Getting to know my green-eyed monster
Laura Elizabeth Back
My newer partner (the one with whom I am generally prone to Issues of all
sorts) is off seeing an old friend of his right now, and I'm...well, just
kind of twitchy and cranky and neurotic about it, I guess. I suck.
This friend is someone he's known since they were kids, and although they
don't have much (or, as far as I know, very close) contact, he considers
her one of his dearest friends. He also spent about a year, a while
before he and I got together, nursing an entirely unrequited infatuation
for her. That's history now, pretty much, and even if it weren't, there's
no chance of anything happening between them, and even if there were,
well, in theory, that sort of thing is entirely cool by me.
And yet the thought of her drives me absolutely freaking nuts.
I'm not entirely sure why that is. It's possible that it's just a purely
irrational "Mine, all mine" reaction, and much as I abhor the notion, I'm
not ruling out the possibility that there's some of that going on. But in
the process of unloading some of this on him this morning (it was a good
conversation, I think--I took full responsibility for this set of hangups,
and he was quite nicely sympathetic), I came across something else that
seems like it might be a more central issue. It's not about having to
share this little piece of him. It's about what she has that I *don't*.
Because he is still, in some sense, pining for her, and chasing after her.
Not seeking a romantic relationship, or anything, but...well, they don't
have all that much contact, certainly not nearly as much as he'd like. He
gets to see her maybe a few times a year, and talk to her only
occasionally in a while in between, and all that is almost entirely at his
initiative. I can't resist characterizing his behavior as "loyal puppy
dog." In my relationship, meanwhile, I'm the one who's done the vast
majority of the pining and the chasing--not that he leaves me all that
much to pine for, or is all that resistant to being caught, but it's
enough for me to envy someone who gets to be on the other end of things.
I also suspect I get excessively hung up about these sorts of things.
(Well, okay, these among numerous others.) I spent the early part of my
romantic life falling in love with guys who were looking for fairy tale
princesses but who were willing to enjoy the company (or more) of the girl
who was there and available in the meantime. That really isn't the
dynamic that exists between my partner and me, but there are sufficient
superficial similarities to unsettle me just a little. And if nothing
else, all that experience predisposes me to believe I'm missing out on
something by being the everyday reality instead of the longed-for ideal or
the rare treat.
So. Argh. Just thought I'd share.
--
Laura E. Back
songbird
> I'm jealous.
>
> My newer partner (the one with whom I am generally prone to Issues of all
> sorts) is off seeing an old friend of his right now, and I'm...well, just
> kind of twitchy and cranky and neurotic about it, I guess. I suck.
*hugs* have to run off now, but i did read your note.
do you have a good book to read?
songbird *peep*
Laura Elizabeth Back
>Laura Elizabeth Back wrote:
>> I'm jealous.
>>
>> My newer partner (the one with whom I am generally prone to Issues of all
>> sorts) is off seeing an old friend of his right now, and I'm...well, just
>> kind of twitchy and cranky and neurotic about it, I guess. I suck.
>
> *hugs* have to run off now, but i did read your note.
*hugs* Thanks. :-)
> do you have a good book to read?
I have both _Problems in Contract Law_ and _Tort Law and Alternatives_ to
spend some time reading tonight. I am actually looking forward to it. :-)
--
Laura E. Back
songbird
>songbird wrote:
> >Laura Elizabeth Back wrote:
> >> I'm jealous.
> >>
> >> My newer partner (the one with whom I am generally prone to Issues of all
> >> sorts) is off seeing an old friend of his right now, and I'm...well, just
> >> kind of twitchy and cranky and neurotic about it, I guess. I suck.
> >
> > *hugs* have to run off now, but i did read your note.
>
> *hugs* Thanks. :-)
you're welcome. :)
i have some sympathy with your plight and recognition too
of the case where i am both unrepentant puppydog and hoped
for chasee.
> > do you have a good book to read?
>
> I have both _Problems in Contract Law_ and _Tort Law and Alternatives_ to
> spend some time reading tonight. I am actually looking forward to it. :-)
*chuckles*
songbird *peep*
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>I also suspect I get excessively hung up about these sorts of things.
>(Well, okay, these among numerous others.) I spent the early part of
>my romantic life falling in love with guys who were looking for fairy
>tale princesses but who were willing to enjoy the company (or more)
>of the girl who was there and available in the meantime. That really
>isn't the dynamic that exists between my partner and me, but there are
>sufficient superficial similarities to unsettle me just a little. And
>if nothing else, all that experience predisposes me to believe I'm
>missing out on something by being the everyday reality instead of the
>longed-for ideal or the rare treat.
>
>So. Argh. Just thought I'd share.
*hugs* I may have more to say later, but I just wanted to mention that
scenarios in my life with some similarities have led me to mostly commit
myself to a "no chasing" rule. I don't mind making the first move, but
unless there's a clear indication of return interest, I'll stop.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2004 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Bush is a Hitler wannabe:
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/bushknew/easyslide.html
Laura Elizabeth Back
>Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>I also suspect I get excessively hung up about these sorts of things.
>>(Well, okay, these among numerous others.) I spent the early part of
>>my romantic life falling in love with guys who were looking for fairy
>>tale princesses but who were willing to enjoy the company (or more)
>>of the girl who was there and available in the meantime. That really
>>isn't the dynamic that exists between my partner and me, but there are
>>sufficient superficial similarities to unsettle me just a little. And
>>if nothing else, all that experience predisposes me to believe I'm
>>missing out on something by being the everyday reality instead of the
>>longed-for ideal or the rare treat.
>>
>>So. Argh. Just thought I'd share.
>
>*hugs* I may have more to say later, but I just wanted to mention that
>scenarios in my life with some similarities have led me to mostly commit
>myself to a "no chasing" rule. I don't mind making the first move, but
>unless there's a clear indication of return interest, I'll stop.
*nod* This is to a large extent how I do things now, too. In this
relationship, I happen to have been the first to really figure out where I
stood (he was interested all along, just not nearly so smitten nearly so
quickly), and to have turned out to be somewhat higher-intensity since.
But I'm not sure this actually translates into more chasing-like behaviors
on my part anymore--I've taken to hanging back, and he to making a
specific point of being more solicitous, so it may be that he's actually
putting forth more initiative now. I think that arrangement feels a
little too artificial to entirely quiet my hangups, but I can't really
claim I'm getting the raw end of the deal here. If nothing else, there's
little question that his slow burn is a lot more solid and more consistent
than my quick one, and probably more reliable in the long run... I just
require a certain baseline level of sanity before I know how to appreciate
those things, and sanity...well, it comes and it goes. :-)
--
Laura E. Back
Stef
Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Because he is still, in some sense, pining for her, and chasing after
>her. Not seeking a romantic relationship, or anything, but...well,
>they don't have all that much contact, certainly not nearly as much as
>he'd like. He gets to see her maybe a few times a year, and talk to
>her only occasionally in a while in between, and all that is almost
>entirely at his initiative. I can't resist characterizing his behavior
>as "loyal puppy dog." In my relationship, meanwhile, I'm the one who's
>done the vast majority of the pining and the chasing--not that he
>leaves me all that much to pine for, or is all that resistant to being
>caught, but it's enough for me to envy someone who gets to be on the
>other end of things.
This is a bit of a problem for us direct, competent sorts.
When I feel this way, I ask myself what's missing in my life and try to
boil it down to essentials. I can't turn existing partners into
something they're not or make them feel more fascinated by me. So can I
re-describe the problem as something other than "my partner isn't pining
after me?" Does it make more sense to say I want excitement? I want
something new? I want something to engage me intensely?
PS: I've occasionally had people pining after me, and sometimes it's
really awkward, and not pleasant at all.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
I went to a deli. I asked for a sub. I was disappointed. -- The Demon Prince
Guy W. Thomas
"Laura Elizabeth Back" <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:cm43ag$36b$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
And here I was going to make a smart remark like, I think he meant a *good*
book. YKIOK
I suppose. :-)
--
--
Guy W. Thomas
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/
"I love my country so much, like an exasperating friend."
From Mike Doughty's song "Move On"
Guy W. Thomas
> I'm jealous.
>
> So. Argh. Just thought I'd share.
Yep being there hurts. Much simpathy!
Ryk
<leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Because he is still, in some sense, pining for her, and chasing after her.
>Not seeking a romantic relationship, or anything, but...well, they don't
>have all that much contact, certainly not nearly as much as he'd like. He
>gets to see her maybe a few times a year, and talk to her only
>occasionally in a while in between, and all that is almost entirely at his
>initiative. I can't resist characterizing his behavior as "loyal puppy
>dog." In my relationship, meanwhile, I'm the one who's done the vast
>majority of the pining and the chasing--not that he leaves me all that
>much to pine for, or is all that resistant to being caught, but it's
>enough for me to envy someone who gets to be on the other end of things.
Would it help to get some concrete affirmation from him? He probably
can't alter the reality, but it might help you see it in a different
light. Would you feel better if he made it explicit that you are first
on the list?
There are a couple of people in my life who I don't see as often as I
would like and who I *would* like to have a more substantial
relationship with if it were possible. Still, I know that I wouldn't
change my current relationships to make it possible.Convincing my
partners of that has been difficult so far. If you have any
suggestions...
Ryk
Aqua
> In article <cm3uob$85$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>,
> Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>Because he is still, in some sense, pining for her, and chasing after
>>her. Not seeking a romantic relationship, or anything, but...well,
>>they don't have all that much contact, certainly not nearly as much as
>>he'd like. He gets to see her maybe a few times a year, and talk to
>>her only occasionally in a while in between, and all that is almost
>>entirely at his initiative. I can't resist characterizing his behavior
>>as "loyal puppy dog." In my relationship, meanwhile, I'm the one who's
>>done the vast majority of the pining and the chasing--not that he
>>leaves me all that much to pine for, or is all that resistant to being
>>caught, but it's enough for me to envy someone who gets to be on the
>>other end of things.
>
>
> This is a bit of a problem for us direct, competent sorts.
>
> When I feel this way, I ask myself what's missing in my life and try to
> boil it down to essentials. I can't turn existing partners into
> something they're not or make them feel more fascinated by me. So can I
> re-describe the problem as something other than "my partner isn't pining
> after me?" Does it make more sense to say I want excitement? I want
> something new? I want something to engage me intensely?
>
> PS: I've occasionally had people pining after me, and sometimes it's
> really awkward, and not pleasant at all.
On the whole, I agree with most of what Stef wrote, except that I want
to make it clear that it hasn't been my experience that "direct,
compentent sort" is always the opposite of "person pined for". Which is
suggested by Stef mentioning that she's been pined after, so she
probably doesn't think they're opposites.
I'm at least somewhat direct and compentent, but even more so, I seem to
be a "person pined for". People who've known me for a while have come
to recognise the symptoms along with myself, and make comments like
"that weird thing when someone gets kinda obsessive about you is
happening again, isn't it?".
I can't remember anyone coming up with a reason why it happens to me.
The explanation seems to be that I'm somehow a kind of person who gets
pined for, therefore some people pine for me.
I think every time it's happened to me, it's been awkward, and
uncomfortable, and embarrassing. I don't think I've enjoyed it, ever,
beyond the very basic teen reaction of "Someone actually likes me. I'm
not terminally unattractive."
Part of the awkwardness is that sooner or later, I can't escape the
sensation that the person doing the pining isn't actually pining for me,
as me. That sensation can be almost instantaneous, when I get the
impression that the pining has no relationship to anything I actually
say or do, so how can they be pining for me?
Other times, the pining is affected by my actions, and for a while I am
prepared to go along with the notion that I am in fact what is being
pined for. In this situation, a longer-term, awkward dance of a
relationship can arise - we make perfectly good friends, and can
appreciate each other's special qualities, but that one-sided pining
makes things difficult, as I try to make it clear that I'd prefer a less
puppy-eyed friend, and zie tries to avoid doing anything outside the
bounds of "ordinary friendship".
So why do I eventually come to the conclusion that I'm not what is being
pined for? Because over time little things don't add up. Along with
zir appreciation of some of my good qualities comes hints that zie is
interpreting those qualities as evidence of other qualities I don't
have. And often, zir (unrequited) pining seems to be maintained by a
self-belief that "zie's not worthy" and so if I actually returned the
attraction, the magic would disappear.
As observant (and patient) readers might have guessed by now, I don't
seem to ever find myself attracted to someone who pines for me. I can't
really imagine it. It is possible that I've got a self-fulfilling
prophecy running - I believe people pining for me aren't actually pining
for _me_, so I'm not attracted back, and eventually my suspicious mind
collects enough information to confirm my prior belief that it isn't
really _me_ that's being pined for.
My gut sensation however is that the whole pining thing is intrinsically
a (rather mild) form of power-exchange relationship - the piner puts
zirself at the feet of the pinee. And, _vide_ previous alt.poly
discussions, I'm really uncomfortable with and not at all attracted to
power-exchange relationships.
So I think the "pining after" may say something about an unmet desire
for some kind of power-exchange by the person doing the pining. And
just possibly, a desire to be pined for may also be an unmet desire for
a (particular?) kind of power-exchange on the part of those "bystanders"
to the pining thing who feel they are missing out.
Me, I will continue to wonder about exactly what it is I'm radiating
that I'm probably intending to communicate "not interested in
power-exchange" that gets read as the exact opposite...
But hey, life seems to be like that.
Aqua
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>My gut sensation however is that the whole pining thing is intrinsically
>a (rather mild) form of power-exchange relationship - the piner puts
>zirself at the feet of the pinee. And, _vide_ previous alt.poly
>discussions, I'm really uncomfortable with and not at all attracted to
>power-exchange relationships.
>
>So I think the "pining after" may say something about an unmet desire
>for some kind of power-exchange by the person doing the pining. And
>just possibly, a desire to be pined for may also be an unmet desire for
>a (particular?) kind of power-exchange on the part of those "bystanders"
>to the pining thing who feel they are missing out.
Interesting. I've mostly whacked the pining feeling out of my system,
but I think I've gone through it enough times that for me, at least, I
can be reasonably confident that it has little or nothing to do with
power exchange. That confidence is borne out by the patterns of the
relationships I do get into, I think.
What I'd say is that there seems to be a fairly natural human compulsion
to obsess over what one can't have. The time that I experienced the
pining feeling most strongly (aside from a stupid episode in college) was
after *I* had broken up with one partner that I'd been with for, um,
several years at that point. Oddly enough, after we got back together
zie broke up with me the second time, and I haven't felt much pining.
The two most significant cases of unrequited pining in recent years
(neither particularly strong) have, I think, a moderately strong
structural basis behind them (i.e. they're people that I developed
crushes on primarily because of their writings on alt.poly). While I can
see lots of reasons why a relationship with those people wouldn't work,
if they expressed return interest, I would certainly try (or at least
start the process of exploring whether it would work -- I do have certain
relationship needs that I haven't really checked with them).
Stef
>On the whole, I agree with most of what Stef wrote, except that I want
>to make it clear that it hasn't been my experience that "direct,
>compentent sort" is always the opposite of "person pined for".
No doubt. I'm thinking that being pined for has some things in common
with being courted, and people (perhaps mainly women) who are fairly
direct in starting relationships and who take on many of the tasks of
keeping relationships going are less likely to be courted.
Or maybe there's no such general association, and "unlikely to be
courted" and "direct in starting relationships" are just two traits that
I have.
>I think every time it's happened to me, it's been awkward, and
>uncomfortable, and embarrassing. I don't think I've enjoyed it, ever,
>beyond the very basic teen reaction of "Someone actually likes me. I'm
>not terminally unattractive."
>
>Part of the awkwardness is that sooner or later, I can't escape the
>sensation that the person doing the pining isn't actually pining for me,
>as me.
That's part of it for me too. The other part is that I feel
uncomfortable when my feelings for someone are much less intense than
their feelings for me. I feel responsible to their feelings on some
level, even though I know I can't be. So it appears in general that I'd
rather have no relationship with such a person than a relationship with
that kind of inequality.
>As observant (and patient) readers might have guessed by now, I don't
>seem to ever find myself attracted to someone who pines for me.
If I'm attracted back, then I tend not to think of what's happening as
"pining."
>My gut sensation however is that the whole pining thing is intrinsically
>a (rather mild) form of power-exchange relationship - the piner puts
>zirself at the feet of the pinee. And, _vide_ previous alt.poly
>discussions, I'm really uncomfortable with and not at all attracted to
>power-exchange relationships.
That's very interesting. I don't think pining is *intrinsically* a
power-exchange thing, but you're right that it can be. And I think my
dislike of being pined for does have something in common with my
disinterest in being a dom in a power-exchange relationship.
In my experience, "pining" can also feel similar to worship. Worship has
some elements in common with power exchange, but it's not the same
thing. Worship specifically tends to include interacting with a mental
image of that which is worshipped, which could account for your feeling
of "they're not pining for *me*".
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Listen to the story told by the reed,
of being separated.
"Since I was cut from the reedbed,
I have made this crying sound.
Anyone apart from someone he loves
understands what I say." -- Rumi, tr. Coleman Barks
Laura Elizabeth Back
>Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>Because he is still, in some sense, pining for her, and chasing after
>>her. Not seeking a romantic relationship, or anything, but...well,
>>they don't have all that much contact, certainly not nearly as much as
>>he'd like. He gets to see her maybe a few times a year, and talk to
>>her only occasionally in a while in between, and all that is almost
>>entirely at his initiative. I can't resist characterizing his behavior
>>as "loyal puppy dog." In my relationship, meanwhile, I'm the one who's
>>done the vast majority of the pining and the chasing--not that he
>>leaves me all that much to pine for, or is all that resistant to being
>>caught, but it's enough for me to envy someone who gets to be on the
>>other end of things.
>
>This is a bit of a problem for us direct, competent sorts.
Ayup. Your comments downthread about being courted were right on the mark
for me, especially in this particular relationship. Even outside of more
annoying hangups, I get a sort of wistful "Hey, it would've been nice..."
sense about that.
>When I feel this way, I ask myself what's missing in my life and try to
>boil it down to essentials. I can't turn existing partners into
>something they're not or make them feel more fascinated by me. So can I
>re-describe the problem as something other than "my partner isn't pining
>after me?" Does it make more sense to say I want excitement? I want
>something new? I want something to engage me intensely?
I don't think there's a general something-missing for me at the moment.
To the extent that I want anything I'm not getting out of the relationship
in question, it's a want attached directly to the relationship. I think
the basic model is something like "In a situation where A and B are true,
I'm not comfortable unless C is true." Given that I can't force C, the
obvious solution would be to eliminate A and B, but here those have value
in their own right, so instead I just deal. (Usually. Sometimes not so
well.) Ideally, perhaps, I'd come up with D, E, and F that were under my
control and could substitute for C, but no obvious candidates present
themselves.
>PS: I've occasionally had people pining after me, and sometimes it's
>really awkward, and not pleasant at all.
Indeed. My experiences in that vein have varied greatly. Here, though, I
tend to do all the pining, and that quit being pleasant quite some time
ago.
--
Laura E. Back
Laura Elizabeth Back
>"Laura Elizabeth Back" <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote in message
>news:cm43ag$36b$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
>> songbird <song...@anthive.com> wrote:
>>
>>> do you have a good book to read?
>>
>> I have both _Problems in Contract Law_ and _Tort Law and Alternatives_ to
>> spend some time reading tonight. I am actually looking forward to it. :-)
>
>And here I was going to make a smart remark like, I think he meant a *good*
>book. YKIOK
>I suppose. :-)
The goal is for my kink to get me through law school with sanity
intact. :-)
--
Laura E. Back
Guy W. Thomas
A very worthy goal!
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>My newer partner (the one with whom I am generally prone to Issues
>of all sorts) is off seeing an old friend of his right now, and
>I'm...well, just kind of twitchy and cranky and neurotic about it, I
>guess. I suck.
One other thing: you don't suck.
Well, maybe you do, but you haven't been particularly forthcoming with
details about your sex life. ;-)
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2004 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
You didn't expect me to resist a straight line like that, I hope
Laura Elizabeth Back
>>
>>My newer partner (the one with whom I am generally prone to Issues
>>of all sorts) is off seeing an old friend of his right now, and
>>I'm...well, just kind of twitchy and cranky and neurotic about it, I
>>guess. I suck.
>
>One other thing: you don't suck.
>
>Well, maybe you do, but you haven't been particularly forthcoming with
>details about your sex life. ;-)
I needed a laugh this morning. Thanks, Aahz. :-)
--
Laura E. Back
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>My newer partner (the one with whom I am generally prone to Issues
>>>of all sorts) is off seeing an old friend of his right now, and
>>>I'm...well, just kind of twitchy and cranky and neurotic about it, I
>>>guess. I suck.
>>
>>One other thing: you don't suck.
>>
>>Well, maybe you do, but you haven't been particularly forthcoming with
>>details about your sex life. ;-)
>
>I needed a laugh this morning. Thanks, Aahz. :-)
You're welcome. Glad to know I hit the right note.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2004 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Bush is a Hitler wannabe:
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/bushknew/easyslide.html
Aqua
> In article <h3uj52-...@news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>On the whole, I agree with most of what Stef wrote, except that I want
>>to make it clear that it hasn't been my experience that "direct,
>>compentent sort" is always the opposite of "person pined for".
>
> No doubt. I'm thinking that being pined for has some things in common
> with being courted, and people (perhaps mainly women) who are fairly
> direct in starting relationships and who take on many of the tasks of
> keeping relationships going are less likely to be courted.
>
> Or maybe there's no such general association, and "unlikely to be
> courted" and "direct in starting relationships" are just two traits that
> I have.
I think there's a correlation, but it's not 100%. Sorry, too much
statistics around me at the moment, I'll try again: I agree it's a
common pattern, but there are plenty of exceptions too.
>
>>I think every time it's happened to me, it's been awkward, and
>>uncomfortable, and embarrassing. I don't think I've enjoyed it, ever,
>>beyond the very basic teen reaction of "Someone actually likes me. I'm
>>not terminally unattractive."
>>
>>Part of the awkwardness is that sooner or later, I can't escape the
>>sensation that the person doing the pining isn't actually pining for me,
>>as me.
>
> That's part of it for me too. The other part is that I feel
> uncomfortable when my feelings for someone are much less intense than
> their feelings for me. I feel responsible to their feelings on some
> level, even though I know I can't be. So it appears in general that I'd
> rather have no relationship with such a person than a relationship with
> that kind of inequality.
I have some of that, but I'm getting better about just accepting that
the intensity of feeling will vary between people. Sometimes, one party
in a relationship simple doesn't experience feeling at the intensity the
other is feeling, and if both parties are okay about that, it works out
fine.
>>As observant (and patient) readers might have guessed by now, I don't
>>seem to ever find myself attracted to someone who pines for me.
>
> If I'm attracted back, then I tend not to think of what's happening as
> "pining."
This got me thinking. There have been people who've been attracted to
me, and I'm not attracted back, but I don't think of it as "pining". I
may eventually develop a return attraction to them, or not.
If I get the "pining" vibe, I go right off a person. I think I've been
attracted to someone, who was attracted back, and the relationship was
in its infancy when I got the sense that the other's attraction was
actually the "pining" type, and that was it for me. It was over.
So "pining" is a very specific subcategory of attraction, to me.
This could explain some of the apparent disagreements I'm having about
it here. If other people are simply using "pining" to mean "strong
attraction on one side not matched by the other", I can see the confusion.
So this specific subcategory, I'm not sure I previously ever called it
"pining". I think it was specifically Laura's expression "loyal puppy
dog" that triggered my "she's talking about *that* kind of attraction"
sensor.
I am quite happy to call this thing something else, if it'd help
conversation. As I mentioned, close people in my life also recognise
when it's happening to me, and talk about it as distinct from other
types of attraction, and in a way that suggests it's not a subcategory
they have to worry much about themselves, although of course there are
people who are attracted to them.
>>My gut sensation however is that the whole pining thing is intrinsically
>>a (rather mild) form of power-exchange relationship - the piner puts
>>zirself at the feet of the pinee. And, _vide_ previous alt.poly
>>discussions, I'm really uncomfortable with and not at all attracted to
>>power-exchange relationships.
>
> That's very interesting. I don't think pining is *intrinsically* a
> power-exchange thing, but you're right that it can be. And I think my
> dislike of being pined for does have something in common with my
> disinterest in being a dom in a power-exchange relationship.
>
> In my experience, "pining" can also feel similar to worship. Worship has
> some elements in common with power exchange, but it's not the same
> thing. Worship specifically tends to include interacting with a mental
> image of that which is worshipped, which could account for your feeling
> of "they're not pining for *me*".
I think the subcategory of attraction I'm talking about is, as you're
very accurately describing it here, related to worship, which in my book
(or at least when talking about this kind of worship; I think there are
several types of worship) is a kind of power exchange.
And you're right, me sense that the other person is interacting with a
mental image inspired by me, rather than the actual me, can be very
strong. I would be very interested to hear about what you see as the
differences between power exchange and worship apart from the "mental
image".
The one remotely successful long-term relationship (at a friendship
level) I've been able to maintain with someone like this works for me
because zie creates art inspired by the mental image inspired by me.
The art is lovely and I'm happy it exists and proud to be connected to
it, even if indirectly. I feel a bit like a muse.
That's not to say I don't feel awkward and uncomfortable at times, but
the discomfort is at a level I can manage and it definitely seems worth
it to me.
This is spinning off a couple of very interesting tangent thoughts for me.
<Warning: the following content may be offensive to Christians, and
others for that matter.>
I've been an atheist and felt intrinsically unreligious my entire life.
I am coming to the awareness that although I'm still an atheist (in
the way that I'm an atheist - there's some very messy stuff about how
one defines god/God/gods that definitely affects whether I'd call myself
an atheist by that definition), there isn't anything particularly
unreligious about me.
It's just that I'm very much not Christian, and because I grew up in a
strongly Christian culture (I don't mean in the practicing religious
sense so much as the cultural assumptions sense, which may even be part
of the problem) the definition of religion I grew up with is very
Christian-oriented. Now I'm becoming aware of broader definitions of
religion that I can see myself fitting into quite well.
And one of the reasons that I'm not Christian, and I realise this may be
quite a different experience for others, particularly Christians, is
that it feels to me that to be Christian, I have to choose to become a
sub in a specific kind of worship/power exchange relationship, and I'm
just not prepared to do that.
As I said, this is all about my emotional reaction, but I think this is
the first time I've been able to put that emotional reaction into
remotely coherent (even if potentially very offensive) words. But the
words match a solid long term sense of the "wrongness" of Christianity
for me.
</Warning>
Another tangent thought I'm having is that in so far as I have any clue
what power exchange is about, I have no problem with it, in either
direction, as play or fantasy. It is *very* important to me that if
anyone else is involved in the play/fantasy, that I have a strong sense
that all participants know, consent, and are acting according to it
being play. If I get any sense anyone is taking it remotely seriously,
I pull out. And that doesn't have to mean anyone actually is taking it
seriously, just that I'm getting that sense.
I'm prepared to accept the judgement of any BDSM'er here that that makes
me terribly defective and out of touch with myself, but that's how I am,
and I have no problem with being that way.
Thank you very much for the thought-provoking post.
Aqua
Stef
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>Stef wrote:
>> Or maybe there's no such general association, and "unlikely to be
>> courted" and "direct in starting relationships" are just two traits that
>> I have.
>
>I think there's a correlation, but it's not 100%. Sorry, too much
>statistics around me at the moment, I'll try again: I agree it's a
>common pattern, but there are plenty of exceptions too.
That would be my guess as well.
>> That's part of it for me too. The other part is that I feel
>> uncomfortable when my feelings for someone are much less intense than
>> their feelings for me. I feel responsible to their feelings on some
>> level, even though I know I can't be. So it appears in general that I'd
>> rather have no relationship with such a person than a relationship with
>> that kind of inequality.
>I have some of that, but I'm getting better about just accepting that
>the intensity of feeling will vary between people. Sometimes, one party
>in a relationship simple doesn't experience feeling at the intensity the
>other is feeling, and if both parties are okay about that, it works out
>fine.
I agree it can work out fine, and I don't mind some differences in
intensity. But for me it doesn't work out fine if the other person has
very much more intense feelings (and I know it).
>So "pining" is a very specific subcategory of attraction, to me.
>
>This could explain some of the apparent disagreements I'm having about
>it here. If other people are simply using "pining" to mean "strong
>attraction on one side not matched by the other", I can see the confusion.
>
>So this specific subcategory, I'm not sure I previously ever called it
>"pining". I think it was specifically Laura's expression "loyal puppy
>dog" that triggered my "she's talking about *that* kind of attraction"
>sensor.
I wasn't sure which definition you meant. I would tend to define
"pining" as an attraction with an obsessive quality.
>> In my experience, "pining" can also feel similar to worship. Worship has
>> some elements in common with power exchange, but it's not the same
>> thing. Worship specifically tends to include interacting with a mental
>> image of that which is worshipped, which could account for your feeling
>> of "they're not pining for *me*".
>I think the subcategory of attraction I'm talking about is, as you're
>very accurately describing it here, related to worship, which in my book
>(or at least when talking about this kind of worship; I think there are
>several types of worship) is a kind of power exchange.
*nod* I can see similarities between worship and power exchange, but
since the term worship is also used by religious communities who
probably wouldn't think of it that way, I hesitate to make it into a
subcategory of power exchange definitionally.
>And you're right, me sense that the other person is interacting with a
>mental image inspired by me, rather than the actual me, can be very
>strong. I would be very interested to hear about what you see as the
>differences between power exchange and worship apart from the "mental
>image".
Power exchange requires an exchange and happens between two people.
One can worship a person, but one can also worship a deity or an idea or
a internal image of something, which may or may not have anything to do
with an actual person. (The preceding is agnostic on the subject of
whether deities exist apart from people's internal images of them and
whether such deities can communicate with people.)
>The one remotely successful long-term relationship (at a friendship
>level) I've been able to maintain with someone like this works for me
>because zie creates art inspired by the mental image inspired by me.
>The art is lovely and I'm happy it exists and proud to be connected to
>it, even if indirectly. I feel a bit like a muse.
On the other side, I find I'm most satisfied with a "worshipping" type
of relationship with another person if I can convert it into artistic
appreciation. Or sort of appreciate the person as a symbol of what's
good about the universe.
><Warning: the following content may be offensive to Christians, and
>others for that matter.>
>
>I've been an atheist and felt intrinsically unreligious my entire life.
> I am coming to the awareness that although I'm still an atheist (in
>the way that I'm an atheist - there's some very messy stuff about how
>one defines god/God/gods that definitely affects whether I'd call myself
>an atheist by that definition), there isn't anything particularly
>unreligious about me.
>
>It's just that I'm very much not Christian, and because I grew up in a
>strongly Christian culture (I don't mean in the practicing religious
>sense so much as the cultural assumptions sense, which may even be part
>of the problem) the definition of religion I grew up with is very
>Christian-oriented. Now I'm becoming aware of broader definitions of
>religion that I can see myself fitting into quite well.
>
>And one of the reasons that I'm not Christian, and I realise this may be
>quite a different experience for others, particularly Christians, is
>that it feels to me that to be Christian, I have to choose to become a
>sub in a specific kind of worship/power exchange relationship, and I'm
>just not prepared to do that.
That's very interesting. I felt very differently about the type of
Christianity I was brought up in. It felt dry to me and I never
developed any feeling of a relationship with a deity. Only when I
explored paganism did I develop such a feeling, and for me it has the
feeling of a caretaking parent/care-needing child relationship most of
the time. I don't think of that as power exchange, but some people
probably would.
>As I said, this is all about my emotional reaction, but I think this is
>the first time I've been able to put that emotional reaction into
>remotely coherent (even if potentially very offensive) words. But the
>words match a solid long term sense of the "wrongness" of Christianity
>for me.
>
></Warning>
>
>Another tangent thought I'm having is that in so far as I have any clue
>what power exchange is about, I have no problem with it, in either
>direction, as play or fantasy. It is *very* important to me that if
>anyone else is involved in the play/fantasy, that I have a strong sense
>that all participants know, consent, and are acting according to it
>being play. If I get any sense anyone is taking it remotely seriously,
>I pull out. And that doesn't have to mean anyone actually is taking it
>seriously, just that I'm getting that sense.
>
>I'm prepared to accept the judgement of any BDSM'er here that that makes
>me terribly defective and out of touch with myself, but that's how I am,
>and I have no problem with being that way.
I feel the same way about power exchange, but not about the kind of
worship I do.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
In theory, there is no difference between theory and
practice. In practice, there is. --Richard P. Feynman
Laura Elizabeth Back
>This could explain some of the apparent disagreements I'm having about
>it here. If other people are simply using "pining" to mean "strong
>attraction on one side not matched by the other", I can see the confusion.
>
>So this specific subcategory, I'm not sure I previously ever called it
>"pining". I think it was specifically Laura's expression "loyal puppy
>dog" that triggered my "she's talking about *that* kind of attraction"
>sensor.
I should note that my choice of language there probably had more than a
little to do with my own jealousy/resentment in that particular situation.
But I should also note that I've encountered things I'd characterize that
way without meaning it to be at all disparaging. I have seen a very few
people do the loyal-puppy-dog thing in ways that I don't find at all
unappealing or uncomfortable. My primary partner actually won me over
that way, even. :-)
--
Laura E. Back
songbird
> Aqua wrote:
*nods*
i hope that my affections and loyalties are not misplaced,
but both of them acknowledge that the person being admired is
not perfect, but hopes that for some moments they will allow
themselves the grace to exist as they are, without seeing
themselves as marked or shamed and deserving of affection and
loyalty. do not forget that love is also merciful and does
not ask a person to harm themselves or others.
or so as i do see it.
songbird *peep*
Morag R
>
> This is spinning off a couple of very interesting tangent thoughts for me.
>
> <Warning: the following content may be offensive to Christians, and
> others for that matter.>
I was raised conservative Christian, and what you write about is
something I've been aware of since I was knee high to a missionary.
The fact that I'm not offended might be to do with the fact that I lost
my faith in my teens over similar issues. I suggest tho' that what
you're talking about is a popular and visible expression of
Christianity, not Christianity per se, and it is worth taking pains to
distinguish that in your writing.
> And one of the reasons that I'm not Christian, and I realise this may be
> quite a different experience for others, particularly Christians, is
> that it feels to me that to be Christian, I have to choose to become a
> sub in a specific kind of worship/power exchange relationship, and I'm
> just not prepared to do that.
Absolutely, which is part of the reason for my faith loss. That and
the business of being born a female meaning you were expected to sub to
a (probably emotionally incompetent) male in a marriage as well. I
observed that it sent my mother around the bend, so I determined I
would not go that way.
> As I said, this is all about my emotional reaction, but I think this is
> the first time I've been able to put that emotional reaction into
> remotely coherent (even if potentially very offensive) words. But the
> words match a solid long term sense of the "wrongness" of Christianity
> for me.
Norm is far more expert than I on this subject but you appear to be
talking about the Christianity we got courtesy of St Paul. It's always
puzzled me that it gets a lot more airplay than the words of Christ
which are less about abasing oneself before a demanding God, and more
about basic humility.
> Another tangent thought I'm having is that in so far as I have any clue
> what power exchange is about, I have no problem with it, in either
> direction, as play or fantasy. It is *very* important to me that if
> anyone else is involved in the play/fantasy, that I have a strong sense
> that all participants know, consent, and are acting according to it
> being play. If I get any sense anyone is taking it remotely seriously,
> I pull out. And that doesn't have to mean anyone actually is taking it
> seriously, just that I'm getting that sense.
>
> I'm prepared to accept the judgement of any BDSM'er here that that makes
> me terribly defective and out of touch with myself, but that's how I am,
> and I have no problem with being that way.
I am in a particularly free fall place with BDSM and power at the
moment as ssbbeings will know so I'll keep this short.
I don't think anyone is going to level that kind of accusation at you.
However, I tend more towards a view that the world is a jungle and I
can't go around getting stressed about whether other people are dealing
with power decently. I can set a good example, but I don't always
have the option of pulling out completely (I work in an office for a
start).
It is up to me to ignore alien orders with as little collatoral damage
as possible, and in order to do that I do have to take people's power
issues seriously. NB - "take seriously" does not equal "submit to".
MoragR
--
Email - morag *at* homemail *dot* com *dot* au
Norm
> [snip]
> Norm is far more expert than I on this subject but you appear to be
> talking about the Christianity we got courtesy of St Paul. It's always
> puzzled me that it gets a lot more airplay than the words of Christ
> which are less about abasing oneself before a demanding God, and more
> about basic humility.
Thanks for breaking this out into a separate thread.
Otherwise I would have overlooked it.
As a general rule it's intellectually safer to blame the way
Paul's writings have been used than to blame Paul. One of my
aggravations is that he is way too easily ceded to the
Fundamentalists.
> [snip]
--
Norm
Fat Naked Dangerous
>As a general rule it's intellectually safer to blame the way
>Paul's writings have been used than to blame Paul. One of my
>aggravations is that he is way too easily ceded to the
>Fundamentalists.
Huh. Interesting. Um, can you say more? 'Cause I've studied Paul,
and found him pretty cringe-worthy. What am I missing?
--
Piglet
Aqua
You're welcome to any future loyal-puppy-dog admirers of mine :-)
I'm not meaning to be disparaging about this kind of behaviour either,
although I realise the way I'm describing it might sound that way. It's
just completely unattractive to me.
Some people prefer blonde hair, others prefer dark....
Aqua
Louise
wrote:
> There are a couple of people in my life who I don't see as often as I
>would like and who I *would* like to have a more substantial
>relationship with if it were possible. Still, I know that I wouldn't
>change my current relationships to make it possible.Convincing my
>partners of that has been difficult so far. If you have any
>suggestions...
As I already said, repeating this romantic statement periodically in
different ways seems to be quite effective ...
Louise
Ryk
Every chance I get ;-)
Ryk
Ryk
>In article <2iqr52-...@news.jamver.id.au>, Aqua
><aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>The fact that I'm not offended might be to do with the fact that I lost
>my faith in my teens over similar issues. I suggest tho' that what
>you're talking about is a popular and visible expression of
>Christianity, not Christianity per se, and it is worth taking pains to
>distinguish that in your writing.
Yes.
Although I'm not a Christian, it has been made pretty clear to me that
submission is not a requirement, neither to God nor to some
patriarchal male. For that matter, Christianity per se doesn't
preclude gay or poly relationships.
The sermon at one of our local churches this week included a mention
that it feels odd to hear election news about "Christian Values" from
south of the border while reflecting that the United Church of Canada
has been pro-choice for 30 years and marries same sex couples.
Ryk
Tacit
>that it feels odd to hear election news about "Christian Values" from
>south of the border while reflecting that the United Church of Canada
>has been pro-choice for 30 years and marries same sex couples.
In this particular case, "Christian Values" is a code phrase that has
everything to do with a very specific social stance taken by a very specific
group of people (most often, Southern Baptists), and nothing to do with
Christianity or Christian moral theory.
American politics is replete with examples of such coded language. The language
is not a way to express an idea so much as a way for people who hold certain
ideas to recognize one another and to talk about those ideas indirectly.
Probably the best example of this kind of language is the phrase "state's
rights," which was common throughout the fifties and sixties. On the surface of
it, "state's rights" seems to be about the idea of decentralized power vs.
Federal power, but the reality is that "state's rights" is about racism and
segregation. The champions of "state's rights," and their followers, knew
*precisely* what they were talking about--keeping those damn uppity Negroes in
their place, and not allowing any hifalootin' Washington meddlers to say
otherwise. It was a code phrase for a set of ideas about the role of race in
society and politics, and had little to do with Constitutional questions of
federal power except as it related to keeping the Negroes in their place.
"Family values" and "Christian values" are similarly coded words used to
discuss a very specific set of ideals--namely, opposition to non-traditional
family units and sexual practices, including but not limited to homosexuality,
"fornication" (defined by the religious right as sex between two people not
married to each other), adultery, bigamy, polyamory, and polygamy. You do not
see these words used in the context of, say, Christian theology, or Christian
moral teachings except insofar as they have to do with sex and family.
It's fascinating to see the way we use language in the political rhetoric of
this country.
--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Norm
> In this particular case, "Christian Values" is a code phrase that has
> everything to do with a very specific social stance taken by a very specific
> group of people (most often, Southern Baptists), and nothing to do with
> Christianity or Christian moral theory.
>
> American politics is replete with examples of such coded language. The language
> is not a way to express an idea so much as a way for people who hold certain
> ideas to recognize one another and to talk about those ideas indirectly.
I'd expect a dictionary of all coded religious language to
be many times fatter than a dictionary of all coded
political language. So far as I know, there is no dictionary
of coded religious language.
Watch out if you don't know the code!
> "Family values" and "Christian values" are similarly coded words used to
> discuss a very specific set of ideals--namely, opposition to non-traditional
> family units and sexual practices, including but not limited to homosexuality,
> "fornication" (defined by the religious right as sex between two people not
> married to each other), adultery, bigamy, polyamory, and polygamy. You do not
> see these words used in the context of, say, Christian theology, or Christian
> moral teachings except insofar as they have to do with sex and family.
I'm not getting the point of your last sentence.
> It's fascinating to see the way we use language in the political rhetoric of
> this country.
Yes, indeed.
--
Norm
Jim Roberts
Norm wrote:
> Tacit wrote:
>
>
>> In this particular case, "Christian Values" is a code phrase that has
>> everything to do with a very specific social stance taken by a very
>> specific
>> group of people (most often, Southern Baptists), and nothing to do with
>> Christianity or Christian moral theory.
>>
>> American politics is replete with examples of such coded language. The
>> language
>> is not a way to express an idea so much as a way for people who hold
>> certain
>> ideas to recognize one another and to talk about those ideas indirectly.
>
>
> I'd expect a dictionary of all coded religious language to be many times
> fatter than a dictionary of all coded political language. So far as I
> know, there is no dictionary of coded religious language.
>
> Watch out if you don't know the code!
>
>
I'm all for religious values, just like Scrooge McDuck. We have all our
money in illegal gold Rands in a huge galvanized tub, and run our hands
through it every evening before going to bed.
>> "Family values" and "Christian values" are similarly coded words used to
>> discuss a very specific set of ideals--namely, opposition to
>> non-traditional
>> family units and sexual practices, including but not limited to
>> homosexuality,
>> "fornication" (defined by the religious right as sex between two
>> people not
>> married to each other), adultery, bigamy, polyamory, and polygamy. You
>> do not
>> see these words used in the context of, say, Christian theology, or
>> Christian
>> moral teachings except insofar as they have to do with sex and family.
>
>
> I'm not getting the point of your last sentence.
>
>
>> It's fascinating to see the way we use language in the political
>> rhetoric of
>> this country.
>
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
jimbat
Tacit
>>I wrote:
>>You do not
>>see these words used in the context of, say, Christian theology, or Christian
>>moral teachings except insofar as they have to do with sex and family.
>
>I'm not getting the point of your last sentence.
What I'm saying, in somewhat muddled syntax, is that a person could discuss
"Christian values" in the context of, say, Christian teachings about money and
greed, or Christian teachings about taxation, or Christian teachigs about
peace, or any of a hundred other things--but when someone says "Christian
values" in the context of modern American politics, you can bet he's not
talking about any of those things. He's talking about one thing: sex. For the
most part, "Christian values," like "family values," has become a synonym for
"sex" in political discourse, and particularly for "I hate fags."
Louise
Louise
Ryk wrote:
>>The sermon at one of our local churches this week included a mention
>>that it feels odd to hear election news about "Christian Values" from
>>south of the border while reflecting that the United Church of Canada
>>has been pro-choice for 30 years and marries same sex couples.
>
>In this particular case, "Christian Values" is a code phrase that has
>everything to do with a very specific social stance taken by a very specific
>group of people (most often, Southern Baptists), and nothing to do with
>Christianity or Christian moral theory.
Two different people this week made challenges in my hearing for
liberal Christians to reclaim the label of Christian, in order to
reduce the public correlation of "Christian" with that particular
social stance. (One person was the minister of my church and the
other was piranha.)
So. I am a Christian.
>American politics is replete with examples of such coded language. The language
>is not a way to express an idea so much as a way for people who hold certain
>ideas to recognize one another and to talk about those ideas indirectly.
>
>Probably the best example of this kind of language is the phrase "state's
>rights," which was common throughout the fifties and sixties.
Wasn't it "states' rights"? I remember being fascinated to decode
this one when I lived in the US, then re-reading things after knowing
what it meant.
>"Family values" and "Christian values" are similarly coded words used to
>discuss a very specific set of ideals--namely, opposition to non-traditional
>family units and sexual practices, including but not limited to homosexuality,
>"fornication" (defined by the religious right as sex between two people not
>married to each other), adultery, bigamy, polyamory, and polygamy.
Maybe "family values" has become ineffective with the rebuttal of
"Hate is not a family value" so they are trying a new euphemism?
Louise
Norm
> What I'm saying, in somewhat muddled syntax, is that a person could discuss
> "Christian values" in the context of, say, Christian teachings about money and
> greed, or Christian teachings about taxation, or Christian teachigs about
> peace, or any of a hundred other things--but when someone says "Christian
> values" in the context of modern American politics, you can bet he's not
> talking about any of those things. He's talking about one thing: sex. For the
> most part, "Christian values," like "family values," has become a synonym for
> "sex" in political discourse, and particularly for "I hate fags."
Ah, okay, now I understand what you meant. In that case, I
can't say your post said anything with which I disagreed.
However, I would add that one reason for coded language is
to get people on board who might agree, for instance, with
states' rights but not segregation and with the valuing of
families but not just traditional families.
Or, to state the matter from another perspective, one can
believe in states' rights and family values and yet not in
what those terms stand for as codes.
--
Norm
Tacit
>However, I would add that one reason for coded language is
>to get people on board who might agree, for instance, with
>states' rights but not segregation and with the valuing of
>families but not just traditional families.
Yep. Another benefit of coded language is that it allows the people using it to
speak in public to others who share the same views without coming across as
reactionary or inflammatory. Even in the sixties, it was not really acceptable
in large parts of the country to say "We need laws to keep blacks from getting
uppity," but it was perfectly acceptable to say "We need laws to protect
states' rights," and the people who understood the language knew exactly what
was being said. People who agreed with the idea of states' rights without
knowing what the coded language really meant were a bonus.
>Or, to state the matter from another perspective, one can
>believe in states' rights and family values and yet not in
>what those terms stand for as codes.
Absolutely. And when the hidden meaning of the coded language becomes
well-known, people who support the ideas of states' rights but not segregation,
or family values but not hate, will often end up distancing themselves from the
people who espouse the values hidden behind the coded language.
Tacit
>Two different people this week made challenges in my hearing for
>liberal Christians to reclaim the label of Christian, in order to
>reduce the public correlation of "Christian" with that particular
>social stance. (One person was the minister of my church and the
>other was piranha.)
That's a great idea, and I feel it's necessary for Christians who do not share
the attitudes of the reactionary Fundamentalist sects, and particularly don't
share the idea of Christian Reconstructionism. The terms "Christian" and
"Christian values" are acquiring very specific meanings in American politics,
which I don't think many Christians really want to be identified with.
>Wasn't it "states' rights"?
Yes. Mea culpa.
>Maybe "family values" has become ineffective with the rebuttal of
>"Hate is not a family value" so they are trying a new euphemism?
Could very well be. I noticed that in this election, the expression "family
values" had all but faded away, and seems to have been almost entirely replaced
with "Christian values." I think that's interesting for two reasons--first,
because not everybody who believes only in traditional family structures is
Christian, and second, because not all Christians are reactionary.
One of the interesting things about coded language is that, by its nature, it
needs to change. It works only if the hidden meaning is known to the group usig
it, but not to the population at large; once the hidden meaning has been
decoded by enough people who don't share the values the language represents,
new coded language needs to develop.
Aqua
> In article <2iqr52-...@news.jamver.id.au>, Aqua
> <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>
>>This is spinning off a couple of very interesting tangent thoughts for me.
>>
>><Warning: the following content may be offensive to Christians, and
>>others for that matter.>
>
> I was raised conservative Christian, and what you write about is
> something I've been aware of since I was knee high to a missionary.
>
> The fact that I'm not offended might be to do with the fact that I lost
> my faith in my teens over similar issues. I suggest tho' that what
> you're talking about is a popular and visible expression of
> Christianity, not Christianity per se, and it is worth taking pains to
> distinguish that in your writing.
I was hoping that I'd made it clear that I'm not talking about
Christianity, or even a popular and visible expression of it, but about
my emotional reaction to my impression of what it is about. I accept
that my impression could be seriously wrong, and that others would find
my emotional reaction to that impression (as distinct from the 'fact' of
Christianity) bizarre, but I yam what I yam.
I'd also note that this is one of the first times I've talked much about
this to anyone, because it didn't take me long to figure out that I am
seriously at odds with the culture around me on this point, and I have
nothing against Christians, and I'm happy it works for them, and I'd
prefer not to offend them.
So this is offensive partly because this is the first time I'm exploring
how to even communicate what's going on in my head here. I'm hoping
that once I've been through a few rounds of alt.poly assisted
introspection (tm) that I might actually be able to communicate
non-offensively about this with others.
>>And one of the reasons that I'm not Christian, and I realise this may be
>>quite a different experience for others, particularly Christians, is
>>that it feels to me that to be Christian, I have to choose to become a
>>sub in a specific kind of worship/power exchange relationship, and I'm
>>just not prepared to do that.
>
> Absolutely, which is part of the reason for my faith loss. That and
> the business of being born a female meaning you were expected to sub to
> a (probably emotionally incompetent) male in a marriage as well. I
> observed that it sent my mother around the bend, so I determined I
> would not go that way.
This makes me wonder somewhat if it's actually the same experience we're
talking about. I never got any sense of Christianity requiring women
having to sub to men; the culture I grew up in's Christianity included
female priests, and probably recognises same-sex relationships by now.
> Norm is far more expert than I on this subject but you appear to be
> talking about the Christianity we got courtesy of St Paul. It's always
> puzzled me that it gets a lot more airplay than the words of Christ
> which are less about abasing oneself before a demanding God, and more
> about basic humility.
It's quite possible it's Pauline, I'm not a theologian (although I once
did some kind of religious quiz, and when I disagreed with one of the
results, found a FAQ that said "it's possible to disagree with this
result, but only theologians do it" which amused me no end).
I've tried to figure out what it is about Christianity I react to, and
as far as I can tell (which means it may not be accurate and may need a
few more rounds of offending people) it boils down to being somewhere in
the vicinity of:
The notion of "Original Sin", the concept that Christ died on the cross
for our sins, that we need to accept Christ as our Saviour, and the "for
God so loved the world that he gave his only son" thing.
With a side order of the "both man and god" thing is just trying to have
your cake and eating it too.
I have no problem with the idea of basic humility, but to me there's an
enormous leap from a sense of humility and fallibility to Sin, and
someone else having to be punished for my sin, and I should be happy and
grateful for that.
If there's anyone who knows much about Christianity I haven't totally
offended by now, could they let me know if that's Pauline or not? It'd
be much appreciated, and in exchange, I promise not to talk about
Christianity here again until I've done some further research.
>
>
>>Another tangent thought I'm having is that in so far as I have any clue
>>what power exchange is about, I have no problem with it, in either
>>direction, as play or fantasy. It is *very* important to me that if
>>anyone else is involved in the play/fantasy, that I have a strong sense
>>that all participants know, consent, and are acting according to it
>>being play. If I get any sense anyone is taking it remotely seriously,
>>I pull out. And that doesn't have to mean anyone actually is taking it
>>seriously, just that I'm getting that sense.
>>
>>I'm prepared to accept the judgement of any BDSM'er here that that makes
>>me terribly defective and out of touch with myself, but that's how I am,
>>and I have no problem with being that way.
>
>
> I am in a particularly free fall place with BDSM and power at the
> moment as ssbbeings will know so I'll keep this short.
>
> I don't think anyone is going to level that kind of accusation at you.
>
> However, I tend more towards a view that the world is a jungle and I
> can't go around getting stressed about whether other people are dealing
> with power decently. I can set a good example, but I don't always
> have the option of pulling out completely (I work in an office for a
> start).
>
> It is up to me to ignore alien orders with as little collatoral damage
> as possible, and in order to do that I do have to take people's power
> issues seriously. NB - "take seriously" does not equal "submit to".
That actually sounds somewhat like what I'm trying to do instinctively,
except that I'm possibly more rigid about not taking or giving power
when I think it's inappropriate, irrespective of what the other person
thinks (and what would be most socially graceful). In other words,
you're probably doing a better job because you understand what's going
on better.
In work situations, when I recognise someone who is in some sort of
potential power relationship with me who wants quite rigid power
relations, I can usually manage by "playing the game", and because I
think these cases have all involved older people, thinking "it's hard
for them to change, it's what they've been used to their whole lives."
Aqua
Aqua
I'd also be interested in more detail from Norm, if he's got the time
and inclination.
Aqua
Aqua
> In article <2iqr52-...@news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>Stef wrote:
>>So "pining" is a very specific subcategory of attraction, to me.
>>
>>This could explain some of the apparent disagreements I'm having about
>>it here. If other people are simply using "pining" to mean "strong
>>attraction on one side not matched by the other", I can see the confusion.
>>
>>So this specific subcategory, I'm not sure I previously ever called it
>>"pining". I think it was specifically Laura's expression "loyal puppy
>>dog" that triggered my "she's talking about *that* kind of attraction"
>>sensor.
>
> I wasn't sure which definition you meant. I would tend to define
> "pining" as an attraction with an obsessive quality.
I don't think I could put it into words much more precise than that - an
attraction with an obsessive/worshipping quality. I work on the basis
of "I know it when I experience it", mainly.
>>>In my experience, "pining" can also feel similar to worship. Worship has
>>>some elements in common with power exchange, but it's not the same
>>>thing. Worship specifically tends to include interacting with a mental
>>>image of that which is worshipped, which could account for your feeling
>>>of "they're not pining for *me*".
>
>>I think the subcategory of attraction I'm talking about is, as you're
>>very accurately describing it here, related to worship, which in my book
>>(or at least when talking about this kind of worship; I think there are
>>several types of worship) is a kind of power exchange.
>
> *nod* I can see similarities between worship and power exchange, but
> since the term worship is also used by religious communities who
> probably wouldn't think of it that way, I hesitate to make it into a
> subcategory of power exchange definitionally.
I understand your point and agree, in the sense that (religious) worship
doesn't have to involve power exchange.
I think what I was trying to say was that if someone's behaviour
*towards me* makes me feel like "worship" might be a good description,
I'm also likely to feel like I'm being asked to participate in something
at least somewhat like power exchange, in the sense that I don't want to
do it.
>>And you're right, me sense that the other person is interacting with a
>>mental image inspired by me, rather than the actual me, can be very
>>strong. I would be very interested to hear about what you see as the
>>differences between power exchange and worship apart from the "mental
>>image".
>
> Power exchange requires an exchange and happens between two people.
> One can worship a person, but one can also worship a deity or an idea or
> a internal image of something, which may or may not have anything to do
> with an actual person. (The preceding is agnostic on the subject of
> whether deities exist apart from people's internal images of them and
> whether such deities can communicate with people.)
Hmmmm. I guess I see plenty of people interacting with deities or ideas
in ways that trigger my sense of power exchange. As a relevant
alt.poly example, someone who decides that polyamory is "more highly
evolved" or whatever and engages in polyamorous relationships that make
zir miserable - for example, allowing zir partner other partners without
mentioning zir jealousy - has, in my sense of it, not only handed a lot
of power to zir partner, but also to the idea of polyamory.
I understand why your definition of power exchange includes the idea of
an exchange between two (or more) people, but a lot of stuff that
triggers my sense of "not interested", if not plain "bad", (that, of
course, should be "bad for me" but my emotions are not that highly
evolved and require an interpreter) seems to merely require one party to
decide to play either part and doesn't much care about the consent or
"exchange" part of the equation. Maybe this is called something else,
and I need to use that term instead?
I think the above was probably needlessly complicated, so I'll try again.
Given the following facts:
I don't want and am not attracted to power exchange relationships
I apparently attract a certain kind of person who is interested in a
certain mild kind of power exchange. (Actually, for all I know, they
could be interested in full-on BDSM, I stop being interested in them
before I have any chance of finding that out)
The way that I can tell I'm not attracted to power exchange is that my
interactions with these people trigger my "squick", as though I am
participating in power exchange I haven't consented to
It isn't power exchange until there's actual exchange of power between
two people
I can't get all this to add up. It seems to me to imply that I can't
possibly know that I don't like power exchange because I'm doing
everything I can to avoid engaging in it. But to me, it feels like
saying I don't know that I don't like a particular food because the
smell makes me gag so much I can't get it near my mouth.
>>The one remotely successful long-term relationship (at a friendship
>>level) I've been able to maintain with someone like this works for me
>>because zie creates art inspired by the mental image inspired by me.
>>The art is lovely and I'm happy it exists and proud to be connected to
>>it, even if indirectly. I feel a bit like a muse.
>
> On the other side, I find I'm most satisfied with a "worshipping" type
> of relationship with another person if I can convert it into artistic
> appreciation. Or sort of appreciate the person as a symbol of what's
> good about the universe.
I really like this. I mean the symmetry of it. I think if I found
myself in the same situation, I'd want to do the same thing. I think I
like it because it explicitly recognises the "mental image" part of the
situation.
Now, this is even *more* interesting, because the majority of my sense
of Christianity was very much like you describe - dry, no emotional
content, platitudes. It didn't make any sense to me to give it any role
in my life. I mean, I didn't need any motivation or have any spiritual
sensations around the notion of living my life thoughtfully and being
nice to other people, which seemed to be the major part of it. I sure
didn't understand the bit about going to a church once a week to talk
about that, separately from just doing it.
When I then started poking around to find out what there might be to
Christianity other than that, stuff I'd missed; to give me understanding
why some people wanted to go to church once a week to talk about it, I
came up against something that I recognised as having a lot of emotional
power. It seemed to be asking a certain kind of worship which some
people gave quite happily, and I was happy to let them do, but which I
really reacted against.
The only other place I've encountered that sense of very strong
emotional power that I want no part of is in BDSM contexts and the
reaction feels similar to me, hence my sense that power exchange and
worship have something in common.
As an adult, I'm not entirely sure I can do cared-for child, and I only
want to do caretaking parent in situations where it makes sense to me
the other is a child-equivalent (child, animal, serious illness or
trauma, although then I tend to think more nurse/patient, which I don't
have too much problem with, either way around.)
If I were to have a relationship with a deity, it would probably have to
be a teacher/student relationship. But to the extent that my religious
development is anywhere, it can be summarised by the idea that there can
be a student without a specific, identifiable teacher.
I agree all these relationship types: parent/child, nurse/patient,
doctor/patient, teacher/student, boss/employee have varying degrees of
something at least vaguely related to power exchange. It's a grey
scale, I don't think there's a distinct cut-off and I think different
people see different interactions as different shades of grey.
One of the important underlying notions I think is that of
responsibility - I take responsibility for myself, and I may have to
take responsibility for others because they are not capable of it
themselves. But I baulk at the sense that someone who is capable of a
particular type of responsibility hand it over to me, or try to take my
responsibility away from me.
This sense of "responsibility" isn't necessarily what other people mean
by the word "responsibility" of course.
>>As I said, this is all about my emotional reaction, but I think this is
>>the first time I've been able to put that emotional reaction into
>>remotely coherent (even if potentially very offensive) words. But the
>>words match a solid long term sense of the "wrongness" of Christianity
>>for me.
>>
>></Warning>
>>
>>Another tangent thought I'm having is that in so far as I have any clue
>>what power exchange is about, I have no problem with it, in either
>>direction, as play or fantasy. It is *very* important to me that if
>>anyone else is involved in the play/fantasy, that I have a strong sense
>>that all participants know, consent, and are acting according to it
>>being play. If I get any sense anyone is taking it remotely seriously,
>>I pull out. And that doesn't have to mean anyone actually is taking it
>>seriously, just that I'm getting that sense.
>>
>>I'm prepared to accept the judgement of any BDSM'er here that that makes
>>me terribly defective and out of touch with myself, but that's how I am,
>>and I have no problem with being that way.
>
> I feel the same way about power exchange, but not about the kind of
> worship I do.
And if I were doing any kind of worship, that would also be true of me -
the kind of worship I'm prepared to do has to fit this sense of me being
responsible for me, as far as I am capable.
I could even imagine someone else with very similar notions of
"responsibility" to my own, having a caretaker parent/ cared-for child
worship relationship with zir choice of deity.
Hey, maybe that someone else will be me one day. <shrug>
Aqua
Norm
I wasn't happy with my following response. Too wordy. So it
went into my "drafts" folder. But since I've now been asked
twice to say more and will just keep delaying if I keep
planning to tighten up, I'll post it as is.
<><><>
It's hard to respond without knowing precisely where the rub
is for you or others. But here are some examples, starting
in canonical order:
People say Paul was homophobic, but Paul added nothing to
Hebrew Law on the matter. The idea that he extended Hebrew
Law to cover lesbian behavior, in Romans 1:26, is unprovable
and can be shown to be unlikely. The idea that he
highlighted gay behavior as especially bad is a misreading
of Romans 1:27. He was instead evoking a larger frame of
reference, while, at the same time, using an interpretation
of Leviticus 18:22 = 20:13 that was more delimiting than the
one used by his contemporary, Philo of Alexandria. Elsewhere
he simply alludes to those levitical passages.
http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/homoralityNEA.html#Scripture
http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/relationshipsA.html#AsWith
The notion that Paul taught monogamy is problematic. He
operated out of a context in which polygyny was allowed and,
following the lead of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15),
had Gentile believers adopt the Hebrew marital system (part
of the import of porneia = "sexual immorality" in Acts
15:20, 29 and of the condemnation in 1 Corinthians 5:1ff).
In none of the passages where he is said to teach monogamy,
for example in 1 Corinthians 7:2, was he addressing the
issue of monogamy versus polygamy.
http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/Bibleindex.html
The notion that Paul taught the subordination of women in
the church is problematic. That notion is certainly old. It
goes back to the 2nd century. But, to give an example, when
I exegeted 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, supposedly the preeminent
passage along those lines, I came out with the exact
opposite of the usual interpretation. Galatians 3:28, "There
is ... neither male nor female ... in Christ Jesus" seems to
me to be Paul's basic stand on that.
http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/1Cor11comm.html
The notion that Paul taught the subordination of women in
the household (see Ephesians 5:21-33) is one-sided. First,
let me note that many scholars don't think Paul wrote
Ephesians. I've never been convinced, so I can't give Paul
that escape route. However, verse 21 teaches mutual
subjection; and that verse may well belong to the marital
passage rather than to what came before.
http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/relationshipsE.html#HeadoftheWife
Western culture seems strongly predisposed to read Paul
within a certain narrow range. That predisposition is
reflected in translations and many commentaries and so
reinforces itself. But often there are other and possibly
better ways of understanding certain passages of the Paul's
and of the rest of the Bible.
Furthermore, it takes a certain effort to become conscious
of the way we're using sacred texts. For instance it's easy
to lapse into a slavish following of words without a true
contextual understanding. Even so, what is the justification
for operating at that level rather than, say, taking cues
from the way Paul theologized, mixing creative freedom with
hermeneutical discipline?
Aqua wrote in the other thread: "And one of the reasons that
I'm not Christian, and I realize this may be quite a
different experience for others, particularly Christians, is
that it feels to me that to be Christian, I have to choose
to become a sub in a specific kind of worship/power exchange
relationship, and I'm just not prepared to do that."
I don't know what Aqua meant by that. A reference to the
idea of servants of Christ or slaves of righteousness (the
latter as in Romans 6:15-23)? Could it have more to do with
the way people use the Bible and express their religion than
with what the Bible itself says?
--
Norm
Jim Roberts
Norm wrote:
> Fat Naked Dangerous wrote:
>
>> Norm <walkswi...@comcast.net>, in article
>> <418D0DE8...@comcast.net>, dixit:
>>
>>> As a general rule it's intellectually safer to blame the way Paul's
>>> writings have been used than to blame Paul. One of my aggravations is
>>> that he is way too easily ceded to the Fundamentalists.
>>
>>
>>
>> Huh. Interesting. Um, can you say more? 'Cause I've studied Paul,
>> and found him pretty cringe-worthy. What am I missing?
>>
[...]
Hooray for Norm, a guy knows his shit. As an atheist for 50 years, I
agree with his readings in the stuff I have deleted, and admire his
industry. Lord know how he does it, what with his family, his yard, his
questionable house, his woodchopping, and me. Frankly, what he does is
quite beyond me. I may reject his premises and the releavance of his
conclusions to real life, but within his range of intellectual action,
he is a marvel.
Aqua needs to get together with Daryl Hannah (Splash) and learn how to
shatter glass before tackling Orca Norm. Even I have gotten some worthy
lessons from him.
I have antagonism to what many Christians have done through history; so
does Norm. But I learned it with mother's milk, and so the imagery and
KJV words flow in my veins, even my CABG veins. There is no way for me
to escape it, as it's built into my mental metaphors.
It was always a great regret to me that I was not able to get my kids,
now in their 30s, to read the Bible, or even the Qur'an. Fat lot of
good it would do them at their age. So, often they don't even know what
I'm talking about. It's an important part of our intellectual heritage,
but it doesn't have to guide our behavior, and especially, as Norm
points out in this post, it is largely misinterpreted, as is the Qur'an.
I tried to explain to my daughter when she was working at the World
Bank, that the Qur'an doesn't at all support the madness of
'fundamentalist' Muslims, any more than the Bible supports the behavior
of 'fundamentalist' Christians. After about 5 minutes, her eyes rolled
back in her head, and the conversation was over. Not of a philosophical
turn of mind.
jimbat
Norm
> Morag R wrote:
> I was hoping that I'd made it clear that I'm not talking about
> Christianity, or even a popular and visible expression of it, but about
> my emotional reaction to my impression of what it is about. I accept
> that my impression could be seriously wrong, and that others would find
> my emotional reaction to that impression (as distinct from the 'fact' of
> Christianity) bizarre, but I yam what I yam.
>
> I'd also note that this is one of the first times I've talked much about
> this to anyone, because it didn't take me long to figure out that I am
> seriously at odds with the culture around me on this point, and I have
> nothing against Christians, and I'm happy it works for them, and I'd
> prefer not to offend them.
>
> So this is offensive partly because this is the first time I'm exploring
> how to even communicate what's going on in my head here. I'm hoping
> that once I've been through a few rounds of alt.poly assisted
> introspection (tm) that I might actually be able to communicate
> non-offensively about this with others.
Personally, I've not found what you've written offensive.
> [snip]
>> Norm is far more expert than I on this subject but you appear to be
>> talking about the Christianity we got courtesy of St Paul. It's always
>> puzzled me that it gets a lot more airplay than the words of Christ
>> which are less about abasing oneself before a demanding God, and more
>> about basic humility.
>
>
> It's quite possible it's Pauline, I'm not a theologian (although I once
> did some kind of religious quiz, and when I disagreed with one of the
> results, found a FAQ that said "it's possible to disagree with this
> result, but only theologians do it" which amused me no end).
Sounds like a quiz I'd enjoy. :-)
> I've tried to figure out what it is about Christianity I react to, and
> as far as I can tell (which means it may not be accurate and may need a
> few more rounds of offending people) it boils down to being somewhere in
> the vicinity of:
>
> The notion of "Original Sin", the concept that Christ died on the cross
> for our sins, that we need to accept Christ as our Saviour, and the "for
> God so loved the world that he gave his only son" thing.
> With a side order of the "both man and god" thing is just trying to have
> your cake and eating it too.
>
> I have no problem with the idea of basic humility, but to me there's an
> enormous leap from a sense of humility and fallibility to Sin, and
> someone else having to be punished for my sin, and I should be happy and
> grateful for that.
>
> If there's anyone who knows much about Christianity I haven't totally
> offended by now, could they let me know if that's Pauline or not?
To itemize what you mentioned:
- Abasement is not something I associate specifically with
Paul. He did speak of being a bond-servant of Christ and of
all being sinners (the latter in Romans 3:23). However,
there's a balance in Paul that is missing in some Christian
traditions, for he also enunciates a vision of a new
creation (Galatians 6:15; cf. Colossians 1:9-23) and of a
new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17).
- Theologians have debated forever the meaning of original
sin and what Paul contributed to the idea. Of course, the
doctrine stems from Genesis 3. In Paul's writings, the locus
classicus is Romans 5. (I read Paul as writing in
metaphorical language there.)
- On needing to accept Christ (see for example, Romans
10:13ff), there are narrow ways to interpret Paul on that
and more open ways to interpret him. For example, there's
something called "wider hope" theology, which says that God
may well save many a person who has never even heard of
Christ. That dovetails with Christian humility theology,
which tries to scrub doctrine clean of presumptuousness.
- "For God so loved the world ..." is from John 3:16.
They're not Paul's words.
- Christ's dying for our sins is Pauline (see for example, 1
Corinthians 15:3), but not exclusively so in the New
Testament. The doctrine of the atonement -- reconciliation
of human beings with God -- especially how atonement works,
has been a matter of major discussion among theologians, and
some have raised the same objection you have to certain
formulations.
- Christ as both man and God is something worked out in
later Christianity on the basis of what could be inferred,
in large part, from the New Testament, including the
writings of Paul. To me the most satisfactory creedal
expression of that doctrine is found in the Athanasian Creed
(although it is rather infuriating in its symbolic
language): "§35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into
flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God." The last
half of the Twentieth Century saw a reopening of the
theological debate on the matter after what was largely a
quiescence of a millennium plus some centuries.
For the Athanasian Creed, see:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/athacree.htm
Your reservations about certain expressions of Christian
doctrine would fit right in with discussions among various
Christian theologians. As a matter of fact, a lot of them
would be much tougher than you're being.
> It'd
> be much appreciated, and in exchange, I promise not to talk about
> Christianity here again until I've done some further research.
I for one am happy for you to talk about it anyway, but
research is good too. :-)
> [snip]
--
Norm
Laura Elizabeth Back
>I have antagonism to what many Christians have done through history; so
>does Norm. But I learned it with mother's milk, and so the imagery and
>KJV words flow in my veins, even my CABG veins. There is no way for me
>to escape it, as it's built into my mental metaphors.
This right here is a gem. Thanks, jimbat.
I'm not a Christian by most standards (I don't/can't believe in God, for
starters), but saying "I'm not a Christian" and leaving it at doesn't do
justice to the ways in which Christianity is part of who I am. Pity it's
not Judaism I'm programmed with (at that level) instead; there, being a
non-believer, or even a non-practitioner, doesn't cost you your identity.
--
Laura E. Back
Norm
> [snip] But often there are other and possibly
> better ways of understanding certain passages of the Paul's and of the
> rest of the Bible.
Obviously a "the" slipped in there that doesn't belong.
>
> [snip]
--
Norm
Jim Roberts
Laura Elizabeth Back wrote:
An excellent point, and well put. You can be a Jew and an atheist at
the same time, but that doesn't hold for Christianity or Islam. But of
course being a Jew is a much deeper ethnic and historical identity than
any religion. I have regretted not having it since I became an atheist
at 12. But what can I do? I'm part German pig farmer, part Highland
warrior, and part Huron or Algonquin. I look the same naked as any Jew,
except for the foreskin and the suspect black ones.
My mother insists I'm Jewish, but she is the same fruitcake she has
always been. My younger brother has converted. I dasn't tell any but a
few of my German cousins in SE Iowa that I'm an atheist, else the
blue-haired ladies would be all over me at family reunions.
Is Back a change from Beck, or where did it come from? My name is not
really Roberts but Robertson. I was knowingly illegally adopted by
devout Christians at 8 and my birth certificate changed without my
permission. But since my father (Robertson) is such a sociopath, I've
no inclination to change my name back, especially since everyone since
my age of 7 has known me as Roberts, and that's my professional name,
too, on published papers.
Please allow me to tell you a story. My best friend at Caltech was an
Israeli citizen, now an astrophysics professor at the U of Chi, the
leading authority on astrophysical jets. We always crack each other up
every time we get together. He has such an insinuating sense of humor.
He disapproved of our Katya, though, perhaps because she was German,
and her family's relation to the Reich could not be determined from her,
the compulsive liar.
Arieh exists only from an unexpected German act of kindness. In 1938
his father took the whole family, all from Warsaw, motoring in the
southern mountains. They encountered a tourist with a broken down car
who clearly did not know what to do. So Arieh's father worked on it for
about an hour, according to his father's story, and got him on his way,
not knowing he was a German officer on a simlar vacation.
A year later, the Jewish males were lined up, for either doom or gloom.
An SS officer who was culling the inferior race stopped in front of
Arieh's father, and said something to the effect, I know you, didn't you
help me with my car in the mountains south of Krakow? "Ja, mein Herr".
Thereupon the SS officer pulled him out of the line and assigned him
to a job that would guanrantee his survival. All the rest of the family
were killed.
After the War Arieh's father emigrated to Israel, remarried, and had
him. Arieh says his father never regretted helping the SS officer,
though he was shattered at the loss of his family. He bounced back, and
died in quite old age a few years ago. I guess you have to be funny
when you have a family history like that; how else can you fight off the
Black Blobs that kept attacking my first wife?
I cannot interpret the morality or meaning of this event, as the SS
officer kept on moving down the line of Jewish men, condemning some
immediately, and others more slowly. Exactly what does it all mean?
Arieh and I could never figure it out. Perhaps Norm can help.
howdy from this side of Hades
jimbat
umarc
>I noticed that in this election, the expression "family values" had
>all but faded away, and seems to have been almost entirely replaced
>with "Christian values."
"Christian values" is a much more restrictive category than "family
values"; no Jews or Muslims need apply.
I recall somewhere that Arab-Americans went overwhelmingly for Bush in
2000, I've seen no data on this year's election, but I'd be surprised
if they voted for him this time.
umar
--
"Don't blame me; I'm from Massachusetts."
-- bumper sticker, 1973
Stef
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>Stef wrote:
>> *nod* I can see similarities between worship and power exchange, but
>> since the term worship is also used by religious communities who
>> probably wouldn't think of it that way, I hesitate to make it into a
>> subcategory of power exchange definitionally.
>
>I understand your point and agree, in the sense that (religious) worship
> doesn't have to involve power exchange.
>
>I think what I was trying to say was that if someone's behaviour
>*towards me* makes me feel like "worship" might be a good description,
>I'm also likely to feel like I'm being asked to participate in something
>at least somewhat like power exchange, in the sense that I don't want to
>do it.
I seem to feel that way too, if the "worship" is the kind that requires
acknowledgement from me, rather than being something that's happening
entirely in the person's head.
>>>And you're right, me sense that the other person is interacting with a
>>>mental image inspired by me, rather than the actual me, can be very
>>>strong. I would be very interested to hear about what you see as the
>>>differences between power exchange and worship apart from the "mental
>>>image".
>>
>> Power exchange requires an exchange and happens between two people.
>> One can worship a person, but one can also worship a deity or an idea or
>> a internal image of something, which may or may not have anything to do
>> with an actual person. (The preceding is agnostic on the subject of
>> whether deities exist apart from people's internal images of them and
>> whether such deities can communicate with people.)
>
>Hmmmm. I guess I see plenty of people interacting with deities or ideas
> in ways that trigger my sense of power exchange. As a relevant
>alt.poly example, someone who decides that polyamory is "more highly
>evolved" or whatever and engages in polyamorous relationships that make
>zir miserable - for example, allowing zir partner other partners without
>mentioning zir jealousy - has, in my sense of it, not only handed a lot
>of power to zir partner, but also to the idea of polyamory.
I'd say they have allowed *their own personal* idea of polyamory to
restrict them. And since that idea isn't outside of them and isn't
sentient, it's not really a power "exchange." It's a choice (on some
level, possibly unconscious) to restrict oneself.
A bit of a tangent: As someone who has failed to mention my jealousy, I
found that doing so didn't actually hand power to my partner, it took
power away from my partner. If zie'd known, zie might have behaved
differently and some problems might have been avoided.
>I understand why your definition of power exchange includes the idea of
>an exchange between two (or more) people, but a lot of stuff that
>triggers my sense of "not interested", if not plain "bad", (that, of
>course, should be "bad for me" but my emotions are not that highly
>evolved and require an interpreter) seems to merely require one party to
>decide to play either part and doesn't much care about the consent or
>"exchange" part of the equation. Maybe this is called something else,
>and I need to use that term instead?
I don't want to tell you what to call it, but for me the problem with
what you describe isn't that it involves D&S. It's that it's not
consensual.
>I think the above was probably needlessly complicated, so I'll try again.
>
>Given the following facts:
>
>I don't want and am not attracted to power exchange relationships
>I apparently attract a certain kind of person who is interested in a
>certain mild kind of power exchange. (Actually, for all I know, they
>could be interested in full-on BDSM, I stop being interested in them
>before I have any chance of finding that out)
>The way that I can tell I'm not attracted to power exchange is that my
>interactions with these people trigger my "squick", as though I am
>participating in power exchange I haven't consented to
>It isn't power exchange until there's actual exchange of power between
>two people
>
>I can't get all this to add up. It seems to me to imply that I can't
>possibly know that I don't like power exchange because I'm doing
>everything I can to avoid engaging in it. But to me, it feels like
>saying I don't know that I don't like a particular food because the
>smell makes me gag so much I can't get it near my mouth.
I think that of course you can know that you don't like power exchange.
If someone's focusing a lot of obsessive attention on me, in a way that
makes it hard for me to ignore that they want some acknowledgement from
me, it bothers me the same way outright stalking and other
non-consensual interactions bother me.
If someone's obsessive attention also had a specific component that I
found squicky - say, they wanted specifically to do 'water-sports' with
me (which I have no desire to do, and thinking about it is a bit
squicky) - then I would be bothered both by their making me aware of
their obsession *and* by the specific content of the obsession.
It's clear to me that you're bothered by the non-consensual aspect of
these attentions. And it looks to me like you're bothered by the content
as well. I think they're somewhat separate things.
[I'm snipping your interesting comments on religion/spirituality...I
liked reading it and agreed with a lot of it, but I'm not finding a lot
to say in response.]
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
"Sometimes the test is not to find the answer, it's to see how you react
when you realize there is no answer."
-- "Confessions and Lamentations," Babylon 5
Stef
umarc <um...@hippogryph.com> wrote:
>tac...@aol.com (Tacit) writes:
>
>>I noticed that in this election, the expression "family values" had
>>all but faded away, and seems to have been almost entirely replaced
>>with "Christian values."
>
>"Christian values" is a much more restrictive category than "family
>values"; no Jews or Muslims need apply.
And no alternative families either.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
"Well," Brahma said, "even after ten thousand explanations, a fool is no
wiser, but an intelligent man requires only two thousand five hundred."
--The Mahabharata
Fat Naked Dangerous
>That's a great idea, and I feel it's necessary for Christians who do not share
>the attitudes of the reactionary Fundamentalist sects, and particularly don't
>share the idea of Christian Reconstructionism.
Ooo! An excellent example of reframing. I love your phrase
"Christian Reconstruction".
Louise
Actually, that's one I hadn't encountered before. What does it mean?
Louise
Norm
> [snip]
> I cannot interpret the morality or meaning of this event, as the SS
> officer kept on moving down the line of Jewish men, condemning some
> immediately, and others more slowly. Exactly what does it all mean?
> Arieh and I could never figure it out. Perhaps Norm can help.
No. I posted one of my essays on the Holocaust. But it
doesn't give answers.
http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/holocaust.html
--
Norm
Norm
For starters, Christian Reconstructionists want the civil
and moral laws of the Bible to be the laws of society.
For more info and links, see:
http://www.apocalipsis.org/reconstr.htm
Some Christian Reconstructionists are as radical in their
opinions as some of the most radical of Islamic
Fundamentalists, even to the point that at times I have been
worried about violence coming from that quarter.
--
Norm
Jim Roberts
Norm wrote:
Brilliantly written and contemplated; quite an effort to come up with
such a many-faceted disquisition! A few coloquialisms seem out of
place, like 'shucking off', a reference to getting down to the corn ear.
I'm a few years older than Norm, being born just a bit less than 5 mos
after Pearl Harbor. As a very young child-baby I remember riding on
troop trains with my mother, as mothers with little ones were allowed to
do, but not ordinary citizens, and I was vaguely aware that something
titanic was in the works, as I had never seen soldiers before, and the
whole train was chock full of them, as my mother showed me by taking me
for a walk. She got some whistles. "Why are they whistling?" "Never
mind."
Then I was kidnapped, and told nothing about world events, not that my
father cared, just only about not getting drafted, and he took care of
that little problem.
When my mother got me back in 1946 at 4, she told me about the Holocaust
and DP camps, and brought me a few books with pictures from the library,
for some reason not covered in puke. It all threw me into what I'd now
call an existential funk: what did *I* do that none of this happened to
me? Why did God save me? I could come up with no answer, as I was too
young to understand chance on that scale. When I read at 5 in
Ecclesiates, "Time and chance happeneth to them all." (Part of my first
wedding ceremony, which I wrote in its entirety, mostly by
plagiarizing.) But, I thought, why not me? Surely I was more deserving
of being shot by an SS soldier than the children who were, knowing all
my corruptions and evil-doing. This is a little harder than even SS433
or pulsar emission.
The real answer to me is that we are apes, thus good or evil as the urge
or social pressure strikes us. And as we are "made in God's image", so
is God (whose existence I of course utterly reject). In first grade at
6, I joined in a mob of fellow students for a moment in persecuting a
classmate no one liked. I don't remember it too well, just pulling back
after I realized what I was doing and thinking that I was no better than
the damn Germans. Ever since I have been leery of groups, a loner,
rather than a joiner, except for rare safe matters. According to
historians Germans, never pulled back, not even the women.
Another facet is Goering's statement at Nuremburg in which he answered
the question, how could you get so many parents to give up their
children to go to the front when the best they could hope for was to get
them back seriously wounded? He replied to the effect, "All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked." Sound familiar in the last
few years? I don't have the Nuremburg transcript, so can't check that
exactly, which is like a huge encyclopedia. An ex-girlfriend of an
astronomical friend of mine did, though. So when I was invited to a
party at their house, I pretty much dodged the party, except to tell a
few people that Doris and I were going to search for the garden of good
and evil, but kept my nose in the transcript until she dragged me off.
It would be worth it to put up with her snotty insults to read the
transcript. But it's probably in the Eisenhower Library here.
Back to Arieh and me. I speculated that Germans and their civilization
were intrinsically evil under the surface, like Lord of the Rings and
Star Wars; after all, despite his great music, Schumann was a chicken
hawk. Arieh rejected that idea, but accepted my fictional examples. He
also rejected my belief that there was no god, and that we were very
similar to chimps in our moral behavior, worse than cheetahs, but
perhaps better than male lions.
Arieh and I have had enough astrophysical problems to beat our heads
against, so after a few years we gave up on this one, especially as we
don't have enough common ground. He is more theologically troubled by
it than I, as he has become more religious since moving to Chicago and
marrying. And of course I am an atheist. But his addiction to sly
humor like mine has not abated.
But he was a wild child when we were at Caltech. He got each of us
t-shirts that said "Astrophysicsts do it with High Energy", and we had
some wild double dates in which it was not clear who was with whom.
Just the way double dates should be. When the young ladies realize that
they have that much freedom, they either flee or go nuts. Ours went
nuts, as he carefully selected them from the Israeli folk dance club.
The folk dances I went to did not have women that aggressive.
Have I solved it all? Perhaps, but there is no solution in the context
of any religion with a God, except perhaps Greek gods.
jimbat
if he's not one thing, he's another
Vicki Rosenzweig
>>The sermon at one of our local churches this week included a mention
>>that it feels odd to hear election news about "Christian Values" from
>>south of the border while reflecting that the United Church of Canada
>>has been pro-choice for 30 years and marries same sex couples.
>
>In this particular case, "Christian Values" is a code phrase that has
>everything to do with a very specific social stance taken by a very specific
>group of people (most often, Southern Baptists), and nothing to do with
>Christianity or Christian moral theory.
>
>American politics is replete with examples of such coded language. The language
>is not a way to express an idea so much as a way for people who hold certain
>ideas to recognize one another and to talk about those ideas indirectly.
>
>Probably the best example of this kind of language is the phrase "state's
>rights," which was common throughout the fifties and sixties. On the surface of
>it, "state's rights" seems to be about the idea of decentralized power vs.
>Federal power, but the reality is that "state's rights" is about racism and
>segregation. The champions of "state's rights," and their followers, knew
>*precisely* what they were talking about--keeping those damn uppity Negroes in
>their place, and not allowing any hifalootin' Washington meddlers to say
>otherwise. It was a code phrase for a set of ideas about the role of race in
>society and politics, and had little to do with Constitutional questions of
>federal power except as it related to keeping the Negroes in their place.
Quite. The "states' rights" enthusiasts don't seem big on the idea of
letting the Massachusetts courts interpret the Massachusetts
constitution.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@redbird.org | http://www.redbird.org
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
Morag R
> I understand why your definition of power exchange includes the idea of
> an exchange between two (or more) people, but a lot of stuff that
> triggers my sense of "not interested", if not plain "bad", (that, of
> course, should be "bad for me" but my emotions are not that highly
> evolved and require an interpreter) seems to merely require one party to
> decide to play either part and doesn't much care about the consent or
> "exchange" part of the equation. Maybe this is called something else,
> and I need to use that term instead?
I think "power exchange" is a somewhat meaningless phrase, although
I've used it now and then to describe a certain kind of consensual
power based relationship. In my head it resonates with all the stuff
about "the gift of submission" (yik) insofar as it triggers images of
nicely wrapped little parcels of power being exchanged.
In my experience tho', it's not that neatly marketable as just a
different form of equality. So I use d/s, because that generally
covers power differentials in the BDSM context and does not necessarily
imply that you had two fully functioning human beings to start either.
> I don't want and am not attracted to power exchange relationships
> I apparently attract a certain kind of person who is interested in a
> certain mild kind of power exchange. (Actually, for all I know, they
> could be interested in full-on BDSM, I stop being interested in them
> before I have any chance of finding that out)
Do you mean that they are most comfortable relating to you from a
position of deference and you are not comfortable with this?
> The way that I can tell I'm not attracted to power exchange is that my
> interactions with these people trigger my "squick", as though I am
> participating in power exchange I haven't consented to
> It isn't power exchange until there's actual exchange of power between
> two people
Hrm, this isn't quite following for me consent wise, but if I
paraphrase I'd guess that you're saying that as you prefer people to
approach you socially from a position of equality rather than deference
or authority, and consequently you get squicked if they slide into any
social relating that appears to put you above or below them?
> I can't get all this to add up. It seems to me to imply that I can't
> possibly know that I don't like power exchange because I'm doing
> everything I can to avoid engaging in it. But to me, it feels like
> saying I don't know that I don't like a particular food because the
> smell makes me gag so much I can't get it near my mouth.
This may turn into some kind of whacky martial arts BDSM woo woo, but
in my experience avoidance is only a useful tool if it's used in a
targetted way, for a particular outcome. IOW, there need to be other
tools, including using deference and authority when they are the
necessary tools for the outcome you want.
Avoidance for example can read as "aloof" and further trigger
worshipfulness - or it can read as timidity and further trigger
dick-waving. In those situations, as I also can read as hard to get
close to, I will generally deliberately try and do something to break
the spell. It's not quite about farting at the dinner table, but
that's the general idea.
I didn't use to do that because my ego would get in the way. That is,
while I found being worshipped aggravating, there was a part of the
damaged teenager still inside me that was also grateful for the ego
strokes and did not want to deliberately take an unattractive position.
That is, until I realised the worship was nothing to do with how
worthwhile I was anyway.
> If I were to have a relationship with a deity, it would probably have to
> be a teacher/student relationship. But to the extent that my religious
> development is anywhere, it can be summarised by the idea that there can
> be a student without a specific, identifiable teacher.
>
> I agree all these relationship types: parent/child, nurse/patient,
> doctor/patient, teacher/student, boss/employee have varying degrees of
> something at least vaguely related to power exchange. It's a grey
> scale, I don't think there's a distinct cut-off and I think different
> people see different interactions as different shades of grey.
>
> One of the important underlying notions I think is that of
> responsibility - I take responsibility for myself, and I may have to
> take responsibility for others because they are not capable of it
> themselves. But I baulk at the sense that someone who is capable of a
> particular type of responsibility hand it over to me, or try to take my
> responsibility away from me.
Balking with good reason I might add.
I've just smacked headlong into this going wrong myself. I always knew
it could go wrong, and on that basis was prepared to take the risk. In
that sense it's not unlike any other risk taking activity. You
exchange your little leather gift wrapped boxes or you strap on your
parachute and you take your chances.
However, I see some of the relationship types you mention as
potentially more deeply painful than "power exchange". I have greater
icky feelings from humiliations dished out by teachers and bosses than
I do from my personal relationships for example. I had no real choice
about those teachers and bosses - which is precisely why there was a
problem of deep squick and resentment.
In the grey area of adult potentially flirtatious human relations it's
often very hard to read dominant and submissive behaviours and there is
a lot of choice too.
For example, I have male friends who either make a point of not opening
doors, or who make a point of opening doors. And if they get the door
is it "walk through here little lady" or is it "let me get this for
you" or is it something else again? Hard to say sometimes, and
sometimes it's just about who has their hands full of stuff.
As a consequence I don't have any hard and fast guidelines because I'm
constantly scanning and still getting it wrong on a regular basis. The
main thing I've found that works for me is flexibility, a certain
distance and breaking the tension with a joke or two.
In terms of people I am attracted to, I can tend to feel an urge to
defer or exercise authority on the basis of certain triggers. I will
refrain from doing so unless I get some kind of signal that it's OK and
the circumstances are appropriate, which basically means it almost
never happens perceptibly.
I note also that the partner I did do d/s with was, prior to our d/s
relationship, always scrupulous about not trying to exercise any "power
over" style relations with me before there was a clear signal it was
OK. We were definitely equals, and no-one would have guessed what was
potentially behind that friendship.
MoragR
--
Email - morag *at* homemail *dot* com *dot* au
Norm
>
>
> Norm wrote:
>
>> Jim Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>> I cannot interpret the morality or meaning of this event, as the SS
>>> officer kept on moving down the line of Jewish men, condemning some
>>> immediately, and others more slowly. Exactly what does it all mean?
>>> Arieh and I could never figure it out. Perhaps Norm can help.
>>
>>
>>
>> No. I posted one of my essays on the Holocaust. But it doesn't give
>> answers.
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/holocaust.html
>>
> Brilliantly written and contemplated; quite an effort to come up with
> such a many-faceted disquisition! A few coloquialisms seem out of
> place, like 'shucking off', a reference to getting down to the corn ear.
Wow! Thank you for the kind words. The Holocaust is an
extremely sensitive subject and hard to write about. Whether
writing about it is harder for someone from that generation
or from the generation after (mine), I don't know. Perhaps
each generation has a different set of difficulties.
As for colloquialisms, yeah, I'm still a country bumpkin at
heart; and I don't mind letting that show now and then.
> [snip]
> The real answer to me is that we are apes, thus good or evil as the urge
> or social pressure strikes us. And as we are "made in God's image", so
> is God (whose existence I of course utterly reject). [snip]
> Have I solved it all? Perhaps, but there is no solution in the context
> of any religion with a God, except perhaps Greek gods.
What solutions without God?
I see the issues raised by the Holocaust as analogous to the
problem of suffering. Suffering is a problem for monotheism:
How can a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good
allow suffering in the world? (The classic formulation of
the problem.) But suffering remains a problem of one sort or
another for everyone, even for a philosophy that denies
suffering.
So, for example, for the atheistic humanist, what does the
Holocaust say about humankind?
But maybe we need not go that far back historically right
away and can start with the meaning of Darfur.
--
Norm
Norm
> Quite. The "states' rights" enthusiasts don't seem big on the idea of
> letting the Massachusetts courts interpret the Massachusetts
> constitution.
Or the Florida courts from interpreting Florida's own
election laws.
--
Norm
Norm
Let me restate: The "states' rights" enthusiasts don't seem
big on letting the Florida courts interpret Florida's own
election laws.
--
Norm
Jim Roberts
Norm wrote:
> Jim Roberts wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Norm wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>> I cannot interpret the morality or meaning of this event, as the SS
>>>> officer kept on moving down the line of Jewish men, condemning some
>>>> immediately, and others more slowly. Exactly what does it all mean?
>>>> Arieh and I could never figure it out. Perhaps Norm can help.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. I posted one of my essays on the Holocaust. But it doesn't give
>>> answers.
>>>
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/holocaust.html
>>>
>> Brilliantly written and contemplated; quite an effort to come up with
>> such a many-faceted disquisition! A few coloquialisms seem out of
>> place, like 'shucking off', a reference to getting down to the corn ear.
>
>
> Wow! Thank you for the kind words. The Holocaust is an extremely
> sensitive subject and hard to write about. Whether writing about it is
> harder for someone from that generation or from the generation after
> (mine), I don't know. Perhaps each generation has a different set of
> difficulties.
I'm too old to be a baby boomer, so I perhaps straddle both generations
by a toe hold, esp. as I became aware of things early, thanks largely to
my mother. It *sure* wasn't talked about at school or on the street.
>
> As for colloquialisms, yeah, I'm still a country bumpkin at heart; and I
> don't mind letting that show now and then.
>
How about a well-carved pumpkin?
>> [snip]
>> The real answer to me is that we are apes, thus good or evil as the
>> urge or social pressure strikes us. And as we are "made in God's
>> image", so is God (whose existence I of course utterly reject). [snip]
>
>
>> Have I solved it all? Perhaps, but there is no solution in the context
>> of any religion with a God, except perhaps Greek gods.
>
>
> What solutions without God?
>
> I see the issues raised by the Holocaust as analogous to the problem of
> suffering. Suffering is a problem for monotheism: How can a God who is
> all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good allow suffering in the world?
> (The classic formulation of the problem.) But suffering remains a
> problem of one sort or another for everyone, even for a philosophy that
> denies suffering.
>
Of course that troubled me as a child. My freshman philosophy course
spent a long time on this question, which I considered a refutation of
the existence of a God, so I stopped taking notes when it came up - a
particular obsession of a couple of professors, of which we hsd at least
6 through the year. I had a chance to give the graders a piece of my
mind on the final (90% of the year's grade), but somehow got a B anyway.
This contrasts with an advanced calculus instructor, whom I also gave
a piece of my mind on the final about his worthless instruction. He
gave me a D, I protested, and he couldn't justify that grade, so he
verrrry grudgingly raised it to a C. I should have gotten an A, as I
had an A going into the screwy final.
> So, for example, for the atheistic humanist, what does the Holocaust say
> about humankind?
>
We are apes.
> But maybe we need not go that far back historically right away and can
> start with the meaning of Darfur.
>
>
The Children of Satan are still about. My mother claimed that my father
was one, said she had felt his horns in the dark (?!), and that he had a
tail tucked in his pants, told seriously. She knew she was lying, but
just wanted me to know, when pissed at me, that I was a grandson of Satan.
Hmm. I wanted to read some of the less objectionable Bible stories to my
kids, along with the Iliad and Gilgamesh, and other myths. But 1st wife
Jill objected, and when you did something something she objected to, you
paid.
We are as bad as we are good, it just depends on circumstances. We give
$1000 annually to Doctors without Borders, and some other NGOs. Does
that make us better than we otherwise are? No.
jimbat
Jim Roberts
Norm wrote:
Republicans keep changing their positions, decade by decade, and if you
don't slavishly follow their occult path, you are "not a good American".
I gave up on them in 1961 (I was just 19) after the Bay of Pigs,
strongly advocated by Republicans. The inexperienced Kennedy was their
sucker, but I figured that the Democratic party, which wanted to
dismember the CIA after that couldn't be all bad. Unfortunately, JFK
was talked out of it, another mistake, as was the Vienna meeting with
Khrushchov.
jimbat
songbird
...
> So, for example, for the atheistic humanist, what does the
> Holocaust say about humankind?
beware blind mysticism or things that are mystical
wrapped in scientific terms.
if someone is setting things up so you are being
made fearful of a group of other people ask yourself
why the someone is doing that. what do they gain by
their fearmongering? (usually it is divisiveness and
the ability to control the smaller groups that result).
songbird *peep*
umarc
>Norm wrote:
>> Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
The Republicans who took over the House with Gingrich in '94 campaigned
for Congressional term limits.
Not surprisingly, one doesn't hear much about term limits these days.
Steve Pope
> Norm <walkswi...@comcast.net> writes:
>>Let me restate: The "states' rights" enthusiasts don't seem
>>big on letting the Florida courts interpret Florida's own
>>election laws.
>The Republicans who took over the House with Gingrich in '94 campaigned
>for Congressional term limits.
>Not surprisingly, one doesn't hear much about term limits these days.
Yes, and they also wanted a balanced budget amendment. You're
not hearing much about that these days either.
S.
Aqua
> In article <8hn762-...@news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>Stef wrote:
>>>Power exchange requires an exchange and happens between two people.
>>>One can worship a person, but one can also worship a deity or an idea or
>>>a internal image of something, which may or may not have anything to do
>>>with an actual person. (The preceding is agnostic on the subject of
>>>whether deities exist apart from people's internal images of them and
>>>whether such deities can communicate with people.)
>>
>>Hmmmm. I guess I see plenty of people interacting with deities or ideas
>> in ways that trigger my sense of power exchange. As a relevant
>>alt.poly example, someone who decides that polyamory is "more highly
>>evolved" or whatever and engages in polyamorous relationships that make
>>zir miserable - for example, allowing zir partner other partners without
>>mentioning zir jealousy - has, in my sense of it, not only handed a lot
>>of power to zir partner, but also to the idea of polyamory.
>
> I'd say they have allowed *their own personal* idea of polyamory to
> restrict them. And since that idea isn't outside of them and isn't
> sentient, it's not really a power "exchange." It's a choice (on some
> level, possibly unconscious) to restrict oneself.
I can see your point. I think your interpretation is the "rational
sane" one. However, when people are doing things like this they are
often in emotional states where reason is in short supply.
> A bit of a tangent: As someone who has failed to mention my jealousy, I
> found that doing so didn't actually hand power to my partner, it took
> power away from my partner. If zie'd known, zie might have behaved
> differently and some problems might have been avoided.
That's quite a relevant point. I've seen similar things happen.
However, it's not the intention of the person who's not mentioning zir
jealousy (or whatver) to take power away from the other. It's just an
unfortunate backfire.
> If someone's focusing a lot of obsessive attention on me, in a way that
> makes it hard for me to ignore that they want some acknowledgement from
> me, it bothers me the same way outright stalking and other
> non-consensual interactions bother me.
I haven't personally been stalked, but from others I've known, a large
part of the problem was that the stalked person felt (justifiably, to
me) that they were being forced to participate non-consentually, whereas
from the stalker's point of view there wasn't anything to consent to
or not.
I'm not saying I agree with the stalker's attitude, but I think their
argument might be similar to saying that a person is entitled to zir
emotions, and it is unreasonable of other people to expect to control them.
And I'll certainly admit that sometimes if someone is obsessing over me,
what I really want is for the emotional source of this in zir to stop.
I realised I can't get it.
> If someone's obsessive attention also had a specific component that I
> found squicky - say, they wanted specifically to do 'water-sports' with
> me (which I have no desire to do, and thinking about it is a bit
> squicky) - then I would be bothered both by their making me aware of
> their obsession *and* by the specific content of the obsession.
>
> It's clear to me that you're bothered by the non-consensual aspect of
> these attentions. And it looks to me like you're bothered by the content
> as well. I think they're somewhat separate things.
I think you're probably right, but for some reason this is something
I've usually encountered together. They seem somehow linked because the
other person often seems to have no idea why my consent is relevant, and
this becomes one of my "this person isn't actually attracted to *me*" clues.
Aqua
Aqua
> In article <8hn762-...@news.jamver.id.au>, Aqua
> <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>I understand why your definition of power exchange includes the idea of
>>an exchange between two (or more) people, but a lot of stuff that
>>triggers my sense of "not interested", if not plain "bad", (that, of
>>course, should be "bad for me" but my emotions are not that highly
>>evolved and require an interpreter) seems to merely require one party to
>>decide to play either part and doesn't much care about the consent or
>>"exchange" part of the equation. Maybe this is called something else,
>>and I need to use that term instead?
>
> I think "power exchange" is a somewhat meaningless phrase, although
> I've used it now and then to describe a certain kind of consensual
> power based relationship. In my head it resonates with all the stuff
> about "the gift of submission" (yik) insofar as it triggers images of
> nicely wrapped little parcels of power being exchanged.
>
> In my experience tho', it's not that neatly marketable as just a
> different form of equality. So I use d/s, because that generally
> covers power differentials in the BDSM context and does not necessarily
> imply that you had two fully functioning human beings to start either.
I'm not really happy with the terminology either. Thanks for providing
more coherent explanations for why I might be uneasy. It strikes me as
being a difficult thing to talk about because it's such an emotion-laden
thing. It does make sense to me that people with experience of BDSM
*might* have more experience with the terminology.
>
>>I don't want and am not attracted to power exchange relationships
>>I apparently attract a certain kind of person who is interested in a
>>certain mild kind of power exchange. (Actually, for all I know, they
>>could be interested in full-on BDSM, I stop being interested in them
>>before I have any chance of finding that out)
>
> Do you mean that they are most comfortable relating to you from a
> position of deference and you are not comfortable with this?
Not exactly deference, the other person puts me on a pedestal, and I
would rather not be up there. Part of the discomfort is because they're
often deferring to me because I have high intelligence, and as far as
I'm concerned I just happened to choose my parents carefully. In other
words, it seems to me to be a ranking system that's as arbitrary as if
it were based on one's birthday or surname.
>>The way that I can tell I'm not attracted to power exchange is that my
>>interactions with these people trigger my "squick", as though I am
>>participating in power exchange I haven't consented to
>>It isn't power exchange until there's actual exchange of power between
>>two people
>
> Hrm, this isn't quite following for me consent wise, but if I
> paraphrase I'd guess that you're saying that as you prefer people to
> approach you socially from a position of equality rather than deference
> or authority, and consequently you get squicked if they slide into any
> social relating that appears to put you above or below them?
In the case of friendship type social interaction, yes, exactly. I cope
with other social interactions (boss/employee, doctor/patient,
teacher/student etc) reasonably well, although I'm probably still trying
to "flatten" hierarchies more than most.
But a situation that I interpret as "friends" (and romantic/sexual
relationships are a subset of these for me) requires equality for me.
>>I can't get all this to add up. It seems to me to imply that I can't
>>possibly know that I don't like power exchange because I'm doing
>>everything I can to avoid engaging in it. But to me, it feels like
>>saying I don't know that I don't like a particular food because the
>>smell makes me gag so much I can't get it near my mouth.
>
> This may turn into some kind of whacky martial arts BDSM woo woo, but
> in my experience avoidance is only a useful tool if it's used in a
> targetted way, for a particular outcome. IOW, there need to be other
> tools, including using deference and authority when they are the
> necessary tools for the outcome you want.
It's not just avoidance. I've been part of larger social circles where
there's some kind of hierarchy and often I end up using something like
authority on those who are higher up the hierarchy and something like
the opposite on those lower down. In other words, I try to cancel out
the hierarchy by forming a loop.
I'd also note that most of this was a while ago, I didn't really
understand what I was doing at the time and I'm not sure I fully
understand now.
[I've snipped a long and interesting section about various types of
relationships with power imbalances because I didn't really have
anything to add.]
> However, I see some of the relationship types you mention as
> potentially more deeply painful than "power exchange". I have greater
> icky feelings from humiliations dished out by teachers and bosses than
> I do from my personal relationships for example. I had no real choice
> about those teachers and bosses - which is precisely why there was a
> problem of deep squick and resentment.
This is interesting and thought-provoking. Because I suspect my
insistence on equality in friendships is based on very similar
experiences. I didn't enjoy humiliations from teachers, but exactly
because I didn't have much choice, I didn't develop resentment, but
instead resolved that those kinds of power imbalances weren't going to
occur in relationships I did have a choice about.
Part of the difference between us might be that as a child, I didn't
feel that adults tried to abuse their power over me very often at all;
most of my power imbalance problems were with other children.
Aqua
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>Morag R wrote:
>>
>> Do you mean that they are most comfortable relating to you from a
>> position of deference and you are not comfortable with this?
>
>Not exactly deference, the other person puts me on a pedestal, and I
>would rather not be up there. Part of the discomfort is because they're
>often deferring to me because I have high intelligence, and as far as
>I'm concerned I just happened to choose my parents carefully. In other
>words, it seems to me to be a ranking system that's as arbitrary as if
>it were based on one's birthday or surname.
That doesn't mesh with my perceptions or understanding of intelligence.
Of course, having good parents makes a big difference in intelligence,
but it seems that there are many other factors, particularly if one
focuses on "smart" rather than "intelligent". (I consider "intelligent"
to be about academic capability and related capabilities (like chess),
whereas "smart" is about applying intelligence in useful ways.)
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2004 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
"I don't want to make a decision."
"Tell me, anyway -- then I can ignore it." --AM/SM
Stef
I agree, but I don't understand the connection between that fact and the
differences between our interpretations.
>> A bit of a tangent: As someone who has failed to mention my jealousy, I
>> found that doing so didn't actually hand power to my partner, it took
>> power away from my partner. If zie'd known, zie might have behaved
>> differently and some problems might have been avoided.
>That's quite a relevant point. I've seen similar things happen.
>However, it's not the intention of the person who's not mentioning zir
>jealousy (or whatver) to take power away from the other. It's just an
>unfortunate backfire.
I think it was part of my intention, actually. The jealousy made me feel
like my partner had too much power over me (because zie had the power to
affect how I felt so intensely). By not telling zir about the jealousy,
I was, in part, trying to prevent zir using that power. What backfired
was that in trying to prevent this, I made the jealousy more powerful.
>> If someone's focusing a lot of obsessive attention on me, in a way that
>> makes it hard for me to ignore that they want some acknowledgement from
>> me, it bothers me the same way outright stalking and other
>> non-consensual interactions bother me.
>
>I haven't personally been stalked, but from others I've known, a large
>part of the problem was that the stalked person felt (justifiably, to
>me) that they were being forced to participate non-consentually, whereas
> from the stalker's point of view there wasn't anything to consent to
>or not.
>
>I'm not saying I agree with the stalker's attitude, but I think their
>argument might be similar to saying that a person is entitled to zir
>emotions, and it is unreasonable of other people to expect to control them.
>
>And I'll certainly admit that sometimes if someone is obsessing over me,
>what I really want is for the emotional source of this in zir to stop.
>I realised I can't get it.
*nod* But wouldn't you get what you wanted if the person simply stopped
behaving in ways that make you uncomfortable? If a person obsesses about
you in completely private ways that don't show in their behavior, it
doesn't affect you, presumably.
>> If someone's obsessive attention also had a specific component that I
>> found squicky - say, they wanted specifically to do 'water-sports' with
>> me (which I have no desire to do, and thinking about it is a bit
>> squicky) - then I would be bothered both by their making me aware of
>> their obsession *and* by the specific content of the obsession.
>>
>> It's clear to me that you're bothered by the non-consensual aspect of
>> these attentions. And it looks to me like you're bothered by the content
>> as well. I think they're somewhat separate things.
>
>I think you're probably right, but for some reason this is something
>I've usually encountered together. They seem somehow linked because the
>other person often seems to have no idea why my consent is relevant, and
>this becomes one of my "this person isn't actually attracted to *me*" clues.
Yes, a person who doesn't care about your consent would seem not to be
seeing you as a person, and not caring about your consent is a highly
unattractive trait.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Q: I understand you've raised money to support the Comic Legal Defense
Fund. Why do you feel so strongly about the issues that it represents?
A: [...] The current total of countries in the world with First
Amendments is one. You have guaranteed freedom of speech. [...] Coming
from a country without this thing, I know what an amazing, miraculous,
cool, brilliant thing it is. And I also know that it is something that
can easily be eroded if it is not safeguarded, or patrolled.
-- Claire E. White and Neil Gaiman, in WRITERS WRITE
(http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/mar99/gaiman.htm)
Stef
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <2f1k62-...@news.jamver.id.au>,
>Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>Morag R wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you mean that they are most comfortable relating to you from a
>>> position of deference and you are not comfortable with this?
>>
>>Not exactly deference, the other person puts me on a pedestal, and I
>>would rather not be up there. Part of the discomfort is because they're
>>often deferring to me because I have high intelligence, and as far as
>>I'm concerned I just happened to choose my parents carefully. In other
>>words, it seems to me to be a ranking system that's as arbitrary as if
>>it were based on one's birthday or surname.
>
>That doesn't mesh with my perceptions or understanding of intelligence.
>Of course, having good parents makes a big difference in intelligence,
>but it seems that there are many other factors, particularly if one
>focuses on "smart" rather than "intelligent". (I consider "intelligent"
>to be about academic capability and related capabilities (like chess),
>whereas "smart" is about applying intelligence in useful ways.)
Another thought on intelligence: I also think that if there's something
to be done efficiently, it's reasonable for me to defer to someone who's
better at it than I am. I sometimes defer to someone with higher
intelligence in such a case (if their intelligence were of a kind that
could get the thing done more efficiently).
Note: I'm using "defer to" to mean "let them decide how things get
done," not "formally submit myself as an inferior."
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
It was the year of fire; the year of destruction; the year we took back
what was ours. It was the year of rebirth; the year of great sadness;
the year of pain; and a year of joy. It was a new age; it was the end
of history. It was the year everything changed.
-- J. Michael Straczynski, Babylon 5 (fourth season opener)
Ryk
>I think it was part of my intention, actually. The jealousy made me feel
>like my partner had too much power over me (because zie had the power to
>affect how I felt so intensely).
Doesn't that line of thought make your partner responsible for your
feelings.
>By not telling zir about the jealousy,
>I was, in part, trying to prevent zir using that power. What backfired
>was that in trying to prevent this, I made the jealousy more powerful.
When my partners have been jealous and let me know about it I have
felt like they were exerting power over me. It was made very clear
that it was my responsibility to do something about the jealousy, but
it didn't feel like a position of power to me. There's an awful lot of
popular culture out there stacking the deck towards righteous
jealousy.
Ryk
Stef
Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:28:14 +0000 (UTC), st...@panix.com (Stef) wrote:
>
>>I think it was part of my intention, actually. The jealousy made me feel
>>like my partner had too much power over me (because zie had the power to
>>affect how I felt so intensely).
>
>Doesn't that line of thought make your partner responsible for your
>feelings.
Sort of. (Note that I didn't say it was a good idea, just that it was my
thought process at the time early in our relationship where I was hiding
my jealousy.)
>>By not telling zir about the jealousy,
>>I was, in part, trying to prevent zir using that power. What backfired
>>was that in trying to prevent this, I made the jealousy more powerful.
>When my partners have been jealous and let me know about it I have
>felt like they were exerting power over me. It was made very clear
>that it was my responsibility to do something about the jealousy, but
>it didn't feel like a position of power to me. There's an awful lot of
>popular culture out there stacking the deck towards righteous
>jealousy.
I agree that if a partner comes to you and says "I'm jealous so you have
to stop what you're doing," that isn't a position of power for you. At
the time, I didn't feel like I had the option of doing that. My thinking
was mostly incorrect. (My partner turned out to be more than willing to
consider behavior changes to help prevent my jealousy.)
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your
temper or your self-confidence. -- Robert Frost
Aqua
> In article <2f1k62-...@news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>Morag R wrote:
>>
>>>Do you mean that they are most comfortable relating to you from a
>>>position of deference and you are not comfortable with this?
>>
>>Not exactly deference, the other person puts me on a pedestal, and I
>>would rather not be up there. Part of the discomfort is because they're
>>often deferring to me because I have high intelligence, and as far as
>>I'm concerned I just happened to choose my parents carefully. In other
>>words, it seems to me to be a ranking system that's as arbitrary as if
>>it were based on one's birthday or surname.
>
> That doesn't mesh with my perceptions or understanding of intelligence.
> Of course, having good parents makes a big difference in intelligence,
> but it seems that there are many other factors, particularly if one
> focuses on "smart" rather than "intelligent". (I consider "intelligent"
> to be about academic capability and related capabilities (like chess),
> whereas "smart" is about applying intelligence in useful ways.)
I know what you're saying, exactly. I've actually been in situations
where a person wants to admire me because I'm more intelligent, and I'm
trying to convince zir that I should be admiring zir, if anything,
because zie is smarter than I am - zie has learnt to apply what
intelligence zie was given in useful ways; zie has often had to work
hard to do that.
But please permit me to know myself and what aspects of my intelligence
cause me to be put on a pedestal by my typical admirer. Zie will be
starry-eyed about stuff my parents gave me and not about anything I had
to work remotely hard for. Honestly. I'm sorry if it's hard to
imagine, but it's true.
I've had a few potentially starry-eyed admirers who I spent enough time
with, and who actually were paying attention to me enough to notice that
yes, that stuff that had initially caught zir attention really was just
the luck of the genes. And that the qualities I'd actually worked for,
that could more legitimately be considered admirable, were not ones zie
had imagined anyone would have to work hard for. And zie switched to
liking me for those, and I stopped feeling uneasy about being on an
unjustified pedestal.
Aqua
Aqua
> Fat Naked Dangerous wrote:
>
>> Norm <walkswi...@comcast.net>, in article
>> <418D0DE8...@comcast.net>, dixit:
>>
>>> As a general rule it's intellectually safer to blame the way Paul's
>>> writings have been used than to blame Paul. One of my aggravations is
>>> that he is way too easily ceded to the Fundamentalists.
>>
>> Huh. Interesting. Um, can you say more? 'Cause I've studied Paul,
>> and found him pretty cringe-worthy. What am I missing?
>
> I wasn't happy with my following response. Too wordy. So it went into my
> "drafts" folder. But since I've now been asked twice to say more and
> will just keep delaying if I keep planning to tighten up, I'll post it
> as is.
Thanks for sending it all the same. It is very interesting.
[snip details - visit Norm's website]
> Aqua wrote in the other thread: "And one of the reasons that
> I'm not Christian, and I realize this may be quite a
> different experience for others, particularly Christians, is
> that it feels to me that to be Christian, I have to choose
> to become a sub in a specific kind of worship/power exchange
> relationship, and I'm just not prepared to do that."
>
> I don't know what Aqua meant by that. A reference to the
> idea of servants of Christ or slaves of righteousness (the
> latter as in Romans 6:15-23)? Could it have more to do with
> the way people use the Bible and express their religion than
> with what the Bible itself says?
Nothing to do with slavery. I think it's something to do with my notion
of what I am responsible for. And also stuff to do with the purpose and
meaning of punishment and forgiveness.
Aqua
Aqua
> I see the issues raised by the Holocaust as analogous to the problem of
> suffering. Suffering is a problem for monotheism: How can a God who is
> all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good allow suffering in the world?
> (The classic formulation of the problem.) But suffering remains a
> problem of one sort or another for everyone, even for a philosophy that
> denies suffering.
What philosophies deny suffering? Seems pretty strange to me.
I'm not aware of suffering being a problem for me, beyond the fact that
it's suffering, and I prefer if there's less of it. What kind of a
problem is it supposed to be?
> So, for example, for the atheistic humanist, what does the Holocaust say
> about humankind?
I don't know about other atheistic humanists, but I'm close enough to
one of those, and I say that the Holocaust says that it's something
humans are capable of, of course. I suspect we're capable of worse,
honestly, but I sincerely hope it won't be demonstrated empirically.
Aqua
Norm
> Norm wrote:
>
>> Fat Naked Dangerous wrote:
>>
>>> Norm <walkswi...@comcast.net>, in article
>>> <418D0DE8...@comcast.net>, dixit:
>>>
>>>> As a general rule it's intellectually safer to blame the way Paul's
>>>> writings have been used than to blame Paul. One of my aggravations
>>>> is that he is way too easily ceded to the Fundamentalists.
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh. Interesting. Um, can you say more? 'Cause I've studied Paul,
>>> and found him pretty cringe-worthy. What am I missing?
>>
>>
>> I wasn't happy with my following response. Too wordy. So it went into
>> my "drafts" folder. But since I've now been asked twice to say more
>> and will just keep delaying if I keep planning to tighten up, I'll
>> post it as is.
>
>
> Thanks for sending it all the same. It is very interesting.
>
> [snip details - visit Norm's website]
You're welcome.
>> Aqua wrote in the other thread: "And one of the reasons that
>> I'm not Christian, and I realize this may be quite a
>> different experience for others, particularly Christians, is
>> that it feels to me that to be Christian, I have to choose
>> to become a sub in a specific kind of worship/power exchange
>> relationship, and I'm just not prepared to do that."
>>
>> I don't know what Aqua meant by that. A reference to the
>> idea of servants of Christ or slaves of righteousness (the
>> latter as in Romans 6:15-23)? Could it have more to do with
>> the way people use the Bible and express their religion than
>> with what the Bible itself says?
>
>
> Nothing to do with slavery. I think it's something to do with my notion
> of what I am responsible for. And also stuff to do with the purpose and
> meaning of punishment and forgiveness.
Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?
--
Norm
Jim Roberts
Norm wrote:
Sounds boring. Care not to?
jimbat
Ryk
>In article <94qhp0puck6rlq67t...@4ax.com>,
>Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:28:14 +0000 (UTC), st...@panix.com (Stef) wrote:
>>
>>>I think it was part of my intention, actually. The jealousy made me feel
>>>like my partner had too much power over me (because zie had the power to
>>>affect how I felt so intensely).
>>
>>Doesn't that line of thought make your partner responsible for your
>>feelings.
>
>Sort of. (Note that I didn't say it was a good idea, just that it was my
>thought process at the time early in our relationship where I was hiding
>my jealousy.)
Yeah, I noticed you didn't say it was a good idea, or that it was a
bad idea for that matter, so I figured I might comment ;-)
Ryk
Morag R
> Not exactly deference, the other person puts me on a pedestal, and I
> would rather not be up there. Part of the discomfort is because they're
> often deferring to me because I have high intelligence, and as far as
> I'm concerned I just happened to choose my parents carefully. In other
> words, it seems to me to be a ranking system that's as arbitrary as if
> it were based on one's birthday or surname.
So, if you had developed a skill in something, and a situation called
for that skill, if I understand you correctly you would not get pinged
if people around you deferred to your judgement and commented
favourably and appreciatively on how you handled it.
However, you would get pinged if they decided to defer to you because
you had green eyes, and they believed that green eyed people should be
deferred to?
> But a situation that I interpret as "friends" (and romantic/sexual
> relationships are a subset of these for me) requires equality for me.
It certainly requires courtesy, consent and sensitivity for me.
Equality is a hard one, there are many things that can make a
relationship feel unequal. Something as simple as one person being
more attached than the other - or the economics brought about by
employment opportunity or lack thereof. Some of those things are very
hard to mitigate.
I do actively try to mitigate financial and attachment inequality if I
can, but skill based inequality is always going to be there, and I
actually like it in some circumstances. In fact, it's one of my
mitigators for the other two. If the people I'm with have a diverse
skill base, then not only are they interesting people, but there's
likely to be more points on which interdependencies and inequalities
can rest, so that no one point digs in too deeply and painfully.
Inherited stuff [1] like brain processing power OTOH I tend to see as
difference rather than a matter of in/equality. For example, my father
showed me that you can be a very bright engineer and at the same time
be appallingly stupid about some things.
Mostly for me it comes down to what you do with what you got, not what
you got. I'm not sure we disagree here, but let me know if I've
missed something
> It's not just avoidance. I've been part of larger social circles where
> there's some kind of hierarchy and often I end up using something like
> authority on those who are higher up the hierarchy and something like
> the opposite on those lower down. In other words, I try to cancel out
> the hierarchy by forming a loop.
I used to do more of that, particularly at work when I thought someone
was getting squashed/ignored on the basis of something I thought was
bullshit. I still do sometimes.
However, I have become more reticent about intervening in hierarchies
over time because I realised I was potentially disrupting established
relationship patterns for no other reason than my own comfort levels.
Sometimes the most productive thing to do is not to rock the boat to
the extent that the person you think you're empowering falls out and
starts to sink instead of swim [2]. Especially not if it's just for
the sake of imposing things that I find more comfortable on a group.
Not saying you're doing that btw, just noodling on my own choices.
> > However, I see some of the relationship types you mention as
> > potentially more deeply painful than "power exchange". I have greater
> > icky feelings from humiliations dished out by teachers and bosses than
> > I do from my personal relationships for example. I had no real choice
> > about those teachers and bosses - which is precisely why there was a
> > problem of deep squick and resentment.
>
> This is interesting and thought-provoking. Because I suspect my
> insistence on equality in friendships is based on very similar
> experiences. I didn't enjoy humiliations from teachers, but exactly
> because I didn't have much choice, I didn't develop resentment, but
> instead resolved that those kinds of power imbalances weren't going to
> occur in relationships I did have a choice about.
>
> Part of the difference between us might be that as a child, I didn't
> feel that adults tried to abuse their power over me very often at all;
> most of my power imbalance problems were with other children.
I went to a conservative private school, was raised strictly
evangelical anglican, had one inappropriate adult/child friendship and
observed a number of others up close. In loco parentis is a much
abused concept.
I decided early on from those experiences that I would fight people who
took a position of authority or influence over me because of an
accident of station - especially if it was just because they an adult
and I was a child, or they were a man, and I was a woman, etc etc.
The fight impulse is about having to submit to incompetence and not
being able to avoid being hurt as a consequence. With kids, I somehow
didn't feel as trapped by that, and had no expectation that they should
"know better".
Cheers
MoragR
[1] I am no scientist, social or otherwise, but it seems there is a lot
parents contribute by way of environment as well as genetics and in the
early stages of life & I see all that as the bundle of inherited stuff.
[2] I know, that was a bad one. Reminds of something I saw Pat Kight
write somewhere about the internet being one big dungeon for tortured
metaphors.
Dale Hurliman
> Aqua wrote:
>
>> Norm wrote:
>>
>>> Fat Naked Dangerous wrote:
>>>
>>>> Norm <walkswi...@comcast.net>, in article
>>>> <418D0DE8...@comcast.net>, dixit:
>>>>
>>>>
>> Nothing to do with slavery. I think it's something to do with my
>> notion of what I am responsible for. And also stuff to do with the
>> purpose and meaning of punishment and forgiveness.
>
>
> Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?
>
Obviously I can not answer for Aqua, but for myself, I do not feel
responsible in any way for what Adam and/or Eve (assuming they even
existed) did or did not do. I can only be held responsible for what I do
or do not do, so the concept of taint by inheritance or "original sin"
is out.
So, there being no taint of inherited or original sin, nobody, not
Jesus or anybody else, need save me from it or "atone" for it (whatever
that means). Furthermore, I didn't ask him to come here or to die as he
did and I rather resent the implication that he did anything for _me_ in
particular and for which I ought to be grateful. If I want his help I'll
ask him for it, thank you very much!
Aqua
> Aqua wrote:
>
>> Norm wrote:
>>> Aqua wrote in the other thread: "And one of the reasons that
>>> I'm not Christian, and I realize this may be quite a
>>> different experience for others, particularly Christians, is
>>> that it feels to me that to be Christian, I have to choose
>>> to become a sub in a specific kind of worship/power exchange
>>> relationship, and I'm just not prepared to do that."
>>>
>>> I don't know what Aqua meant by that. A reference to the
>>> idea of servants of Christ or slaves of righteousness (the
>>> latter as in Romans 6:15-23)? Could it have more to do with
>>> the way people use the Bible and express their religion than
>>> with what the Bible itself says?
>>
>> Nothing to do with slavery. I think it's something to do with my
>> notion of what I am responsible for. And also stuff to do with the
>> purpose and meaning of punishment and forgiveness.
>
> Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?
Note that this isn't stuff I can really put into words well, because
I've never talked much about it. I may stuff it up a few times.
Also I would like to make it clear up front that I have nothing against
Christianity in general, or Christians. I grew up in a Christian
culture, and I think my current culture, ethics and life philosophy is
still strongly influenced by it, and I have benefitted from it.
I think Jesus said a lot of really sensible things, I think he was brave
and ahead of his time, and I think humanity has gained from that. After
all, the only way a new idea can become an integral part of society and
culture is if someone is ahead of zir time first.
I'm also horrified at the way words like "Christian" and "moral" are
being hijacked by people who seem to think "love your neighbour like
yourself" is advice to move to a suburb of like-minded folks; who, if
Jesus were suddenly walking among us, would think he was some kind of
left-wing, freak-loving, liberal hippie ratbag.
So the only real point of discrepancy between myself and my culture is
why I'm not a Christian in a religious sense. I've been rather quiet on
this topic over the last few days because there's been some
introspection happening, or at least the internal parts of it, and I'm
now willing to see what an external view might do.
One of the things that has become very clear to me is that my negative
emotional reaction to Christianity has a lot to do with my personality.
So I'd like to make it clear that I believe most Christians gain a
great deal of positive value from being Christian. Think of me as like
someone allergic to penicillin, if it will help.
To me, the fundamental reason for religion is to help people connect
with their spiritual side, to find meaning and purpose in life larger
than just their own survival and to learn to extend kindness and
compassion to others, particularly people we might otherwise reject.
As I percieve it, Christianity tries to inspire these qualities in two
quite distinct ways. Firstly, Jesus provides an example to follow. I
have no problem with this part, but I can't consider myself a religious
Christian for finding Jesus a good example to follow. There are many
other people who provide good examples for me to follow, and that
doesn't make me a member of their religion.
Secondly, Jesus's status as divine, and his death on the cross. I know
there are a lot of different theological interpretations of what this
means. But every time I try to think about what it would mean to accept
this as the basis for my spirituality, I feel paralysed by guilt. I
feel as though I've been set up as the sucker in a game that isn't fair,
that I am being guilt-tripped. And even though I have to come to
Christianity of my own free will, the mere fact that I have this guilt
reaction means that even if I make this decision of my own free will, it
won't be.
My emotional reaction is very similar to the reaction I'd have if
someone in a position of power over me, like a boss, or a teacher when I
was younger, were to suggest a sexual relationship. Even if I were to
be left to make a decision whether to have the relationship by my own
free will, the fact of the power relationship will hang as a doubt over
any decision to say "yes". The only possible way I can see to be sure
that I am making the decision of my own free will is to say "no".
I've learnt some things about myself recently that I'm not prepared to
go into detail about in public. But I will say that those things would
go a long way towards explaining why I have this reaction, and I feel
reasonably confident that it's quite rare.
Aqua
Aqua
> Norm wrote:
>
>> Aqua wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
>>> Nothing to do with slavery. I think it's something to do with my
>>> notion of what I am responsible for. And also stuff to do with the
>>> purpose and meaning of punishment and forgiveness.
>>
>> Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?
>
> Obviously I can not answer for Aqua, but for myself, I do not feel
> responsible in any way for what Adam and/or Eve (assuming they even
> existed) did or did not do. I can only be held responsible for what I do
> or do not do, so the concept of taint by inheritance or "original sin"
> is out.
> So, there being no taint of inherited or original sin, nobody, not
> Jesus or anybody else, need save me from it or "atone" for it (whatever
> that means). Furthermore, I didn't ask him to come here or to die as he
> did and I rather resent the implication that he did anything for _me_ in
> particular and for which I ought to be grateful. If I want his help I'll
> ask him for it, thank you very much!
>
I wrote a much longer reply, but quite a bit of what you wrote here
resonates with me, particularly the phrase "for which I ought to be
grateful". That's non-consensual power-tripping to me, right there.
Aqua
Aqua
> In article <2f1k62-...@news.jamver.id.au>, Aqua
> <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>Not exactly deference, the other person puts me on a pedestal, and I
>>would rather not be up there. Part of the discomfort is because they're
>>often deferring to me because I have high intelligence, and as far as
>>I'm concerned I just happened to choose my parents carefully. In other
>>words, it seems to me to be a ranking system that's as arbitrary as if
>>it were based on one's birthday or surname.
>
> So, if you had developed a skill in something, and a situation called
> for that skill, if I understand you correctly you would not get pinged
> if people around you deferred to your judgement and commented
> favourably and appreciatively on how you handled it.
Generally, no. I have met people whose praise of my abilities were so
effusive, and whose tendency to defer to my judgement so extreme I
started squirming, but it's rare.
> However, you would get pinged if they decided to defer to you because
> you had green eyes, and they believed that green eyed people should be
> deferred to?
Yes, that's roughly the distinction. I don't think it's the whole of
it, it's my judgement of the reason for deferring, relative to the
quality in question, and whether it's relevant (in my opinion of course)
to the situation.
>>But a situation that I interpret as "friends" (and romantic/sexual
>>relationships are a subset of these for me) requires equality for me.
>
> It certainly requires courtesy, consent and sensitivity for me.
> Equality is a hard one, there are many things that can make a
> relationship feel unequal. Something as simple as one person being
> more attached than the other - or the economics brought about by
> employment opportunity or lack thereof. Some of those things are very
> hard to mitigate.
What I seem to do, to avoid this problem, is basically define equality
as the default condition. If two people have agreed to equality then
financial differences are "not important" in measuring equality. If one
or the other thinks it is important, it becomes an issue to deal with.
>
> I do actively try to mitigate financial and attachment inequality if I
> can, but skill based inequality is always going to be there, and I
> actually like it in some circumstances. In fact, it's one of my
> mitigators for the other two. If the people I'm with have a diverse
> skill base, then not only are they interesting people, but there's
> likely to be more points on which interdependencies and inequalities
> can rest, so that no one point digs in too deeply and painfully.
I think I'm similar - I take differences for granted and assume they all
sort of cancel out in the end, unless someone feels they don't.
>
> Inherited stuff [1] like brain processing power OTOH I tend to see as
> difference rather than a matter of in/equality. For example, my father
> showed me that you can be a very bright engineer and at the same time
> be appallingly stupid about some things.
Something like this has often been the crux of my issues with my
intelligence. I'm very bright in one very particular way, which seems
to blind some people to the rest of my personality.
> Mostly for me it comes down to what you do with what you got, not what
> you got. I'm not sure we disagree here, but let me know if I've
> missed something
Yes, this all sounds very reasonable.
>>It's not just avoidance. I've been part of larger social circles where
>>there's some kind of hierarchy and often I end up using something like
>>authority on those who are higher up the hierarchy and something like
>>the opposite on those lower down. In other words, I try to cancel out
>>the hierarchy by forming a loop.
>
> I used to do more of that, particularly at work when I thought someone
> was getting squashed/ignored on the basis of something I thought was
> bullshit. I still do sometimes.
I've never done it at work. I only do it in circles of friends or other
situations I think should be equal, and I only do it when I feel
affected by the hierarchy - for example if one person is the butt of
jokes and by not saying something I am condoning the hierarchy's placing
of them below me.
> I went to a conservative private school, was raised strictly
> evangelical anglican, had one inappropriate adult/child friendship and
> observed a number of others up close. In loco parentis is a much
> abused concept.
>
> I decided early on from those experiences that I would fight people who
> took a position of authority or influence over me because of an
> accident of station - especially if it was just because they an adult
> and I was a child, or they were a man, and I was a woman, etc etc.
That makes a lot of sense to me, but it's not a strong urge in me, I
suspect because things like this didn't really happen to me as a child.
>
> The fight impulse is about having to submit to incompetence and not
> being able to avoid being hurt as a consequence. With kids, I somehow
> didn't feel as trapped by that, and had no expectation that they should
> "know better".
Ah, that would explain it. I can remember a few incidents of other
children asserting power where they wouldn't have known better, and it
takes effort to remember them; I think that's a sign that they didn't
bother me.
The stuff other kids did that really bothered me, I thought they should
have known better and as an adult, considering it in retrospect, I still
think they should have known better. Thinking about it, I know they
knew better too, because they didn't do it when there were adults around.
Aqua
Aqua
I'm getting a bit lost in this thread (and there's so much stuff on
alt.poly I really have to think hard about at the moment), so I
apologise if I'm not making any sense. Please ask for more detail if
needed.
In my experience, outside what I think of as "explicit" power
relationships (e.g. boss/worker, and also actual negotiated BDSM
relationships), power imbalance is often largely a matter of perception.
For example, the One I Live With and I have a long running itch about
something where at least part of the problem for a long time was that I
percieved zie as demanding a certain kind of power imbalance, while zie
had no idea what I was talking about because zie did not interpret that
behaviour as related to power at all. (Zie agrees it is a bad habit).
Now I know that zie is not trying to take power from me, we can work on
the issue together.
So, for example, in terms of actual power moving around there is a lot
of difference between someone who is deliberately trying to get someone
else to fall in love with zie (I'm thinking along the lines of "The
Rules" here) and someone who someone else falls for. "You made me fall
in love with you!" is a rather more accurate reaction of the first
someone else than the second. But the way that someone else feels
emotionally is not different. Zie feels as though something happened
outside zir control, and someone else is responsible.
I don't know if that helps any.
>>>A bit of a tangent: As someone who has failed to mention my jealousy, I
>>>found that doing so didn't actually hand power to my partner, it took
>>>power away from my partner. If zie'd known, zie might have behaved
>>>differently and some problems might have been avoided.
>
>>That's quite a relevant point. I've seen similar things happen.
>>However, it's not the intention of the person who's not mentioning zir
>>jealousy (or whatver) to take power away from the other. It's just an
>>unfortunate backfire.
>
> I think it was part of my intention, actually. The jealousy made me feel
> like my partner had too much power over me (because zie had the power to
> affect how I felt so intensely). By not telling zir about the jealousy,
> I was, in part, trying to prevent zir using that power. What backfired
> was that in trying to prevent this, I made the jealousy more powerful.
I think this sounds sort of like an example of what I'm trying to
explain. You had not actually handed any power over to your partner
(that zie was aware of) but it felt like that to you.
I think the concept "zie had the power to affect how I felt so
intensely" is central to this kind of thing.
>>I'm not saying I agree with the stalker's attitude, but I think their
>>argument might be similar to saying that a person is entitled to zir
>>emotions, and it is unreasonable of other people to expect to control them.
>>
>>And I'll certainly admit that sometimes if someone is obsessing over me,
>>what I really want is for the emotional source of this in zir to stop.
>>I realised I can't get it.
>
> *nod* But wouldn't you get what you wanted if the person simply stopped
> behaving in ways that make you uncomfortable? If a person obsesses about
> you in completely private ways that don't show in their behavior, it
> doesn't affect you, presumably.
If I never find out about it, sure. However, one of the (for me) more
traumatic instances of being obsessed about in my life was a friend
who'd been doing the obsessing privately for several years before I
found out about it (or anyone else found out, as far as I can tell).
Yes, sure, it was the finding out that caused the trauma.
But we've had plenty of arguments here on alt.poly about cheating, and
how cheaters justify themselves with "what zie doesn't know won't hurt
zie" and how hurt zie is, when zie does find out.
This wasn't the same thing but it's emotionally resonating around the
same ballpark.
Aqua
Norm
> Norm wrote:
>
>> Aqua wrote:
>>> Nothing to do with slavery. I think it's something to do with my
>>> notion of what I am responsible for. And also stuff to do with the
>>> purpose and meaning of punishment and forgiveness.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?
>>
>
> Obviously I can not answer for Aqua, but for myself, I do not feel
> responsible in any way for what Adam and/or Eve (assuming they even
> existed) did or did not do. I can only be held responsible for what I do
> or do not do, so the concept of taint by inheritance or "original sin"
> is out.
> So, there being no taint of inherited or original sin, nobody, not
> Jesus or anybody else, need save me from it or "atone" for it (whatever
> that means). Furthermore, I didn't ask him to come here or to die as he
> did and I rather resent the implication that he did anything for _me_ in
> particular and for which I ought to be grateful. If I want his help I'll
> ask him for it, thank you very much!
>
The trouble with those remarks is that they constitute not a
refutation of Christianity but only of a rather narrow band
of theology held by some Christians. Christianity is huge
and diverse and roomy in both its historical and present
scope and rich in its range of theologies and spiritualities
and not at all monolithic, despite various confessional
statements and the hierarchical structure of the Roman
Catholic Church and of certain other Christian groups.
The concept of original sin that you just spoke to assumes a
literal Adam and Eve. But if Adam and Eve are read as
metaphors for the awakening of humankind to moral
consciousness and to a sense of guilt and indeed of the
awakening of many an individual to such things, that gives a
wholly different cast to the issue. As a matter of fact, to
my mind the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans 5 -- one of
the supposed original sin passages -- makes much better
sense if understood that way.
I say all this just to point out that there are Christian
theologies and there are Christian theologies. No objection
you've raised hasn't been raised by some Christian
theologians themselves.
--
Norm
Stef
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>Stef wrote:
>> I agree, but I don't understand the connection between that fact and the
>> differences between our interpretations.
>In my experience, outside what I think of as "explicit" power
>relationships (e.g. boss/worker, and also actual negotiated BDSM
>relationships), power imbalance is often largely a matter of perception.
OK, I get it. I agree. And I agree that there is a rational view of
what's happening and an emotional view.
I also think that it's an important part of dealing with power issues to
be able to articulate both the rational view and the emotional view.
(Note, I'm not saying you don't think this.)
>For example, the One I Live With and I have a long running itch about
>something where at least part of the problem for a long time was that I
>percieved zie as demanding a certain kind of power imbalance, while zie
>had no idea what I was talking about because zie did not interpret that
>behaviour as related to power at all. (Zie agrees it is a bad habit).
>Now I know that zie is not trying to take power from me, we can work on
>the issue together.
The political concept of "privilege" can sometimes be relevant here.
Someone with privilege is often unaware of how zir privilege affects
people who don't have it. People who don't have it tend to view its
application as a power imbalance - rightly. But in individual cases,
it's not necessarily a *deliberate* attempt to create power imbalance.
It's systemically/culturally created/encouraged in a way that the
individuals might not be entirely aware of.
(Again, I'm not saying this applies in your case, but your description
reminds me of similar cases I've seen where it did apply.)
>> *nod* But wouldn't you get what you wanted if the person simply stopped
>> behaving in ways that make you uncomfortable? If a person obsesses about
>> you in completely private ways that don't show in their behavior, it
>> doesn't affect you, presumably.
>
>If I never find out about it, sure. However, one of the (for me) more
>traumatic instances of being obsessed about in my life was a friend
>who'd been doing the obsessing privately for several years before I
>found out about it (or anyone else found out, as far as I can tell).
>Yes, sure, it was the finding out that caused the trauma.
>
>But we've had plenty of arguments here on alt.poly about cheating, and
>how cheaters justify themselves with "what zie doesn't know won't hurt
>zie" and how hurt zie is, when zie does find out.
>
>This wasn't the same thing but it's emotionally resonating around the
>same ballpark.
I can understand that such a thing would be very uncomfortable. And I
can understand why it is somewhat similar to cheating.
Here's why I think it's different from cheating:
I believe that a person can control zir concrete behavior but can't
always control zir feelings and thoughts.
Cheating is concrete behavior. If I behave in certain ways and hide that
from my partner, I am making deliberate choices, and I could choose
differently.
But if I have obsessive feelings/thoughts about someone, I can't simply
choose not to have them. My options are limited. I can try to control my
behavior to prevent the expression of my feelings from making anyone
uncomfortable. I can try to modify my behavior such that the feelings
fade. (For me, the only way I've found to do that is to avoid the
person.)
If I decide to try to prevent discomfort, I have to make an educated
guess whether I prevent discomfort better by telling the person
(possibly scaring them and spoiling our friendship) or by not expressing
my feelings publicly (possibly causing a breach of trust with the person
if they find out about the feelings later).
(I have an obsessive personality. This has happened to me a number of
times. Now medication controls it for the most part.)
If your friend who hid zir feelings is anything like me, then it looks
like there wasn't a solution that would allow their friendship with you
to continue comfortably.
I'm sorry that happened and that it was traumatic for you.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
I got your letter. I couldn't read it. / It was a cryptogram. / Did it
say Take me with you / Or Take me as I am? / We're going down to the
bottom / All the way to the bottom. / We get turned around. / There is
another world / Spinning inside of this one. -- Laurie Anderson, "Freefall"
Norm
> Norm wrote:
>> Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?
>
>
> Note that this isn't stuff I can really put into words well, because
> I've never talked much about it. I may stuff it up a few times.
>
> Also I would like to make it clear up front that I have nothing against
> Christianity in general, or Christians. I grew up in a Christian
> culture, and I think my current culture, ethics and life philosophy is
> still strongly influenced by it, and I have benefitted from it.
>
> I think Jesus said a lot of really sensible things, I think he was brave
> and ahead of his time, and I think humanity has gained from that. After
> all, the only way a new idea can become an integral part of society and
> culture is if someone is ahead of zir time first.
>
> I'm also horrified at the way words like "Christian" and "moral" are
> being hijacked by people who seem to think "love your neighbour like
> yourself" is advice to move to a suburb of like-minded folks; who, if
> Jesus were suddenly walking among us, would think he was some kind of
> left-wing, freak-loving, liberal hippie ratbag.
I share the feeling of being horrified.
Analogously: If you're brought up with a certain belief
system, how do you come to a point where you are truly and
knowingly free to accept those beliefs without first
rejecting them?
I don't understand your description of guilt. Guilt is being
imposed? You have guilt feelings and they're being played
upon to get you to accept something that your mind objects
to? You have to invent a sense of guilt in order to feel a
need to be freed of it?
>
> My emotional reaction is very similar to the reaction I'd have if
> someone in a position of power over me, like a boss, or a teacher when I
> was younger, were to suggest a sexual relationship. Even if I were to
> be left to make a decision whether to have the relationship by my own
> free will, the fact of the power relationship will hang as a doubt over
> any decision to say "yes". The only possible way I can see to be sure
> that I am making the decision of my own free will is to say "no".
The problem's not the inequity between God and you, it's the
use of guilt as a pressure point?
>
> I've learnt some things about myself recently that I'm not prepared to
> go into detail about in public. But I will say that those things would
> go a long way towards explaining why I have this reaction, and I feel
> reasonably confident that it's quite rare.
If what you mean is a resistance to being manipulated, I
share it in abundance.
On the misuse of power, I can think of nothing better than
Simone Weil's short piece, "The Iliad," which appears in The
Simone Weil Reader (1977): pp. 153-183, and has also, IIRC,
been published separately by a Quaker group as a Pendle Hill
pamphlet.
--
Norm
Morag R
Massive snippage, partly due to brain drain at work and partly because
I think there is a large slab of general agreement here.
In article <p1ar62-...@news.jamver.id.au>, Aqua
<aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> What I seem to do, to avoid this problem, is basically define equality
> as the default condition. If two people have agreed to equality then
> financial differences are "not important" in measuring equality. If one
> or the other thinks it is important, it becomes an issue to deal with.
My experience of it is that it is sneakier than that, and that agreeing
otherwise can be a risky approach for some people in some areas. I
think Stef is onto something re the privilege example.
For me, financial differences particularly are not something I've
experienced as a status imbalance thing, but more a problem of one
person having a greater range of movement because of the money. More
range of movement often contributes to inequalities, and feelings of
inequality.
Status worries might be mitigated by a "not important" agreement, range
of movement isn't in my experience. In fact it can make it worse to
feel as if you're somehow a crass human being for not being able to
make yourself think that it's not important while you're looking at
very concrete examples of your partner exercising more choices than you
are.
If I'm the one who doesn't have the money, it's important no matter how
many times I've tried to agree otherwise. And recently it turns out
that if I am the one with the money, agreeing otherwise can still mean
things are eating away good faith in the background.
So, now I just won't make that agreement.
It's possible if I were prepared to completely merge my money with
someone elses, it could be solved that way, but something about that
makes the independent part of my brain cranky.
Cheers
MoragR
Aqua
> In article <p1ar62-...@news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>Stef wrote:
>>
>>>I agree, but I don't understand the connection between that fact and the
>>>differences between our interpretations.
>
>>In my experience, outside what I think of as "explicit" power
>>relationships (e.g. boss/worker, and also actual negotiated BDSM
>>relationships), power imbalance is often largely a matter of perception.
>
> OK, I get it. I agree. And I agree that there is a rational view of
> what's happening and an emotional view.
>
> I also think that it's an important part of dealing with power issues to
> be able to articulate both the rational view and the emotional view.
> (Note, I'm not saying you don't think this.)
I agree with you, if I'm allowed the caveat that there may be situations
in which there isn't actually a rational view as such. Particularly in
situations dealing with privilege as you discuss below, and the parties
come to the situation with very different definitions of "normal" or
"reasonable".
> The political concept of "privilege" can sometimes be relevant here.
> Someone with privilege is often unaware of how zir privilege affects
> people who don't have it. People who don't have it tend to view its
> application as a power imbalance - rightly. But in individual cases,
> it's not necessarily a *deliberate* attempt to create power imbalance.
> It's systemically/culturally created/encouraged in a way that the
> individuals might not be entirely aware of.
I agree privilege is very difficult and delicate, particularly because
it's so hard for the privileged person to recognise zir privilege, and I
include myself in that. I've been privileged and oblivious to it, for sure.
>>>*nod* But wouldn't you get what you wanted if the person simply stopped
>>>behaving in ways that make you uncomfortable? If a person obsesses about
>>>you in completely private ways that don't show in their behavior, it
>>>doesn't affect you, presumably.
>>
>>If I never find out about it, sure. However, one of the (for me) more
>>traumatic instances of being obsessed about in my life was a friend
>>who'd been doing the obsessing privately for several years before I
>>found out about it (or anyone else found out, as far as I can tell).
>>Yes, sure, it was the finding out that caused the trauma.
>>
>>But we've had plenty of arguments here on alt.poly about cheating, and
>>how cheaters justify themselves with "what zie doesn't know won't hurt
>>zie" and how hurt zie is, when zie does find out.
>>
>>This wasn't the same thing but it's emotionally resonating around the
>>same ballpark.
>
> I can understand that such a thing would be very uncomfortable. And I
> can understand why it is somewhat similar to cheating.
>
> Here's why I think it's different from cheating:
>
> I believe that a person can control zir concrete behavior but can't
> always control zir feelings and thoughts.
>
> Cheating is concrete behavior. If I behave in certain ways and hide that
> from my partner, I am making deliberate choices, and I could choose
> differently.
Oh, I agree cheating and obsessing are different. Although you hear the
"I couldn't help myself" excuse from cheaters regularly. I'm talking
about the obsessing thing here because it's difficult and uncomfortable.
Whereas I don't experience much sense of difficulty about cheating.
> If I decide to try to prevent discomfort, I have to make an educated
> guess whether I prevent discomfort better by telling the person
> (possibly scaring them and spoiling our friendship) or by not expressing
> my feelings publicly (possibly causing a breach of trust with the person
> if they find out about the feelings later).
Yes, this is the problem. The obsession isn't anything I can reasonably
ask the other person to control, but it still affects me. Frequently,
for me, it boils down to the eyes. I can't ask people to change what's
happening with their eyes the way I can ask them to alter their
behaviour. But the eyes can affect me in the same kind of way the
behaviour can.
> (I have an obsessive personality. This has happened to me a number of
> times. Now medication controls it for the most part.)
>
> If your friend who hid zir feelings is anything like me, then it looks
> like there wasn't a solution that would allow their friendship with you
> to continue comfortably.
It boiled down to something like this.
Aqua
Aqua
> Aqua wrote:
I've cut all the stuff I think we agree on.
>>
>> Secondly, Jesus's status as divine, and his death on the cross. I
>> know there are a lot of different theological interpretations of what
>> this means. But every time I try to think about what it would mean to
>> accept this as the basis for my spirituality, I feel paralysed by
>> guilt. I feel as though I've been set up as the sucker in a game that
>> isn't fair, that I am being guilt-tripped. And even though I have to
>> come to Christianity of my own free will, the mere fact that I have
>> this guilt reaction means that even if I make this decision of my own
>> free will, it won't be.
>
>
> Analogously: If you're brought up with a certain belief system, how do
> you come to a point where you are truly and knowingly free to accept
> those beliefs without first rejecting them?
Well, I can play what-if games with the best of them. There's quite a
few of my beliefs that I've been brought up with that I have subjected
to what-if games and decided that I'm happy accepting.
I was brought up by my parents, and of necessity they had a lot of power
over me when I was young. I'm an independent adult now, and I know I'm
making the decision to be friends and equals with them out of my own
free will. I didn't have to reject them in order to do so, unless you
regard moving out of home rejection.
(I didn't do the teenage rebellion thing against my parents. They were
more than happy to start admitting they were fallible around the age I
was figuring that out myself. There wasn't anything to rebel against.)
> I don't understand your description of guilt. Guilt is being imposed?
> You have guilt feelings and they're being played upon to get you to
> accept something that your mind objects to? You have to invent a sense
> of guilt in order to feel a need to be freed of it?
Guilt isn't quite the right word. I'm trying to find another but I'm
back at the notion that I'm being required to sub in a way I won't.
>> My emotional reaction is very similar to the reaction I'd have if
>> someone in a position of power over me, like a boss, or a teacher when
>> I was younger, were to suggest a sexual relationship. Even if I were
>> to be left to make a decision whether to have the relationship by my
>> own free will, the fact of the power relationship will hang as a doubt
>> over any decision to say "yes". The only possible way I can see to be
>> sure that I am making the decision of my own free will is to say "no".
>
> The problem's not the inequity between God and you, it's the use of
> guilt as a pressure point?
No, it's more like the guilt/whatever emotion is a warning sign,
alerting me to a problem in the God/me relationship.
Norm, I don't know how much you've read other alt.poly threads, but
there's fairly often discussions of jealousy. Some people hold that
jealousy is intrinsically a bad emotion that should be avoided. Others
regard it as a signalling device, indicating a problem somewhere, like a
fire alarm.
The thing I'm calling guilt is an emotion that functions like a
signalling device. I want to call it something else, because I
experience two different kinds of guilt - one is the "normal" guilt,
signalling that I've done something wrong, haven't lived up to my own
ethics. The other is a warning that something in my surroundings is
meshing badly with me, on a moral/ethical level.
There is not necessarily any fault in the surroundings (in the Christian
God in this case) *or* in me. It's just the meshing that is bad.
>> I've learnt some things about myself recently that I'm not prepared to
>> go into detail about in public. But I will say that those things
>> would go a long way towards explaining why I have this reaction, and I
>> feel reasonably confident that it's quite rare.
>
> If what you mean is a resistance to being manipulated, I share it in
> abundance.
There's more to it than that, but I'm not really willing to write about
it in public.
> On the misuse of power, I can think of nothing better than Simone Weil's
> short piece, "The Iliad," which appears in The Simone Weil Reader
> (1977): pp. 153-183, and has also, IIRC, been published separately by a
> Quaker group as a Pendle Hill pamphlet.
I'll have a look at it.
Aqua
Aqua
Would you care to expain further? It's not very often I have Christian
theologians handy who are willing to explain tricky concepts.
> I say all this just to point out that there are Christian theologies and
> there are Christian theologies. No objection you've raised hasn't been
> raised by some Christian theologians themselves.
I appreciate this. I think part of my problem becomes that if nearly
everything in the bible is meant to be read as metaphor, there are an
awful lot of different possible metaphorical readings of a lot of it.
I guess I end up not surprised at all the different kinds of
Christianity out there, but a bit dubious as to what the intrinsic worth
is of something that can seemingly be adjusted to fit any point of view.
Note here that I'm not suggesting that Norm's interpretation of
Christianity is a "wrong" interpretation. I'm more inclined to think
the varieties of Christianity that don't seem have much regard for
Jesus's message of love and compassion are the ones that are on the
wrong track.
Aqua
Aqua
This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd say you (Morag) can't
have a relationship between equals if there's significant financial
difference, or at least it's an issue that needs to be dealt with
explicitly.
For me, I can't have a relationship between equals if the other person
has certain gender-based behaviour expectations. (Or it could possibly
be dealt with explicitly).
So equality only works if the parties involved decide it does and none
of the differences (or potential differences) bother anyone. The
particular things that might bother one person will be different from
those of another; I don't think money is any more crass (in the sense
of making you feel bad that it is a concern you have) than any other.
This is a very convoluted way of saying: there's a good reason I'm not
in an intimate relationship with every person I meet. A lot of
filtering is required to find people whose definitions of equality and
what is important to it and what isn't are sufficiently close to mine
for things to have even the slightest chance of working out.
Aqua
Stef
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>I agree with you, if I'm allowed the caveat that there may be situations
>in which there isn't actually a rational view as such. Particularly in
>situations dealing with privilege as you discuss below, and the parties
>come to the situation with very different definitions of "normal" or
>"reasonable".
Agreed.
>I agree privilege is very difficult and delicate, particularly because
>it's so hard for the privileged person to recognise zir privilege, and I
>include myself in that. I've been privileged and oblivious to it, for sure.
Me too.
>Oh, I agree cheating and obsessing are different. Although you hear the
>"I couldn't help myself" excuse from cheaters regularly.
I have used "It just happened," in a situation that was cheating by the
spirit, if not the letter, of an agreement I had with someone. I was
called on it as if I had said "I couldn't help myself." I didn't mean "I
couldn't help myself," I meant "It wasn't premeditated." But I certainly
could have chosen differently, and have in other such situations.
>Yes, this is the problem. The obsession isn't anything I can reasonably
>ask the other person to control, but it still affects me. Frequently,
>for me, it boils down to the eyes. I can't ask people to change what's
>happening with their eyes the way I can ask them to alter their
>behaviour. But the eyes can affect me in the same kind of way the
>behaviour can.
That makes sense. (And I do think a person can change the way they look
at you. But I can see how it wouldn't be possible to ask for it.)
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
I may look calm, but beneath this cool exterior is a
churning iceberg ready to explode. --Mixed metaphor hall of fame
Stef
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>Norm wrote:
>> The trouble with those remarks is that they constitute not a refutation
>> of Christianity but only of a rather narrow band of theology held by
>> some Christians. Christianity is huge and diverse and roomy in both its
>> historical and present scope and rich in its range of theologies and
>> spiritualities and not at all monolithic, despite various confessional
>> statements and the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church
>> and of certain other Christian groups.
>>
>> The concept of original sin that you just spoke to assumes a literal
>> Adam and Eve. But if Adam and Eve are read as metaphors for the
>> awakening of humankind to moral consciousness and to a sense of guilt
>> and indeed of the awakening of many an individual to such things, that
>> gives a wholly different cast to the issue. As a matter of fact, to my
>> mind the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans 5 -- one of the supposed
>> original sin passages -- makes much better sense if understood that way.
>Would you care to expain further? It's not very often I have Christian
>theologians handy who are willing to explain tricky concepts.
I'm neither Norm nor any other Christian theologian nor a Christian
(although I was raised Christian), but I'm moved to describe my own
relationship with the original sin concept.
As a kid, I didn't understand it. I didn't think I had done anything
sinful just by being born.
As an adult in my 20s, I began to realize that what I did could affect
other people. I learned that I could harm other people. I learned that I
could harm other people even when I was trying to do my best. So I began
to appreciate why people would find forgiveness from a divine power
attractive. (It was too late for me to find this in Christianity per
se.)
Subsequently I've come to think of original sin as similar to the fact
that humans are finite and imperfect by nature, but we can imagine being
infinite and perfect, or we can at least imagine things being a whole
lot better than they are. This causes us to feel inadequate. There is
pain and suffering and death in the world and although we can try to
ameliorate it, we can never do enough to stop it entirely. I think
humans are more aware of this than other animals are, so that could be
tied to the concept of the "tree of knowledge" - once we became aware of
this, we felt responsible for fixing it, but we can't fix it because
we're finite and imperfect, and so we feel bad.
This is how I look at original sin. As for forgiveness, I can understand
why it would be attractive to feel that one was forgiven for being
finite and imperfect. I don't quite get at an emotional level how
"Christ dying to atone for our sins" *specifically* addresses this
desire for forgiveness, though, which is part of why I am not Christian.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
The glove is on the other foot now. --Mixed metaphor hall of fame
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> > Adam and Eve. But if Adam and Eve are read as metaphors for the
> > awakening of humankind to moral consciousness and to a sense of guilt
> > and indeed of the awakening of many an individual to such things, that
> > gives a wholly different cast to the issue. As a matter of fact, to my
> > mind the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans 5 -- one of the supposed
> > original sin passages -- makes much better sense if understood that way.
>
> Would you care to expain further? It's not very often I have Christian
> theologians handy who are willing to explain tricky concepts.
The idea that 'original sin' needs to be cleansed from to be saved from
damnation is, as I understand it, an interpretation of the Western
branch of Christianity, the Eastern (Orthodox) interpretation is
different.
Western churches are more likely (though not universally) to hold to the
notion that, for example, an infant who dies before baptism is weighed
down by original sin, and thus damned (or at least sent to purgatory).
An Orthodox baby in the same situation has not sinned, and thus ascends
freely.
My (somewhat whimsical and probably somewhat inaccurate) understanding
of the Eastern church's attitude towards the concept of 'original sin'
is that their God wants to have morally developed adults to talk to, and
thus is willing to deal with the fact that becoming morally developed
adults often requires questioning, doubt, rebellion, wilful difference,
and eventual reconciliation. In short, 'original sin' is 'the tendency
to be a teenager'.
In this mode of thought, Jesus is not so much the sacrifice to cleanse
the taint, but the example of what it is to be a grown-up.
- Darkhawk, dabbler
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Morag R
> This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd say you (Morag) can't
> have a relationship between equals if there's significant financial
> difference, or at least it's an issue that needs to be dealt with
> explicitly.
>
> For me, I can't have a relationship between equals if the other person
> has certain gender-based behaviour expectations. (Or it could possibly
> be dealt with explicitly).
>
> So equality only works if the parties involved decide it does and none
> of the differences (or potential differences) bother anyone. The
> particular things that might bother one person will be different from
> those of another; I don't think money is any more crass (in the sense
> of making you feel bad that it is a concern you have) than any other.
With you so far.
> This is a very convoluted way of saying: there's a good reason I'm not
> in an intimate relationship with every person I meet. A lot of
> filtering is required to find people whose definitions of equality and
> what is important to it and what isn't are sufficiently close to mine
> for things to have even the slightest chance of working out.
Hrm, here I think it depends on the practical consequences, and
potentially a difference between mono and poly - but I take your
general point.
As I see it, financial inequality in an LDR or domestic live in or
serious primary situation can be dire. Financial inequality in a "once
every couple of months for dinner and whatever comes next" kind of
intimate relationship probably isn't going to be near as dire.
Apropos of nothing, I've got some thoughts percolating around in my
head about this "once every couple of months for dinner and whatever
comes next" sort of relationship. I'm hoping to get to a post on it
soon.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>As I see it, financial inequality in an LDR or domestic live in or
>serious primary situation can be dire. Financial inequality in a "once
>every couple of months for dinner and whatever comes next" kind of
>intimate relationship probably isn't going to be near as dire.
Although you're correct in general, what I've seen is that situations
between those two tend to be most fraught because there's so little
support for relationships other than "married" and "casual friends".
One can find lots of advice for married couples dealing with financial
inequality.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2004 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
"I don't want to make a decision."
"Tell me, anyway -- then I can ignore it." --AM/SM
Deborah J. Ruppert
> I'm neither Norm nor any other Christian theologian nor a Christian
> (although I was raised Christian), but I'm moved to describe my own
> relationship with the original sin concept.
And I'm neither Norm nor Aqua nor Stef nor a Christian, although I too
was raised as one, and I consider myself a very spiritual person.
And I, too, am moved to describe my sense of original sin.
I believe that "original sin" is the bedrock sense that all (I started
with "most" and chose to change it) humans I have met seem to have,
that they are "fundamentally flawed" in some way, and therefore worthless.
It may be that my sample size is too small or my sample is too skewed,
yet this ONE thing is common to ALL in the sample.
And the only cure for this "sin" is Unconditional Love, which just happens
to be my perception of The-Symbol-Called-God-In-This-Culture.
Deborah
druppert at clearspring dot com is NOT the spamtrap
Kai Jones
Ruppert) watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things
called words:
>st...@panix.com (Stef) wrote in message news:<cnim22$j4l$1...@reader1.panix.com>...
>
>> I'm neither Norm nor any other Christian theologian nor a Christian
>> (although I was raised Christian), but I'm moved to describe my own
>> relationship with the original sin concept.
>
>And I'm neither Norm nor Aqua nor Stef nor a Christian, although I too
>was raised as one, and I consider myself a very spiritual person.
I'm none of those things except the last one.
And I simply cannot relate to the concept of original sin at all.
It's completely contrary to my religion, my beliefs about how the
world works, my understanding of justice as well as speculation about
the actions of a just G-d, and my experience.
--
Kai Jones, formerly Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature.