Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
poly = greedy?
Skip to first unread message
nickie{D}
Mar 21, 2013, 7:12:16 AM3/21/13
to
Came out to my butcher the other day. The context was that he has seen
a male person accompanying me on occasion and he asked after my husband.
I looked momentarily confused, and then said, "Oh, you must mean [male
name] - I don't have a husband. I have two partners, actually, and
[female name] is my civil partner. [male name] is also our partner."
To which he replied, "Oh, isn't that rather greedy?" My response was to
say, "No, it isn't greedy, because we all share each other." The
conversation went no further - I wonder how common an attitude it is though?
--
nickie{D}
a male person accompanying me on occasion and he asked after my husband.
I looked momentarily confused, and then said, "Oh, you must mean [male
name] - I don't have a husband. I have two partners, actually, and
[female name] is my civil partner. [male name] is also our partner."
To which he replied, "Oh, isn't that rather greedy?" My response was to
say, "No, it isn't greedy, because we all share each other." The
conversation went no further - I wonder how common an attitude it is though?
--
nickie{D}
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 21, 2013, 1:48:31 PM3/21/13
to
In article <ar088l...@mid.individual.net>,
attitude some people seem to have, although I'm not sure how serious
they are about it. It doesn't seem to come with the hatred of some
remarks.
nickie{D} <nic...@meeble.net> wrote:
>To which he replied, "Oh, isn't that rather greedy?" My response
>was to say, "No, it isn't greedy, because we all share each other."
>The conversation went no further - I wonder how common an attitude
>it is though?
I've heard it before, and also applied to bisexuals. It's an
>To which he replied, "Oh, isn't that rather greedy?" My response
>was to say, "No, it isn't greedy, because we all share each other."
>The conversation went no further - I wonder how common an attitude
>it is though?
attitude some people seem to have, although I'm not sure how serious
they are about it. It doesn't seem to come with the hatred of some
remarks.
Russ Allbery
Mar 21, 2013, 1:57:51 PM3/21/13
to
society is constructed. Like they think that the goal of human relations
is to take the roughly equal numbers of men and women and pair them off to
achieve some sort of consistent and aesthetic mathematical relationship,
which would be distorted by someone taking more than one of the opposite
sex. (I don't think any of this is conscious; it seems like the sort of
statement that's coming from a "first thought that popped into my head"
reaction.)
I have a similar reaction to the occasional news stories about "shortages"
of men or women in particular regions or locations.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 21, 2013, 2:09:59 PM3/21/13
to
In article <871ub8r...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
when people aren't thinking of polyamory at all, straight men will
bemoan how much "harder" it is for them to date than it is for
straight women. Even when I remind them that every monogamous
heterosexual relationship has exactly the same number of men and
women in it, they insist on their point of view. (And it's even
more pointless to remind them there are more women than men in the
world.) So these people seem like they'd be quite prone to the
"greedy" idea.
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>It always makes me feel like people have a very odd conception of
>how society is constructed. Like they think that the goal of human
>relations is to take the roughly equal numbers of men and women and
>pair them off to achieve some sort of consistent and aesthetic
>mathematical relationship, which would be distorted by someone
>taking more than one of the opposite sex.
You're probably right. It's a bit like the mentality where, even
>It always makes me feel like people have a very odd conception of
>how society is constructed. Like they think that the goal of human
>relations is to take the roughly equal numbers of men and women and
>pair them off to achieve some sort of consistent and aesthetic
>mathematical relationship, which would be distorted by someone
>taking more than one of the opposite sex.
when people aren't thinking of polyamory at all, straight men will
bemoan how much "harder" it is for them to date than it is for
straight women. Even when I remind them that every monogamous
heterosexual relationship has exactly the same number of men and
women in it, they insist on their point of view. (And it's even
more pointless to remind them there are more women than men in the
world.) So these people seem like they'd be quite prone to the
"greedy" idea.
Ed
Mar 21, 2013, 3:30:52 PM3/21/13
to
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:12:16 AM UTC-5, nickie{D} wrote:
> Came out to my butcher the other day.
Wait! You have a butcher?
> Came out to my butcher the other day.
Ed
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
songbird
Mar 22, 2013, 10:16:41 AM3/22/13
to
Chickpea wrote:
...
> What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some* reason,
> is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount of the work to
> get laid.
>
> It's also understood that, with some exceptions, men tend to
> over-estimate their attractiveness and women tend to under-estimate it
> (more due to social pressures than anything intrinsic, I suspect), so
> they bemoan they are not meeting the "chicks they deserve" - which
> immediately leads them to suspect that someone is getting more than
> their fair share[1].
>
> As long as you perceive it as a zero-sum game, this perception will be
> there- which is why the hard-of-thinking are less down on swinging than
> on poly, in general; it's seen to be at least approximately even-handed.
>
> [1] Because otherwise the fault might be in them, right? That can't be
> the answer!
*twitch*
i am having "askout" conversation flashbacks
from soc.singles...
*grins*&*giggles*
songbird
...
> What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some* reason,
> is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount of the work to
> get laid.
>
> It's also understood that, with some exceptions, men tend to
> over-estimate their attractiveness and women tend to under-estimate it
> (more due to social pressures than anything intrinsic, I suspect), so
> they bemoan they are not meeting the "chicks they deserve" - which
> immediately leads them to suspect that someone is getting more than
> their fair share[1].
>
> As long as you perceive it as a zero-sum game, this perception will be
> there- which is why the hard-of-thinking are less down on swinging than
> on poly, in general; it's seen to be at least approximately even-handed.
>
> [1] Because otherwise the fault might be in them, right? That can't be
> the answer!
*twitch*
i am having "askout" conversation flashbacks
from soc.singles...
*grins*&*giggles*
songbird
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 22, 2013, 6:28:50 PM3/22/13
to
In article <s5iok856et004a7lo...@4ax.com>,
Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some*
>reason, is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount
>of the work to get laid.
Well... the receiving side of this behavior is no picnic.
>What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some*
>reason, is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount
>of the work to get laid.
nickie{D}
Mar 24, 2013, 7:38:31 AM3/24/13
to
loyal customer, so in that sense he is my butcher, LOL!
It's lovely having an actual butcher's shop and not having to rely on
supermarkets for meat. He also sells fish and veggies, so my weekly
trip on my bicycle over to his shop (about half a mile away, the bike is
more for carrying capacity than distance reasons, I could walk it easily
enough, but can't carry home the goods without pain) is a treat as well
as a chore.
--
nickie{D}
m_c_v...@yahoo.com
Mar 24, 2013, 11:50:40 AM3/24/13
to
M.C.V. Egan
m_c_v...@yahoo.com
Mar 24, 2013, 11:51:57 AM3/24/13
to
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 7:12:16 AM UTC-4, nickie{D} wrote:
Message has been deleted
A
Mar 25, 2013, 2:32:11 PM3/25/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:10:02 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
> As long as you perceive it as a zero-sum game, this perception will be
> there- which is why the hard-of-thinking are less down on swinging than
> on poly, in general; it's seen to be at least approximately even-handed.
To be fair, in a monogamous society, it pretty much is a zero sum game; a
> As long as you perceive it as a zero-sum game, this perception will be
> there- which is why the hard-of-thinking are less down on swinging than
> on poly, in general; it's seen to be at least approximately even-handed.
mate to one person isn't available to any other person. If the mate pool is
symmetrical (it isn't, but it's fairly close) then when a person takes more
than one partner, *somebody* somewhere gets left out.
Polyamory pretty much sidesteps this by dropping exclusivity, but that
doesn't help the people who don't adopt it.
Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex icky that,
while I share their visceral aversion, I'm still *totally in favor of male
gay sex*, on the grounds that two men who are busy with each other are men
I don't have to compete with.
(Also on moral grounds, that what they do is none of my damn business --
but I leave that part out for amusement's sake.)
--
A
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 25, 2013, 2:36:15 PM3/25/13
to
In article <e3jzog9u621e$.1b1vx90u...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex
>icky that, while I share their visceral aversion, I'm still *totally
>in favor of male gay sex*, on the grounds that two men who are
>busy with each other are men I don't have to compete with.
I'm so glad that my romantic life doesn't involve competition.
>Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex
>icky that, while I share their visceral aversion, I'm still *totally
>in favor of male gay sex*, on the grounds that two men who are
>busy with each other are men I don't have to compete with.
A
Mar 25, 2013, 2:48:35 PM3/25/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:28:50 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> In article <s5iok856et004a7lo...@4ax.com>,
> Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some*
>>reason, is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount
>>of the work to get laid.
Not to mention experiencing a disproportionate amount of the rejection.
> In article <s5iok856et004a7lo...@4ax.com>,
> Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some*
>>reason, is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount
>>of the work to get laid.
It's probably inevitable; on average, men want to get laid a lot more than
women. Simple supply and demand dictates that it's a woman's market.
I'm sometimes glad I opted out of the dating game before starting. (not
because it was beneath me, but because it frickin terrified me)
> Well... the receiving side of this behavior is no picnic.
it in "Self-Made Man." She felt the men got the worse end of the deal.
--
A
A
Mar 25, 2013, 2:53:20 PM3/25/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:03:48 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
> It's particularly where there is an excess of males that it tends to
> cause social unrest- there is typically binge drinking and violent
> behaviour.
I'm curious if there are any studies about the effects of an imbalance in
the other direction.
--
A
> It's particularly where there is an excess of males that it tends to
> cause social unrest- there is typically binge drinking and violent
> behaviour.
I'm curious if there are any studies about the effects of an imbalance in
the other direction.
--
A
Russ Allbery
Mar 25, 2013, 2:55:34 PM3/25/13
to
A <x@y.z> writes:
> Not to mention experiencing a disproportionate amount of the rejection.
> It's probably inevitable; on average, men want to get laid a lot more
> than women.
This is one of those bits of popular wisdom that everyone believes on the
> Not to mention experiencing a disproportionate amount of the rejection.
> It's probably inevitable; on average, men want to get laid a lot more
> than women.
basis of basically no reliable scientific evidence whatsoever. I'm pretty
dubious of it myself. There are significant historical reasons for
systematically underplaying female sexuality and conditioning women to not
respond positively to discussion of sex, which is in turn reflected in
survey results, and there's little behind the above belief other than
survey results.
I think you'd be on firmer ground if you said that, on average, men feel
more comfortable talking about wanting to get laid than women do. But
that isn't as interesting of a statement.
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 25, 2013, 3:00:53 PM3/25/13
to
In article <1mlcob3wivex2$.vxbzhav5a4y4$.d...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>Simple supply and demand dictates that it's a woman's market.
Completely disagree.
>Simple supply and demand dictates that it's a woman's market.
>At least one person has experienced both sides -- Norah Vincent
>wrote about it in "Self-Made Man." She felt the men got the worse
>end of the deal.
disguise, and she's welcome to her opinion.
Besides the obvious fact that there's rough equality of numbers in
the heterosexual dating market, we live under patriarchy. Although
I believe that most men would be better off without patriarchy, that
isn't all of them -- by a longshot.
I am utterly unsympathetic to this "men have it worse" thing. Maybe
some individuals have it worse, and I'm sure they do, but the moment
they start generalizing their personal problems as a broad issue of
being men, they completely miss the point.
A
Mar 25, 2013, 3:06:23 PM3/25/13
to
state of affairs for most people -- especially monogamists.
I don't mean the bit that you're quoting all that seriously. It's just my
way of poking fun at people who are assuming that their ick-response says
anything important about what Should Be.
--
A
Message has been deleted
A
Mar 25, 2013, 3:26:34 PM3/25/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:55:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> A <x@y.z> writes:
>
>> Not to mention experiencing a disproportionate amount of the rejection.
>> It's probably inevitable; on average, men want to get laid a lot more
>> than women.
>
> This is one of those bits of popular wisdom that everyone believes on the
> basis of basically no reliable scientific evidence whatsoever. I'm pretty
> dubious of it myself.
The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head is
> A <x@y.z> writes:
>
>> Not to mention experiencing a disproportionate amount of the rejection.
>> It's probably inevitable; on average, men want to get laid a lot more
>> than women.
>
> This is one of those bits of popular wisdom that everyone believes on the
> basis of basically no reliable scientific evidence whatsoever. I'm pretty
> dubious of it myself.
prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid when other
methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost invariably not. Yes,
there are male prostitutes, but from what I've heard their clientele is
also heavily skewed towards men.
> I think you'd be on firmer ground if you said that, on average, men feel
> more comfortable talking about wanting to get laid than women do. But
> that isn't as interesting of a statement.
relevant in the original context.
--
A
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 25, 2013, 3:38:39 PM3/25/13
to
In article <6qbmkuljtkk9$.1vn178qn...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head
>is prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid
>when other methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost
>invariably not.
One of the most "charming" conversations I encounter is when a
>The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head
>is prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid
>when other methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost
>invariably not.
divorced man (not necessarily "recently," mind you) explains to
those around him -- by way of how much his divorce settlement cost
-- how much it cost him *per fuck* with his wife, versus the price
of prostitution. Always love it.
Anyway, how does the scenario you've described affect the underlying
situation, namely the sexually heteronormative dating pool? Hint:
It's not a positive for women.
Russ Allbery
Mar 25, 2013, 3:46:45 PM3/25/13
to
A <x@y.z> writes:
> The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head is
> prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid when other
> methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost invariably not.
> Yes, there are male prostitutes, but from what I've heard their
> clientele is also heavily skewed towards men.
Surely this is heavily socially determined and doesn't necessarily
> The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head is
> prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid when other
> methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost invariably not.
> Yes, there are male prostitutes, but from what I've heard their
> clientele is also heavily skewed towards men.
indicate any difference in *desire*, no? There is little significant
history of male prostitution with female clients because, until fairly
recently, women were largely not allowed to own property, therefore had no
way of paying for such prostitutes, and were largely not given the
personal freedom of movement that would let them arrange discrete liaisons
the way that men do. Even if some of the limiting factors no longer
apply, it can take quite a lot time to change cultural norms.
This says little to nothing about female desire for sex, and quite a lot
about the social and economic construction of sex work and the prevailing
power balances in the larger society.
A
Mar 25, 2013, 4:54:25 PM3/25/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:38:39 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> In article <6qbmkuljtkk9$.1vn178qn...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>>The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head
>>is prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid
>>when other methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost
>>invariably not.
>
> One of the most "charming" conversations I encounter is when a
> divorced man (not necessarily "recently," mind you) explains to
> those around him -- by way of how much his divorce settlement cost
> -- how much it cost him *per fuck* with his wife, versus the price
> of prostitution. Always love it.
I'm inclined to wonder if that sort of attitude is part of why he ended up
> In article <6qbmkuljtkk9$.1vn178qn...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>>The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head
>>is prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid
>>when other methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost
>>invariably not.
>
> One of the most "charming" conversations I encounter is when a
> divorced man (not necessarily "recently," mind you) explains to
> those around him -- by way of how much his divorce settlement cost
> -- how much it cost him *per fuck* with his wife, versus the price
> of prostitution. Always love it.
divorced. Divorce law does pretty much shit on men, but it sounds like that
particular man deserves it.
> Anyway, how does the scenario you've described affect the underlying
> situation, namely the sexually heteronormative dating pool? Hint:
> It's not a positive for women.
If you mean the "men want to get laid more than women" bit, then presumably
that's good for the women in the dating pool. If someone else needs you
more than you need them, you're in the position of power, at least within
that context.
If you mean the gender distribution among prostitutes' customers, that
probably works against women in the dating pool because it presents an
alternative option to taking part in it, reducing (or eliminating, or
possibly even reversing) the imbalance. So, bad for women in the dating
pool -- but I'm not sure one could argue that it's bad for women on
average. Certainly not for the prostitutes, who can make a good living out
of it.
It probably breaks even for the men, who trade the pains of sexual
rejection for the pains of a somewhat lighter wallet.
(the preceding is speculation. I'm not aware of any reliable studies on the
subject)
--
A
A
Mar 25, 2013, 5:01:17 PM3/25/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:46:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> A <x@y.z> writes:
>
>> The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head is
>> prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid when other
>> methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost invariably not.
>> Yes, there are male prostitutes, but from what I've heard their
>> clientele is also heavily skewed towards men.
>
> Surely this is heavily socially determined and doesn't necessarily
> indicate any difference in *desire*, no? There is little significant
> history of male prostitution with female clients because, until fairly
> recently, women were largely not allowed to own property, therefore had no
> way of paying for such prostitutes, and were largely not given the
> personal freedom of movement that would let them arrange discrete liaisons
> the way that men do.
My understanding is that the pattern holds even in historical cultures
> A <x@y.z> writes:
>
>> The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head is
>> prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid when other
>> methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost invariably not.
>> Yes, there are male prostitutes, but from what I've heard their
>> clientele is also heavily skewed towards men.
>
> Surely this is heavily socially determined and doesn't necessarily
> indicate any difference in *desire*, no? There is little significant
> history of male prostitution with female clients because, until fairly
> recently, women were largely not allowed to own property, therefore had no
> way of paying for such prostitutes, and were largely not given the
> personal freedom of movement that would let them arrange discrete liaisons
> the way that men do.
where women held property and had significant personal freedom. But there's
no reason you should take my word for it; I'll see if I can find a
reference.
--
A
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 25, 2013, 5:13:19 PM3/25/13
to
In article <1od2z9yy7qs8l.1nrfzzt1c64y1$.d...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>Divorce law does pretty much shit on men, ....
Community property, you mean?
>I'm not sure which aspect of my last couple of posts you're asking
>about.
>If you mean the "men want to get laid more than women" bit ....
>If you mean the gender distribution among prostitutes' customers ....
The articulation of the two. The "men want to get laid more" thing
is meaningless in isolation, if we're discussing "who has it harder"
in the heteronormative dating pool. (And, like Russ, I have never
seen any proof that libido is conditioned by gender. I'm rather
sure it isn't.)
>It probably breaks even for the men, who trade the pains of sexual
>rejection for the pains of a somewhat lighter wallet.
And what of emotional distance?
The stupid attitudes & behaviors required for conformance to sexual
heteronormativity are basically symmetric across gender -- by which
I mean, there are reciprocal stupid attitudes & behaviors demanded
of the other gender, to preserve the imposed binary. However, this
reciprocity is worked out on the tilted plane of patriarchy, where
women are always downhill, so to speak. So yes, these stupid
attitudes & behaviors break even, but only on that plane.
The only place men *might* be seen to have it worse is if they want
to _break out_ of sexual heteronormativity (SHN), because of course
they're expected to enforce the rules of patriarchy (as stated so
eloquently in the dating maxim, "bros before hos"). So we're told
inane things like "women's sexuality is more fluid" (inane because
it's stated as pre-cultural), and men are under more threat of
violence if they flout SHN with PDA, etc. But that's only if looking
to break out of SHN; within it, men are on top (literally).
>Divorce law does pretty much shit on men, ....
Community property, you mean?
>I'm not sure which aspect of my last couple of posts you're asking
>about.
>If you mean the gender distribution among prostitutes' customers ....
The articulation of the two. The "men want to get laid more" thing
is meaningless in isolation, if we're discussing "who has it harder"
in the heteronormative dating pool. (And, like Russ, I have never
seen any proof that libido is conditioned by gender. I'm rather
sure it isn't.)
>It probably breaks even for the men, who trade the pains of sexual
>rejection for the pains of a somewhat lighter wallet.
The stupid attitudes & behaviors required for conformance to sexual
heteronormativity are basically symmetric across gender -- by which
I mean, there are reciprocal stupid attitudes & behaviors demanded
of the other gender, to preserve the imposed binary. However, this
reciprocity is worked out on the tilted plane of patriarchy, where
women are always downhill, so to speak. So yes, these stupid
attitudes & behaviors break even, but only on that plane.
The only place men *might* be seen to have it worse is if they want
to _break out_ of sexual heteronormativity (SHN), because of course
they're expected to enforce the rules of patriarchy (as stated so
eloquently in the dating maxim, "bros before hos"). So we're told
inane things like "women's sexuality is more fluid" (inane because
it's stated as pre-cultural), and men are under more threat of
violence if they flout SHN with PDA, etc. But that's only if looking
to break out of SHN; within it, men are on top (literally).
Message has been deleted
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 25, 2013, 6:18:58 PM3/25/13
to
On 3/25/2013 11:48 AM, A wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:28:50 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>
>> In article <s5iok856et004a7lo...@4ax.com>,
>> Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>> What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some*
>>> reason, is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount
>>> of the work to get laid.
>
> Not to mention experiencing a disproportionate amount of the rejection.
> It's probably inevitable; on average, men want to get laid a lot more than
> women. Simple supply and demand dictates that it's a woman's market.
I guess I have trouble with conversations about relationships where the
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:28:50 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>
>> In article <s5iok856et004a7lo...@4ax.com>,
>> Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>> What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some*
>>> reason, is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount
>>> of the work to get laid.
>
> Not to mention experiencing a disproportionate amount of the rejection.
> It's probably inevitable; on average, men want to get laid a lot more than
> women. Simple supply and demand dictates that it's a woman's market.
goal seems to be just about getting sex. Not that that goal is a bad
thing per se, but it's so stereotypical. Anyway, not a criticism, just
an observation.
I think people have different desires that don't necessarily align with
their gender expectations. I think what people consider sex has lots of
variation. Seems the narrower your definition of what sex is the
likelier you are to be disappointed. I also don't think you can discount
that the stakes for many women is higher than for many men. Cis men (if
I'm using that term correctly) don't have to worry about getting
pregnant as an obvious example.
>
> I'm sometimes glad I opted out of the dating game before starting. (not
> because it was beneath me, but because it frickin terrified me)
>
>> Well... the receiving side of this behavior is no picnic.
>
> At least one person has experienced both sides -- Norah Vincent wrote about
> it in "Self-Made Man." She felt the men got the worse end of the deal.
>
don't have an answer, I just think we deal with different obstacles
--
Guy W. Thomas
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/
"There's a rule in acting called, 'Don't play the result.' If you have a
character who's going to end up in a certain place, don't play that
until you get there. Play each scene and each beat as it comes. And
that's what you do in life: You don't play the result."
-- Michael J. Fox
Russ Allbery
Mar 25, 2013, 6:19:52 PM3/25/13
to
characteristics that was also sufficiently urbanized that anonymous sex
for money would be socially possible. But this could very well be a flaw
in my historical knowledge.
Most historical societies are fairly thoroughly patriarchal, although the
details of the patriarchal enforcement of course vary. Most exceptions
(indeed, all exceptions that I'm aware of) are fairly small
tribally-structured societies, which change the dynamic around sex work in
a different way.
Steve Pope
Mar 25, 2013, 6:31:03 PM3/25/13
to
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>A <x@y.z> writes:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:46:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Surely this is heavily socially determined and doesn't necessarily
>>> indicate any difference in *desire*, no? There is little significant
>>> history of male prostitution with female clients because, until fairly
>>> recently, women were largely not allowed to own property, therefore had
>>> no way of paying for such prostitutes, and were largely not given the
>>> personal freedom of movement that would let them arrange discrete
>>> liaisons the way that men do.
>
>> My understanding is that the pattern holds even in historical cultures
>> where women held property and had significant personal freedom. But
>> there's no reason you should take my word for it; I'll see if I can find
>> a reference.
>
>Off the top of my head, I can't think of a historical society with those
>characteristics that was also sufficiently urbanized that anonymous sex
>for money would be socially possible. But this could very well be a flaw
>in my historical knowledge.
You slipped the word "anonymous" in there.
>A <x@y.z> writes:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:46:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Surely this is heavily socially determined and doesn't necessarily
>>> indicate any difference in *desire*, no? There is little significant
>>> history of male prostitution with female clients because, until fairly
>>> recently, women were largely not allowed to own property, therefore had
>>> no way of paying for such prostitutes, and were largely not given the
>>> personal freedom of movement that would let them arrange discrete
>>> liaisons the way that men do.
>
>> My understanding is that the pattern holds even in historical cultures
>> where women held property and had significant personal freedom. But
>> there's no reason you should take my word for it; I'll see if I can find
>> a reference.
>
>Off the top of my head, I can't think of a historical society with those
>characteristics that was also sufficiently urbanized that anonymous sex
>for money would be socially possible. But this could very well be a flaw
>in my historical knowledge.
Steve
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 25, 2013, 6:34:42 PM3/25/13
to
On 3/25/2013 11:32 AM, A wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:10:02 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
>
>> As long as you perceive it as a zero-sum game, this perception will be
>> there- which is why the hard-of-thinking are less down on swinging than
>> on poly, in general; it's seen to be at least approximately even-handed.
>
> To be fair, in a monogamous society, it pretty much is a zero sum game; a
> mate to one person isn't available to any other person. If the mate pool is
> symmetrical (it isn't, but it's fairly close) then when a person takes more
> than one partner, *somebody* somewhere gets left out.
People get left out. I don't think you can devise a system without some
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:10:02 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
>
>> As long as you perceive it as a zero-sum game, this perception will be
>> there- which is why the hard-of-thinking are less down on swinging than
>> on poly, in general; it's seen to be at least approximately even-handed.
>
> To be fair, in a monogamous society, it pretty much is a zero sum game; a
> mate to one person isn't available to any other person. If the mate pool is
> symmetrical (it isn't, but it's fairly close) then when a person takes more
> than one partner, *somebody* somewhere gets left out.
kind of coercion that wouldn't result in people getting left out.
>
> Polyamory pretty much sidesteps this by dropping exclusivity, but that
> doesn't help the people who don't adopt it.
It doesn't automatically help those who do either.
> Polyamory pretty much sidesteps this by dropping exclusivity, but that
> doesn't help the people who don't adopt it.
>
> Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex icky that,
> while I share their visceral aversion, I'm still *totally in favor of male
> gay sex*, on the grounds that two men who are busy with each other are men
> I don't have to compete with.
Charming.
> Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex icky that,
> while I share their visceral aversion, I'm still *totally in favor of male
> gay sex*, on the grounds that two men who are busy with each other are men
> I don't have to compete with.
> (Also on moral grounds, that what they do is none of my damn business --
> but I leave that part out for amusement's sake.)
>
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 25, 2013, 6:35:48 PM3/25/13
to
Steve Pope
Mar 25, 2013, 6:44:52 PM3/25/13
to
nickie{D} <nic...@meeble.net> wrote:
>Came out to my butcher the other day. The context was that he has seen
>a male person accompanying me on occasion and he asked after my husband.
> I looked momentarily confused, and then said, "Oh, you must mean [male
>name] - I don't have a husband. I have two partners, actually, and
>[female name] is my civil partner. [male name] is also our partner."
>To which he replied, "Oh, isn't that rather greedy?" My response was to
>say, "No, it isn't greedy, because we all share each other." The
>conversation went no further - I wonder how common an attitude it is though?
If you're in a jurisdiction in which having a civil partner confers
>Came out to my butcher the other day. The context was that he has seen
>a male person accompanying me on occasion and he asked after my husband.
> I looked momentarily confused, and then said, "Oh, you must mean [male
>name] - I don't have a husband. I have two partners, actually, and
>[female name] is my civil partner. [male name] is also our partner."
>To which he replied, "Oh, isn't that rather greedy?" My response was to
>say, "No, it isn't greedy, because we all share each other." The
>conversation went no further - I wonder how common an attitude it is though?
financial benefit or legal benefits, there will be some background
level of attitude against such partnerships.
In the U.S., part of the opposition to same-sex marriage is the belief
(so far as I know, ungrounded) that any expansion of marriage will
encourage more sham marriages -- the idea being under U.S. tax laws and
U.S. laws in general, it is usually highly advantageous to be married.
Particularly if this bias is combined with the bias of bisexual
erasure, some people are going to react against multiple relationships
where there is at least one legally recognized relationship.
This overlaps in some ways with other specific biases against married
polyamory. So I am wondering is the "greed" comment from your
butcher is linked to your reference to the existence of a civil union,
as opposed to a more general "polyamory is greedy" attitude.
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 25, 2013, 6:52:00 PM3/25/13
to
In article <87a9pr1...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
there have been more egalitarian societies, whether more egalitarian
on particular axes of power, or splitting power across different
axes, there is no known society where women hold all the reins to
the extent that men do/did in historical European civilization.
One aspect of power which Lerner treats in some detail, and which
I think is pretty interesting, although it might not sit well with
the atheist orientation in this group, is around the question "Who
can talk to God?" She actually treats this question as the most
indicative of the symbolic order of society.
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Most historical societies are fairly thoroughly patriarchal,
>although the details of the patriarchal enforcement of course vary.
According to Gerda Lerner in _The Creation of Patriarchy_, although
>Most historical societies are fairly thoroughly patriarchal,
>although the details of the patriarchal enforcement of course vary.
there have been more egalitarian societies, whether more egalitarian
on particular axes of power, or splitting power across different
axes, there is no known society where women hold all the reins to
the extent that men do/did in historical European civilization.
One aspect of power which Lerner treats in some detail, and which
I think is pretty interesting, although it might not sit well with
the atheist orientation in this group, is around the question "Who
can talk to God?" She actually treats this question as the most
indicative of the symbolic order of society.
Russ Allbery
Mar 25, 2013, 7:16:24 PM3/25/13
to
sex work people normally mean when they say prostitution and other ways of
organizing sexuality that could involve money (dowries, various
arrangements with paramours, etc.). I was also trying to distinguish from
ritual sexual practices, where presumably the libido of the parties is not
really the point. One of the things that normally defines prostitution is
relative anonymity, at least in the sense of no ongoing expectation of a
relationship.
If one expands the field into mistress-style relationships, I'll point out
that those are quite common for rich women as well as for rich men. I
don't know of statistics on the relative commonality, but it's at least
nowhere *near* as gender-skewed as prostitution currently is. Which again
makes me think that this has more to do with the specific characteristics
of prostitution than with desire in general.
Steve Pope
Mar 25, 2013, 7:28:38 PM3/25/13
to
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> A <x@y.z> writes:
>
>>>> My understanding is that the pattern holds even in historical cultures
>>>> where women held property and had significant personal freedom. But
>>>> there's no reason you should take my word for it; I'll see if I can
>>>> find a reference.
>
>>> Off the top of my head, I can't think of a historical society with
>>> those characteristics that was also sufficiently urbanized that
>>> anonymous sex for money would be socially possible. But this could
>>> very well be a flaw in my historical knowledge.
>
>> You slipped the word "anonymous" in there.
>
>I was trying (probably not very well) to distinguish between the sort of
>sex work people normally mean when they say prostitution and other ways of
>organizing sexuality that could involve money (dowries, various
>arrangements with paramours, etc.).
Hmmm. I guess I see prositution and anonymity as orthogonal, or
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> A <x@y.z> writes:
>
>>>> My understanding is that the pattern holds even in historical cultures
>>>> where women held property and had significant personal freedom. But
>>>> there's no reason you should take my word for it; I'll see if I can
>>>> find a reference.
>
>>> Off the top of my head, I can't think of a historical society with
>>> those characteristics that was also sufficiently urbanized that
>>> anonymous sex for money would be socially possible. But this could
>>> very well be a flaw in my historical knowledge.
>
>> You slipped the word "anonymous" in there.
>
>I was trying (probably not very well) to distinguish between the sort of
>sex work people normally mean when they say prostitution and other ways of
>organizing sexuality that could involve money (dowries, various
>arrangements with paramours, etc.).
nearly so, in the overall scheme of things.
>I was also trying to distinguish from
>ritual sexual practices, where presumably the libido of the parties is not
>really the point. One of the things that normally defines prostitution is
>relative anonymity,
>at least in the sense of no ongoing expectation of a
>relationship.
"get caught" breaking a fidelity agreement require discretion,
perhaps total anonymity, or perhaps pseudonymity within a
given social circle. But this is hardly definitional of
prostitution.
A person who is cheating requires nondisclosure. Perhaps it
can be said things other than sex are transacted as part of
prostitution, including nondisclosure, but the cheating individual
would require the same of a non-prostitute; conversely a non-cheating
individual might nontheless engage a prostitute and not care
about nondisclosure.
Once you layer on enough specific assumptions of a specific
subculture, then the two can become more closely linked. Or in other
subcultures, less closely linked.
Steve
Russ Allbery
Mar 25, 2013, 7:48:37 PM3/25/13
to
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> I was trying (probably not very well) to distinguish between the sort
>> of sex work people normally mean when they say prostitution and other
>> ways of organizing sexuality that could involve money (dowries, various
>> arrangements with paramours, etc.).
> Hmmm. I guess I see prositution and anonymity as orthogonal, or
> nearly so, in the overall scheme of things.
You are quite possibly correct. To be honest, I'm out of my depth in
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> I was trying (probably not very well) to distinguish between the sort
>> of sex work people normally mean when they say prostitution and other
>> ways of organizing sexuality that could involve money (dowries, various
>> arrangements with paramours, etc.).
> Hmmm. I guess I see prositution and anonymity as orthogonal, or
> nearly so, in the overall scheme of things.
trying to delimit the boundaries of prostitution or describe sex work from
a sociological standpoint; I know just enough about it to know that I know
very, very little about it, and that there's quite a bit of academic
research that I've not read.
The root problem I'm having is probably that anonymity was the wrong word.
What I was trying to get at was the concept of sex without social
attachment, sex that's treated as a commercial transaction rather than
either a component of a relationship or a mutual exchange outside of an
economic structure. I got that confused in my head with confidentiality,
but indeed those are largely unrelated concepts. Anonymity is the right
word only in a very unhelpful and metaphoric way (the "anonymity of the
market" sort of sense), and just confused matters.
What I was trying to get at is that I wouldn't expect to see that sort of
model of sex via commercial transaction in, say, a small village where
everyone knows each other. Or at least not with the same social
implications. You need a society of a certain size in order to have the
conditions (particularly the idea of an economic structure in which it
makes sense to treat sex as a purchasable commodity) for that sort of sex
work, I *think*. But I could well be wrong.
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 25, 2013, 8:01:21 PM3/25/13
to
In article <87boa7y...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
possible (a kind of society we know all too well, of course).
Transplanting the notion to different sorts of societies would
require some kind of translation, and while there are various
possibilities for that translation, I thought yours was a reasonable
first simplification-comparison.
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>What I was trying to get at was the concept of sex without social
>attachment, sex that's treated as a commercial transaction rather
>than either a component of a relationship or a mutual exchange
>outside of an economic structure.
Yes, it takes a particular kind of society to make that dynamic
>What I was trying to get at was the concept of sex without social
>attachment, sex that's treated as a commercial transaction rather
>than either a component of a relationship or a mutual exchange
>outside of an economic structure.
possible (a kind of society we know all too well, of course).
Transplanting the notion to different sorts of societies would
require some kind of translation, and while there are various
possibilities for that translation, I thought yours was a reasonable
first simplification-comparison.
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 25, 2013, 8:07:15 PM3/25/13
to
In article <kiqogh$i2$2...@usenet.stanford.edu>,
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>Transplanting the notion [prostitution] to different sorts of
>societies would require some kind of translation ....
It's also probably worth asking what one is really buying when
engaging a prostitute in our society. Sex, yes... but sex is readily
available for free. Besides sex, or perhaps more significantly,
one is buying freedom from any further attachment, emotional or
economic.
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>Transplanting the notion [prostitution] to different sorts of
>societies would require some kind of translation ....
It's also probably worth asking what one is really buying when
engaging a prostitute in our society. Sex, yes... but sex is readily
available for free. Besides sex, or perhaps more significantly,
one is buying freedom from any further attachment, emotional or
economic.
Ed
Mar 25, 2013, 11:12:49 PM3/25/13
to
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:38:31 AM UTC-5, nickie{D} wrote:
> On 21/03/2013 19:30, Ed wrote:
> >
>
> He's not my *personal* butcher - but he is a local butcher and I am a
> loyal customer, so in that sense he is my butcher, LOL!
>
> It's lovely having an actual butcher's shop and not having to rely on
> supermarkets for meat. He also sells fish and veggies, so my weekly
> trip on my bicycle over to his shop (about half a mile away, the bike is
> more for carrying capacity than distance reasons, I could walk it easily
> enough, but can't carry home the goods without pain) is a treat as well
> as a chore.
Sweet. That's increasingly rare in the States.
Ed
> On 21/03/2013 19:30, Ed wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:12:16 AM UTC-5, nickie{D} wrote:
>
> >> Came out to my butcher the other day.
> >
> > Wait! You have a butcher?
> > On Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:12:16 AM UTC-5, nickie{D} wrote:
>
> >> Came out to my butcher the other day.
> >
> >
>
> He's not my *personal* butcher - but he is a local butcher and I am a
> loyal customer, so in that sense he is my butcher, LOL!
>
> It's lovely having an actual butcher's shop and not having to rely on
> supermarkets for meat. He also sells fish and veggies, so my weekly
> trip on my bicycle over to his shop (about half a mile away, the bike is
> more for carrying capacity than distance reasons, I could walk it easily
> enough, but can't carry home the goods without pain) is a treat as well
> as a chore.
Sweet. That's increasingly rare in the States.
Ed
Ed
Mar 25, 2013, 11:16:08 PM3/25/13
to
On Monday, March 25, 2013 1:36:15 PM UTC-5, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> In article <e3jzog9u621e$.1b1vx90u...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>
> >Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex
> >icky that, while I share their visceral aversion,
Oh, grow up.
> In article <e3jzog9u621e$.1b1vx90u...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>
> >Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex
> >icky that, while I share their visceral aversion,
> I'm still *totally
> >in favor of male gay sex*, on the grounds that two men who are
> >busy with each other are men I don't have to compete with.
>
> I'm so glad that my romantic life doesn't involve competition.
Ed
Ed
Mar 25, 2013, 11:24:34 PM3/25/13
to
On Monday, March 25, 2013 3:54:25 PM UTC-5, A wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:38:39 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>
> > In article <6qbmkuljtkk9$.1vn178qn...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
> >>The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head
> >>is prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid
> >>when other methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost
> >>invariably not.
> >
> > One of the most "charming" conversations I encounter is when a
> > divorced man (not necessarily "recently," mind you) explains to
> > those around him -- by way of how much his divorce settlement cost
> > -- how much it cost him *per fuck* with his wife, versus the price
> > of prostitution. Always love it.
>
> I'm inclined to wonder if that sort of attitude is part of why he ended up
> divorced. Divorce law does pretty much shit on men, but it sounds like that
> particular man deserves it.
I don't claim to have an exhaustive command of this topic. I was divorced and, clearly, spent a whole bunch of money on child support, but, even when it was really hard for me (and it was often) I never begrudged doing my part to contribute to my kids' upbringing.
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:38:39 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>
> > In article <6qbmkuljtkk9$.1vn178qn...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
> >>The simplest evidence I can come up with off the top of my head
> >>is prostitution. Men are willing to pay a great deal to get laid
> >>when other methods fail; women, from what I've heard, are almost
> >>invariably not.
> >
> > One of the most "charming" conversations I encounter is when a
> > divorced man (not necessarily "recently," mind you) explains to
> > those around him -- by way of how much his divorce settlement cost
> > -- how much it cost him *per fuck* with his wife, versus the price
> > of prostitution. Always love it.
>
> I'm inclined to wonder if that sort of attitude is part of why he ended up
> divorced. Divorce law does pretty much shit on men, but it sounds like that
> particular man deserves it.
The divorced dad's I've known who have complained (and some of them were friends), I never really sympathized. Their complaint was more based in hatred for their ex than any real sense of injustice.
Again, that's just my personal experience.
Ed
Ed
Mar 25, 2013, 11:39:13 PM3/25/13
to
On Monday, March 25, 2013 5:44:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Pope wrote:
> In the U.S., part of the opposition to same-sex marriage is the belief
> (so far as I know, ungrounded) that any expansion of marriage will
> encourage more sham marriages -- the idea being under U.S. tax laws and
> U.S. laws in general, it is usually highly advantageous to be married.
A very small part if any. I have heard the argument, but I think it's just an argument to pile on to others in their general prejudice against same-sex relationships. Anyone who actually thought about it realized that, if you wanted a sham marriage, it doesn't matter what gender you marry (and, I know at least one person who married a woman to stay in the States because he couldn't marry his same-sex partner...FWI, it went very badly).
> In the U.S., part of the opposition to same-sex marriage is the belief
> (so far as I know, ungrounded) that any expansion of marriage will
> encourage more sham marriages -- the idea being under U.S. tax laws and
> U.S. laws in general, it is usually highly advantageous to be married.
Ed
Ed
Mar 26, 2013, 12:05:34 AM3/26/13
to
But, puppy rescuer that I tend to be, I have known several young men who have used prostitution as a survival mechanism, with varying degrees of trauma.
What I can report from their experiences is that the vast majority of their clients were repeat visitors who, far from being anonymous, developed emotional attachments to them and even came to think of them as boyfriends, even though it was a financial transaction.
To a one, these guys preferred the regular clients. They were safer, more generous and they even considered them fun.
Just a datapoint (or three).
Ed
David Weinshenker
Mar 26, 2013, 12:47:42 AM3/26/13
to
Ed wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2013 5:44:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Pope wrote:
>> In the U.S., part of the opposition to same-sex marriage is the belief
>> (so far as I know, ungrounded) that any expansion of marriage will
>> encourage more sham marriages -- the idea being under U.S. tax laws and
>> U.S. laws in general, it is usually highly advantageous to be married.
>
> A very small part if any. I have heard the argument, but I think it's
> just an argument to pile on to others in their general prejudice against
> same-sex relationships.
Another argument (I agree, it's probably just "something to pile on")
> On Monday, March 25, 2013 5:44:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Pope wrote:
>> In the U.S., part of the opposition to same-sex marriage is the belief
>> (so far as I know, ungrounded) that any expansion of marriage will
>> encourage more sham marriages -- the idea being under U.S. tax laws and
>> U.S. laws in general, it is usually highly advantageous to be married.
>
> A very small part if any. I have heard the argument, but I think it's
> just an argument to pile on to others in their general prejudice against
> same-sex relationships.
seems to go in the opposite direction - as far as I've been able to
unpack the stated "fear of de-institutionalization of marriage", the
argument seems to be that they object to the way that "why shouldn't
gay couples have the same option to marry as straight couples?" frames
the question: as if marriage were an "option" (for actively-straight
folks), whereas it's supposed to be an Obligation: something they -need-
to do to make their sexual interactions Socially Acceptable, so people
don't accuse them of "Living In Sin" or something. (Consider the way
they refer to "sex -outside of- marriage" or "sex -before- marriage",
for example - there is an implicit assumption that there will be a
"marriage" somewhere in the situation...
So if one of the arguments against gay marriage is that more people
might marry for one or another reason of legal convenience, another
seems to be that fewer might marry out of mere compliance with some
perceived social obligation.
Now I thought that the shift in the general perception of Marriage
from an "obligation" to an "option" took place about 40 or so years
ago... it felt like I sort of caught the trailing edge of it, as I
encountered a lot of literary references to the notion of Sex Without
Marriage being absolutely forbidden (even to let folks think it -might-
have happened: there was this whole thing that a Proper Young Man and
a Proper Young Woman must -never- close the door if they were alone
together in a room, lest they give rise to suspicion that they might
have been getting it on, for example!)... and yet my observation of
contemporary humanity was that most folks didn't actually feel that
way... that there was plenty of Sex Without Marriage going on, and
that most folks were not actually all that shocked by this anymore!
-dave w
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 26, 2013, 12:57:15 AM3/26/13
to
In article <B_ednefnGcqMtMzM...@earthlink.com>,
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>... there was this whole thing that a Proper Young Man and a Proper
They might be doing their joint taxes? Determining who takes the
dog to the vet? Waiting for the insurance adjustor?
I'm already aroused.
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>... there was this whole thing that a Proper Young Man and a Proper
>Young Woman must -never- close the door if they were alone together
>in a room, lest they give rise to suspicion that they might ....
They might be doing their joint taxes? Determining who takes the
dog to the vet? Waiting for the insurance adjustor?
I'm already aroused.
A
Mar 26, 2013, 8:19:20 AM3/26/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:13:19 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> In article <1od2z9yy7qs8l.1nrfzzt1c64y1$.d...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>>Divorce law does pretty much shit on men, ....
>
> Community property, you mean?
>
>>I'm not sure which aspect of my last couple of posts you're asking
>>about.
>>If you mean the "men want to get laid more than women" bit ....
>>If you mean the gender distribution among prostitutes' customers ....
>
> The articulation of the two. The "men want to get laid more" thing
> is meaningless in isolation, if we're discussing "who has it harder"
> in the heteronormative dating pool. (And, like Russ, I have never
> seen any proof that libido is conditioned by gender. I'm rather
> sure it isn't.)
Hrm, okay. I have the opposite intuition, but don't have significant
> In article <1od2z9yy7qs8l.1nrfzzt1c64y1$.d...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>>Divorce law does pretty much shit on men, ....
>
> Community property, you mean?
>
>>I'm not sure which aspect of my last couple of posts you're asking
>>about.
>>If you mean the "men want to get laid more than women" bit ....
>>If you mean the gender distribution among prostitutes' customers ....
>
> The articulation of the two. The "men want to get laid more" thing
> is meaningless in isolation, if we're discussing "who has it harder"
> in the heteronormative dating pool. (And, like Russ, I have never
> seen any proof that libido is conditioned by gender. I'm rather
> sure it isn't.)
evidence to back it up. I'm not sure how one might construct an experiment
to test whether relative differences in "how much one wants to get laid"
are socially or biologically determined. Someone's probably tried it, but
if so I'm not aware of it, and given the nature of the question I suspect
finding a non-politically-motivated study would be difficult.
It occurs to me that a weaker claim, "women do not actively pursue getting
laid to the degree that men do" (without any claim about why) may be more
easily supportable and still make my original point, that an imbalance in
the dating game likely leads to men getting the shittier end of it most of
the time.
>>It probably breaks even for the men, who trade the pains of sexual
>>rejection for the pains of a somewhat lighter wallet.
>
> And what of emotional distance?
necessarily devoid of intimacy. In fact there's a subset of whoredom that
specializises in providing the illusion of intimacy along with sex.
If a man given man couldn't experience intimacy that way, (which doesn't
seem farfetched to me) then it may be a net loss for men too -- but I would
expect that to be accounted for in the average price of a prostitute's
time.
> The stupid attitudes & behaviors required for conformance to sexual
> heteronormativity are basically symmetric across gender -- by which
> I mean, there are reciprocal stupid attitudes & behaviors demanded
> of the other gender, to preserve the imposed binary. However, this
> reciprocity is worked out on the tilted plane of patriarchy, where
> women are always downhill, so to speak. So yes, these stupid
> attitudes & behaviors break even, but only on that plane.
I think I'm misunderstanding what you mean by sexual heteronormativity.
Could you expand the term for me? I was answering this:
> Anyway, how does the scenario you've described affect the underlying
> situation, namely the sexually heteronormative dating pool? Hint:
> It's not a positive for women.
approximately consisting of a symettrical set of heterosexual people. Based
on this post, I think I misinterpreted you.
> The only place men *might* be seen to have it worse is if they want
> to _break out_ of sexual heteronormativity (SHN), because of course
> they're expected to enforce the rules of patriarchy (as stated so
> eloquently in the dating maxim, "bros before hos").
That's a contemptible mindset, and I would gladly shun anyone exhibiting
it. If I was in a position to get away with it, I'd probably break their
face in, too. With a jackhammer.
> So we're told
> inane things like "women's sexuality is more fluid" (inane because
> it's stated as pre-cultural),
this is empirically correct.
> and men are under more threat of
> violence if they flout SHN with PDA, etc. But that's only if looking
> to break out of SHN; within it, men are on top (literally).
--
A
A
Mar 26, 2013, 8:22:32 AM3/26/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
> I know absolutely nothing about female prostitution.
>
> But, puppy rescuer that I tend to be, I have known several young men who
> have used prostitution as a survival mechanism, with varying degrees of
> trauma.
>
> What I can report from their experiences is that the vast majority of
> their clients were repeat visitors who, far from being anonymous,
> developed emotional attachments to them and even came to think of them
> as boyfriends, even though it was a financial transaction.
>
> To a one, these guys preferred the regular clients. They were safer,
> more generous and they even considered them fun.
Did they happen to mention the gender breakdown of their clientele? Just
> I know absolutely nothing about female prostitution.
>
> But, puppy rescuer that I tend to be, I have known several young men who
> have used prostitution as a survival mechanism, with varying degrees of
> trauma.
>
> What I can report from their experiences is that the vast majority of
> their clients were repeat visitors who, far from being anonymous,
> developed emotional attachments to them and even came to think of them
> as boyfriends, even though it was a financial transaction.
>
> To a one, these guys preferred the regular clients. They were safer,
> more generous and they even considered them fun.
looking for corrobation of what I said upthread.
--
A
A
Mar 26, 2013, 8:33:28 AM3/26/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:16:08 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2013 1:36:15 PM UTC-5, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> In article <e3jzog9u621e$.1b1vx90u...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>>
>>>Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex
>>>icky that, while I share their visceral aversion,
>
> Oh, grow up.
I gather that offends you, but I'm not sure why. I do have an ick response
> On Monday, March 25, 2013 1:36:15 PM UTC-5, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> In article <e3jzog9u621e$.1b1vx90u...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>>
>>>Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex
>>>icky that, while I share their visceral aversion,
>
> Oh, grow up.
to men having sex. I don't endorse that response, and in fact I think it's
silly. I wouldn't look down on someone because I find their sex life a bit
icky any more than I would look down on someone eating tomatoes because I
find tomatoes icky.
My sense of what's icky is just completely irrelevant to the state of the
world or the moral character of people around me. It's the people who
conflate the two that I enjoy messing with.
--
A
A
Mar 26, 2013, 8:41:17 AM3/26/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:18:58 -0700, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
> On 3/25/2013 11:48 AM, A wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:28:50 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>>
>>> In article <s5iok856et004a7lo...@4ax.com>,
>>> Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some*
>>>> reason, is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount
>>>> of the work to get laid.
>>>
> On 3/25/2013 11:48 AM, A wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:28:50 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>>
>>> In article <s5iok856et004a7lo...@4ax.com>,
>>> Chickpea <chic...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> What they are basically complaining of, and not without *some*
>>>> reason, is that they are expected to do a disproportionate amount
>>>> of the work to get laid.
>>>
>>> Well... the receiving side of this behavior is no picnic.
>>
>> At least one person has experienced both sides -- Norah Vincent wrote about
>> it in "Self-Made Man." She felt the men got the worse end of the deal.
>>
> Humm. What's worse, asking and being rejected or never getting asked? I
> don't have an answer, I just think we deal with different obstacles
If I remember right, it was less about getting asked vs. asking and more
>>
>> At least one person has experienced both sides -- Norah Vincent wrote about
>> it in "Self-Made Man." She felt the men got the worse end of the deal.
>>
> Humm. What's worse, asking and being rejected or never getting asked? I
> don't have an answer, I just think we deal with different obstacles
about the nature of rejection. Rejection as a woman by a man felt to her
like "you're just not pretty enough" -- a blow to pride, but shallow.
Rejection as a man by a woman felt like being judged as a person, and found
wanting; and that hurt more.
I *may* not have that exactly right. It's been a while since I read the
book. But I think it's pretty close.
--
A
A
Mar 26, 2013, 8:45:41 AM3/26/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:19:20 -0400, A wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:13:19 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> (And, like Russ, I have never
>> seen any proof that libido is conditioned by gender. I'm rather
>> sure it isn't.)
>
> Hrm, okay. I have the opposite intuition, but don't have significant
> evidence to back it up.
I should add that what I mean by "significant evidence" here is "controlled
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:13:19 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> (And, like Russ, I have never
>> seen any proof that libido is conditioned by gender. I'm rather
>> sure it isn't.)
>
> Hrm, okay. I have the opposite intuition, but don't have significant
> evidence to back it up.
study." I still think the gender dynamics in prostitution are pretty
suggestive, but I don't have an answer for Russ's objection elsethread yet.
In part because I usually post from work, and I don't dare do the relevant
google searches here.
--
A
David Weinshenker
Mar 26, 2013, 8:44:16 AM3/26/13
to
-dave w
Scott Dorsey
Mar 26, 2013, 9:17:22 AM3/26/13
to
speak for the poly community, I am greedy.
Very, very greedy.
Yes. More please.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
A
Mar 26, 2013, 9:45:00 AM3/26/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:34:42 -0700, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
> On 3/25/2013 11:32 AM, A wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:10:02 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
>>
>>> As long as you perceive it as a zero-sum game, this perception will be
>>> there- which is why the hard-of-thinking are less down on swinging than
>>> on poly, in general; it's seen to be at least approximately even-handed.
>>
>> To be fair, in a monogamous society, it pretty much is a zero sum game; a
>> mate to one person isn't available to any other person. If the mate pool is
>> symmetrical (it isn't, but it's fairly close) then when a person takes more
>> than one partner, *somebody* somewhere gets left out.
>
> People get left out. I don't think you can devise a system without some
> kind of coercion that wouldn't result in people getting left out.
Agreed.
> On 3/25/2013 11:32 AM, A wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:10:02 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
>>
>>> As long as you perceive it as a zero-sum game, this perception will be
>>> there- which is why the hard-of-thinking are less down on swinging than
>>> on poly, in general; it's seen to be at least approximately even-handed.
>>
>> To be fair, in a monogamous society, it pretty much is a zero sum game; a
>> mate to one person isn't available to any other person. If the mate pool is
>> symmetrical (it isn't, but it's fairly close) then when a person takes more
>> than one partner, *somebody* somewhere gets left out.
>
> People get left out. I don't think you can devise a system without some
> kind of coercion that wouldn't result in people getting left out.
>> Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex icky that,
>> while I share their visceral aversion, I'm still *totally in favor of male
>> gay sex*, on the grounds that two men who are busy with each other are men
>> I don't have to compete with.
>
> Charming.
>
>> (Also on moral grounds, that what they do is none of my damn business --
>> but I leave that part out for amusement's sake.)
>
> I'm not sure I get what's amusing.
thought that they get uncomfortable trying to answer it. The sort of people
I'm aiming at are the ones who think: "I find it icky so it must be Not
Okay." Being confronted with "I find it icky but it's totally okay for
these non-moral reasons" disturbs them.[0] I enjoy disturbing people who
think that way. For similar reasons, I'll often refer to my partner as "my
partner" when speaking of her in front of third parties, and see who
twitches involuntarily.
It cuts both ways. I am similarly uncomfortable dealing with people who
conflate what Should Be with what Is; the kind who will object to a
hypothesis with "no, that's horrible and you're evil for suggesting it," as
if that has any bearing on whether the hypothesis is correct. The approach
knocks me seriously off kilter IRL. Online not so much, because I have time
to think through a response or can just ignore it.
I think there may be a general case of "people are uncomfortable dealing
with radically different approaches to modeling the world."
[0] Moral reasons do not work for this, I think because most people are
comfortable dimissing them as just-your-opinion.
--
A
Scott Dorsey
Mar 26, 2013, 11:15:01 AM3/26/13
to
>But, puppy rescuer that I tend to be, I have known several young men who ha=
>ve used prostitution as a survival mechanism, with varying degrees of traum=
>a.
>
>What I can report from their experiences is that the vast majority of their=
> clients were repeat visitors who, far from being anonymous, developed emot=
>ional attachments to them and even came to think of them as boyfriends, eve=
Ed said, can be found in "Times Square Red, Times Square Blue" by the noted
science fiction author, Chip Delaney. I strongly recommend the book for
this and many other features, and a reference to a culture now gone.
>ve used prostitution as a survival mechanism, with varying degrees of traum=
>a.
>
>What I can report from their experiences is that the vast majority of their=
> clients were repeat visitors who, far from being anonymous, developed emot=
>ional attachments to them and even came to think of them as boyfriends, eve=
>n though it was a financial transaction.
>
>To a one, these guys preferred the regular clients. They were safer, more g=
>
>enerous and they even considered them fun.
>
>Just a datapoint (or three).
A really, really nice discussion about hustling, which agrees well with what
>
>Just a datapoint (or three).
Ed said, can be found in "Times Square Red, Times Square Blue" by the noted
science fiction author, Chip Delaney. I strongly recommend the book for
this and many other features, and a reference to a culture now gone.
Ed
Mar 26, 2013, 12:34:04 PM3/26/13
to
Ed
Ed
Mar 26, 2013, 12:41:41 PM3/26/13
to
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:33:28 AM UTC-5, A wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:16:08 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 25, 2013 1:36:15 PM UTC-5, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> >> In article <e3jzog9u621e$.1b1vx90u...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex
> >>>icky that, while I share their visceral aversion,
> >
> > Oh, grow up.
>
> I gather that offends you, but I'm not sure why. I do have an ick response
> to men having sex. I don't endorse that response, and in fact I think it's
> silly. I wouldn't look down on someone because I find their sex life a bit
> icky any more than I would look down on someone eating tomatoes because I
> find tomatoes icky.
Nah, not offended. Just amused in the way one is amused at cheesy slapstick humor.
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:16:08 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 25, 2013 1:36:15 PM UTC-5, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> >> In article <e3jzog9u621e$.1b1vx90u...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex
> >>>icky that, while I share their visceral aversion,
> >
> > Oh, grow up.
>
> I gather that offends you, but I'm not sure why. I do have an ick response
> to men having sex. I don't endorse that response, and in fact I think it's
> silly. I wouldn't look down on someone because I find their sex life a bit
> icky any more than I would look down on someone eating tomatoes because I
> find tomatoes icky.
Look, I'm as gay as gay comes but I don't feel the need to prove my gayness by asserting an aversion to hetero sex. It just seems silly to me.
Moreover, when something that other people find pleasant that I have an initial aversion to, I make a point to overcome it. I'm not, in any way, saying you should try having sex with a man to overcome it (there are certain foods that I can accept other people like without having to try them myself). But you might consider that the attitude you express just comes across (at least to me) as insincere in your apparent support for gayfolk.
> My sense of what's icky is just completely irrelevant to the state of the
> world or the moral character of people around me. It's the people who
> conflate the two that I enjoy messing with.
Ed
A
Mar 26, 2013, 2:08:35 PM3/26/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
> Look, I'm as gay as gay comes but I don't feel the need to prove my
> gayness by asserting an aversion to hetero sex. It just seems silly to
> me.
In context, it seems relevant, since the position I'm mocking is "ick
> Look, I'm as gay as gay comes but I don't feel the need to prove my
> gayness by asserting an aversion to hetero sex. It just seems silly to
> me.
implies not-OK". To present the alternative "ick does not imply not-OK", I
still have to start with "ick".
Also note that in context, I'm not trying to make a normative statement;
I'm just fucking with people who operate on a particular brand of illogic I
find distasteful.
> But you might consider that the attitude you express just
> comes across (at least to me) as insincere in your apparent support for
> gayfolk.
making me sound insincere on that count, and why? I'm not, but if I sound
that way then I need to debug my social module.
--
A
Ed
Mar 26, 2013, 2:28:34 PM3/26/13
to
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:08:35 PM UTC-5, A wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>
> > Look, I'm as gay as gay comes but I don't feel the need to prove my
> > gayness by asserting an aversion to hetero sex. It just seems silly to
> > me.
>
> In context, it seems relevant, since the position I'm mocking is "ick
> implies not-OK". To present the alternative "ick does not imply not-OK", I
> still have to start with "ick".
>
> Also note that in context, I'm not trying to make a normative statement;
> I'm just fucking with people who operate on a particular brand of illogic I
> find distasteful.
That helps a little, I guess.
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>
> > Look, I'm as gay as gay comes but I don't feel the need to prove my
> > gayness by asserting an aversion to hetero sex. It just seems silly to
> > me.
>
> In context, it seems relevant, since the position I'm mocking is "ick
> implies not-OK". To present the alternative "ick does not imply not-OK", I
> still have to start with "ick".
>
> Also note that in context, I'm not trying to make a normative statement;
> I'm just fucking with people who operate on a particular brand of illogic I
> find distasteful.
> > But you might consider that the attitude you express just
> > comes across (at least to me) as insincere in your apparent support for
> > gayfolk.
>
> Thanks; I'll keep that in mind. Can you pin down what specifically is
> making me sound insincere on that count, and why? I'm not, but if I sound
> that way then I need to debug my social module.
Let's say you were a good friend of mine (maybe you will be some day). As someone who identifies as gay, the thought that you might think, every time you see me, ick, he has anal sex with other men would be an obvious detriment to our ability to be close friends.
It's hard to feel supported by people who are essentially grossed out by my very nature.
Does that help?
Ed
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 26, 2013, 3:36:21 PM3/26/13
to
In article <zr6saiuss09t$.toqm1siksceu$.d...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>... an imbalance in the dating game likely leads to men getting
>... the illusion of intimacy along with sex.
It's an illusion that ends pretty quick.
But yes, you can also buy the illusion that you're in a (non-economic)
relationship with someone. It's kind of the opposite end of the
spectrum from buying sex explicitly minus a relationship. Two very
different impulses wrapped up together... the horrors!
>... the average price of a prostitute's time.
So exchange-value is your go-to point.
>I am failing to meaningfully parse this paragraph and most of the
>next one.
Yes, well. Thankfully, I do not work in tech.
>... an imbalance in the dating game likely leads to men getting
>the shittier end of it most of the time.
Amazing.
>... the illusion of intimacy along with sex.
It's an illusion that ends pretty quick.
But yes, you can also buy the illusion that you're in a (non-economic)
relationship with someone. It's kind of the opposite end of the
spectrum from buying sex explicitly minus a relationship. Two very
different impulses wrapped up together... the horrors!
>... the average price of a prostitute's time.
So exchange-value is your go-to point.
>I am failing to meaningfully parse this paragraph and most of the
>next one.
A
Mar 26, 2013, 4:47:00 PM3/26/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:28:34 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>>> But you might consider that the attitude you express just
>>> comes across (at least to me) as insincere in your apparent support for
>>> gayfolk.
>>
>> Thanks; I'll keep that in mind. Can you pin down what specifically is
>> making me sound insincere on that count, and why? I'm not, but if I sound
>> that way then I need to debug my social module.
>
> I'm surprised that this is hard.
It's not so much that it's hard as that I don't trust my intuitions about
>>> But you might consider that the attitude you express just
>>> comes across (at least to me) as insincere in your apparent support for
>>> gayfolk.
>>
>> Thanks; I'll keep that in mind. Can you pin down what specifically is
>> making me sound insincere on that count, and why? I'm not, but if I sound
>> that way then I need to debug my social module.
>
> I'm surprised that this is hard.
how my statements are perceived by other people. Justifiably, in this case;
I would not have predicted your response below.
> Let's say you were a good friend of mine (maybe you will be some day). As
> someone who identifies as gay, the thought that you might think, every
> time you see me, ick, he has anal sex with other men would be an obvious
> detriment to our ability to be close friends.
occur to me. *Being* gay doesn't squick me (as far as I've ever noticed).
It's only the consummation itself that squicks me. Knowing that it's going
on behind closed doors doesn't particularly bother me, and if I saw you on
a regular basis, I'm going to think "Hey, that's Ed," not "Hey, gay man,
ick."
I'll understand if you don't find that encouraging; I'm just noting the
difference in thought process for understanding's sake.
> It's hard to feel supported by people who are essentially grossed out by
> my very nature.
feel supported (in the sense of emotional or tribal support) is not
necessarily connected to whether I support you (in the sense of moral
approval).
> Does that help?
It does, actually. I don't see a contradiction between "I find X icky" and
"I approve of X"; those two statements feel orthogonal to me. But within a
model where they're *not* orthogonal -- where ick implies some degree of
negative judgment on the part of the ick-er -- it makes perfect sense to
view someone making both statements as being in some way disingenuous. So I
think you've dispelled my confusion even if this ends in disagreement.
Thank you.
--
A
Ed
Mar 26, 2013, 4:59:17 PM3/26/13
to
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:47:00 PM UTC-5, A wrote:
> > It's hard to feel supported by people who are essentially grossed out by
> > my very nature.
>
> While that's totally reasonable, I see a potential hole here: Whether you
> feel supported (in the sense of emotional or tribal support) is not
> necessarily connected to whether I support you (in the sense of moral
> approval).
>
> > Does that help?
>
> It does, actually. I don't see a contradiction between "I find X icky" and
> "I approve of X"; those two statements feel orthogonal to me. But within a
> model where they're *not* orthogonal -- where ick implies some degree of
> negative judgment on the part of the ick-er -- it makes perfect sense to
> view someone making both statements as being in some way disingenuous. So I
> think you've dispelled my confusion even if this ends in disagreement.
I appreciate you explaining your thoughts on it rationally. I will admit I had expected you to either dismiss my comments or react angrily (which would be typical of my other experiences).
> > It's hard to feel supported by people who are essentially grossed out by
> > my very nature.
>
> While that's totally reasonable, I see a potential hole here: Whether you
> feel supported (in the sense of emotional or tribal support) is not
> necessarily connected to whether I support you (in the sense of moral
> approval).
>
> > Does that help?
>
> It does, actually. I don't see a contradiction between "I find X icky" and
> "I approve of X"; those two statements feel orthogonal to me. But within a
> model where they're *not* orthogonal -- where ick implies some degree of
> negative judgment on the part of the ick-er -- it makes perfect sense to
> view someone making both statements as being in some way disingenuous. So I
> think you've dispelled my confusion even if this ends in disagreement.
> Thank you.
You're welcome and thank you for engaging constructively.
Ed
A
Mar 26, 2013, 4:58:50 PM3/26/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:36:21 +0000 (UTC), Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>>I am failing to meaningfully parse this paragraph and most of the
>>next one.
>
> Yes, well. Thankfully, I do not work in tech.
Wise move; tech sucks.
>>I am failing to meaningfully parse this paragraph and most of the
>>next one.
>
> Yes, well. Thankfully, I do not work in tech.
I think I'm going to tap out of this branch of the conversation. It feels
like it's beginning to generate more heat than light. Good day.
--
A
Message has been deleted
Ed
Mar 26, 2013, 6:01:01 PM3/26/13
to chic...@gmx.co.uk
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:50:53 PM UTC-5, Chickpea wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (A) wrote in
> >Wise move; tech sucks.
>
> Increasingly, I agree.
I can't imagine my life without it. I can't think of anything I would have been remotely as good at.
Ed
> In alt.polyamory, (A) wrote in
> >Wise move; tech sucks.
>
> Increasingly, I agree.
I can't imagine my life without it. I can't think of anything I would have been remotely as good at.
Ed
David Weinshenker
Mar 26, 2013, 10:33:41 PM3/26/13
to
A wrote:
> I don't see a contradiction between "I find X icky" and
> "I approve of X"
Or as some would abbreviate it - "ykiok - ijnmk"...
> I don't see a contradiction between "I find X icky" and
> "I approve of X"
(your kink is ok - it's just not my kink)...
-dave w
Steve Pope
Mar 27, 2013, 2:12:39 AM3/27/13
to
It also seems there is some social threshold beyond which
it's regarded as rude/biased to refer to something as "icky"
or "squicky". "I find needleplay icky" does not seem as
comparitively rude, I beleive, as the original "icky" statement in
this thread although I'm sure there are still some who would take offense.
Steve
Russ Allbery
Mar 27, 2013, 2:29:02 AM3/27/13
to
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
> Your wording seems more polite.
> It also seems there is some social threshold beyond which it's regarded
> as rude/biased to refer to something as "icky" or "squicky". "I find
> needleplay icky" does not seem as comparitively rude, I beleive, as the
> original "icky" statement in this thread although I'm sure there are
> still some who would take offense.
I suspect it's related to how social stigma is expressed. I doubt there
> Your wording seems more polite.
> It also seems there is some social threshold beyond which it's regarded
> as rude/biased to refer to something as "icky" or "squicky". "I find
> needleplay icky" does not seem as comparitively rude, I beleive, as the
> original "icky" statement in this thread although I'm sure there are
> still some who would take offense.
are many people who have felt excluded or marginalized by someone saying
"I find needleplay icky." If someone has enough knowledge of sexual play
to even know what needleplay *is* sufficiently to make a statement like
that, they're pretty likely to be kink-friendly. :)
Compare that to "I find gay sex icky" or even "I find dominance and
submission icky" or "I find sadomasochism icky" and I think you see a
different response because those statements much more directly play into
and seem oriented along fault lines in our tolerance for each other.
People get marginalized for being gay or for being into BDSM, as general
things, in ways that they don't get marginalized for enjoying specific
sexual games or fetishes (except insofar as those specific things are
grouped into the larger marginalized categories). People are normally
marginalized by being dumped into pretty generic outcast groups (like
"people into BDSM," which can cover a ridiculous array of things), not for
specific details.
Once you get to the point of debating needleplay versus candles versus
golden showers, I think people generally start parsing that as preference
rather than marginalization. If you're knowledgable enough to debate
things at that level, that's already a social marker for being "one of us"
in some sense.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Message has been deleted
Steve Pope
Mar 27, 2013, 4:15:03 PM3/27/13
to
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> I was trying (probably not very well) to distinguish between the sort
>>> of sex work people normally mean when they say prostitution and other
>>> ways of organizing sexuality that could involve money (dowries, various
>>> arrangements with paramours, etc.).
>> Hmmm. I guess I see prositution and anonymity as orthogonal, or
>> nearly so, in the overall scheme of things.
>You are quite possibly correct. To be honest, I'm out of my depth in
>trying to delimit the boundaries of prostitution or describe sex work from
>a sociological standpoint; I know just enough about it to know that I know
>very, very little about it, and that there's quite a bit of academic
>research that I've not read.
>The root problem I'm having is probably that anonymity was the wrong word.
>What I was trying to get at was the concept of sex without social
>attachment, sex that's treated as a commercial transaction rather than
>either a component of a relationship or a mutual exchange outside of an
>economic structure. I got that confused in my head with confidentiality,
>but indeed those are largely unrelated concepts. Anonymity is the right
>word only in a very unhelpful and metaphoric way (the "anonymity of the
>market" sort of sense), and just confused matters.
I'm out of my depth as well, but my idle thinking is that anonymous
sex is distinct from secretive sex -- the latter allowing for where
at least the persons having sex know each others' identity.
Truly anonymous sex I associate primarily with western urban culture,
and can apply to both prostitution and sex in general.
Whereas in other cultures -- and the only one I have any vague first-hand
knowledge of is rural, southern-European culture -- very likely everyone
in the village knows who the prostitutes and their customers are, or
at least who their likely customers are.
Again, the above is just random observation without claim to authority.
Steve
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> I was trying (probably not very well) to distinguish between the sort
>>> of sex work people normally mean when they say prostitution and other
>>> ways of organizing sexuality that could involve money (dowries, various
>>> arrangements with paramours, etc.).
>> Hmmm. I guess I see prositution and anonymity as orthogonal, or
>> nearly so, in the overall scheme of things.
>You are quite possibly correct. To be honest, I'm out of my depth in
>trying to delimit the boundaries of prostitution or describe sex work from
>a sociological standpoint; I know just enough about it to know that I know
>very, very little about it, and that there's quite a bit of academic
>research that I've not read.
>The root problem I'm having is probably that anonymity was the wrong word.
>What I was trying to get at was the concept of sex without social
>attachment, sex that's treated as a commercial transaction rather than
>either a component of a relationship or a mutual exchange outside of an
>economic structure. I got that confused in my head with confidentiality,
>but indeed those are largely unrelated concepts. Anonymity is the right
>word only in a very unhelpful and metaphoric way (the "anonymity of the
>market" sort of sense), and just confused matters.
I'm out of my depth as well, but my idle thinking is that anonymous
sex is distinct from secretive sex -- the latter allowing for where
at least the persons having sex know each others' identity.
Truly anonymous sex I associate primarily with western urban culture,
and can apply to both prostitution and sex in general.
Whereas in other cultures -- and the only one I have any vague first-hand
knowledge of is rural, southern-European culture -- very likely everyone
in the village knows who the prostitutes and their customers are, or
at least who their likely customers are.
Again, the above is just random observation without claim to authority.
Steve
Steve Pope
Mar 27, 2013, 4:21:35 PM3/27/13
to
Ed wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2013 5:44:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Pope wrote:
>> In the U.S., part of the opposition to same-sex marriage is the belief
>> (so far as I know, ungrounded) that any expansion of marriage will
>> encourage more sham marriages -- the idea being under U.S. tax laws and
>> U.S. laws in general, it is usually highly advantageous to be married.
> A very small part if any. I have heard the argument, but I think it's
> just an argument to pile on to others in their general prejudice against
> same-sex relationships.
Usually.
Very tangentially, a few years ago there was a fringe movement gaining some
traction to make adultery illegal. Or I should say, illegal again,
since it was historically illegal. The idea was that those gaining
the social benefits of being legally married must remain monogamously
married, otherwise they are cheating not only (possibly) their spouse,
but the rest of society.
Definitely a fringe view. I hope.
Steve
> On Monday, March 25, 2013 5:44:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Pope wrote:
>> In the U.S., part of the opposition to same-sex marriage is the belief
>> (so far as I know, ungrounded) that any expansion of marriage will
>> encourage more sham marriages -- the idea being under U.S. tax laws and
>> U.S. laws in general, it is usually highly advantageous to be married.
> A very small part if any. I have heard the argument, but I think it's
> just an argument to pile on to others in their general prejudice against
> same-sex relationships.
Usually.
Very tangentially, a few years ago there was a fringe movement gaining some
traction to make adultery illegal. Or I should say, illegal again,
since it was historically illegal. The idea was that those gaining
the social benefits of being legally married must remain monogamously
married, otherwise they are cheating not only (possibly) their spouse,
but the rest of society.
Definitely a fringe view. I hope.
Steve
Ed
Mar 27, 2013, 4:57:06 PM3/27/13
to
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:21:35 PM UTC-5, Steve Pope wrote:
> Very tangentially, a few years ago there was a fringe movement gaining some
> traction to make adultery illegal. Or I should say, illegal again,
> since it was historically illegal. The idea was that those gaining
> the social benefits of being legally married must remain monogamously
> married, otherwise they are cheating not only (possibly) their spouse,
> but the rest of society.
>
> Definitely a fringe view. I hope.
Given the poor fidelity record of many politicians, I doubt this would ever be a high priority for them.
> Very tangentially, a few years ago there was a fringe movement gaining some
> traction to make adultery illegal. Or I should say, illegal again,
> since it was historically illegal. The idea was that those gaining
> the social benefits of being legally married must remain monogamously
> married, otherwise they are cheating not only (possibly) their spouse,
> but the rest of society.
>
> Definitely a fringe view. I hope.
Ed
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 27, 2013, 7:56:29 PM3/27/13
to
think it is. If all you're looking for is to get laid that could be
accomplished financially or by expanding your ideas about who you find
attractive, or changing your ideas about what getting laid entails.
There are lots of people I find attractive, I would say there are fewer
people who find me attractive. This has nothing to do with competition
from other folk. It's just the way it is.
I think what has been bothering me about the conversation is that it
seems a bit egocentric. If I'm not getting what I want in the way I want
it somebody is keeping it from me. The people who are "too greedy" are
taking all my opportunities. It could very well be that they aren't your
opportunities whether or not those people were involved with other folk.
Anyway, I'm still not getting what's funny about it but that's not
particularly important.
>
> It cuts both ways. I am similarly uncomfortable dealing with people who
> conflate what Should Be with what Is; the kind who will object to a
> hypothesis with "no, that's horrible and you're evil for suggesting it," as
> if that has any bearing on whether the hypothesis is correct. The approach
> knocks me seriously off kilter IRL. Online not so much, because I have time
> to think through a response or can just ignore it.
>
> I think there may be a general case of "people are uncomfortable dealing
> with radically different approaches to modeling the world."
>
>
> [0] Moral reasons do not work for this, I think because most people are
> comfortable dimissing them as just-your-opinion.
>
--
Guy W. Thomas
>
> [0] Moral reasons do not work for this, I think because most people are
> comfortable dimissing them as just-your-opinion.
>
--
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/
"There's a rule in acting called, 'Don't play the result.' If you have a
character who's going to end up in a certain place, don't play that
until you get there. Play each scene and each beat as it comes. And
that's what you do in life: You don't play the result."
-- Michael J. Fox
mc...@pitt.edu
Mar 27, 2013, 9:22:12 PM3/27/13
to
On Monday, March 25, 2013 11:16:08 PM UTC-4, Ed wrote:
"I've transcended competition better than you've trascended competition! nunna nunna naw naw."
HAHAHAHAHA
> On Monday, March 25, 2013 1:36:15 PM UTC-5, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> > I'm so glad that my romantic life doesn't involve competition.
>
> Amen. Ed
> > I'm so glad that my romantic life doesn't involve competition.
>
"I've transcended competition better than you've trascended competition! nunna nunna naw naw."
HAHAHAHAHA
A
Mar 28, 2013, 8:18:16 AM3/28/13
to
clarify. As for getting angry, I try to stick to Crocker's Rules unless
someone is deliberately being a jerk. Which you weren't.
>> Thank you.
>
> You're welcome and thank you for engaging constructively.
I keep having to reformat them when I reply. It's not a huge hassle, but I
thought you should know.
--
A
A
Mar 28, 2013, 8:35:17 AM3/28/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:29:02 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>> Your wording seems more polite.
>
>> It also seems there is some social threshold beyond which it's regarded
>> as rude/biased to refer to something as "icky" or "squicky". "I find
>> needleplay icky" does not seem as comparitively rude, I beleive, as the
>> original "icky" statement in this thread although I'm sure there are
>> still some who would take offense.
This seems insightful.
> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>> Your wording seems more polite.
>
>> It also seems there is some social threshold beyond which it's regarded
>> as rude/biased to refer to something as "icky" or "squicky". "I find
>> needleplay icky" does not seem as comparitively rude, I beleive, as the
>> original "icky" statement in this thread although I'm sure there are
>> still some who would take offense.
> Once you get to the point of debating needleplay versus candles versus
> golden showers, I think people generally start parsing that as preference
> rather than marginalization. If you're knowledgable enough to debate
> things at that level, that's already a social marker for being "one of us"
> in some sense.
--
A
Ed
Mar 28, 2013, 3:14:46 PM3/28/13
to
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:18:16 AM UTC-5, A wrote:
>By the way, your news client doesn't seem to be breaking lines.
>I keep having to reformat them when I reply. It's not a huge hassle, but I
>thought you should know.
Yes, I admit to the sacrilege of using Google Groups. Since
>By the way, your news client doesn't seem to be breaking lines.
>I keep having to reformat them when I reply. It's not a huge hassle, but I
>thought you should know.
EternalSeptember went down, I haven't bothered trying to find
a new news server. Especially since Usenet is increasingly
pointless.
As spammed out as this group has become, it has nothing on
the other groups I used to frequent. It's rarely worth my time,
much less any money to subscribe to a commercial news server.
Ed
A
Mar 28, 2013, 3:31:57 PM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:18:16 AM UTC-5, A wrote:
>>By the way, your news client doesn't seem to be breaking lines.
>>I keep having to reformat them when I reply. It's not a huge hassle, but I
>>thought you should know.
>
> Yes, I admit to the sacrilege of using Google Groups.
Ah, I didn't recognize the G2/1.0 user agent as being GG. I wonder if
> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:18:16 AM UTC-5, A wrote:
>>By the way, your news client doesn't seem to be breaking lines.
>>I keep having to reformat them when I reply. It's not a huge hassle, but I
>>thought you should know.
>
> Yes, I admit to the sacrilege of using Google Groups.
they'd fix it if I pointed out they're breaking the RFCs. Probably not.
> Since
> EternalSeptember went down, I haven't bothered trying to find
> a new news server. Especially since Usenet is increasingly
> pointless.
> As spammed out as this group has become, it has nothing on
> the other groups I used to frequent. It's rarely worth my time,
> much less any money to subscribe to a commercial news server.
client, though. (i.e. with recursive killfiling) I haven't seen any in
ages.
--
A
Steve Pope
Mar 28, 2013, 4:25:49 PM3/28/13
to
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>> Your wording seems more polite.
>
>> It also seems there is some social threshold beyond which it's regarded
>> as rude/biased to refer to something as "icky" or "squicky". "I find
>> needleplay icky" does not seem as comparitively rude, I beleive, as the
>> original "icky" statement in this thread although I'm sure there are
>> still some who would take offense.
>
>I suspect it's related to how social stigma is expressed. I doubt there
>are many people who have felt excluded or marginalized by someone saying
>"I find needleplay icky."
True, but on the other hand, whether a statement is inappropriately
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>> Your wording seems more polite.
>
>> It also seems there is some social threshold beyond which it's regarded
>> as rude/biased to refer to something as "icky" or "squicky". "I find
>> needleplay icky" does not seem as comparitively rude, I beleive, as the
>> original "icky" statement in this thread although I'm sure there are
>> still some who would take offense.
>
>I suspect it's related to how social stigma is expressed. I doubt there
>are many people who have felt excluded or marginalized by someone saying
>"I find needleplay icky."
rude or biased do not actually depend on the number of persons
offended by it; it depends more on the intrinsic characteristics
of the statement. At least in my mind, it does.
>If someone has enough knowledge of sexual play
>to even know what needleplay *is* sufficiently to make a statement like
>that, they're pretty likely to be kink-friendly. :)
>
>Compare that to "I find gay sex icky" or even "I find dominance and
>submission icky" or "I find sadomasochism icky" and I think you see a
>different response because those statements much more directly play into
>and seem oriented along fault lines in our tolerance for each other.
>People get marginalized for being gay or for being into BDSM, as general
>things, in ways that they don't get marginalized for enjoying specific
>sexual games or fetishes (except insofar as those specific things are
>grouped into the larger marginalized categories).
experience I do not feel that people into BDSM per se are marginalized
in a way that is any way comparable to what gay people experience.
I think BDSM'ers are far more likely to experience marginalization
when they are also members of other already marginalized groups (ie. if
they are gay, bisexual, female or transgendered.) That is I think where
society's fault lines mostly lie, to use your terminology.
Steve
Russ Allbery
Mar 28, 2013, 4:37:28 PM3/28/13
to
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
> I guess I agree with this to about an 80% level. From my direct
> experience I do not feel that people into BDSM per se are marginalized
> in a way that is any way comparable to what gay people experience. I
> think BDSM'ers are far more likely to experience marginalization when
> they are also members of other already marginalized groups (ie. if they
> are gay, bisexual, female or transgendered.) That is I think where
> society's fault lines mostly lie, to use your terminology.
Yeah, I generally agree with that.
> I guess I agree with this to about an 80% level. From my direct
> experience I do not feel that people into BDSM per se are marginalized
> in a way that is any way comparable to what gay people experience. I
> think BDSM'ers are far more likely to experience marginalization when
> they are also members of other already marginalized groups (ie. if they
> are gay, bisexual, female or transgendered.) That is I think where
> society's fault lines mostly lie, to use your terminology.
BDSM doesn't have the equivalant of, among gay people, wanting to live
openly with your partner on a day-to-day basis and have people accept
that. It's a bit more constrained to activities that are generally
private anyway, so there isn't the same need for general social acceptance
(or even general social awareness in many cases). I think the mainstream
feels less threatened by it because of that.
(There are some specific BDSM practices to which that doesn't apply, where
part of the point of the practice is to be somewhat public about it, but I
think it's safe to say that it's not the core the way that being in a
public relationship with one's partner just like any heterosexual
relationship is the core of the same-sex marriage fight.)
That said, there is stigma; it's not something that one can just bring up
in contexts in which other sexual practices normally come up and expect
average people to understand or to not react negatively.
Steve Pope
Mar 28, 2013, 5:21:23 PM3/28/13
to
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>> I guess I agree with this to about an 80% level. From my direct
>> experience I do not feel that people into BDSM per se are marginalized
>> in a way that is any way comparable to what gay people experience. I
>> think BDSM'ers are far more likely to experience marginalization when
>> they are also members of other already marginalized groups (ie. if they
>> are gay, bisexual, female or transgendered.) That is I think where
>> society's fault lines mostly lie, to use your terminology.
>Yeah, I generally agree with that.
>BDSM doesn't have the equivalant of, among gay people, wanting to live
>openly with your partner on a day-to-day basis and have people accept
>that. It's a bit more constrained to activities that are generally
>private anyway, so there isn't the same need for general social acceptance
>(or even general social awareness in many cases). I think the mainstream
>feels less threatened by it because of that.
Right. I agree, but there are (at least) a couple of countervening nuances.
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>> I guess I agree with this to about an 80% level. From my direct
>> experience I do not feel that people into BDSM per se are marginalized
>> in a way that is any way comparable to what gay people experience. I
>> think BDSM'ers are far more likely to experience marginalization when
>> they are also members of other already marginalized groups (ie. if they
>> are gay, bisexual, female or transgendered.) That is I think where
>> society's fault lines mostly lie, to use your terminology.
>Yeah, I generally agree with that.
>BDSM doesn't have the equivalant of, among gay people, wanting to live
>openly with your partner on a day-to-day basis and have people accept
>that. It's a bit more constrained to activities that are generally
>private anyway, so there isn't the same need for general social acceptance
>(or even general social awareness in many cases). I think the mainstream
>feels less threatened by it because of that.
One is that while BDSM is "generally private", among the various
fetishes/kinks/paraphilia are a couple called exhibitionism and voyeurism,
and following these practices can lead to something other than
"generally private". Add to this that the kink community covers a lot
of breadth, and the general public, if they're not studying things
to closely, are likely to simply conflate the exhibitionists and
the SM'ers. If you ask the average member of the public whether
Folsom Street Fair is representative of S&M'ers they are very likely
to say yes; whereas some S&M'ers would say it represents the
exhibitionist subset.
The second is that it could be argued that persons who are
differently-wired have a stronger need for community, or a need
to create community. This becomes another source of pressure for
generally-private practices such as S&M to spill over into the public
view.
>(There are some specific BDSM practices to which that doesn't apply, where
>part of the point of the practice is to be somewhat public about it, but I
>think it's safe to say that it's not the core the way that being in a
>public relationship with one's partner just like any heterosexual
>relationship is the core of the same-sex marriage fight.)
will get into trouble for saying that.
Steve
Ed
Mar 28, 2013, 5:42:21 PM3/28/13
to
A <x@y.z> wrote in news:1vf0o4j2rfz9u.156zi3m7tmnff$.d...@40tude.net:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:18:16 AM UTC-5, A wrote:
>>>By the way, your news client doesn't seem to be breaking lines.
>>>I keep having to reformat them when I reply. It's not a huge hassle,
>>>but I thought you should know.
>>
>> Yes, I admit to the sacrilege of using Google Groups.
>
> Ah, I didn't recognize the G2/1.0 user agent as being GG. I wonder if
> they'd fix it if I pointed out they're breaking the RFCs. Probably
> not.
>
>> Since
>> EternalSeptember went down, I haven't bothered trying to find
>> a new news server. Especially since Usenet is increasingly
>> pointless.
>
> O_o Uhh? I'm posting from ES. I'm pretty sure it's not down.
Interesting. It is still there. Yay. I just had to re-register. Thanks!
Ed
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Ed wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:18:16 AM UTC-5, A wrote:
>>>By the way, your news client doesn't seem to be breaking lines.
>>>I keep having to reformat them when I reply. It's not a huge hassle,
>>>but I thought you should know.
>>
>> Yes, I admit to the sacrilege of using Google Groups.
>
> Ah, I didn't recognize the G2/1.0 user agent as being GG. I wonder if
> they'd fix it if I pointed out they're breaking the RFCs. Probably
> not.
>
>> Since
>> EternalSeptember went down, I haven't bothered trying to find
>> a new news server. Especially since Usenet is increasingly
>> pointless.
>
> O_o Uhh? I'm posting from ES. I'm pretty sure it's not down.
Ed
Ed
Mar 28, 2013, 5:48:15 PM3/28/13
to
spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:kj290d$m1f$3@blue-
new.rahul.net:
> From my direct
> experience I do not feel that people into BDSM per se are marginalized
> in a way that is any way comparable to what gay people experience.
> I think BDSM'ers are far more likely to experience marginalization
> when they are also members of other already marginalized groups (ie.if
> they are gay, bisexual, female or transgendered.) That is I think where
> society's fault lines mostly lie, to use your terminology.
One of my young friends explained that he had to come out to friends and
family twice. First, to admit that he was gay. And then second to admit
that he was attracted to bears (older, hairier, maybe heavier men). He
reported that his parents were much more bothered by the latter than the
former.
Ed
new.rahul.net:
> From my direct
> experience I do not feel that people into BDSM per se are marginalized
> in a way that is any way comparable to what gay people experience.
> I think BDSM'ers are far more likely to experience marginalization
> when they are also members of other already marginalized groups (ie.if
> they are gay, bisexual, female or transgendered.) That is I think where
> society's fault lines mostly lie, to use your terminology.
family twice. First, to admit that he was gay. And then second to admit
that he was attracted to bears (older, hairier, maybe heavier men). He
reported that his parents were much more bothered by the latter than the
former.
Ed
Steve Pope
Mar 28, 2013, 6:20:14 PM3/28/13
to
Ed <absolut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:kj290d$m1f$3@blue-
>spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:kj290d$m1f$3@blue-
>> From my direct
>> experience I do not feel that people into BDSM per se are marginalized
>> in a way that is any way comparable to what gay people experience.
>> I think BDSM'ers are far more likely to experience marginalization
>> when they are also members of other already marginalized groups (ie.if
>> they are gay, bisexual, female or transgendered.) That is I think where
>> society's fault lines mostly lie, to use your terminology.
>One of my young friends explained that he had to come out to friends and
>family twice. First, to admit that he was gay. And then second to admit
>that he was attracted to bears (older, hairier, maybe heavier men). He
>reported that his parents were much more bothered by the latter than the
>former.
Interesting datapoint.
>> experience I do not feel that people into BDSM per se are marginalized
>> in a way that is any way comparable to what gay people experience.
>> I think BDSM'ers are far more likely to experience marginalization
>> when they are also members of other already marginalized groups (ie.if
>> they are gay, bisexual, female or transgendered.) That is I think where
>> society's fault lines mostly lie, to use your terminology.
>One of my young friends explained that he had to come out to friends and
>family twice. First, to admit that he was gay. And then second to admit
>that he was attracted to bears (older, hairier, maybe heavier men). He
>reported that his parents were much more bothered by the latter than the
>former.
My first thought, admittedly speculative, is that following the initial
disclosure, adding any specific details about his sexual attraction to men
might have induced the stronger reaction; and that it does not have
to do with bears per se. Again, just thinking out loud.
Steve
Stef
Mar 28, 2013, 8:14:30 PM3/28/13
to
In article <874nfvs...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
D/s would like to have their relationships accepted publicly. (I'm not
one of those peeps. I'm just saying.)
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** firecat.dreamwidth.org ** fatfriendlydocs.com **
**
If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being
made. -- Prince Otto von Bismarck (attrib.)
Not to mention web sites. -- SJM
>BDSM doesn't have the equivalant of, among gay people, wanting to live
>openly with your partner on a day-to-day basis and have people accept
>that.
I think that's incorrect. I suspect that many of the peeps who do 24/7
>openly with your partner on a day-to-day basis and have people accept
>that.
D/s would like to have their relationships accepted publicly. (I'm not
one of those peeps. I'm just saying.)
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com **
** firecat.dreamwidth.org ** fatfriendlydocs.com **
**
If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being
made. -- Prince Otto von Bismarck (attrib.)
Not to mention web sites. -- SJM
Stef
Mar 28, 2013, 8:17:21 PM3/28/13
to
In article <T-KdncEllq2zGs7M...@giganews.com>,
Somewhere between anticipation and nostalgia we should have been happy.
-- Shannon Wheeler, Too Much Coffee Man
Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think what has been bothering me about the conversation is that it
>seems a bit egocentric. If I'm not getting what I want in the way I want
>it somebody is keeping it from me. The people who are "too greedy" are
>taking all my opportunities. It could very well be that they aren't your
>opportunities whether or not those people were involved with other folk.
The line for getting into Guy's T-shirt drawer to lick his tasty brainz forms behind me.
>I think what has been bothering me about the conversation is that it
>seems a bit egocentric. If I'm not getting what I want in the way I want
>it somebody is keeping it from me. The people who are "too greedy" are
>taking all my opportunities. It could very well be that they aren't your
>opportunities whether or not those people were involved with other folk.
Somewhere between anticipation and nostalgia we should have been happy.
-- Shannon Wheeler, Too Much Coffee Man
Stef
Mar 28, 2013, 8:20:38 PM3/28/13
to
In article <15w2575hze7ij.1qnm692goo7ag$.d...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:03:48 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
>
>> It's particularly where there is an excess of males that it tends to
>> cause social unrest- there is typically binge drinking and violent
>> behaviour.
>
>I'm curious if there are any studies about the effects of an imbalance in
>the other direction.
"No crime, and lots of happy, fat women" -- Nicole Hollander
"And Walter, why does this issue concern you so?"
"The devil is paying me to have a conversation." -- Walter Lego
>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:03:48 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
>
>> It's particularly where there is an excess of males that it tends to
>> cause social unrest- there is typically binge drinking and violent
>> behaviour.
>
>I'm curious if there are any studies about the effects of an imbalance in
>the other direction.
"No crime, and lots of happy, fat women" -- Nicole Hollander
"And Walter, why does this issue concern you so?"
"The devil is paying me to have a conversation." -- Walter Lego
Russ Allbery
Mar 28, 2013, 8:35:38 PM3/28/13
to
>> BDSM doesn't have the equivalant of, among gay people, wanting to live
>> openly with your partner on a day-to-day basis and have people accept
>> that.
> I think that's incorrect. I suspect that many of the peeps who do 24/7
> D/s would like to have their relationships accepted publicly. (I'm not
> one of those peeps. I'm just saying.)
Good point.
>> openly with your partner on a day-to-day basis and have people accept
>> that.
> I think that's incorrect. I suspect that many of the peeps who do 24/7
> D/s would like to have their relationships accepted publicly. (I'm not
> one of those peeps. I'm just saying.)
David Weinshenker
Mar 28, 2013, 9:00:53 PM3/28/13
to
Ed wrote:
> As spammed out as this group has become, it has nothing on
> the other groups I used to frequent. It's rarely worth my time,
> much less any money to subscribe to a commercial news server.
You mean the "monkey business"? I just set an
> As spammed out as this group has become, it has nothing on
> the other groups I used to frequent. It's rarely worth my time,
> much less any money to subscribe to a commercial news server.
"ignore thread" filter on thunderbird for that
stuff...
-dave w
Ed
Mar 28, 2013, 9:11:14 PM3/28/13
to
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:Z_ednUPVxKD1dcnM...@earthlink.com:
Yeah, me too. My real point was that if, on most Usenet groups if you
filter out all the junk, there's absolutely nothing left.
At least here, there is still a new somewhat interesting thread every
couple weeks or so. :)
Ed
news:Z_ednUPVxKD1dcnM...@earthlink.com:
filter out all the junk, there's absolutely nothing left.
At least here, there is still a new somewhat interesting thread every
couple weeks or so. :)
Ed
David Weinshenker
Mar 28, 2013, 10:38:21 PM3/28/13
to
Ed wrote:
> Yeah, me too. My real point was that if, on most Usenet groups if you
> filter out all the junk, there's absolutely nothing left.
Yeah, I blame facebook. (I kind of hate the short-attention-span orientation
> Yeah, me too. My real point was that if, on most Usenet groups if you
> filter out all the junk, there's absolutely nothing left.
of the site design, as well the way it's become the norm there to mostly post
web links and photos (vs. actually writing things to post), but it seems to
have slurped off so many of the folks who used to post on usenet etc.)
For a while it seemed like the 'net was contributing to a resurgence of the
old tradition of interpersonal literacy, but it seems like the prevalence of
"Media-Capable Bandwith" has come to be so taken for granted that icon-oriented
communication is doing to textual e-mail and news-groups what the telephone did
to the practice of mailing letters to one another for conversational purposes.
I remember thinking, some years ago, that at one point there was going to be
just one cable coming into everyone's house, which would provide TV and phone
as well as internet connections, and it wasn't clear whether the service would
be provided by the cable TV company or an ISP or the Phone Company... recently
I heard an ad on the radio promising that if you have the right Device and sign
up for the right Service, you can watch your cable TV shows over the internet
on your telephone!
-dave w
Guy W. Thomas
Mar 29, 2013, 12:59:26 AM3/29/13
to
On 3/28/2013 5:17 PM, Stef wrote:
> In article <T-KdncEllq2zGs7M...@giganews.com>,
> Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think what has been bothering me about the conversation is that it
>> seems a bit egocentric. If I'm not getting what I want in the way I want
>> it somebody is keeping it from me. The people who are "too greedy" are
>> taking all my opportunities. It could very well be that they aren't your
>> opportunities whether or not those people were involved with other folk.
>
> The line for getting into Guy's T-shirt drawer to lick his tasty brainz forms behind me.
*blush* Thank you!
> In article <T-KdncEllq2zGs7M...@giganews.com>,
> Guy W. Thomas <xang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think what has been bothering me about the conversation is that it
>> seems a bit egocentric. If I'm not getting what I want in the way I want
>> it somebody is keeping it from me. The people who are "too greedy" are
>> taking all my opportunities. It could very well be that they aren't your
>> opportunities whether or not those people were involved with other folk.
>
> The line for getting into Guy's T-shirt drawer to lick his tasty brainz forms behind me.
Serene Vannoy
Mar 29, 2013, 10:59:07 AM3/29/13
to
On 03/28/2013 05:14 PM, Stef wrote:
> In article <874nfvs...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>> BDSM doesn't have the equivalant of, among gay people, wanting to live
>> openly with your partner on a day-to-day basis and have people accept
>> that.
>
> I think that's incorrect. I suspect that many of the peeps who do 24/7
> D/s would like to have their relationships accepted publicly. (I'm not
> one of those peeps. I'm just saying.)
Yes, and even some folks who don't do BDSM 24/7 would like to talk about
> In article <874nfvs...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>> BDSM doesn't have the equivalant of, among gay people, wanting to live
>> openly with your partner on a day-to-day basis and have people accept
>> that.
>
> I think that's incorrect. I suspect that many of the peeps who do 24/7
> D/s would like to have their relationships accepted publicly. (I'm not
> one of those peeps. I'm just saying.)
their relationships without having to hide.
Serene
--
My food blog: http://www.momfoodproject.com
My small-press literary magazine: http://42magazine.com
A
Mar 29, 2013, 12:02:30 PM3/29/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:20:38 +0000 (UTC), Stef wrote:
> In article <15w2575hze7ij.1qnm692goo7ag$.d...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:03:48 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
>>
>>> It's particularly where there is an excess of males that it tends to
>>> cause social unrest- there is typically binge drinking and violent
>>> behaviour.
>>
>>I'm curious if there are any studies about the effects of an imbalance in
>>the other direction.
>
> "No crime, and lots of happy, fat women" -- Nicole Hollander
Is that an actual result, or a joke? Lower crime and higher weights
> In article <15w2575hze7ij.1qnm692goo7ag$.d...@40tude.net>, A <x@y.z> wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:03:48 +0000, Chickpea wrote:
>>
>>> It's particularly where there is an excess of males that it tends to
>>> cause social unrest- there is typically binge drinking and violent
>>> behaviour.
>>
>>I'm curious if there are any studies about the effects of an imbalance in
>>the other direction.
>
> "No crime, and lots of happy, fat women" -- Nicole Hollander
wouldn't be terribly surprising, but most women are straight and
monogamous; I would be surprised if they found a scarcity of available
partners that much more palatable than men do.
--
A
Serene Vannoy
Mar 29, 2013, 1:34:24 PM3/29/13
to
On 03/27/2013 04:56 PM, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>
> I think what has been bothering me about the conversation is that it
> seems a bit egocentric. If I'm not getting what I want in the way I want
> it somebody is keeping it from me. The people who are "too greedy" are
> taking all my opportunities. It could very well be that they aren't your
> opportunities whether or not those people were involved with other folk.
*swoon*
>
> I think what has been bothering me about the conversation is that it
> seems a bit egocentric. If I'm not getting what I want in the way I want
> it somebody is keeping it from me. The people who are "too greedy" are
> taking all my opportunities. It could very well be that they aren't your
> opportunities whether or not those people were involved with other folk.
I love you so much.
Serene
A
Mar 29, 2013, 2:02:35 PM3/29/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:56:29 -0700, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
> On 3/26/2013 6:45 AM, A wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:34:42 -0700, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2013 11:32 AM, A wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex icky that,
>>>> while I share their visceral aversion, I'm still *totally in favor of male
>>>> gay sex*, on the grounds that two men who are busy with each other are men
>>>> I don't have to compete with.
>>>
>>> Charming.
>>>
>>>> (Also on moral grounds, that what they do is none of my damn business --
>>>> but I leave that part out for amusement's sake.)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I get what's amusing.
>>
>> It's amusing because it's factually true, but so alien to their mode of
>> thought that they get uncomfortable trying to answer it.
>
> On 3/26/2013 6:45 AM, A wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:34:42 -0700, Guy W. Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2013 11:32 AM, A wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tangent: I occasionally like to tell guys who find male gay sex icky that,
>>>> while I share their visceral aversion, I'm still *totally in favor of male
>>>> gay sex*, on the grounds that two men who are busy with each other are men
>>>> I don't have to compete with.
>>>
>>> Charming.
>>>
>>>> (Also on moral grounds, that what they do is none of my damn business --
>>>> but I leave that part out for amusement's sake.)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I get what's amusing.
>>
>> It's amusing because it's factually true, but so alien to their mode of
>> thought that they get uncomfortable trying to answer it.
>
> It's factually true only if you think it's a zero-sum game. I don't
> think it is. If all you're looking for is to get laid that could be
> accomplished financially or by expanding your ideas about who you find
> attractive, or changing your ideas about what getting laid entails.
In this case I was talking about partner pairing, rather than just getting
> think it is. If all you're looking for is to get laid that could be
> accomplished financially or by expanding your ideas about who you find
> attractive, or changing your ideas about what getting laid entails.
laid. And I do think it's a zero-sum (or at least fixed-sum) game for
symmetrical non-polyamorous populations. I'm not sure arguing the point
will be productive, though.
> I think what has been bothering me about the conversation is that it
> seems a bit egocentric. If I'm not getting what I want in the way I want
> it somebody is keeping it from me. The people who are "too greedy" are
> taking all my opportunities. It could very well be that they aren't your
> opportunities whether or not those people were involved with other folk.
> Anyway, I'm still not getting what's funny about it but that's not
> particularly important.
--
A
Todd Michel McComb
Mar 29, 2013, 2:49:16 PM3/29/13
to
In article <arlohr...@mid.individual.net>,
a little kid was kind of staring at me, and I smiled at him. I was
quite taken aback by the father's reaction. But I had forgotten
what I was wearing.
It was pretty jarring, though.
Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>Yes, and even some folks who don't do BDSM 24/7 would like to talk about
>their relationships without having to hide.
I was walking down the street in Berkeley during FSF weekend, and
>Yes, and even some folks who don't do BDSM 24/7 would like to talk about
>their relationships without having to hide.
a little kid was kind of staring at me, and I smiled at him. I was
quite taken aback by the father's reaction. But I had forgotten
what I was wearing.
It was pretty jarring, though.
Steve Pope
Mar 29, 2013, 4:35:35 PM3/29/13
to
facing a generalized lack of opportunity (in this thread, the opportunity
for meeting/dating partners) blamed on a feeling of something
being wrong in society; greed being one example of such.
In the case of "poly is greedy", I think part of the mindset among
some non-polyamorists is the following:
1) Many people want to meet only potentially monogamous partners
2) If I am willing to be monogamous, that therefore creates
opportunities for me
3) But the acceptance of polyamory reduces the volume of people
in category (1), therefore loweing my level of opportunity.
It is but a small leap from this point to seeing "greed".
Steve
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages