same sex couples?sirkeithdDecember 10 2003, 20:49:36 UTC
Then let us ask if the above changes if applied to lovers of the same sex ... for example:
"...a man does not possess another man just because he fucks him, because he satisfies him. What counts is what happens before and after."
"A woman does not possess another woman just because she fucks her, because she satisfies her. What counts is what happens before and after."
In the first instance, it does seem to me almost remote .. almost as though it's non-sensical. In so much gay culture, absolutely nothing happens before and after. No one would even imagine that issues of possessiveness even come up. DESPITE the very same kind of penetration issues (and perhaps even more intimate) inherent in male-female coitus. I wish I had the gay perspective, because I can't make good sense of it.
In the second, it seems wholly axiomatic ... as though so obvious that the statement seems pointless.
I think that who the actors are, their sex and their roles, do indeed tend to shape the ways in which they interact and how their experiences are experienced (no pun).
Re: same sex couples?renitysjourneyDecember 11 2003, 17:05:42 UTC
It seems to me that in many ways, any arguments based on physicality run dangerously parallel to harmful stereotypes. Though, as I said in another comment, my filters do not account for the stereotypes...it is in each of us to derive our personal mean.
Yes Keith, another battle that is damned similar to semantic issues.
In any case, I've been focusing on the fucking part of the statements as opposed to the "before and after" perspective. Does this imply the moments immediately prior and after? Perhaps not so much...a smoker of any gender will wish to light up...
When I slow to truly consider the individuals out there (aka different actors)...all of the genders and orientations, kinky and otherwise, I remember that I am not omniscient enough to define a norm.
"...a man does not possess another man just because he fucks him, because he satisfies him. What counts is what happens before and after."
"A woman does not possess another woman just because she fucks her, because she satisfies her. What counts is what happens before and after."
In the first instance, it does seem to me almost remote .. almost as though it's non-sensical. In so much gay culture, absolutely nothing happens before and after. No one would even imagine that issues of possessiveness even come up. DESPITE the very same kind of penetration issues (and perhaps even more intimate) inherent in male-female coitus. I wish I had the gay perspective, because I can't make good sense of it.
In the second, it seems wholly axiomatic ... as though so obvious that the statement seems pointless.
I think that who the actors are, their sex and their roles, do indeed tend to shape the ways in which they interact and how their experiences are experienced (no pun).
Reply
Yes Keith, another battle that is damned similar to semantic issues.
In any case, I've been focusing on the fucking part of the statements as opposed to the "before and after" perspective. Does this imply the moments immediately prior and after? Perhaps not so much...a smoker of any gender will wish to light up...
When I slow to truly consider the individuals out there (aka different actors)...all of the genders and orientations, kinky and otherwise, I remember that I am not omniscient enough to define a norm.
Reply
Leave a comment