Boys like Girls. Girls like Barbie-Dolls. Right?
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
"It is important to remember that 'bisexual,' 'lesbian,' 'gay,' 'transgender,' and 'heterosexual' are labels created by a homophobic, biphobic, heterosexist society to separate and alienate us from each other. We are all unique and don’t fit into distinct categories." ~Duke University Center for LGBT Life Bisexuality FAQ
In the US, if you're not straighter than a fucking engineer's straightedge, at some point in your life you are going to pay for it. This seems a bit odd, since as near as I can figure, there's 36 basic permutations of human gender identity and sexuality:
- First, and most obviously, there's what you're genetically like, which can fall into one of three categories: 1.) male 2.) female 3.) both
- Yes Virginia, there are physical hermaphrodites … most of whom are surgically "fixed" as infants, often leading to great identity confusion later in life.
- Second, there's what you feel like: 1.) male 2.) female 3.) androgynous
- Yup, there are people who don't really feel strongly male or female in terms of personal gender identity. And there are those who feel they're a different gender than their body, aka transsexuals. Studies of Male-to-Female transsexuals show their brains, though housed in genetically male bodies, respond to some tests exactly the same as a genetic female. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
- Third, there's who you like: 1.) men 2.) women 3.) both 4.) neither
- Yes indeed, there are people who identify as asexual: not romantically/sexually interested in anyone. I think that would be a massive simplification of one's day to day life, don't you?
So, hey ho! With 36 possibilites here, how is it that US culture operates on a binary assumption of human gender and sexuality? Either you are born a boy, you feel like a boy, and you like girls … or you're born a girl, you feel like a girl, and you like boys. Anyone else is a fucking deviant sicko.
And of course, if you do anything that visibly and obviously marks you as a gender nonconformist, bullshit gender bigotry is absolutely unavoidable …
… like the dirty looks I got from clean-cut frat-boy types at my university, when I had my hair cut short and wore a leather jacket with a couple of naked women painted on it (funny, none of 'em gave me dirty looks when I had longer hair and wore miniskirts). There are guys who beat up gay men who may or may not have been hitting on them. Everybody assumed the boys on the cheerleading squad at my high school were gay. Transsexuals get fired from their jobs, for no apparent reason. Then there are the people who disown their gay kids… and the apparently large number of fuckwits who think gays, lesbians and transgendered people need killing…
… and on the other side of the coin, where you'd think there'd be an oasis of tolerance and open-mindedness, there are gays and lesbians who say there's no such thing as bisexuals (Y'know, 'cause you can't like both men and women. That'd be too confusing.). Apparently bis are just afraid of coming out, or they're just doing it to be 'hip'. There's the extremist feminists who don't want transgendered women attend their music festival, because they're not "womyn born womyn" … I guess the transwomen just don't understand how hard it is to grow up with tits. There's the gays who look at heterosexuals, and call them "breeders" with a condescending sneer in their voices (correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "breeders" the only reason any of us exist in the first place?).
Even among otherwise "straight" (ie. "normal") people, if you're sexually adventurous enough to venture beyond missionary position you're going to catch hell from someone, at some point in time. Such as all the people who commented in 10 Things Every Adult Should Know, insisting that any guy who wanted anything stuck up his ass by anyone was definitely gay (Becca, that's your cue … ;-). And how about the anti-porn feminist contingent, to whom all women working as prostitutes, strippers, porn stars, or porn models are pitiful victims (funny, they never say anything about the men)?
What the fuck, people?! "Live and let live" is a fucking simple concept, isn't it? Are there really that many people who are SO insecure in their own identites that other people's lifestyles are a violent threat to their sense of self?
And yeah, don't bother coming back at me with some tirade about god, and sin, and right and wrong. Homophobia and any other kind of sexual bigotry is nothing more than fucking insecurity, ignorance and dumb fear. No better than my family's horses being terrified the first time they saw a couple of cows. The big difference between our horses and the sad little gender bigots all over this country is simple: The horses got over it.
Even if it all WAS horribly sinful, y'know what? Other people's sins are none of your fucking business. Judgement is reserved for God, isn't it? You're afraid of the US becoming a latter day Sodom and Gomorrah? Remember, God gave the righteous people advance warning the city was about to be flattened … you'll have a chance to swim for safety, while the rest of us get engulfed in hellfire and brimstone and shit. So back off, and let your God do his job, why don't'cha?
Thomas Jefferson, speaking of religious freedom, once said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The same could be said of whether your neighbor has 20 partners, or none. Male partners or female. It's no skin off your nose either way.
If I have a history of getting major crushes on women, does that make me bi, even though I never act on it? What if I thought about women while I was in bed with men? What if I was particularly infatuated with a woman who used to be a man? Does any of that confuse the issue for you?
A young woman I know said she never really wanted to be a girl or a boy … she's totally ambivalent about her gender. But she's attracted to 'em both. She's also immensely entertained by the idea of getting a sex change so she could be a drag queen. What the hell does that make her?
She and I both think it'd be a fucking great thing if humans could figure out a way to reversibly change gender at will. Gender identity disorders would be a thing of the past … anyone could be whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted to be. Sexism? What's that? She might not be a woman tomorrow, after all. Sexual orientation? Also irrelevant. Who'd know what sex you were when you hopped in bed with someone else? Maybe people would still criticize promiscuous people, or folks who really liked kinky sex … but it sure seems like a lot of fundamental conflicts would dissolve.
Gay, straight, bi, trans, poly, androgyne, slut, perv, deviant, whatthefuckever … it just straight up, plain and simple, shouldn't fucking matter one bit. You can't give me one single reason why someone else's personal life and personal identity should be any of your business.
If gender identity and sexual orientation were a non-issue outside the confines of personal relationships, we wouldn't even need to worry about labels, or "special rights", or any of that crap. People could pursue what and whoever they needed or wanted to pursue to fulfill their mythical right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But somehow, that's not how it works. And here we are: A species without any great survival-based imperative for clinging to reproductively-oriented gender roles. A society without any great need to cling to rigid sexual stereotypes. And somehow, no matter how many times the pervert cows standing by the fence fail to tear it down and eat the bigot horses alive, the horses never stop running in snorting terror to the far corner of the paddock to stay a "safe" distance away.
Cue noted:
For those who insist that any male who likes to have something stuck up his ass during sex makes him gay, I would ask you to reconsider that notion after reading this:
On more than one opportunity I had the great fortune to listen to a group of Marines, fresh off a tour of duty in Subic Bay, Phillipines, discussing the multi-faceted marvels of prostate stimulation immediately prior to orgasm.
To quote:
Jarhead #1: "Dude, there isn't anything like it when you're getting a blowjob and right before you cum she sticks her finger up your ass. Pure fucking heaven."
Jarheads #2-10: [In unison] "Aww hell yeah!" "Fuck yeah!" "That's just fucking awesome."
So if the Marines are doing it … ;-)
Unless, of course, you want to argue that the Marines are a bunch of queers.
29th May 2008 at 6:33 pm | permalink |Also, keep in mind that these Marines were so familiar with various STDs that they not only knew what kind of drugs to use, but how to get them, the proper dosing and treatment cycle, and how to self-administer (tetracyline, injected daily for 10 days).
29th May 2008 at 7:15 pm | permalink |@Becca: "Unless, of course, you want to argue that the Marines are a bunch of queers." I don't imagine too many people would argue that to a bunch of Marines' faces … ;-)
29th May 2008 at 8:05 pm | permalink |Hehe, love the whole new Gender Politics thing. Now let me just copy and paste this for my essay, and I'm done! Hahaha jk jk. But really, this was brilliant. I'd hate to get into an argument with you, on any subject, especially this. o.o
29th May 2008 at 8:49 pm | permalink |Bullseye, couldn't have said it better myself…
29th May 2008 at 9:12 pm | permalink |@Aimee: Awww … but I like arguing! ;-)
@David: *high five*
*waits for bigots to show up*
*wait*wait*wait*
29th May 2008 at 9:44 pm | permalink |As Peter Griffin would say, "A-freakin'-men!" This is something I've believed for a number of years — as long as you don't shove your personal business on me (religious beliefs, sexual lifestyle, etc.), I don't give a fuck about your personal business. If you're gay, big fuckin' deal — just don't shove it in my face every chance you get, and I'm fine with it.
29th May 2008 at 11:51 pm | permalink |@Anonymous: I guess the question then is, what qualifies as shoving it in your face? Is a same-sex couple holding hands as they walk down the street shoving it in your face? If so, I'd call bullshit … because most people wouldn't flinch at a hetero couple doing the same. ;-)
30th May 2008 at 2:14 am | permalink |[...] altrettanto incazzose. E qui la misteriosa f*cking c*nts arriva in mio soccorso, con questo post sui bigotti. What the fuck, people?! "Live and let live" is a fucking simple concept, isn't [...]
30th May 2008 at 4:21 am | trackback from cranky « //o^_^o\My doctor friend once told me that all men are gay. He said that kissing a woman is, by proxy, inhaling/tasting her previously sucked cock(s). The same applies to women being lesbians.
Let's hope everyone practices good hygiene.
30th May 2008 at 6:13 am | permalink |Another Amen!
30th May 2008 at 6:50 am | permalink |@ Ray: * brusha, brusha, brusha *
;-)
30th May 2008 at 7:04 am | permalink |My personal viewpoint is that it is ALL part of a master plan to try to avoid over population! God realized just how much we'd enjoy sex, and to prevent our over use of our 'provisions' to sustain us (food, water, space etc.) also provided ways to enjoy his gift of love in a way that would allow total enjoyment without the 'over-population' aspect ruining the clockworks!
30th May 2008 at 7:36 am | permalink |Just a thought….
I agree!
"Live and let live", so simple. That's how I try to live. I truly believe that's how it should be; however, I'd be lying if I said I've never passed judgment on someone at some point in my life. Even if it's just subconsciously. I think we've all done it (I know we have) and will probably do it again.
So what if it wasn't about sex or gender. When is OK to judge someone, and who decides? Every time I call someone a fuckwad because I think their idea or opinion (or whatever)is ridiculous, didn't I just judge them?
Is it OK if a majority of people agree with me? No, but it's more likely to be accepted or at least socially tolerated. I suspect this dates back to the beginning of man (or women).
I should keep this in mind before I open my mouth. I will try harder not to judge!
30th May 2008 at 8:37 am | permalink |I really liked the horse/cow metaphor (simile?) Also, it would be really nice if all the fundamentalists decided to willingly leave this "Sodom and Gomorrah" for somewhere else. It would be heaven to live in a country without them in control. Life would be so easy. *sigh*
30th May 2008 at 8:47 am | permalink |@ Rick: Is it OK if a majority of people agree with me? No, but it's more likely to be accepted or at least socially tolerated. I suspect this dates back to the beginning of man (or women)."
First, anyone can judge anyone. Seriously. Just look at all the religious fundamentalist idiots who judge anything and everything (Fred Phelps comes to mind). What makes a judgment valid is whether or not it is defensible in a defensible, objective manner.
Which is why social approval sometimes validates an idea, and sometimes doesn't. Human beings are, as a general rule, and emotionally driven band of idiots incapable of reasoning beyond their immediate set of circumstances. A society that approves of patriotism as a "good thing" does so because it makes them feel good, not because it's a defensible position.
And if you want to know how to handle "man" or "mankind," you can simply replace it with "humanity" or "the human race."
By all means, go ahead and judge—just so long as you judge yourself by the same standards, with the same rigor, and the same harshness. Being considerate of others and of others' circumstances does not require us to abdicate our critical thinking processes.
30th May 2008 at 11:02 am | permalink |@ Me: "What makes a judgment valid is whether or not it is defensible in a defensible, objective manner."
"What makes a judgment valid is whether or not it is defensible in an objective manner."
What helps make my argument valid is when I bother to do a better job of proofing my words before hitting "submit."
30th May 2008 at 11:07 am | permalink |I love this post.
I am a very big fan of being what I am and not giving a shit.
30th May 2008 at 11:41 am | permalink |@Becca- "By all means, go ahead and judge—just so long as you judge yourself by the same standards, with the same rigor, and the same harshness."
Are you saying it's OK for me to judge as long as I'm not being hypocritical?
Why am I in charge of the standards?
How will people know what my standards are?
Should they care?
You may think I'm an idiot, yet some people in my village may consider me very insightful.
Maybe we should just be more respectful of others and their believes.
30th May 2008 at 12:36 pm | permalink |I am a former Marine and I can say with no reservation that prostate stimulation is incredible! Oh and I am a straight married man with kids. Keep telling it like it is Alpha! Great post!
30th May 2008 at 1:13 pm | permalink |Oh and no one sober ever talks shit to a Marine.
30th May 2008 at 1:14 pm | permalink |@ Rick: I think you're reading too much into my response.
I don't think you're stupid. My default assumption—barring massive evidence to the contrary—is that people are relatively smart, given the opportunity and means.
And I'm not putting you in charge of the standards. I'm merely acknowledging that it is human nature to make judgments (big and small). It's part of how we learn.
And it's possible to make judgments about people (such as, "that person is a freaking psycho") and still deal with them as a normal person. It isn't an act of hypocrisy (at least not for me). It's an act of being able to honestly, and intellectually set aside emotional or reactionary judgments and assess an individual in his/her entirety.
30th May 2008 at 1:34 pm | permalink |I just read the opening arguments because I’m too fuckin' lazy to read more. I think you said it beautifully. We are exactly in the same fuckin boat, whether we're born this or the other. The fuckin problem is, as I’m concerned, the fact that we humans love to divide. We divide endlessly; wetter it's being our dick sizees, our breasts, whose got the fastest car, or what the fuck else, richer and the poor, educated or not, etc etc…It’s this dividing shit that bothers me. What do you all think?
30th May 2008 at 1:41 pm | permalink |We seems to forget were all fuckin human.
@Ray: That has to be one of the strangest things I've ever heard … That said, I might become a mouthwash addict now. lol
@Ghille: If there was a master plan, that'd be a damn good reason. Tho' it seems to me there ought to be more homosexuals by now, looking at global population growth. ;-)
@Rick: I really don't have much trouble judging people. ;-) You may have noticed …
Judgement by itself doesn't make you a bad person. For one, judging other people doesn't put you in charge of "the" standards, it means you're in charge of your own standards. How do you choose who to date, or who to be friends with, or who to vote for, etc., ad infinitum, if you're not judging anything?
I have certain ideas about the way the world should be, and damn straight I make judgements based on that. I judge people negatively for being bigots, or being willfully ignorant, or being abusive and cruel, and so on. Those aren't the people I choose to be friends with. Even when I go shopping, I'm judging shit by my personal standards: which store I'll shop at, and which I won't … which companies' products I'll buy, and which I won't, and so on.
I'm totally in favor of being more tolerant of others and their beliefs … IF, and only if, their beliefs do not infringe on the ability of others to live by their own differing beliefs. Live and let live. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have a huge problem doing that, and I, therefore, have a huge problem with them. ;-)
@akshelby: I think it'd be fanastic if someone founded a fundie homeland … you want to live in a theocracy? Fantastic. Go start one somewhere else! Then maybe we can bring democracy to you at some point in the future. ;-)
And the horses … gawd that was funny as fuck. They seriously took one look at the cows and bolted to the far corner of the paddock, then stood there snorting and shaking and staring at the cows like they were sure they were about to die.
@Becca: "What helps make my argument valid is when I bother to do a better job of proofing my words" From my quote file: "This [comment] is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its natural character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects."
@Dean: *high five*
@bill: I think it's only natural for humans to make distinctions between different things … I just wonder if making irrational and arbitrary judgements based on superficial distinctions is something that can be unlearned on a mass scale?
30th May 2008 at 2:21 pm | permalink |Why, me good American friend should we make these distinctions? We all have arms and legs and a head, don't we? Why should we bother to distinct each and another?
30th May 2008 at 2:37 pm | permalink |We should start to look inside our heads more…?
@ Alpha: "This [comment] is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its natural character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects."
Hey, at least it wasn't potted meat product. ;-)
30th May 2008 at 2:47 pm | permalink |hehe
30th May 2008 at 3:03 pm | permalink |If you threw in John Wane, then maybe..)
30th May 2008 at 3:05 pm | permalink |@bill: Making distinctions is, IMUAO (in my utterly amateur opinion), a necessity for survival. If we don't distinguish between color, how would early humans tell the difference between a poisonous red berry, and an otherwise identical purple berry that's edible, for instance?
All animals make distinctions based on visual input. Hell, there wouldn't be any point to having eyes otherwise … we could navigate by sonar, like bats. ;-)
And there's nothing *wrong* with distinguishing people based on appearance. How boring would paintings be, if all the people in them looked the same, because the artist didn't bother to distinguish one person from another? The problem only comes in when we start making value judgements based on irrelevancies like people's skin color, or the gender of their lover.
I take the large number of people I know who don't make judgements like that as proof it is totally possible for humans to unlearn such xenophobic behavior.
@Becca: Ain't nothin' natural or beautiful about that. ;-)
30th May 2008 at 3:10 pm | permalink |@Becca- I didn't mean to insinuate you were calling me stupid and I don't actually know anyone who thinks I'm insightful. That statement was a poor attempt to imply a person opinions and judgments can be relative (based his/her own standards).
30th May 2008 at 3:39 pm | permalink |I find it interesting the amount of homosexual actions people disregard. Things like, slapping your teammates ass and T-bagging as a prank. WTF, that's fucking gay and yet, nobody thinks so. In fact it seems to be the "hard" men that typically do that shit. I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone I knew to be gay do the butt pat thing.
30th May 2008 at 3:48 pm | permalink |@Aleostax: Not unlike the fraternity boys back when I was in college: Every single frat party I ever went to would, at some point late in the drunken evening, have Y.M.C.A., by the Village People, playing really loudly while a large percentage of the frat boys did all the arm movements to the chorus …
And if Y.M.C.A. isn't one of the top three gayest songs EVER in ALL of human history, I don't know what is. ;-)
(Actually, now that I think about it, the Village People probably own the entire top five, if not the top 10. In The Navy? Need I say more? hehe)
30th May 2008 at 4:13 pm | permalink |In principal you put forward a really great argument – and I am a great supporter of a live and let live philosophy, however there are a couple of points that you make that deserve an argument against.
Firstly 'A species without any great survival-based imperative for clinging to reproductively-oriented gender roles.' – Yes this sounds really good in principal but when you consider it, this implies that every member of the species is considering the overall continuation of the species above the continuation of there own genetic material – which is blatantly untrue. From my most humble point of view each individual has no particluar interest in the survival of the species over and above the continuation of their own genes.
From this you can argue that every male can legitimately have reason to believe that lesbians are an abomination as they potentially threaten his ability to procreate. A similar argument could be made the opposite way, females could legitimately argue that gay males are an abomination because they threaten their ability to procreate (I'd say this argument is slightly weaker though given the amount of time involved in the procreation process for members of each gender.)
Secondly you put forward 'The same could be said of whether your neighbor has 20 partners, or none. Male partners or female. It's no skin off your nose either way.' – absolutely wrong – given that the male female split is approximately 50/50 (yes I know that there is a slight discrepancy but not enough to make a significant difference). If you create a situation where each male with partners has 20 female partners, you end up with 95% of males having no female partner and thus not being able to procreate, do you still argue that that is no skin off the noses of the 47.5% of the popluation that are not able to further their genetic material. I'm damn sure I wouldn't, I'd actually say that it was more like a recipe for a bloodbath.
30th May 2008 at 4:41 pm | permalink |@Ian: Well, OK. I hadn't been looking at it in the same frame of reference. Sure, if a large number of men started hoarding women, it might create a shortage. As far as that leading to a bloodbath, I suppose we'll see what happens over in China, as their female-deficient generations reach adulthood and marriage age, eh?
That said, I don't forsee any mass cultural change happening where all heterosexual men regularly take 20 wives, so on that scale, I think it's a bit of a moot point. Not to mention, if your neighbor only 'hoards' two wives, isn't the gay fellow down the street making up for it, by 'using up' one or more of the surplus men created? ;-)
Really, I was thinking more along the lines of polyamorous relationships, where there are generally multiples of both genders involved, but which get maligned as immoral by the majority monogamist society.
And while yes, there is a significant individual reproductive drive, I don't think most men who taunt lesbians are thinking, "Damn lesbians! They'll never let me knock them up," while they're doing it.
And I do not in any way think hetero folk have ANY "legitimate" reason to think homo folk are an abomination for not breeding with them … in any individual case, I'd pretty much guarantee there are a lot MORE unavailable potential hetero partners, due to simple lack of mutual attraction, than there are potential partners who are unavailable for breeding due to homosexuality. ;-)
But then again, I suppose a rapist could use the reasoning that any unwilling woman, straight or not, was an abomination for hampering the cooperative spread of his semen, eh?
30th May 2008 at 4:57 pm | permalink |Oh fuck – I've just thought this argument through a bit further……..
Basically it implies that if you are heterosexual and you have a natural instinct to continue your genetic line then it is in your best interests to ensure that the generation that follows you is strongly heterosexual too – thus you should therefore have a strong interest in gender stereotyping your children.
(Ian expects serious flak for this argument :( )
30th May 2008 at 4:57 pm | permalink |@Ian: I'm not sure how much I buy the "it's evolution" argument when it gets down to issues that specific … there are plenty of homosexuals want children too, and I know plenty of bi/hetero folks (myself included) who don't. I know plenty of homophobes who have no kids, and want no kids … and I know plenty of folks *with* kids who'd love to have grandkids some day, but raise their children to be accepting and openminded.
Now, I suppose you could argue that the more ignorant a person is to start with, the more likely they are to obey their base instincts … but I'm really thoroughly unconvinced that gender stereotyping (beyond the very basic: woman cares for small children, man handles duties that children prevent woman from attending to) is an evolutionary/genetic thing. Boy's aren't supposed to like the color pink, for instance. Girls aren't supposed to climb trees or enjoy rough-housing, for another.
In short, I remain unconvinced. ;-) I still say there's no good reason for it.
30th May 2008 at 5:25 pm | permalink |"I suppose we'll see what happens over in China, as their female-deficient generations reach adulthood and marriage age, eh?"
I think that the Chinese government, despite their appalling human rights record, are actually taking measures to prevent this situation getting too far out of hand. (Additionally there appears to be a certain amount of importing of females from neighbouring less strong economies already taking place.)
"I don't forsee any mass cultural change happening where all heterosexual men regularly take 20 wives, so on that scale"
Neither do I, however you can see how the religious mores against such activity could have come to pass.
"isn't the gay fellow down the street making up for it, by 'using up' one or more of the surplus men created?"
On the other hand the lesbian couple at the other end of the street are exacerbating the situation.
"Really, I was thinking more along the lines of polyamorous relationships, where there are generally multiples of both genders involved, but which get maligned as immoral by the majority monogamist society."
I have absolutely nothing against polyamorous relationships and wouldn't argue against them as long as they are for the most part having a relatively balanced male/female split. Robert Heinlein (he of Starship Troopers fame) actually discusses a number of polyamorous relationship models, in a positive light, in some of his novels. (I can cite the titles if you wish to read them -but would need a couple of hours to dig them out again.)
"And while yes, there is a significant individual reproductive drive, I don't think most men who taunt lesbians are thinking, "Damn lesbians! They'll never let me knock them up," while they're doing it."
Agree totally – but there is plenty of scope for serious discussion of subconscious reactions in these instances.
"And I do not in any way think hetero folk have ANY "legitimate" reason to think homo folk are an abomination for not breeding with them … in any individual case,"
Neither do I in our current society, as our male/female balance is reasonable. My arguments were theoretical in this respect – it is only if the male/female ratio goes out of kilter, that significant problems would occur – and in my view only if/when the number of available males significantly exceeds the number of available females, I think society would probably adapt reasonably well to an imbalance the other way round.
"But then again, I suppose a rapist could use the reasoning that any unwilling woman, straight or not, was an abomination for hampering the cooperative spread of his semen, eh?"
Yes – and they probably do unfortunately. This could be a case of the over gender conditioning of some males in our current society. (I'm sure there's an interesting post discussing the potential causes of rape sometime in the future.)
30th May 2008 at 5:34 pm | permalink |Well, that is a lot to think about.
30th May 2008 at 5:45 pm | permalink |first. if we couldn't think about differences in color, how can we come about?
distinction between us and animals is a mater of brainpower.
suddenly we have no more power left? Were did it go? Is it because of facts, or fiction? And furthermore, Who is going to tell us what is wrong or what is not? In a painting it's not the person who observes it, it's the person who made it, and all that is subjective.
Or, what the hell is objective?
"there are plenty of homosexuals want children too, and I know plenty of bi/hetero folks (myself included) who don't."
There's another category to add to those outlined in your initial post – those who want kids and those who don't – and that would take the number of combinations up to 72 if my maths isn't fading at this time of night.
"but I'm really thoroughly unconvinced that gender stereotyping (beyond the very basic: woman cares for small children, man handles duties that children prevent woman from attending to) is an evolutionary/genetic thing"
I too am uncovinced on this issue – but the more I think about it the more complicated the whole issue becomes – and I'm not a trained psychologist, sociologist, biologist and probably another half a dozen ologists that I've never even heard of.
30th May 2008 at 5:47 pm | permalink |@Ian: I see very well where a great many religious proscriptions come from, but I would argue that they're irrelevant in a modern society … and as for polygamy specifically, there are quite a few societies and religions where that was/is accepted and encouraged, so it's hardly a universal taboo.
The only legitimate argument I can see against group marriages in modern society is if (as in the case of the Texas polygamist group that has been taking up far too much headline space in the news over here of late) the children actually don't know who their parents are. In that case, it becomes pretty impossible to avoid violating the incest taboo, which exists for very sound genetic reasons.
But in regards to subconscious reactions, I refer once again to my trusty quote file: "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." — Wendell Berry
I'd like to think our big brains are good for something other than waging technologically advanced warfare and finding other creative ways of destroying the earth. ;-)
30th May 2008 at 5:52 pm | permalink |@bill: Yup … when it comes to human behavior, it seems the more questions one asks, the fewer answers one finds and the more new questions arise.
@Ian: The desire to have kids isn't something I'd put into the category of basic, hardwired traits … I know during my life, I've gone back and forth on the issue many times (but mostly ending up on the 'no thanks' side).
30th May 2008 at 5:57 pm | permalink |Hmmm,
Kind of connects to your earlier posts about small towns. I've lived in some of the biggest cities in the U.S. in my youth (Philly, Boston) and I currently live in a moderate-sized city and I occasionally work in some VERY small towns in this state (read: no postal addresses, post office delivers to a central location and not all roads are paved).
One very noticeable difference between urban and rural living is there was more of a live-and-let-live mentality in the big cities. When I go see people now in these small towns, some all but demand to know what church I go to and think there's something wrong with me because I'm 31, married, and have no children. This still exists in the big cities, but I find more people either mind their own business or are more open-minded in urban areas. Sometimes I'm afraid if they ever found out my religious affiliations, I'd get lynched. I can't even imagine what might happen to me if I broadcasted a character trait those people thought would be gay (used to be a pit musician, so I actually do have those traits…tee hee). Usually, the worst thing I ever get in the big cities is people wonder why I'm a male named Elie (ask my damn parents).
30th May 2008 at 5:58 pm | permalink |I understand the basic need to have children, to reproduce. I don't understand the need to fuck small children.
30th May 2008 at 6:10 pm | permalink |Anyone with such urges should be dealt with thereafter..
@Elie: I think the small town thing is a tribal/herd instinct holdover. Humans evolved in small groups, and had to protect their small groups from neighboring small groups. Conformity and tradition are big parts of the social adhesion of a small tribal group … in a big city there are simply too many people to identify with them all on a tribal level, so people tend to form subgroups and subcultures within the larger city.
From my limited experience in large cities, showing up as a loner 'newbie' in a distinct social group gets you the same treatment as a loner newcomer in a small town: the suspicious looks, the few individuals who initially approach you to chit-chat (read: check you out), and then when they broadcast their approval to the group, you start to become accepted. (Of course, if you have a friend on the 'inside' of either social group, it all goes much more smoothly. ;-)
bill: Yeah, I already wrote a post about that. ;-)
30th May 2008 at 8:32 pm | permalink |@ Ian, Alpha, et al.:
Ian says: "Secondly you put forward 'The same could be said of whether your neighbor has 20 partners, or none. Male partners or female. It's no skin off your nose either way.' – absolutely wrong – given that the male female split is approximately 50/50 (yes I know that there is a slight discrepancy but not enough to make a significant difference). If you create a situation where each male with partners has 20 female partners, you end up with 95% of males having no female partner and thus not being able to procreate, do you still argue that that is no skin off the noses of the 47.5% of the popluation that are not able to further their genetic material. I'm damn sure I wouldn't, I'd actually say that it was more like a recipe for a bloodbath."
To which I am amazed that no one pointed out the fact that this is a sex-based bias about sex-based bias. is it not possible that a woman could have 20 husbands? Why is it that polygamy always HAS TO BE a case of men having multiple wives? If we look at it, polygamy goes both ways, and permits multiple husbands as it does multiple wives.
… In my defense, I would have responded sooner, but I went out for dinner.
30th May 2008 at 9:11 pm | permalink |@Becca: Well, in his next comment, he specifically said that he thought society would adapt fairly well to a shortage of men due to a polyandrous norm (and yeah, polygamy does only mean multiple female partners, polyandry is multiple male partners).
And personally, considering the number of abusive men who kill their ex-wives/girlfriends out of jealousy compared to the number of women who kill their ex-husbands/boyfriends, the number of men who commit rape compared to female rapists, and the overall statistics regarding male violent crime compared to female violent crime … the idea that large numbers of hetero men deprived of sexual companionship due to large-scale, inequitable 'pussy hoarding' by a minority of their peers would spark some kind of violent backlash doesn't seem terribly unrealistic. ;-)
All men? Nah, of course not. But it doesn't take all of any large group to start some major shit.
As for having dinner, where are your damn priorities, woman?!
30th May 2008 at 10:09 pm | permalink |Okay, I've had a bit too many sips of single malt scotch to read through all of the philosophical/sociological comments, but have you read any of Richard Dawkins books? I'm relatively certain he covers some of this in his books when he talks about in groups and others. I have just finished "The God Delusion" and am starting "Unweaving the Rainbow" I am utterly entranced by his writing. I was not totally sure I was an atheist until I read him. After that I was convinced. Anyway, that is all for tonight.
30th May 2008 at 10:15 pm | permalink |@akshelby: mmmm. Single malt … mmmmm *jealous*
Haven't read Dawkins … I've heard great things about his stuff though. He's on my list. :-)
30th May 2008 at 10:36 pm | permalink |@alphabitch: Holding hands is hardly what I'd deem "shoving it in my face". What I mean are the people who absolutely have no good reason to proclaim their sexuality aloud and then proceed to do so anyway. The kind of people who wear "gay pride" shirts everywhere, litter their office/cubicle with rainbow flags/stickers/etc., and do everything in their power to let people know they're gay. (Same goes for straight people as well, though usually straight people aren't all that loud about their sexuality — in my experience, anyway; YMMV.) Being what could be called "bisexual" myself, I don't see the need to let everyone know I'm bi, but if someone asks, I'm more than willing to let them know with a simple, concise answer rather than doing everything I can to let everyone in a five-mile radius know I'm bi. Same goes for religion, politics, and other subjects that are apt to cause more arguments than agreements.
(Sorry for the very late/delayed reply; been busy.)
31st May 2008 at 10:43 pm | permalink |Great post! I hope someday changing whenever you want will be possible.
1st June 2008 at 2:37 am | permalink |