We tend to recoil much less from this, I think, than the idea of Lister having sex with an identical clone of himself
I'm going to need a cite for that, you prevert.
On further reflection, I think we recoil so much from the idea of Lister having sex at all that it's hard to make the comparison for particular partners.
Would sex with one's perfect clone be masturbation, or incest? Or neither?
No, I'm not my type.
More importantly, would you vote for your own clone?
Why is that more important? Is my clone running for office?
If my clone would lose about 30-40 lbs. and spiff up a bit, and if he hadn't been drinking too much, maybe.
I don't think I'd even get along with my own clone.
I'll see you in hell, CloneFuckers(TM).
I would like to point out that, from a genetic standpoint, the question of whether you would {fuck/have sex with} your same-sex clone can could also be asked as "Would you {fuck/have sex with} your identical twin sibling?"
If I ignore what I just wrote, however, my answer is yes.
6: Because it indicates how much you trust yourself. Do you think power would corrupt you? Can you be bought? Are you secretly an incestuous masturbating pervert about to be outed by the sleazy beahviour of the Democrats? Would your clone even remember you, once it got to that land of milk and money, where pneumatic interns abound?
FTM, the most important question is"Would your clone even want to have sex with you?"
10, 11 to the post, to 5, and they can stand as answers my clone would give to 14.
I would comment, but I have been studying on the question, using both analytical and Frenchy modes of approach, and it will take a while to clorox-clean the full-length mirror.
I haven't seen the show, but you mean an alternate reality opposite-sex doppelgänger or some such, not a clone per se, don't cha?
I thought this already happened when Mick married Bianca...
The title of this post should be "Fuck you, clone."
quam ob rem "vivam vocem" scribis? meliusne "viva voce" esset?
What if you would fuck your own clone, but your clone wouldn't deign to fuck you? Fuck you, clone, indeed!
If I ever met my clone I would have to kill it as soon as possible to prevent it from doing the same to me.
Mark: object of "given".
would like to point out that, from a genetic standpoint, the question of whether you would {fuck/have sex with} your same-sex clone can could also be asked as "Would you {fuck/have sex with} your identical twin sibling?"
One, I already pointed this out in the post, and two, this obscures the fact that your clone needn't resemble you at all. Identical twins often retain similarity because they develop similarly, but your clone could disresemble you in all respects, physical and mental. (Your twin could, of course, but this isn't the general picture of twinship most people have.)
21--
I think the answer is Dr. Johnson's: ignorance, madam, mere ignorance.
Considering the people with whom I have had sex, I can say that none of them resembled me even vaguely. Not even like, say, family resemblance.
So I conclude I'm just not my type.
You think too little of me, bitzer.
I think 13 is wrong. Your clone would not be an identical twin sibling, or indeed a sibling at all. A biological sibling is the product of a common father and/or a common mother. But your clone, being the product only of your own material, is not the child of your parents, but the offspring of yourself. The relevant analogy I think is a baby flatworm, who is the offspring, not the sibling, of his parent worm.
So really the consideration is, would you have sex with your own offspring? This being a generally despised practice, the answer is no.
no, the object of 'given' is 'kind' as in 'kind of concerns'.
viva voce is ablative of means, and remains so even in this construction.
(I esp. don't want to have sex w/ people who correct others' Latin syntax. Sorry, Mark.)
I don't think of you *often*, Mr. w-lfs-n, but I assure you that I think very highly of you when I do.
in particular, several of your jokes over the weeks I have been reading here have struck me as uncommonly clever.
I don't say that of everyone.
"kind" is the indirect object: voice might already have been given [to] these concerns. You really ought to be getting on my case about "kind ... were".
This construction came about because originally I had written "were bruited viva voce", but then I realized that that's not really what "bruit" means, so I thought I should change it to "given voice" before I remembered that "viva voce" was already there, and "given voice viva voce" is dumb. Hence "given vivam vocem".
(I esp. don't want to have sex w/ people who correct others' Latin syntax. Sorry, Mark.)
What if they are professors of Latin?
…and oughtn't it to be "vivā voce", anyway, while we're splitting hairs? (On preview, Safari doesn't seem to be able to italicize the a-macron.)
Safari doesn't seem to be able to italicize the a-macron.
Firefox does just fine.
One more reason to dislike Safari.
34
"What if they are professors of Latin?"
Then they may do whatever they wish, but I still will not want to have sex with them.
32--
oh, I see: you really intended to give the macaronic translation of the passive transform of "someone gave concerns of this kind a live voice." Well, then I suppose you want the accusative after all.
But that's surely a rather unidiomatic extension of the idiom "viva voce"? The point of "voice" in the phrase "viva voce" is rather different than in phrases like "gave voice to" or "voiced these complaints" or the like. The latter idioms just mean "expression" whether oral or written. The former means literal vocal utterance.
God, I'm turning myself off more and more. Just as well.
as it depends on given and is adverbial, gosh, it is going to have to be ablative [of means] as you correctly point out and as I suggested. Also, Ben, you are throwing dust in the eyes of the jury with the point about the macron and you know it!
KB, [sigh], [sigh].
Re 17, she was actually his alternate-universe manifestation.
And about 21, I'd have phrased it "nonne melius 'viva voce' est" rather than "meliusne 'viva voce' esset".
Unlike kid bitzer, all this Latin makes me hot.
40--
mark I am fairly confident that
1) my antipathy to sleeping with latin profs is the minority view--the rest of the world is ga-ga for them;
and
2) in failing to captivate me, you ain't missin much. certainly nothing to sigh over.
(I would say that I speak from personal experience, but then I've never slept with me. Which was the point. Anyhow, I can at least provide reliable testimony. I know, spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other. But I think she'd volunteer.)
43--
you see? Unlike kid bitzer, all this latin makes Chris hot.
I have that frigorific effect where'er I go.
Isn't Alameida a Latin prof, at least potentially?
Yeah it's jungle out there--- dance card full, so in demand--- but forbidden fruit and all that. [sigh]
L--- yours WOULD BE correct too.
Yo, Chris!
Kid bitzer stole my 43-related thunder.
But that's surely a rather unidiomatic extension of the idiom "viva voce"? The point of "voice" in the phrase "viva voce" is rather different than in phrases like "gave voice to" or "voiced these complaints" or the like. The latter idioms just mean "expression" whether oral or written. The former means literal vocal utterance.
I guess. The point of my not being present was that they could have been literally vocally uttered and I wouldn't have known. You could say it was an attempt cleverly to combine the idiom of giving voice to something with the Latin expression whose normal use is just to tell you in what way something was expressed. You'd probably have had me go along with "concerns were given voice viva voce", but I think that's inelegant. Why not cram them together?
As for YOU, mark, I'm not in your class anymore, so neener neener.
I'm just defensive about how much Latin I've forgotten.
You could've avoided the redundancy of "given voice viva voce" by saying something like "addressed" or "discussed viva voce." Since "given voice" was already a fallback, I don't see why you were so attached to it.
In short: if it were a matter of dating w-lfs-n, he'd have to be pretty good-looking to make up for this gaffe.
The last line of 50 almost made me laugh hard enough to cry.
50: I had already used "discussed", and I like "given voice".
I mean, I do remember the existence of the ablative and shit. I think what I wrote stands, and bitzer is just too square to appreciate my linguistic ingenuity.
that's nimis quadratus to you, pal.
and I already conceded in 39 that it stands, as a matter of syntax.
Absolvo te; Go and syn no more.
OK, now that everyone is happy and sexy, can we return to the crucial question of whether we would be happy to have teh sexy with clones of ourselves? That, and not w-lfs-n's awkward Latin prose comp exercise, is the issue here.
I'm not really following the last part of this thread, but it appears to be some sort of nerd smackdown.
What about having sex with a clone of somebody else? Fetishes always follow new technology closely.
I believe the twin fetish has been around for a while, and I don't see how someone else's clone would be different.
Consenting adults is consenting adults; as long as there is no history or position of exploitation. And I mean that.
I think my clone is the only guy I would or could ever trust enough to have sex with. I have had sex with guys long ago, and it sucked. Nothing but games. Course without the games and bullshit, the secrets and lies, kindness and malice, dominance and submission, sex with my clone would probably be so boring we would both be impotent.
# 57 Oh my god, perfect. Thanks for the laugh. That is all. Out.
58:You mean like the Buffybot? How do the community feel about the Buffybot? Nobody was really hurt, I suppose.
Whedon was brilliant.
I have had sex with guys long ago, and it sucked
This is begging to be the punchline to something. Like I dunno, invert the order of the last two words or something.
63: Anonymous. Who was that? I need a flame war.
63 me.
59 -- I wasn't saying you would have sex with somebody else and their clone (though that would be fun too I guess and as expounded above by B-Wo et al., different enough from having sex with two identical twins to merit its own distinctly specific fetish.) I was thinking more along the lines of "a clone is different in identifiable ways from a non-clone person, so clones are a distinct class, so there is room for a new fetish." Maybe the objects of this fetish would get spelled with a 'K' or something.
I think my clone is the only guy I would or could ever trust enough to have sex with.
See, once again, a distinction. Mcmanus is evidently thinking of some kind of Total Mind Clone. But maybe we should only think about genetic clones.
a clone is different in identifiable ways from a non-clone person, so clones are a distinct class, so there is room for a new fetish.
This isn't true, though, is it? I mean, we don't have any cloned people yet, but I can't think of any reason they would be identifiably different from non-clone people as a class.
Not being born of man and woman is an identifiable distinction even if its only real-world consequences are in people's heads -- if this were so you might get a small (or large, depending) category of sex workers who present themselves as clones though they are in fact births.
I think the incest factor depends, for me, on where the clone came from and how much I was involved in its creation and rearing. If a me-aged clone of me just appeared, somehow, I don't think I would feel incest-based compunctions. (I also don't have any actual siblings or children, so the lack of existing possible parallel DON'T SLEEP WITH THAT PERSON models might be a factor there.) I think, too, that she would look and act different enough that it wouldn't actually feel quite like a disturbing doppelganger situation.
All that said, I don't think I'd find a she-clone of me all that attractive. A he-clone, on the other hand, sounds perhaps strangely appealing.
There's a fair amount of speculative fiction that rests on the assumption that people in general would think of clones as significantly different from non-clone people. I always find this very hard to swallow.
I always find this very hard to swallow
And surely this could fit in with 63 somehow.
Yeah, I'm really not seeing the "clones will necessarily be considered different from others" thing. I suspect it would be more like in vitro fertilization--after a while, people would get used to it and it would no longer even be remarkable.
I think mcmanus raises an interesting question: how creepy was the Buffybot? And why?
58: Look, there's Spike! He's wearing a coat!
72:Well, most science fiction deals with clones in batches of at least a dozen. You got some good DNA, why stop with one? Anyway, clones brought up together work well as a team.
Kate Wilhelm's "Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang" was a classic treatment of my era. Le Guin's "Nine Lives" is also good. C J Cherry's Future History faces an antagonistic society based on cloning. See also Pamela Sargent. Wonder why women writers dealt with it most seriously.
I think '70s and '80s Varley had a great deal of clonefuckery going on, and the classic in the field is David Gerrold's The Man Who Folded Himself (which admittedly is not so much clonefucking as themenwhobuggeredmohammed time travel).
$ /usr/games/fortune -o -m clone
%% (fortunes-o)
CLONE OF MY OWN (to Home on the Range)
Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With the Y chromosome changed to X.
And when she is grown,
My very own clone,
We'll be of the opposite sex.
Chorus:
Clone, clone of my own,
With the Y chromosome changed to X.
And when we're alone,
Since her mind is my own,
She'll be thinking of nothing but sex.
-- Randall Garrett
It's funny to see who didn't comment in this thread.
I didn't comment yet cos I'm dead. However, Aristophanes was talking about something possibly relevant to this at a Symposium I was at a while ago.
Too bad you slept through the best parts, loser.
Because I have self-esteem issues, the more people remind me of me, the more I dislike them. I think if I met my clone, I would be unable to resist the urge to pound him into a bloody pulp saying "you, you are the one who is making my life miserable."
Is it real clones (your DNA injected into an egg), or a copy of yourself (with the same memories and personality)?
I would fuck a copy of myself (as it would essentally be masturbation), but not a clone, if for no other reason than my clone would be at least 21 years younger than me (unless I've got a clone lying around somewhere that I don't know about).
There's a whole genre of Gothic stories about doubles relevant to this (by Poe and others -- ETA Hoffman, I think) .
If my clone lost 15 pounds, she'd be gorgeous.
My clone would be too neurotic to bother with.
I'm worried that clone-fucking will be the October Surprise issue which turns the election around for the Republicans. Sausagely is far more important to the Democrats than Ward Churchill is.
See, my 23 is really just a logical extension of 84 and 89.
But seriously, I'd fuck my clone if she let me be the one to bind my breasts, wear suspenders, cut my hair, wield the dildo, and otherwise be the boy. Otherwise it would be weird.
It would be weird if you were the girl? Why?
The question of me having sex with my clone is moot, since neither of us would have the courage to make the first move.
Some matchmaker will have to introduce d. aleph to herself.
Perhaps someone should throw a theme party with more than 36 people, just to make the matchmaking easier.
Okay, first we need to find 18 people and their clones...
The theme: Poe's "William Wilson" (a "double" story).
"You have conquered, and I yield. Yet, henceforward art thou also dead --dead to the World, to Heaven and to Hope! In me didst thou exist --and, in my death, see by this image, which is thine own, how utterly thou hast murdered thyself." ...whatever. Alain Delon in the movie, IIRC. Jane Fonda in black leather on a white horse, and Terence Stamp chasing Death perceived as a little blond girl.
Drew Barrymore is in Doppelganger tonight. Can't imagine it worth watching.
85: The thought experiment I think those of us in the "pro" camp were responding to was in fact more like would you fuck a copy of your exact self -- the idea being that this person has the same memories, age and body as you do. Of course it's not actually possible to create a copy of yourself, but if it were, then this person would look identical to you, and have the exact same sexual history/proclivities as you. And for at least the three of us who were "outed" by Yglesias, the response was, that seems like it would be incredibly hott. So Ben, if that helps, there you go.
He who must not be named has been named. I fear that the Gods will bring the temple down on our heads.
I'm not the one who started this naming names business in the first place. Quid pro quo.
For the sin of one, many will be brought low. Woe to the Unfogged quasi-community! Our quasi-destruction is at hand!
Hm. Is the pseudonymity biz off, now that he who must not be named had quit TAP?
It was never very serious in the first place. I believe there are even some comments containing both names.
Also, the stuff he writes on his own blog under his own name isn't exactly secret to begin with.
Honestly, it's been some time since I commented on Unfogged, and just forgot about how you guys enforce the pseudonyms around here -- it wasn't intentional. But yeah, what teo said. I'd be really surprised if he was upset with me about this, but if he is, he knows where I live.
You know who else hasn't commented on Unfogged in a long time?
The question of me having sex with my clone is moot, since neither of us would have the courage to make the first move.
I was going to post this! It would undoubtedly be the most awkward encounter that ought to have been sexual but wasn't ever.
Well, I admit that outing clone-fuckers is pretty dastardly.
Who, teo?
The thought experiment I think those of us in the "pro" camp were responding to was in fact more like would you fuck a copy of your exact self -- the idea being that this person has the same memories, age and body as you do. Of course it's not actually possible to create a copy of yourself, but if it were, then this person would look identical to you, and have the exact same sexual history/proclivities as you.
A number of people, including Will Wilkinson and MaxPolun, have claimed that in this scenario, the copulation would essentially be masturbation, which is completely batty. I mean, I shouldn't even have to point out how incredibly wrong that is. I hope that you, Sommer, a member of the "pro" camp, had better reasoning.
Who, teo?
I don't dare speak his name, but he hates clone-fucking.
Oh no, I don't argue that it's masturbation. It's the opportunity to have sex with someone who knows exactly what you want and for you to know exactly what they want. Plus you'd get to find out what it's like to have sex with you. I fail to see a down side here.
116 is the most sensible comment I've read on this issue.
Hypothetically, you might not be attracted to members of your own sex.
I haven't followed it since Dolly, but as I remember a clone will be developmentally younger than the original (perhaps even years younger), but with regard to certain aging processes will be the same age. So if a guy is cloned at age 20, when his clone is 20 and he is 40 the clone will be just barely mature in some ways (personal history, maturation), and entering into middle age in others (healthwise).
Or something like that.
The issue doesn't seem to be about literal clones, though, but rather some kind of science-fictiony exact replica things.
"It's the opportunity to have sex with someone who knows exactly what you want"
If that were true, then the first thing he would know is this:
I want to have sex with someone *completely* different from me.
I mean, different eye color, different hair color--even different gender, if you can believe it.
What he would know is: I ain't my type. He ain't my type. And I ain't his.
So neither of us would want to do it with the other. End of story.
(Now if you insist on craving psycho-drama sexual scenarios, I will confess that it would piss me off that he lusts after my wife. But then, I would also know that that is exactly what he wants, so it's not his fault.)
118: My sense is in fact that those who raised the strongest objections are those who are the most uncomfortable with the potential homosexuality implied in the encounter. I guess that just doesn't bother me.
The down side is that I may or may not know exactly what I want, but whatever it is, I don't really give it to others. In fact, if I want it I don't have it, right? Lack, elusive object of desire, The Nothing, and so on.
Or put it this way -- I have this friend who's fond of wisecracks, oneupmanship, teasing, and snark. (What a horrible person! Right?) I suspect that this guy does not seek out toher people fond of wisecracks, oneupmanship, teasing, and snark.
119:Good grief, scientific accuracy in clone-fucking fantasies. Hard science clone-fuckers.
Okay,okay. We will use ST replicators instead. Exact duplicates of self in mind and body.
It's true that I don't get bothered by the implied homosexuality.
But more to the point, I don't get *hot* and bothered by it.
It just isn't really what turns me on, y'know?
Well, you might not. But he would.
Well, jeez, Sommer, you're a girl. Having sex with girls doesn't bother me either. I fail to see the point.
If you like having sex with guys, that is pretty weird. One of the things about women I never was able to figure out.
"In fact, if I want it I don't have it, right? Lack, elusive object of desire"
Dammit, Plato--I thought you were going to stay out of this one!
(Symposium 200)
I hear you. For the most part, I am attracted to men more than women because they are different from me -- they're hairier, more muscular, smell different, etc. But we were discussing the opportunity to have a once-in-a-lifetime encounter that seemed, to us, to carry the potential of being incredibly revealing and incredibly sexy. Are you telling me you wouldn't even be curious to try it?
As I said, the guy would have to lose a lot of weight and spiff up some.
If I were goiing to pop my gay cherry, it sure as hell wouldn't be with a hairy, high-maintenance Iranian. Doesn't the self-fucker position boil down to "I am so hot!"?
Ogged's gay TIVO is still in the box.
opportunity to have a once-in-a-lifetime encounter that seemed, to us, to carry the potential of being incredibly revealing and incredibly sexy. Are you telling me you wouldn't even be curious to try it?
Jesus no. I'd rather chop off a finger.
It's the opportunity to have sex with someone who knows exactly what you want and for you to know exactly what they want.
Total middle-voicer. Is what you want to receive also what you want to give (and you have to be more specific than "pleasure", obvs). Supposed you want to recieve Stimulation X (and your clone does too). Which of you gets it first? Does the one stimulating get off while the one stimulated does? The situation is perfect if you don't have to worry about the clone's pleasure here, because then, the clone knows exactly what you want and you get exactly what you want. Maybe you want to receive some stimulation that you don't actually like giving. "Oh no", thinks you, "I can be absolutely certain that Clone Sommer wants me to pick her nose with my toes, an activity whose thrillingness when performed on me is equal to, and perhaps caused by, the disgust I feel at the idea of carrying it out myself!". (It might seem that I'm pressing a needlessly agonistic picture of sex here, but really I'm just trying to make trouble for Sommer. I myself am a sensitive lover who really puts the "intersubjectivity" back in "intercourse".)
But no matter what you seem to get only two advantages:
1. No need to verbalize your desires! Or at least, no need to express your desires.
2. You'd probably gain some insight into your behavior during sex that could be turned to your advantage when sex0ring others.
132:I would give myself a pity fuck. I'm just that kinda guy.
Ogged is the kind of guy who would fuck himself and not even give himself a reach-around.
My clone wouldn't let me fuck him, as he would be rightly afraid of my massive cock.
Massive cocks are normally attached to enormous assholes.
I hear you. For the most part, I am attracted to men more than women because they are different from me -- they're hairier, more muscular, smell different, etc. But we were discussing the opportunity to have a once-in-a-lifetime encounter that seemed, to us, to carry the potential of being incredibly revealing and incredibly sexy. Are you telling me you wouldn't even be curious to try it?
No, I don't think I would want to have sex with someone I'm not attracted to. Especially if it was a man.
You'd probably gain some insight into your behavior during sex that could be turned to your advantage when sex0ring others.
How?
Doesn't the self-fucker position boil down to "I am so hot!"?No. I suppose it does mean we're not disgusted by ourselves, so if you have serious self-esteem/body issues, I can see why this would be less appealing. I just think it sounds kinky in a good way. I don't know how else to describe the appeal.
Supposed you want to recieve Stimulation X (and your clone does too). Which of you gets it first? Does the one stimulating get off while the one stimulated does?
How is this different from any other kind of sex? Taking turns is pretty normal.
Maybe you want to receive some stimulation that you don't actually like giving.
But wouldn't my clone/copy already know that I don't like giving it? Also, like I said, repressed. I can think of no stimulation I enjoy receiving that would disgust me so much I wouldn't be willing to give it to someone else.
You'd probably gain some insight into your behavior during sex that could be turned to your advantage when sex0ring others.
How?
Some of the guys for instance, perhaps while blowing their clone might think, "Christ buddy, would it kill you to shave that thing? It's like figs with afros down here."
How is this different from any other kind of sex?
Well, exactly.
But wouldn't my clone/copy already know that I don't like giving it? Also, like I said, repressed. I can think of no stimulation I enjoy receiving that would disgust me so much I wouldn't be willing to give it to someone else.
Dude, eroticism is all about repression. Friend of mine from college said that if he had kids, he wanted to make them think that really unusual parts of their bodies were shameful, so that when they grew up they'd have a larger than usual complement of erogenous zones. (I'm pretty sure he won't do it, though.) And sure, your clone/copy would know that, too. What's that got to do with it?
It seems more and more as if the only reason you're so hot to fuck your copy is that you just don't like communicating in bed, and would prefer to go without doing it. Now who's repressed?
140: well, I don't know. I'm just assuming that self-knowledge wouldn't hurt.
141:"I can think of no stimulation I enjoy receiving that would disgust me so much I wouldn't be willing to give it to someone else."
Being at least theoretically bi has always seem the only decent moral position for me. I had an idiot tell me how disgusting gay blowjobs were at great length and detail, while sitting right next to his girlfriend, she looking like a deer in headlights, and at that point etc.
It's the opportunity to have sex with someone who knows exactly what you want and for you to know exactly what they want.
Knowing what you want doesn't necessarily mean being good at it. Nothing says embarassment like failing to get your other you off.
I think that Sommer's world is more symmetrical than mine.
Some of the guys for instance, perhaps while blowing their clone might think, "Christ buddy, would it kill you to shave that thing? It's like figs with afros down here."
Comment of the week. At least.
Being at least theoretically bi has always seem the only decent moral position for me.
How can a sexual orientation be a moral position? You're skeeving me out, Bob.
I also don't get how you can be theoretically bi. Either you're attracted to both kinds or you're not.
148:I don't want to offend anyone who finds identity comforting, but I think well at least I am polymorphous perverse, and have some control over what I am attracted to or interested in; or control over my emotions.
It really weirds me out when people say that they can't stand vanilla ice cream, and can't, can't change.
It occurs to me that in my case, the things I don't especially get off on doing with/for/to other women are also things that I don't especially get off on having done to me. Convenient! Relaxing! And I can certainly see the appeal of not having to second guess your duplicate's stated preferences and reactions. (Is she just saying that she likes/doesn't like that to be accommodating?)
And yet I still don't think I'd find me all that attractive. The familiarity just seems too distracting -- the way that I hate suddenly seeing myself on video. But just the other day I was (conceitedly, I suppose) contemplating how cute I thought the male version of me would be, so there you are.
Comment of the week. At least.
(High fives clone)
It seems more and more as if the only reason you're so hot to fuck your copy is that you just don't like communicating in bed, and would prefer to go without doing it. Now who's repressed?
Hrm. I would admit that I probably receive more pleasure from sex with someone who either a) I have already trained to do what I like rather than the first few times I have to explain it and they fumble around with me/potentially don't get me off or b) somehow figures it out or intuits immediately on their own. I'm also generally attracted more to people who are sexually confident, probably pretty experienced, and a little bossy in bed. If that makes me repressed, you could be right.
149: I have a friend who disliked tomatoes but then made a concerted effort to eat them and enjoy them. He's now an avid enjoyer of tomatoes. So you may be onto something there, bob.
I don't want to offend anyone who finds identity comforting, but I think well at least I am polymorphous perverse, and have some control over what I am attracted to or interested in; or control over my emotions.
It really weirds me out when people say that they can't stand vanilla ice cream, and can't, can't change.
Doesn't it seem that sexual orientation is fairly hard wired into people by a certain age?
148:Maybe it is offensive, hell I don't know from PC. Many "straight" males consider themselves biologically conditioned, and are enlightened in prison.
The morality involves not thinking an act disgusting or unattractive that I would ask someone else to perform on me. What, stras you think blowjobs are disgusting? Think about it.
In the high-and-far-off-times of the sixties, polymorphous perversity was an obligation not to be shirked.
149: There may be a difference between "prefers vanilla ice cream" and "is only sexually attracted to other men." I don't think that difference has much to do with finding comfort in identity.
Many "straight" males consider themselves biologically conditioned, and are enlightened in prison.
Let's all read this sentence again.
Yeah, really, prison rape has really very little to do with sexual orientation.
160:Nothing wrong with that construction. People are enlightened or find enlightenment. Prison was the enlightening situation. "Enlightened by other prisoners" would have been offensive.
Let's all read this sentence again.
Heh. Please expand on this Bob, as I'm pretty sure you and I are working with very different definitions of "enlightened."
It is also pretty bigoted to think that all prison relationships are non-consensual. As if in an all-male environment no one would seek companionship or affection. That is very repressed.
161: You're not really getting it. You don't rape someone because you think they're hot.
People are enlightened or find enlightenment
I've never though of sodomy as something to be "found."
164:Who the fuck ever mentioned rape? Not me.
It appears that the problem is that the guys in this thread find it unimaginable that given ten years in prison, they could possibly adjust their attitudes or preferences. Teh gay or not teh gay.
As if in an all-male environment no one would seek companionship or affection. That is very repressed.
But I imagine one's orientation might affect what was considered "affection." Admittedly, my longest stint in prison was 5 hours in a holding tank when I was 20, so what do I know.
I think if we substitute the British Navy for prison, bob's meaning is clearer. (Not that I didn't follow him perfectly well as he said it.)
Men in single-sex environments are more likely to have same sex consensual sex than the same men would be if they had the option of having sex with women.
167: Since you've described yourself as merely "theoretically bi," despite your professed ability to transform your sexual orientation at will, I'm pretty sure I'm not the repressed one here.
But we were discussing the opportunity to have a once-in-a-lifetime encounter that seemed, to us, to carry the potential of being incredibly revealing and incredibly sexy. Are you telling me you wouldn't even be curious to try it?
Look, I'm reasonably well adjusted and all, but between mental damage wrought by the commands to know thyself and the unexamined life is not worth boning, I'm surprised the guy I'm marrying wants to have sex with me, let alone someone who knows me as well as I do.
145 is exactly right. 142 wins the blog. I think the Christian right would agree with bob in that our sexual preferences are all constrained morally, but I think they'd balk at the theoretically bi, so I'm not sure if that puts him in good company or not.
169: That makes it an issue of repression and losing inhibitions, not one of actually changing sexual orientation. It certainly doesn't address Bob's claim that some sexual orientations can be more "moral" than others.
"You don't rape someone because you think they're hot."
I don't?
Yoiu're throwing my world into confusion.
O..... there ain't no fighter pilots in the Navy!
There ain't fighter pilots in the Navy!
They float around in little boats,
Makin' love to sheep and goats.
O there ain't no fighter pilots in the Navy!
170:My words were "at least theoretically bi" not "merely". Fact is, I have engaged with sex with men, and the mechanics worked fine. Most of them were near strangers, and the emotions were unsatisfying. But I have had plenty of emotionally unsatisfying sex with women.
My close male friends and I don't make passes at each other, but it doesn't happen with my female or gay friends in every circumstance. It all doesn't strike me as needing tight labeling and strict construction.
172:That is twice you have maliciously misquoted me, stras. In this thread.
172: Doesn't that beg the question? If you're a man who has sex with men in the Navy, you were bi all along, even if you thought you were straight going in? There seems to be some sense in which someone who joins the Navy believing himself to be straight, and then found himself enjoying sex with his male shipmates, has changed his orientation.
On the more 'moral' thing, you got me.
Wait, are we proposing the Royal Navy as a representative sample here? Cause man, those outfits...
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server?show=nav.3766&imageIndex=6
176: Maybe he thinks you're ogged's sock-puppet.
176: Would you care to explain how?
171:The original question dealt with whether I could be moral, and consider blowjobs "disgusting"
Disgusting only after I look behind the "glory hole?"
Disgusting only if I do it, but not if my lady does it?
What kind of attitude is that, seems contemptuous and power-ridden from where I stand. And having read twisty's and many feminist takes on blowjobs, the power relationship is what bothers them at least as much as anything else.
you were bi all along
But one's sexuality is not a fixed point on an x-y axis, prison or no prison. (I also read bob that way all along; stop oppressing bob.)
172:"address Bob's claim that some sexual orientations can be more "moral" than others." ...stras
Find where I said that.
But that's not being theoretically bi. That's just not being an asshole.
183: Being at least theoretically bi has always seem the only decent moral position for me.
And then you go on to say that "It really weirds me out when people say that they can't stand vanilla ice cream, and can't, can't change" within the context of choosing sexual partners and sexual orientation, and basically make the argument that men who have sex with, and rape, other men in prison, do so because they have chosen to change their sexual orientation. How are you not presenting sexual orientation as a moral choice?
I think that Bob was mostly saying that sexual identity is not fixed, even though people generally think it is, and that in extreme situations people work out adjustments.
I think that this is what Foucault said -- there really isn't any fixed "identity" the way Freudians thought, just different things different people do.
Surely there are other genres of sex thing that one can enjoy from one side and not from the other that don't share the dynamic of "it's pretty lame to enjoy receiving blowjobs but find the prospect of giving them utterly revolting." What if you really adore, oh, being physically restrained but not doing the restraining? Or what if you love preparing fantastic surprises for your partner but loathe being surprised? Or whatever.
Stras, could you drop the prison rape bit, as having nothing at all to do with what bob was talking about? And the two of you maybe chill and take the hostility down a notch?
171:The original question dealt with whether I could be moral, and consider blowjobs "disgusting"
Disgusting only after I look behind the "glory hole?"
Disgusting only if I do it, but not if my lady does it?
But hell, doesn't the appeal of sexual acts depend on if I'm attracted to the person involved? It does for me anyways. BJ from the wife = awesome. BJ from my sister = disgusting. Likewise, I would venture that most of the straight women here enjoy having a guy go down on them, but aren't particularly enamored with the idea of going down on another woman.
184:Cala, then there is a logic of repression. If I am not an asshole, and do not think blowjobs are disgusting, then why won't I give one? Because "I don't want to?" Why don't I want to? Etc.
I often think my preferences, tastes, and fears are things to be experimented with, tested, gotten past.
I have done it quite a lot in my life.
189: Clones excepted, of course.
191: So it's a matter of clones excepted vs. clones accepted.
That isn't logic.
Look, if you want to say that people should reciprocate and refrain from expecting their partner to perform sex acts they find repulsive, that's one thing. Sounds like a sensible moral position. But I can say that without saying that everyone has a moral duty to be theoretically bi, and I don't take it by 'being bi' we mean 'kind', but 'sexually attracted to both genders.'
I often think my preferences, tastes, and fears are things to be experimented with, tested, gotten past.
It seems to me that as one pushes farther and farther past their instinctive preferences there's going to be diminishing returns on the effort put out.
I can't imagine what the hell I'd have to do or think to try and maintain an erection at the sight of a dude's ass. I'm also pretty damn sure I'm not going to enjoy getting peed on, or having my genitals shocked, or even a threesome with a girl and another guy. Is it worth my time to try and overcome this? Should I expend a lot of effort trying to talk myself into enjoying stuff that currently lies at the repulsion end of my personal bell curve of taste? I'm pretty sure that time will be more rewarding if I spend it pursuing things I already enjoy. I suspect a lot of disappointment lies down your path.
Actually, gswift, you might well already have a reason to try to get hot at the sight of a dude's ass.
It's not about doing that which repulses you , gwift, it's about peformativity. That I might, under x-circumtstance, do y-sexual-activity.
Or, I think I'm really confused about what's being argued by either side here.
I often think my preferences, tastes, and fears are things to be experimented with, tested, gotten past.
I don't see why it should be at all important to overcome an innate preference. Why would it be important for me to have sex with people to whom I am not attracted? I doubt the people in question are that heart-broken about it.
Of course it's good to be polite.
195:
"the one instance proving it" seems like a hell of a barrier.
196:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but to me "getting past" preferences and tastes pretty much means you're doing stuff you find viscerally unappealing.
194:How do I explain this? I have not done all the things on your list, but I would not list them as things I find revolting or absolutely alien. There are aspects of myself that are genetic, some based on irrevocable infantile conditioning, and a whole lot derived from unconscious social conditioning. I damn well want to know what's what.
I don't know where empathy or tolerance or magnanimity comes from, but I think it often involves incorporating and identifying with human behavior you consider alien and incomprehensible.
I may not find a man's ass stimulating, but I do want to understand on some pretty deep level why others do. They are not that different from me.
"I just don't like that." or "I just feel this way about things." if tolerated in myself...aw hell. Good night. It's late.
198: For me it's not really about preferences, but rather what does one do in a given moment. For example: today I didn't suck on any toes (read: cock), but hey, who knows what could happen tomorrow. I'm not explaining this well; crap.
I may not find a man's ass stimulating, but I do want to understand on some pretty deep level why others do. They are not that different from me.
I'm content to like Ogged and Labs without fully comprehending why they do the things they do.
You can't handle the full comprehension.
I'm finding myself agreeing with bob and gswift here. I think it's probably true that a lot of our preferences, even the ones that seem deep-seated, are malleable. But I also think that it's a hell of a project to try to find out, by acting them out, what things that don't seem like "us" we can learn to tolerate or even like. Since I'm willing to grant, in principle, that there's quite a lot of stuff I could be reprogrammed to like, actually undertaking the project isn't at the top of my to-do list.
there really isn't any fixed "identity" the way Freudians thought
? Freud thought everyone was innately bi, no?
Freud thought everyone was innately bi, no?
Sounds pretty fixed to me.
and weird only because sex with girls seems most appealing if I get to be the boy. And I would wear suspenders and a cap like the boys do in Newsies.
I thought JE was saying that gayness and straightness were fixed, per the Freudians. Confused, I guess.
208: Strangely, the only part of that pair of sentences that seems weird and off-putting to me (to me) is "Newsies." And maybe "suspenders," but that may be because of the Rampling movie. (Or more properly, the back cover of the Rampling movie; I couldn't bear to watch it. So, you know, maybe it's actually a happy former guard/concentration camp survivor sex romp.)
I'd have sex with my clone before I'd dress up in a Newsies costume. Costumes in bed do nothing for me.
I thought JE was saying that gayness and straightness were fixed, per the Freudians.
I think that is what he was saying. No idea if it's accurate; I'm no Freudian (though my grandfather was one).
I'd have sex with my clone before I'd dress up in a Newsies costume.
But would you have sex with your clone while dressed up in a Newsies costume? That's really the pressing issue here.
Who's taking credit for the "M-fun" hover text? I'm guessing LB or ogged.
Costumes in bed do nothing for me.
They're supposed to have people in them, Becks.
I'm not having sex where anyone is dressed up in a Newsies costume.
Sorry, Tia.
I think I'm wistfully channeling a friend of mine's costume for an annual party we had at my college at which men dressed up like women and women dressed up like men or sluts, their choice. Both times I went, I went as a slut, though a rather conservative slut, because I was just beginning to experiment with sexified dress of any kind, but I wish I'd gotten that out of my system earlier, because drag is more fun. Though once for Halloween I went as Austin Powers, and I never tired of asking my female friends if we should shag now or shag later, or sneaking up behind them and grabbing them on the butt. Although I accidentally took someone I didn't know well for Queen Elizabeth, and made some caddish reference to her virginity, and I realized after reevaluating a somewhat confusing interaction we'd had that she was an entirely different figure from English history, and she might have mistaken me for discussing her personal virginity. So that was awkward. But other than that, I guess I got in a lot of good drag that night.
The hover text is weird. I'm still getting the "smart people talking stupid" but I see the m-fun one in the source.
See, costumes are fun for a costume party or other such thing like Tia's 219 but I was thinking more along the lines of my friend who likes to put on costumes and act out things with her husband along the lines of "You are the plundering pirate and I am a fair maiden you have captured and you are going to come ravage me" and stuff and just the idea of that makes me want to give up sex forever.
221 - No, they're both in the code. The "smart people" one is in a JavaScript thing at the end and the m-fun is the alt image for the picture. It must depend on which piece of code one's browser prefers.
I think I'm pretty close to my male friends, but I really can't imagine telling them about dressing up like a pirate, had I plundered my wife. But I'm anti-costume, too, so that might be doing the work.
On the topic of overcoming sexual dispredilictions: You know what's pretty unawesome? When someone decides to find out if they like sleeping with some category of person, where you are the representative of that category for purposes of the experiment, and then it turns out that really, they don't.
Becks, can I not have a dispensation to get myself into the boy mindset for fucking my clone? You don't have to fuck me. You're not my clone....Or are you?
I'm deciding between Haloween costumes: Wolverine or Abraham Lincoln. Ideas?
You know what's pretty unawesome? When someone decides to find out if they like sleeping with some category of person, where you are the representative of that category for purposes of the experiment, and then it turns out that really, they don't.
But the ability to truthfully write that sentence: kind of awesome.
225: Yeah, I've been thinking of trying out sex with a girl, but I'm terrified of exactly that happening.
You can knock yourself out with the costumes, Tia. It takes all kinds. All I'm saying is that I will likely never be able to have a threesome with you and your clone, as I could never get past the Newsies costume. I know that breaks your dear little heart (and that of your clone) but maybe, someday, the two of you might be able to get over it.
Also, I was in a musical in high school that did the number "Seize The Day" from Newsies. I even kind of still remember the choreography.
Random Becks factoid for ya.
Where the hell did that javascript come from?
227: Mutant Abraham Lincoln, with adamantium claws and a cigar. They called him RAILSPLITTER.
229: With a Newsies cap, or without?
Also, I was in a musical in high school that did the number "Seize The Day" from Newsies.
Jeebus, you're young.
235: I'd want some sort of drag. It wouldn't have to be a Newsies cap.
What are Newsies?
The kids in Family Circus.
237 - See, I'm just the opposite. Were I to have sex with a girl, I'd want to bask in the girliness of the whole thing.
I think the real keys would be to (a) wait until you're genuinely hot to trot, and (b) not actually mention it outright when afterwards you think, "Boy, I sure am straight after all. Plus this cummerbund and this false mustache look totally stupid together, what was I thinking?"
I was thinking of being really forthright in the beginning so hypothetical woman would be able to decide whether she wanted to deal with me, and admit that I am a bi curious previously entirely straight girl.
I think that is a fine plan, but also that my points still hold.
I think it's probably true that a lot of our preferences, even the ones that seem deep-seated, are malleable.
We've had a version of this conversation before.
I added the javascript, but I'm pretty sure I had it set to a different title, and someone's gone in and doctored it.
Also, I think Tia would look great in a newsboy cap and suspenders.
Agreed re: Tia in newboy outfit. Teh Hott.
They called him RAILSPLITTER.
Teh funny.
I don't think I'd have sex with my clone, but I might jerk it off.
but I might jerk it off.
"It", apo?
227: the Notorious L.I.N.C.O.L.N., obviously.
As noted earlier, the clone's gender hasn't been specified. "Him or her" might have been more considerate of my clone's feelings, and more grammatically precise as well, but would have robbed the sentence of its flow.
On the contrary, Sommer cleared all that up. Your clone is an exact copy of you at the moment of cloning.
252: Well, I found a sweet Wolverine jacket today at Goodwill, so unless you know of a good stovepipe-hat dealer...
254: Well, there you have it. I think I'll continue referring to my clone as"it", though. Just so it knows its place.
Notorious L.I.N.C.O.L.N., for the curious.
Aw, thanks teo and BW. You two can be in a foursome with me and my clone. Though maybe one of you should be a girl for the evening. Otherwise the numbers would be unequal, and as you know, I'm a feminist.
Sorry, I lost track of this thread after posting my controversial sentiment that I would not like to have sex with my clone because my clone would be a man. 194 has it exactly right.
It appears that the problem is that the guys in this thread find it unimaginable that given ten years in prison, they could possibly adjust their attitudes or preferences. Teh gay or not teh gay.
Well, sure it would be possible. It would be much more likely though that I would be raped and then referred to as a "faggot" by the various people who did the raping.
I'm in the business centre of my hotel in hanoi and you all just made me look crazy because I'm laughing so much. hmm, sex with my clone. yeah, I'd totally hit that. good night all.
xxx
The Hanoi Hilton? Have they got a Sen. John McCain memorial conference room?
On further reflection, that was really a horrendously tasteless thing to say. On the off-chance Sen. McCain reads blogs, sorry about that.
LB, LB! "Fuck em if they can't take a joke" is the new apology protocol around here.
265: I wouldn't fuck McCain or his clone.
I went to college with a guy who was in Newsies.
I was going to make some kind of comment about the Newsies outfit not being the most masculinely gendered outfit I could think of, but then I saw that Tia had written "boy," which sounds about right. Also, for some reason I think a woman in a Newsies costume would be hot, so go ahead, get yer Newsie on.
Would John McCain have sex with his clone?
Henceforth, the question "Would you fuck an identical copy of yourself?" should be put to all presidential candidates.
I did not have sexual relations with that identical copy of myself.
This thread is too far gone for this to do any good, but for me this question is only slightly different than the question "If you met someone who was the same or similiar to yourself in almost every way, although obviously a different person, would you have sex with them?"
I do meet such people from time to time, and I often have a few beers with them. We might even become good friends and hang out regularly. I've never, ever thought of having sex with any of them. Even if I were to decide to develop my gay side, I imagine I'd be attracted to someone younger and more buff.
So when you replace "very strong similiarity" with "identity", why should anything change, except the weirdness factor? Seemingly the people at the DC Journalism Tenement are all so hott that their own personal irresistibility is an unexpressed premise of this query.
Although I accidentally took someone I didn't know well for Queen Elizabeth, and made some caddish reference to her virginity, and I realized after reevaluating a somewhat confusing interaction we'd had that she was an entirely different figure from English history, and she might have mistaken me for discussing her personal virginity.
I once asked a couple at a Halloween party if there was any connection between his Sly Stone costume and her Swiss Miss costume, only to be told icily that they had come as Alice and the Mad Hatter. Oops.
They could have said they were Sly Stone and Doris Day.
If I were a man, I'd totally be a dandy. In fact, there's an Unfogged commenter on whom I'd want to model all elements of my masculinity, but his identity is left as an exercise for the reader.
hey, M/llsy, what's your email address? or email me, por favor.
I think it would be lots of fun to be a dandy. Subtle touches count for so much, and expensive men's clothing is even (fairly) reliably high quality!
I was a dandy for a while, during a rather androgynous phase. It took a lot of concentration.
Emerson, the difference between similarity and identity, of course, is that you don't have to kill someone who is merely similar to you. That, by the way, is my answer to the doppelganger-fucking question.
OK, yeah, but it seems to be a premise of this party game that if you're not willing to have sex with someone who looks like you, then you're homophobic. Whereas my guess is that almost nobody actually hits on people who look like them.
I suppose that there should be research in the gay communities about this, but my guess is that if there exist nearly-identical gay couples, they're usually doing some kind of mind-fuck performance art for the sake of weirding out the spectation and gossip communities.
If I were a man, I'd totally be a dandy. In fact, there's an Unfogged commenter on whom I'd want to model all elements of my masculinity, but his identity is left as an exercise for the reader.
Who else here is as dandyish as I?
The authorities have been pretty clear that you can't just cuddle up to your doppelganger and expect to come out intact. Your clone is not your friend, people. Your clone is looking for any opportunity possible to take your place in the world. It's the original nightmare version of identity-theft.
There is, mind you, a fair amount of homosexual anxiety floating around in some of the early Fantastic texts, but I think the "get your doppelganger before it gets you!" effect arises more from sibling rivalry.
Specialists use the adjectival form "dandiacal," w-lfs-n.
In fact, there's an Unfogged commenter on whom I'd want to model all elements of my masculinity
Please don't disabuse me of my fantasies, Tia. (I too, have an Unfogged commenter on whom I model all my elements of masculinity, but I shan't tell which.)
Meanwhile, since my earlier comments were et:
Freud thought everyone was innately bi, no?
If I remember right, Freudian "bisexuality" referred to the masculine and feminine qualities which Freud believed every man and woman possessed, not to sexual orientation.
I'm with Bob on the malleability of sexual preference, but, while it might be satisfying, I'm not convinced that it's an imperative to try to expand that preference any more than it's imperative to try to expand a taste for food or travel or entertainment.
Anyway, I'd hit my clone, if only out of curiosity.
("Paradise is like fucking a clone which is much, much hotter.")
Specialists use the adjectival form "dandiacal," w-lfs-n.
You're right. I should have said that I'm exceedingly dandiacal,.
In actual fact, meeting a JE doppelganger would end up with an epic battle of wisecracks, paradoxes, evasions, small and large insults, reductios ad absurdum, wild allegations, and coarse jokes. Someone would have to be the alpha JE, and the loser would slink off even more embittered than before.
I've seen pictures of w-lfs-n. I think he exaggerates his dandyness.
Even on alt.religion.kibology I used to be regularly called a fop and a dandy by ... not Luke Breinig, but someone else. Buettner. Who else here owns a cane, more than one pocket watch, and a felt hat?
I own two pocket watches, but my grandfater's sword cane was snatched up by a devious cousin. So you still win.
I own several (broken) pocketwatches and two canes. No felt hat, though.
w-lfs-n, please. The pocketwatches do not make the dandy. These things, as Baudelaire wrote, are only symbols for the aristocratic superiority of the perfect dandy's spirit:
Aussi, à ses yeux, épris avant tout de distinction, la perfection de la toilette consiste-t-elle dans la simplicité absolue, qui est, en effet, la meilleure manière de se distinguer.Now, I ask you, do canes, pocketwatches, and felt hats answer the standard of simplicity--today?
The dandy is the externalized quintessence of the modernist, after all. And, so, to be properly dandiacal, one must also perfectly understand one's current moment.
If being a dandy means having anything to do with Sunday Styles, I want no part of it.
Anyway, what we have here is an equivocation with regard to the word "dandy"—do we mean an application of the concept to the current situation, or do we mean those people who, in the heyday of the dandy, answered to the concept then? Clearly, the latter.
Your dandy, then, is a slave to an anachronistic cult. My dandy se proméne in perfect taste in the current day. (Have you not read any of Baudelaire's prose? Or Benjamin's, for that matter?)
Fuck. That should, of course, be "se promène."
I have read vanishingly little of Baudelaire and Benjamin.
So, JM, could you give us an example of a modern-day dandy?
"Dandy" is an anachronistic concept, so what's the problem?
I'm certainly no dandy, but I have ready plenty of Baudelaire and Benjamin.
I could totally see w-lfs-n out in public walking his turtle on a leash.
Jackmormon gets it exactly right. Today's dandy must be modern. The Sunday Styles section will seek him out. w-lfs-n's dandy is more likely to be walking his turtle in a stained Univers Zero t-shirt.
The dandy was just about ready to become an anachronistic concept when Baudelaire took it up and turned it into, basically, the modern critical position.
Teo, the person who's coming to mind right now as a modern dandy is Susan Sontag. I suppose that the fact that she's dead makes her easier to place into that category than other people who might come to mind, but she did manage to be a person à la mode and a person talking critically about la mode in a way other people could only follow up more tediously afterwards.
the person who's coming to mind right now as a modern dandy is Susan Sontag
On the strength of what I've read by him, I'd nominate Daniel Mendelsohn. I don't know if he walks turtles. Otherwise, it's pretty obviously Clooney.
I don't know D. Mendelsohn. However, I'd reckon the turtle-walking as more typical of un fat than of a dandy in the proper, aesthetically rigorous sense of the word.
I'd just like to say that the hilton was full, so we're actually at the sheraton. the hanoi hilton is not called the hanoi hilton, because it would be too weird. it's called the hilton hanoi opera hotel. the plane tix were free so I decided to swank out on the hotel. has its upsides and downsides. location is not ideal and there is muzak in the hallways, which is creepy and shining-esque. OTOH the food is tasty. buttery flaky croissants!
The opera hotel where the Americans sang. That's very thoughtful.
I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only other person here who knows who Univers Zero are, Paul, so I guess I'm on the way.
location is not ideal and there is muzak in the hallways, which is creepy and shining-esque.
It takes quite a while before a developing country realizes that blasting music into every public place, while in a sense a sign of material progress, is not actually necessary.
Or I might have misinterpreted 296 completely. Christ I'm tired.
Paul, mayhap you are thinking of Jung, and his animus and anima? I didn't state that about Freud right earlier, in any case; I think I ought to have said, "Freud thought all people were innately bisexual, and achieve an sexuality exclusive of attraction one sex or the other through development." Which is the opposite of fixity, so I think I may have been right to defend the Freudians from Emerson's charge. Anyway, I haven't read any of the relevant Freud, but so sayeth Wikipedia.
My dad used to walk a pet snake, I think. That's not a euphemism. I should ask him about that, but I'm pretty sure I'm remembering right. This was when he was in college. Something like that.
w-lfs-n, if I'd known you hadn't read much Baudelaire, I'd have recommended you do so before your trip to Germany. It's really best to read Baudelaire overseas, I think; that way, you get the full impact of his themes of alienation +unfocussed intelligence + extra hours in the day.
you don't have to kill someone who is merely similar to you. That, by the way, is my answer to the doppelganger-fucking question.
But would you fuck the doppelganger before or after you killed it?
But would you fuck the doppelganger before or after you killed it?
Yes.
"Sexuality exclusive of attraction one sex or the other" sounds like fixity to me, i.e. heterosexuality or homosexuality, sounds like fixity to me, even if it is not original at birth. I'm not sure what Freud actually thought, or whether he was consistent on the matter.
The non-Freudian position I'm arguing is that while individuals may have innate tendencies, and that certain habits may get fixed in the course of life-experience, the ideas of "the homosexual" and "the heterosexual" are weak analytic tools, since they mostlylabel the outcomes of personal history in a cultural context which imposes identities. They do not name essential natures, as Freudians claim.
Full disclosure: I admire Foucault, I think that Lacan was 90% a charlatan, and I think that Freud's work is a cultural artifact like alchemy and phrenology.
302: I got some Univers Zero, w-lfs-n. Though I have a lot of stuff I haven't listened to deeply. Magmaesque, with later more approachable albums? Noise. Uh, Loud hard noise.
Cluster, Agitation Free, mainstream symph prog my preference. But I listen to a lot.
Oh, right, I forgot about you, mcmanus, the guy who knew the Hampton Grease Band. My apologies.
There's a guy how lives across the street from a park near my house in Albuquerque who has a pet duck that he walks around the park.
I would have sex with my clone. I wouldn't fuck my clone, and I certainly wouldn't make love with my clone: the former implies more passion than my body would arouse in me, the latter more tender feelings than my mind would inspire. But my clone and I would be equally curious, unconcerned about disease, and well-provided with appropriately nimble fingers and mouths.
Also, while I'm not big on oral sex from either gender, I'm quite thoroughly fond of anal sex (both giving and receiving, although so far only with people of the opposite gender). I don't imagine that "being me" would get in the way of that fondness at all.
But I think that me and my clone would have sex only when one or both of us were particularly horny, not for social/emotional bonding or casual pleasure. Sex-drive abatement, not passion (as mentioned above). Which is roughly the relationship I have with masturbation, making the comparison to masturbation (while obviously specious when based in genetic similarity) not inaccurate in my particular case.
*hugs*,
Meowse.
310: Okay, sorry, I understand. Constructed as opposed to either essential (learned) or essential (biological). Gotcha.
Anyway, I think there is probably widespread agreement that Freud insufficiently considered cultural and social determinants of and influences on behavior, if that's what you're saying in a larger sense. That alchemy and phrenology thing seems overstated to me, but what the hey.
or actually, maybe the comparison to alchemy is fair, but not the one to phrenology.
Phrenology gets a bit of a bad rep too. Given that it came fairly early in the history of modern brain anatomy and neurology, there's nothing obviously crazy about thinking that gross features of brain anatomy would be correlated with particular behaviours or personality or types or with thinking that skull shape would either influence brain features or be influenced by it.
There wasn't much evidence for it, of course, but as an initial hypothesis, it's not obviously nuts.
mayhap you are thinking of Jung, and his animus and anima?
I think I was misremembering the Freud/Fliess controversy Becks-style.
