Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:44:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1753 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Explain why the actual act has been forced to take place privately. Are
you for allowing public displays of sexual acts?
|
In the Western world, Victorian prudishness is the primary closeting force.
But before I answer further, can you give me an ironclad reason why sexual
acts must be private? And I caution you against such moral relativism as
“society has decided they should be private” or such unverifiable statements
as “God has decreed that they should be private.” Give me a solid, tangible
reason why they should be private, and then I will answer your question.
|
I believe sexual intercourse is an intimate bonding experience physically,
emotionall, spiritually, and psychologically. It is the ultimate “giving” of
oneself, and thus should be considered to be a highly meaningful experience. It
should be an expression of love, not of lust, because we as humans have evolved
beyond that. Sex for sex sake is animalistic in nature, where no meaning is
attached to the act. I see recreational sex with multiple partners as demeaning
to the participants and to the act itself, because although they have become
physically intimate through the act of sex, they are nowhere near emotional
and psychological intimacy, which is really what people desire anyway.
So keeping sex private keeps sex “holy”, or set aside, as an ultimate act of
giving. Making it a common act in the streets cheapens it to meaninglessness.
| |
| |
| |
| |
When people make private things public it is at the least embarrassing and
at the most offensive.
|
It may be embarrassing or offensive to the viewer and not the practitioner,
but that’s the viewer’s problem, not the practitioner’s.
|
Well, I think it’s both their problems.
|
No, you’re blurring the issue.
|
It is a matter of civility. It is a matter of respect. Decorum, boundaries.
These are the hallmarks of the evolution of society. Sex anywhere anytime with
anyone is a movement towards anarchy, and is not progress IMO
| |
The embarrassment is the problem of the
viewer. If the viewer is unable to restrain himself from acting in a violent,
childish, or repressive manner, then his reaction is also his problem.
| |
| |
I would argue that
some private things could also be quite beautiful when made public.
|
So what?
|
Didn’t you read your post? You’re claimed, with no specificity, that “when
people make private things public it is at the least embarrassing and at the
most offensive.” Lacking a disclaimer, your claim applies to all private
matters, and my statement was a contradiction of yours.
|
Maybe some things, but not those things. Are you specifically arguing that
public sex is beautiful?
| |
| |
| |
I think it your attitude regarding homosexuality most certainly affects the
way you treat homosexuals,
|
How do you know how I treat homosexuals? If I don’t know that they are gay,
how can I treat them differently?
|
“Don’t ask, don’t tell,” right? You’ve stated outright that the revelation
of homosexuality will
|
No, “can”.
| |
cause you to withhold respect from those who otherwise
deserve it, in your eyes. Your calls for censure of homosexuals are how
you treat them differently.
| |
| |
and it strikes me as really bizarre that you can’t
see it. You advocate the prohibition of gay marriage while insisting that
gay marriage isn’t a “gay issue.”
|
Last time I will say this. It is a redefinition issue. Marriage is and
always has been defined as the union between 1 man and 1 woman. Any 1 man
is free to marry any 1 woman. We are starting to go in circles WRT this
issue...
|
I surely hope it’s the last time you say it, because you’ve been saying it
wrong for many months. Whether or not it is a “redefinition issue,” it is
also a gay issue. Astonishingly, you reveal your exclusionary prejudice
even here,
| |
| |
the revelation of homosexuality causes you to treat homosexuals with less
respect than they deserve.
|
It doesn’t cause me to treat them differently, I said it can cause me to
treat them differently.
|
Why? Do you lack free will? Are you such a machine of input-output that you
are doomed to pure, unfiltered reaction when faced with something
aesthetically objectionable to you? Such an inability to control one’s
responses sounds disturbingly like sociopathy to me.
|
When offensive things are thrust into my face (and I’m not talking
specifically about the gay lifestyle here) and I am taunted by them; yeah, it
can affect my attitude toward them. I think you overestimate your ability to
control your emotions (unless you happen to have some pointed ears that I don’t
know about)
| |
You are explicity declaring that someone else should alter his behavior
because you are unable to control yours.
| |
For instance, I find gay activist parades to be a
diliberate snubbing and tweaking of heterosexuals.
|
Have you ever attended one?
|
I’ve seen portions of videos.
| |
The fact that you feel so threatened by a
festive and pointedly campy celebration of freedom is truly amazing.
|
That’s a clever way to put it. I suppose you feel the same way about a KKK
march as well.
| |
| |
I wonder if there would
still be such displays if everyone were gay? There wouldn’t, just as there
are never heterosexual parades. And if there were a heterosexual parade, it
would be to tweak homosexuals.
|
Most of American culture is a heterosexual parade, Will & Grace and Queer
Eye notwithstanding.
If homosexuals were truly accepted by our culture (and not forced to hide
themselves to protect your inability to control yourself), then of course
there would be no need for such displays, but they might still happen. And
anyway, so what?
| |
| |
How can you claim not to treat gays differently,
while you’re simultaneously asserting that you do treat them differently?
|
“Treat them differently”? Are you talking about my views on homosexual
marriage again?
|
Yes, now that you mention it. But I was actually referring to your
perception that your awareness of someone’s homosexuality causes you to treat
that person differently.
|
You know, treating them differently isn’t necessarily bad. I treat men and
women differently. So what?
| |
| |
| |
Maybe not everyone, but you’ve stated clearly that you want homosexuals to
hide their sexuality in effect, to make themselves appear more like you.
|
Not just gays, but everyone. If we keep the private and intimate stuff
private, then everybody wins, no?
|
To make everyone more like you,
|
Civilized?
| |
or perhaps just more generically alike?
|
Yeah, that’s the ultimate goal-- a world of clones of me.
| |
Where do I exit this crazy ride? That may equate to “everyone wins” in your
world, but to many people, the repressive, anti-sexual fantasy land that you
propose is not discernably different from full-blown dystopia.
|
Perhaps. But to many people, the open, self-indulgent, any-thing-goes carnival
isn’t utopia either.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Well, if (such a group) is created and everyone ignores it, how does that
make the hobby stronger?
|
It seems unlikely that everyone would ignore it. Almost all of LUGNET
ignores ot.clone-brands, so do you assert that the presence of that forum
does not contribute to the strength of the hobby?
|
It doesn’t contribute to strengthening the LEGO hobby AFAIC
|
No? Then you’d welcome clone-brand MOCs and clone-brand discussions in every
LUGNET group? Would that contribute more directly to the strength of the
hobby?
|
Depends on the specific topics. They could contribute more than some existing
threads...
| |
Besides which, it really doesn’t matter whether ot.clones contributes to the
strength of the hobby in your opinion, because your opinion on the matter is
hardly absolute or paramount. I don’t read the .robotics group, and AFAIC it
adds nothing to the hobby, but others disagree. That’s how it
strengthens the hobby and, frankly, the community.
Honestly, I wouldn’t have spent five years on LUGNET without the clone forum,
because that’s the primary benefit I derive from the board (ot.debate aside).
I believe I have contributed to people’s understanding of certain
LDraw-related matters, and I even helped in the rendering of a Train poster.
I’ve also effected transactions to help smooth the rough diplomatic waters
between Australia and the US. These strike me as positive, though small,
contributions to the strength of the hobby. Sure, they would likely have
been fulfilled in my absence, but my contributions prevented other people
from having to make those same contributions.
And I’m not making this a personal issue, either--I’m pointing out that the
contributions of a person whose interests you do not share can add strength
to the hobby/community in a way that would be absent if that person were
absent.
| |
| |
| |
See, what is so disingenuous of you with that attitude is that everyone
has certain flowers that they don’t want to see bloom.
|
What is truly disingenuous is the pretense that all potential groups are
equally marginalized or repressed by the majority. However, I recognize
that you fundamentally seem not to comprehend or acknowledge this.
|
You are correct. Are you saying that gays are particularily repressed?
|
Specificity, please. Particularly repressed relative to whom?
|
I was speaking in governmental policy terms (besides marriage).
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Oddly, this is straight out of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and The Profane," which speaks of the investment of "sacredness" into certain places/customs/actions so that those places/customs/actions are preserved against alteration due to (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) In the Western world, Victorian prudishness is the primary closeting force. But before I answer further, can you give me an ironclad reason why sexual acts must be private? And I caution you against such moral relativism as "society has (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
