WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WALKER, TERRY W
>...
> Cheers,
> John "Wrong" Passaniti
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
I was sitting in the computer center here, at 2am, eating ice cream,
because I was depressed over that feeling of finding someone you care
for but both of you are too afraid to be the first to admit it.
Anyway, so I'm sittin' here, and I come across your note.
I and a straight friend of mine here both had a riotous laugh.
Thanks you very much for brightening an otherwise dreary morning. :)))
- The Mellow Tigger being impersonated by a sxlly rprsd dprsd pschtc
Terry Walker B5/1 f w- cd k- s- e+ rv+ Tww8297 @ Venus.Tamu.Edu
John Passaniti
In reply to the bitchy message from Jari, you wrote:
> My personal hope for the future seems to be different
> from yours. I hope for a day when my sexual orientation
> doesn't matter. I realize that not everyone will be gay,
> so perhaps those who are gay can still be something of a
> curiosity, an exotic among their straight friends perhaps.
> ;) But I seek no special treatment of any kind.
Careful! You have to remember something-- something
vital as you express your opinions and questions here and
elsewhere.
You are WRONG.
No, your ideas aren't wrong-- I in fact find myself in
agreement with what you've written so far. But you are
nevertheless WRONG.
Here's how it works. Within soc.motss (and indeed, in
"real life" as well), there are people who are so thrilled
with their particular perception of life that any other
options are simply "WRONG." I haven't heard the
catchphrase "internally homophobic" used recently, but I
knew when I read your original article about the genie and
choice of three books, that's the first thing that popped
into my head.
(Question for all soc.motss folk-- what are the
current catchphrases for someone who doesn't agree with
you? I want to keep up to date.)
Yes, in their eyes, questioning why someone is gay or
musing about if one could change their preferences is the
same as marching in a parade with a white sheet over your
head. You are WRONG.
I have some experience with this. In the Fidonet
equivalent of soc.motss, I /dared/ to criticize Queer
Nation and ACT UP. Well, I quickly learned that I was
WRONG. No, my reasons were sound enough (those were never
debated), but the very fact that I would make critical
comments meant I was WRONG.
Also, some time ago, when I first discovered
soc.motss, I found out that I was WRONG to advocate
monogamy (I was merely part of some crypto-Christian
heterofascist breeding ideal). Thankfully, soc.motss has
changed somewhat since then, although I know that everytime
I mention that a man named Phil is my "husband," I'm going
to get at least one message in my mail queue telling me I
am-- you guessed it-- WRONG.
I could go on (and usually do), but you get my point.
In any case, don't get too mad at the pebble-minds who
will convulse when they read what you wrote:
> But I don't want any particular gay agenda.
Shocking! Not to mention:
> I want to be unimportant, merely another citizen of the
> world who has a few extra quirks (which are nothing
> significant in and of themselves).
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Beat yourself with a
hammer for even thinking such thoughts!
Let me give you the quick tour.
First of all, we are both wrong for using "gay." It
isn't "correct" anymore. You and I aren't "gay" (or even
god-forbid "homosexuals"). We are Queers (capitalized for
more effect).
Secondly, we both don't happen to love other men-- we
Scream With Pleasure As We Fuck Ass. It's important for
gays-- err, Queers-- to remember to choose whatever
language is most inappropriate at any time. Loving another
man isn't dramatic, and doesn't accentuate the differences
between heterosexuals and homo-- err, Queers. How are
heterosexuals going to be shocked if we bring love into it?
Remember, at least one reference to the cum dripping off
your leather face mask is important.
Finally, remember the rule above all rules-- ALL THAT
IS GAY IS GOOD. Simply translated, it means that whatever
gay people are doing at any particular time is good; you
have no right to criticize anyone who is gay. To do so
merely means that you are uncomfortable with your own
sexuality. Isn't that obvious?
Cheers,
John "Wrong" Passaniti
--
John Passaniti - via FidoNet node 1:260/230
UUCP: {smart-host}!ur-valhalla!rochgte!201!John.Passaniti
INTERNET: John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Jess Anderson
In article <268.27...@rochgte.fidonet.org>
John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.fidonet.org (John Passaniti),
returning after a long absence, and still clearly occupying
the whiner persona John Pissesneatly (tm Rob Boldbear),
presents an extended satire, which we are told in a
subsequent post from the person he was responding to,
tww...@venus.tamu.edu (Walker, Terry W), much delighted him
and his (NB) straight friend at 2 a.m. in some benighted
computing center in Texas.
He intended it to be funny, but taken seriously. Never one
to co-operate, I decided not to take it seriously, but to
consider it fair game for satirical response.
He (Pisser) called his essay "Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
Wrong." It inspired me (what can I say?) to respond: "Whine
Whine Whine" (three times is enough).
You must remember that no matter what you say here, but the
more so if it has meaningful content and seeks to challenge
received knowledge or pat assumptions of even the most
easily understood kind, some Pisser will pop up and whine.
Here's how it works. Here and in life there are people who
are so insulated against any suggestion their most cherished
perceptions might not be adequate -- not only to others but
not even to themselves -- that to drown out the agony of
actual thought they start whining and keening and moaning at
high volume. The thought they seem least able to process is
that they could just conceivably be part of the problem
themselves (whining advances to deafening at the very
mention of the two words "internal homophobia").
>(Question for all soc.motss folk-- what are the current
>catchphrases for someone who doesn't agree with you? I want
>to keep up to date.)
Of course, I would defer to my many more learned colleagues
in matters of terminology. My own favorite is: Bzzzzt!
>Yes, in their eyes, questioning why someone is gay or musing
>about if one could change their preferences is the same as
>marching in a parade with a white sheet over your head.
Bzzzzt! The Attack of the Blinders! God forbid you should
actually question the biases of such questions.
>I have some experience with this.
The Understatement of Last Year, Mr. Neatly.
>No, my
>reasons were sound enough (those were never debated), but
>the very fact that I would make critical comments meant I
>was WRONG.
You see, there are hordes of people whose response to merely
being questioned is to at once shout out: "Oh, you big
beast! How *dare* you not cave in at once to my unthinking
values?"
>Also, some time ago, when I first discovered soc.motss, I
>found out that I was WRONG to advocate monogamy (I was
>merely part of some crypto-Christian heterofascist breeding
>ideal).
There's hope: you have almost learned the correct label for
those who think monogamy is for others than themselves:
hetero-christiam crypto-fascist breeder idealists (HCCFBI).
>Thankfully, soc.motss has changed somewhat since
>then, although I know that everytime I mention that a man
>named Phil is my "husband," I'm going to get at least one
>message in my mail queue telling me I am-- you guessed it--
>WRONG.
Heaven forfend that your heterosexist-founded terminologies
should be troubled by a mini-earthquake of reason or
question.
>I could go on (and usually do), but you get my point.
A mighty dull point it is, too.
>In any case, don't get too mad at the pebble-minds who will
>convulse when they read what you wrote:
>>But I don't want any particular gay agenda.
No, by all means don't let it get through to you that
thousands of people have braved very real dangers to
campaign for relief to our oppression, whether you care
about it or not.
>>I want to be unimportant, merely another citizen of the
>>world who has a few extra quirks (which are nothing
>>significant in and of themselves).
>WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Beat yourself with a hammer
>for even thinking such thoughts!
Right, right, right! Use a hammer or any other implement it
takes to get your brainpan open enough to let some light in
there. Then you might see that your desire to be average
and unimportant (likely to be fulfilled) is not an adequate
prescription for people who would prefer not to see their
interests dismissed as "quirks" or "nothing significant."
>Let me give you the quick tour.
The magical mystery tour of the rose-colored lights?
>First of all, we are both wrong for using "gay." It isn't
>"correct" anymore. You and I aren't "gay" (or even
>god-forbid "homosexuals"). We are Queers (capitalized for
>more effect).
Pisser makes it clear that the ominous "gay" agenda,
including as it does those mettlesome and meddling bisexual,
lesbian, and (shocking!) straight people, in addition to
those gay men who question whether there might be useful and
more inclusive terms than his own favorites, is not for him.
People do us a service, after all, when they reveal what
they think.
>Secondly, we both don't happen to love other men-- we Scream
>With Pleasure As We Fuck Ass. It's important for gays--
>err, Queers-- to remember to choose whatever language is
>most inappropriate at any time. Loving another man isn't
>dramatic, and doesn't accentuate the differences between
>heterosexuals and homo-- err, Queers. How are heterosexuals
>going to be shocked if we bring love into it? Remember, at
>least one reference to the cum dripping off your leather
>face mask is important.
This, I submit, would be laughable *if* the hatred of
diversity it embodies were not so blatant and so real.
>Finally, remember the rule above all rules-- ALL THAT IS GAY
>IS GOOD. Simply translated, it means that whatever gay
>people are doing at any particular time is good; you have no
>right to criticize anyone who is gay.
Yet another sample of the thing that is itself (yasotttii):
it's OK for you to criticize, but not OK for you to be
questioned. That is the working definition of whining.
>To do so merely means
>that you are uncomfortable with your own sexuality. Isn't
>that obvious?
What *is* obvious is that you can't abide anything that is
"not-you" and are quite willing to construct a version of
the American Dream According to Straight Models (ADASM)
within which you and Husband Phil can be unbothered by and
unconcerned about the Unpleasantness of the Real World (URW)
of those who are not like your Family Unit (fuck you).
<> It is never too late to give up your prejudices.
<> -- H.D. Thoreau
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: ande...@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
George Neville-Neil
John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Passaniti) writes:
|> Secondly, we both don't happen to love other men-- we
|>Scream With Pleasure As We Fuck Ass. It's important for
|>gays-- err, Queers-- to remember to choose whatever
|>language is most inappropriate at any time. Loving another
|>man isn't dramatic, and doesn't accentuate the differences
|>between heterosexuals and homo-- err, Queers. How are
|>heterosexuals going to be shocked if we bring love into it?
|>Remember, at least one reference to the cum dripping off
|>your leather face mask is important.
|>
Inappropriate ?? Gee my mother talks like that. Now I think you could
be MUCH more inappropriate. How about a reference to screaming with
pleasure while being fucked and having somone else twist your nipple
rings. Then you have non-monogamy and pain ? Oh shit now I've gotten
myself excited.
Later,
George
George Neville-Neil What if they gave an orgy and nobody came ?
g...@mammoth.berkeley.edu
From RFC 1196 The Finger User Information Protocol
Vending machines SHOULD respond to a {C} request with a list of all
items currently available for purchase and possible consumption.
Vending machines SHOULD respond to a {U}{C} request with a detailed
count or list of the particular product or product slot. Vending
machines should NEVER NEVER EVER eat requests. Or money.
Steve Dyer
>that I was WRONG to advocate monogamy (I was merely part of some
>crypto-Christian heterofascist breeding ideal).
I remember that discussion quite well, and there was no argument
at all about people choosing monogamy. Of course, if "advocating"
monogamy means that you disparage other people's choices, it's no
wonder that you might raise a little controversy and lose respect.
This has been pointed out to you again and again, but you certainly
don't acknowledge the correction, nor do you bother to contribute
to soc.motss in any kind of ongoing manner. Instead, we have to put up
with this tiresome whipped-dog yammering everytime another opportunity
to whine crops up.
If Phil and John are paragons of monogamy, the virtue appears to have
become a little tarnished.
> Thankfully, soc.motss has changed somewhat since then, although I know
> that everytime I mention that a man named Phil is my "husband," I'm
> going to get at least one message in my mail queue telling me I am--
> you guessed it-- WRONG.
Not at all. The two of you deserve each other.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
dy...@arktouros.mit.edu, dy...@hstbme.mit.edu
John Graves
things are PC I suggest you examine whether somethings are indeed WRONG
because they are harmful to others and whether there is a response based
on an understanding of the causes of wrongness, i.e. morality, religion,
etc., or whether the response is to a perceived demand of conformity.
Much of what is called PC is simply Right. I consider right to be related
to my sense of morality, not hurting others, being honest, loving, and
being influenced by Jesus and others to visit the imprisoned, heal the
sick, feed the poor, etc.
I have found that most of those who accuse others of being PC are actually
more PC (politically conservative). Rather than deal with the issues, the
attacker tries to smear the person who is politically liberal and
consistent by claiming that they are intolerant and inflexible. My
experience is that most so-called PC people are people who generally care
about and support other people while most criticizers of PC are people who
are looking for another excuse to attack liberals.
Eventually someone is going to be perceived as Wrong by the culture they
join. I prefer to belong to a culture that is accepting, approving,
encouraging and caring. So called PCers are generally in that group
because PC is based on those values and that is why the incorrect use of
terms that can hurt people and other wrongs need to be expressed as bottom
lines.
I do not mind being labeled PC (or liberal) by the right nor do I mind
having people be angry with me because I am willing to label behavior
WRONG and therefore saying that something or someone IS Wrong AS FAR AS
I'M CONCERNED.
John Allan Graves Unitarian Universalism
Duke University An inclusive religion!
and all its components ()
including the Divinity School, \__/
disavow anything I say. II
Tezcatlipocateopixque
>I remember that discussion quite well, and there was no argument
>at all about people choosing monogamy.
So do I -- I was one of the targets of their evangelization. The
most ludicrous thing about it, however, was that these two dears
had been together less than half the years Xopher and I had, but
were informing us that our relationship wasn't real or sincere.
>If Phil and John are paragons of monogamy
Paragons, indeed. Phil is the husband, and John is the wife.
>> that everytime I mention that a man named Phil is my "husband," I'm
See? What did I tell you -- and a good little wife too, I'd wager.
--
"Try reading for content. You'll be amazed at the distinctions you
will be able to draw."
-- Steve Dyer
Tezcatlipocateopixque
> You are WRONG.
and much more rubbish.
It's just amazing what some people will do to keep from thinking
and taking responsibility for their words and actions. I try to
think of these contortions to retain the mind of a six-year old
amusing; eventually, that fails, and it becomes depressing.
Jim Graham
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
|>
|> In article <268.27...@rochgte.fidonet.org>
|> John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.fidonet.org (John Passaniti),
|>
|> He intended it to be funny, but taken seriously. Never one
|> to co-operate, I decided not to take it seriously, but to
|> consider it fair game for satirical response.
|>
|> He (Pisser) called his essay "Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
|> Wrong." It inspired me (what can I say?) to respond: "Whine
|> Whine Whine" (three times is enough).
My what inspired prose! "Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong" rolls off
the tongue beautifully with a slightly crabby tone. "Whine Whine
Whine" flows smoothly and slowly with the jaded disinterest of
someone who has already heard it all before.
|> You must remember that no matter what you say here, but the
|> more so if it has meaningful content and seeks to challenge
|> received knowledge or pat assumptions of even the most
|> easily understood kind, some Pisser will pop up and whine.
And someone else usually whines back.
|> Here's how it works. Here and in life there are people who
|> are so insulated against any suggestion their most cherished
|> perceptions might not be adequate -- not only to others but
|> not even to themselves -- that to drown out the agony of
|> actual thought they start whining and keening and moaning at
|> high volume. The thought they seem least able to process is
|> that they could just conceivably be part of the problem
|> themselves (whining advances to deafening at the very
|> mention of the two words "internal homophobia").
This seems like a two way street to me.
|> >Yes, in their eyes, questioning why someone is gay or musing
|> >about if one could change their preferences is the same as
|> >marching in a parade with a white sheet over your head.
|>
|> Bzzzzt! The Attack of the Blinders! God forbid you should
|> actually question the biases of such questions.
Questions like "What is wrong with me that makes me gay?" are
biased. Questions like "Why am I gay?" are not. They are the
opposite of "Why am I straight?" and are perfectly valid. No
matter how much someone feels that I am internally homophobic
for wondering why I am gay, I will continue to ponder this until
I gain some insight or I die.
I also ponder such things as "Why do I have hair over most of my
body?". If you have a problem with the [lack of] extent of your
own body hair you may think that I am wondering "Why am I blessed
with all of this body hair while Joe over there (He He look at
that hairless slob) has none?", but really what I am wondering
is "What is it about my body that causes hair to sprout all over..."
Also, if it is important to accept that person A is homosexual
and is happy with that situation, why is it not acceptable that
person B is homosexual and is not happy with that situation?
You can learn to live with things that don't please you or you
can try to figure out how to change them. Seeking such a change
is only a problem when the reason for such a change is misguided.
But, how can we decide that for others?
When someone asks "How can I become straight?", I don't think
that it is valid to say "Stop being so internally homophobic!"
Better yet to say "Well, I am happy not being straight, what
makes you want to be straight?"
When someone asks "Can I change my preference?", why not say
"I personally don't want to, but others have tried electric
shock, prayer, inhalants, etc. and none of those have worked
- Do you have any other suggestions?"
|> >No, my
|> >reasons were sound enough (those were never debated), but
|> >the very fact that I would make critical comments meant I
|> >was WRONG.
|>
|> You see, there are hordes of people whose response to merely
|> being questioned is to at once shout out: "Oh, you big
|> beast! How *dare* you not cave in at once to my unthinking
|> values?"
From my point of view (FMPOV):
It seems that the WRONG people always start out by asking a
question. That question is perceived as being "loaded". They
are attacked by the local populace for being prejudiced. They
try to get out of it, but they are caught in a tangled web of
not saying things quite right and not being given a second
chance or the benefit of the doubt. I usually see both sides
of it and a lack of communication in between, but I don't know
how to bridge the gap.
|> >Also, some time ago, when I first discovered soc.motss, I
|> >found out that I was WRONG to advocate monogamy (I was
|> >merely part of some crypto-Christian heterofascist breeding
|> >ideal).
|>
|> There's hope: you have almost learned the correct label for
|> those who think monogamy is for others than themselves:
|> hetero-christiam crypto-fascist breeder idealists (HCCFBI).
I have seen plenty of HCCFBI's that discount anything other than
monogamy as evil. I hope that believing in monogamy or advocating
it doesn't place someone in the same camp. Was John really WRONG
for advocating monogamy?
|> >Thankfully, soc.motss has changed somewhat since
|> >then, although I know that everytime I mention that a man
|> >named Phil is my "husband," I'm going to get at least one
|> >message in my mail queue telling me I am-- you guessed it--
|> >WRONG.
|>
|> Heaven forfend that your heterosexist-founded terminologies
|> should be troubled by a mini-earthquake of reason or
|> question.
The theory that since "husband" was founded in heterosexism,
we should not use it sounds like the destructive NIH philosophy.
NIH, or "Not Invented Here", is the buzzword for someone's
blindness to existing and appropriate technologies usually
motivated by a desire to want to do everything themself.
|> >I could go on (and usually do), but you get my point.
|>
|> A mighty dull point it is, too.
I don't find it dull at all. I do find people who respond to
disagreement with snide remarks to be childish, though.
|> No, by all means don't let it get through to you that
|> thousands of people have braved very real dangers to
|> campaign for relief to our oppression, whether you care
|> about it or not.
I must admit that I am rather ignorant of this work that
came before my "out" time. I would be interested in hearing
what battles were fought and how they helped my quality of
life as a gay man. From my point of view it appears that
the vast majority of people in my life consider homosexuality
a non-issue simply because they are intelligent people. This
is not exactly an unbiased cross-section of the population,
but that segment of the population that is still violently
or subtly homophobic still seems quite widespread. How were
these battles effective? (Has the incident rate dropped
drastically? I remember a recent posting that bias crimes
were on the rise, but that could be due to recent complications
with AIDS...)
|> >>I want to be unimportant, merely another citizen of the
|> >>world who has a few extra quirks (which are nothing
|> >>significant in and of themselves).
|>
|> >WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Beat yourself with a hammer
|> >for even thinking such thoughts!
|>
|> Right, right, right! Use a hammer or any other implement it
|> takes to get your brainpan open enough to let some light in
|> there. Then you might see that your desire to be average
|> and unimportant (likely to be fulfilled) is not an adequate
|> prescription for people who would prefer not to see their
|> interests dismissed as "quirks" or "nothing significant."
The idea expressed above seems to me to be that they are
dreaming of a future world where their homosexuality makes
them "special", but that "special"ness is nothing fundamentally
important, it is superficial but notable. An analogy would
be that red-haired people are special in that they stand out,
but there are no widespread negative stereotypes about them
and even some commonly known and positively accepted differences
such as a tendency toward sensitivity to light (although I don't
remember where I heard that so it may be suspect).
|> >First of all, we are both wrong for using "gay." It isn't
|> >"correct" anymore. You and I aren't "gay" (or even
|> >god-forbid "homosexuals"). We are Queers (capitalized for
|> >more effect).
|>
|> Pisser makes it clear that the ominous "gay" agenda,
|> including as it does those mettlesome and meddling bisexual,
|> lesbian, and (shocking!) straight people, in addition to
|> those gay men who question whether there might be useful and
|> more inclusive terms than his own favorites, is not for him.
|> People do us a service, after all, when they reveal what
|> they think.
But does it turn from "Don't call me gay - I don't identify with
gay." to "And you can't call yourself gay either..."? That is
where it seems to be going.
|> >Secondly, we both don't happen to love other men-- we Scream
|> >With Pleasure As We Fuck Ass. It's important for gays--
|> >err, Queers-- to remember to choose whatever language is
|> >most inappropriate at any time. Loving another man isn't
|> >dramatic, and doesn't accentuate the differences between
|> >heterosexuals and homo-- err, Queers. How are heterosexuals
|> >going to be shocked if we bring love into it? Remember, at
|> >least one reference to the cum dripping off your leather
|> >face mask is important.
|>
|> This, I submit, would be laughable *if* the hatred of
|> diversity it embodies were not so blatant and so real.
I don't see any hatred of diversity in that statement. I see hatred
at being required to be diverse. Perhaps the message that we must
not turn our backs on the diversity as we demonstrate our similarity
has been perverted somewhat in the meantime.
This is probably an outgrowth from the "Let's show the hets that we
aren't all different." debate in which the final conclusion seemed
to be accept it all or accept nothing. It seems that those who did
not identify with the "slightly different" images were worried that
those who did would desert the battle when a personally sufficient
level of acceptance had been won and on the other hand, those who
wanted to operate step by step felt that the more "radical" group
wanted to be offensive for offense sake or something. The issue
never seemed to be discussed solely on the grounds of which approach
(step-by-step or all-at-once) had more tactical chance of success
and many lines were drawn.
|> >Finally, remember the rule above all rules-- ALL THAT IS GAY
|> >IS GOOD. Simply translated, it means that whatever gay
|> >people are doing at any particular time is good; you have no
|> >right to criticize anyone who is gay.
|>
|> Yet another sample of the thing that is itself (yasotttii):
|> it's OK for you to criticize, but not OK for you to be
|> questioned. That is the working definition of whining.
Often the rebuttals give no reason other than that the WRONG
poster is wrong and the net effect is to leave them with the
impression that they are wrong simply because they disagreed
with someone who is gay. It is usually caused by having
seen the topic come up before and not taking the care to make
the reply stand on its own.
It seems that to be considered "intelligent", one must be familiar
with all of the history of discussions that have appeared on soc.motss
for the past few years. But, this forum tends to be fairly "cutting
edge" and there are going to be people joining all the time that are
knew to these concepts that have been formulating over years of
discussion between intelligent people. It takes time to "come up
to speed" - or at least it is taking me time (over a year so far
and I still feel somewhat confused by all the assumed knowledge
in evidence).
|> >To do so merely means
|> >that you are uncomfortable with your own sexuality. Isn't
|> >that obvious?
|>
|> What *is* obvious is that you can't abide anything that is
|> "not-you" and are quite willing to construct a version of
|> the American Dream According to Straight Models (ADASM)
|> within which you and Husband Phil can be unbothered by and
|> unconcerned about the Unpleasantness of the Real World (URW)
|> of those who are not like your Family Unit (fuck you).
It's not obvious from this particular posting of his. If you are
talking about things that he has said in the past, then please make
this clear. Otherwise you appear to be saying "Since I just disagreed
with you and I am a Real Gay(tm), then you must be a Fundamentalist
Pig(tm)".
...jim
Julie Dubbs
Julie
Jess Anderson
In article <87...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
fl...@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
]In article <1991Feb27.1...@macc.wisc.edu>,
]ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
]>In article <268.27...@rochgte.fidonet.org>
]>John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.fidonet.org (John Passaniti),
]>[wrote:]
]>He intended it to be funny, but taken seriously. Never one
]>to co-operate, I decided not to take it seriously, but to
]>consider it fair game for satirical response.
]>He (Pisser) called his essay "Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
]>Wrong." It inspired me (what can I say?) to respond: "Whine
]>Whine Whine" (three times is enough).
]My what inspired prose! "Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong"
]rolls off the tongue beautifully with a slightly crabby
]tone. "Whine Whine Whine" flows smoothly and slowly with
]the jaded disinterest of someone who has already heard it
]all before.
People see what they are prepared to see, I guess. It was a
little long for disinterest, wouldn't you say? As for
jaded, I would disclaim that, even though I had indeed seen
quite a lot of Pissesneatly before.
]>You must remember that no matter what you say here, but the
]>more so if it has meaningful content and seeks to challenge
]>received knowledge or pat assumptions of even the most
]>easily understood kind, some Pisser will pop up and whine.
]And someone else usually whines back.
In an apparent cascade. But it's a risk one has to take.
If you think my posting was a whine, feel free. There's
nothing it that supports the claim, of course.
]>Here's how it works. Here and in life there are people who
]>are so insulated against any suggestion their most cherished
]>perceptions might not be adequate -- not only to others but
]>not even to themselves -- that to drown out the agony of
]>actual thought they start whining and keening and moaning at
]>high volume. The thought they seem least able to process is
]>that they could just conceivably be part of the problem
]>themselves (whining advances to deafening at the very
]>mention of the two words "internal homophobia").
]This seems like a two way street to me.
How so?
]>>Yes, in their eyes, questioning why someone is gay or musing
]>>about if one could change their preferences is the same as
]>>marching in a parade with a white sheet over your head.
]>Bzzzzt! The Attack of the Blinders! God forbid you should
]>actually question the biases of such questions.
]Questions like "What is wrong with me that makes me gay?"
]are biased. Questions like "Why am I gay?" are not. They
]are the opposite of "Why am I straight?" and are perfectly
]valid. No matter how much someone feels that I am
]internally homophobic for wondering why I am gay, I will
]continue to ponder this until I gain some insight or I die.
There's a difference between deciding for yourself what you
want and proclaiming for others what they must do. John is
attacking the principal underlying that.
]I also ponder such things as "Why do I have hair over most
]of my body?". If you have a problem with the [lack of]
]extent of your own body hair you may think that I am
]wondering "Why am I blessed with all of this body hair while
]Joe over there (He He look at that hairless slob) has
]none?", but really what I am wondering is "What is it about
]my body that causes hair to sprout all over..."
What's your point? That sexuality and hairiness are somehow
linked?
]Also, if it is important to accept that person A is
]homosexual and is happy with that situation, why is it not
]acceptable that person B is homosexual and is not happy with
]that situation? You can learn to live with things that don't
]please you or you can try to figure out how to change them.
]Seeking such a change is only a problem when the reason for
]such a change is misguided. But, how can we decide that for
]others?
We can't. I don't believe I've advocated anything other
than that. You show me where I did, I'll recant.
]When someone asks "How can I become straight?", I don't
]think that it is valid to say "Stop being so internally
]homophobic!"
I never heard anyone say that. Did you?
]Better yet to say "Well, I am happy not being
]straight, what makes you want to be straight?"
I don't get it.
]When someone asks "Can I change my preference?", why not say
]"I personally don't want to, but others have tried electric
]shock, prayer, inhalants, etc. and none of those have worked
]- Do you have any other suggestions?"
I don't know. Why?
]>>No, my
]>>reasons were sound enough (those were never debated), but
]>>the very fact that I would make critical comments meant I
]>>was WRONG.
]>You see, there are hordes of people whose response to merely
]>being questioned is to at once shout out: "Oh, you big
]>beast! How *dare* you not cave in at once to my unthinking
]>values?"
]From my point of view (FMPOV):
]It seems that the WRONG people always start out by asking a
]question. That question is perceived as being "loaded".
]They are attacked by the local populace for being
]prejudiced. They try to get out of it, but they are caught
]in a tangled web of not saying things quite right and not
]being given a second chance or the benefit of the doubt. I
]usually see both sides of it and a lack of communication in
]between, but I don't know how to bridge the gap.
How about: I don't understand that, please explain what you
mean. As far as I know, there is nothing preventing a
person from getting as many chances as they like. Benefits
of doubt are easily obtained. People can only learn to say
what they mean by trying to say what they mean, seeing how
it works, and trying again if it didn't work as intended.
What's wrong with that?
]>>Also, some time ago, when I first discovered soc.motss, I
]>>found out that I was WRONG to advocate monogamy (I was
]>>merely part of some crypto-Christian heterofascist breeding
]>>ideal).
]>There's hope: you have almost learned the correct label for
]>those who think monogamy is for others than themselves:
]>hetero-christiam crypto-fascist breeder idealists (HCCFBI).
]I have seen plenty of HCCFBI's that discount anything other
]than monogamy as evil. I hope that believing in monogamy or
]advocating it doesn't place someone in the same camp. Was
]John really WRONG for advocating monogamy?
He said mongamy was *better* than nonmonogamy, period. He
didn't advocate it just for him and his so-called husband.
There's nothing wrong with monogamy for people who want to
be monogamous; it's a personal choice and nobody's business
but theirs. But that wasn't John and Phil's tack at all.
]>>Thankfully, soc.motss has changed somewhat since
]>>then, although I know that everytime I mention that a man
]>>named Phil is my "husband," I'm going to get at least one
]>>message in my mail queue telling me I am-- you guessed it--
]>>WRONG.
]>Heaven forfend that your heterosexist-founded terminologies
]>should be troubled by a mini-earthquake of reason or
]>question.
]The theory that since "husband" was founded in heterosexism,
]we should not use it sounds like the destructive NIH
]philosophy. NIH, or "Not Invented Here", is the buzzword for
]someone's blindness to existing and appropriate technologies
]usually motivated by a desire to want to do everything
]themself.
I gather you're saying that "wife" and "husband" are
appropriate technologies. In short, you're talking
nonsense.
]>>I could go on (and usually do), but you get my point.
]>A mighty dull point it is, too.
]I don't find it dull at all. I do find people who respond
]to disagreement with snide remarks to be childish, though.
I take it back, I shouldn't have been snide. Do you recant
too?
]>No, by all means don't let it get through to you that
]>thousands of people have braved very real dangers to
]>campaign for relief to our oppression, whether you care
]>about it or not.
]I must admit that I am rather ignorant of this work that
]came before my "out" time. I would be interested in hearing
]what battles were fought and how they helped my quality of
]life as a gay man.
Do your homework, then. Study up on the modern history of
gay liberation.
]From my point of view it appears that
]the vast majority of people in my life consider
]homosexuality a non-issue simply because they are
]intelligent people. This is not exactly an unbiased
]cross-section of the population, but that segment of the
]population that is still violently or subtly homophobic
]still seems quite widespread.
It is possible for both statements to be valid, I think.
]How were these battles
]effective? (Has the incident rate dropped drastically? I
]remember a recent posting that bias crimes were on the rise,
]but that could be due to recent complications with AIDS...)
Again, turn to your history. I promise you, you'll find a
lot of things changed from how it was a generation ago. One
could argue about what fraction of the work has been
accomplished, I expect, but I would say it's perhaps not
more than a quarter. It's enough to be plenty significant,
but not enough to be in any way complacent about.
]>>>I want to be unimportant, merely another citizen of the
]>>>world who has a few extra quirks (which are nothing
]>>>significant in and of themselves).
]>>WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Beat yourself with a hammer
]>>for even thinking such thoughts!
]>Right, right, right! Use a hammer or any other implement it
]>takes to get your brainpan open enough to let some light in
]>there. Then you might see that your desire to be average
]>and unimportant (likely to be fulfilled) is not an adequate
]>prescription for people who would prefer not to see their
]>interests dismissed as "quirks" or "nothing significant."
]The idea expressed above seems to me to be that they are
]dreaming of a future world where their homosexuality makes
]them "special", but that "special"ness is nothing
]fundamentally important, it is superficial but notable. An
]analogy would be that red-haired people are special in that
]they stand out, but there are no widespread negative
]stereotypes about them and even some commonly known and
]positively accepted differences such as a tendency toward
]sensitivity to light (although I don't remember where I
]heard that so it may be suspect).
You could be right, but in the context of Pissesneatly's
extended whine, he seemed to be dismissing those who are
doing today's work, not merely yearning for halcyon future
times.
]>>First of all, we are both wrong for using "gay." It isn't
]>>"correct" anymore. You and I aren't "gay" (or even
]>>god-forbid "homosexuals"). We are Queers (capitalized for
]>>more effect).
]>Pisser makes it clear that the ominous "gay" agenda,
]>including as it does those mettlesome and meddling bisexual,
]>lesbian, and (shocking!) straight people, in addition to
]>those gay men who question whether there might be useful and
]>more inclusive terms than his own favorites, is not for him.
]>People do us a service, after all, when they reveal what
]>they think.
]But does it turn from "Don't call me gay - I don't identify
]with gay." to "And you can't call yourself gay either..."?
]That is where it seems to be going.
I don't see your point.
]>>Secondly, we both don't happen to love other men-- we Scream
]>>With Pleasure As We Fuck Ass. It's important for gays--
]>>err, Queers-- to remember to choose whatever language is
]>>most inappropriate at any time. Loving another man isn't
]>>dramatic, and doesn't accentuate the differences between
]>>heterosexuals and homo-- err, Queers. How are heterosexuals
]>>going to be shocked if we bring love into it? Remember, at
]>>least one reference to the cum dripping off your leather
]>>face mask is important.
]>This, I submit, would be laughable *if* the hatred of
]>diversity it embodies were not so blatant and so real.
]I don't see any hatred of diversity in that statement. I
]see hatred at being required to be diverse. Perhaps the
]message that we must not turn our backs on the diversity as
]we demonstrate our similarity has been perverted somewhat in
]the meantime.
What he wrote is specifically anti-sex. It's specifically
anti-leather. What more do you want?
]This is probably an outgrowth from the "Let's show the hets
]that we aren't all different." debate in which the final
]conclusion seemed to be accept it all or accept nothing. It
]seems that those who did not identify with the "slightly
]different" images were worried that those who did would
]desert the battle when a personally sufficient level of
]acceptance had been won and on the other hand, those who
]wanted to operate step by step felt that the more "radical"
]group wanted to be offensive for offense sake or something.
]The issue never seemed to be discussed solely on the grounds
]of which approach (step-by-step or all-at-once) had more
]tactical chance of success and many lines were drawn.
Although I get some of the flavor of what you mean here, I'd
like to ask for clarification before I respond to it.
]>>Finally, remember the rule above all rules-- ALL THAT IS GAY
]>>IS GOOD. Simply translated, it means that whatever gay
]>>people are doing at any particular time is good; you have no
]>>right to criticize anyone who is gay.
]>Yet another sample of the thing that is itself (yasotttii):
]>it's OK for you to criticize, but not OK for you to be
]>questioned. That is the working definition of whining.
]Often the rebuttals give no reason other than that the WRONG
]poster is wrong and the net effect is to leave them with the
]impression that they are wrong simply because they disagreed
]with someone who is gay. It is usually caused by having
]seen the topic come up before and not taking the care to
]make the reply stand on its own.
]It seems that to be considered "intelligent", one must be
]familiar with all of the history of discussions that have
]appeared on soc.motss for the past few years. But, this
]forum tends to be fairly "cutting edge" and there are going
]to be people joining all the time that are knew to these
]concepts that have been formulating over years of discussion
]between intelligent people. It takes time to "come up to
]speed" - or at least it is taking me time (over a year so
]far and I still feel somewhat confused by all the assumed
]knowledge in evidence).
The problem you refer to is really there, I think. There is
a history, and participants in a larger part of it probably
do have some obligation to be aware that not everyone is
current in that history. But the other side of the coin
also has something going for it, I think.
]>>To do so merely means
]>>that you are uncomfortable with your own sexuality. Isn't
]>>that obvious?
]>What *is* obvious is that you can't abide anything that is
]>"not-you" and are quite willing to construct a version of
]>the American Dream According to Straight Models (ADASM)
]>within which you and Husband Phil can be unbothered by and
]>unconcerned about the Unpleasantness of the Real World (URW)
]>of those who are not like your Family Unit (fuck you).
]It's not obvious from this particular posting of his. If
]you are talking about things that he has said in the past,
]then please make this clear. Otherwise you appear to be
]saying "Since I just disagreed with you and I am a Real
]Gay(tm), then you must be a Fundamentalist Pig(tm)".
Well, since you have in fact been around for over a year,
you will know quite well that that's not my style. And if
memory serves me correctly, the last Pissesneatly flap was
last summer, when you were very much around. Now it's true
that not everyone was here then, and that's a problem all
right.
<> If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would
<> appear to man as it is, infinite. -- William Blake
Kate M. Gregory
>
>Although I get some of the flavor of what you mean here, I'd
>like to ask for clarification before I respond to it.
>
Imagine if Ms Bartley had been told this, and only this, in response
to every one of her postings. She would have squirmed a long time,
and maybe learned in the process. I think this sentence could prevent
some very nasty flame wars by forcing a concentration on content and
avoiding "I didn't mean that at all" "oh yeah? then why did you say it?"
loops.
Kate
Andrew Gerber
>In article <66...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> dy...@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes:
>
>>I remember that discussion quite well, and there was no argument
>>at all about people choosing monogamy.
>
>So do I -- I was one of the targets of their evangelization. The
>most ludicrous thing about it, however, was that these two dears
>had been together less than half the years Xopher and I had, but
>were informing us that our relationship wasn't real or sincere.
>
I've recently been re-reading the book "The Male Couple". One of the
interesting items from this book is the notion of fidelity in male
couples. While most couples expect a high degree of emotional
fidelity, only 7 of the 143 couples they interviewed expected monogamy
(sexual fidelity) in their relationship. All of these seven couples
had been together for less than 5 years. Namely, all of the couples
interviewed who had been together for longer than 5 years had some
measure of outside sex in their relationship.
--
/ Andrew S. Gerber / Solbourne Computer, Inc /
/ ger...@solbourne.com / ...!{uunet,sun,boulder}!stan!gerber /
/ "Stress is best shared with someone you love" /
Greg Parkinson
|> John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.fidonet.org (John Passaniti),
|> returning after a long absence, and still clearly occupying
|> the whiner persona John Pissesneatly (tm Rob Boldbear),
|> presents an extended satire, which we are told in a
|> subsequent post from the person he was responding to,
|> tww...@venus.tamu.edu (Walker, Terry W), much delighted him
|> and his (NB) straight friend at 2 a.m. in some benighted
|> computing center in Texas.
|>
|> He intended it to be funny, but taken seriously. Never one
|> to co-operate, I decided not to take it seriously, but to
|> consider it fair game for satirical response.
|>
|> He (Pisser) called his essay "Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
|> Wrong." It inspired me (what can I say?) to respond: "Whine
|> Whine Whine" (three times is enough).
|>
What he said.
I don't agree with everyone here, nor do I need to. But I do need to think
before I spout my mouth off, and to be prepared to be challenged.
I don't mind being flamed (although I have somehow managed to avoid it)
because it might point out something that I missed. If I get flamed by
an asshole, well, hey, I live in New York, I can deal. There are a lot
of intelligent, thoughtful people here, and would that hope when I put my
foot in my mouth it will pointed out. I'm not ready to stop thinking,
as it appears many others are.
Again, what he said.
--
Greg Parkinson (GregBear) Phone: 212-657-7814
Citibank Fax: 212-825-8607
111 Wall Street E-Mail: uunet!ibism!glp
New York, NY 10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Jess Anderson
In article <1991Feb28.0...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
I don't entirely disagree with you about that, but there's a
context aspect too. Jim is gay and I know him personally
(we were roommates in Denver last summer), and he wasn't
telling LGB people how to live their lives. Most especially,
he was taking some exception to what I had said, and I felt
it reasonable to respond, except where I didn't know what he
meant. I assume that's what genuine dialog is all about. But
the earlier Bartley case was really quite different in tenor,
and at least to my mind merited a different approach and style
of response.
I say again that I think there's a hypersensitivity to flames
in this newsgroup. There's even a kind of aura about flaming
such that some people don't feel they've really arrived unless
they've been flamed, so they actively court it. Far be it
from me to judge (inevitably, that phrase introduces a judgment
that is without solid foundation), but all that seems a bit silly
*to me*. It is so easy to ignore -- especially with a little
practice -- the manner of speech and get on to what's said.
Having so said, I don't propose to give up the fun of it, from
time to time.
<> Billions of neutrinos are passing in all directions
<> through your body, as you read these words; by the time
<> you pause to think about them, they have gone on their
<> way, out past the orbit of the moon. -- Nigel Calder
Larry D. Stratton
>In article <66...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> bo...@spdcc.COM (Tezcatlipocateopixque) writes:
>>In article <66...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> dy...@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes:
>I've recently been re-reading the book "The Male Couple". One of the
>interesting items from this book is the notion of fidelity in male
>couples. While most couples expect a high degree of emotional
>fidelity, only 7 of the 143 couples they interviewed expected monogamy
>(sexual fidelity) in their relationship. All of these seven couples
>had been together for less than 5 years. Namely, all of the couples
>interviewed who had been together for longer than 5 years had some
>measure of outside sex in their relationship.
A generalization. I, as well as 2 other couples, all of whom (sorry Jess)
have been together 10+ years, do expect monogamy. Perhaps that is our
bonding force among the couples. It certainly is one of the strongest
bonding forces in my 20+ year relationship.
--
*************************************************************
L. D. STRATTON/la...@bradley.bradley.edu
Emmie Post says: "Household pets should never be allowed at the dining
table unless they can hold their own in conversation."
Steve Dyer
]sort. To mention the length of time you've been with your current partner
]carries with it the implication that there's something at least a little better
]about your life than the lives of people who for some reason (any reason,
]whatever reason) have lived differently.
It's vulgar is whatitis.
Steve Dyer
>A generalization. I, as well as 2 other couples, all of whom (sorry Jess)
>have been together 10+ years, do expect monogamy. Perhaps that is our
>bonding force among the couples. It certainly is one of the strongest
>bonding forces in my 20+ year relationship.
Well, my partner and I will have been together 12 years one of these
first days in March ("Honey, please, you KNOW I'm bad with dates")
and if monogamy were that an important bonding force for us, we
wouldn't have lasted quite as long as we have. Of the other gaymale
couples I know, a few aren't monogamous, a few are, a few I wouldn't
even presume to ask, a few I wouldn't need to ask, and a few I'd love
to find out about <slurp> :-).
Frankly, neither of us have much time to be non-monogamous. We can't
even keep our living room presentable, let alone our bedroom.
I think a lot of it comes from shared expectations. If there's a mismatch,
there's opportunity for trouble.
Matt Hucke
>
>In article <268.27...@rochgte.fidonet.org>
>John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.fidonet.org (John Passaniti),
>returning after a long absence, and still clearly occupying
>the whiner persona John Pissesneatly (tm Rob Boldbear),
>presents an extended satire, which we are told in a
>subsequent post from the person he was responding to,
>tww...@venus.tamu.edu (Walker, Terry W), much delighted him
>and his (NB) straight friend at 2 a.m. in some benighted
>computing center in Texas.
>
>He intended it to be funny, but taken seriously. Never one
>to co-operate, I decided not to take it seriously, but to
>consider it fair game for satirical response.
>
>He (Pisser) called his essay "Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
>Wrong." It inspired me (what can I say?) to respond: "Whine
>Whine Whine" (three times is enough).
>
effective name-calling can be.
>You must remember that no matter what you say here, but the
>more so if it has meaningful content and seeks to challenge
>received knowledge or pat assumptions of even the most
>easily understood kind, some Pisser will pop up and whine.
>
You seem to be the one whining. Passaniti was the one challenging something:
the intolerance shown for 'non-PC queers'.
>Here's how it works. Here and in life there are people who
>are so insulated against any suggestion their most cherished
>perceptions might not be adequate -- not only to others but
>not even to themselves -- that to drown out the agony of
>actual thought they start whining and keening and moaning at
>high volume. The thought they seem least able to process is
>that they could just conceivably be part of the problem
>themselves (whining advances to deafening at the very
>mention of the two words "internal homophobia").
>
Whining? keening? moaning? In what way? His post was calm and rational.
You, however, sound very defensive. Has he offended your poor little
world-view?
>>(Question for all soc.motss folk-- what are the current
>>catchphrases for someone who doesn't agree with you? I want
>>to keep up to date.)
>
>Of course, I would defer to my many more learned colleagues
>in matters of terminology. My own favorite is: Bzzzzt!
>
No, these people do not exist. If anyone DARES to disagree with the
SACRED QUEER OPINIONFACTS (tm) they are obviously "Whining"
>>Yes, in their eyes, questioning why someone is gay or musing
>>about if one could change their preferences is the same as
>>marching in a parade with a white sheet over your head.
>
>Bzzzzt! The Attack of the Blinders! God forbid you should
>actually question the biases of such questions.
>
No, questioning the biases is much easier than thinking about the questions.
After all, Jesshole, you don't want anything to disturb your precious
self-image, do you? No, Real Queers know that gayness was Handed Down
From Above, and any biological or psychological explanation is Blasphemy.
Well, some of us aren't as insecure as you, and have a desire to expand our
minds. Of course, this has happened before...Galileo and Darwin, among
hundreds of others, defied the authorities who didn't want anyone to think
about certain questions. It's people like Jesshole who retard progress.
>>I have some experience with this.
>
>The Understatement of Last Year, Mr. Neatly.
>
>>No, my
>>reasons were sound enough (those were never debated), but
>>the very fact that I would make critical comments meant I
>>was WRONG.
>
>You see, there are hordes of people whose response to merely
>being questioned is to at once shout out: "Oh, you big
>beast! How *dare* you not cave in at once to my unthinking
>values?"
>
This was the whole point of Mr. Passaniti's post: that the average soc.motss'er
doesn't want his opinions challenged about anything. That he was flamed
when he suggested monogamy, the '3 books' poster was flamed for daring
to think there could be a reason for homosexuality, and others.
>>Also, some time ago, when I first discovered soc.motss, I
>>found out that I was WRONG to advocate monogamy (I was
>>merely part of some crypto-Christian heterofascist breeding
>>ideal).
>
>There's hope: you have almost learned the correct label for
>those who think monogamy is for others than themselves:
>hetero-christiam crypto-fascist breeder idealists (HCCFBI).
>
ahhhh, labels are *so* convenient. By stereotyping everyone who is in
some way not Politically Corect, you can ignore them more easily and there
is less danger that you may actually *gasp* change your mind! or, worse,
*shudder* THINK!
>
>
>What *is* obvious is that you can't abide anything that is
>"not-you" and are quite willing to construct a version of
>the American Dream According to Straight Models (ADASM)
>within which you and Husband Phil can be unbothered by and
>unconcerned about the Unpleasantness of the Real World (URW)
>of those who are not like your Family Unit (fuck you).
>
You idiot, that was the *whole point* of his post: that some people here
cannot stand a divergent opinion! And they are flamed for suggesting
anything that is not in the Queer Master Plan! And you, by YOUR WHINING,
have proven him right.
><> It is never too late to give up your prejudices.
><> -- H.D. Thoreau
It seems too late for you. Practice what you preach.
+-------------------------------+====================================+
| And in The End, | Internet: mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu|
| The love you take, | WWIVNet : Conan@685x |
| is equal to the love you make.| WWIVLink: Shai-Hulud@12750 , 12751 |
+-------------------------------+====================================+
Jim Showalter
--
***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd
ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with
opinions like mine.
-- "When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."
Steve Dyer
>You seem to be the one whining. Passaniti was the one challenging something:
>the intolerance shown for 'non-PC queers'.
No, he was bemoaning the fact that when he and his hubby acted like idiots
in soc.motss they were treated like idiots. Trust me. I was there. You
weren't. Unfortunately, people like him invariably suffer from the illusion
that when they engender flames or expressions of scorn it must be because of
the superior quality of their ideas. I'm sure their ideas play a part in
forming their reputation, but he and Phil could have been arguing for the
sainthood of Mother Theresa and it would have gone over equally well.
Jim Showalter
[or so I've been told] because I mix vanilla sex in with it. Darn me
all to hell.
Tezcatlipocateopixque
->Imagine if Ms Bartley had been told this, and only this, in response
->to every one of her postings. She would have squirmed a long time,
->and maybe learned in the process. I think this sentence could prevent
->some very nasty flame wars by forcing a concentration on content and
->avoiding "I didn't mean that at all" "oh yeah? then why did you say it?"
->loops.
No, she wouldn't have squirmed at all; she would have done the
same thing she did, parroting herself over and over and over.
Nor was there any communication problem. Her attitudes came
through quite well in her first article. "That's not what I
meant" is never an excuse. If it wasn't what she meant, then she
shouldn't have written it.
As to "concentrating on content," that won't avoid any loops, as
you call them. Only careful, edited writing will. "Concentrating
on content" does not make one's writing clear or communicative.
Keeping in mind that one is writing for a non-telepathic audience,
as well as careful editing would be much more helpful.
Sloppy writing is the product of a sloppy mind. While I agree
that grammar flames for their own sake are rather pointless, if
someone can't be bothered to state themselves concisely and
clearly, their "content" is not worth consideration.
Jess Anderson
In article <1991Feb28.1...@bradley.bradley.edu>
la...@bradley.bradley.edu (Larry D. Stratton) writes:
>In <1991Feb28....@Solbourne.COM>
>ger...@Solbourne.COM (Andrew Gerber) writes:
>>I've recently been re-reading the book "The Male Couple".
>>One of the interesting items from this book is the notion of
>>fidelity in male couples. [...]
>>Namely, all of the couples
>>interviewed who had been together for longer than 5 years
>>had some measure of outside sex in their relationship.
>A generalization.
Perhaps, but it is generalization supported by at least some
research (I don't know the study, I'm not reading the book,
and I don't care a fig about the subject *for myself*).
By contrast, your observations, Larry, though seemingly
highly individual and pertinent to you, are really
masquerading as generalizations, ones *not* supported by
any cited research. It's your above remark and your
misapprehension about me that supports this impression.
>I, as well as 2 other couples, all of whom (sorry Jess) have
>been together 10+ years, do expect monogamy.
>Perhaps that is our bonding force among the couples. It
>certainly is one of the strongest bonding forces in my 20+
>year relationship.
Why do you say "sorry Jess" here? Apparently you think
you're taking exception to my views on monogamy. I haven't
said what *my* views on monogamy are, at least not in recent
years (but I'm about to). To me, this says that you've
missed the point of my earlier remarks, and I do not think
they were couched in obscure language.
Let's get one thing out of the way right away. I have
nothing against monogamy for anyone who wants it and can
arrange to have it. You and your friends are entitled to
regulate your lives however you like, and whether it's
monogamous or not is of no concern *whatever* to me. Under
normal conditions (to be explained in a moment) I don't
think it should be *anybody's* concern but yours.
How long you've been together -- 10+ or 20+ or 2+ years or 2
months or 20 minutes -- is in my estimation interesting
*only* to you and your partner.
My experience includes 32 years of being coupled, the
affairs lasted varying lengths of time. The shortest was 6
months, and the longest was 10.5 years. The other eight were
various lengths between. All of these were live-in lovers,
I loved every one of them to the bottom of my heart, and
only one did not fully return that devotion (mostly, but
not fully).
In every case the relationship was putatively monogamous.
One of them (3.5 years) was *actually* monogamous, on my
side, though not on his. So that's the background from
which I speak.
What I object to -- vehemently -- is the suggestion, loudly
proclaimed by John and Phil some months ago, and very softly
proclaimed by you just now (as I read it), that monogamy is
in some way inherently superior to its opposite, based on
the slender evidence of your own preferences.
How long one is together with one's partner is another
prejudice of the same sort. To mention the length of time
you've been with your current partner carries with it the
implication that there's something at least a little better
about your life than the lives of people who for some reason
(any reason, whatever reason) have lived differently.
The only exception I can think of (it has just happened in a
posting by Steve Dyer) is to directly rebut the conclusion
of one set of numbers and conditions with a different set of
numbers and different conditions.
It is a fact that some people for their own (or whatever)
reasons do not have (or have not had) relationships lasting
many years. It's a fact that some people for their own (or
whatever) reasons do not have (or have not had) monogamous
relationships. Neither of these facts in *any* way
justifies a kind of smug superiority witnessed here in
various ways over the years coming from people who live
their lives differently.
There's a large political issue here, of course (isn't there
always?). The oppressors say we're promiscuous. They say
we're *incapable* for forming stable, long-lasting,
committed, satisfying, fulfilled relationships.
Quite a few LGB people are made unhappy by believing this
kind of propaganda, all or most of which is the same
propaganda as the nuclear family ideal. They're unhappy
because the don't think they've measured up somehow, and
this aura of superiority surfacing here from time to time
oppresses them, I think in an unncessary and ultimately
thoughtless way.
It *is* propaganda. To believe it is to make oneself the
slave of ideals formulated by others. Note well -- pay
attention -- read carefully: that *some* people find their
greatest happiness by *exactly* conforming to this
propaganda mitigates nothing I've said.
The oppression wants your soul. They'll do *anything* to
get it. When it comes to bamboozling (they own the schools
and the governments, after all), they have most of the
marbles. What we have is this kind of discussion.
What I think is this: Think about it, I say. Wake up to
what *you* are, and let others do the same. If you want to
help them wake up, do that, but make sure that's all you're
doing.
<> A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover,
<> through the detours of art, those two or three great and
<> simple images in whose presence his heart first opened.
<> -- Albert Camus
Jim Graham
(Jess Anderson) writes:
|> What I object to -- vehemently -- is the suggestion, loudly
|> proclaimed by John and Phil some months ago, and very softly
|> proclaimed by you just now (as I read it), that monogamy is
|> in some way inherently superior to its opposite, based on
|> the slender evidence of your own preferences.
From your previous text it seemed that you had not yet experienced
what these people are referring to as monogamy (correct me if I am
wrong, but you talked about several relationships that spanned 32
years with varying degrees of non-monogamous behaviour occurring
during that period). How can you say that it is not superior if
you have not experienced it? I contend that you can say, "I haven't
felt any significant lack in my life for not having a monogamous
relationship which I expect to last until death." and I also would
think that you must allow that you may at some point discover a
relationship which is wholly satisfying to you and that you will
remain "faithful(?)" to for the rest of your life, but that it
hasn't yet happened.
On the other side of the coin, it may be that those who find some
value in monogamy experience a need that is not universally
present in all people. They experience this need and therefore
find monogamy to be a worthwhile goal since it answers this need.
You do not have this need and therefore feel no drive to achieve
monogamy in a relationship.
|> How long one is together with one's partner is another
|> prejudice of the same sort. To mention the length of time
|> you've been with your current partner carries with it the
|> implication that there's something at least a little better
|> about your life than the lives of people who for some reason
|> (any reason, whatever reason) have lived differently.
Let me restate this a different way to see if I can give a
different perspective:
To someone who sees a monogamous relationship as desireable
(and given that it takes effort to maintain a relationship)
a lengthy relationship is something to be proud of. But, to
mention it as if it were some credential (other than to provide
information as to personal perspective) assumes that the listener
considers it a valuable commodity. If the listener does not
value monogamy, the boast falls on deaf ears. If the listener
has no reason to value monogamy other than that society projects
this attitude, then the boast inflicts self-doubt for no reason.
|> The only exception I can think of (it has just happened in a
|> posting by Steve Dyer) is to directly rebut the conclusion
|> of one set of numbers and conditions with a different set of
|> numbers and different conditions.
But you would also have to show that these other "statistics"
are acheiving the same level of happiness. Certainly, I am
not suggesting that they are unhappy, but they must be "as
happy (a rather nebulous concept)" in order for the exception
to be valid.
|> It is a fact that some people for their own (or whatever)
|> reasons do not have (or have not had) relationships lasting
|> many years. It's a fact that some people for their own (or
|> whatever) reasons do not have (or have not had) monogamous
|> relationships. Neither of these facts in *any* way
|> justifies a kind of smug superiority witnessed here in
|> various ways over the years coming from people who live
|> their lives differently.
Certainly, at best, these people do not share the same values
and acheive the same level of happiness without monogamy. Or,
they do have the same needs/values, but they are unlucky in
that they have not yet found a relationship that works for them
(but they are not inferior in any way). At worst, there is the
possibility that monogamy can enhance their lives, but they lack
the drive to make a relationship work for a significant time.
It is important not to assume that someone who lacks a monogamous
relationship falls into this last category, but also it is
important not to deny that there are people who do fit into
this category. I'm not sure what good expounding upon the
virtues of monogamy will do them, however.
|> There's a large political issue here, of course (isn't there
|> always?). The oppressors say we're promiscuous. They say
|> we're *incapable* for forming stable, long-lasting,
|> committed, satisfying, fulfilled relationships.
I would contend that they don't have the perspective to
understand how fulfilling a non-monogamous life can be
because they themselves value monogamy. I don't know why
I'm explaining this, it's still a problem, but stated from
a different point of view(?)
|> Quite a few LGB people are made unhappy by believing this
|> kind of propaganda, all or most of which is the same
|> propaganda as the nuclear family ideal. They're unhappy
|> because the don't think they've measured up somehow, and
|> this aura of superiority surfacing here from time to time
|> oppresses them, I think in an unncessary and ultimately
|> thoughtless way.
Feelings of superiority aside, it is important not to assume
that a nuclear family ideal won't make these LGB happy and
a good semblance of that ideal is certainly achieveable (though
many roadblocks exist). I myself have not met any LGB that I
feel are being oppressed by this "propaganda", so maybe I'm
not appropriate to comment here... I don't see a lot of
permanent monogamy, but I do see a lot of serial monogamy and
a lot of emotional monogamy with sexual freedom and I don't
see any evidence that these relationships are hurt by an
inappropriate slavery to a nuclear family ideal.
|> It *is* propaganda. To believe it is to make oneself the
|> slave of ideals formulated by others. Note well -- pay
|> attention -- read carefully: that *some* people find their
|> greatest happiness by *exactly* conforming to this
|> propaganda mitigates nothing I've said.
I guess I have been saying "Oh, but some people do value monogamy."
but I am trying to see and present an accurate picture of both
sides, rather than trying to mitigate what you've said. I'm
presenting what I think goes through the minds of people on both
sides of this issue so that I can grasp the whole issue better...
|> The oppression wants your soul. They'll do *anything* to
|> get it. When it comes to bamboozling (they own the schools
|> and the governments, after all), they have most of the
|> marbles. What we have is this kind of discussion.
What is really bothersome is the physical reward system that
is set up for those who conform. It is some type of step
forward to see "domestic partnership" bills appear, but maybe
we should be working in the other direction. Destroy the
marriage benefits rather than trying to expand them. By the
time we are done making the benefits fair to everyone's diverse
agenda, they are probably as good as eliminated anyways.
|> What I think is this: Think about it, I say. Wake up to
|> what *you* are, and let others do the same. If you want to
|> help them wake up, do that, but make sure that's all you're
|> doing.
But is it not possible that someone believes that they have
"woken up" to themselves when in fact, they still don't see
the whole picture?
A monogamist may look at someone who says "I have awakened
and I see that I do not need monogamy" as a person who still
doesn't understand what monogamy is and would be enriched to
have this understanding.
A non-monogamist may look at someone who says "I have awakened
and I see that I need monogamy, but I cannot find it, therefore
I must search for it or I will not achieve full happiness" as
a person who has been enslaved by the ideals of others.
How can either tell if they are right? How can the two
individuals know if they have truly awakened?
Oops... I think I'm lost... I guess what I was heading towards
was what I started out with. Are you sure you fully understand
what monogamy is and all that it entails? I guess I can define
it, but I am not at all sure what it "feels" like. This may be
because it is a myth, or it may be because I haven't opened my
eyes in the right way. But I'm not going to spend my life.
...jim
Jess Anderson
In article <1991Mar1.0...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) drizzles:
>In article <1991Feb27.1...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>In a similar way, I will refer to you as 'Jesshole'. You
>have shown how effective name-calling can be.
I didn't know you cared. Here in Madison, by a curious
queer quirk only queens comprehend, <name>hole is an
affectionate salute. So you're more effective than you
thought (if you thought).
>You seem to be the one whining. Passaniti was the one
>challenging something: the intolerance shown for 'non-PC
>queers'.
You're forgiven for not knowing what you'e talking about.
>Whining? keening? moaning? In what way? His post was calm
>and rational. You, however, sound very defensive. Has he
>offended your poor little world-view?
Have you answered these questions wrt yourself, Huckster?
>>Of course, I would defer to my many more learned colleagues
>>in matters of terminology. My own favorite is: Bzzzzt!
>No, these people do not exist. If anyone DARES to disagree
>with the SACRED QUEER OPINIONFACTS (tm) they are obviously
>"Whining".
What, you think I don't have any learned colleagues? You
seem to have found the caps-lock key (we have here a
formidable mechanical adept). May I compliment you on Sacred
Queer Opinionfacts (tm), however? We will hear this phrase
again, I think.
>No, questioning the biases is much easier than thinking
>about the questions.
And what have you thought about, sonny? So far, you're not
even up to the biases yet, let alone thoughts.
>After all, Jesshole, you don't want anything to disturb your
>precious self-image, do you? No, Real Queers know that
>gayness was Handed Down From Above, and any biological or
>psychological explanation is Blasphemy.
Heavens, you sound Very Straight Indeed (tm).
>Well, some of us aren't as insecure as you, and have a
>desire to expand our minds.
Evidently, there's ample room.
>Of course, this has happened
>before...Galileo and Darwin, among hundreds of others,
>defied the authorities who didn't want anyone to think about
>certain questions. It's people like Jesshole who retard
>progress.
I've had many underserved compliments in my long life, Huck
honey, but you are the *very* first to compare me to the
Pope. I didn't realize that Urbana had among its student
body a *Saint* Matthew.
>This was the whole point of Mr. Passaniti's post: that the
>average soc.motss'er doesn't want his opinions challenged
>about anything. That he was flamed when he suggested
>monogamy, the '3 books' poster was flamed for daring to
>think there could be a reason for homosexuality, and others.
Your Holierthanthouness, you are quite mistaken, and on all
counts. I think they offer remedial reading down there.
Sign up, it'll do wonders for your abilities, although I
suggest prune juice for what principally ails you.
>ahhhh, labels are *so* convenient. By stereotyping everyone
>who is in some way not Politically Corect, you can ignore
>them more easily and there is less danger that you may
>actually *gasp* change your mind! or, worse, *shudder*
>THINK!
Now believe me, I've *have* been trying to think about what
you say, so to speak to apply your Political Corectum. You're
right! I've changed my mind: you *are* stoopid (tm).
>>What *is* obvious is that you can't abide anything that is
>>"not-you" and are quite willing to construct a version of
>>the American Dream According to Straight Models (ADASM)
>>within which you and Husband Phil can be unbothered by and
>>unconcerned about the Unpleasantness of the Real World (URW)
>>of those who are not like your Family Unit (fuck you).
>You idiot, that was the *whole point* of his post:
Whoops, maybe you *can* read ...
>that some
>people here cannot stand a divergent opinion! And they are
>flamed for suggesting anything that is not in the Queer
>Master Plan!
Now I'm sure you're straight. C'mon, stop jokin' around,
you are, aren't you?
<> Reality isn't all there is, after all. -- Isaac Asimov
Jess Anderson
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
a typo and one incomplete remark in response to Matthew
Who Has Much to Be Modest About:
>I've had many underserved compliments in my long life, Huck
Underserved, doubtless, but I meant undeserved.
>Now I'm sure you're straight. C'mon, stop jokin' around,
>you are, aren't you?
I neglected to consider that maybe he's just a Republican.
Sorry, didn't mean to Offend Any Straight People (OASP,
pronounced 'wasp').
<> Accept me for what I am and I'll accept you for what
<> you're accepted as. -- Christopher Nolan
mike.siemon
(Jim Graham) writes:
a lot of stuff I'm going to skip over ...
> But you would also have to show that these other "statistics"
> are acheiving the same level of happiness. Certainly, I am
> not suggesting that they are unhappy, but they must be "as
> happy (a rather nebulous concept)" in order for the exception
> to be valid.
I think you are disastrously confused; you are working not only with
a *nebulous* concept but a pernicious one -- what is this shit about
comparing whether you with your style are "happier" than others with
a different style? Your constant "message" is "I'm happier than you
are and nothing you say counts as contradiction." This is remarkably
offensive.
It is entirely possible to look back on my *own* life history and see
patterns of what "works" and what does not, in my *own* case. I can
also look at others and imaginatively project myself into their situ-
ations, with the aim of "trying out" what (looks to me like it) works
for them -- and maybe making an experiment of actually living in that
way, if the imaginative projection seems to "fit."
And it is quite possible that deliberately or accidentally winding up
living a style you would never have *expected* to work, you do against
all expectation find happiness. Altogether, in other words, it *does*
make sense for me to "compare happiness" as I find it in my own life's
differing phases. But other than a sketchy impression I may get about
others, I have *no* common dimension in which to compare *their* happi-
ness to my own.
But your tone is nothing but denigration of others because they *don't*
follow your pattern. If *all* you said was something to the effect of
"I find monogamy to be rewarding, and worth every bit of the effort it
takes" you'd not get much flack. But you go on from that to a spurious
invalidation of other's experience -- a rhetorical ploy that anyone who
doesn't find monogamy attractive, despite experience of coupling extended
over many years, hasn't "really" tried it. Bullshit. I might as well
suggest that *you* are in no position to evaluate "till death do us part"
until you ARE dead.
The Greek advice, of course, was to count NO man happy (especially
those who proclaim that they are) until they are dead.
--
Michael L. Siemon "I cannot grow;
(E.C.I.S --'E' division) I have no shadow
m.si...@ATT.COM To run away from,
standard disclaimer I only play"
David Christopher Rogers
Message-ID: <88...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
From: fl...@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
>From your previous text it seemed that you had not yet experienced
>what these people are referring to as monogamy. [...] How can you
>say that it is not superior if you have not experienced it?
Was I the only person who was reminded of people who advised me to
try sex with a woman, because I couldn't be sure it wasn't good without
experiencing it? The concept that experience is the only path to knowledge
may seem enticing, at least until someone tells you how superior the
experience of falling from a 20-story building is.
The experience he is really selling is not the experience of monogamy,
but the experience of feeling superior.
David Christopher Rogers
Matt Hucke
>
>In article <1991Mar1.0...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) drizzles:
>
>>In article <1991Feb27.1...@macc.wisc.edu>
>>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>>In a similar way, I will refer to you as 'Jesshole'. You
>>challenging something: the intolerance shown for 'non-PC
>>queers'.
>
>You're forgiven for not knowing what you'e talking about.
>
this happen several times recently: Someone asks a question which offends
your precious sensibilities (such as: weak father->gay, which book, etc)
and is immediately accused of being straight (more on that later, it seems
you're trying that too) or not fully committed to being queer.
>>>Of course, I would defer to my many more learned colleagues
>>>in matters of terminology. My own favorite is: Bzzzzt!
>
>>No, these people do not exist. If anyone DARES to disagree
>>with the SACRED QUEER OPINIONFACTS (tm) they are obviously
>>"Whining".
>
>What, you think I don't have any learned colleagues? You
>seem to have found the caps-lock key (we have here a
>formidable mechanical adept). May I compliment you on Sacred
>Queer Opinionfacts (tm), however? We will hear this phrase
>again, I think.
>
writing style and capslock use. Possibly he couldn't think of anything
important to say. How very mature.
>>No, questioning the biases is much easier than thinking
>>about the questions.
>
>And what have you thought about, sonny? So far, you're not
>even up to the biases yet, let alone thoughts.
>
I do think some questions are biased and 'loaded'. I, however, do not
cringe away and then attack the sender personally, I prefer to give
a honest answer and educate the person. You, however, would rather drive
anyone you disagree with off the net, so you won't be offended again.
>>After all, Jesshole, you don't want anything to disturb your
>>precious self-image, do you? No, Real Queers know that
>>gayness was Handed Down From Above, and any biological or
>>psychological explanation is Blasphemy.
>
>Heavens, you sound Very Straight Indeed (tm).
>
Not at all. I 'Scream With Pleasure As I Fuck Ass'. Do you accuse people
of being straight to cover up your own latent heterosexuality?
>>Well, some of us aren't as insecure as you, and have a
>>desire to expand our minds.
>
>Evidently, there's ample room.
>
And thank God for people whose minds aren't as closed as yours.
>>Of course, this has happened
>>before...Galileo and Darwin, among hundreds of others,
>>defied the authorities who didn't want anyone to think about
>>certain questions. It's people like Jesshole who retard
>>progress.
>
>I've had many underserved compliments in my long life, Huck
>honey, but you are the *very* first to compare me to the
>Pope. I didn't realize that Urbana had among its student
>body a *Saint* Matthew.
>
Being an Active Atheist (tm) I do not consider that a compliment. IMHO,
the suppression of the theories of these two men were among the most
vile crimes ever.
>>This was the whole point of Mr. Passaniti's post: that the
>>average soc.motss'er doesn't want his opinions challenged
>>about anything. That he was flamed when he suggested
>>monogamy, the '3 books' poster was flamed for daring to
>>think there could be a reason for homosexuality, and others.
>
>Your Holierthanthouness, you are quite mistaken, and on all
>counts. I think they offer remedial reading down there.
>Sign up, it'll do wonders for your abilities, although I
>suggest prune juice for what principally ails you.
>
Personal attacks again, from someone too cowardly to refute my point.
If Passaniti's article was not about the close-mindedness of some motss'er,
what was it? It seems you missed his point completely. How did you ever
get into a university with handicaps like that?
>>ahhhh, labels are *so* convenient. By stereotyping everyone
>>who is in some way not Politically Corect, you can ignore
>>them more easily and there is less danger that you may
>>actually *gasp* change your mind! or, worse, *shudder*
>>THINK!
>
>Now believe me, I've *have* been trying to think about what
>you say, so to speak to apply your Political Corectum. You're
>right! I've changed my mind: you *are* stoopid (tm).
>
Your recent posts have had the same effect on me. Perhaps you and I
can go together to soc.motss.halfwits. You're at least as well qualified
as me, perhaps more, judging by your psuedo-arguments here.
>>>What *is* obvious is that you can't abide anything that is
>>>"not-you" and are quite willing to construct a version of
>>>the American Dream According to Straight Models (ADASM)
>>>within which you and Husband Phil can be unbothered by and
>>>unconcerned about the Unpleasantness of the Real World (URW)
>>>of those who are not like your Family Unit (fuck you).
>
>>You idiot, that was the *whole point* of his post:
>
>Whoops, maybe you *can* read ...
>
>>that some
>>people here cannot stand a divergent opinion! And they are
>>flamed for suggesting anything that is not in the Queer
>>Master Plan!
>
>Now I'm sure you're straight. C'mon, stop jokin' around,
>you are, aren't you?
>
What is 'straight' about wanting diversity?
(I should not dignify your accusation with an answer, but no, I am not
at all straight. No, I can't prove it over the net, (nobody can), but
I frequent a Gay bookstore and a weekly gay social event. I am on
the gay IRC channel nearly every day. And all my lust-filled thoughts
are about boys. Jess, are you sure *you're* gay? )
><> Reality isn't all there is, after all. -- Isaac Asimov
And it seems that, for Jess Anderson, at least, there is no reality at all.
Matt Hucke
>In article <1991Mar1.1...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>a typo and one incomplete remark in response to Matthew
>Who Has Much to Be Modest About:
>
>>I've had many underserved compliments in my long life, Huck
>
>Underserved, doubtless, but I meant undeserved.
>
>>Now I'm sure you're straight. C'mon, stop jokin' around,
>>you are, aren't you?
>
I'm not. If there are any other UIUC students reading this, maybe
you could help me prove it and then testify about it. ;-)
>I neglected to consider that maybe he's just a Republican.
>Sorry, didn't mean to Offend Any Straight People (OASP,
>pronounced 'wasp').
>
HELL NO! Republicans are 'complete and utter bastards.'
I voted exclusively Democratic last year, am a member of the local Libertarian
Party, took part in local anti-war protests, called a conservative a 'fucking
nazi' when he stole a flag that was used in our demonstration (he thought
it would be burned), joined a Progressive political group, signed petitions
against war and in favor of legal abortion, and donated money to several
other liberal groups.
Does this fit your definition of 'Republican'?
(Note that I do not support Passaniti's position on monogamy, which you
disagree with. I only support his position on the net's intolerance)
william.b.thacker
|In article <268.27...@rochgte.fidonet.org>
|John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.fidonet.org (John Passaniti), writes:
|>Also, some time ago, when I first discovered soc.motss, I
|>found out that I was WRONG to advocate monogamy (I was
|>merely part of some crypto-Christian heterofascist breeding
|>ideal).
|
|There's hope: you have almost learned the correct label for
|those who think monogamy is for others than themselves:
|hetero-christiam crypto-fascist breeder idealists (HCCFBI).
|>Thankfully, soc.motss has changed somewhat since
|>then, although I know that everytime I mention that a man
|>named Phil is my "husband," I'm going to get at least one
|>message in my mail queue telling me I am-- you guessed it--
|>WRONG.
|
|Heaven forfend that your heterosexist-founded terminologies
|should be troubled by a mini-earthquake of reason or
|question.
The moral of today's story:
John is bad for telling others how to live (saying they should
be monogamous).
But it's fine and dandy for others to tell John how to live (saying
he shouldn't call Phil his husband).
Oh. I get it. This apparent double-standard is really OK, because
John is clearly WRONG.
Interestingly, by calling his Phil his "husband", John has committed
the grave sin of yielding to heterosexist conditioning. The relationship
would be perfectly OK, though, if he'd just have the common queer decency
to call Phil his lover, domestic partner, partner-for-life, or significant
other. A rose by any other name, it would seem, does not smell so sweet.
- - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus w...@cbnews.att.com
"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
flexibility of assembly language.
Jess Anderson
In article <1991Mar1.2...@cbnews.att.com>
w...@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) writes:
>The moral of today's story:
I believe you have for some reason distorted the facts and
the issues.
>John is bad for telling others how to live (saying they
>should be monogamous).
>But it's fine and dandy for others to tell John how to live
>(saying he shouldn't call Phil his husband).
Do you regard these as parallel?
For one thing, those are not the facts of the argument. No
one said John was bad (period). No one said John couldn't
or shouldn't live his own life however he pleases.
What *is* contrasted by the two cases is this:
John and Phil as many have remembered and those who weren't
here then wouldn't remember, made quite a point of saying
that monogamy was better. He didn't just say he liked it
better for himself; he made quite a point and an extended
argument that it was *plain* better. Needless to say, he
was (in my opinion rightly) crisped for that presumption.
Now in that earlier discussion, people did not just say he
was an asshole. They presented counter-examples and
counter-arguments. This was a matter of probably more than
100 postings, as I recall. At the time, many of these
posters allowed that it was fine for him to live his own
life according to his own lights, but pointed out the
inappropriateness of his prescribing how others must live
based on -- he made quite a point of this -- his own
example.
In the matter of calling Phil his husband, there are many
related issues, and we also had an extended discussion of
all that (you were around at the time, Bill), connected with
sexism and the willy-nilly incorporation of sexist models
into the daily lives of LGB people. The point of that
discussion was not that John should get with the program,
but rather that other LGB people might want to re-examine
their social assumptions and biases to evaluate their own
choices in the light of the values discussed.
Now, as far as I am aware, this is the major background of
the present exchanges. It is hardly reasonable for those
who have come later to expect a full exegesis and
recapitulation of every scrap of our past history in this
newsgroup, although I would grant that perhaps those of us
who've been around longer can do more than we have to
clarify the context of our remarks, when they happen to
touch on matters discussed here before.
It seems to me that all of this is in fact a model of
reasonable discussion of sometimes difficult or divisive
issues in any group as heterogeneous and diverse as this.
Some people may argue over the forms and rhetorical styles
this or that person typically or exceptionally uses (we've
just had some discussion of this), but apart from this, I
have the sense that nearly all participants would accept
that I've characterized all of this in a reasonably fair
way.
Then what happens? John reappears, shouts his slogan five
times loudly, and suggests that he is the victim of a cabal
of thinkspeak. A number of people, sharing, I infer, a
similar sense (however ill-founded) of being outraged,
continue by various distortions to underscore the persona of
John the Baptist, Saint Matthew among them.
>Oh. I get it. This apparent double-standard is really OK,
>because John is clearly WRONG.
A double standard requires contradictory values on *one*
topic, not multiple topics; if you prefer, on genuinely
parallel topics, not on disparate ones. Do you wish to
argue that point further?
>Interestingly, by calling his Phil his "husband", John has
>committed the grave sin of yielding to heterosexist
>conditioning. The relationship would be perfectly OK,
>though, if he'd just have the common queer decency to call
>Phil his lover, domestic partner, partner-for-life, or
>significant other. A rose by any other name, it would seem,
>does not smell so sweet.
Not the worst rhetorical flourish, of course, but Ophelia's
mother was able to understand the need for parallel
argument: sweets to the sweet. The issue isn't and never
was what John and Phil do; it was what they say others
should do, whether by argument or by example.
<> America's freedom is the example to which the world
<> expires. -- George Bush
Steve Dyer
>he shouldn't call Phil his husband).
I have yet to read anyone claiming that John shouldn't call Phil his
"husband".
>Oh. I get it. This apparent double-standard is really OK, because
>John is clearly WRONG.
No, this "apparent double-standard" is illusory, because it hasn't appeared
here. This is known as a "straw man", Thack.
>Interestingly, by calling his Phil his "husband", John has committed
>the grave sin of yielding to heterosexist conditioning. The relationship
>would be perfectly OK, though, if he'd just have the common queer decency
>to call Phil his lover, domestic partner, partner-for-life, or significant
>other. A rose by any other name, it would seem, does not smell so sweet.
No, Phil and John were complaining about another strawman, namely that
they were being attacked because they were monogamous.
Nancy Fox
>
I just want to clarify what you're saying. I'm not sure I
understand. First you say:
>Let's get one thing out of the way right away. I have
>nothing against monogamy for anyone who wants it and can
>arrange to have it. You and your friends are entitled to
>regulate your lives however you like, and whether it's
>monogamous or not is of no concern *whatever* to me. Under
>normal conditions (to be explained in a moment) I don't
>think it should be *anybody's* concern but yours.
>
>In every case the relationship was putatively monogamous.
Okay, I looked up putatively...
>How long one is together with one's partner is another
>prejudice of the same sort. To mention the length of time
>you've been with your current partner carries with it the
>implication that there's something at least a little better
>about your life than the lives of people who for some reason
>(any reason, whatever reason) have lived differently.
>
Well I'm not sure I agree with this. I frequently mention
how long Judy and I have been together because it is some-
thing that I'm proud of. Keeping a relationship together
takes a great deal of work and commitment. A long term
relationship does not just "happen" to you. It takes two
or more people who are committed to making it work and who
are willing to grow and change and communicate. It also
takes a great deal of humor...And to do this against the
odds, with no social structures built around it to cement
the relationship or to reward the relationship is I think
especially something to be proud of. I wanted to be in
a long term committed monogamous relationship (so shoot
me :-)) and I was fortunate enough to find one. I think
it's important to share with others in the community who
want this that it is possible and that there are many
people out there who are doing it. I don't believe it
carries any implication by me that I am superior to
anyone who chooses to live diffently. But maybe I'm wrong...
And I also think this may be a different issue with men than
it is with women, but I may be wrong about that, too. I mean
it may be, is seems to be, that women are historically in
our lives more interested in long term monogamous relationships
than men are, on the whole, and of course, with exceptions on
both sides.
>It is a fact that some people for their own (or whatever)
>reasons do not have (or have not had) relationships lasting
>many years. It's a fact that some people for their own (or
>whatever) reasons do not have (or have not had) monogamous
>relationships. Neither of these facts in *any* way
>justifies a kind of smug superiority witnessed here in
>various ways over the years coming from people who live
>their lives differently.
As to the first part, total agreement. As to the last part,
I recall several arguments here as to the acceptability
of different lifestyles. Judy and I were very mucy harassed
in the beginning because of our commitment to each other
exlusively and our commitment to monogamy. This was a commit-
ment that we made, only for and to each other, as what felt
right and best for us. We were both working, going to school
and raising two children, one of whom was, shall we say, a
challenge. Who could possibly have time or energy for an
additional relationship anyway? We barely had time for us.
And it was our choice for us that what time and energy we
had would be spent on us, and not divided with outside
relationships. Is that so wrong :-)
>
>There's a large political issue here, of course (isn't there
>always?). The oppressors say we're promiscuous. They say
>we're *incapable* for forming stable, long-lasting,
>committed, satisfying, fulfilled relationships.
Oh we all know this is hogwash...
>Quite a few LGB people are made unhappy by believing this
>kind of propaganda, all or most of which is the same
>propaganda as the nuclear family ideal. They're unhappy
>because the don't think they've measured up somehow, and
>this aura of superiority surfacing here from time to time
>oppresses them, I think in an unncessary and ultimately
>thoughtless way.
I see this pressure in many of my straight friends as well.
Maybe especially in straight friends, who are now reaching
(ahem) their forties without having nailed down the husband
and the kids.
>It *is* propaganda. To believe it is to make oneself the
>slave of ideals formulated by others. Note well -- pay
>attention -- read carefully: that *some* people find their
>greatest happiness by *exactly* conforming to this
>propaganda mitigates nothing I've said.
Okay so finally I get to the paragraph that made me want
to respond to this whole thing...I guess I resent, no
resent is not it, something in me doesn't like the
implication that because I want to be in an exclusive
relationship, I am conforming to propaganda. I guess I
have always prided myself in being somewhat of a rebel and
definitely not your crowd follower, so that statement
raises my hackles. I don't know why an exclusive relationship
is right for me. I don't know why I'm gay. I am a
monogamous person and I'm gay. I just am. I certainly
realize that many other people are neither interested
in monogamy and exclusivity, or same-sex relationships.
But I kinda feel like you're doing some name-calling here
in response to what you perceive as name calling. Maybe
I should just ask you this, Jess: Do you feel everybody
who is monogamous is that way strictly because they have
fallen for the propaganda and that otherwise all people
would be, um, what would we call this? Polygamous?
Or are you saying that SOME people who are in long-term
monogamous relationships feel, or sound like they feel
superior to people who are not?
>The oppression wants your soul. They'll do *anything* to
>get it. When it comes to bamboozling (they own the schools
>and the governments, after all), they have most of the
>marbles. What we have is this kind of discussion.
I don't understand this. Sorry. Are you saying that
monogamy is oppressive? I think monogamy is oppressive
if it is forced upon you against your will. But if it
is freely chosen? Or do you believe that monogamy can
not, by definition, be freely chosen because the propaganda
is so great that it is impossible to freely choose it? I
wonder if that makes any sense to anyone but me...Is
monogamy an unnatural state, and it is only chosen because
of social oppression? Or can monogamy be seen as a
natural state, for some people?
>
>What I think is this: Think about it, I say. Wake up to
>what *you* are, and let others do the same. If you want to
>help them wake up, do that, but make sure that's all you're
>doing.
Yes, Judy and I have thought about this a great deal. It was
not a decision that was made easily, or lightly, or in fact
made once and never visited again. It is an agreement that
has so far worked for us for, dare I say, 16 years, and one
that will probably come up in our relationship many times
over the years...So far, we agree that for right now, this
is what we both want, and recognize that the future is in the
future, and everything is up for discussion...
Nancy
Jim Showalter
There is a world of fooling around that doesn't violate this one simple
concept.
phys...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>In article <1991Feb27.1...@macc.wisc.edu> ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>
>>He (Pisser) called his essay "Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
>>Whine Whine" (three times is enough).
>>
>In a similar way, I will refer to you as 'Jesshole'. You have shown how
>effective name-calling can be.
Fantastic!
>>You must remember that no matter what you say here, but the
>>...
>>easily understood kind, some Pisser will pop up and whine.
>>
> You seem to be the one whining. Passaniti was the one challenging something:
>the intolerance shown for 'non-PC queers'.
>
>>Here's how it works. Here and in life there are people who
>>...
>>mention of the two words "internal homophobia").
>>
>Whining? keening? moaning? In what way? His post was calm and rational.
>You, however, sound very defensive. Has he offended your poor little
>world-view?
>
>>Of course, I would defer to my many more learned colleagues
>>in matters of terminology. My own favorite is: Bzzzzt!
>>
>No, these people do not exist. If anyone DARES to disagree with the
>SACRED QUEER OPINIONFACTS (tm) they are obviously "Whining"
>
>>>Yes, in their eyes, questioning why someone is gay or musing
>>>about if one could change their preferences is the same as
>>>marching in a parade with a white sheet over your head.
>>
>>Bzzzzt! The Attack of the Blinders! God forbid you should
>>actually question the biases of such questions.
>>
>No, questioning the biases is much easier than thinking about the questions.
>After all, Jesshole, you don't want anything to disturb your precious
>self-image, do you? No, Real Queers know that gayness was Handed Down
>From Above, and any biological or psychological explanation is Blasphemy.
>Well, some of us aren't as insecure as you, and have a desire to expand our
>minds. Of course, this has happened before...Galileo and Darwin, among
>hundreds of others, defied the authorities who didn't want anyone to think
>about certain questions. It's people like Jesshole who retard progress.
Talking about the twisted mind, insecurity, the syndrome of closed-mindedness
caused by irrational fears, ... Excellent!
>>>I have some experience with this.
>>
>>The Understatement of Last Year, Mr. Neatly.
>>
>>>No, my
>>>reasons were sound enough (those were never debated), but
>>>the very fact that I would make critical comments meant I
>>>was WRONG.
>>
>>You see, there are hordes of people whose response to merely
>>...
>>values?"
>>
>This was the whole point of Mr. Passaniti's post: that the average soc.motss'er
>doesn't want his opinions challenged about anything. That he was flamed
>when he suggested monogamy, the '3 books' poster was flamed for daring
>to think there could be a reason for homosexuality, and others.
>
>>>Also, some time ago, when I first discovered soc.motss, I
>>>found out that I was WRONG to advocate monogamy (I was
>>>merely part of some crypto-Christian heterofascist breeding
>>>ideal).
>>
>>There's hope: you have almost learned the correct label for
>>...
>>hetero-christiam crypto-fascist breeder idealists (HCCFBI).
>>
>ahhhh, labels are *so* convenient. By stereotyping everyone who is in
>some way not Politically Corect, you can ignore them more easily and there
>is less danger that you may actually *gasp* change your mind! or, worse,
>*shudder* THINK!
I hate hodge-podge labels. Can't people be a little more user-friendly?
...only if they explain what they're talking about and THINK about whether
what they're talking about have any relevance to real issues at all.
>>What *is* obvious is that you can't abide anything that is
>>...
>>of those who are not like your Family Unit (fuck you).
>>
>You idiot, that was the *whole point* of his post: that some people here
>cannot stand a divergent opinion! And they are flamed for suggesting
>anything that is not in the Queer Master Plan! And you, by YOUR WHINING,
>have proven him right.
There do seem to be a conspiracy here about a QMP (haha! labeling...)
I'm sick of this. Why can't they let me decide how my own life is to be lived?
Talking about diversity, I found those who vocally preach it don't really
practice it out of irrational fears.
>><> It is never too late to give up your prejudices.
>><> -- H.D. Thoreau
>
>It seems too late for you. Practice what you preach.
>
Gordon Ye UCBerkeley
phys...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>
>In article <1991Mar1.0...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) drizzles:
>
>>challenging something: the intolerance shown for 'non-PC
>>queers'.
>
>You're forgiven for not knowing what you'e talking about.
>
>>Whining? keening? moaning? In what way? His post was calm
>>and rational. You, however, sound very defensive. Has he
>>offended your poor little world-view?
>
>Have you answered these questions wrt yourself, Huckster?
>
>>with the SACRED QUEER OPINIONFACTS (tm) they are obviously
>>"Whining".
>
>What, you think I don't have any learned colleagues? You
... (read Jesse's articles for details of abuse )
>again, I think.
>
>>After all, Jesshole, you don't want anything to disturb your
>>precious self-image, do you? No, Real Queers know that
>>gayness was Handed Down From Above, and any biological or
>>psychological explanation is Blasphemy.
>
>Heavens, you sound Very Straight Indeed (tm).
>
>>Well, some of us aren't as insecure as you, and have a
>>desire to expand our minds.
>
>Evidently, there's ample room.
>
>>Of course, this has happened
>>before...Galileo and Darwin, among hundreds of others,
>>defied the authorities who didn't want anyone to think about
>>certain questions. It's people like Jesshole who retard
>>progress.
>
>I've had many underserved compliments in my long life, Huck
... (more trash by Jesse)
>body a *Saint* Matthew.
>
>>This was the whole point of Mr. Passaniti's post: that the
>>average soc.motss'er doesn't want his opinions challenged
>>about anything. That he was flamed when he suggested
>>monogamy, the '3 books' poster was flamed for daring to
>>think there could be a reason for homosexuality, and others.
>
>Your Holierthanthouness, you are quite mistaken, and on all
... (trash, etc.)
>suggest prune juice for what principally ails you.
>
>>ahhhh, labels are *so* convenient. By stereotyping everyone
>>who is in some way not Politically Corect, you can ignore
>>them more easily and there is less danger that you may
>>actually *gasp* change your mind! or, worse, *shudder*
>>THINK!
>
>Now believe me, I've *have* been trying to think about what
... (more Jesse's garbage)
>right! I've changed my mind: you *are* stoopid (tm).
>
Jesse had not a single line of meaningful discourse, only personal attacks,
name-callings, and senseless ridicules. Whoever began the name-calling
and verbal abuses is guilty. (I don't think it's Matt.) Jesse, if your
lines were even remotely serious discussions of issues, they wouldn't have
been so low and degenerate.
Gordon Ye UCBerkeley
Tezcatlipocateopixque
>No, I read his post several times, and understand completely.
No, you do not, because it can only be meaningful in the context
of what Hubby and Wife said (follow this very carefully: what
they said, *not* what the Wife *says* they said) well over a year
ago now. Everything the Wife has posted since has been nothing
but licking the wounds (s?)he so justly received at the time.
Hubby and Wife did *not* defend monogamy, because it was not
under attack. Hubby and Wife insisted, over and over again, that
monogamy was the *only acceptable lifestyle for any couple* (are
you following? ANY couple, not themselves) and that anyone not
in a monogamous relationship had no relationship.
Hubby and Wife were torched, and by those for whom monogamy works
best. They were not flamed for being monogamous; they were flamed
for insisting that theirs was the only acceptable format for anyone.
Jess Anderson
In article <23...@calmasd.Prime.COM> n...@calmasd.Prime.COM
(Nancy Fox) writes, posing a lot of interesting, and I think
really useful questions in response to some things I said:
>In article <1991Mar1.0...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>I just want to clarify what you're saying. I'm not sure I
>understand. First you say:
I need to expand and clarify parts of this, then.
>>Let's get one thing out of the way right away. I have
>>nothing against monogamy for anyone who wants it and can
>>arrange to have it. [...]
>>To mention the length of time
>>you've been with your current partner carries with it the
>>implication that there's something at least a little better
>>about your life than the lives of people who for some reason
>>(any reason, whatever reason) have lived differently.
>Well I'm not sure I agree with this. I frequently mention
>how long Judy and I have been together because it is some-
>thing that I'm proud of.
In my earlier post, I provided an exception relating to
rebutting smug claims. I didn't address some other
important aspects, which you've now brought up (thanks).
>Keeping a relationship together takes a great deal of work
>and commitment. A long term relationship does not just
>"happen" to you. It takes two or more people who are
>committed to making it work and who are willing to grow and
>change and communicate. It also takes a great deal of
>humor... And to do this against the odds, with no social
>structures built around it to cement the relationship or to
>reward the relationship is I think especially something to
>be proud of.
I agree with every aspect of this. I directly experienced
all that myself, so your impressions are to that extent
quite parallel to mine. There's a point being glossed over,
though (more in a minute).
>I wanted to be in a long term committed monogamous
>relationship (so shoot me :-)) and I was fortunate enough to
>find one. I think it's important to share with others in
>the community who want this that it is possible and that
>there are many people out there who are doing it.
Certainly you were fortunate to find what you want. In your
second sentence, the key phrase is "who want this." And
I've also experienced that example-providing phenomenon in
the course of interacting with my community in periods when
I was monogamously coupled for periods of years, so this is
another parallel with what you and Judy are doing.
>I don't believe it carries any implication by me that I am
>superior to anyone who chooses to live diffently.
I don't think it *necessarily* does; if you accept that,
then we're in perfect alignment *so far*.
My reservations center on several points:
- it is common, though far from universal, for people to
think that what has worked for them or that what fits
their own needs or dreams is in some way superior to
patterns others have chosen.
- it is common for people to accept this implicit
superiority of their own choices quite uncritically, that
is, without being aware of it.
- it is common for people to find themselves willy-nilly
serving as role models for others, and there can be risks
associated with accepting these roles uncritically.
- it is not uncommon for people serving as role models for
others (not seldom in response to genuine needs) to find
themselves somewhat ensnared by what I've called
propaganda: things "fit" in such a way as to turn off
part of one's self-awareness, and one starts succumbing
to myths. This can (it did for me) reach oppressive,
life-distorting proportions.
- it is common, and I believe singularly unfortunate, that
people will adhere to models developed by others rather
than doing the work (I agree with you that it is not easy
work, either) of developing their own models. In this
aspect, I assume that this more difficult route is more
likely to help people find their own "fitness" of life
patterns.
- One of the most common factors, I think, is the tendency
ourselves to believe the myths by which we live, to
accord them a quasi-logical solidity and philosophical
permanence that sets us up for agonizing and bitter
senses of loss, emotional earthquakes as it were, when
circumstances reveal that our edifices of happiness rest
on the emotional analog of landfill: illusion.
- With respect to illusion, I think it's pretty common for
people to embrace various fictions as a way of staving off
doubts. One of the most notorious examples of this
phenomenon in action is possessiveness and jealousy in
our love affairs.
I just now remember that many of these reservations are
treated dramatically in Ingmar Bergmann's excellent teleplay
"Scenes from a Marriage," especially the part called
"Sweeping Under the Rug."
>But maybe I'm wrong... And I also think this may be a
>different issue with men than it is with women, but I may be
>wrong about that, too. I mean it may be, is seems to be,
>that women are historically in our lives more interested in
>long term monogamous relationships than men are, on the
>whole, and of course, with exceptions on both sides.
I think you're very probably right that men and women (let
me limit that to LG people) view the whole complex of issues
differently. Although I know lesbians who find themselves
denounced by other lesbians for not seeking long-term,
stable, and more or less monogamous relationships, it's been
my impression that women are typically more likely than men
to want these things. Your own experience, cited below,
seems to run just the opposite direction.
>>It is a fact that some people for their own (or whatever)
>>reasons do not have (or have not had) relationships lasting
>>many years. It's a fact that some people for their own (or
>>whatever) reasons do not have (or have not had) monogamous
>>relationships. Neither of these facts in *any* way
>>justifies a kind of smug superiority witnessed here in
>>various ways over the years coming from people who live
>>their lives differently.
>As to the first part, total agreement.
>As to the last part, I recall several arguments here as to
>the acceptability of different lifestyles. Judy and I were
>very mucy harassed in the beginning because of our
>commitment to each other exlusively and our commitment to
>monogamy.
I don't know, but one quick guess would suggest that life
was fairly different 12 years ago. To what extent that may
be a factor here, I can't say.
Be that as it may, one of the difficulties in a discussion
like this is that to a considerable extent things that one
may feel pretty convinced about can end up being fairly
contradictory. It just isn't easy to sort it all out.
>This was a commitment that we made, only for and to each
>other, as what felt right and best for us. We were both
>working, going to school and raising two children, one of
>whom was, shall we say, a challenge. Who could possibly have
>time or energy for an additional relationship anyway? We
>barely had time for us. And it was our choice for us that
>what time and energy we had would be spent on us, and not
>divided with outside relationships. Is that so wrong :-)
Of course, as you know, my answer to that is: certainly not.
>>There's a large political issue here, of course (isn't there
>>always?). The oppressors say we're promiscuous. They say
>>we're *incapable* for forming stable, long-lasting,
>>committed, satisfying, fulfilled relationships.
>Oh we all know this is hogwash...
>>Quite a few LGB people are made unhappy by believing this
>>kind of propaganda, all or most of which is the same
>>propaganda as the nuclear family ideal. They're unhappy
>>because the don't think they've measured up somehow, and
>>this aura of superiority surfacing here from time to time
>>oppresses them, I think in an unncessary and ultimately
>>thoughtless way.
>I see this pressure in many of my straight friends as well.
>Maybe especially in straight friends, who are now reaching
>(ahem) their forties without having nailed down the husband
>and the kids.
To go way out on a limb with that, it has been an idea in
the back of my mind for many years that real liberation
would set the majority free even *more* than it would us.
>>It *is* propaganda. To believe it is to make oneself the
>>slave of ideals formulated by others. Note well -- pay
>>attention -- read carefully: that *some* people find their
>>greatest happiness by *exactly* conforming to this
>>propaganda mitigates nothing I've said.
>Okay so finally I get to the paragraph that made me want to
>respond to this whole thing...I guess I resent, no resent is
>not it, something in me doesn't like the implication that
>because I want to be in an exclusive relationship, I am
>conforming to propaganda.
Perhaps this is one of the more insidious things about
propaganda. The key issue here is: is it propaganda if we
happen to choose exactly those conditions for ourselves? I
don't think so, which is why I put in the "pay attention"
note. My point there was that having considered options
realistically and with forethought, one is free to choose as
one wishes. To choose without this critical process is at
least to leap off the cliff of the unknown and maybe to be
ensnared in the propaganda.
>I guess I
>have always prided myself in being somewhat of a rebel and
>definitely not your crowd follower, so that statement
>raises my hackles.
No great surprise; as far as it goes, I think we're a lot
alike. But are your hackles still up? :-)
>I don't know why an exclusive relationship is right for me.
>I don't know why I'm gay. I am a monogamous person and I'm
>gay. I just am. I certainly realize that many other people
>are neither interested in monogamy and exclusivity, or
>same-sex relationships.
We're alike in at least all those ways.
>But I kinda feel like you're doing some name-calling here in
>response to what you perceive as name calling.
If I did, I did. Let me try to fix that.
>Maybe I should just ask you this, Jess: Do you feel
>everybody who is monogamous is that way strictly because
>they have fallen for the propaganda and that otherwise all
>people would be, um, what would we call this? Polygamous? Or
>are you saying that SOME people who are in long-term
>monogamous relationships feel, or sound like they feel
>superior to people who are not?
I've addressed the first point, I think. As to the second,
what this all started with was two specific people who quite
definitely did say their relationship was superior to others.
I think the underlying problem with all of this is that we
can so easily conform our attitudes and feelings to what on
any critical examination quickly proves to be *very*
questionable categories. This raises issues on both sides
of a supposed conceptual demaraction line, of course.
>>The oppression wants your soul. They'll do *anything* to
>>get it. When it comes to bamboozling (they own the schools
>>and the governments, after all), they have most of the
>>marbles. What we have is this kind of discussion.
>I don't understand this. Sorry. Are you saying that monogamy
>is oppressive?
That the model of monogamy is based *primarily* on the myths
of courtly love, over-idealization of the loved one and
one's relationship with that person, 18th-century ideals of
property, 19th-century ideals of economic and social
production, and 20th-century ideals of the Christian,
heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family: a model that
chosen without adequate reagrd for one's present, realistic
situation can amount to oppression.
>I think monogamy is oppressive if it is forced upon you
>against your will. But if it is freely chosen?
As you say, this turns on what we mean by "freely" chosen.
>Or do you believe that monogamy can not, by definition, be
>freely chosen because the propaganda is so great that it is
>impossible to freely choose it?
A major thrust of my entire argument is that we serve
ourselves better by resisting the blinding influences of the
major patterns developed by a basically oppressive society.
I think this means that for a substantial number of people,
the answer to your question is yes.
>I wonder if that makes any sense to anyone but me...Is
>monogamy an unnatural state, and it is only chosen because
>of social oppression? Or can monogamy be seen as a natural
>state, for some people?
I think I understood the question well enough. But in the
absence of answers that make sense, one is left to flounder
along as best one can.
>>What I think is this: Think about it, I say. Wake up to
>>what *you* are, and let others do the same. If you want to
>>help them wake up, do that, but make sure that's all you're
>>doing.
>Yes, Judy and I have thought about this a great deal. It was
>not a decision that was made easily, or lightly, or in fact
>made once and never visited again. It is an agreement that
>has so far worked for us for, dare I say, 16 years, and one
>that will probably come up in our relationship many times
>over the years...So far, we agree that for right now, this
>is what we both want, and recognize that the future is in
>the future, and everything is up for discussion...
Please accept my salute, which I assure you is sincere (but
you knew that). Sorry, I more than doubled the length, but
as is obvious, I think these are very complex issues, and
even at that barely scratched here.
Jess Anderson
>In article <1991Mar1.1...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) babbles:
>>You're forgiven for not knowing what you'e talking about.
>No, I read his post several times, and understand
>completely.
Blind! Too blind to see that you missed. But keep reading,
there's a reward for your indulgence, near the end.
>I have seen this happen several times recently:
>Someone asks a question which offends your precious
>sensibilities (such as: weak father->gay, which book, etc)
Not mine: I didn't say a word about either topic. Oops, I
did about the second one, but it was clearly not in an
offended tone. So pack up your whitewash pail, laddie.
>>>>Of course, I would defer to my many more learned colleagues
>>>>in matters of terminology. My own favorite is: Bzzzzt!
>>>No, these people do not exist. If anyone DARES to disagree
>>>with the SACRED QUEER OPINIONFACTS (tm) they are obviously
>>>"Whining".
>>What, you think I don't have any learned colleagues? You
>>seem to have found the caps-lock key (we have here a
>>formidable mechanical adept). May I compliment you on Sacred
>>Queer Opinionfacts (tm), however? We will hear this phrase
>>again, I think.
>Notice here how Jess evades my point completely,
You didn't *have* a point.
>commenting only on my writing style and capslock use. Possibly he
>couldn't think of anything important to say.
There wasn't anything important to respond to, rather.
>>>No, questioning the biases is much easier than thinking
>>>about the questions.
>>And what have you thought about, sonny? So far, you're not
>>even up to the biases yet, let alone thoughts.
>I do think some questions are biased and 'loaded'. I,
>however, do not cringe away and then attack the sender
>personally, I prefer to give a honest answer and educate the
>person.
Oh, you didn't attack me personally, you gave me an honest
answer, and you sought to educate me? What a laugh! But as
usual, I'm kindly disposed toward you.
>You, however, would rather drive anyone you
>disagree with off the net, so you won't be offended again.
I'm putting up with you, numb nuts. You wouldn't recognize
a Clue if it hit you on the head.
>>Heavens, you sound Very Straight Indeed (tm).
>Not at all. I 'Scream With Pleasure As I Fuck Ass'.
In the bookstore?
>Do you
>accuse people of being straight to cover up your own latent
>heterosexuality?
You're raving (still).
>>>Well, some of us aren't as insecure as you, and have a
>>>desire to expand our minds.
>>Evidently, there's ample room.
>And thank God for people whose minds aren't as closed as
>yours.
Out of your depth again, I'm afraid. Let's have your
lecture on open minds.
>>>Of course, this has happened
>>>before...Galileo and Darwin, among hundreds of others,
>>>defied the authorities who didn't want anyone to think about
>>>certain questions. It's people like Jesshole who retard
>>>progress.
>>I've had many underserved compliments in my long life, Huck
>>honey, but you are the *very* first to compare me to the
>>Pope. I didn't realize that Urbana had among its student
>>body a *Saint* Matthew.
>Being an Active Atheist (tm) I do not consider that a
>compliment.
At least you got that point. Bravo.
>IMHO, the suppression of the theories of these
>two men were among the most vile crimes ever.
True, but don't dilute your point.
>>>This was the whole point of Mr. Passaniti's post: that the
>>>average soc.motss'er doesn't want his opinions challenged
>>>about anything. That he was flamed when he suggested
>>>monogamy, the '3 books' poster was flamed for daring to
>>>think there could be a reason for homosexuality, and others.
>>Your Holierthanthouness, you are quite mistaken, and on all
>>counts. I think they offer remedial reading down there.
>>Sign up, it'll do wonders for your abilities, although I
>>suggest prune juice for what principally ails you.
>Personal attacks again, from someone too cowardly to refute
>my point.
I did refute your point, but you haven't waked up to it yet.
As for cowardice, you're barking up the wrong tree, puppy,
because I don't relate to the term.
Prune juice is very sweet. You need it. Don't call that a
personal attack. Clearly you're constipated; clearing up
your bowels may clear up your brain. Think of it as
nurture.
>If Passaniti's article was not about the
>close-mindedness of some motss'er, what was it? It seems you
>missed his point completely. How did you ever get into a
>university with handicaps like that?
I'm not in a university. You are. It shows. You don't
know, even yet, what Wife was saying.
>>>ahhhh, labels are *so* convenient. By stereotyping everyone
>>>who is in some way not Politically Corect, you can ignore
>>>them more easily and there is less danger that you may
>>>actually *gasp* change your mind! or, worse, *shudder*
>>>THINK!
>>Now believe me, I've *have* been trying to think about what
>>you say, so to speak to apply your Political Corectum. You're
>>right! I've changed my mind: you *are* stoopid (tm).
>Your recent posts have had the same effect on me. Perhaps
>you and I can go together to soc.motss.halfwits. You're at
>least as well qualified as me, perhaps more, judging by your
>psuedo-arguments here.
You're asking for a date on the bus? Quaint. As for my
pseudo-arguments, at least I can spell it (oh, very low,
very low, slap my hand!).
>(I should not dignify your accusation with an answer, but
Don't be a fool, Huck. It wasn't an accusation. Think of
it as an opportunity.
>no, I am not at all straight. No, I can't prove it over the
>net, (nobody can), but I frequent a Gay bookstore and a
I've seen the video. You're terrific!
>weekly gay social event. I am on the gay IRC channel nearly
>every day. And all my lust-filled thoughts are about boys.
OK. The net.gods of the Anti-Whiners Cabal have met in
secret session and decided to award you a Temporary Queer
Card, Junior Grade Faggot Division. The initiation team
will schedule a visit to Chambana at the Rite Time. Until
then, you better be good, Huck honey, because we have spies
*everywhere*.
>Jess, are you sure *you're* gay?
Ohmygod! What if I've slipped? Oh ma, lissen to what he
said! Oh, oh, oh.
>><> Reality isn't all there is, after all. -- Isaac Asimov
>And it seems that, for Jess Anderson, at least, there is no
>reality at all.
Not in your stuff, dear, and I bet not just for me.
In a postscript (but not PostScript),
<1991Mar1.2...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> our sage continues:
>>>Now I'm sure you're straight. C'mon, stop jokin' around,
>>>you are, aren't you?
>I'm not. If there are any other UIUC students reading this,
>maybe you could help me prove it and then testify about it.
>;-)
Why don't you sashay up the line to Normal and see what you
can scare off, er, scare up?
>>I neglected to consider that maybe he's just a Republican.
>>Sorry, didn't mean to Offend Any Straight People (OASP,
>>pronounced 'wasp').
>HELL NO! Republicans are 'complete and utter bastards.'
I see I've reached your heart. Very gratifying. You can
drop the quotes, though.
>I voted exclusively Democratic last year, am a member of the
>local Libertarian Party, took part in local anti-war
>protests, called a conservative a 'fucking nazi' when he
>stole a flag that was used in our demonstration (he thought
>it would be burned), joined a Progressive political group,
>signed petitions against war and in favor of legal abortion,
>and donated money to several other liberal groups.
What have you got planned for your sophomore year?
>Does this fit your definition of 'Republican'?
The libertarian part does, but I'm a very patient fellow.
>(Note that I do not support Passaniti's position on
>monogamy, which you disagree with. I only support his
>position on the net's intolerance)
You need to think about the net's intolerance a bit more,
I think, before pronouncing on that.
From your sig quote:
>| And in The End,
>| The love you take,
>| is equal to the love you make.
You're making love by taking it in the end? Be careful, OK?
TTFN. E-hugs.
<> I was thrown out of college for cheating on the
<> metaphysics exam: I looked into the soul of another boy.
<> -- Woody Allen
Matt Hucke
>In article <1991Mar1.2...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>
>>No, I read his post several times, and understand completely.
>
>No, you do not, because it can only be meaningful in the context
>of what Hubby and Wife said (follow this very carefully: what
>they said, *not* what the Wife *says* they said) well over a year
>ago now. Everything the Wife has posted since has been nothing
>but licking the wounds (s?)he so justly received at the time.
>
I do not agree with what Passaniti said about monogamy. My position agrees
with yours, that it may be best for some, but not all.
My defense of his WRONG x5 post is not concerned with the monogamy issue.
Perhaps he was whining, and was really 'wrong'. However, his particular
case is not the only example. (in fact, I see now that it is not related
at all) I have seen, in the past month, several people post innocent
questions. They were not trying to stir up trouble, but only have a
serious conversation. These include the post about a weak father causing
homosexuality in the son, the three books, the idea that ACT-UP might not
be always right.
Although I do not agree with the 'weak father' theory, and I am in favor
of ACT-UP's actions, and the books post contained no real theories, only
questions, I am simply defending the right of these people (and any others
I might have missed) to have opinions that disagree with the majority. They
did not force anything on us: the original posts were not hostile at all.
But they were immediately flamed, and their ideas were ignored in the
personal attacks that followed. This is what I feel is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
And when I first started defending these people, Jess Anderson responded
with posts of no substance, ignoring the points I made, instead ridiculing
my use of the capslock, calling me a 'saint' when I used religious figures
(the ones oppressing Galileo and Darwin) as an example of Jess's thinking,
and then, with no evidence at all, calling me a 'straight'. His immaturity
astounds me. I do not say this simply becuase he disagrees with me (you
also disagree, but had several real thoughts in your post, instead of
a Jess-like stream of attacks) but because it is an easily observable fact.
By 'easily observable' I mean it has been stated by several others. Of
course, a person who dared to criticize Jess's attacks in public was also
immediately flamed. The substance of his post was ignored, and the reply
was only 'another one from the better-forgotten past.' No intelligent
conversation, only another attack.
Tolerance for the opinion you hate is the foundation of democracy.
Matt Hucke
In article <1991Mar2.1...@macc.wisc.edu> ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1991Mar2.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>
>>And when I first started defending these people, Jess
>>Anderson responded with posts of no substance, ignoring the
>>points I made, instead ridiculing my use of the capslock,
>>calling me a 'saint' when I used religious figures (the
>>ones oppressing Galileo and Darwin) as an example of Jess's
>>thinking,
>
>I seem to be the bee in your bonnet. Take it off then.
>
Well, you also mentioned me on a different thread than our usual...
>If what you're after is buzzing around me, have at it;
>you're not the first, you won't be the last bzzzzt here.
>
>But on the substance, you've let yourself be distracted,
>Matt.
>
We both have. Your posts have degenerated as much as mine.
>>I do not say this simply becuase he disagrees with me
>Look into your heart. I bet you'll find that your major
>energy derives from the fact that I disagreed with you. Had
>I not, you'd have been deprived of more than half of what
>you've said in your several postings.
That is part of it, but I do respect your right to disagree. But you
have also publicly insulted me (I am guilty of this too, I admit)
and I responded to your comments about me being straight, stupid,
in need of remedial reading, and constipated. I argue with both
your intelligent comments and your flames.
>>Of course, a person who dared to criticize Jess's
>>attacks in public was also immediately flamed. The
>>substance of his post was ignored, and the reply was only
>>'another one from the better-forgotten past.' No
>>intelligent conversation, only another attack.
>
>You tell us what substance there was in Gordon Ye's post,
>according to you. One does not carry on intelligent
>conversation with Gordon Ye; one listens (or tries) to the
>most amazing onslaught of complete nonsense ever visited
>upon these hapless phosphors. This too (hence my historical
>note) was before your time.
But there was substance. He pointed out that your followup to one of my
articles was only a stream of personal attacks.
>>Tolerance for the opinion you hate is the foundation of
>>democracy.
>
>This is an excellent quote. Do you know where it comes
>from?
>
I did not make it up, but I can't remember who said it. :-/
>I don't think it implies equal tolerance for *all* hateful
>opinions, though. Do you think it does?
Yes. I beleive freedom of speech is more important than *anything*,
for our speech influences all our thoughts and actions. I support
everyone's First Amendment rights, even such dispicable groups as the Klan.
Their opinion is primitive, asinine, and vile, but I have no right to
repress them simply based on *my* opinion.
This has been my position all along: that often people who have ideas
that are offensive to the majority of people here are attacked simply
for asking the question. Nobody tries to answer the question and
teach this person anything.
(reply on this thread: the other has degenerated into insults only and should
be killed. Peace Treaty Mode On.)
Matt Hucke
Passaniti: If I'm WRONG I'm flamed.
Jess: Stop whining.
Matt: He's not whining. And you're proving his point.
Jess: He is whining. And you must be straight.
Matt: I am not, and you're stupid if you think so.
Jess: You must be constipated.
Matt: I am not!
Jess: You are!
Matt: I am not!
I hope everyone sees the point: we've BOTH been assholes and should
stop this war now. Let's agree to disagree.
Jess Anderson
In article <88...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
fl...@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
>In article <1991Mar1.0...@macc.wisc.edu>,
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>From your previous text it seemed that you had not yet
>experienced what these people are referring to as monogamy
>(correct me if I am wrong, but you talked about several
>relationships that spanned 32 years with varying degrees of
>non-monogamous behaviour occurring during that period).
I wasn't quite precise in my earlier post. Within a span of
32 years, I was partnered with one or another of 10 lovers
for a total of 30 years. The average (obviously) was 3
years. The longest was 10.5 years. They were, I believe,
what anyone would call monogamous.
I said before they were all live-in lovers; that wasn't
quite right; the first one was while we were still in
junior-high and high school, and of course we lived at our
respective homes, though we were together every possible
minute.
I think a key element of what I call monogamy here was not
that one or both of us would never, ever fool around. It
was that this fooling around was very rare and viewed by
both of us as "infidelity" and "bad" for our relationship.
Suffice it to say I view words like "fidelity," "faithful,"
and even "fooling around," not to mention "bad," in a *very*
different light now; we're talking about things that
happened, in the earliest case, more than 40 years ago.
Another key element in my own past was that in each case,
there was a clear understanding that this was It, and we
were going to be together forever, until death did us part.
Forever, yeah. Well, I got a more useful (to me) picture of
that later on.
>How can you say that it is not superior if you have not
>experienced it?
Really, I think it's more the other way round.
It's probably not possible to say *for sure* that one has
experienced any particular thing, in this realm. But I think
I have a reasonably extensive experience with what most people
mean by traditional monogamy. I think I know first-hand
what people mean by commitment (which may or may not be
linked to monogamy).
One reason why I wouldn't say it was superior, even for me,
is that I know too many people who would instantly reject
that proposition as completely dissonant with their own
values, in which they have some confidence, and in my own
case, it's the alternatives I don't all that much about.
Sleeping around as some kind of more or less sub-rosa
dalliance is *certaintly* not the same thing as not having
one primary relationship and giving your all to the person
you're with at the moment. (Do I need to say I attach no
relative superiority to one or another of these
alternatives, nor to the others not mentioned?)
>I contend that you can say, "I haven't felt any significant
>lack in my life for not having a monogamous relationship
>which I expect to last until death."
But now you see that I did have just that?
>and I also would think
>that you must allow that you may at some point discover a
>relationship which is wholly satisfying to you and that you
>will remain "faithful(?)" to for the rest of your life, but
>that it hasn't yet happened.
I discovered that, it has happened, it was great, I wouldn't
trade it for anything. I would say, even, that I count
myself as especially lucky, but the problem with that is it
doesn't seem to make much sense to gainsay what one has
already done, and I have no way of knowing whether I would
have felt even luckier if I had done it some other way.
What I do know is that lots of people wouldn't for anything
in the world choose what I chose, and I think they'd be
quite justifiably annoyed if I were to suggest their choices
were somehow not the equal of mine in quantity or especially
quality.
Two, maybe already three, years ago, I described here one of
my more intense affairs, in terms of ecstatic mystic union
and a complete dissolution of ego boundaries. I waxed
pretty enthusiastic about this sort of thing, and though
there were people who thought it was very beautiful and
struck a kind of wonderful chord in their own imaginations,
there were a quite a few others who seized primarily on my
enthusiastic tone and crisped me pretty thoroughly for what
they took to be the mere *suggestion* of superiority in this
magic.
>On the other side of the coin, it may be that those who find
>some value in monogamy experience a need that is not
>universally present in all people. They experience this
>need and therefore find monogamy to be a worthwhile goal
>since it answers this need. You do not have this need and
>therefore feel no drive to achieve monogamy in a
>relationship.
Well, I don't have it now, that's for sure. But until I was
43 it was a major thrust, maybe *the* major one, of my
ideation about love.
I assume it's pretty clear that a lot of people do not need
any of that stuff. I think it's also clear that some people
do. Whether that's the same as the number of people who
*think* they do, I might pretty vigorously question.
>>[longevity in relationships]
>Let me restate this a different way to see if I can give a
>different perspective:
>To someone who sees a monogamous relationship as desireable
>(and given that it takes effort to maintain a relationship)
>a lengthy relationship is something to be proud of. But, to
>mention it as if it were some credential (other than to
>provide information as to personal perspective) assumes that
>the listener considers it a valuable commodity. If the
>listener does not value monogamy, the boast falls on deaf
>ears. If the listener has no reason to value monogamy other
>than that society projects this attitude, then the boast
>inflicts self-doubt for no reason.
No problem from me.
>>The only exception I can think of (it has just happened in a
>>posting by Steve Dyer) is to directly rebut the conclusion
>>of one set of numbers and conditions with a different set of
>>numbers and different conditions.
>But you would also have to show that these other
>"statistics" are acheiving the same level of happiness.
Maybe, but how on earth would we set about that task? As
far as I know, no measure of happiness has ever been devised
that would adequately serve the task. At least for myself,
I think such attempts are probably fruitless (as it were).
>Certainly, I am not suggesting that they are unhappy, but
>they must be "as happy (a rather nebulous concept)" in order
>for the exception to be valid.
You know, despite what I often say about trying to be
realistic and rational and all that, a lot of what happens
at the bottom line (seems to be my day for such allusions)
results from luck (dumb luck?) and context, and maybe not
asking too many questions while one is actively engaged with
whatever it is.
And there's a semi-serious point there, too. Most of what
we learn or think we learn about or relationships is mostly
a matter of hindsight (mirrors help :-). We tend to ask the
tougher questions when our heart has just been broken, more
often that when our sails are full of gusts of happiness.
>>It is a fact that some people for their own (or whatever)
>>reasons do not have (or have not had) relationships lasting
>>many years. It's a fact that some people for their own (or
>>whatever) reasons do not have (or have not had) monogamous
>>relationships. Neither of these facts in *any* way
>>justifies a kind of smug superiority witnessed here in
>>various ways over the years coming from people who live
>>their lives differently.
>Certainly, at best, these people do not share the same
>values and acheive the same level of happiness without
>monogamy. Or, they do have the same needs/values, but they
>are unlucky in that they have not yet found a relationship
>that works for them (but they are not inferior in any way).
Well, this last point needs some discussion, I think. It
seems to me that a lot of people *feel* unlucky because for
whatever reason, they haven't done things others in their
cohort have done, and they feel they've missed out or
something like that. I think that can be very pernicious.
I mean, it's an old saw, but it's a good one: we're only
here today, and it's today that should be lived to the
fullest. Yesterday's gone and tomorrow could be unlike
anything we've ever known, no way to tell whether better or
worse. So maybe the ticket is to enjoy what you have right
now, you're not missing a thing.
>At worst, there is the possibility that monogamy can enhance
>their lives, but they lack the drive to make a relationship
>work for a significant time.
Sure, maybe that's true. But isn't it also true that some
if not all of the time people sit around fretting could be
put to better use that worrying about their "drive?" I
mean, we really don't know much about any of this, that I
can see.
>It is important not to assume that someone who lacks a
>monogamous relationship falls into this last category, but
>also it is important not to deny that there are people who
>do fit into this category. I'm not sure what good
>expounding upon the virtues of monogamy will do them,
>however.
Well, I can think of at least one thing good that might
come of it: confidence. For example, right after we've
been jilted or otherwise thrown over, one of the nicer
restoratives is to find out that we're still desirable
or able or whatever. Lord knows, I've expounded on more
than one topic in part to reassure myself.
>>There's a large political issue here, of course (isn't there
>>always?). The oppressors say we're promiscuous. They say
>>we're *incapable* for forming stable, long-lasting,
>>committed, satisfying, fulfilled relationships.
>I would contend that they don't have the perspective to
>understand how fulfilling a non-monogamous life can be
>because they themselves value monogamy. I don't know why
>I'm explaining this, it's still a problem, but stated from a
>different point of view(?)
Sounds pretty much like the same point of view, to me :-).
>>Quite a few LGB people are made unhappy by believing this
>>kind of propaganda, all or most of which is the same
>>propaganda as the nuclear family ideal. They're unhappy
>>because the don't think they've measured up somehow, and
>>this aura of superiority surfacing here from time to time
>>oppresses them, I think in an unncessary and ultimately
>>thoughtless way.
>Feelings of superiority aside, it is important not to assume
>that a nuclear family ideal won't make these LGB happy and a
>good semblance of that ideal is certainly achieveable
>(though many roadblocks exist).
As I've detailed in another post (responding to Nancy Fox,
who raises some of this more directly), I don't disagree
with what works, when it does. But there's nots more to
that.
>I myself have not met any LGB that I feel are being
>oppressed by this "propaganda", so maybe I'm not appropriate
>to comment here... I don't see a lot of permanent monogamy,
>but I do see a lot of serial monogamy and a lot of emotional
>monogamy with sexual freedom and I don't see any evidence
>that these relationships are hurt by an inappropriate
>slavery to a nuclear family ideal.
So far, I don't see much important in the distinction
between serial monogamy and so-called permanent monogamy.
It seems that *nothing* is permanent. If it's until "death
do you part," death will eventually do just that. If the
argument boils down to how long "long" is, that seems less
germaine, to me.
But your main point is on entirely solid ground, as I see
it.
>>It *is* propaganda. To believe it is to make oneself the
>>slave of ideals formulated by others. Note well -- pay
>>attention -- read carefully: that *some* people find their
>>greatest happiness by *exactly* conforming to this
>>propaganda mitigates nothing I've said.
>I guess I have been saying "Oh, but some people do value
>monogamy." but I am trying to see and present an accurate
>picture of both sides, rather than trying to mitigate what
>you've said. I'm presenting what I think goes through the
>minds of people on both sides of this issue so that I can
>grasp the whole issue better...
I think that's swell, music to my ears, of course.
>>The oppression wants your soul. They'll do *anything* to
>>get it. When it comes to bamboozling (they own the schools
>>and the governments, after all), they have most of the
>>marbles. What we have is this kind of discussion.
>What is really bothersome is the physical reward system that
>is set up for those who conform. It is some type of step
>forward to see "domestic partnership" bills appear, but
>maybe we should be working in the other direction. Destroy
>the marriage benefits rather than trying to expand them. By
>the time we are done making the benefits fair to everyone's
>diverse agenda, they are probably as good as eliminated
>anyways.
Eeek, a radical! I'm on your side on that stuff.
>>What I think is this: Think about it, I say. Wake up to
>>what *you* are, and let others do the same. If you want to
>>help them wake up, do that, but make sure that's all you're
>>doing.
>But is it not possible that someone believes that they have
>"woken up" to themselves when in fact, they still don't see
>the whole picture?
Given the number of times it has happened *to me*, what can
I say but yes to that one?
>A monogamist may look at someone who says "I have awakened
>and I see that I do not need monogamy" as a person who still
>doesn't understand what monogamy is and would be enriched to
>have this understanding.
Maybe. All one can do is try. What I called help is not
necessarily an easy task.
>A non-monogamist may look at someone who says "I have
>awakened and I see that I need monogamy, but I cannot find
>it, therefore I must search for it or I will not achieve
>full happiness" as a person who has been enslaved by the
>ideals of others.
That surely does happen.
>How can either tell if they are right? How can the two
>individuals know if they have truly awakened?
How indeed? If we could make definitive answers to
questions like these, we would instantly be deified by the
society (and probably burned at the stake, so don't get your
hopes up :-).
>Oops... I think I'm lost... I guess what I was heading
>towards was what I started out with. Are you sure you fully
>understand what monogamy is and all that it entails? I
>guess I can define it, but I am not at all sure what it
>"feels" like. This may be because it is a myth, or it may
>be because I haven't opened my eyes in the right way. But
>I'm not going to spend my life.
I can't honestly say I know all about it. You know,
probably, that things get less clear as you get older, not
more clear, at least not after you're about 25. To put that
a little more squarely, of *course* you get clearer about
some things, but the as it were vacuum of uncertainly is
quickly filled up by larger and larger, less and less
tractable issues.
Wisdom, if there is such a thing, seems mostly to be
accepting this increasingly perplexed situation as endemic,
telling yourself that you're lucky to be alive, and going
right on living to the fullest your waning strength permits.
It sounds much worse than it is, I think. But then, I'm not
all *that* old yet! :-)
<> Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who
<> speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
<> -- Ambrose Bierce
John M. Allen
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>|> It *is* propaganda. To believe it is to make oneself the
>|> slave of ideals formulated by others. Note well -- pay
>|> attention -- read carefully: that *some* people find their
>|> greatest happiness by *exactly* conforming to this
>|> propaganda mitigates nothing I've said.
(Nancy Fox) writes:
|> Okay so finally I get to the paragraph that made me want to
|> respond to this whole thing...I guess I resent, no resent is
|> not it, something in me doesn't like the implication that
|> because I want to be in an exclusive relationship, I am
|> conforming to propaganda.
I had a similar reaction to Nancy. I resent the implication
that I am conforming to propaganda simply because I prefer to be
monogamous.
In article <1991Mar2....@macc.wisc.edu>
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> Perhaps this is one of the more insidious things about
> propaganda. The key issue here is: is it propaganda if we
> happen to choose exactly those conditions for ourselves? I
> don't think so, which is why I put in the "pay attention"
> note.
I think that you are asking the wrong question. I think it
certainly is propaganda for someone to promote one lifestyle in
way that monogamy has been promoted in society and by some people
here on the net. Monogamy has been promoted as being better for
*everybody*.
I think the question is: is it conformity if we happen to
choose exactly those conditions for ourselves? I think that the
confusion comes from the definitions of conformity and
non-conformity. Many people seem to be using definitions that
are different from what I use.
I think that most people would agree on the definition of
conformity: adhering to the norms of society. The problem comes
with the definition of non-conformity. The reason for this
problem is the scope of the negative. To emphasize my point, I
am going to slightly alter the definition of conformity:
*blindly* adhering to the norms of society.
Many people seem to be using the negative as if it had scope
over just the verb: blindly not adhering to the norms of society.
This can be strongly interpreted: blindly adhering to the
non-norms of society.
Even though I know that Jess would not advocate this position,
I believe that the following interchange assumes this definition.
|> Or do you believe that monogamy can not, by definition, be
|> freely chosen because the propaganda is so great that it is
|> impossible to freely choose it?
> A major thrust of my entire argument is that we serve
> ourselves better by resisting the blinding influences of the
> major patterns developed by a basically oppressive society.
> I think this means that for a substantial number of people,
> the answer to your question is yes.
I agree that we must resist the blinding influences of an
oppressive society. This passage says that being monogamous is
conforming to propaganda implying that the way to resist is by
being polygamous. I would label this "anti-conformity".
I think that anti-conformity is just as damaging as
conformity. In both cases, the person's actions are completely
determined by the norms of society. The conformist must act in
accordance with those norms and the anti-conformist must act
against them. In neither case is the person allowed to decide
for themself what best fits their personal needs/desires.
Non-conformity, then, would be where the scope of the negative
was the verb phrase: not blindly adhering to the norms of
society. The non-conformist acts in a way that best fits their
needs/desires regardless of what society's norms are. The
non-conformist may sometimes act in a way that society finds
acceptable and sometimes in ways that it finds unacceptable.
I have seriously considered all the options to monogamy. I
know several people who have chosen other options and I respect
their choice as being best for them all I ask is that others
respect my choice of monogamy as being best for me.
--
Hugs,
John
John Allen al...@mscf.med.upenn.edu ---
B4/5 f t w s(-) k r /| *\
|*\ |
\o*|/
"Light is the left hand of darkness" -- U. K. LeGuin ---
Stephen ARRANTS
| Also, some time ago, when I first discovered
| soc.motss, I found out that I was WRONG to advocate
| monogamy (I was merely part of some crypto-Christian
| I mention that a man named Phil is my "husband," I'm going
Actually, John, if I remember correctly, you weren't flammed for
advocating monogamy, but for advocating monagamy as the ONE TRUE
CORRECT WAY. It started out as an interesting debate, but quickly
degenerated into a pissing contest.
--
Steve Arrants (And here it is, the enormous night.)
Best path: ...uunet!microsoft!stephena
Blame me, not Microsoft. I work for them, they let me post.
Follow your BLISS and doors open where there were no doors before.
Jess Anderson
In article <1991Mar2...@mscf.med.upenn.edu>
al...@mscf.med.upenn.edu (John M. Allen) writes:
Well, this is really a much larger topic that my little
response is going to suggest. I skipping a lot of things
related to your comments on the exchange between Nancy Fox
and me.
>>A major thrust of my entire argument is that we serve
>>ourselves better by resisting the blinding influences of the
>>major patterns developed by a basically oppressive society.
>I agree that we must resist the blinding influences of an
>oppressive society. This passage says that being monogamous
>is conforming to propaganda implying that the way to resist
>is by being polygamous. I would label this
>"anti-conformity".
Hm, that's not what I thought I was saying. I didn't mean
to suggest that we should be nonmonogamous. I meant that
whatever we choose, it's useful to get the propaganda
blinders off first.
And my reason for making this distinction is just the one
you go on to cite: nonconformity is commonly as uncritical
as conformity. Indeed, in quite the same vein, most "anti-"
things risk being self-defeating or otherwise weakened by
being reactive, rather than proactive.
>I have seriously considered all the options to monogamy. I
>know several people who have chosen other options and I
>respect their choice as being best for them all I ask is
>that others respect my choice of monogamy as being best for
>me.
For my part, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't.
<> Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it
<> must be demanded by the oppressed.
<> -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Jay Tyson
> Regarding monogamy, I've always preferred the term "body-fluid monogamy".
> There is a world of fooling around that doesn't violate this one simple
> concept.
Yea, what he said!!
--
John "Jay" Tyson \ Drummer Bear Systems
\ ja...@drbear.COM
1259 El Camino Real, #214 /\ ...!{decwrl|saxony}!drbear!jayt
Menlo Park, CA 94025 / \
/ \ I want to die... living!
Ciaran McHale
>I say again that I think there's a hypersensitivity to flames
>in this newsgroup.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that a lot
of people here are easily offended/hurt at the first sign of
being flamed? If so I disagree with you (but I'm open to
persuasion if you can back up your opinion). I don't think
it is necessariarly that people are _overly_ sensitive to
being flamed; I think people _should_ be hurt by flames.
After all isn't that the intention of flaming?
>There's even a kind of aura about flaming
>such that some people don't feel they've really arrived unless
>they've been flamed, so they actively court it. [Jess
>thinks this is silly]
Everybody has their own idea of what constitutes success.
For some people it is winning the lottery, for others it is
becomming a household name through being a famous
actor/actress, for some researchers it is becomming a
well respected researcher, for others it is owning a
<insert-brandname> car. For some people it is being a well
known "net.personality." Accusations of "such-a-person posts
so frequently just to get a measure of fame" are flung about
on different newsgroups from time to time (and frequently
are bogus). For some people success is signaled by being
seen to disagree, and hold ones, own with somebody who is
famous or a role model. I think this is approximately where
the idea of "I've been flamed by <...>. Success at last!" fits in.
Yes, it's silly. But then so is thinking about success in
some other ways such as owning a particular type of car or
winning the lottery.
>It is so easy to ignore -- especially with a little
>practice -- the manner of speech and get on to what's said.
A slight correction: it is easy for _some people_ to ignore
the (flaming) manner of speech and read the content hidden
within, but for others it is not so easy. In fact it can
often be extremely difficult which is one reason why I
think most threads with flames get out of control so easily
and sink into abuse with little or no content.
>Having so said, I don't propose to give up the fun of it, from
>time to time.
Agreed. I find it best if all concerned parties mutually
agree to have a no holds flame war with no attention paid to
the truth of what's being argued. Then people can say what
they want but have to be careful to avoid leaving themselves
open to counter flaming. There is a local newsgroup for this
sort of thing in tcd and it can be fun from time to time.
I think the danger lies in the rules, or lack of them,
not being understood by all beforehand; in that case it
usually ends up with one person wanting to have a civil
disagreement and someone else just wanting to flame. This
usually leaves unpleasant feelings around.
Ciaran.
--
Ciaran McHale "Verbosity says it all" ____
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. \ /
Telephone: +353-1-772941 ext 1538 FAX: +353-1-772204 \/
Telex: 93782 TCD EI email: cjmc...@cs.tcd.ie
Tezcatlipocateopixque
>... (read Jesse's articles for details of abuse )
Still no life, eh Gordon? It must be difficult for you, trying
so very hard to be so very White, and knowing you never can be.
Poor, clueless thing.
>... (more trash by Jesse)
>... (trash, etc.)
>... (more Jesse's garbage)
Trash, Gordon? Garbage? Oh, hardly. I was immensely enter-
tained. Not quite so much as I was, oh, about a year ago
when you spouted your clueless and useless drivel and were so
nicely charred, but almost, Gordon, almost.
After all, Gordon, you deserved it much more than Mr. Hucke. But
now you're back again to be our punching-bag. Last time, Gordon,
you begged for it, remember?
>been so low and degenerate.
Gordon, you are the last creature in the Universe that should be
calling anything else low or degenerate.
--
"If anyone could be considered to be tagging along, it is the white-middle-
class-conventional-conservative-monogamous-gay-men now benefitting from the
past and present efforts of those with less to lose." -- Dana Bergen
Tezcatlipocateopixque
->I guess I resent, no
->resent is not it, something in me doesn't like the
->implication that because I want to be in an exclusive
->relationship, I am conforming to propaganda.
Whoa. Something in you doesn't like your freely-chosen lifestyle
being open to criticism and inspection by others. Now, have you
changed your mind since last August, or do you only apply this
standard of privacy to yourself?
Last August. The Michigan Women's Music Festival, remember? And
you said:
>I can also see that from a feminist point of view, the
>motivation behind what makes s/m/b/d sexually exciting
>for women should be open to discussion and debate.
and:
>Because people find it sexually exciting or gratifying
>does not necessarily mean that it is psychologically
>healthy.
Ah. So again, either you have grown, or do you believe that
what turns others on should be open to discussion and debate,
excluding yourself?
->I don't understand this. Sorry. Are you saying that
->monogamy is oppressive?
No form of consensual slavery is oppressive.
But back to August:
>I know Clay, and others, will see this as drivel.
I did not; it is much more dangerous than drivel, when we ape the
heterosexual society around us (I believe before I said "social
norm") by being a bunch of queer Anita Bryants. With this last
little article, though, I'm wavering on "hypocritical."
Jess Anderson
In article <1991Mar2.1...@cs.tcd.ie>
cjmc...@cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>In <1991Feb28.1...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>I say again that I think there's a hypersensitivity to flames
>>in this newsgroup.
>I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that a lot
>of people here are easily offended/hurt at the first sign of
>being flamed?
Let me put it this way. I think (rightly or wrongly) that I
am crusty enough to take just about anything that would be
dished out. But even I notice what's being said about me.
Another reaction (not mine but maybe other peoples') might
be to be completely insulated against reaction. Yet another
is to have concluded a priori that flames are so stupid or
repellant or <name of defect> as genuinely not to merit an
iota of further consideration.
Though I have no way of knowing, I assume that most people
not already accounted for by the preceding to feel offended
or hurt if someone says something moderately awful about
them.
And this almost certainly does not account for everything.
But how and why one reacts to flames outwardly is yet
another complexity. Some people just laugh. Other people
explode. Some get determined in a sneaky way. Some decide:
that person just became my enemy. Others: I'll get 'em for
that, then we'll be friends again. Others: what will people
think of me? Others: I love being abused, lay on some more.
Others: <you name it>.
>If so I disagree with you (but I'm open to persuasion if you
>can back up your opinion).
Disagree with me at your own risk! :-) But I'm open to
persuasion whether you can back up your opinion or not. :-)
>I don't think it is necessariarly that people are _overly_
>sensitive to being flamed; I think people _should_ be hurt
>by flames. After all isn't that the intention of flaming?
Well, *is* it? To take a contrary tack, I would say that
it's a delusion to think you can hurt someone by flaming
them; as long as you don't overstep (even flames have
unspoken rules of conduct intent on preventing hate crimes).
The target person is always part of the equation and you
can never be sure how they will react.
The range of reactions is immense, conditioned by bezillion
factors the sender usually doesn't know about or have any
control over.
So no, I don't think people should be hurt by fames. Being
hurt is such an unrewarding thing, and when the connection
or medium is as tenuous and noncorporeal at this, I'd see
having hurt feelings as a sign that one has attached too
much reality to all this.
That does leave considerable room for other reactions, I
think.
>>There's even a kind of aura about flaming
>>such that some people don't feel they've really arrived unless
>>they've been flamed, so they actively court it. [Jess
>>thinks this is silly]
>Everybody has their own idea of what constitutes success.
Here, especially in the examples you go on to provide, we
get into the eternal follies of human beings. But it does
seem to me that just as soon as you conclude "this is so
silly no one would take it seriously" you run into something
that someone really *does* care about. Then there's trouble.
>For some people it is winning the lottery, for others it is
>becoming a household name through being a famous
>actor/actress, for some researchers it is becomming a well
>respected researcher, for others it is owning a
><insert-brandname> car.
The quest for fame strikes *me* as extraordinarily silly.
Others take it very seriously indeed, for reasons I only
dimly understand. Most of our net.specific forms of it
don't seem very serious to me.
>For some people it is being a well known "net.personality."
Gad.
>Accusations of "such-a-person posts so frequently just to
>get a measure of fame" are flung about on different
>newsgroups from time to time (and frequently are bogus).
I've been accused of a lot of things, but never that, for
some reason. My only reason for posting a lot is that I
post a lot. I don't need a motive, and I really don't think
I have one. I just do it when there's something to work
with. In the background of my psyche there doubtless are
many reasons, but I don't think I really care much about
what they are.
While we're on that subject, now and then people say
something like "oh wow, I'm catching up to him," and I
always see that as a highly questionable goal. While I
think a person ought to have a better goal than that, I
don't have one that's even that good, so I should be quiet
about it, I guess. The doing itself, that's my main goal,
as it seem to fit -- most of the time -- with reaching out
to other people in a variety of ways.
>For some people success is signaled by being seen to
>disagree, and hold ones' own with somebody who is famous or
>a role model.
Sometimes I wonder if I get potshots for that reason. If
that's what turns someone on, fine with me; at the present
state of the technology I'm not expecting a curare dart to
jump out of the tube and hit me in the forehead.
As for being famous or a role model, Einstein is famous, and
Einstein isn't on the net (though maybe a successor is,
somewhere). Einstein was an important role model to me when
I was younger -- still is, I guess -- but at least one thing
about his life has stayed with me. If you're going to be a
mathematician in his league, it's well to consider this: in
mathematics, if you're not famous by the time you're 25,
you're not gonna be. In music, it's very different; no one
can tell until you're 50 whether you have anything that
could be called great.
So Einstein is famous and a role model. Claudio Arrau is
famous and a role model. I ain't either of them (talk about
understatement!). So people looking to make a mark by
holding their own oughta be sure to pick a worthy opponent.
Sure wouldn't be me.
>I think this is approximately where the idea of "I've been
>flamed by <...>. Success at last!" fits in. Yes, it's silly.
Yeah, I suppose it is. But hey, if it works for someone and
opens up their life to good things, well then, why not?
>>It is so easy to ignore -- especially with a little
>>practice -- the manner of speech and get on to what's said.
>A slight correction: it is easy for _some people_ to ignore
>the (flaming) manner of speech and read the content hidden
>within, but for others it is not so easy.
You're right, of course.
>In fact it can often be extremely difficult which is one
>reason why I think most threads with flames get out of
>control so easily and sink into abuse with little or no
>content.
I think things get out of control (I don't really think
that's an appropriate way to see it) because the whole
endeavor lies outside the usual conventions of conversation.
And I think it's something of a mistake to say that flames
have less content than other modes, though I know a lot of
people look at it that way. I see it as *different*
content, but content nonetheless.
>>Having so said, I don't propose to give up the fun of it, from
>>time to time.
>Agreed. I find it best if all concerned parties mutually
>agree to have a no holds flame war with no attention paid to
>the truth of what's being argued.
Hey, not me. When I call someone a name, I think it's the
truth! :-)
>Then people can say what they want but have to be careful to
>avoid leaving themselves open to counter flaming.
I used to worry about that a little. Now I don't mind, and
don't spend much energy on being consistent. For me, it's
more like stand-up comedy than philosophy.
>I think the danger lies in the rules, or lack of them, not
>being understood by all beforehand; in that case it usually
>ends up with one person wanting to have a civil disagreement
>and someone else just wanting to flame. This usually leaves
>unpleasant feelings around.
I think that *by far* the most common reaction is
exasperation. The reason patience is the greatest virtue
is that it's the scarcest quality.
<> What is a friend? A single soul dwelling in two
<> bodies. -- Aristotle
John M. Allen
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Pennsylvania, Med School Computer Facility
Lines: 57
Jess originally wrote this in response to Nancy:
>>>A major thrust of my entire argument is that we serve
>>>ourselves better by resisting the blinding influences of the
>>>major patterns developed by a basically oppressive society.
In article <1991Mar2...@mscf.med.upenn.edu>
I wrote:
>>I agree that we must resist the blinding influences of an
>>oppressive society. This passage says that being monogamous
>>is conforming to propaganda implying that the way to resist
>>is by being polygamous. I would label this
>>"anti-conformity".
In article <1991Mar3....@macc.wisc.edu>,
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> Hm, that's not what I thought I was saying. I didn't mean
> to suggest that we should be nonmonogamous. I meant that
> whatever we choose, it's useful to get the propaganda
> blinders off first.
I think that your original statement only takes on the strong
anti-conformist interpretation when viewed as part of the
discourse with Nancy (which you deleted). To paraphrase, Nancy
asked if it was conforming to propaganda if you were likely to do
it anyhow. You replied that it was and that we needed to resist
the propaganda. This says that even if you have succeeded in
removing the blinders of propaganda, you are still conforming if
you are monogamous. Therefore the only way to resist the
propaganda is to be non-monogamous.
The point that I was trying to make is that it is not
conforming *IF* you have succeeded in removing the blinders of
propaganda. This raises the question of how you can tell if
someone who is monogamous has succeeded in removing the blinders
or not. The answer is *you* can't. Only the person knows
whether they have seriously considered the question of monogamy
or not.
On the other hand, I think that there are some ways that
people still wearing the blinders show their blindness. This
mostly shows up as evangelism for the cause such as the people
who claim that anyone who is monogamous is "aping heterosexual
society".
<> Do not say, "I follow the one true path of the Spirit,"
<> but rather, "I have found the Spirit walking on my path,"
<> for the Spirit walks on all paths. -- Khalil Gibran
Jess Anderson
In article <1991Mar3...@mscf.med.upenn.edu> John Allen
writes:
[Your postings always have munged headers; why is that?]
For some reason, you have based the entire thread on a
misquote or misunderstanding:
>>I didn't mean
>>to suggest that we should be nonmonogamous. I meant that
>>whatever we choose, it's useful to get the propaganda
>>blinders off first.
>To paraphrase, Nancy asked if it was conforming to
>propaganda if you were likely to do it anyhow. You replied
>that it was and that we needed to resist the propaganda.
I think I replied that it was *not* and we need to resist
the propaganda.
>The point that I was trying to make is that it is not
>conforming *IF* you have succeeded in removing the blinders
>of propaganda.
This is not logical, now that I think about it again. It's
still conforming, but it's of no important consequence. And
neither is this exchange.
Your main point seems to be this one:
>On the other hand, I think that there are some ways that
>people still wearing the blinders show their blindness.
>This mostly shows up as evangelism for the cause such as the
>people who claim that anyone who is monogamous is "aping
>heterosexual society".
Straw person, through and through. The fact is, no one is
that kind of evangelist, however much you might like to
think so. No one makes that claim. Some people think the
question of whether one is aping straight norms should be
addressed, after which you're free to do whatever you like.
You're free to do whatever you like anyway. But telling
others you have The Secret will get you crisped for sure.
><> Do not say, "I follow the one true path of the Spirit,"
><> but rather, "I have found the Spirit walking on my path,"
><> for the Spirit walks on all paths. -- Khalil Gibran
Let me match you Sufi for Sufi :-)
<> What you give comes back in the same form. If you plant
<> barley, don't expect to harvest wheat. -- Rumi
John Passaniti
> No, I read his post several times, and understand
> completely. I have seen this happen several times
> recently: Someone asks a question which offends
> your precious sensibilities (such as: weak
> father->gay, which book, etc) and is immediately
> accused of being straight (more on that later, it seems
> you're trying that too) or not fully committed to
> being queer.
Gee, I don't think Jess is fully comfortable with his
sexuality, and that his "accusation" of you being straight
is some kind of projected rejection of his own internalized
homophobia. I see it as a cry for help.
;^)
> >What, you think I don't have any learned colleagues?
> >You seem to have found the caps-lock key ...
>
> Notice here how Jess evades my point completely,
> commenting only on my writing style and capslock use.
Nothing terribly unusual, or at least unexpected.
It's always easier to evade the issue and find fault with
something trivial than to address the issue, and defend
your views. Jess doesn't always take the path of least
resistance, but he is lately.
> >>This was the whole point of Mr. Passaniti's post: that
> >>the average soc.motss'er doesn't want his opinions
> >>challenged about anything. That he was flamed when he
> >>suggested monogamy, the '3 books' poster was flamed
> >>for daring to think there could be a reason for
> >>homosexuality, and others.
I must say, by the way, that I'm glad someone got my
point. I don't think however they are limited to
soc.motss-- it happens in the Real World too. My favorite
story is about a drag kween locally who shrieked in terror
when I suggested the money that was being spent at a local
gay bar's drag show prizes could be better spent setting up
a local chapter of Project Ten (a gay youth organization
I've been trying to drum-up interest in locally).
I was internally homophobic (at least according to a
couple people) for even suggesting it. Bizarre, huh? It's
typical-- go against the grain, and you'll get friction.
> If Passaniti's article was not about the close-
> mindedness of some motss'er, what was it? It seems
> you missed his point completely.
It isn't so much that he (and others) missed the
point. What's more important is the manner in which most
have replied. I was particularly amused by the elementary
school level permuations on "Passaniti." "Piss" hasn't been
prepended to my name since at least sixth grade.
> How did you ever get into a university with handicaps
> like that?
There are all kinds of scholarships he could have applied for.
--
John Passaniti - via FidoNet node 1:260/230
UUCP: {smart-host}!ur-valhalla!rochgte!201!John.Passaniti
INTERNET: John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Steve Dyer
>My favorite story is about a drag kween locally who shrieked in terror when I
>suggested the money that was being spent at a local gay bar's drag show prizes
>could be better spent setting up a local chapter of Project Ten (a gay youth
>organization I've been trying to drum-up interest in locally). I was
>internally homophobic (at least according to a couple people) for even
>suggesting it. Bizarre, huh? It's typical-- go against the grain, and
>you'll get friction.
There is the beginning of wisdom buried in this paragraph; maybe one of these
days it will penetrate. Hint: this people were trying to break it to you
gently by calling you "internally homophobic" rather than a "prick". The
reaction to your suggestion had nothing to do with politics. It's a pity
they weren't more precise; you seem to have come away with the wrong lesson.
George Madison
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) drizzles:
>
[An incredible amount of quoted material excised]
>Jesse had not a single line of meaningful discourse, only personal attacks,
>name-callings, and senseless ridicules. Whoever began the name-calling
>and verbal abuses is guilty. (I don't think it's Matt.) Jesse, if your
>lines were even remotely serious discussions of issues, they wouldn't have
>been so low and degenerate.
Neither you nor Matt Hucke were present during Mr. Pissesneatly's droning on
and on about the incredible virtues of monogamy, and how those of us who
rejected it were, shall we say, less than acceptable. For this incredibly
inane position, he was rightfully barbecued. He's still whining about it, and
people like you and Hucke who have not the foggiest notion what is going on
are making yourselves out as idiots jumping to his defense.
Oh, and by the way -- you might want to work harder on getting the names of
the people you're flaming correct.
[ George Madison, a/k/a George The Bear, a/k/a Furr 8-{)] ** BEAR POWER! ** ]
[fu...@pnet12.cts.com |NBCS:B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv PIG 8/7| ucsd!serene!pnet12!furr]
[> GEnie: GEORGE.M | Ursinophiles And Barbophiles Unite! | PLink: BEARDLOVER <]
"Ignorant dickheadism seems to be catching on big-time."
--- Eric Holeman
Donn Pedro
: In article <1991Mar1.0...@macc.wisc.edu>, ande...@macc.wisc.edu
: (Jess Anderson) writes:
:
: |> What I object to -- vehemently -- is the suggestion, loudly
: |> proclaimed by John and Phil some months ago, and very softly
: |> proclaimed by you just now (as I read it), that monogamy is
: |> in some way inherently superior to its opposite, based on
: |> the slender evidence of your own preferences.
:
: From your previous text it seemed that you had not yet experienced
: what these people are referring to as monogamy (correct me if I am
: wrong, but you talked about several relationships that spanned 32
: years with varying degrees of non-monogamous behaviour occurring
: you have not experienced it?
Are you saying he hasn't. How can you question he has?
I think it depends on *your* definition of monogamy.
Are you talking about average, white, straight, America monogamy?
Are we, people like Jess and I, interested in that kind of monogamy?
: I contend that you can say, "I haven't
: felt any significant lack in my life for not having a monogamous
: relationship which I expect to last until death." and I also would
: think that you must allow that you may at some point discover a
: relationship which is wholly satisfying to you and that you will
: remain "faithful(?)" to for the rest of your life, but that it
: hasn't yet happened.
Just when has someone reached the point where you consider them
to have experienced monogamy? I really want to know.
If someone stays in a realtionship N number of years, and then
decides it is not for them, then they didn't "stick with it"
and therefore haven't experienced true monogamy?
: On the other side of the coin, it may be that those who find some
: value in monogamy experience a need that is not universally
: present in all people.
Possible. We are all different.
:They experience this need and therefore
: find monogamy to be a worthwhile goal since it answers this need.
Then I am happy for them. I will seek my own version of monogamy.
And it will be the type of relationship that works for *me*.
: You do not have this need and therefore feel no drive to achieve
: monogamy in a relationship.
Again I ask. How are you sure that Jess and you have the same definition
of monogamy?
: |> How long one is together with one's partner is another
: |> prejudice of the same sort. To mention the length of time
: |> you've been with your current partner carries with it the
: |> implication that there's something at least a little better
: |> about your life than the lives of people who for some reason
: |> (any reason, whatever reason) have lived differently.
Bravo. Nail. Head. BANG!
: Let me restate this a different way to see if I can give a
: different perspective:
: To someone who sees a monogamous relationship as desireable
: (and given that it takes effort to maintain a relationship)
: a lengthy relationship is something to be proud of.
Why? Is length the primary measurement of the success of
a relationship? Ask all the unhappy, unfulfilled married
couples that held unhappy realtionships together because
of "the kids", "the church", "what would the neighbors think".
: But, to
: mention it as if it were some credential (other than to provide
: information as to personal perspective) assumes that the listener
: considers it a valuable commodity. If the listener does not
: value monogamy, the boast falls on deaf ears.
If the listener does not value your definition of monogamy.
: |> It is a fact that some people for their own (or whatever)
: |> reasons do not have (or have not had) relationships lasting
: |> many years. It's a fact that some people for their own (or
: |> whatever) reasons do not have (or have not had) monogamous
: |> relationships. Neither of these facts in *any* way
: |> justifies a kind of smug superiority witnessed here in
: |> various ways over the years coming from people who live
: |> their lives differently.
:
: Certainly, at best, these people do not share the same values
: and acheive the same level of happiness without monogamy.
What? Did you just say that you cannot be as happy unless
you live by, what seems to be, your definition of monogamy?
: Or,
: they do have the same needs/values, but they are unlucky in
: that they have not yet found a relationship that works for them
: (but they are not inferior in any way). At worst, there is the
: possibility that monogamy can enhance their lives, but they lack
: the drive to make a relationship work for a significant time.
Maybe they don't want such a relationship.
: |> There's a large political issue here, of course (isn't there
: |> always?). The oppressors say we're promiscuous. They say
: |> we're *incapable* for forming stable, long-lasting,
: |> committed, satisfying, fulfilled relationships.
:
: I would contend that they don't have the perspective to
: understand how fulfilling a non-monogamous life can be
: because they themselves value monogamy.
Then they should not judge what they do not understand.
:
: |> What I think is this: Think about it, I say. Wake up to
: |> what *you* are, and let others do the same. If you want to
: |> help them wake up, do that, but make sure that's all you're
: |> doing.
:
: But is it not possible that someone believes that they have
: "woken up" to themselves when in fact, they still don't see
: the whole picture?
I would say that judgement is entirely up to them, because it
is thier life they are living.
: A monogamist may look at someone who says "I have awakened
: and I see that I do not need monogamy" as a person who still
: doesn't understand what monogamy is and would be enriched to
: have this understanding.
And judge the other person wrongly. As I asked earlier; by leaving
monogamy, does that disqualify the experience? Does it mean we
didn't understand true monogamy?
: A non-monogamist may look at someone who says "I have awakened
: and I see that I need monogamy, but I cannot find it, therefore
: I must search for it or I will not achieve full happiness" as
: a person who has been enslaved by the ideals of others.
They may. and they are, in my opinion, just as wrong in judging
as the monogmous person who judged thier lifestyle.
: How can either tell if they are right?
If they are happy.
: How can the two
: individuals know if they have truly awakened?
If they are happy.
: Oops... I think I'm lost... I guess what I was heading towards
: was what I started out with. Are you sure you fully understand
: what monogamy is and all that it entails?
Are you sure you can tell me what it is, and how the definition
you use applies to me?
dfp...@uswnvg.UUCP
Matt Hucke
>
>Neither you nor Matt Hucke were present during Mr. Pissesneatly's droning on
>and on about the incredible virtues of monogamy, and how those of us who
>rejected it were, shall we say, less than acceptable. For this incredibly
>inane position, he was rightfully barbecued. He's still whining about it, and
>people like you and Hucke who have not the foggiest notion what is going on
>are making yourselves out as idiots jumping to his defense.
I posted earlier on this, once I was informed of what really happened in the
monogamy thread. As I said then, my objection to the intolerance here
applies to several threads, and I no longer include the monogamy issue. I
defend the people who were attacked for haveing non-PC thoughts and
stating them, although I agree with you that someone who is too forceful
and aggressive should be 'barbecued'.
Owen Rowley
= (Jess Anderson) writes:
=
= |> What I object to -- vehemently -- is the suggestion, loudly
= |> proclaimed by John and Phil some months ago, and very softly
= |> proclaimed by you just now (as I read it), that monogamy is
= |> in some way inherently superior to its opposite, based on
= |> the slender evidence of your own preferences.
=
= From your previous text it seemed that you had not yet experienced
= what these people are referring to as monogamy (correct me if I am
= wrong, but you talked about several relationships that spanned 32
= years with varying degrees of non-monogamous behaviour occurring
= during that period). How can you say that it is not superior if
= you have not experienced it?
Perhaps Jess might have explicitly included the words * for all of us*
at the end of his phrase " inherently superior to its opposite "
I think that the relative benefits of monogamy, and indeed, what
constitutes monogamy, is an individual thing.
By pointing out the Johnandphil position as espousing :-)
monogamy as "inherently superior, I am immediately made aware that
the position does not fit into my world-view at ALL!
= I contend that you can say, "I haven't
= felt any significant lack in my life for not having a monogamous
= relationship which I expect to last until death." and I also would
= think that you must allow that you may at some point discover a
= relationship which is wholly satisfying to you and that you will
= remain "faithful(?)" to for the rest of your life, but that it
= hasn't yet happened.
Ahem..
Monogamous relationships that last ( monogamously) till death are
extremely rare, and many that may appear to be so on the surface often
turn out to be something else on closer examination.
No offense Jim, but your words sound like a fairy-tale romance rather
than real-life inter-personal relationships.
I suspect that chasing this rainbow of the one true right and only till
death do us part partner is something that one gains a better persective of
as one matures.
= On the other side of the coin, it may be that those who find some
= value in monogamy experience a need that is not universally
= present in all people. They experience this need and therefore
= find monogamy to be a worthwhile goal since it answers this need.
= You do not have this need and therefore feel no drive to achieve
= monogamy in a relationship.
But the Johnandphil unit have been quite obnoxious in loudly proclaiming
that those who do not follow their model, are deluded, terminally
lonely and wrong. Since you can at least imagine this alternative view you
show yourself to be beyond their limited scope, and frankly they don't
deserve the support of your tendency to be reasonable.
= |> How long one is together with one's partner is another
= |> prejudice of the same sort. To mention the length of time
= |> you've been with your current partner carries with it the
= |> implication that there's something at least a little better
= |> about your life than the lives of people who for some reason
= |> (any reason, whatever reason) have lived differently.
=
= Let me restate this a different way to see if I can give a
= different perspective:
= To someone who sees a monogamous relationship as desireable
= (and given that it takes effort to maintain a relationship)
= a lengthy relationship is something to be proud of.
Until it becomes a ball and chain, and you would trade your pride
for a few hours of shamefull lust with a stranger :-)
= But to mention it as if it were some credential (other than to provide
= information as to personal perspective) assumes that the listener
= considers it a valuable commodity. If the listener does not
= value monogamy, the boast falls on deaf ears. If the listener
= has no reason to value monogamy other than that society projects
= this attitude, then the boast inflicts self-doubt for no reason.
I don't follow this last bit.. but what you are describing is inflexibility
and a tendency to project ones own ideals on others..
this is called facsism when its done by governments!
= |> The only exception I can think of (it has just happened in a
= |> posting by Steve Dyer) is to directly rebut the conclusion
= |> of one set of numbers and conditions with a different set of
= |> numbers and different conditions.
=
= But you would also have to show that these other "statistics"
= are acheiving the same level of happiness. Certainly, I am
= not suggesting that they are unhappy, but they must be "as
= happy (a rather nebulous concept)" in order for the exception
= to be valid.
"Same level of happiness"? "valid"?
These concepts are just too relative to be weighed and categporized, even
in the nebulous context you've offered.
= |> It is a fact that some people for their own (or whatever)
= |> reasons do not have (or have not had) relationships lasting
= |> many years. It's a fact that some people for their own (or
= |> whatever) reasons do not have (or have not had) monogamous
= |> relationships. Neither of these facts in *any* way
= |> justifies a kind of smug superiority witnessed here in
= |> various ways over the years coming from people who live
= |> their lives differently.
=
= Certainly, at best, these people do not share the same values
= and acheive the same level of happiness without monogamy. Or,
= they do have the same needs/values, but they are unlucky in
= that they have not yet found a relationship that works for them
= (but they are not inferior in any way).
arrrggghh..
Jim... You are assuming that everyone *wants* to find that relationship!
you are assuming that only relationship brings happiness, you are
assuming that the nebulous quantity *luck* has something to do with all of
this.
You are correct that there is no inferiority, there is only difference.
= At worst, there is the
= possibility that monogamy can enhance their lives, but they lack
= the drive to make a relationship work for a significant time.
= It is important not to assume that someone who lacks a monogamous
= relationship falls into this last category, but also it is
= important not to deny that there are people who do fit into
= this category. I'm not sure what good expounding upon the
= virtues of monogamy will do them, however.
oh dear.. You haven't discovered yet why Love is sometimes called the
"tender trap" :-)
= |> There's a large political issue here, of course (isn't there
= |> always?). The oppressors say we're promiscuous. They say
= |> we're *incapable* for forming stable, long-lasting,
= |> committed, satisfying, fulfilled relationships.
=
= I would contend that they don't have the perspective to
= understand how fulfilling a non-monogamous life can be
= because they themselves value monogamy. I don't know why
= I'm explaining this, it's still a problem, but stated from
= a different point of view(?)
Many tried to explain it to Johnandphil, most of the rest of us got it,
by the tone of recent articles, I suspect they didn't.
= I guess I have been saying "Oh, but some people do value monogamy."
= but I am trying to see and present an accurate picture of both
= sides, rather than trying to mitigate what you've said. I'm
= presenting what I think goes through the minds of people on both
= sides of this issue so that I can grasp the whole issue better...
becarefull , sometimes when wearing other peoples viewpoints, you wind up
inheriting their values and prejudices. ( you programmers should understand
the problems that come with muliple inheritance :-)
= |> What I think is this: Think about it, I say. Wake up to
= |> what *you* are, and let others do the same. If you want to
= |> help them wake up, do that, but make sure that's all you're
= |> doing.
=
= But is it not possible that someone believes that they have
= "woken up" to themselves when in fact, they still don't see
= the whole picture?
Jess has offered very wise advice here, and yes you'll hopefully encounter
more than one singular awakening, nobody said being an intelligent
and thoughtfull human being was gonna be easy.
= A monogamist may look at someone who says "I have awakened
= and I see that I do not need monogamy" as a person who still
= doesn't understand what monogamy is and would be enriched to
= have this understanding.
=
= A non-monogamist may look at someone who says "I have awakened
= and I see that I need monogamy, but I cannot find it, therefore
= I must search for it or I will not achieve full happiness" as
= a person who has been enslaved by the ideals of others.
=
= How can either tell if they are right? How can the two
= individuals know if they have truly awakened?
yes.
= Oops... I think I'm lost... I guess what I was heading towards
= was what I started out with. Are you sure you fully understand
= what monogamy is and all that it entails? I guess I can define
= it, but I am not at all sure what it "feels" like. This may be
= because it is a myth, or it may be because I haven't opened my
= eyes in the right way. But I'm not going to spend my life.
We all do the best we can.
LUX .. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,pyramid,sun}!autodesk!owen
---Get Out Of HELL Free--- The bearer of this card is permitted to forgive
Himself for all *Sins* Errors and Transgressions.
Steven Schwartz
phys...@garnet.berkeley.edu writes:
[deleted - exchanges of debatable merit between Jess and Matt]
>
>... (read Jesse's articles for details of abuse )
>
>... (more trash by Jesse)
>
>... (trash, etc.)
>
>... (more Jesse's garbage)
>
>Jesse had not a single line of meaningful discourse, only personal attacks,
>name-callings, and senseless ridicules. Whoever began the name-calling
>and verbal abuses is guilty. (I don't think it's Matt.) Jesse, if your
>lines were even remotely serious discussions of issues, they wouldn't have
>been so low and degenerate.
>
Ye Gordon Ye UCB, hear now the pronouncement regarding the Holy Bandwidth.
Thou hast used 84 lines to state "garbage" repeatedly in different fashions,
showing great disrespect for the Holy Bandwidth.
I will not comment further on your reply, since your own last paragraph,
after the operation of (replace (jess)(Gordon Ye)) sums whatever
I would say up perfectly.
--
Steven Schwartz se...@midway.uchicago.edu B5 f- w(+) g- K+ m e r- p!
"If they don't see you when you are there, they won't notice
when you leave -- or are taken." Martin Niemoller.
John M. Allen
I write about being monogamous:
>>The point that I was trying to make is that it is not
>>conforming *IF* you have succeeded in removing the blinders
>>of propaganda.
> This is not logical, now that I think about it again. It's
> still conforming, but it's of no important consequence.
I think that the misunderstanding comes from the fact that you
are trying to define conformity objectively and I am trying to
define it subjectively. You are saying that conformity can be
determined by looking only at how a person behaves and I am
saying that conformity can be determined only by taking into
account the reasoning, if any, behind the behavior.
To illustrate, assume that we have three people: C is a
conformist, N is a non-conformist who happens to be monogamous, A
is an anti-conformist. In a society that valued monagamy, C
would be monogamous, N would be monogamous, and A would be
non-monogamous. In a society that valued non-monogamy, C would
be non-monogamous, N would be monogamous, and A would be
monogamous. N remains monogamous no matter what society values
because their (sg.) decision was not based on society's values
but their own. I am arguing that non-conformity is basing your
decisions on your own values rather than the values of society.
Conformity then would involve basing your decisions on society's
values. I do not feel that I am conforming by being monogamous
because I did not base my decision on society's values.
>>On the other hand, I think that there are some ways that
>>people still wearing the blinders show their blindness.
>>This mostly shows up as evangelism for the cause such as the
>>people who claim that anyone who is monogamous is "aping
>>heterosexual society".
>
> Straw person, through and through. The fact is, no one is
> that kind of evangelist, however much you might like to
> think so. No one makes that claim.
Just because you have not experienced them does not mean that
they do not exist. I do think that this kind of evangelism is
rarer on this issue than on some others. I think that much of
the discrimination against bisexuals in the gay community comes
from this type of evangelism. Some gays see bisexuals as
conforming to heterosexual society if they happen to be in a
heterosexual relationship. I know that this is not always the
case and probably isn't even often the case. I think that most
bisexuals have struggled long and hard to reach the decisions
that they have. Just being in a heterosexual relationship
doesn't negate that struggle. Allowing non-conformity to be
defined subjectively means that a bisexual person can be in a
heterosexual relationship without conforming.
Nancy Fox
>>In article <23...@calmasd.Prime.COM> n...@calmasd.Prime.COM (Nancy Fox) writes:
>
>->I guess I resent, no
>->resent is not it, something in me doesn't like the
>->implication that because I want to be in an exclusive
>->relationship, I am conforming to propaganda.
>
>Whoa. Something in you doesn't like your freely-chosen lifestyle
>being open to criticism and inspection by others. Now, have you
>changed your mind since last August, or do you only apply this
>standard of privacy to yourself?
My we have a long memory. No, Clay, I think on the contrary I
was opening my relationship up to criticism and inspection.
What I meant was that I was responding to my reaction to
Jess' comments. As I said, I have always thought of myself
to be somewhat outside the norms of society, and so to think
of myself as conforming made me feel uncomfortable. That
in turn brought me to consider the possibility that one
could choose a lifestyle, and if it is freely chosen, and
not blindly followed, then is it conforming? For instance,
when Judy first married as a young woman, she did so without
much thought as to whether or not it was something she wanted.
There were no long discussions with her fiance as to what kind
of relationship they would have. They got married. He as the
husband, she was the wife. She cooked, he took out the garbage.
That kind of blind 50's marriage.
When we entered into our relationship, this was a great deal of
discussion about what kind of relationship we each wanted. Monogamy
was one of the issues that was discussed in great length. So
was how we would handle money, and how we would deal with raising the
children. So are those two relationships the same kind of monogamous
relationships? Because in the end we chose monogamy for us, does
that mean we fell for the propaganda? I honestly don't know for
sure. And I opened that up for discussion with Jess, because I
think it's an interesting question.
>Last August. The Michigan Women's Music Festival, remember? And
>you said:
>
> >I can also see that from a feminist point of view, the
> >motivation behind what makes s/m/b/d sexually exciting
> >for women should be open to discussion and debate.
>
>and:
>
> >Because people find it sexually exciting or gratifying
> >does not necessarily mean that it is psychologically
> >healthy.
>
>Ah. So again, either you have grown, or do you believe that
>what turns others on should be open to discussion and debate,
>excluding yourself?
>
As I said, I don't agree with you that my feelings about
my relationship are not open to debate. And Clay, I never
said that I think S/M/B/D are in and of themselves wrong.
What I thought I was saying is that I am unsure. And I
am unsure. I know that some people freely choose this
lifestyle. I have a much better understanding of it now
than I did last year, due in great part to your discussion
of it. But my uncomfortableness about has not gone away. That
only means that for me, I would not now choose it, and that I
still have problems with the concept of power and submission
in a sexual context. So we can debate and discuss. I am
always open to debate and discussion. I really don't understand
why you accuse me otherwise, just because we don't agree.
>But back to August:
>
> >I know Clay, and others, will see this as drivel.
>
>I did not; it is much more dangerous than drivel, when we ape the
>heterosexual society around us (I believe before I said "social
>norm") by being a bunch of queer Anita Bryants. With this last
>little article, though, I'm wavering on "hypocritical."
I think I've pretty much already discussed this. I would hardly
call myself a queer Anita Bryant. And I fail to see in what
way you can say I'm being hypocritical because I wonder if
S/M/B/D are freely chosen or if they are psychologically
unhealthy, and if I wonder if it is possible to freely choose
to be monogamous or if it is only chosen because one is
psychologically unhealthy. I think they're both interesting
discussions. I fail to see Clay, where I have attempted to
thwart the discussion of either, or where I have attempted
to impose my views on anyone else. I thought we were having
a discussion.
Nancy
Matt Hucke
>In article <1991Mar1.2...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>
>How come you didn't vote Libertarian?
>
Simply because the Libertatians have no chance of winning.
Although I agree with the viewpoints of the Lib. party, another vote would
not make a difference. If the voting is 49% Republican, 49% Democratic, and
2 % Libertarian, I would much rather have a Democrat in office. Adding to
that 2% is useless.
Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
>In <1991Feb28.1...@macc.wisc.edu> ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>>I say again that I think there's a hypersensitivity to flames
>>in this newsgroup.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that a lot
>of people here are easily offended/hurt at the first sign of
>persuasion if you can back up your opinion). I don't think
>it is necessariarly that people are _overly_ sensitive to
>being flamed; I think people _should_ be hurt by flames.
>After all isn't that the intention of flaming?
I have found thaty if I laugh with the people who flame me and agree
that whatever staement I made was assinine, we can come to a better
understanding. Now I don't do this unless I think tyhat I truly
said something stupid. But I do this often enough.
There are two sorts of diaglogues here -- at least as i distinguish.
The sort where one or more parties truly want to know what the other person
or persons they disagree with mean, want, and desire. And the sort where
you do not give a damn what the other person wants at all, yu just want
to prove him or her wrong.
Different problems.
Laura
Roger B.A. Klorese
>right and best for us. We were both working, going to school
>and raising two children, one of whom was, shall we say, a
>challenge. Who could possibly have time or energy for an
>additional relationship anyway? We barely had time for us.
>And it was our choice for us that what time and energy we
>had would be spent on us, and not divided with outside
>relationships. Is that so wrong :-)
No, not at all. But it seems to me that this is a choice you make for
yourself, Nancy, and Judy makes for herself. I do not understand the
commitment to another of monogamy. If you choose not to have sexual or
romantic relationships with others, you control your own life, and you
do it for yourself. If you expect another to commit this to you, you
are taking away their free will to make this decision, it seems to me.
I'm not attacking your choice to be monogamous; I understand two people
each choosing to be monogamous with the other in a relationship, but
I don't understand the desire for a "monogamous relationship."
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
MS 6-05 930 DeGuigne Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94088 +1 408 524-7421
rog...@mips.COM {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rogerk "I'm the NLA"
"WAR: been there, done that... hated it." -- QueerPeace/DAGGER chant
Stephen ARRANTS
| John is bad for telling others how to live (saying they should
| be monogamous).
No, John is "bad" for bleeting that monogamy is the only way to live
and that being non-monogamous is wrong, sick, immature, etc.
| But it's fine and dandy for others to tell John how to live (saying
| he shouldn't call Phil his husband).
I don't see it as folks telling him how to live; rather they're
reacting to his dogmatic view of relationships and his insistance that
if it ain't monogamy, it ain't a real relationship.
| Oh. I get it. This apparent double-standard is really OK, because
| John is clearly WRONG.
Seems to me that John *is* wrong. Mongamy is viable and workable for
some people; for others it isn't (for a variety of reasons motss'ers
much better at debating this issue have already said -- both this year
and back when John first started the monogamy thread).
| Interestingly, by calling his Phil his "husband", John has committed
| the grave sin of yielding to heterosexist conditioning. The relationship
| would be perfectly OK, though, if he'd just have the common queer decency
| to call Phil his lover, domestic partner, partner-for-life, or significant
| other. A rose by any other name, it would seem, does not smell so sweet.
"Husband" is a loaded word, though, especially when you take into
account John's whole view on the subject.
Had he not been so dogmatic and reactionary(?) on the whole subject,
it might have been a good thread/discussion. It's an interesting
subject (well, at least to me), the whole issue of how to deal with
applying "straight" models to our relationships. How to deal with
forming and living in a relationship, what model to use (or not to use
any), how have folks in relationships dealt with the issues of
monogamy/non-monogamy, etc. I'm involved with someone and for us this
has been a very hot issue. Yes, we're "committed" to each other, yes,
we're having some troubles/tough times dealing with the issue of
monogamy. I mean, if one or both of us attend a BearHug, are we not
mongamous if we play with other Bears? Are we mongamous if we play
with other Bears TOGETHER? Does it matter? How do we deal with the
feelings of jealousy and the like?
Rather than being told that I'm an immature shit for even questioning
monogamy, I'd rather the discussion involved how other motss'ers have
addressed this in their own relationships. The only relationships
most of us have seen (and might use as models) involved our parents or
siblings or friends -- all straight -- where monogamy is *THE* way.
It's tough for us (Behr and me) to work through a different model.
Non-monogamy in our culture seems to mean that a relationship isn't
"real." But from listening to folks here and there, it's been shown
to me that that's not true. That there's not way of life, only lives,
and we don't have to model ourselves on things that don't work.
Mick Washbrook
>
> Although I agree with the viewpoints of the Lib. party, another vote would
> not make a difference. If the voting is 49% Republican, 49% Democratic, and
> 2 % Libertarian, I would much rather have a Democrat in office. Adding to
> that 2% is useless.
And using this logic, you will GUARANTEE that the Libertarian Party will
never get more than 2% of the vote. Granted, 2% may be a drop in the ocean,
but is that any reason not to drop it?
--
Mick Washbrooke mi...@autodesk.com
otium cum dignitate
Owen Rowley
>I voted exclusively Democratic last year, am a member of the local Libertarian
>Party, <many other non-Republican things>
And Laura responds:
> >How come you didn't vote Libertarian?
> Simply because the Libertatians have no chance of winning.
and they never will if all the Libertarians vote for Democrats!
> Although I agree with the viewpoints of the Lib. party, another vote would
> not make a difference. If the voting is 49% Republican, 49% Democratic, and
> 2 % Libertarian, I would much rather have a Democrat in office. Adding to
> that 2% is useless.
Now i'd like to ask you a few simple questions?
You say you are a memeber of the local libertarian party?
does this mean you just go to the local libertarians partys or what!
I'm registered in the state of California as a Libertarian, I've sent the
National Libertarian party my donation, and carry my membership card,
and I vote Libertarian when offered the choice!
I am unfamiliar with any type of local Libertarian party structures?
Does Wisconsin have such a beast?
From what I've seen the Liberatrian pparty and its candidates are the only
ones which consistently say the things I want to hear from politicians,
this is why I've taken the stand I do. From my perspective, mainstream
party officials occasionally meet enough of my criterea to earn my vote,
but when faced with two candidtaes that are well below the minimum
libertarian status I crave, I refuse to add my energy or vote to help 'em
reach power.
You say that voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning is
useless, don't you see that voting for the mainstream candidate who does
not reflect your view as well as the Liobertarian is actually the
"useless" vote? How do you expect politicians to know how many libertarian
thinking voters there are unless you cast your vote with your conscience?
Try to understand that it has not been democrats and republicans for all
time back to the beginning of the political process in this country.
Partys have come and gone... In fact the Democratic party may well be on
its way out now.. ( some of us fondly hope!)
I don't say that the Libertarian party is the best of all worlds, just that
it is the only party in our system that stands firmly on the principle
that we should be able to lead our lives according the principles of
"Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Being a radical hedonist, thats good enough for me.
Tezcatlipocateopixque
>And using this logic, you will GUARANTEE that the Libertarian Party will
>never get more than 2% of the vote. Granted, 2% may be a drop in the ocean,
>but is that any reason not to drop it?
There are two inherent problems with libertarianism: it assumes
that people are responsible and intelligent -- an unintelligent
assumption in itself -- and it supports the "rights" of those in
power to deny it to others by discrimination.
I would sooner vote for Helms than a libertarian.
--
"In America only the successful writer is important, in France all writers are
important, in England no writer is important, and in Australia you have to
explain what a writer is." -- Geoffrey Cotterell
Owen Rowley
> If you choose not to have sexual or
> romantic relationships with others, you control your own life, and you
> do it for yourself. If you expect another to commit this to you, you
> are taking away their free will to make this decision, it seems to me.
Yes.. it is this aspect of monogamy that is most frightening to those who
*want* only monogamy.
> I'm not attacking your choice to be monogamous; I understand two people
> each choosing to be monogamous with the other in a relationship, but
> I don't understand the desire for a "monogamous relationship."
Monogamy, when it is spontaneous is wonderfull, when it is merely expected
it is a booby trap.
The desire for "a monogamous relationship" with some as yet to be
determined person is a cultural/social effect. So many are just plain
trained to want this. Some are just convinced that society will think
better of them when they are in monogamous relationships.
Some think monogamy will save them from the plague...
Also there is the sex/love dichotomy.
We have opened ourselves to outside sexual relationships, and each of us
approaches how sexual we will be with *friends* differently, but we
both expect our "Love" relationship to be monogamous .
I can only speak for myself, but I always make it clear right from the
first contact with others that I am not looking for another love
relationship, and have no intention of allowing sex play to develop into
anything *more*. Often this breaks the contact on the spot.. thats life!
( you should see some of the ones who've got away :-)
I am truley fortunate, because no matter what happens when I go out
cruising, I know that the man I love and live with interests me more than
every one I've seen so far anyway, so I don't really have
a handle on what its like for single folk in the same situation.
I spent a lot of years trying to conform to strayt societys ideals, and i
was ina strayt marriage for 6 years, perhaps I am just culturally trained
to be in partnerships rather than live alone.
Michael Siemon
>In article <1991Mar7.0...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
>>I voted exclusively Democratic last year...
>And Laura responds:
>> >How come you didn't vote Libertarian?
>> Simply because the Libertatians have no chance of winning.
>and they never will if all the Libertarians vote for Democrats!
Yes. I think it is a wonderful illustration of divine providence
that Libertarians are (with some exceptions, of course) far less
intelligent (especially with regard to ordinary human affairs) than
they generally think themselves to be.
[sorry; I know this is snerpy, but I couldn't resist. My opinion
here corresponds quite remarkably closely with Clay's.]
--
Michael L. Siemon "The watchwords of creativity are
m.si...@ATT.COM slopiness, poor fit, quirky design
- or - and above all else, redundancy."
panix!m...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU -- Stephen J. Gould
Matt Hucke
owen()
{
You say that voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning is
useless, don't you see that voting for the mainstream candidate who does
not reflect your view as well as the Liobertarian is actually the
"useless" vote? How do you expect politicians to know how many libertarian
thinking voters there are unless you cast your vote with your conscience?
Try to understand that it has not been democrats and republicans for all
time back to the beginning of the political process in this country.
Partys have come and gone... In fact the Democratic party may well be on
its way out now.. ( some of us fondly hope!)
I don't say that the Libertarian party is the best of all worlds, just that
it is the only party in our system that stands firmly on the principle
that we should be able to lead our lives according the principles of
"Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Being a radical hedonist, thats good enough for me.
}
me()
{
Division of that nature would only make the Republican victory easier.
The Democratic party, while not perfect, is much more liberal than the
Republicans. Voting Democratically will keep the Republicans away. Once
the Republicans have all died off and are no longer a menace, then the
liberal-thinking people can decide between the Libertarians and Democrats.
While I would want the Libertarians to win, I know that it's not realistic.
And I vote for the lesser of *two* evils.
}
signature()
{
+-------------------------------+====================================+
| And in The End, | Internet: mrh4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu|
| The love you take, | WWIVNet : Conan@685x |
| is equal to the love you make.| WWIVLink: Shai-Hulud@12750 , 12751 |
+-------------------------------+====================================+
}
--
Todd Merriman
>>>I say again that I think there's a hypersensitivity to flames
>>>in this newsgroup.
I am convinced that most gays and lesbians are much more sensitive to
feelings than straights. I have theorized that it is a psychological
defense mechanism developed at a time when one realizes they are
"different." Perceiving the emotions of others can prevent you from
being taken advantage of, as (we all know) will surely happen again and
again to any child who dares to be "different."
I have noticed that the straight people that I associate with (mostly
cavers) can be unbelievably inconsiderate, both women and men.
It is one of the many reasons that activities with gay groups
are almost always much more enjoyable (though there seem to be
very few gay cavers).
>I have found that if I laugh with the people who flame me and agree
>that whatever statement I made was assinine, we can come to a better
>understanding.
A soft word turneth away rath.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Todd Merriman - Software Toolz, Inc. * Maintainer of the *
* 8030 Pooles Mill Dr., Ball Ground, GA 30107-9610 * Software *
* ...emory.edu!toolz.uucp!todd * Entrepreneur's *
* V-mail (800) 869-3878, (404) 889-8264 * mailing list *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Laura Creighton
What a splendid post. I just wanted to let you know that the reason
I was in the bitchy faction was not that I minded monogamy, but that
I minded people who claimed that there is something wrong with those
who do not want it. You clearly do not fit that category. Perhaps
you missed earlier threads of this argument.
I donot think that I said it most recently, but I do know that I
have said that there are too many people who are living monogamously
because they are blinded by the predjucices of our time. I never
meantto direct this at you, and never thought that a conscious
decision to be monogamous was either a) wrong or b) necessarily
directed by ``Moral Majority'' straight society.
I do believe that if you areso closed minded as to believe that
monogamy is the right behaviour, for all people, at all times
in every circumstance, then you have to look to see if you have
not been brainwashed by straight propeganda.
This belief contains no generalisations -- pleanty of people
decide to be monagamous for reasons which satisfy them and
their partner. AIDS alone has made many of my friends
monagamouswhen otherwise they would not be, and I think that
this is a fine idea as well.
It is only when a person gets on his or her soapbox and proclaim
that MONOGAMY IS RIGHT FOR ALL that I get worried. People who
get to judge how I live my life now by some universal standard
scare me. When their standard comes in exact alignment with
Christian beliefs, I get more and more scared.
This in no way is to insist that monogamy is Christian. The
value of monogamous relationships has been seen in other religions.
That value will continue. If you have found that value, especially
in a non-religious context -- more power to you.
It is just that this is a Christian ideal, akin to the ideals that
make you and I damned which gets me upset. Never would I question
your right to do what you will with your lover. Never would I
assume that you do some from a ``hidden Christian'' perspective.
But when other people claim to know the one true way for happiness
for me, my haunches go up and I get defensive.
Sorry if I wrote something broad enough that you got singed. This
was not my intention.
Laura
.
John M. Allen
> The desire for "a monogamous relationship" with some as yet to be
> determined person is a cultural/social effect.
This is a stereotype and a prejudice. While it may be true that
*many* people who desire a monogamous relationship do so for
cultural/social reasons (hence the stereotype),but implying that
everyone who wants such a relationship bases their decision on
cultural/social reasons (by using the generic which is commonly
interpreted as universal) is a prejudice. My decision was based on my
valuing a monogamous *love* relationship which you also seem to value.
> Also there is the sex/love dichotomy.
> We have opened ourselves to outside sexual relationships, and each of us
> approaches how sexual we will be with *friends* differently, but we
> both expect our "Love" relationship to be monogamous .
Sex and love do not form a dichotomy. They are not polar opposites
nor or they even mutually exclusive. In fact, for me they are
intimately intertwined. I do not enjoy one night stands because they
are purely physical activities with no emotional component. The most
important part of sex for me is the emotional part, and one night
stands do not come anywhere close to meeting those needs. My desire
for a monogamous sexual relationship comes from my desire for a
monogamous love relationship because for me the physical and emotional
are inseperable.
Tezcatlipocateopixque
-> This is a stereotype and a prejudice. While it may be true that
->*many* people who desire a monogamous relationship do so for
->cultural/social reasons (hence the stereotype),but implying that
->everyone who wants such a relationship bases their decision on
->cultural/social reasons (by using the generic which is commonly
->interpreted as universal) is a prejudice. My decision was based on my
->valuing a monogamous *love* relationship which you also seem to value.
And your decision was sociocultural in basis, as is every human
being's tinest spark of thought or concept. Hence, your desire
exists for cultural/social reasons.
-> Sex and love do not form a dichotomy. They are not polar opposites
->nor or they even mutually exclusive.
Now who's making the sweeping generalizations, hypocrite?
-> In fact, for me they are
->intimately intertwined. I do not enjoy one night stands because they
->are purely physical activities with no emotional component.
You are incapable of getting a hard-on unless you are in puppy
love? You are, then, in love with your hand? Bull. No, they
are not "intertwined" for you; you think that they should be,
perhaps, and that is social conditioning. It is not "you",
because there is no part of you that is not a product of your
culture.
Be as monogamous as you like. It's your life, and you should
live your life as you believe it best fulfills you. But do not
try to pass crap about your not being conditioned, or how sex and
love are intertwined. They are not, not for anyone. Sex is
physical, love is emotional. Any connection between the two is
purely the result of acculturation.
Dan R. Greening
>Now who's making the sweeping generalizations, hypocrite?
>...
>Sex is physical, love is emotional. Any connection between the two is
>purely the result of acculturation.
I ascribe the sex-love connection to positive feedback, so I would not
so boldly pronounce them "purely the result of acculturation." Mom
feeds me: I love Mom. Jack sucks me often: I love Jack. It doesn't
require a culture to get this result. There are cultural influences,
but culture isn't the end-all be-all of love or linguistics.
[] I wouldn't presume to name the fools. Stupidity ebbs and flows, and
[] you would presume too much to imagine that you would never appear.
[] -- Steve Dyer
--
____
\ /Dan Greening Northern CA (408) 973-8081
\/ dgr...@cs.ucla.edu Southern CA (213) 825-2266
Tezcatlipocateopixque
>My we have a long memory.
Knowing -- and remembering -- who one's enemies are is the first
rule of self-preservation. I never forget.
>No, Clay, I think on the contrary I
>was opening my relationship up to criticism and inspection.
But "something in you resented" this invasion into your privacy,
as you said yourself. And as was stated before, you are quite
free to open up your private life to the uninformed and biased
criticisms of others; what you may not do is presume to invade
others' relationships and act mystified when they are offended.
Would you, btw, open up your lesbianism to heterosexual criticism
and inspection as well? There are plenty of folks out there who
would be more than willing to tell you that you're sick; why are
you refusing to hear what they want to share with you?
>What I meant was that I was responding to my reaction to
>Jess' comments.
It's fascinating that you were so incapable of understanding my
and others' reaction to your unsolicited "criticism and inspection,"
isn't it? Why do you suppose that might be? Perhaps because you
haven't taken the time or the trouble to think much about it, as
opposed to swallowing the non-opinions of oppressive ignorance?
> As I said, I have always thought of myself
>to be somewhat outside the norms of society,
Don't flatter yourself.
>As I said, I don't agree with you that my feelings about
>my relationship are not open to debate.
I never expressed such feelings.
>I never said that I think S/M/B/D are in and of themselves wrong.
>What I thought I was saying is that I am unsure.
"I'm not sure lesbianism is in and of itself wrong either, I'm
just unsure." Now, if a man said that to you, just how much
validity would you give it? What you may think of SM or anything
else, for that matter, is irrelevant, save for how it applies to
you and your life. Your coming on and saying such things is no
different than some Laurie_Mann_in_Training posting her unsoli-
cited heterosexual moral opinions of queers here on motss. That
is what is known in Kentucky as "plain as the nose on your face,"
and you're not stupid. If you still can't see that, then your
blindness is deliberate, and therefore, unconscionable.
>I would not now choose it,
No one expects you to, or is suggesting that you *might* be
unhealthy for making that choice.
>I still have problems with the concept of power and submission
>in a sexual context.
As it doesn't have much to do with your life, you have plenty of
other things to worry about.
>I am always open to debate and discussion.
I am not. I am not open to ignoranti debating and discussing the
"morality" of my being queer -- "queer" here used in all of its
glorious kinky inclusivity. You are a lesbian, and are familiar
with its not being a woman's responsibility to explain to a man
what, when or how he is being a sexist jerk. Apply that concept
here, and you will see why I am not "open" to such non-dialogue.
>just because we don't agree.
Agreement requires a common base of knowledge. Go make SM a part
of your life for a year or so, and then you will be able to
discuss. Until then, listen attentively. Who knows; you might
even learn something.
Some time ago, one of the most obstinately party-line dykes I
have ever met had lunch with me, and we talked. We talked for a
long time, and you know what? She listened. That doesn't mean
she went out and bought head-to-toe leather and turned into a
raging SM dyke (though she'd be *HOT* in leather.) It means that
when she was talking to another lesbian and SM came up, and that
other woman started repeating all the party-line hogwash, my
friend spoke up, made some points, and the other woman said she'd
have to think it all through again.
>I think I've pretty much already discussed this. I would hardly
>call myself a queer Anita Bryant.
It all looks quite different when it's you that's swinging the
baseball bat instead of the other way around, doesn't it? Go
back, reread, and if possible, listen -- as much to yourself as
anyone else. Maybe, just maybe, the same thing will happen to
you that happened to my friend, and you'll grow just a bit.
Owen Rowley
> In article <32...@autodesk.COM>, ow...@Autodesk.COM (Owen Rowley) writes:
> > The desire for "a monogamous relationship" with some as yet to be
> > determined person is a cultural/social effect.
>
> This is a stereotype and a prejudice. While it may be true that
> *many* people who desire a monogamous relationship do so for
> cultural/social reasons (hence the stereotype),but implying that
> everyone who wants such a relationship bases their decision on
> cultural/social reasons (by using the generic which is commonly
> interpreted as universal) is a prejudice. My decision was based on my
> valuing a monogamous *love* relationship which you also seem to value.
I think you missed my point.
Unless you actually believe that the desire for monogamy is an ingrained
human value that holds true across all cultures and societies!
I aslo think that any investigation of the cultural/social values
regarding love and pairing will show that this is unlikely.
Did you know that in pre-modern Eskimo society it was considered impolite
for a man NOT to offer sex with his wife to a visitor! and consideerd
insulting if you did not accept the offer!
> > Also there is the sex/love dichotomy.
> > We have opened ourselves to outside sexual relationships, and each of us
> > approaches how sexual we will be with *friends* differently, but we
> > both expect our "Love" relationship to be monogamous .
>
> Sex and love do not form a dichotomy. They are not polar opposites
> nor or they even mutually exclusive. In fact, for me they are
> intimately intertwined.
Perhaps you thought I was using a universal *we*.. I was not, I was
refering to myself and my partner.
> I do not enjoy one night stands because they
> are purely physical activities with no emotional component. The most
Fine, some folks don't require an emotional component for gratifying sex,
in fact some folks I know run away screaming at the prospect.
> important part of sex for me is the emotional part, and one night
> stands do not come anywhere close to meeting those needs. My desire
then you definitly shouldn't indulge in such behavior.
> for a monogamous sexual relationship comes from my desire for a
> monogamous love relationship because for me the physical and emotional
> are inseperable.
I too felt that way at one time..perhaps now I'm jaded, perhaps now I'm
wiser, or perhaps I just don't know any better anymore..
but I am happy!
> Hugs,
UGHS .. owen
Steve Dyer
> Again, I would *kill* for my other (now-dead) hard drive where I kept
>copies of such mail. It would have been interesting (or at least instructive)
>to those with faulty or selective memories to read them.
I'm sure it would have been. You'll have to trust me, I guess.
>The only mail I have now is private mail. Interested in that?
No.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
dy...@arktouros.mit.edu, dy...@hstbme.mit.edu
John Passaniti
> My defense of his WRONG x5 post is not concerned with
> the monogamy issue. Perhaps he was whining, and was really
> 'wrong'. However, his particular case is not the only
> example. (in fact, I see now that it is not related
> at all) I have seen, in the past month, several people
> post innocent questions. They were not trying to stir up
> trouble, but only have a serious conversation. These include
> the post about a weak father causing homosexuality in the son,
> the three books, the idea that ACT-UP might not be always right.
That's the danger of political correctness taken to the
extreme. It stops being an attempt to be "sensitive," and
starts to be censorship. Censorship doesn't have to be
dramatic-- modern censorship is subtle.
> And when I first started defending these people, Jess
> Anderson responded with posts of no substance, ignoring
> the points I made, instead ridiculing my use of the
> capslock, calling me a 'saint' when I used religious
> figures (the ones oppressing Galileo and Darwin) as an
> example of Jess's thinking, and then, with no evidence
> at all, calling me a 'straight'. His immaturity
> astounds me.
It might be astounding, but instead of looking at the
effect, perhaps we should look to the cause.
An experiment. Go into any conference where it is
topical, and say simply, "The very notion of god is a sick
joke." You'll get some people who will agree, others who
will disagree, and then you'll get the most interesting
cases. There will be those who will write megabytes
without substance, making second-rate insults, flame
spelling and punctuation, etc. Compare these messages with
some of the latest ones from Jess. You'll see very little
different. (In fact, I may do this, just for fun.)
Why is this? I'll leave that to psychologists to worry
about. And let me make it clear that I'm not singling out
Jess, only using him as an example. He's just the tip of
the proverbial iceberg.
> Tolerance for the opinion you hate is the foundation
> of democracy.
How much you want to bet Jess calls you George
Washington now? 8-)
--
John Passaniti - via FidoNet node 1:260/230
UUCP: {smart-host}!ur-valhalla!rochgte!201!John.Passaniti
INTERNET: John.Pa...@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG
John Passaniti
> >No, I read his post several times, and understand completely.
>
> No, you do not, because it can only be meaningful in
> the context of what Hubby and Wife said (follow this very
> carefully: what they said, *not* what the Wife *says* they
> said) well over a year ago now. Everything the Wife has
> posted since has been nothing but licking the wounds (s?)he
> so justly received at the time.
Wife has an excellent memory of what he has written.
Wife has never licked any wounds, because Wife never
thought most of the replies Wife received were worth the
flux they were written on. Wife further understands that
it isn't message quantity but rather message quality which
would have inflicted "wounds." Wife is unscarred.
Wife further knows that when Clay doesn't have
anything meaningful to add, Clay regresses back to high
school level for his barbs. Wife is amused with Clay's
attempt to be clever.
> Hubby and Wife did *not* defend monogamy, because it
> was not under attack. Hubby and Wife insisted, over
> and over again, that monogamy was the *only acceptable
> lifestyle for any couple* (are you following? ANY
> couple, not themselves) and that anyone not
> in a monogamous relationship had no relationship.
Wife is wondering where Clay got mail from. Wife
notes that anyone who had that impression from what Wife or
Hubby wrote was rock-stupid. Wife leaves rest to Clay's
imagination.
> Hubby and Wife were torched, and by those for whom
> monogamy works best. They were not flamed for being
> monogamous; they were flamed for insisting that theirs
> was the only acceptable format for anyone.
Wife enjoys this.
John Passaniti
> Passaniti: If I'm WRONG I'm flamed.
> Jess: Stop whining.
> Matt: He's not whining. And you're proving his point.
> Jess: He is whining. And you must be straight.
> Matt: I am not, and you're stupid if you think so.
> Jess: You must be constipated.
> Matt: I am not!
> Jess: You are!
> Matt: I am not!
>
> I hope everyone sees the point: we've BOTH been
> assholes and should stop this war now. Let's
> agree to disagree.
Being an asshole isn't a binary proposition. There is
an entire continum of assholeness. We can express this as
a diameter. Using those terms then, I would say you might
enjoy a finger fuck (who doesn't?), while Jess and others
might need at least two fists before they crack a smile.
Shall I convert to metric?
Owen Rowley
> In article <32...@autodesk.COM> mi...@Autodesk.COM (Mick Washbrook) writes:
> >And using this logic, you will GUARANTEE that the Libertarian Party will
> >never get more than 2% of the vote. Granted, 2% may be a drop in the ocean,
> >but is that any reason not to drop it?
> There are two inherent problems with libertarianism: it assumes
> that people are responsible and intelligent -- an unintelligent
> assumption in itself -- and it supports the "rights" of those in
> power to deny it to others by discrimination.
I've been avoiding discussing politics with you, the potential for
carnage is awfully high :-)
But let me begin by noting that I think disagreement is healthy.
My own venture into libertarianism and my act of joining the LP, is an
extraordinary step which I felt was important for me.
I must agree that there are disturbing aspects to the LP, and that
libertarianism is an exercise in political masturbation.
I see my own involvement more along lines of an Illuminatti
"Operation Mind Fuck" sort of thing than actual fealty to a party
program.
One time you an I had a conversation about elitism, and we both
share a unique point of view about the relative *rights* of man.
Frankly democracy and a democratic regime which allows it's highest
court to maintain States rights to Sodomy laws based on biblical precedent
has lost it's luster for me, and perhaps i'm ready to spin the wheel and
take my chances on a benevolent elitist regime where i can find comfort and
protection for my personal self. ( this is a fairly radical POV I know, and
I'm not saying its my final stand.. I'm willing to entertain it though!)
So in that sense Libertaranism is no worst than the republic we have now.
Obviously a Libertarian state would require an educated populace, and
the way things are going that looks less likely to be acheived each year.
I mostly think the whigs and the federalists.. er I mean the democans and
the republicrats need some competition, and The LP looks like
thay might be able to push the envelope a little towards a reasonable
compromise.
> I would sooner vote for Helms than a libertarian.
For those not conversant with *THELEMASPEAK* this means at least we know
what to expect from Helms.
:-)
VITRIOL .. owen
John Passaniti
[Note: Rochester was hit with a major ice storm which
left nearly all of the city without power and
phone service. The lateness of my replies is
because power and phone service was restored (for
us) a week after it first went out. In case
anyone is wondering, yes, we found ways to
keep warm...]
> w...@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) writes:
> >But it's fine and dandy for others to tell John how
> >to live (saying he shouldn't call Phil his husband).
>
> I have yet to read anyone claiming that John shouldn't
> call Phil his "husband".
Again, I would *kill* for my other (now-dead) hard
drive where I kept copies of such mail. It would have been
interesting (or at least instructive) to those with faulty
or selective memories to read them. The only mail I have
now is private mail. Interested in that?
> No, this "apparent double-standard" is illusory,
> because it hasn't appeared here. This is known as
> a "straw man", Thack.
Actually, your argument is an interesting twist on the
straw man-- since we are talking about messages from two
years ago, you can make the argument that they never
existed, making me look as if I am pulling ye olde straw
man out from my hat. Neat tactic-- I'll have to remember
it when I, like you, have nothing better to say.
> No, Phil and John were complaining about another
> strawman, namely that they were being attacked
> because they were monogamous.
(Yawn.)
John M. Allen
> And your decision was sociocultural in basis, as is every human
> being's tinest spark of thought or concept. Hence, your desire
> exists for cultural/social reasons.
Wolfe said that monogamy was based on socio-cultural reasons
implying that non-monogamy was not. Looking at the definition of
socio-cultural reasons that allows such a distinction, my decision was
not based on socio-cultural reasons.
I wrote:
-> Sex and love do not form a dichotomy. They are not polar opposites
->nor or they even mutually exclusive.
Clay wrote:
> Now who's making the sweeping generalizations, hypocrite?
This is a specious claim. I said that sex and love are not
mutually exclusive not that they were mutually not exclusive. I can
see several possible reasons for your misinterpreting this.
a) First order predicate calculus taxes your brain.
Perhaps this is the real reason that you do not like
Montague Semantics. You claim that you don't think
that it is natural, but maybe you really don't understand
first order predicate calculus let alone the lambda
calculus necessary to understand Montague Semantics.
b) You're not reading for content. You should try it
sometime, you'll be amazed at the distinctions you can
draw.
c) You have already made up your mind and you don't
want to be confused with facts.
In article <68...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> bo...@spdcc.com
(Clay Bond) writes in response to:
nef> I am always open to debate and discussion.
>
> I am not.
I see. The reason for your claim is that you have made up your
mind and you don't want to be confused with the facts such as the
following from my original article.
-> In fact, for me [sex and love] are
->intimately intertwined. I do not enjoy one night stands because they
->are purely physical activities with no emotional component.
In your response you interpret "intertwined" as if it were
"mutually inclusive" because this fits with they way that you have to
interpret the facts in order to fit your theory.
> You are incapable of getting a hard-on unless you are in puppy
> love? You are, then, in love with your hand? Bull. No, they
> are not "intertwined" for you; you think that they should be,
Your theory is given below.
> But do not
> try to pass crap about ... how sex and
> love are intertwined. They are not, not for anyone.
In your own words, "Now who's making the sweeping generalizations,
hypocrite?" I described my feelings on the subject and you tell me
that I am wrong. Who knows my feelings better: me or someone who has
never met me? You think that my feelings are wrong because you are a
prescriptivist. You think everything would be so much better if
people would just see things from your point of view ignoring the fact
that other people's views may be just as valid. You are just as bad
as any fundy. The only difference is that the values you would pass
off are the antithesis of the values that they would.
If the data don't fit the theory, Clay, the theory is wrong, not
the data.
--
Steve Dyer
>In fact, for me [sex and love] are
I have to admit that I've never really indulged all that often in
"purely physical activities with no emotional component". Of course,
those who know me know I don't particularly like sports.
To be honest, I find the phrase "one night stand" a bit tawdry; it
misses the point if you're describing bathroom or park sex, and seems
a little quaint and dated (sort of like the word "trick") in other contexts.
But enough of these generalities; let's talk about me. I find John's
statement doesn't reflect how I go about things (not that I expected it
to.) If I have sex with someone, I usually expect to be seeing that
person again, and more than likely will have sex with that person
again. When it comes to people I'm attracted to, sometimes we start
off having sex and end up being "sisters", sometimes we start off being
"sisters" and never have sex, and sometimes we end up being fantastic
fuckbuddies, but I always feel like there's an emotional component
there which developes into a friendly acquaintanceship and occasionally
a good friendship.
Rarely, I will meet someone who is really a jerk or an asshole, but
I don't feel any more "dirty" or "used" for having had sex with him
than I would have if I'd simply spent an hour of my time having lunch
with him. I just wouldn't be particularly interested in seeing him again.
That's life.
John M. Allen
> Wolfe said that monogamy was based on socio-cultural reasons
That should be "Owen said..." Sorry about that, but Clay had
deleted the reference I responding to.
--
Hugs,
John
John M. Allen
> I think you missed my point.
> Unless you actually believe that the desire for monogamy is an ingrained
> human value that holds true across all cultures and societies!
I did not miss your point. I was questioning the implication you
made that non-monogamy is an ingrained human trait that holds true
unless distorted by society.
Owen previously wrote:
> Also there is the sex/love dichotomy.
> We have opened ourselves to outside sexual relationships, and each of us
> approaches how sexual we will be with *friends* differently, but we
> both expect our "Love" relationship to be monogamous .
I replied:
> Sex and love do not form a dichotomy. They are not polar opposites
> nor or they even mutually exclusive. In fact, for me they are
> intimately intertwined.
Owen replies:
> Perhaps you thought I was using a universal *we*.. I was not, I was
> refering to myself and my partner.
I was objecting to your use of the word "dichotomy". Dichotomy
implies that the two things are mutually exclusive and hence can
*never* co-occur. If you had used the term "duality" I would not have
objected because duality does not carry the implication that the two
things are mutually exclusive to the extent that dichotomy does.
Tezcatlipocateopixque
-> Wolfe said that monogamy was based on socio-cultural reasons
->implying that non-monogamy was not. Looking at the definition of
->socio-cultural reasons that allows such a distinction, my decision was
->not based on socio-cultural reasons.
Wolfe doesn't have anything to do with it. You were responding
to Owen, and he made no such distinction.
->I wrote:
->-> Sex and love do not form a dichotomy. They are not polar opposites
->->nor or they even mutually exclusive.
->
->Clay wrote:
->> Now who's making the sweeping generalizations, hypocrite?
->
-> This is a specious claim. I said that sex and love are not
->mutually exclusive not that they were mutually not exclusive. I can
->see several possible reasons for your misinterpreting this.
[Pseudo-pedantic, and irrelevant, preaching from a very wet
behind the ears grad student deleted]
There was no misinterpretation. The scope of the negative has
nothing to do with what I said. You objected to "sweeping
generalizations" then turned around and did the same yourself.
You're not only a fool, but a hypocrite as well.
->In article <68...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> bo...@spdcc.com
->(Clay Bond) writes in response to:
->nef> I am always open to debate and discussion.
->>
->> I am not.
->
-> I see. The reason for your claim is that you have made up your
->mind and you don't want to be confused with the facts such as the
->following from my original article.
I have made up my mind that my lifestyle is not open to others'
debate of discussion, be it from T*d or the stinking likes of
you. You're quite a foul little bastard, aren't you? You have
no defense for your hypocrisy, so you throw up meaningless little
smokescreens, then pull an unrelated thread in to try to save
your ass.
Read my lips, kid: my lifestyle will be open to your prying
little eyes when you open up your being a dicksucker to the
prying debate of Kaldis' ilk.
-> In your response you interpret "intertwined" as if it were
->"mutually inclusive" because this fits with they way that you have to
->interpret the facts in order to fit your theory.
Wrong. I interpreted your statement not as a subjective one, but
a sweeping generalization, hypocrite. Strawmen may indeed work
with your profs, kid; they don't work with me.
-> If the data don't fit the theory, Clay, the theory is wrong, not
->the data.
In that case, you'd better ditch Montague semantics.
--
"If anyone needs your opinion all they have to do
is wipe and check the paper."
-- Dave Hill
John M. Allen
I write:
-> Wolfe said that monogamy was based on socio-cultural reasons
-> implying that non-monogamy was not. Looking at the definition of
-> socio-cultural reasons that allows such a distinction, my decision was
-> not based on socio-cultural reasons.
> Wolfe doesn't have anything to do with it. You were responding
> to Owen,
I have already corrected the incorrect attribution.
> he made no such distinction.
Do you know what the word "imply" means? Or is it that you
can't admit that you were wrong? (After all, Tizzy, you are a
demi-god in your own mind. How could you possibly be wrong?)
Clay:
> You're not only a fool, but a hypocrite as well.
"Hypocrite", being old information, belongs in the theme and
"fool", being new information, does not. If you can't frame a
coherent counterargument, you could at least make sure that you
follow the rules of discourse.
->In article <68...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> bo...@spdcc.com
->(Clay Bond) writes in response to:
->nef> I am always open to debate and discussion.
->>
->> I am not.
I wrote:
-> I see. The reason for your claim is that you have made up your
->mind and you don't want to be confused with the facts such as the
->following from my original article.
Clay:
> I have made up my mind that my lifestyle is not open to others'
> debate of discussion, be it from T*d or the stinking likes of
> you.
I see. Any debate or discussion on the topic of monogamy is
prying into your lifestyle. Is that because your precious
beliefs are so unstable that any discussion threatens your
beliefs? Maybe all of your flaming and name-calling are just
attempts to turn your terror of looking at your beliefs back onto
the person who you perceive as threatening you.
Clay:
> You're quite a foul little bastard, aren't you? You have
> no defense for your hypocrisy, so you throw up meaningless little
> smokescreens,
If they are so "meaningless" then how come they have you so
upset?
> then pull an unrelated thread in to try to save your ass.
You, yourself, said that every action of every single one of
us was influenced by socio-cultural effects. I was merely trying
to look at the broader socio-cultural environment. Does this
mean that you want to recant your previous position?
I wrote:
-> In your response you interpret "intertwined" as if it were
->"mutually inclusive" because this fits with they way that you have to
->interpret the facts in order to fit your theory.
Clay:
> Wrong. I interpreted your statement not as a subjective one, but
> a sweeping generalization, hypocrite.
Well, let's look at the original.
In article <1991Mar9...@mscf.med.upenn.edu>
I wrote:
Sex and love do not form a dichotomy. They are not
polar opposites nor or they even mutually exclusive.
In fact, for me they are intimately intertwined.
You say that you interpreted my last statement as a sweeping
generalization. The only way that my statement can be considered
a generalization is if "for me" was equivalent to "for
everybody". The only way that this could be true is if I was the
only person in the world. You may have delusions of godhood, but
I do not. I do not believe that I am the only person in the
world and that everything else is just a creation of my mind.
In decrying sweeping generalizations, I made a subjective
observation. You call me a hypocrite because you chose to
interpret my subjective observation as a sweeping generalization.
In your own words
> Strawmen may indeed work
> with your profs, kid; they don't work with me.
You can't stand to look at the truth of my statement so you
have to distort it into a form where you don't have to look at
the truth. You don't want to believe that people might be
different from you because that would force you to look at why
you are the way you are.
Tezcatlipocateopixque
>I've been avoiding discussing politics with you, the potential for
>carnage is awfully high :-)
You overstate, Owen. I doubt that there is any such potential;
as you say yourself, we've discussed this some, at your place if
I remember correctly.
>One time you an I had a conversation about elitism, and we both
>share a unique point of view about the relative *rights* of man.
Libertarianism is, if anything, antithetical to elitism.
>Frankly democracy and a democratic regime which allows it's highest
>court to maintain States rights to Sodomy laws based on biblical precedent
>has lost it's luster for me
I would be the last to argue that.
>take my chances on a benevolent elitist regime
>[ ... ]
>Obviously a Libertarian state would require an educated populace
Herein lie the two inherent problems. Society depends on both
the malevolence (greed, if you like) and ignorance of human
beings in order to survive. As the world is now, a Libertarian
society would merely enable Joe down the street to say, "we don't
hire faggots/niggers/gooks/cunts here," and be entirely within
his supposed rights. The one necessary function of government is
to protect people from the exploitation of other people; this
protection would no longer exist under such a government.
As to the likelihood of there arising an educated populace, you
said it quite nicely yourself, Owen.
When, and only when (I like that, perhaps we could abbreviate it
"whenn" by analogy to "iff") humanity has been purged of hate,
greed and ignorance will I consider Libertarianism as a viable
alternative.
Tezcatlipocateopixque
-> > Wolfe doesn't have anything to do with it. You were responding
-> > to Owen,
->
-> I have already corrected the incorrect attribution.
Not when I responded, you hadn't.
->(After all, Tizzy, you are a demi-god in your own mind.
You would do well to get an accurate translation before making an
ignorant fool out of yourself again.
-> "Hypocrite", being old information, belongs in the theme and
->"fool", being new information, does not. If you can't frame a
->coherent counterargument, you could at least make sure that you
->follow the rules of discourse.
Cut the crap. This may indeed work with some of your denser
instructors, but it doesn't work here. All you have done so far
is throw up irrelevant terms and phrases. You have yet to even
make a point, much less respond.
I had a student like you. He was a faculty brat, and under the
mistaken impression that he was awfully bright. He was so bright,
in fact, that he never did any of his reading or assignments, and
only came to class to take exams. He had nothing to say, just
like you, and his essays addressed no questions, made no points,
said nothing at all. Just like you, he thought he could clutter
pages with meaningless academese, not only to impress everyone
with his (non)intelligence, but also ace the course without ever
making one statement.
He failed the course. So do you, Allen, but even more miserably
than he did:
-> > I have made up my mind that my lifestyle is not open to others'
-> > debate of discussion, be it from T*d or the stinking likes of
-> > you.
->
-> I see. Any debate or discussion on the topic of monogamy is
->prying into your lifestyle.
At least the faculty brat knew what course he was taking; you
aren't even capable of discerning a topic, Allen. Monogamy?
->Is that because your precious
->beliefs are so unstable that any discussion threatens your
->beliefs? Maybe all of your flaming and name-calling are just
->attempts to turn your terror of looking at your beliefs back onto
->the person who you perceive as threatening you.
You'd make a good priest, child. It's too bad you can't think
half as well as you trivialize.
-> If they are so "meaningless" then how come they have you so
->upset?
I'm hardly upset. You are, however, oblivious to even the most
basic rational discussion -- or so you insist on appearing -- so
we need to use something you can understand: a sledgehammer.
-> > then pull an unrelated thread in to try to save your ass.
->
-> You, yourself, said that every action of every single one of
->us was influenced by socio-cultural effects. I was merely trying
->to look at the broader socio-cultural environment. Does this
->mean that you want to recant your previous position?
Again, you try to muddy the waters by throwing up something that
has no relevancy at all. However, when I had written the above
sentence, I had assumed that you possessed enough intelligence to
perceive a topic. I was wrong -- sorry to disappoint you -- and
I freely admit it.
-> Well, let's look at the original.
Yes, let's.
->In article <1991Mar9...@mscf.med.upenn.edu>
->I wrote:
-> Sex and love do not form a dichotomy. They are not
-> polar opposites nor or they even mutually exclusive.
-> In fact, for me they are intimately intertwined.
->
-> You say that you interpreted my last statement as a sweeping
->generalization. The only way that my statement can be considered
->a generalization is if "for me" was equivalent to "for
->everybody".
You may only apply this to your third sentence.
->You may have delusions of godhood,
No, I do not. You, however, have delusions of being a thinking,
rational creature. You have delusions about the intelligence of
your audience, believing that you can obfuscate (look up that
word, Allen; it sums up everything you have posted) and impress
with meaningless garbage and be perceived as having responded in
a meaningful way. You failed the course, Allen.
-> You can't stand to look at the truth of my statement so you
->have to distort it into a form where you don't have to look at
->the truth. You don't want to believe that people might be
->different from you because that would force you to look at why
->you are the way you are.
Obfuscation, Allen. Don't forget to look it up.
Tezcatlipocateopixque
> Wife has an excellent memory of what he has written.
I'm sure you do; that is what makes you a liar, Wife.
John M. Allen
[proves that he is totally incapable of seeing my point much less
responding to it and is forced to trying to denigrate my
intelligence.]
In your own words:
> You have yet to even make a point, much less respond.
> You have delusions about the intelligence of your audience,
Yes, I do. I thought that you were much more intelligent than
you apparently are. Let me phrase this in junior high school
vocabulary so that you might be able to understand.
Love and sex form a dichotomy.
Trans: For all people, x and y, and for all times, t, x loves y
at time t iff x does not have sex with y at time t.
Love and sex do not form a dichotomy.
Trans: There exist people, x and y, and a time, t, such that
x loves y at time t and x has sex with y at time t or
such that x does not love y at time t and x does not
have sex with y at time t.
Love and sex are mutually exclusive.
Trans: For all people, x and y, and for all times, t,
if x loves y at time t then x does not have sex with y
at time t and if x has sex with y at time t then x does
not love y at time t.
Love and sex are not mutually exclusive.
Trans: There exist people, x and y, and a time, t, such that
x loves y at time t and x has sex with y at time t.
Sex and love do not form a dichotomy. (existential)
They are not polar opposites (existential)
nor or they even mutually exclusive. (existential)
In fact, for me they are intimately intertwined. (specific case)
A sweeping generalization involves making a universal claim
without looking at all individuals. I did not even make a
universal claim. You continue to claim that I made a sweeping
generalization, but are incapable of seeing that I did not
because it is too threatening to your world view just as the
fundies are incapable of seeing truths that threaten their world
views.
--
John Allen al...@mscf.med.upenn.edu ---
B4/5 f t w s(-) k r /| *\
|*\ |
\o*|/
Laura Creighton
In article <32...@autodesk.COM> ow...@Autodesk.COM (Owen Rowley) writes:
>> I'm not attacking your choice to be monogamous; I understand two people
>> each choosing to be monogamous with the other in a relationship, but
>> I don't understand the desire for a "monogamous relationship."
>
>Monogamy, when it is spontaneous is wonderfull, when it is merely expected
>it is a booby trap.
Yes, unless the ideal is -- we will grit our teeth and stay faithful
until there is an AIDS vaccine. I know people living under this now.
And indeed the ``expected'' is a trap -- but a small trap which is
already sprung -- it is just the larger AIDS death which keeps them
monogamous despite desires.
2 friends of mine went out to lunch a while ago in the Castro. They
spent 50% of the time crusing the men out thedir window. Nothing is
going to happen until they can get vaccinated -- but then Enrique and
Jorges are going to hit the Castro as a storm....
Something to look forward to for all reasons.
laura
Brian Kane
>In article <1991Mar16...@mscf.med.upenn.edu> al...@mscf.med.upenn.edu (John M. Allen) writes:
>
>-> > Wolfe doesn't have anything to do with it. You were responding
>-> > to Owen,
>->
>-> I have already corrected the incorrect attribution.
>
.
.
{belittling trash}
.
.
.
Gee, I haven't seen so much belittling trash in ages...