legal basis
– it violates territorial integrity
– drone wars are inherently based on the rule of force rather than law
– it was retribution
– nothing good has been achieved (he was not a threat)
– international law has been undermined once more, providing others with justification of their own misdeeds
– the media and public discourse is at a low point (“justice done”, “rot in hell” etc.)
https://twitter.com/craigxmartin/status/1554491101402337281
Several problems here:
– there is no legal basis
– it violates territorial integrity
– drone wars are inherently based on the rule of force rather than law
– it was retribution
– nothing good has been achieved (he was not a threat)
– international law has been undermined once more, providing others with justification of their own misdeeds
– the media and public discourse is at a low point (“justice done”, “rot in hell” etc.)
https://twitter.com/craigxmartin/status/1554491101402337281
drone wars are inherently based on the rule of force rather than law
How does that differ from any other war? Seriously, what characteristics does a drone war (ignoring, for the moment, what the definition of “drone war” should be) have which any other war does not?
From what I can see, drone strikes are inherently easier to direct to strictly military targets than an artillery barrage.
drone wars are inherently based on the rule of force rather than law
How does that differ from any other war? Seriously, what characteristics does a drone war (ignoring, for the moment, what the definition of “drone war” should be) have which any other war does not?
From what I can see, drone strikes are inherently easier to direct to strictly military targets than an artillery barrage.
I am a little more concerned about the way Biden stole billions of dollars of money from Afghanistan, a country on the brink of famine, than I am about another drone killing. There is no rules based international order on such things. The US just flings that stupid phrase around when it wants to criticize someone else.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/08/what-do-we-owe-afghanistan
( Much of this is about various war crimes— you have to scroll down to read the part about the American bank theft. You can also Google There have been occasional articles about it.)
I have criticized the drone assassinations before, but as US crimes go, it is pretty far down the list. Various idiots criticized the far left for dropping the issue under Trump— to the extent it was true it was because antiwar lefties realized that other US policies were killing more people. In Yemen, for instance, but there were also conventional bombing raids in Iraq and Syria that killed thousands and sanctions on various countries that also kill people.
Basically, though, I don’t expect us to change, whether liberals or conservatives are in the WH. People with power are mostly incapable of moral self reflection and this is unlikely to change. What is changing is that the US is seemingly losing its status as the unchallenged hyperpower. This means self righteous people with too much power in other parts of the world clearly think they too can invade who they want. And the DC crowd seems unwilling to recognize we aren’t living in 1990 anymore. It seems like a recipe for stumbling into bigger wars than anyone actually wants. And it means we will be flushing even more money down the Pentagon toilet every year when we should be getting serious about climate change.
I am a little more concerned about the way Biden stole billions of dollars of money from Afghanistan, a country on the brink of famine, than I am about another drone killing. There is no rules based international order on such things. The US just flings that stupid phrase around when it wants to criticize someone else.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/08/what-do-we-owe-afghanistan
( Much of this is about various war crimes— you have to scroll down to read the part about the American bank theft. You can also Google There have been occasional articles about it.)
I have criticized the drone assassinations before, but as US crimes go, it is pretty far down the list. Various idiots criticized the far left for dropping the issue under Trump— to the extent it was true it was because antiwar lefties realized that other US policies were killing more people. In Yemen, for instance, but there were also conventional bombing raids in Iraq and Syria that killed thousands and sanctions on various countries that also kill people.
Basically, though, I don’t expect us to change, whether liberals or conservatives are in the WH. People with power are mostly incapable of moral self reflection and this is unlikely to change. What is changing is that the US is seemingly losing its status as the unchallenged hyperpower. This means self righteous people with too much power in other parts of the world clearly think they too can invade who they want. And the DC crowd seems unwilling to recognize we aren’t living in 1990 anymore. It seems like a recipe for stumbling into bigger wars than anyone actually wants. And it means we will be flushing even more money down the Pentagon toilet every year when we should be getting serious about climate change.
what characteristics does a drone war (ignoring, for the moment, what the definition of “drone war” should be) have which any other war does not?
wj, if you google “drone warfare ethics” or something similar, there are plenty of articles and academic papers on this very subject, which explain the differences in a more rigorous way than I could ever do – even most proponents of drone warfare acknowledge that drones are a game changer.
But let me list some points from the top of my head anyway (and I’m obviously an opponent, but I’ll try to stick to your question):
1.) – drone warfare erases the risk of human losses on part of the attacker, thereby removing a big obstacle traditionally faced by those trying to justify waging war and thus lowering the threshold of doing so
2.) – drone warfare lowers the psychological barriers to killing people, thereby making it easier to have people do it. This is of course only the most recent stage in the history of technological advances removing soldiers from the actual act of killing (manned aerial combat was the first big step).
3.) – drone warfare helps enable waging war forever without ever declaring war or ending it, it is just accepted as the new normal, that “we” will strike at any time anywhere
4.) – relatedly, drone warfare fundamentally subverts the principle of territorial integrity
5.) – drone warfare creates an unprecedented situation for those who live in countries or areas that are being threatened by drones: they know that they are being constantly monitored by a foreign power and that a strike can happen at any time anywhere – imagine living under these circumstances for a second
6.) – drone warfare is state sponsored assassination, eliminating the chance of capture or surrender and subsequent legal process, which is hard to square with international law, to put it mildly
7.) – drone warfare is radically disproportionate, the the targeted countries and regions have very few means of fighting back and are at the mercy of an technologically infinitely superior enemy
what characteristics does a drone war (ignoring, for the moment, what the definition of “drone war” should be) have which any other war does not?
wj, if you google “drone warfare ethics” or something similar, there are plenty of articles and academic papers on this very subject, which explain the differences in a more rigorous way than I could ever do – even most proponents of drone warfare acknowledge that drones are a game changer.
But let me list some points from the top of my head anyway (and I’m obviously an opponent, but I’ll try to stick to your question):
1.) – drone warfare erases the risk of human losses on part of the attacker, thereby removing a big obstacle traditionally faced by those trying to justify waging war and thus lowering the threshold of doing so
2.) – drone warfare lowers the psychological barriers to killing people, thereby making it easier to have people do it. This is of course only the most recent stage in the history of technological advances removing soldiers from the actual act of killing (manned aerial combat was the first big step).
3.) – drone warfare helps enable waging war forever without ever declaring war or ending it, it is just accepted as the new normal, that “we” will strike at any time anywhere
4.) – relatedly, drone warfare fundamentally subverts the principle of territorial integrity
5.) – drone warfare creates an unprecedented situation for those who live in countries or areas that are being threatened by drones: they know that they are being constantly monitored by a foreign power and that a strike can happen at any time anywhere – imagine living under these circumstances for a second
6.) – drone warfare is state sponsored assassination, eliminating the chance of capture or surrender and subsequent legal process, which is hard to square with international law, to put it mildly
7.) – drone warfare is radically disproportionate, the the targeted countries and regions have very few means of fighting back and are at the mercy of an technologically infinitely superior enemy
novakant: well summarised. Thank you.
novakant: well summarised. Thank you.
Yeah, that was some pretty good “from the top of my head” material.
Yeah, that was some pretty good “from the top of my head” material.
I see those issues with drone warefare. Relative, mostly, to no warefare. What I’m not seeing is how they don’t apply to war in general. But I’ll think on it further.
Then there’s
drone warfare lowers the psychological barriers to killing people, thereby making it easier to have people do it.
You mention bombing from aircraft, in this regard. But let’s think about artillery (which I cited specifically), which goes back way further. There, too, the guy firing the cannon mostly can’t see the people he’s shooting at. Or even whether or not there are any people there. So aircraft weren’t that big a jump.
In fact, drones might be a step in the other (right) direction. Unlike bombs or artillery shells, drones typically include cameras, so the guy pulling the trigger can steer to the target. But those cameras also mean he can see the guy he’s shooting. Target anonymity is much reduced.
I see those issues with drone warefare. Relative, mostly, to no warefare. What I’m not seeing is how they don’t apply to war in general. But I’ll think on it further.
Then there’s
drone warfare lowers the psychological barriers to killing people, thereby making it easier to have people do it.
You mention bombing from aircraft, in this regard. But let’s think about artillery (which I cited specifically), which goes back way further. There, too, the guy firing the cannon mostly can’t see the people he’s shooting at. Or even whether or not there are any people there. So aircraft weren’t that big a jump.
In fact, drones might be a step in the other (right) direction. Unlike bombs or artillery shells, drones typically include cameras, so the guy pulling the trigger can steer to the target. But those cameras also mean he can see the guy he’s shooting. Target anonymity is much reduced.
Isn’t the fact that drone killings aren’t necessarily a part of “war in general” largely the problem? Were we “at war” with Afghanistan, where the killing took place?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not all that upset about it in this particular case, but I am at least interested in understanding the arguments properly.
Isn’t the fact that drone killings aren’t necessarily a part of “war in general” largely the problem? Were we “at war” with Afghanistan, where the killing took place?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not all that upset about it in this particular case, but I am at least interested in understanding the arguments properly.
But the drone pilot is also in no danger of return fire, even less so than in computer games. Or is there a psychological effect like being killed in a computer game in case that the drone is hit mid-flight? I think drone piloting is deliberately designed (to look and feel) like a game (and vice versa to a degree these days) to remove the reality of the kill from the mind of the operator. Plus the pilots don’t (to my knowledge) really see the carnage up close as soldiers on the ground are likely to do (even if it’s not their personal kill).
One point not yet discussed is the question of autonomous drones. For surveillance that’s usually not a major ethical problem but (to my knowledge) there is no final legal judgment made yet about potential autonomous armed drones (‘killbots’) and who is responsible, if they commit acts that would be war crimes, if executed by human beings*.
At the moment human cannon fodder is still cheaper and more efficient/versatile for full-scale warfare but that could change within our lifetime.
*not that the powerful would care about legal niceties, admittedly (cf. the Invade The Hague Act).
But the drone pilot is also in no danger of return fire, even less so than in computer games. Or is there a psychological effect like being killed in a computer game in case that the drone is hit mid-flight? I think drone piloting is deliberately designed (to look and feel) like a game (and vice versa to a degree these days) to remove the reality of the kill from the mind of the operator. Plus the pilots don’t (to my knowledge) really see the carnage up close as soldiers on the ground are likely to do (even if it’s not their personal kill).
One point not yet discussed is the question of autonomous drones. For surveillance that’s usually not a major ethical problem but (to my knowledge) there is no final legal judgment made yet about potential autonomous armed drones (‘killbots’) and who is responsible, if they commit acts that would be war crimes, if executed by human beings*.
At the moment human cannon fodder is still cheaper and more efficient/versatile for full-scale warfare but that could change within our lifetime.
*not that the powerful would care about legal niceties, admittedly (cf. the Invade The Hague Act).
Forgive me if it’s been mentioned before but Eye in the Sky was an interesting film on the subject. Hellen Mirren and, notably, the excellent Alan Rickman in his final onscreen appearance.
As a side note, “drone” is a broad category. A Reaper with a full boat can loiter for 12+ hours and be controlled from across the globe. A Switchblade is not dissimilar from a “smart” mortar, if you will, and those deploying it are very much in the field of battle.
Forgive me if it’s been mentioned before but Eye in the Sky was an interesting film on the subject. Hellen Mirren and, notably, the excellent Alan Rickman in his final onscreen appearance.
As a side note, “drone” is a broad category. A Reaper with a full boat can loiter for 12+ hours and be controlled from across the globe. A Switchblade is not dissimilar from a “smart” mortar, if you will, and those deploying it are very much in the field of battle.
Also, in cases where job title is requested I often use “corporate drone”. Corporate does not seem to appreciate that description.
Also, in cases where job title is requested I often use “corporate drone”. Corporate does not seem to appreciate that description.
I think drone piloting is deliberately designed (to look and feel) like a game (and vice versa to a degree these days) to remove the reality of the kill from the mind of the operator. Plus the pilots don’t (to my knowledge) really see the carnage up close as soldiers on the ground are likely to do (even if it’s not their personal kill).
Drones are operated with controls that are very much like video game controls and esport competitors are recruited for the role of drone operator. This is very much a matter of parallel niches.
I don’t believe that militaries are attempting to “gamify” the mission in any way, but the mediating effect of screens for willingness to commit violence and for suffering trauma are well documented. Drone operators can suffer moral injury, for example, if they are shown the aftereffects of their own actions on innocents in the area of effect, or if they find that they were lied to by their chain-of-command. This reduces the need for downtime and other limiting costs for the use of force, and thus becomes a source of moral hazard.
We also know that being in mortal danger causes biochemical dumps that create “flashbulb” memories that feature in trauma. By removing the mortal danger to the drone operator, the drone strike avoids this effect, leaving the biochemical effect as a sort of reward system. Again, moral hazard.
The Iliad is not very positive in its portrayal of the gods. They are above physical danger and untroubled by fellow feelings for lesser beings, and that leads them to become callouses and capricious.
Drones make us like the Greek gods.
I think drone piloting is deliberately designed (to look and feel) like a game (and vice versa to a degree these days) to remove the reality of the kill from the mind of the operator. Plus the pilots don’t (to my knowledge) really see the carnage up close as soldiers on the ground are likely to do (even if it’s not their personal kill).
Drones are operated with controls that are very much like video game controls and esport competitors are recruited for the role of drone operator. This is very much a matter of parallel niches.
I don’t believe that militaries are attempting to “gamify” the mission in any way, but the mediating effect of screens for willingness to commit violence and for suffering trauma are well documented. Drone operators can suffer moral injury, for example, if they are shown the aftereffects of their own actions on innocents in the area of effect, or if they find that they were lied to by their chain-of-command. This reduces the need for downtime and other limiting costs for the use of force, and thus becomes a source of moral hazard.
We also know that being in mortal danger causes biochemical dumps that create “flashbulb” memories that feature in trauma. By removing the mortal danger to the drone operator, the drone strike avoids this effect, leaving the biochemical effect as a sort of reward system. Again, moral hazard.
The Iliad is not very positive in its portrayal of the gods. They are above physical danger and untroubled by fellow feelings for lesser beings, and that leads them to become callouses and capricious.
Drones make us like the Greek gods.
Still an open thread…
More California pictures, with a few anecdotes thrown in.
Still an open thread…
More California pictures, with a few anecdotes thrown in.
Thank you. I’m feeling super mellow now. And amused over that lying Nelson.
Thank you. I’m feeling super mellow now. And amused over that lying Nelson.
But at least in the Iliad gods can still be hurt, although not permanently harmed, occasionally even by mortals (e.g. Diomedes wounding Aphrodite with his lance). And they inflict a lot of physical pain on each other (and remind each other of it regularly).
I usually say that Homer’s gods are a sitcom cast. The truly dark stuff comes from other poets.
I also get the impression that the gods go from amoral to immoral to outright evil over time, from the Greeks to the Romans with a low-point reached in the era of the Flavian emperors.
Some gods are digestive rear exits from the start though, at least it seems to me that way (Apollon being about the worst even in Homer).
OK, that makes the comparision of the gods to our polictical landscape even more apt.
But at least in the Iliad gods can still be hurt, although not permanently harmed, occasionally even by mortals (e.g. Diomedes wounding Aphrodite with his lance). And they inflict a lot of physical pain on each other (and remind each other of it regularly).
I usually say that Homer’s gods are a sitcom cast. The truly dark stuff comes from other poets.
I also get the impression that the gods go from amoral to immoral to outright evil over time, from the Greeks to the Romans with a low-point reached in the era of the Flavian emperors.
Some gods are digestive rear exits from the start though, at least it seems to me that way (Apollon being about the worst even in Homer).
OK, that makes the comparision of the gods to our polictical landscape even more apt.
Glad to be of help, hsh.
Will expect return service when you give us your report on Gettysburg. 🙂
Glad to be of help, hsh.
Will expect return service when you give us your report on Gettysburg. 🙂
amused over that lying Nelson.
Likewise. Although his father might have had even more trouble believing the diameter of some of those trees.
amused over that lying Nelson.
Likewise. Although his father might have had even more trouble believing the diameter of some of those trees.
Beautiful pictures, Janie! Bold choice with the shoes, tho, and I’m a little surprised that the lowrider Beans were not featured. 😉
Coming back from California as a kid, my folks had decided to take a northern route home, seeing as we went out through the south. I was only 4, but I recall a lot of stuff from that time – I guess because of all of the “newness” of it (this is 1973). Anyway, we were going to spend the night at Sequoia NP. We got in late. We went to the only diner around. They closed at 9. It was 9:05. But we had a cabin. With a “kitchen”. Well, the cabin was in a line with a whole bunch of other ramshackle huts. I didn’t know it at the time, but I’m pretty sure it was housing for a timber or mining company or some such endeavor before being repurposed. The bathrooms were a few football fields away down a partially gravelled road. It was raining. The only lighting was a kerosene lamp. Mom was NOT having any of this. But she soldiered on – she was built like that. So she cobbled together what food we had and set to fire up the ancient propane stove in the one room shack. And that’s when I saw it.
Now, tensions were already pretty high, given the driving and two awful kids and I’m sure a host of other “adult” stuff I was clueless about. Then the diner thing and the fact that the “cabin” was considerably more “rustic” than the brochure had suggested. But we were gonna make do.
It was only a few seconds, but it’s one of those burned-in memory things. As Mom, over-exasperated and trying to salvage the night, fussed with the stove – it happened.
This big, black, stereotypical, out-of-the-movies-looking spider descended, deliberately, from a wooden beam. Directly on top of her head. I don’t know if I held my tongue because of the impossible hope that the situation would work out well, or if I didn’t want to contribute to the maelstrom of fury that was inevitably moments away.
Yeah, that didn’t go well. I don’t think any of us slept. Tensions eased the next day, after the drudgery of the bathroom walk in the morning and a good fulfilling breakfast. The park was breathtaking and the day of just walking and taking in all of the bigness of it was exhilarating. I can’t say for sure, but I think that knowing the next stop was a Holiday Inn probably added to the enjoyment.
Beautiful pictures, Janie! Bold choice with the shoes, tho, and I’m a little surprised that the lowrider Beans were not featured. 😉
Coming back from California as a kid, my folks had decided to take a northern route home, seeing as we went out through the south. I was only 4, but I recall a lot of stuff from that time – I guess because of all of the “newness” of it (this is 1973). Anyway, we were going to spend the night at Sequoia NP. We got in late. We went to the only diner around. They closed at 9. It was 9:05. But we had a cabin. With a “kitchen”. Well, the cabin was in a line with a whole bunch of other ramshackle huts. I didn’t know it at the time, but I’m pretty sure it was housing for a timber or mining company or some such endeavor before being repurposed. The bathrooms were a few football fields away down a partially gravelled road. It was raining. The only lighting was a kerosene lamp. Mom was NOT having any of this. But she soldiered on – she was built like that. So she cobbled together what food we had and set to fire up the ancient propane stove in the one room shack. And that’s when I saw it.
Now, tensions were already pretty high, given the driving and two awful kids and I’m sure a host of other “adult” stuff I was clueless about. Then the diner thing and the fact that the “cabin” was considerably more “rustic” than the brochure had suggested. But we were gonna make do.
It was only a few seconds, but it’s one of those burned-in memory things. As Mom, over-exasperated and trying to salvage the night, fussed with the stove – it happened.
This big, black, stereotypical, out-of-the-movies-looking spider descended, deliberately, from a wooden beam. Directly on top of her head. I don’t know if I held my tongue because of the impossible hope that the situation would work out well, or if I didn’t want to contribute to the maelstrom of fury that was inevitably moments away.
Yeah, that didn’t go well. I don’t think any of us slept. Tensions eased the next day, after the drudgery of the bathroom walk in the morning and a good fulfilling breakfast. The park was breathtaking and the day of just walking and taking in all of the bigness of it was exhilarating. I can’t say for sure, but I think that knowing the next stop was a Holiday Inn probably added to the enjoyment.
Oh my God, those redwoods! Some of those images (mainly the closeups) actually induce in me a physical feeling I can barely describe. I find them intensely moving. If I saw them IRL, I’d probably get whatever is the natural world equivalent of Stendhal Syndrome. And I also loved the forest floor with the clovers. And that quotation from John Muir (presumably he for whom the wonderful Muir Woods are named). Thank you so much, Janie!
Oh my God, those redwoods! Some of those images (mainly the closeups) actually induce in me a physical feeling I can barely describe. I find them intensely moving. If I saw them IRL, I’d probably get whatever is the natural world equivalent of Stendhal Syndrome. And I also loved the forest floor with the clovers. And that quotation from John Muir (presumably he for whom the wonderful Muir Woods are named). Thank you so much, Janie!
ps I realise that that comment would be a worthy candidate for Private Eye’s famous column Pseuds’ Corner, but I stand by it nonetheless!
ps I realise that that comment would be a worthy candidate for Private Eye’s famous column Pseuds’ Corner, but I stand by it nonetheless!
Agree about the diameter, wj.
Little bits of lore:
Jonathan, Nelson’s father, grew up in Connecticut and made his way to the Western Reserve on foot with two friends, carrying a peddler’s pack on his back.
Nelson’s 2nd wife, born Louisa Peck, was the granddaughter of another migrant from CT to the Western Reserve, Dan Peck, who fought in the Revolutionary War. My mother, who wasn’t Italian and resented the prejudice against the family she had married into, thought it was a kick that we could all join the snooty DAR if we wanted to. (We didn’t.)
Louisa Peck Woodruff was my grandma’s grandma. My grandma’s given name was “Rosalia Louisa,” but she didn’t like it and changed it to “Rosalie Louise.” She then married Carl Rose and became Rosalie Louise Rose.
I have her middle name, which is (by implication) a connection back to Louisa Peck. Five females in my family, from my generation down to the grandkids, have “Rose” as a middle name. It’s as blendable as “Ann” was among my Catholic school friends when I was a kid.
Agree about the diameter, wj.
Little bits of lore:
Jonathan, Nelson’s father, grew up in Connecticut and made his way to the Western Reserve on foot with two friends, carrying a peddler’s pack on his back.
Nelson’s 2nd wife, born Louisa Peck, was the granddaughter of another migrant from CT to the Western Reserve, Dan Peck, who fought in the Revolutionary War. My mother, who wasn’t Italian and resented the prejudice against the family she had married into, thought it was a kick that we could all join the snooty DAR if we wanted to. (We didn’t.)
Louisa Peck Woodruff was my grandma’s grandma. My grandma’s given name was “Rosalia Louisa,” but she didn’t like it and changed it to “Rosalie Louise.” She then married Carl Rose and became Rosalie Louise Rose.
I have her middle name, which is (by implication) a connection back to Louisa Peck. Five females in my family, from my generation down to the grandkids, have “Rose” as a middle name. It’s as blendable as “Ann” was among my Catholic school friends when I was a kid.
Pete: LLBean footwear doesn’t work for me. I’ve tried a number of kinds over the years, with no luck. But don’t fret, I have one or two LLBean Henleys on, and an LL Bean Scotch Plaid flannel shirt. Plus my socks.
The shoes were meant to be a sort of joke for Steve, who took the picture, because early on in our photographic friendship I meantioned that blue was my favorite color, and he said that blue was over used. (Or something to that effect.) When I found those Saucony sneakers last summer that fit me so well, I bought five pairs in 4 colors — two shades of blue, those magenta ones, and an understated pink (!!!!!). I may never have to buy another pair of sneakers in my life. 😉
I loved the story of your family’s camping adventure. There’s a good chance I would have died of a heart attack if the spider had dropped onto *my* head. Sounds like your mom was made of sterner stuff.
Pete: LLBean footwear doesn’t work for me. I’ve tried a number of kinds over the years, with no luck. But don’t fret, I have one or two LLBean Henleys on, and an LL Bean Scotch Plaid flannel shirt. Plus my socks.
The shoes were meant to be a sort of joke for Steve, who took the picture, because early on in our photographic friendship I meantioned that blue was my favorite color, and he said that blue was over used. (Or something to that effect.) When I found those Saucony sneakers last summer that fit me so well, I bought five pairs in 4 colors — two shades of blue, those magenta ones, and an understated pink (!!!!!). I may never have to buy another pair of sneakers in my life. 😉
I loved the story of your family’s camping adventure. There’s a good chance I would have died of a heart attack if the spider had dropped onto *my* head. Sounds like your mom was made of sterner stuff.
GftNC — yes, it’s the same John Muir.
It occurs to me that you might not know what the DAR is. It’s “Daughters of the American Revolution” — to join it, you have to be able to prove that you have an ancestor who fought in that war. (Kind of like bragging about having a Mayflower ancestor, although obviously nowhere near as exclusive!)
In the old days they *were* pretty snooty, as I understand it. But my only direct experience of them is that a group used to wrap presents at Barnes & Noble bookstore in Augusta at Christmas time — various non-profits do that to raise money. Just a little gang of typical older Mainers as far as I could tell.
As for Stendhal Syndrome — well. I felt like that a lot of the time I was on that trip — it was so beautiful I almost couldn’t take it in at times. If you’ve been to Muir Woods you have a sense of it, anyhow — including the smell of the forest, which obviously can’t be captured in a picture.
GftNC — yes, it’s the same John Muir.
It occurs to me that you might not know what the DAR is. It’s “Daughters of the American Revolution” — to join it, you have to be able to prove that you have an ancestor who fought in that war. (Kind of like bragging about having a Mayflower ancestor, although obviously nowhere near as exclusive!)
In the old days they *were* pretty snooty, as I understand it. But my only direct experience of them is that a group used to wrap presents at Barnes & Noble bookstore in Augusta at Christmas time — various non-profits do that to raise money. Just a little gang of typical older Mainers as far as I could tell.
As for Stendhal Syndrome — well. I felt like that a lot of the time I was on that trip — it was so beautiful I almost couldn’t take it in at times. If you’ve been to Muir Woods you have a sense of it, anyhow — including the smell of the forest, which obviously can’t be captured in a picture.
Also for Pete, and how could I have forgotten: the layer under my jacket is this Katahdin Iron Works flannel-lined hoodie. I might not actually have had a Henley on; it wasn’t that cold by Maine standards. 😉
Also for Pete, and how could I have forgotten: the layer under my jacket is this Katahdin Iron Works flannel-lined hoodie. I might not actually have had a Henley on; it wasn’t that cold by Maine standards. 😉
Saucony? Magenta and Pink???! You might just be a bit more fashion-forward than you give yourself credit for!
My favorite trees are evergreens. The white pines here leak like a sieve so you park under them at your peril. I suspect that anyone from the Pine Tree state would have something of a natural affinity for California’s redwoods. I also like weeping willows. The people in the adjacent property had a beautiful one – drip line was probably 60′. New owners cut it down for the “view” of the bay. Idiots.
IDK what they’re calling them now, but my brushed cotton henleys are threadbare and I need new ones. And the “slightly-fitted” flannels fit me perfectly, so I totally lucked out there. (I dunno what forms you’re using, LLBean, but keep using them!)
But I ain’t gonna turn this into another Maine thread. 😉
Minor note: Mom hated spiders. Deep, dark hatred. She was born here in the States well after 1939 but – no offense to the British – I remain unconvinced that she didn’t coin the phrase “Keep Calm and Carry On”.
Saucony? Magenta and Pink???! You might just be a bit more fashion-forward than you give yourself credit for!
My favorite trees are evergreens. The white pines here leak like a sieve so you park under them at your peril. I suspect that anyone from the Pine Tree state would have something of a natural affinity for California’s redwoods. I also like weeping willows. The people in the adjacent property had a beautiful one – drip line was probably 60′. New owners cut it down for the “view” of the bay. Idiots.
IDK what they’re calling them now, but my brushed cotton henleys are threadbare and I need new ones. And the “slightly-fitted” flannels fit me perfectly, so I totally lucked out there. (I dunno what forms you’re using, LLBean, but keep using them!)
But I ain’t gonna turn this into another Maine thread. 😉
Minor note: Mom hated spiders. Deep, dark hatred. She was born here in the States well after 1939 but – no offense to the British – I remain unconvinced that she didn’t coin the phrase “Keep Calm and Carry On”.
The white pines here leak like a sieve so you park under them at your peril.
Far worse are mulberry trees. Because birds love the berries. But their digestive systems do absolutely nothing to the pigments of the fruit. Result: anywhere the birds sit (and poop) gets turned purple. Including, in my childhood, all our line-dried clothing. We had purple underwear long before it was cool.
The people in the adjacent property had a beautiful one – drip line was probably 60′. New owners cut it down for the “view” of the bay. Idiots.
These are the people that *I* mean when I mutter imprecations about “immigrants” — people from other states (almost never happens with folks from other countries), who insist on turning here into a visual immitation of wherever they are from. They should go back there! Plus, getting rid of their enthusiasm for big green (necessarily heavily watered) lawns in a desert climate would definitely help our water issues.
The white pines here leak like a sieve so you park under them at your peril.
Far worse are mulberry trees. Because birds love the berries. But their digestive systems do absolutely nothing to the pigments of the fruit. Result: anywhere the birds sit (and poop) gets turned purple. Including, in my childhood, all our line-dried clothing. We had purple underwear long before it was cool.
The people in the adjacent property had a beautiful one – drip line was probably 60′. New owners cut it down for the “view” of the bay. Idiots.
These are the people that *I* mean when I mutter imprecations about “immigrants” — people from other states (almost never happens with folks from other countries), who insist on turning here into a visual immitation of wherever they are from. They should go back there! Plus, getting rid of their enthusiasm for big green (necessarily heavily watered) lawns in a desert climate would definitely help our water issues.
Far worse are mulberry trees
My Dad’s place has 2. Right over the driveway and I hate them. He loves them though & currently has 6!!! pots of cuttings going. I keep hoping they’ll die, but he’s been diligent about watering them. Between them and the black walnuts, this place is a war zone.
Far worse are mulberry trees
My Dad’s place has 2. Right over the driveway and I hate them. He loves them though & currently has 6!!! pots of cuttings going. I keep hoping they’ll die, but he’s been diligent about watering them. Between them and the black walnuts, this place is a war zone.
Apologies if I’m repeating myself, but the black walnuts are gorgeous. There are a few that are ~3’ in diameter & go at least 80’. They also suck, dropping those stringy things and then the walnuts. But deep roots, hardwood… I had to cut up a 20’ widow maker that missed my car by roughly the same distance just this morning. And there’s a huge one about 50’ up with no leaves on it this season.
Still, when the breeze comes off the bay & rustles through them, there’s no place I’d rather be.
Apologies if I’m repeating myself, but the black walnuts are gorgeous. There are a few that are ~3’ in diameter & go at least 80’. They also suck, dropping those stringy things and then the walnuts. But deep roots, hardwood… I had to cut up a 20’ widow maker that missed my car by roughly the same distance just this morning. And there’s a huge one about 50’ up with no leaves on it this season.
Still, when the breeze comes off the bay & rustles through them, there’s no place I’d rather be.
I haven’t been lucky (?) enough to have any black walnuts in my various homes, but you’re reminding me of the horsechestnut that was in the front yard of the house where I grew up.
All the kids in the neighborhood walked by our house on the way home from school, and they would come and pick up nuts in the fall. The tree dropped sticky flowers in the spring and leaves and nuts in the fall and my dad, of course, had to clean it all up.
Everyone called it a “buckeye”(Ohio is the Buckeye State), but it wasn’t, really. Just quite similar to one, I guess.
I haven’t been lucky (?) enough to have any black walnuts in my various homes, but you’re reminding me of the horsechestnut that was in the front yard of the house where I grew up.
All the kids in the neighborhood walked by our house on the way home from school, and they would come and pick up nuts in the fall. The tree dropped sticky flowers in the spring and leaves and nuts in the fall and my dad, of course, had to clean it all up.
Everyone called it a “buckeye”(Ohio is the Buckeye State), but it wasn’t, really. Just quite similar to one, I guess.
Sticky?
They are the sea urchins of the lawn and the bane of all barefoot goers unfortunate enough to trod thereon! Grandpa had one – we avoided that part of the lawn. Walking over there was a mistake you made once.
Sticky?
They are the sea urchins of the lawn and the bane of all barefoot goers unfortunate enough to trod thereon! Grandpa had one – we avoided that part of the lawn. Walking over there was a mistake you made once.
Sea urchins — yes, the “skins” were awful, especially once they had dried out.
Sea urchins — yes, the “skins” were awful, especially once they had dried out.
The maximum height that a tree can get water from the ground is a little over 400 feet.
“It sounds hard to hide the tallest tree in the world. But that’s exactly what officials at California’s Redwood National Park have been trying to do since 2006.
Now, the 380-foot redwood tree is officially off-limits. In a statement last week, the park wrote that visitors caught near it could face six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
For 16 years, the park kept the location of the tree hidden in order to protect it. They feared that too many visitors to the site could damage it and the delicate ecology of its surrounding slopes.”
California trying to make the world’s tallest tree invisible. Now visitors face jail, fines
The maximum height that a tree can get water from the ground is a little over 400 feet.
“It sounds hard to hide the tallest tree in the world. But that’s exactly what officials at California’s Redwood National Park have been trying to do since 2006.
Now, the 380-foot redwood tree is officially off-limits. In a statement last week, the park wrote that visitors caught near it could face six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
For 16 years, the park kept the location of the tree hidden in order to protect it. They feared that too many visitors to the site could damage it and the delicate ecology of its surrounding slopes.”
California trying to make the world’s tallest tree invisible. Now visitors face jail, fines
I kinda hate that, but I’m kinda okay with it. OTOH, maybe it’s a “good guy with a gun” thing? I mean, if it’s open, is there less of a chance that someone will wreck it, as long as it’s properly curated? Walled off, the only ones getting to it are those with ill intent. And you can’t stop crazy.
I kinda hate that, but I’m kinda okay with it. OTOH, maybe it’s a “good guy with a gun” thing? I mean, if it’s open, is there less of a chance that someone will wreck it, as long as it’s properly curated? Walled off, the only ones getting to it are those with ill intent. And you can’t stop crazy.
Reminds me of Stonehenge. When I went there in 1997, you couldn’t get near it. But I don’t remember what preventive measures were in place. On the one hand, it’s England. On the other hand, it’s full of tourists. I dunno.
When I say “it’s England,” I’m thinking of one of the most amazing aspects of that visit. A friend of mine who lived over there took me around to a number of stone circles, and we were driving around some green countryside that day and she pointed and said, “There it is.”
And there, amidst a sea of grazing land, was one of the most famous places in the world, with not a single McDonald’s or strip mall or enticing ridiculous sign in sight. Unbelievable.
Reminds me of Stonehenge. When I went there in 1997, you couldn’t get near it. But I don’t remember what preventive measures were in place. On the one hand, it’s England. On the other hand, it’s full of tourists. I dunno.
When I say “it’s England,” I’m thinking of one of the most amazing aspects of that visit. A friend of mine who lived over there took me around to a number of stone circles, and we were driving around some green countryside that day and she pointed and said, “There it is.”
And there, amidst a sea of grazing land, was one of the most famous places in the world, with not a single McDonald’s or strip mall or enticing ridiculous sign in sight. Unbelievable.
So, occasionally, when stabbing myself in the eye with a pencil doesn’t provide enough “zing”, I turn on Fox. According to the worst person on the planet (some call her Laura), Dick Cheney is now a friend of the Left.
Dick Cheney. Leftist.
So, occasionally, when stabbing myself in the eye with a pencil doesn’t provide enough “zing”, I turn on Fox. According to the worst person on the planet (some call her Laura), Dick Cheney is now a friend of the Left.
Dick Cheney. Leftist.
I coulda swore I read somewhere that whoever “owned” Stonehenge stipulated that it remain open to the public in perpetuity. Is that not true?
I coulda swore I read somewhere that whoever “owned” Stonehenge stipulated that it remain open to the public in perpetuity. Is that not true?
It’s open, but you can’t go up and touch the stones. Or at least that was the case in 1997. IIRC once or twice a year some druid-type folk are allowed inside the boundaries to have ceremonies. Probably the solstices? Maybe our Brits, or Google, could tell us.
It’s open, but you can’t go up and touch the stones. Or at least that was the case in 1997. IIRC once or twice a year some druid-type folk are allowed inside the boundaries to have ceremonies. Probably the solstices? Maybe our Brits, or Google, could tell us.
Dick Cheney is now a friend of the Left.
no thank you.
Dick Cheney is now a friend of the Left.
no thank you.
English Heritage does, however, permit access during the summer and winter solstice,
That’s probably what I saw in recent photos. Thanks, Google Lady! 😉
English Heritage does, however, permit access during the summer and winter solstice,
That’s probably what I saw in recent photos. Thanks, Google Lady! 😉
The fundamental problem with drone warfare is not the specifics of why it is terrible— the US leveled Raqqa and Mosul with artillery and conventional bombs. The NYT, Anand Gopal and others have written about how the US uses bureaucratic procedures to convince itself that it is never guilty of anything criminal when its air strikes kill civilians, no matter how egregious the individual case may be.
The problem is that politicians and bureaucrats in Western democracies think they cannot possibly be guilty of war crimes, precisely because they are part of a democratic system. It is rather like someone living in 1850 arguing that the US couldn’t be guilty of a crime against humanity because the laws governing slavery were arrived at through established democratic mechanisms.
Here is Blinken arguing that the US and Israel have shown they have mechanisms that enable them to hold their own war criminals to account. People in his position spout this kind of nonsense because they exist in a social environment where real accountabilty for people like them is unimaginable. And then they can with a straight face denounce Putin for his war crimes.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/ilhan-omar-questions-antony-blinken-on-prosecuting-crimes-against-humanity-in-israel-palestine
It is worthwhile trying to ban cluster munitions and drone warfare and land mines but it doesn’t really get at the root of the problem, which is the unshakeable Western belief that our shit doesn’t stink.
The fundamental problem with drone warfare is not the specifics of why it is terrible— the US leveled Raqqa and Mosul with artillery and conventional bombs. The NYT, Anand Gopal and others have written about how the US uses bureaucratic procedures to convince itself that it is never guilty of anything criminal when its air strikes kill civilians, no matter how egregious the individual case may be.
The problem is that politicians and bureaucrats in Western democracies think they cannot possibly be guilty of war crimes, precisely because they are part of a democratic system. It is rather like someone living in 1850 arguing that the US couldn’t be guilty of a crime against humanity because the laws governing slavery were arrived at through established democratic mechanisms.
Here is Blinken arguing that the US and Israel have shown they have mechanisms that enable them to hold their own war criminals to account. People in his position spout this kind of nonsense because they exist in a social environment where real accountabilty for people like them is unimaginable. And then they can with a straight face denounce Putin for his war crimes.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/ilhan-omar-questions-antony-blinken-on-prosecuting-crimes-against-humanity-in-israel-palestine
It is worthwhile trying to ban cluster munitions and drone warfare and land mines but it doesn’t really get at the root of the problem, which is the unshakeable Western belief that our shit doesn’t stink.
Donald: I think this is a very convincing analysis.
Dick Cheney is now a friend of the Left.
no thank you.
Seconded.
Janie, I did know who the DAR were, but I’m never sorry to get a bit of explanation and education. Yes, Muir Woods, where I was taken by my very beloved late brother-in-law. I think I’ve said here, more than once, that it was like being in a cathedral. Only much, much better.
Donald: I think this is a very convincing analysis.
Dick Cheney is now a friend of the Left.
no thank you.
Seconded.
Janie, I did know who the DAR were, but I’m never sorry to get a bit of explanation and education. Yes, Muir Woods, where I was taken by my very beloved late brother-in-law. I think I’ve said here, more than once, that it was like being in a cathedral. Only much, much better.
Summer of 1974 my mom took me and my older brother (we were 9 and 14) on a month long trip to Europe. Two places that were accessible then but not now (for some time) were climbing up the leaning tower of Pisa, and walking within Stonehenge. Need to dig up the slides of the latter for proof.
Summer of 1974 my mom took me and my older brother (we were 9 and 14) on a month long trip to Europe. Two places that were accessible then but not now (for some time) were climbing up the leaning tower of Pisa, and walking within Stonehenge. Need to dig up the slides of the latter for proof.