Time of Original Posting: Tuesday, April 19th, 2011 at 2:26am
~ ~ ~
I've been meaning to pen these thoughts down for a while. Had a discussion with someone about this tonight, and it got me thinking about a line of thought that I've had for years: society's treatment of people of different sexualities - gays, lesbians, transexuals, and everything in between - is comparable to its treatment of people with fetishes - BDSM and stuff like that - namely, that they'll tolerate it as long as it doesn't come up in polite conversation. The NIMBY rule is the word. As long as it's kept on the down low, no one will make a fuss about what you do with your private life. Many people have already taken advantage of this fact. The most polite, refined and conservative people in the world might just have some of the most perverse or scandalous fantasies that come to life behind closed doors, and get away with it because of that key point: "behind closed doors."
When you break it down, sexuality fits evenly within the broad range of fetishes and kinks of the human sphere. There are things that get us off, and things that don't. Whether that be whips and chains, hot wax, or someone from the same sex, it all falls into the category of "things that turn us on." Some are more conservative, some are more extreme, some are not allowed by law (underage partners and rape, to name a few), but no matter what you're into, you will be accepted by society as long as nobody finds out about it. Out of sight, out of mind. There are some things the world at large just doesn't want to know about.
And therein lies the problem. Sexuality lies so predominantly in a person's identity, that to keep it behind closed doors would seem like a denial of one's true self. Every time someone acts flamboyant or butch or in any other way openly displays their sexual preferences, they are keeping true to their identity by refusing to keep their interests out of public view. But there are a number of gays, lesbians and transsexuals, just as there are straight people with embarrassing or shameful fetishes (even some illegal ones), that fit into society by keeping their desires under wraps.
When people reveal these fetishes and kinks and sexualities, that's when they stand out. It is our ability to control our urges and not let them dominate our lifestyle that allows us to fit in. By refusing to conform, gays and lesbians stay true to themsevles to be sure, but they also expose themselves to the scorn of the unforgiving majority. This is not to accuse or antagonize, but merely point out that by keeping such desires a secret, people are able to fit in and be accepted. It's noble to be yourself in the face of oppression, but consider this - the inability to control ones desires is the sole reason laws exist.
The reason we lock up rapists and child molesters is because we have agreed, as a society, that the people who desire to commit these acts and cannot (or choose not to) control these impulses are too dangerous and/or not allowed within our society. These criminals might also make the argument that they are simply "being true to themselves" but the act is so heinous that their arguments fall on deaf ears.
Homosexuality and bisexuality is not forbidden by law, at least in some states (as far as I know - I'm not counting marriage, simply the sexual act itself, but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am). But that does not change the fact that it is the minority among the sexual preferences of the masses. As far as hollywood movies and the MPAA ratings are concerned, heterosexual pairings in missionary and other vanilla positions are the norm, and anything that strays from that (homosexuality, deviant sexual positions, and anything kinky in the slightest) gets an NC-17 rating - and therefore, only viewable by people who actively seek it out, i.e., the minority.
If you have a fetish - or a sexuality - that deviates from this norm, unless society changes in your lifetime (which is a rare but not unheard of occurence), you're going to be subjected to these pressures for the rest of your life. The choice remains - keep it a secret and be accepted, but feel that you're not being true to yourself, or expose your desires to the public and hope that by doing so, others might follow suit, and try to avoid the slings and arrows of the misunderstanding and judgemental masses.
This is probably not news to you if this is the case, but you should also know this - you are not alone. Even amongst the hetereosexual community, there are those with various kinks and fetishes, some of which would be shameful and embarrasing and completely upset their social life if it ever came to light, who must face the same choice. Their fetish or kink may not be so thouroughly rooted to their identity as yours, but then again, maybe it is. There are entire communities that organize around certain fetishes for those that know where to look, as I'm sure there are amongst homosexuals. These communities evolve, usually under the radar, but as a place where people can be open about their deviant kink or preference.
You are not the only ones who must sometimes pretend to be something you're not, pretend to find something appealing, when what you really want is on another buffet table altogether, and know that if anyone at the table knew this, you'd be shunned. I hope you can take comfort in knowing that there are those, even amongst the heterosexual community, who understand and share in your predicament.
To summarize, we all have desires. Those desires stretch the full range of availability, from what society considers "normal" to what it considers "deviant," which can include fetishes, homosexuality, and perverse felonies. But the most important thing to take away from this note is this: what makes us "normal" are not these desires we feel, but our ability to contain them.
We all have desires, many of them not even sexual. The desire for food, power, and money, to name a few. Those who cannot control these desires, to the point where they steal or harm others to satisfy them, are punished for it. We have been raised all our lives to control our desires, no matter what their nature is, for the sake of fitting into society, because if you don't fit in, the way tthe law sees it, you cannot contribute and help society grow. Our code of laws exist to keep these desires in check. How we fit into society is based soley around how we manage all of our desires.
You can be open with yourself if you wish, but there is no shame in keeping your desires a secret, especially if they are embarrasing, scandalous, or especially felonous. For this latter group, the adviseable method is, of course, to keep your desires a secret and never practice them, even behind closed doors. There have been those who have absconded to third world countries that won't penalize you for commiting them, and we've all seen the results of their failed attempt to do so discretely. Our newspapers are full of stories that are testament to what happens when something like that gets out.
But for the rest of us, simply meeting the right person, getting to know them, confiding in them, trusting them with your kinks or sexual preferences, discovering against hope that they either share your desire, or are willing to accommodate it, and finally being able to enjoy what you love doing the most behind closed doors in a consensual and harmless manner, in my opinion, is the most logical and livable approach to dealing with a devious desire. You can still keep your job, your friends, your life, and still be able to escape into your fantasy world when no one else is around - essentially, having your cake and eating it too.
Of course, it would be nice if the world were an open and accepting place, where everyone could express themselves freely, but the sad truth is, it isn't. It may never be. It won't change until enough people expose themselves until it can compete with the majority. But those who do will suffer the consequences. Those that make this sacrifice in the hope of bettering the world for those in their community have my respect and support, but if what you desire is to simply be at peace with the world and your desires, the above method is surely the best approach.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Orson Scott Card's Theory of Genetic Destiny
Time of Original Posting: Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 at 3:22pm
~ ~ ~
Excerpt from "Xenocide," by Orson Scott Card
--
We spend most of our time acting out our genetic destiny. Take the differences between males and females. Males naturally tend toward a broadcast strategy of reproduction. Since males make an almost infinite supply of sperm and it costs them nothing to deploy it. Their most sensible reproductive strategy is to deposit it in every available female-- and to make special efforts to deposit it in the healthiest females, the ones most likely to bring their offspring to adulthood. A male does best, reproductively, if he wanders and copulates as widely as possible.
The female strategy is just the opposite. Instead of millions and millions of sperm, they only have one egg a month, and each child represents an enormous investment of effort. So females need stability. They need to be sure there'll always be plenty of food. They also spend large amounts of time relatively helpless, unable to find or gather food. Far from being wanderers, females need to establish and stay. If they can't get that, then their next best strategy is to mate with the strongest and healthiest possible males. But best of all is to get a strong healthy male who'll stay and provide, instead of wandering and copulating at will.
So there are two pressures on males. The one is to spread their seed, violently if necessary. The other is to be attractive to females by being stable providers-- by suppressing and containing the need to wander and the tendency to use force. Likewise, there are two pressures on females. The one is to get the seed of the strongest, most virile males so their infants will have good genes, which would make the violent, forceful males attractive to them. The other is to get the protection of the most stable males, nonviolent males, so their infants will be protected and provided for and as many as possible will reach adulthood.
Our whole history can all be interpreted as people blindly acting out those genetic strategies. We get pulled in those two directions. Our great civilizations are nothing more than social machines to create the ideal female setting, where a woman can count on stability; our legal and moral codes that try to abolish violence and promote permanence of ownership and enforce contracts-- those represent the primary female strategy, the taming of the male.
And the tribes of wandering barbarians outside the reach of civilization, those follow the mainly male strategy. Spread the seed. Within the tribe, the strongest, most dominant males take possession of the best females, either through formal polygamy or spur-of-the-moment copulations that the other males are powerless to resist. But those low-status males are kept in line because the leaders take them to war and let them rape and pillage their brains out when they win a victory. They act out sexual desirability by proving themselves in combat, and then kill all the rival males and copulate with their widowed females when they win. Hideous, monstrous behavior-- but also a viable acting-out of the genetic strategy.
Excerpt from "Xenocide," by Orson Scott Card
--
We spend most of our time acting out our genetic destiny. Take the differences between males and females. Males naturally tend toward a broadcast strategy of reproduction. Since males make an almost infinite supply of sperm and it costs them nothing to deploy it. Their most sensible reproductive strategy is to deposit it in every available female-- and to make special efforts to deposit it in the healthiest females, the ones most likely to bring their offspring to adulthood. A male does best, reproductively, if he wanders and copulates as widely as possible.
The female strategy is just the opposite. Instead of millions and millions of sperm, they only have one egg a month, and each child represents an enormous investment of effort. So females need stability. They need to be sure there'll always be plenty of food. They also spend large amounts of time relatively helpless, unable to find or gather food. Far from being wanderers, females need to establish and stay. If they can't get that, then their next best strategy is to mate with the strongest and healthiest possible males. But best of all is to get a strong healthy male who'll stay and provide, instead of wandering and copulating at will.
So there are two pressures on males. The one is to spread their seed, violently if necessary. The other is to be attractive to females by being stable providers-- by suppressing and containing the need to wander and the tendency to use force. Likewise, there are two pressures on females. The one is to get the seed of the strongest, most virile males so their infants will have good genes, which would make the violent, forceful males attractive to them. The other is to get the protection of the most stable males, nonviolent males, so their infants will be protected and provided for and as many as possible will reach adulthood.
Our whole history can all be interpreted as people blindly acting out those genetic strategies. We get pulled in those two directions. Our great civilizations are nothing more than social machines to create the ideal female setting, where a woman can count on stability; our legal and moral codes that try to abolish violence and promote permanence of ownership and enforce contracts-- those represent the primary female strategy, the taming of the male.
And the tribes of wandering barbarians outside the reach of civilization, those follow the mainly male strategy. Spread the seed. Within the tribe, the strongest, most dominant males take possession of the best females, either through formal polygamy or spur-of-the-moment copulations that the other males are powerless to resist. But those low-status males are kept in line because the leaders take them to war and let them rape and pillage their brains out when they win a victory. They act out sexual desirability by proving themselves in combat, and then kill all the rival males and copulate with their widowed females when they win. Hideous, monstrous behavior-- but also a viable acting-out of the genetic strategy.
Yes, I'm afraid of commitment
Time of original posting: Sunday, November 15th, 2009 at 10:34pm
~ ~ ~
You say we're afraid of commitment. Damn right we are!
Commitment means change, a change we have to live with, when everyday, we fight our inclinations to do what we would otherwise do, but be reminded of our commitment, and ask ourselves "Am I sure about this? Can I really go through with this?"
Commitment is the hardest thing anyone can ever do. If the people that ran the world were more committed to their jobs, do you think we'd have half the problems we have today? Asking for commitment from us is asking us to rise among the best men in the world.
Think for a moment, how many people do you know who are actually committed to what they do? You might know some - certainly we know a few - but compare that to the number of people you've seen, met or even heard of, who shirk their duties, slack off on the job, quit, cheat on or leave their partners, fall off the wagon, go back to drinking, smoking, and doing the things they absolutely enjoy doing but inevitably destroy themselves and all they stand for by doing it.
Commitment is hard. Ask anyone. Asking us for commitment is to ask an enormous undertaking on our part. And don't pretend like you're shouldering the same burden by asking us to commit to you, because you're not. The only reason you'd ask it of us in the first place is if you stood something to gain from us being committed. Without our commitment, there's nothing to stop us from taking off and doing as we please, and that scares you. If we were to commit to you, our options suddenly become limited, whereas you know exactly what to expect from us, and gain the right to expect it. The things we expect from you, however, still remain within your right to withhold.
So who wins out in this situation? Why should we be expected to commit to you, when we're still so insecure about the world? We don't know what else is out there, shouldn't we be allowed to find out? If we have to suddenly settle down and be yours just because of your own insecurities, shouldn't we be allowed to have our own?
And why now? Are you afraid of what we might find out there? Do you think we'll find something so beautiful that we'll leave you? You say commitment is a sign of trust, but really you want us to commit to you because you don't trust us. You don't have faith that we'll stay on our own, without tying knots or making promises. You don't have faith in us or our character, and if you don't know us well enough to know what to expect, than you have no right to assume we're ready for commitment to begin with.
The only purpose commitment serves is turning chance into predictability, only it's our chances that are being taken away, while you've already made your decision to cash in your chips. Sure, commitment can lead to the creation of good and wonderful things - communities, riches, children - but that's a responsibility that's beyond a lot of of us. You expect us to be gods when we are but men, with the same weaknesses and insecurities. Say what you will about the differences between human beings based on gender or age, the differences are minute, we're the same where it counts, and commitment is no small matter. It doesn't matter who we are, how old we are, if we're male of female - if we're not ready to commit, it's because we have insecurities exactly the same as you, and if you were in our shoes, you'd be saying the exact same thing.
Think about that next time you're about to ask someone to make a commitment to you. And when you realize what you're about to put them through, how about instead, you take a leap of faith yourself...
...And don't.
~ ~ ~
You say we're afraid of commitment. Damn right we are!
Commitment means change, a change we have to live with, when everyday, we fight our inclinations to do what we would otherwise do, but be reminded of our commitment, and ask ourselves "Am I sure about this? Can I really go through with this?"
Commitment is the hardest thing anyone can ever do. If the people that ran the world were more committed to their jobs, do you think we'd have half the problems we have today? Asking for commitment from us is asking us to rise among the best men in the world.
Think for a moment, how many people do you know who are actually committed to what they do? You might know some - certainly we know a few - but compare that to the number of people you've seen, met or even heard of, who shirk their duties, slack off on the job, quit, cheat on or leave their partners, fall off the wagon, go back to drinking, smoking, and doing the things they absolutely enjoy doing but inevitably destroy themselves and all they stand for by doing it.
Commitment is hard. Ask anyone. Asking us for commitment is to ask an enormous undertaking on our part. And don't pretend like you're shouldering the same burden by asking us to commit to you, because you're not. The only reason you'd ask it of us in the first place is if you stood something to gain from us being committed. Without our commitment, there's nothing to stop us from taking off and doing as we please, and that scares you. If we were to commit to you, our options suddenly become limited, whereas you know exactly what to expect from us, and gain the right to expect it. The things we expect from you, however, still remain within your right to withhold.
So who wins out in this situation? Why should we be expected to commit to you, when we're still so insecure about the world? We don't know what else is out there, shouldn't we be allowed to find out? If we have to suddenly settle down and be yours just because of your own insecurities, shouldn't we be allowed to have our own?
And why now? Are you afraid of what we might find out there? Do you think we'll find something so beautiful that we'll leave you? You say commitment is a sign of trust, but really you want us to commit to you because you don't trust us. You don't have faith that we'll stay on our own, without tying knots or making promises. You don't have faith in us or our character, and if you don't know us well enough to know what to expect, than you have no right to assume we're ready for commitment to begin with.
The only purpose commitment serves is turning chance into predictability, only it's our chances that are being taken away, while you've already made your decision to cash in your chips. Sure, commitment can lead to the creation of good and wonderful things - communities, riches, children - but that's a responsibility that's beyond a lot of of us. You expect us to be gods when we are but men, with the same weaknesses and insecurities. Say what you will about the differences between human beings based on gender or age, the differences are minute, we're the same where it counts, and commitment is no small matter. It doesn't matter who we are, how old we are, if we're male of female - if we're not ready to commit, it's because we have insecurities exactly the same as you, and if you were in our shoes, you'd be saying the exact same thing.
Think about that next time you're about to ask someone to make a commitment to you. And when you realize what you're about to put them through, how about instead, you take a leap of faith yourself...
...And don't.
Religulous
Time of original posting: Thursday, January 8th, 2009 at 4:40 AM
I first saw Religulous when it came out last fall, and I just recently saw it again on DVD. I searched the internet for Bill Maher's long, drawn out diatribe at the end of the documentary, and, unable to find it, I transcribed it directly from the DVD onto digital paper. You all may think that this is an astounding waste of time, but I found his words to be so moving and meaningful, that I just had to reiterate them.
(Excerpt from "Religulous" by Bill Maher)
“The plain fact is religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. ‘Faith’ means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.
“Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings, who don’t have all the answers, to think that they do. Most people would think it’s wonderful when someone says ‘I’m willing lord. I’ll do whatever you want me to do.’ Except, that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know - they just know - what happens when you die, I promise you, you don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know. And you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the ‘big questions’ is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that’s what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.
“This is why rational people, anti-religion-ists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only ‘moderately religious’ really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign and protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let’s remember what the real problem was: that we learned how to precipitate mass-death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That’s it. Grow up or die.”
-Bill Maher
(EDIT: Please note that while I agree in a large part with Bill Maher's statements, I am not disagreeing with the existence of God. My disagreement is that human beings are capable of knowing anything about the existence of God, and that literally interpreting religious texts is detrimental to one's grasp of God and man. Turning to religion for the purpose of morale guidance and support is good. Turning to religion for answers as to the origin of man and earth, and the answer to what happens after we die, is less favorable in my opinion, but it gives potentially false hope. Again, this is simply how I choose to live my life. You are all welcome to live your lives how you choose to. Bottom line: "People will generally believe whatever makes living easiest. Who are we to take that away?" - Anonymous.)
~ ~ ~
I first saw Religulous when it came out last fall, and I just recently saw it again on DVD. I searched the internet for Bill Maher's long, drawn out diatribe at the end of the documentary, and, unable to find it, I transcribed it directly from the DVD onto digital paper. You all may think that this is an astounding waste of time, but I found his words to be so moving and meaningful, that I just had to reiterate them.
(Excerpt from "Religulous" by Bill Maher)
“The plain fact is religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. ‘Faith’ means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.
“Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings, who don’t have all the answers, to think that they do. Most people would think it’s wonderful when someone says ‘I’m willing lord. I’ll do whatever you want me to do.’ Except, that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know - they just know - what happens when you die, I promise you, you don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know. And you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the ‘big questions’ is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that’s what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.
“This is why rational people, anti-religion-ists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only ‘moderately religious’ really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign and protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let’s remember what the real problem was: that we learned how to precipitate mass-death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That’s it. Grow up or die.”
-Bill Maher
(EDIT: Please note that while I agree in a large part with Bill Maher's statements, I am not disagreeing with the existence of God. My disagreement is that human beings are capable of knowing anything about the existence of God, and that literally interpreting religious texts is detrimental to one's grasp of God and man. Turning to religion for the purpose of morale guidance and support is good. Turning to religion for answers as to the origin of man and earth, and the answer to what happens after we die, is less favorable in my opinion, but it gives potentially false hope. Again, this is simply how I choose to live my life. You are all welcome to live your lives how you choose to. Bottom line: "People will generally believe whatever makes living easiest. Who are we to take that away?" - Anonymous.)
Getting back on track
Gonna make a few blog posts, because I haven't updated in a while, and it's occurred to me that I've posted more often on facebook than here. While I technically have more "followers" on facebook, it's worth putting my actual written work here for posterity/permanence's sake. Gonna transcribe a few of my facebook notes now, so a bunch of articles will appear all at once.
Stand by.
Stand by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)