Field Theory: One in a billion
186 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
a group of drunken women and Dr Haywood
A harem, if you will. Just make sure he doesn't wear any of them golf trousers.
-
Sacha,
Looking forward to your making the leap to wondering whether Rupert the Bear is a massive shagger.
-
Hmmm. He has the trousers for it. Would Rupert prefer blondes?
-
*sobs* Why do you hate me so much, Craig? Is it because you're gay and I'm a woman?
I'd get laid a lot more if you greedy bisexuals didn't insist on gobbling up all the cock and not leaving any for the rest of us. (And, no, I don't see what assimilating the repressive hetero-normative model of exclusive monogamous pair-bonding for 14 years has to do with anything.)
-
I'd get laid a lot more if you greedy bisexuals didn't insist on gobbling up all the cock and not leaving any for the rest of us.
Too true. I mean, it's not like the cock gets any say, is it?
-
to mean people or institutions which actually aren't consciously homophobic, but have trouble remembering that non-straight people exist.
As opposed to institutions that have trouble remembering people exist aka businesses
-
Everyone sees the world through the filters of their own experience...
QFT
My example earlier of noticing and being jarred by seeing Egyptian men holding hands was exactly that, a filter on my perception that reflected my culture. It was also something I was not aware of until it occurred. -
Bet he hugged him though
Well there was that.
I was going to say 'we can do this all day', but I have a date later to go out with a group of drunken women and Dr Haywood.
Give him a hug for me!
-
Give him a hug for me!
I don't think I'm allowed to, not after the speech he gave at the Chch launch...
-
Whether purposefully or not I'm unsure, but Deborah has published today a highly pertinent installment of her Friday Feminist series.
Sheer chance. I queued up a couple of months' worth of Friday Feminist posts before the Christmas break, and this happened to be the one that I queued for today, about five weeks ago.
Also, this is how I explain the purpose of my on-going Friday Feminist series:
Each week I post a “Friday Feminist” or a “Friday Womanist” quote. In some cases I agree with what the writer says, and in others, I don’t. Sometimes the quote I have chosen reflects something I am thinking about, sometimes it reflects current events, sometimes it commemorates a person’s life and death, sometimes it elucidates the history of feminist thinking, sometimes it is something I find confronting. The main criteria are that the writing is feminist (broadly construed) or womanist, and interesting.
As Sacha said upthread:
It's interesting to read Adrienne Rich from 30 years ago and realise how far the discourse has come.
Cheers!
-
Thanks Deborah. As you might have guessed, my reactions had been somewhat heightened by reading a lot of Julie Bindel columns.
-
I was working with a PostGrad Indian guy and the concept of personal space is quite different.
I felt like he draped himself over my shoulderComing back from Hong Kong the Indian guy in the seat next to me positively draped himself over me - well, his forearm was on top of my forarm on seat-rest between us - not at all pleasant.
After I did that NZ thing where one quietly shifts oneself to remove onself from the 'nearness' of the arm, to which he shifted ever more so onto my arm I was forced to directly tell him that "In NZ we don't invade other's personal space like you are currently doing!". I was mortified at what I was saying but hells bells did I want this for the next 12 hours? No.
And I wondered for the rest of the flight if he was gay. Sigh. Cultural mores.
@pollywog
are gay men anti women as much as gay women are (from personal observation) anti men and hence more sexist than straight men in that they see women as competetion ?
No. As the token fag (along with Craig), no. Some older gays have quite a miisogynistic attitude that stems from the cultural era in which they grew up and came out as gay. But women as competition? No.
-
I only rarely write a column that's actually about sport
They're mostly about uniforms and roller derbies. The former are clearly all queer eye for the straight guy, and the latter clearly all men hating dykes. We need to rename your blog to Queer Theory.
-
And I would have justified that reaction, but I'm just so tuckered out from fucking anything that breathes.
Don't forget the legs! Amputees are so off limits for you.
-
I've had to read the whole post and the whole thread now, after having successfully avoided the sports posts ever since they started. The problem is that I am an atheist about sport (too).
Getting back to that Adrienne Rich quote that Giovanni referred to upthread, and reading it charitably, she's got a point. Not so much the idea that all women are coerced into being heterosexual, which on a plain reading is what she's saying, and I don't have any sympathy for that view.
But more charitably, the idea that we assume heterosexuality, and that all our institutions are designed for heterosexuality, and that in turn creates and / or reinforces heterosexuality, is much more compelling. That's why it's plausible, and helpful, to talk about heterosexuality as a socio-political construct. NB: it's not just a socio-political construct - clearly there are other dimensions to heterosexuality.
Rich's wording is not helpful: she talks about "women", implying "all women" when it might have been better to talk about "some women".
Hugs to y'all, especially Giovanni, for dragging me onto a sports thread.
-
Give him a hug for me!
Ha, so it turns out I DO get to do that.
the idea that we assume heterosexuality, and that all our institutions are designed for heterosexuality, and that in turn creates and / or reinforces heterosexuality, is much more compelling
I have a slight problem with, I guess, the inadequacy of the language, which makes this look like it's saying one thing when I think it's saying something else. Social constructs can't, I believe, affect your actual sexuality. They can, however, affect the expression of that sexuality. "Heterosexuality" is a sexuality, it's internal, just like Gay. It's about how you feel, not what you do.
If we take that quote, and what Deborah has written above, and change 'heterosexuality' to 'heterosexual expression', then I'm comfortable with it.
-
clearly there are other dimensions to heterosexuality.
oh you mean like procreation of the species:)
what i find funny is how some think that our attitudes towards sex/ homosex is the sole measure of our state of personal/public evolution.
say someone graduated from bi sex and inanimate objects to animal sex. would that person have attained a higher and more developed state of sexual evolution or be a deviant and be worthy of praise or derision for it ?
if it comes down to consent with animals. are we not animals ? even our pets consent in allowing us certain freedoms towards them and if nurtured, an animal would willingly consent to sex, as our partners may over time warm to the idea of anal sex and foreign objects whereby at the start of a relationship they may not have.
you gotta draw a line somewhere and create boudaries. and i don't quite buy the genetic thing. yeah sure there may be genes which give a propensity towards gayness maybe even bestialism but we can override them. to say we cant is to say we polynesians cant override our 'warrior gene' that compels us towards anti socialism.
-
I think my head is going to explode.
-
Yeah, I think we've stopped pretending to not be trolling.
-
i guess this particular hole doesnt go very deep at all...
...so lets just all make superficial quips and pretend we're all so fucking enlightened. its just wayyyy easier
-
It's just hard to treat anything like your complete and utter bollocks of a post with anything remotely serious.
Besides the serious responses have all been said before and most of us get tired of repeating it. You have fixed ideas and my guess is you don't really want to hear opposing views or even worse see facts that undermine your view.
-
Oh and how they turn
-
It's just hard to treat anything like your complete and utter bollocks of a post with anything remotely serious.
Besides the serious responses have all been said before and most of us get tired of repeating it. You have fixed ideas and my guess is you don't really want to hear opposing views or even worse see facts that undermine your view.
oh but i do want opposing views backed up by facts, more so than 'i love teh cock' responses and will fuck anything that moves cos i'm greedy and dont give a shit cos 'its all me al the time', having fun and getting off is what lifes all about and fuck everyone else.
c'mon hotshot quit guessing and put up or shut the fuck up !
-
Look, you're the one who called bisexuals insatiable, decided that bisexuality was on a slippery slope to fucking your dog, and told gay people they could 'override' their sexuality. Anyone mocking you for that sort of bollocks is well within their rights. You think you're saying anything they haven't heard a billion times before? Everyone's had to put up with these arguments for decades. They're not provocative, they're not interesting, they're just reactionary crap. It's boring.
-
'i love teh cock' responses and will fuck anything that moves cos i'm greedy
A satire tag might help some who can't distinguish betweeen spoof and troof.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.