“The sexual conservative’s true hypocrisy is that he doesn’t really believe in his own idealisation. Men will be inflamed by the sight of hair, women will bear other men’s children at the fall of a veil, boys will suddenly cast off the tedious ways of heterosexuality and put on the gaudy garb of gayness. In truth, sexual conservatives wants to make everyone else pay for their own dark thoughts.”
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayJanuary 6th, 2010 |
 67 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
OK all, take a deep breath now, it won’t take long…;-P
What won’t take long, Alisa?
BTW, I’m back from Commieland, so I’ve replied to that ancient post ‘Sigh’ if you still remember it.
Gregory, stick around and you’ll find out who comes for dinner – or lunch…:-)
Disappointing to see such a muddled and weak article lauded on Samizdata. It’s hard to know where to begin to deconstruct such a catastrophically wrong-headed generalisation.
The basic error here is that Aaronovitch simply doesn’t understand the Christian worldview – I can’t speak for other religions, or societies whose morality is essentially shame-based rather than guilt-based – and has thus erected (oo-er missus) a straw man of quite gargantuan proportions.
He assumes that believing in and supporting Christian sexual morality = always living your life by Christian sexual morality and never being tempted to do the wrong thing. But the whole point of Christianity (and I am aware that this is not very congenial to the libertarian mind) is that people find it difficult to do the right thing.
Classical and Judeo-Christian morality is inherently hypocritical, if by hypocrisy you mean being aware that there is a gap between how things are and how things ought to be, and taking steps to remedy that difference.
And the last line is just meaningless rhetoric.
Classical liberal, on the hypocrisy point, you have a decent point there: remember the old adage about hypocrisy as the tribute that vice pays to virtue. But if you read the article through, as I have, it contains some pretty robust attacks on the idea, as seen in parts of Africa – the focus of the piece – that consensual relations between adults that fall foul of certain taboos should be treated harshly, and in some cases, by executing people. I fail to see how anyone calling themselves a liberal, classical or otherwise, can demur from Aaro’s view.
And much of the piece is directed at the appalling hypocrisy in parts of the Muslim world, where women are told to be covered up, so that their menfolk, who treat them as little better than property, don’t get all hot and bothered.
Sorry, Aaro is damn right on this issue, generally speaking, which is why I am only too happy to give him a SQOTD on this occasion.
JP:
I do entirely agree with him and you about the situation in Muslim countries in Africa. But I do object to him broadening the attack against religious and sexual conservatives *in general*, most of whom – and this is the crucial point – do not seek to use the law to uphold their morality, but do exercise their right to strongly advocate for it in the public arena.
The only position (ideological) that is acceptable towards another person’s activities, for a Christian, is surely the one shown by Jesus to the woman taken in adultery that the leaders of the day wanted to stone to death. His famous response was: “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone,” and the crowd melted away.
He did not say she should be promiscuous. He said to go and sin no more.
He did not judge the mob that wanted to stone her. He let reality assert itself in their own minds.
That should be the “Christian” position, in my view.
For the Aaronovitch to conclude his article with the words:
In truth, sexual conservatives wants to make everyone else pay for their own dark thoughts
I also regard as being mischievously deceptive and unhelpful.
Yes. We all have way out “dark” thoughts.
God does not condemn that as such and neither should anyone.
But we do need to deal with reality and that is that if we let it all hang out in any way we choose, we have everything from human sacrifice to blowing up babies to kill Benazir Bhutto. The humanist credo that we should be our own god simply does not work.
One does need realistic assessment, and action accordingly, while love and mercy are the yardsticks.
“societies whose morality is essentially shame-based rather than guilt-based”
I don’t understand this line. What is the difference between the two?
I assume he means “shame” as “shamed by the opinion of the community regarding your transgression” (i.e. you got caught) and “guilt” as in “feeling a sense of guilt yourself for your transgression” (i.e. there is no escape because you will always know what you did).
Personally I think Aaronovitch is being unfair with such a generalisation. I also think he is broadly correct nevertheless.
“And much of the piece is directed at the appalling hypocrisy in parts of the Muslim world, where women are told to be covered up, so that their menfolk, who treat them as little better than property, don’t get all hot and bothered.”
This is so silly, he must form his opinions of the Muslim world from BBC reporting.
While there are indeed Muslim women who effectively wear sacks, it is also common in Arab countries to see Muslim women in well-shaped robes, discreetly emphasized with silver thread & satin sequins. Women are women, the world over! And a passing glance at the under-dressed older women on any London street is a good reminder that covering a body can sometimes be sexier than exposing it.
“The only position (ideological) that is acceptable towards another person’s activities, for a Christian, is surely the one shown by Jesus to the woman taken in adultery that the leaders of the day wanted to stone to death. His famous response was: “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone,” and the crowd melted away. He did not say she should be promiscuous. He said to go and sin no more. He did not judge the mob that wanted to stone her. He let reality assert itself in their own minds. That should be the “Christian” position, in my view.”
Agreed – Christ’s emphasis on the moral conscience of the individual as the source of punishment and prevention in regard to adultery (although not only adultery), as opposed to the stone-throwing laws of a community, is a profound contribution to the ethics of individualism.
Assorted reactions:
1. Libertarianism is the belief that it is immoral to harm others’ lives, liberties, and properties. Period. Some libertarians seem to think that it also includes a healthy dose of social liberalism and the belief that cultural norms and social values, especially those of the conservative and religious sort, are harmful to society because they stifle individualism, egalitarianism, openness, etc.
This is not libertarianism. Putting aside my belief (as a small-government libertarian-leaning conservative) that conservative culture is actually beneficial for the society as a whole, libertarians should tolerate the conservative and religious values of the masses even if they cannot justify them.
Having said all that, I am not really sure if Johnathan Pearce disagrees with what I say or how much and to what degree he agrees with Aaronovitch’s article, but I think it is an important point to make.
2. Ultimately conservative culture primarily exists to benefit the society as whole in the long-term. Sexual relations is obviously a key part of that and shaming gays and lesbians may not be nice, but it probably does encourage homosexuals to stay in the closet. While I personally do not like the shaming phenomenon, if I remove my prejudice from the matter (libertarians must always be agnostic on cultural values) and analyze this phenomenon, which occurs in most cultures, I can accept that there might be wisdom in it because society does benefit from a higher birth rate and a higher rate of men who are married to one woman and have children.
Without 2.1 kids per woman, civilization is screwed and 2.3 or 2.4 is better to become strong and powerful. And if the vast majority of men are not married and are without kids, then the society is much less likely to be defended adequately from external aggressors (beta men investing in society). These trends are reinforced by a higher % of males being or at least acting straight and not gay.
3. I am not entirely sure what the point of Aaronovitch’s article is. So, some cultural conservatives are hypocrites? In the game of life, every human is a hypocrite somehow, unless he claims to believe in nothing at all – but even then, nobody believes in nothing at all.
There are a series of quotes from the article that are rather silly:
Is Aaronovitch really this brainwashed or is he just pretending to score political correctness points? Since Aaronovitch fancies himself such a fan of egalitarianism, I presume he favors women to be drafted into the military alongside men even on the front lines (where we must have one man for every women, of course). Or is that a double standard that is acceptable? And he conveniently avoids the misandrist divorce laws that continue to plague the West.
Johnathan,
I am not aware of the hypocrisy in this. Are there many Muslims proclaiming that their women ‘are jewels to be treasured’ (to use Aaronovitch’s turn of phrase) who then treat their women like property? As far as I know, they are quite frank about women being inferior to men.
I agree with you that adults engaging in consensual relations should never be coerced for doing so in any way and that most certainly includes execution, but do you mean to say that gays should be treated equally culturally? If so, then we do disagree, and I would remind you that libertarianism does not prescribe specific cultural values. Shaming and ostracism can be used for good, though you and I might neither engage in it nor like it.
Tolerate… sure. That does not mean a given libertarian who sees things differently should accept those values or respect or values or refrain from criticism.
We whilst I am all for individualism (I prefer the term “social individualist” rather than “libertarian”), I have zero interest in “egalitarianism” (which I view as nearly always a Bad Thing) and I also do not see “openness” in and of itself as necessarily a virtue either, but that rather depend on the context… as a rule I prefer “privacy” to “openness”.
Oh! This is a wonderful point! Armed with this nugget of truth, any dissident could argue successfully against those who seek to execute gays because if it is true that gays existed in the past then the whole argument that gays to be executed because homosexual relations are immoral according to those crazies in Africa would be contradicted! Jeeze. Talk about missing the boat.
Frak, I agree with much (not all) of what you are saying, but are you also saying that encouraging gays to stay in the closet also encourages them to get married and have children? Because if that is what you are saying, then it is just plain silly.
In my last post:
1. The quote was taken from Aaronovitch’s article.
2. “the whole argument that gays to be” should read “the whole argument that gays should be”
Perry,
Absolutely agree. What troubles me, though, is that some libertarians and others just do not accept shaming as an acceptable behavior and think that theft is not as immoral as shaming gays (I have met liberals in real life who believe this).
Agree again. I also am a big fan of privacy. 😉
Then they have not thought it through very carefully. Folks should be free to say “I do not approve of your gay life style and you should be ashamed of yourself”. And other folks should be free to reply to that with… “Hmm, I will consider what you have said”… or … “And I should give a flying fuck what you think why?”
I am all for the abrasive exchanges of civil society. It only becomes a ‘libertarian’ issue when someone tries to make their particular views the force backed law of the land.
Why is that just plain silly? I personally am fine with gays banging individuals of the same sex. Indeed, I have several friends who are gay and I have shamed gay-shamers publicly multiple times and intend to continue to do so.
But is it not true that the probability that gays will get married to an individual of the opposite sex and have kids rises if shaming of gay behavior is stronger and more widespread? I speculate that it is possible, but perhaps this trend has a negligible effect on birth rates (what % of humans are gay?) and there are larger fish to fry as far as the birth replacement issue goes.
Alisa, *frak has a peculiar disregard for women whom he wants to be married to closeted gays and have children with them.
I’ve encountered this particular pov before, from people who called themselves conservatives, but in my opinion are rather “paleo” . In particular, there was a guy attacking Megan McArdle for having gay friends – he said, if I remember correctly, that instead she should do better and marry one of them, and have at least three kids with him – to do good to society and for her friend’s social standing.
Well, duh:- Let’s consider the following scenario. I understand from the above that you happen to be straight. So imagine that you live in a society where the majority are gay, and you have to live in a closet. Would you marry another man and have sex with him just to placate society? And yes, I know there were gays throughout history who did get married and had children, but how well do you think it turned out in the end for all concerned, including their children?
BTW, in case you are still interested, I left you a response on that old thread.
Tanya, I happen to have the same kind of disregard for these theoretical women whom these theoretical gays are going to (theoretically?) marry. If they are stupid enough to do it, that’s not my problem. The children are a different matter, but innocent children are born to stupid parents all the time as it is, and there isn’t much any of us can do about it.
Alisa,
First of all, I literally meant a gay man marrying a woman and having kids – not adopting them, since adoption does not impact the birth rate. I was speculating about one unspoken reason why shaming gay behavior might improve society (through increasing the birth rate). And in answer to your question, sorry, but I really have no idea.
Perhaps not well, depending on how you define a positive outcome. But in any case, plenty of welfare-dependent single Moms have way too many kids and raise them poorly.
I’ll send you an email in response within a week, hopefully sooner. And I agree with your response to Tatyana 100%.
Speak for yourself, Mr. Aaronovitch.
You have no idea???
Alisa, is this more or less what you meant by you ‘won’t take long’?
It took 2 hours, which is plenty long in Internet terms, no? 🙂 And a few more hours before spinning up for real.
“Alisa, *frak has a peculiar disregard for women whom he wants to be married to closeted gays and have children with them.”
“Tanya, I happen to have the same kind of disregard for these theoretical women whom these theoretical gays are going to (theoretically?) marry. If they are stupid enough to do it, that’s not my problem.”
When a man acts very camp and is open or makes little effort to hide his homosexuality, or his homosexuality is otherwise known, then it is fair (outside of Zola’s Paris) to characterize a girl wanting to marry him as daft – but it isn’t always that simple. I used to have a gay friend many years ago who, to my mind at least, showed no obvious signs of being gay – I didn’t find out until I’d known him for over a year. He was a very handsome chap so I’m sure he must have had to disappoint quite a few girls in his time. If he had lived in a society in which he really needed or otherwise badly wanted to stay “closeted”, then although he might have had certain, er, bedroom difficulties, I’m sure he’d have managed the rest of the closeting well enough. I don’t think I could have fairly described any girl who married him as “stupid” – “deceived” certainly, “naive” perhaps, but not necessarily “stupid”.
See, here maybe I would like any male homosexual (who self-classifies as more or less exclusively as such) to explain to me how it is that you cannot find any woman (at all) sexually attractive.
Okay, here’s the thing. I’m a young man, and I know for a fact that young men will willingly stick it into any orifice, from chicks to exhaust pipes. For that matter, young men will get aroused at the drop of a pin, much less pant(ie)s.
I grant you, I don’t find most fellow men sexually attractive. But I’m sure there are a few out there, maybe those who are androgynous enough, or who project sufficient femininity, that I would at least look twice at. And I know there are katoeys out there whom I would absolutely swear were women.
So, really, just exactly how much of a hardship is it? If hypothetically as in the above scenario, I, as a straight man in a gay society had to bang another man to stay safely closeted, but I could *choose*, well, damn me, but I’m sure I could (eventually) find one that would fit the bill.
Or remain celibate and chaste. That can’t be too hard either, I’ve managed for over 20 years since puberty.
Well, sorry guys (Alisa and *frak), that attitude is just outrageous.
Alisa, when someone in the closet that means he pretends to be straight. So well sometimes that a woman who marries him might not know until years after. She might live for years and years, blaming herself for the coldness she inspires in her husband and acquires sufficient damage to her own mental health in the process. See several recent scandals, most notoriously –former governor of NJ(Link).
Of course children suffer, but the wife suffers more: she most certainly is left traumatized for life after the experience, never having trust another man, doubting herself.
And *frak, make up your mind. Either oyu’re advocating increased birth rates (then you should welcome single moms and their multiple offspring) or you don’t- then don’t try to use pretend marriages between gay and straight to compensate for deficiency.
Gregory: no, not exactly, you ain’t seen nothing yet – but then, who can see the future?:-)
It seems there is a considerable element to this of people believing what they want to believe.
The whole view of gay/straight being understood here seems to me to particularly come from the western/European/post-Christian mindset. (Hows that for a ditto.)
Middle Eastern attitudes have little problem slipping back and forwards over an apparent divide, that the humanist west seems to have decided is cast in stone.
Jonathan and David had a love that surpassed the love for a woman.
Sex between men is no good and, yes, that could be regarded as the basis of homosexuality.
But perhaps because that other love has been declared taboo as well. In the western understanding of love and macho requirements.
I have seen gay guys go straight when they just decided to change the way they were doing things. I have seen straight people decide to go gay.
It is very much in the mind and what we choose for whatever reasons.
Romantic, valentine cards and all love between men I just don’t buy. But perhaps I don’t buy it between men and women either.
There is a basic, basic difference between men and women that, if left to itself, finds its own way.
What, indeed, is love?
Alisa: Ah, well, best stay clear out of it and be on the sidelines then.
John B: Truth is, most Christians will NOT agree that homosexuality or heterosexuality are ‘cast in stone’. At least, this Christian doesn’t. What we do believe is that actions matter. And that ‘love’, whatever definition, does not have to involve sexual relations.
John B: that was profound, at least for me. Really, you just made me rethink the whole issue.
I would also like to back out of the ‘stupid’ part of my earlier comment – that was obviously too harsh (although I still stick to the ‘none of my business part). However, in this day and age in the Western societies, when for the most part people are actually allowed to have sex before marriage (and most of them do) I cannot see how a woman can miss the guy not being aroused by her. Either he is not attracted to her in particular or he is not attracted to women in general. Of course there are the AC/DC types – which, following on Gregory’s remark, would include most of us to various degrees and depending on circumstances, but that is a different matter.
This may be aimed at me, or it may not be and I have a rather inflated sense of my own importance. If it is, however, I only note that Aaronivitch is big-state welfarist who supports literally any infringement on the traditional rights of the Englishman that our government can concoct, which, if anything, rather seems to corroborate the point I was making here.
Social liberalism/libertinism/the way people act now (whatever label you may give it) and the big state are two parts of a vicious cycle. I suspect that if this circle can be cut at all, it will be on the liberalism side (or, what we may call the “non-political” end of things). In the meantime, your promotion of indecency aids the growth of the state that you so decry more than enough to counterbalance whatever virtuous effects your political writings might have.
Anyway, I’m off to beat my wife in order to ameliorate my dark desire to ravage every woman I meet on the street or whatever it is people like me do.
*or ravish, I suppose, depending on just how much my heart has been poisoned by supping form the well of ancient superstition recently.
Tatyana,
1. Why do you refer to me as *frak? frak is quite fine.
2. Actually, I don’t have to choose between any arguments you offer me. I would prefer it if the West had a higher birth rate for very obvious reasons. Just because I have this preference does not mean I need to be happy about welfare-dependent single Moms having too many kids. Both views are actually entirely reasonable and actually very common.
3. I never advocated gay guys marrying straight women or lesbian women marrying straight guys (funny how the latter has not come up in this thread until now). I was simply speculating about one reason why shaming gays exists as a social construct (being something I am not a fan of at all) and that is that society benefits from fitting as many individuals as possible into a cookie-cutter life: and marrying a person of the opposite sex and having 2 or 3 kids is a key part of it.
*frak:
Because I’m used to grammatical norms of starting a name or pseudonym with a capital.
You, apparently, don’t. But I still want to be polite and single out a name from a regular word in a sentence, so I use an asterisk.
Consider it my personal conservative idiosyncrasy.
I posted too soon.
Re: your 2)
if you object to welfare in principle, as state theft and redistribution of your money you should say so; it should not matter to you who is on welfare – a single mom with several kids or a traditional family of 7. Otherwise your views look inconsistent and you – like having some illogical personal beef against single women in particular. “Flies and burgers – separately, please”.
Re: your 3)
Lesbians, due to achievements of biological sciences of the last 5 decades can do without man’s assistance in producing kids, I know personally three such families. Besides, even when they did marry for that purpose, the situation was very different: majority of men can tolerate absence of arousal in their female partner with considerably more ease, some even prefer it. And certainly don’t take it as evidence of their deficiency of any kind – just blame their wife for being “frigid”. Also, traditional society never look askance at a man whose wife does not satisfy him, so he seeks additional entertainment someplace else. Reverse situation, however, would produce mass outrage.
You guys should read Roissy, InMalaFide and the Spearhead.
I don’t think gays are particularly important. The important part of conservative morality is on the hetero side. Women are naturally attracted to the small percentage of Alpha males. But if they were all to follow that desire than the majority of betas would have little reason to contribute to civilisation. Marriage, shaming sluts, shaming cads and shaming divorcees are all needed to prevent this.
But, I don’t see any need for interference from government. Society will do all this if allowed too. The main problem is that government is opposing it.
See Roissy’s four sirens post:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/sexual-dystopia-a-glimpse-at-the-future/
Tatyana,
Fair enough.
I do not object to welfare in principle. I am not a Libertarian; I am a conservative.
Arguably.
I am a conservative and that comes along with some of the pro-traditional values side of things also. I guess that offends you and that is fine, but I do not have a personal beef against single women. With respect, you would probably learn something by reading what “Current” posted after you and following the link he provides.
huh?
Could it be that there are legitimate reasons for this cultural trend? Or in your view is it always wrong for any semblance of sexual inequality to manifest itself culturally? Mother Nature is politically incorrect.
*frak,
Sorry, that was an imperfect translation of a common Russian phrase. Which means, approximately: apples to apples, oranges to oranges.
You object to single women with kids on the basis that they live on your buck; this economic underpinning is irrelevant to the context of this discussion. If, on the other hand, you object to single women having kids outside of marriage , in general, on [conservative] principle, which would be entirely relevant to this discussion, why mention welfare at all? You lead this discussion into irrelevant tangent: then we might start comparisons – would you then object to gay/straight pretend marriage if they went on welfare? Would you advocate subsidy for such couples (since you profess that they are beneficial to society at large), etc etc etc – and we don’t want to go there. At all.
No, your conservative views do not offend me at the slightest (we don’t know each other; I’m neither a single mom on welfare nor a lesbian). I simply pointed out to logical inconsistency I think I see in what you said.
Thanks for recommendation; I’ve known of Roissy and his rants for years; was not impressed 4 years ago, and less – now. He is a loser and a women-hater; pseudo-scientific jackass with delusions of grandeur – why should I waste time on his idiotic theories?
I brought that comparison (between attitude to adulterous men and women) only to illustrate my point re: lesbian/straight man marriage, that’s all. No wider conclusions.
Tatyana: “Also, traditional society never look askance at a man whose wife does not satisfy him, so he seeks additional entertainment someplace else. Reverse situation, however, would produce mass outrage”
frak: “Could it be that there are legitimate reasons for this cultural trend? Or in your view is it always wrong for any semblance of sexual inequality to manifest itself culturally? Mother Nature is politically incorrect.”
I think a traditional society would look at a man who “seeks additional entertainment someplace else” in a negative light. He would be a cad, a seducer, a bounder, these all were criticisms.
The underlying reason for this though is the differing position of men and women.
In prehistoric nature there are a small group of men, the dominant Alpha males who reproduce with the females. The remainder, the Beta males go celebate and their genes disappear. The Alpha males were the leaders of tribes, the qualities associated with them are those that women find attractive even today. Women are generally hypergamous – status seeking.
Some ancient civilisations continued that pattern, the King and his high level officials would mate with thousands of concubines. Rank in society determined access to mates and in some most men didn’t get a mate. That meant a great many men were frustrated and hated wider society. Often there were great punishments to prevent them from acting on that hatred. Matt Ridley in “The Red Queen” documents a civilisation where the punishment for sleeping with the concubine of a higher-ranking man is the following: You are executed, you’re family are executed, everyone in your village is executed, the land around your village is strewn with stone so it cannot be cultivated.
This wasn’t very successful, “traditional” society evolved later. This involved monogamous marriage rather than polygamy led by Alphas. This gave Beta males a stake in society. This is (pretty much) the sort of society we had until the sexual revolution, and it’s still quite prevalent.
Anyway, to get back to the point. In human reproduction it is the woman who chooses the man. This is natural as the women bear the labours of pregnancy. Women only have a limited number of eggs and therefore pregnancies available. Whereas a man can (if he has access to the women) fertilize a great many eggs. So, just as women are hypergamous so men are polygamous, we have different original sin.
This is why things are as you describe…. A woman who is frustrated with her husband may find another lover. A man frustrated with his wife may well not be in the position to find another lover. Only an irresponsible Alpha male may do so, especially in a monogamous society where most others people are married too. So, he is decried as a cad or womanizer. He isn’t decried just for being frustrated because that doesn’t qualify him to become a womanizer, he must be frustrated and an Alpha. But on the other side every frustrated woman is looked on suspiciously too.
This makes sense in terms of societal evolution because it prevents Alphas from running wild. It supports Betas and prevents them from become disenfranchised.
The same sort of thing is seen in attitudes towards virginity. A woman who is a virgin after her youth is an indictment on society. A man who is a virgin is a pathetic joke.
Clearly men bear the burden of this sort of thing just as women do.
Roissy is a jackass and a mysogynist. But, I think much of what he says is correct. Matt Ridley, Neil Strauss and Mystery are less mysogynistic sources for the same wisdom.
Tatyana,
I don’t really disagree with anything you wrote…so may there now be peace between us. 🙂
* frak,
Sure. As long as you don’t demand gays to pretend they are straight and deceive their spouses – all for the sake of children!
Tatyana: I actually object to welfare on economic reasons, but more pragmatic than principled, if I may inject myself into the conversation.
It has been my observation that women as a whole (I make no comments about any individual woman) have more… plastic sexuality than men. Despite this sounding counter to popular belief. But women are far more comfortable with other women’s bodies than men would be with other men’s.
Also, whether or not you feel ‘forced’ into a certain commitment, well, you’re in for it, so why not make the best of the situation? Feeling concern for your fellow man and your spouse’s welfare should not be tied to whether you have the hots for him/her or not, won’t you say? Gay men did have kids with women, so at least physically something’s working, and working to keep someone in your family happy even when you don’t much feel like it is not asking the impossible, I don’t think.
Alisa: If a man is hard, he’s aroused. It’s pretty obvious. 🙂
Gregory: I’m afraid I don’t see your point…
Gregory,
I can imagine some of those women who are trapped in marriages with gay men probably do try to make the best of it and keep family together despite their own misery, if only for the sake of children. But it is despicable, on the part of their gay husbands, to demand such self-sacrifice from their wives, while enjoying the best of both worlds themselves: social respectability of a family man with kids and steady kept home while banging variety of sex-toy boys on the side.
“Concern for your spouse well being” includes concern for her sex life. A normal man (not your “plastic” hominoid) prefers his woman to be satisfied in bed (or on a kitchen table, if you will), not just tolerate his frictions with tightened lips and absent stare – or even better, to live her life in involuntary chastity and to be denied sex altogether. That’s what I’m talking about – “disregard for women” – as if women are not sexual beings, but some diaphanous fairy (forgive the pun) creatures who survive on diet of sentiment.
And- to your first statement: no, I don’t support the theory (very convenient for certain types, I know) that sexuality is plastic. I’m firmly feet-on-the-ground on this issue: you’re either born gay, or not. It’s a waste of time trying to debate it with me.
Alisa: Hey, was that supposed to be said with a wink? Cause I don’t see no wink…
You were wondering whether and how women could be fooled as to whether their man actually felt any attraction towards them, right? Well, I’m just sayin’, if a man’s hard, chances are real high that his body’s decided he’s aroused, is all…
Tatyana: I agree with the fact that concern for welfare includes sexual concern. But here’s the thing. *Everyone* is acting as if being homosexual means that you can’t ever experience (or give) sexual pleasure from (and to) someone of the opposite sex (or vice versa). I question that, and I want to hear from an exclusively gay guy whether this is the case or not.
I will note that on occasion I have held my nose and eaten absolutely vile foodstuffs that I cannot tolerate, and that on one or two occasions have changed my mind on whether I liked or hated a food with a vengeance. Just sayin…
As for whether or not you can change your sexuality, hey, if you say it’s a waste of time trying to debate it with you, despite the fact that there is at least one case in the media where a lesbian turned Christian, got married to a man and is in trouble wrt custodial arrangements, and despite the fact that there are at least two AC/DC celeb types (think Anna Heche and Linday Lohan), then I’m gonna respect your faith stance and not debate you on it.
It would be counterproductive and a waste of our time.
Ah, I see now…I vaguely recall some 40 or so years ago my grandmother telling me something along those lines. I never took her too seriously on many things – you mean to say she was right?;-P Seriously though, that was my entire point: if a girl dates a guy, and they get to bed – as they do these days – and a certain part of the guy’s anatomy repeatedly fails to say to the girl, “I’m so glad to see you!!!”, then there must be a problem, and maybe the idea of marrying him should be given a second thought?
Oh, and when it comes to certain topics, one has to dispense their winks with care;-)
Gregory,
you want to hear from an exclusively gay guy? Here’s one(Link); somewhere on his site he has his very detailed memoir written, including his one and only teenage experience with a girl, and how rotten he felt afterwards (when he still didn’t know himself and was just following in mainstream). I’m sure you’ll find it an interesting read.
Your example is incorrect. Lesbians who later “changed”into straight were lesbians only by circumstance and out of desperation of not being able to find a suitable male partner. Besides, men are such clutzes; it’s so difficult to get them understand female body- I wouldn’t blame any frustrated college girl if she wants to spend a night with somebody who finally understand how to touch her without endless explanations.
I really liked John B.’s comment. I tend to assume that we are born predisposed towards certain preferences, including sex. Thing is, as both John and Gregory imply, most of us (but certainly not all) are not totally straight or totally gay. There are degrees, and they vary from person to person.
Alisa,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpxQp3Hy5nk
Yes!!!Ja!!!Alisa: Ah, well, what the body says and what the mind’s conditioning says can oftentimes be at odds, I guess. It is possible for men to be raped, after all, so I presume you can get the body aroused while the mind is screaming a loud rejection. Of course, we aren’t speaking of such interactions necessarily, so I really don’t know what to make of it. But I will note that back in the day, you didn’t just jump in bed; I fully expect not to until after I was married, and I’m fairly sure I’m going to make a mess of it the first time round. But hey, practice makes perfect, and a lifetime of fun and games is nothing to laugh at, heh?
Tatyana:
Ya know, I don’t really want to be one of those people Alisa speaks of, as really, I think I much prefer to stay in the sidelines and cheer the mess on. But this one, well, I can’t resist.
It would seem to me that you are yourself rather frustrated at men; calling us klutzes is hardly going to endear you to the male population, nor would it help any man to please you better.
Setting that aside, your postings betray such a breadth of double standards that I’m afraid I must protest. In the same breath you say you cannot be swayed by arguments that homosexuals are not necessarily born that way, and hence that sexuality is not plastic, and you also say that women can turn to lesbianism in desperation of finding a good man who can make her feel good.
I cannot allow you to get away with such outrageous nonsense and doubletalk. Either you believe that sexuality is NOT plastic and hence you cannot get turned on by a member of the opposing sex (to your preference), or that under some circumstances (and not always connected to sexual relief, as I have pointed out), women who would normally be ‘straight’ would turn lesbian (and the same for men).
Also, the whole ‘Lesbian Until Graduation’ business. Heck, there’s an actual blog out there from a former exclusively lesbian who’s since figured out she’s actually bisexual. Seeing as she’s got a boyfriend (I think they got married, but I wasn’t really following the blog and I lost the bookmark when I upgraded to Vista, stupid me) whom she loves very much (and they have great fun figuring out which girls they’d both like to boink).
In any event, this is the last post I will make on this matter unless and until you clear the muddle in your head and come down firmly on one side.
Gregory, no muddle there: the point is that women’s sexuality is much more “plastic” than that of men. This does not mean, of course, that this point cannot be disputed, but it is an honest point and therefore there is no double standard.
Alisa: But Alisa, that’s not what she said, not at all.
I said,
To which Tatyana replied,
To say it is a waste of time debating it with her is one thing; I have already agreed not to do so, as she has already closed her mind to the matter and it will do neither of us any good for me to try and force it on her.
But to in the same breath say this and then say also that otherwise-straight women can turn to other women and gain sexual pleasure because (poor shits and klutzes that they are) men are useless in pleasing them is hypocrisy so blatant it beggars belief. In one stroke she savages men, blames them for ‘made’ lesbians and discounts her own prior statement!
And now we hear that Eldridge Woods may himself be one of those AC/DC types, although I would not give a ha’pence of credibility to that story. But one only fakes what is valuable; that story would not be told unless it was possible for it to be believed, and hence has some probability of being true.
So, which is it? Is sexuality plastic, or not? Can people change their ‘latent’ sexual orientation under certain circumstances, or not? That’s the double standard I’m speaking of; she cannot have it both ways, and I refuse to discuss and debate with someone who has no real clarity as to what belief is being held.
For the record; I believe that everyone can potentially be attracted to people of either sex (the body), and that it is only self-identification (the mind) that is controlling. As a Christian, I choose to satisfy my desires only with a woman, and only in marriage.
Gregory, I may have misunderstood Tatyana’s point, so please consider the above comment as only representing my humble (really) opinion – which is that, as you imply, all sexuality is plastic, only I tend to think that that of men tends to be less so. I could be wrong (see ‘humble’:-))
Alisa: Ah, don’t worry about it. I’ve made a fool of myself with choosing the wrong words right on this very blog’s comment area numerous times. Who am I to judge?
Men don’t really have less plastic sexualities, to be sure. But we do have a stronger sense of what we want (or are willing to accept). Hence, a guy can enjoy getting blown… right until he finds out it’s a trannie. Why the sudden blowback (and usually it’s a violent blowback)? Well… again, it comes down to the mind.
I do like to think that Tatyana is rethinking her position, I must admit.
I thought this whole innateness debate was settled by the Furries. If it’s possible to condition yourself to find people dressed in animal costumes sexually attractive, self-conditioning your way in or out of homosexuality should be a relative doddle.
Squander Two: Heh, I must agree. 🙂
But then, who am I to judge the zoophiliacs?
Curiouser and curiouser…or not…:-)
Curiouser and curiouser, indeed.
I thought I said already that my mind is made and I’m not going to debate the issue of “ping-pong sexuality”. What part of “no” you don’t understand, Gregory?
Don’t patronize me, dude. Hypocritical or not, I’m not obligated to discuss anything with you.
I cannot allow you to get away with such outrageous nonsense and doubletalk
Hahahaha! you wish. I will get away with any opinion I want because it is my opinion. You can stump your foot in impotent rage for years to come, it is still my opinion and I back it up with 30 years of sexual experiences.
From your comment of Jan. 11th @5:24 am (on my screen) it seems you promised this will be your last post on the issue. Apparently, the topic bothers oyu so much, you can’t help yourself and continue spit some more bile afterwards. Relax. If your wife (I got it, you’re Christian, you have no morals yourself other than the harness imposed by religion) is satisfied by your clutzy ways – good for her. I doubt it – because you doubt it. And you doubt it, because you can’t let the subject drop.
Tatyana: True. But you lack reading comprehension, which is fine, because English is not your primary language. At least, I would have thought that it was obvious I would not post on *this matter* with you until your head cleared.
And therefore I was not discussing it with you, but with Alisa. And again, I refuse to speak to you about this issue until you’ve cleared it up.
And since by your own admission you don’t care, well then, that’s that.
Also, what makes you think I’m married? And why your bile against Christians? Or for that matter, against me, who for all you know might just be a Markov chain generator?
But it is good to know that we can henceforth ignore each other. Because I certainly have nothing more to say to someone who hold two contradictory opinions simultaneously and declaims that fact proudly.
Gregory,
Markov chain generator is indifferent.
You, on the other hand, nothing but. You crossed polite boundaries in conversation when you speculated about my sexual life or psychology or my personal reasons or whatever it was you fantasized about me.
My English is fine, so is my reading comprehension (spelling and grammar might be less so); thank you for your concern. And there is nothing contradictory in my views .You don’t get it – it’s your problem. I’m not your nanny, I’m not obligated to spell it out for you.
Tatyana:
Retract, please. Or show proof that I have said anything directly relating to your sexual life, or otherwise whatever else that I have fantasised about you. Otherwise, I will request Perry or another moderator to ensure that your libel is removed.
Further, I request that you retract your statements that I am amoral, that my writings amount to ‘bile’, and that I am a sexual klutz – all of which, by the way, are personal attacks which I have yet to make on you.
Yours faithfully,
Gregory Kong
I see “King”had separated and got lost from “Kong” somewhere along the way from an ape to human bully.
You could do much better, poor Gregory: you can file a sexual harassment suit against me, preferably in some UN institution, On Behalf of All Men who Recognized Themselves in Description of Clutzes.
Go Global! The louder you scream and curse and distort somebody’s words, the more people you’ll convince. Sure.
Almost forgot.
P.S.
You’re so sweet, honeybuns!