|
Grex > Cflirt > #22: My girl is pregnant with twins and another on the side.(and all are mine) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 17 new of 71 responses total. |
void
|
|
response 55 of 71:
| 
May 31 06:55 UTC 2002 |
re #49: No, staying in the closet is not the best thing to do.
Staying in the closet perpetuates discrimination, prejudice, and
calumny. Staying in the closet means you don't have to gonads to stand
up for yourself in just about the biggest way imaginable.
|
oval
|
|
response 56 of 71:
|
May 31 07:31 UTC 2002 |
you seem a little defensive
|
jazz
|
|
response 57 of 71:
|
May 31 15:39 UTC 2002 |
Most married couples don't throw out their libidoes when they put on
the rings, and it doesn't seem all that significant to me what direction their
libidoes want to go. It's about whether or not they're faithful to the
agreements they've made to their partner, whether those agreements include
extramarital sex or not. If you've agreed not to do it, don't do it.
Void's comment reminds me of an Ani DiFranco song, which goes like this
- "Some chick came up to me and said thanks for saying all the things I never
do, but you know the thanks I get is to take all the shit for you. It's nice
that you listen, it'd be nice if you joined in, as long as you play that game
girl, you're never going to win." It's true, insofar as it goes, but I don't
think everyone was born to fight for what they believe in.
|
lelande
|
|
response 58 of 71:
|
Jun 1 22:36 UTC 2002 |
orinoco: why is lying wrong?
jazz: i don't think standing for what you believe is something you must be
born-to-do to do. when it comes to dying for what you believe, now there i'll
agree with you that only the select come equipped with the means. but not
standing is cowardice, and that's a choice available to anyone.
|
i
|
|
response 59 of 71:
|
Jun 2 03:53 UTC 2002 |
Re: #44
I'm only familiar with "het privilege" in reference to bi's being (very
conveniently for them) assumed het when they're going out with a MOTOS.
A homo who's got a public MOTOS relationship (whether real, fake, baggage
from prior het status, or whatever) is just in the closet - which is no
privilege, and needs no special term.
The fake marriage w/MOTSS action on the side sounds *very* much like the
age-old traditional European (& American) institution of marriage for the
upper classes. Folks got married for reasons of money, politics, & noble
blood to someone picked for those traits (whether they liked each other or
had even met each other or not), maybe produced an heir or two, then each
took a lover on the side while keeping up the loose pretense of marriage.
The last i paid attention, the idea of romantic marriage to one's true
love (for most real people in the real world) was a far newer & less well
accepted idea in virtually all of Christiandom. The older practice was
well accepted in America through most of the 20th century. (Remember FDR
or JFK?)
With this historical context, the "fake het cover" marriage sounds *at
least* as legit as the "madly in love MOTOS romance" marriage to me.
On the whole coward/closet thing: i don't see how being an (involuntary)
member of group X makes one any more morally obligated than non-members to
advance the interests of group X. We're not talking about a country here,
with a bunch of obligations to its citizens & need to collect taxes, draft
soldiers, etc. to meet those obligations.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 60 of 71:
|
Jun 2 19:52 UTC 2002 |
lelande: Nice. This isn't the place for it, though. If you'd like,
imagine that all my responses begin with "If you're the sort of kinky
freak who's into honesty and trust" from here on out.
re closets: Look at it this way. We all do things that are socially
unacceptable, or way out on the fringes of normal behavior, or
persecuted, or whatever. It makes no sense to say that some of them carry
with them special responsibilities while others don't. If there's a moral
obligation to go out of your way to tell your friends and co-workers
you're gay, why is there no obligation to be loud and up-front about your
other sexual quirks, or the personality traits of your dream partner, or
your interests in stamp collecting and ornithology, or whatever?
Anti-Semitism is just as real as homophobia, but I doubt most people would
say I'm obligated to tell strangers about my Jewish ancestry. S & M is
much more stigmatized than homosexuality, but apparently it's okay to hide
my _other_ perversions so long as I say I dig men. I don't buy it. You
need to keep everything to the same standard of honesty.
|
jazz
|
|
response 61 of 71:
|
Jun 4 00:40 UTC 2002 |
Homosexuality isn't, despite the enormously strong cliques that seem
to go along with it, a group in the sense that the Freemasons or the Students
for a Democratic Society is, though, and it's not really fair to say that
there is a gay agenda, because not everyone agrees. How can you advance the
goals of a group that isn't of a single mind?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 62 of 71:
|
Jun 4 02:51 UTC 2002 |
Not to mention a group one doesn't really choose to join...
|
orinoco
|
|
response 63 of 71:
|
Jun 4 08:17 UTC 2002 |
(Did I say that, or are you answering someone else?)
|
jazz
|
|
response 64 of 71:
|
Jun 4 14:08 UTC 2002 |
Restating what someone else has said, in your own words, and
elaborating on some points, is generally agreement. I know it doesn't happen
much online, but still ... :)
|
senna
|
|
response 65 of 71:
|
Jun 24 06:01 UTC 2002 |
#61: I don't know, but keep in mind not all Christians agree on all issues,
either, and that doesn't stop certain voices from spouting off.
Void, isn't it just their choice in how they live? (devil's advocation...)
|
void
|
|
response 66 of 71:
|
Jun 28 21:26 UTC 2002 |
Well, now, choice has become a loaded word. Choice is not some
sacrosanct, unassailable, gods-given right to do whatever the fuck you
please and not be criticized or accept responsibility for it...but
that's probably another discussion altogether.
If people choose to live as cowards, they shouldn't be surprised
when others are disgusted by them.
|
lelande
|
|
response 67 of 71:
|
Jun 29 07:15 UTC 2002 |
how are they cowards, again? choosing to live by personal interests over those
of others also shouldn't be surprised when others are disgusted by them, but
living by personal interests over those of others isn't necessarily cowardice.
it's possibly very brave.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 68 of 71:
|
Jun 29 09:39 UTC 2002 |
I remember my discussion with someone who pointed out to me that from a
historical perspective, people weren't defined by what they did
sexually until about 150 years ago. I'm still puzzled why that would
be. And why must it be? Really, why should sexuality define who you
are?
As best I can tell, the solution must be something of a political one.
It reeks of progressives chiding conservatives, and vice versa.
(Oddly, the frame of perspective is given by both.)
resp:55 yeah, pretending to do nothing is rather bogus, but I still
present the case that there are two options: live with your sexuality..
or change it. Don't ape it because it's trendy or acceptable (on
either side), but be confident about who you are. Trumpeting it on the
street may get you the support/admiration/respect of others, but it's
*your* responsibility to accept yourself.
Denial is wrong either way you go. Your sexuality *is* a part of you,
but you do have a decision on what you want to do with it.
Again, some may submit I'm wrong for nipping away at a part of me that
I haven't found to be very compatible. Oh well. It doesn't go
perfectly, but I am happy with the way things are.
If *you* are happy, does what others think ultimately matter?
|
oval
|
|
response 69 of 71:
|
Jul 1 01:32 UTC 2002 |
if you're happy then tyhat's great. but i have trouble accepting that you are
based on a lot of your posts. i also have trouble believing that when you say,
"be confident about who you are" and then say that you're "nipping away at
a part of me that
I haven't found to be very compatible" don't seem to correspond very well.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 70 of 71:
|
Jul 1 04:39 UTC 2002 |
Carrie, you know at times I have difficulty expressing myself, and we
have talked about all this before, too.
Suffice it to say I feel like a work in progress. Sometimes I hurt
because it's hard; because I don't stay true. Change isn't easy. But
I didn't appreciate those who professed to support me earlier
saying "you're oppressed," "you're in denial," "you're lying to
yourself," etc.
My experience was as time went on was that I would have to choose
between principle that otherwise guided my life and some feelings that
were getting in the way of that. Some said, "change that principle,"
although not in quite those words.
Actually, to be honest, sex in general has ruled my life. When I can
be sure that I am the master again (for I do not believe in fate; I
know that I have agency), then I am sure the matter will be much
clearer.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 71 of 71:
|
Jul 1 04:42 UTC 2002 |
..which actually, to say, my experience on that matter has been hardly
anything romanticized nor idealistically loving. Pure.. addiction.
Use 'em, leave 'em.
|