the Ess Oh Vee!

[Guybrush]

Uuyyee. I'm going to restrain myself here as best I can--out of respect for the fact that Logan seems generally well-intentioned, and in an attempt to kill this digression--but I almost had an aneurysm about three times when I read this.

First, I take issue with your implying that there are sexual activities that people engage in "this day and age" as if they didn't used to do so in some golden age of sexual morality and uprightness. We are, in reality, more tightly regulated in our sexuality now in the West than most other cultures have been since the beginning of recorded human history, to our detriment. If you were indeed implying we've fallen from some state of sexual purity, you are sorely mistaken and underinformed. Ask and I'll give you a million examples illustrating why in a private message.

Sex "evolutionarily" is NOT about procreation alone. I find it appalling when otherwise intelligent people (or people who purport to be rational and intelligent) try to be armchair evolutionary biologists when it comes to sexuality when they are so obviously ill-educated on the subject.

Homosexuality is actually a widespread biological phenomenon that can be observed across hundreds of species and serves a multitude of "evolutionary" purposes--including social ones, psychological ones, physiological ones, all the same ones heterosexual sex does. Human sexual behavior is actually much more complex that of many other primates and species, and due to our enormous brains, exaggerated secondary sex characteristics, intricate social relationships and mores, and many other factors that are particular to our evolution and require us to form extremely close psychosexual bonds, it is actually about much more than making babies. Human sexuality is a product of factors both biological and social that, in the end, have very little to do with procreation in any species. If you are interested in more information, I can provide you with an abundance of it.

I really think you're depriving yourself and your girlfriend(s), Logan. Anal sex is great for girls (trust me, that thing ain't doing much for her vag) and it's especially good for people who've made it into a taboo (deliciously fun to break taboos, you should try it sometime) Sounds like you have a hangup with women's bodies, or at very least your own. Get used to it, it's all you have, babe. And women will hate you if you think they're baby machines who shouldn't be giving head to anyone but your jealous neurotic ass. Trust me--women can read that shit on your face.

So this is what inversed parochialism looks like? Self-appointed liberals thrashing someone for having the nerve(!) to esteem carnal temperance. Logan merely writes that he, personally, finds some practises unseemly; however, he explains that he neither imposes that notion on others, nor acts it out. Exactly what is wrong with that?

I find some of Nomadologist’s claims somewhat inconsistent. These two quotes look especially odd together:

First, I take issue with your implying that there are sexual activities that people engage in "this day and age" as if they didn't used to do so in some golden age of sexual morality and uprightness. We are, in reality, more tightly regulated in our sexuality now in the West than most other cultures have been since the beginning of recorded human history, to our detriment.

And women will hate you if you think they're baby machines who shouldn't be giving head to anyone but your jealous neurotic ass. Trust me--women can read that shit on your face.

As, I’m sure you are well aware, societal attitudes towards sexuality have fluctuated greatly over the course of time. This does mean, as you rightly point out, that one can not speak of some immaculate ‘golden age’ of purity, but it also means that any description of people in the past as licentious ‘children of nature’, lovingly indulging in life’s pleasures, is equally skew. You seem to presuppose that unbridled fleshliness is salutary at all times. I beg to differ. Restraint is a good thing to practise now and then.

 

[tht]

So this is what inversed parochialism looks like? Self-appointed liberals thrashing someone for having the nerve(!) to esteem carnal temperance. Logan merely writes that he, personally, finds some practises unseemly; however, he explains that he neither imposes that notion on others, nor acts it out. Exactly what is wrong with that?

This does mean, as you rightly point out, that one can not speak of some immaculate ‘golden age’ of purity, but it also means that any description of people in the past as licentious ‘children of nature’, lovingly indulging in life’s pleasures, is equally skew. You seem to presuppose that unbridled fleshliness is salutary at all times. I beg to differ. Restraint is a good thing to practise now and then.

the parochialism of gomorrans, thrown asunder upon that e'er infernal continent, among whose far shores they shall find communion with endlessly lusting freethinkers and gonorrheics aplenty, the rivulets of supposéd fair virgina flowing with the unlevened pus of syphilitics and abuséd whores!

 

[nomadologist]

Heh, then I met my goal for the day, Mistersloan.

Oh for the love of God, Guybrush, did I say that because we are more restricted now that means we used to be "children of nature"? Please, you know I didn't, and wouldn't believe that. Don't waste my time with this bullshit, straight people! If you want to restrain yourself, do it. I don't give a fuck.

 

[nomadologist]

tht is my new hero. between the acapella thing and this last post of his. high five.

 

[Guybrush]

‘Children of nature’ was not a quote, it was my dictionary’s translation of a Swedish word—I thought it looked odd without apostrophes. Anyway, the ‘I don't give a fuck’ attitude is fine and dandy; that’s the attitude you should have towards Logan’s personal preferences.

 

[nomadologist]

trust me, it is. just trying to help him out with the "science" he tried to refer to without knowing anything about it...

 

[nomos]

@ Logan

First off, the idea of homosexuality as socio-biological problem only emerges in the last century. So there's no claim to it being some sort of historical or natural position.

Second, why does it always have to come down to who puts what in to what part of someone else? Not all gay men have anal sex. Many straight people have anal sex. Many animals do all sorts. The world continues.

Third, consider these statements...

...but I would not pour scorn on anyone for being [black/muslim/disabled/poor]. Nor do I go round preaching my hatred for [black people/muslims/the disabled/the poor]. I am well within my rights to have a personal opinion about [blacks/islam/the disabled/poor people] as long as I do not impose it on others.

Or let's say I said this:

"I don't care for these working class white kids who act all black with their grime music and rap or whatever. All that jungle shit. They don't have jobs, and if they're not selling drugs they're spending their dole on weed and CDs to blast in their shitty little cars. They make me afraid for my wife/girlfriend/kids. I think that's an unnatural and immoral lifestyle. It's dangerous for them , for me and for society. But that's my opinion and I wouldn't impose it on anyone."

Does that caveat - "just my opinion" - exonerate me? Does it mean that the way I feel will therefore have no consequence in the world outside my head? Millions of people walking around thinking things about one another but with no social effect at all, no power relationships, no subtle acts of discrimination, no overt violence, no systemic encoding of these 'personal opinions' into law, social policy, funding distribution, hiring practices, police behaviour?

I'm not even trying to change your opinion Logan. But do consider the irony of such a radically conservative position being espoused by anyone who otherwise claims to support the empowerment of maginalised peoples or to oppose other forms of social marginalisation that might be said to have 'natural' or 'historical' bases. 'Just my opinion' is a way of expressing politicised belief without taking responsibility for any of the social implications.

 

[Guybrush]

That’s a great post, Nomos, but I think if you reframe the problem, ever so slightly, things get more complicated. There’s also the possibility that you are aware and ok with yourself harbouring certain sentiments, but are intent on not letting them affect your outward behaviour (whether that is possible or not I don’t know). Also, the examples you brought forth were all marginalised groups: would it not complicate matters somewhat if we choosed, say, stockbrokers or preppys instead (if we assume that the latters’ lifestyle is hereditary and not a matter of choice)? Lastly, I’m still interested to find out if it would change things if the repulsion only concerned the physical act.

 

[mistersloane]

Don't waste my time with this bullshit, straight people! If you want to restrain yourself, do it. I don't give a fuck.

That just made my cup of tea go the wrong way and come out through my nostrils

 

[nomos]

@ Guybrush - Yes, yes and yes. Good points.

 

[nomadologist]

the worst part is that i keep coming back for more, Mr. S

 

[mistersloane]

Ah, a fool returns to their folly like a dog to its vomit.
Beats watching Tv anyway. I think people give Logan a hard time, he's always the one that's got at in these discussions. At least he takes part in them.

 

[nomadologist]

at least he's honest--so many people just smile and nod to keep the PC police at bay

 

[tht]

tht is my new hero. between the acapella thing and this last post of his. high five.

i think i might do a thread about acapellas and their aleatoric possibilites, fascinating stuff

sort of

 

[mistersloane]

i think i might do a thread about acapellas and their aleatoric possibilites, fascinating stuff

sort of

do it do it do it

 

[nomos]

something about sov threads on here. the last one was a black hole of circular bickering. or was it the mia one? no, both at the same time. odd that.

 

[Logan Sama]

@ Logan

First off, the idea of homosexuality as socio-biological problem only emerges in the last century. So there's no claim to it being some sort of historical or natural position.

Second, why does it always have to come down to who puts what in to what part of someone else? Not all gay men have anal sex. Many straight people have anal sex. Many animals do all sorts. The world continues.

Third, consider these statements...



Or let's say I said this:


Does that caveat - "just my opinion" - exonerate me? Does it mean that the way I feel will therefore have no consequence in the world outside my head? Millions of people walking around thinking things about one another but with no social effect at all, no power relationships, no subtle acts of discrimination, no overt violence, no systemic encoding of these 'personal opinions' into law, social policy, funding distribution, hiring practices, police behaviour?

I'm not even trying to change your opinion Logan. But do consider the irony of such a radically conservative position being espoused by anyone who otherwise claims to support the empowerment of maginalised peoples or to oppose other forms of social marginalisation that might be said to have 'natural' or 'historical' bases. 'Just my opinion' is a way of expressing politicised belief without taking responsibility for any of the social implications.

I see no problem with someone holding that hypothetical opinion. I am sure many people have come to a similar conclusion about me and my career choice. And they are well within their rights to think that, as long as they do not try and stop me from persuing my career choice.

 

[eproductionmuzc]

Ok well this "gay talk" is disturbing haha!...not that I have anything against a person's preference but I'd rather talk about music!

Well are any of ya'll music producers, DJ's, anything in the music industry? UK or where?
:slanted:

 

[eproductionmuzc]

Jelly Donut vs. Lady Sovereign!?

Did anyone see this clip? I so wish I was there...freaking hilarious...I wish SOV would have jumped in the crowd and attacked him haha!

 

[zhao]

everyone is partly homo. it's only a matter of degrees. some are less, some are more. and everyone certainly has the potential of becoming gay. even me, who has never gone that way, but I recognize that it is absolutely possible -- maybe if I was less inhibited, indoctrinated, fearful, and easily swayed by peers/the majority view, maybe if I met the right boy. even Logan. admited or not. even Sizzla.

there is no black and white, only shades of gray.