GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

What has the Internet unleashed?

POSTED BY: EMERALDTIARA
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 22:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2065
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:20 AM

EMERALDTIARA


I don't know, I just read this and felt it had to be posted. Bear in mind I don't agree with it at all, I actually find it hilarious.

http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html?thread=135326#t13532
6



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:29 AM

STORYMARK


Porn, mostly.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:52 PM

SOMAHOLIDAY


you know, i tried to read through this so I could formulate a good reply. I had to stop halfway through, as I wasn't sure whether I was going to throw up, start laughing, or go insane. This has to be the most nit-picky and most thoroughly ridiculous interpretation of anything I've ever seen. Good lord.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:58 PM

SOMAHOLIDAY


Ok I just finished it, and let me just say that I thought the last point she made, about Wash and Zoe, was not only half-cocked and insane, but pretty racist to boot. Ahh yes, a white man is dating a black woman. Obviously, he's a rapist and an abuser. Let's all sit back for a minute and picture WASH, of all people, as a rapist and an abuser. COME ON!!! I, personally, have known people in a mixed-racial relationship that worked great, and even if I hadn't, that WOULD NOT clear me to make comments like, oh well obviously no mixed-race relationship would EVER work. Bleh. Idiot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:04 PM

CHRISISALL


OMG what a take on it.
As a man in a women's world I see Serenity as degrading to men, myself. See how Inara spins the Cap'n all about? See how River kills only MALE Reavers? See how Zoe makes fun of Jayne?

It's disgraceful, says I.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:22 PM

STORYMARK


Wow. Having now read it all...wow. That is a woman with some serious issues. I like how she says Wash must be an abuser rapist, because her uncle was one....

Psycho.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:44 PM

BYTEMITE


Not to defend her, because I have read that exact same rant accusing Firefly of sexism and racism and thought it a little coo-coo myself...

But my impression has been that she's talking more about the social difficulties and implications of relationships IN MODERN TIMES between white men and black women than about interacial couples in general.

No, white men in modern times (and definitely not in the far future of Firefly with all the cultural mixing) who date/marry black women are NOT rapists. I don't think that's what she's saying, either.

What is fact is that in modern times, black women are statistically less likely than any other group to date or marry outside of their own ethnicity, and black women to white men is the very LOWEST percentage.

And there's kind of a reason for that, if my college diversity classes are to be believed... Okay, this is going to be some twisted thinking here. Just a forewarning.

But white slave owners did rape black women, and what I was taught is that historical fact has some effect on black women today being wary of becoming involved with white men.

*Shrug*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:52 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


I know I've seen this somewhere before...

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=2&t=33159
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=2&t=33856



Now, despite allecto's extreme nit-picking, wild misinterpretations, personal attacks against Joss Whedon, and radical feminist perspective (where prostitution is always bad and most heterosexual sex = rape*), I wouldn't write her off completely. I read through her posts about Our Mrs. Reynolds, and she makes a good point:

Quote:

Now, it is pretty obvious by this point that Saffron has been traded to Mal in exchange for his killing the bad guys. She is a wife in the sense of being a sexual and domestic slave. When Zoe is told that Saffron has been traded to Mal as a wife/slave she begins to laugh. She then calls the rest of the crew and invites them to join her in laughing at Mal’s newly acquired possession.


I don't know about the "obvious" part, but it does put things in a different perspective. I know that it's supposed to be "ha ha, Captain's got a wife," but until Saffron reveals herself to be just another Evil Redhead, she's been treated as property, a "gift" comparable to Jayne's rain stick. The fact that we're supposed to make light of that is not a thought that sits well with me.

* http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html?thread=148382#t14838
2

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:08 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by yinyang:
I wouldn't write her off completely.


She does with words what a terrorist does with bombs. Dud'en mean she ain't got a cause, but a touch of subtlety might make the message go a little farther.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:13 PM

BYTEMITE


I don't think they're laughing at HER... But good point. It's not something to make light of, and everyone AFTER the "oh captain, you IDIOT, lol" moment seems to find the idea of Saffron having been given as a gift as something archaic and wrong. Except for Wash and Jayne, but Wash is quickly set straight by Zoe, and Jayne... Well, Jayne is Jayne.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:24 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I don't think they're laughing at HER... But good point. It's not something to make light of, and everyone AFTER the "oh captain, you IDIOT, lol" moment seems to find the idea of Saffron having been given as a gift as something archaic and wrong. Except for Wash and Jayne, but Wash is quickly set straight by Zoe, and Jayne... Well, Jayne is Jayne.



Actually, isn't it Zoe who makes the "nubile little slave girl" comment?

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
She does with words what a terrorist does with bombs. Dud'en mean she ain't got a cause, but a touch of subtlety might make the message go a little farther.



Ah, yes, but I imagine that both she and the terrorists share something else: reasons for being the way they are. It's not like they're ordinary folks who just happen to really enjoy bombs. (And I'll stop there to avoid armchair psychology.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:54 PM

REDLAVA


That's either a gag, or somebody has some severe emotional hang-ups that 10,000 hours of therapy will never solve.

The writer never seems to go any deeper that the literal translation of the words in the script. They never even try to interpret the real meaning behind the words.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:13 PM

DREAMTROVE


YY,

yes, this is the sort of stuff I was refering to.
Feminists I have known ^ and still do know, represented by the opinions expressed here.
Modern female empowerment, imho, should seek a new term, to define itself, or without warning you may wake up to find these people calling themselves your leaders. Just a thought.

"you have no idea how easy a matter it is to offend a man who is on the look-out for offenses." - Frederick Douglas

[edit] RedLava: Feminists I know who view the world this way are real and not rare, it's not a gag. This comes from certain academic circles which cling to a victim mentality. IMHO, No one can never be empowered if they are determined to see themselves as the perpetual victim.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:26 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
YY,

yes, this is the sort of stuff I was refering to.
Feminists I have known ^ and still do know, represented by the opinions expressed here.
Modern female empowerment, imho, should seek a new term, to define itself, or without warning you may wake up to find these people calling themselves your leaders. Just a thought.



I refuse to cede the word that accurately describes one of my positions just because it's been "tainted" by others. It would be like people giving up the word "conservative" to the ultra-right-wing loonies. And radical feminists wouldn't want to be my leaders, anyway, what with the fact that I'm not anti-prostitution, anti-pornography, or anti-BDSM.

Edit: If one is genuinely interested in less extreme feminist critiques, both negative and positive, of Firefly, I'd suggest checking out The Hathor Legacy:

http://thehathorlegacy.com/tag/firefly-serenity

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:10 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by yinyang:


Actually, isn't it Zoe who makes the "nubile little slave girl" comment?




That was to shame Mal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:31 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


I guess I'll have to re-watch OMR and see for myself, then. Though, with my school work, that may not be till Spring Break.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:00 PM

BIGRICHARD


I'm fairly sure Zoey wasn't laughing at Mal being 'given a slave as payment', she was simply laughing at the fact that Mal was unaware of his new wife, who at this point, seemed like she herself was where she wanted to be. No one is laughing at the fact that Saffron is a slave who is traded off, they are laughing at the fact that Mal was so drunk that he was unaware of their ceremony, and Saffron hardly seems upset with the marriage, just the response she gets from Mal in his sobered state.

The point of the episode wasn't to say "haha! Women are objects! Lets trade them all for things we need!" it was showing us how unevolved some of the planets where, and how some people think. Most of the crew has nothing but respect for women (with the exception being Jayne), and Mal especially looks out for her, even trying to help her get a better life where she can take care of herself.

I still think her final paragraph about Wash and Zoey is ridiculous.

I had actually read this before, it doesn't feel particularly funny to me, it angers me. Joss puts all this effort in and then people like this sift through it to pull out any little thing that they can possibly find to make it seems offensive to someone.

"Aside from women being fuck toys, property and punching bags for the men, the women have very little importance in the series. I counted the amount of times women talk in the episode Serenity compared to the amount of times men talk. The result was unsurprising. Men: 458 Women: 175. Basically, this means that men direct the action and are active participants whereas women are merely observers and facilitators."

This is ridiculous. Women have little importance in the series? Brilliant. Well done. Yeah, I suppose we could just get rid of Inara, Zoey, Kaylee and River and the show/film would've been exactly the same.

Interesting that she never mentioned that the men seem vastly more flawed than the women, and the women seem generally smarter and nicer than the men. Or is that being feminist too? I have absolutely no idea anymore.


"In regards to her servicing the crew, she begins to service the Captain and the male passengers of the ship from day one. The following is an excerpt from the script of Serenity. Book is a black male character. He is a Preacher and disapproves of Inara’s ‘profession’.

BOOK Is this what life is, out here?

INARA Sometimes.

BOOK I've been out of the abbey two days, I've beaten a Lawman senseless, I've fallen in with criminals... I watched the captain shoot a man I swore to protect. And I'm not even sure if I think he was wrong.

INARA Shepherd...

He is shaking a bit, tearing up.

BOOK I believe I just... (a pained smile) I think I'm on the wrong ship.

INARA Maybe. Or maybe you're exactly where you ought to be.

He lowers his head. She puts her hand on it, a kind of benediction. We hold on them a second.

It is clear from the outset that a large part of Inara’s service involves addressing issues of male inadequacy and fulfilling many other emotional needs of her clients. The ability to do this IS a resource and it is therefore a service that Inara must perform. BUT Inara services all of the male passengers and the Captain in this way. She also services Kaylee but the relationship between them is a little more reciprocal. In any case, Mal makes it pretty obvious that he expects his emotional needs to be serviced by Inara and she willingly obliges. Mal also allows the male passengers to demand her emotional services and does not tell them to stop, despite the terms of his agreement with Inara. Inara is not paid by any of these men for her time, energy and emotional support."



So I assume that whoever wrote this article/blog/rubbish has never heard of FRIENDSHIP?

Anyway, I'm going to stop there before I get too worked up over it all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:10 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


YinYang:

As a male who doesn't take women lightly, and who has never, ever considered himself the "owner" of them in any way, shape, or form, what I got from the whole Saffron-as-a-gift-and-wife thing was that they were laughing at the Cap'n's plight - imagine MAL, of all people, being "given" a wife! For one, he's not the kind to accept such a "gift" as she's not his to own, nor anyone else's to give away. For another, they're just laughing about the ludicrousness of the situation - the very idea that Mal would be worthy of such a "gift", or that he'd accept it if he were.

So, yeah, I can see where others think the crew are laughing at Saffron, but I never saw it that way. And before it's all said and done, I think the crew has a deep level of respect for her. And a hatred, of course, but a respect that she's that cunning and smart.

In a second or third season of Firefly, I can definitely see Saffron as one of the crew - like Jayne, one never to be completely trusted, but a crew member who can be very valuable to some of their plans...




Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:


I refuse to cede the word that accurately describes one of my positions just because it's been "tainted" by others. It would be like people giving up the word "conservative" to the ultra-right-wing loonies.



Sorry, not meaning to argue, just point it out.
I would add these thoughts though:

They had it first. They are not the new feminism, you are. It's Their movement, with a history, and you're trying to reform it, and make it into something new.

Rush a**hole and co are the new conservatives. They're walking into a very old tradition and stamping on it. But they are only stamping on it here. Conservative in the rest of the world still means pretty much the same thing.

The feminism espoused there is very traditional, however appalling it may be. Ergo, the new feminists have tied themselves to the word that already has these people in it, and try to reinvent it for the better, and lose these other people. Good luck with that.

IMHO it's like joining the jihad to change its direction, ie., hopeless. I guess this is why I agreed to stay off the topic.

Oh, side note, just for the record. Not an attempt to change your mind, just an honest male perspective. What men who are trying to meet women wouldn't tell you. The world is full of self-described feminists. Colleges are full of self-described liberals. America is full of patriots. "The group of you" is the ultimate pitch. It's why people believe in democracy.

As for Joss: If I were to make a feminist criticism it would be: Why does almost every female character need a man to lean on? Just fanning the flames.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:15 PM

BIGRICHARD


"As for Joss: If I were to make a feminist criticism it would be: Why does almost every female character need a man to lean on? Just fanning the flames."

I wouldn't say that's a feminist criticism, as I don't think it's every 'female' character. I think essentially all of Joss' characters need someone to lean on.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:14 PM

DREAMTROVE


Didn't say every. It was mostly just a snark. I have issues with people who I think are feeding hate and contention into society. I'm not to be taken seriously.

Now I'm to be sleeping seriously.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:30 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by yinyang:

Quote:

Now, it is pretty obvious by this point that Saffron has been traded to Mal in exchange for his killing the bad guys. She is a wife in the sense of being a sexual and domestic slave. When Zoe is told that Saffron has been traded to Mal as a wife/slave she begins to laugh. She then calls the rest of the crew and invites them to join her in laughing at Mal’s newly acquired possession.


I don't know about the "obvious" part, but it does put things in a different perspective. I know that it's supposed to be "ha ha, Captain's got a wife," but until Saffron reveals herself to be just another Evil Redhead, she's been treated as property, a "gift" comparable to Jayne's rain stick. The fact that we're supposed to make light of that is not a thought that sits well with me.




I didn't see that seen like that. More like Zoe knew what Mal was going through and decided to make fun of him. That and she probably was a bit taken back by the whole situation. How often does something like that just happen on you? I'd miss or not react to a few detail myself for the first bit. Also, as mentioned above, she did seem more than just a little upset at the idea of Mal actually taking advantage of the girl later in the episode.

(NOTE: I'd have to re-watch the episode, but I don't believe that Zoe knew that Saffron was payment. I believe that she thought that marrying Saffron was just something that Mal did when he was drunk the previous night and Mal didn't find out until moments earlier what he'd done. Thus the laughing and making fun.)

All in all, I found that this issue in the show was dealt with in a very balanced way. At first, when people didn't know about the whole "payment" thing, they were amused. Well, other than Mal, Saffron and Inara (secretly). He took it seriously from the get go and never had any inclination about taking advantage of the situation. In fact, he was going to set her up in a new life and actively sought divorce. And that was displayed directly after the giggling scene.

As for the others, after they found out (or it sunk in) about the "payment," they weren't amused any more. Each had his/her own reactions to it (e.g. "special hell"). Mostly along the lines of Mal being a "lecherous old hump." I believe it was Jayne that was the only one that treated her as something to be traded, etc. And remember Mal's response to that? It wasn't exactly warm. He explicitly stated the opposite in no uncertain terms.

So, in my opinion, the opinion that this episode makes light of trading women is rather cherry picking the data and ignoring the rest of the storyline/commentary regarding that issue. Sometimes we see what we want to see which isn't necessarily the whole picture.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:00 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Re: The feminist thing:

It's only like that in the US and largely (getting larger from what I've seen) in Canada as well. In the rest of the world, the feminists have moved into a "post-feminist era." Pretty much meaning that the victim role is largely removed and reality has replaced that. I cite my German Physicist wife for that info.

There might be a reason for that. Perhaps the old style feminism is still alive and well in the US because its society in general hasn't evolved beyond the need for it. Or at least a perceived need for it. Don't know. I'd love for a sociologist to tackle that. But, the question is way too politically incorrect for that to happen any time soon.


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

As for Joss: If I were to make a feminist criticism it would be: Why does almost every female character need a man to lean on?




I'd answer it: because it's a two way street. We are a social species. To think that any person can be truly complete without a partner is absurd. Just like a woman needs a man, a man needs a women. Similarly for the same sex people. We need each other. It's how we're built.

Mal and Inara had there thing going. But, when Mal had the opportunity to be with someone he connected with (HoG), he took it. But, at the same time, a bit guilty regarding Inara. Inara having the expected reaction.

Jayne in HoG didn't sex up with the whore like she was a piece of meat. He actually had a good time with her and from what I saw, her with him as well. Remember, he did get dressed up which isn't exactly required if you don't care and just want to "get off."

Kaylee was definitely wanting to connect with someone. And that someone became Simon (with Mal/Zoe old war buddy being an brief exception in the interest department). Simon in turn wanted Kaylee, but had his own way of going about it. Not that these two ways were really compatible.

Wash and Zoe had there own balance. Work Zoe was above Wash and in there private life, there seemed to be a good balance with Wash being "manly" in a few ways.

All in all, I see that although the women seemed to need a man, the opposite is true as well.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:00 AM

BYTEMITE


I disagree on the needing a partner thing. Some people choose chastity, other people are born to it. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality (although I hate that term because, you know, bacteria).

Solitude is not any less valid a lifestyle than any other, and people who live it have nothing wrong with them. Even looking at it with respect to evolution, there are plenty of exceptions to the "survival of the fittest" and "selfish genes" rule, such as biological altruism.

And /off topic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:47 AM

SASDIE


I really tried to read the article, but couldn't. It's just Da shiong La Se La Ch'wohn Tian.

Nuff' said.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:54 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by BigRichard:


So I assume that whoever wrote this article/blog/rubbish has never heard of FRIENDSHIP?



I'm sure she's heard of it, but it's pretty clear she doesn't think it's possible between man and woman. of course, it doesn't look like she has any positive views of men in general.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:12 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I disagree on the needing a partner thing. Some people choose chastity, other people are born to it. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality (although I hate that term because, you know, bacteria).

Solitude is not any less valid a lifestyle than any other, and people who live it have nothing wrong with them. Even looking at it with respect to evolution, there are plenty of exceptions to the "survival of the fittest" and "selfish genes" rule, such as biological altruism.

And /off topic.



This is a complex issue. As such, there will always be exceptions to rules. But, that is not to say that those exceptions are even remotely anywhere near common. In other words, stop cherry picking your data.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:36 PM

BYTEMITE


Huh?

You said: "I'd answer it: because it's a two way street. We are a social species. To think that any person can be truly complete without a partner is absurd. Just like a woman needs a man, a man needs a women. Similarly for the same sex people. We need each other. It's how we're built."

My response was to indicate that some people are exceptions.

You agree there can be exceptions, then accuse me of cherry picking data.

I'm just relating my own experiences, which is probably a different perspective than yours. What data have I cherry picked?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:00 PM

DREAMTROVE


It's instructive that divisive topics generate far more traffic than constructive ones.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:49 PM

SIGMANUNKI


@Bytemite:

To me your reply made it seem as though you were saying they were more than an exception. So, I responded as such. Since we seem to be on the same page on that topic, I imagine this was just a case of miscommunication.

(EDIT: Btw, chastity - by choice - rarely works out for the best. There are always repercussions for oneself if not others as well. Just ask the Catholic church.)


But, to add to the reply, I'll say that such asexual beings might not actually be asexual. But, rather the effects of some sort of life event or disorder or abuse or... As in, something that isn't in there nature, but rather something that needs to be fixed. There are certainly childhood events that would lead to such behaviour.

Now I'm not saying that these people don't exist. Humanity is diverse enough for such anomalies to exist. Rather, I am saying that at least some of these cases aren't really cases of asexuality, but something else. I won't conjecture about percentages. But, I think that it is reasonable to say that even though this is rare, it is even more rare than we think.

Similarly for other things.



To further diverge off topic, I think as a society, we're in for a ruff ride in the next couple decades. More and more people are thinking that they can get away with focusing on there career and then after that is established, they can go out and find a husband/wife. This isn't exactly reasonable.

These people will never have learned how to live a balanced life and will have been conditioned to work, work, work. Work will also have come to expect it. So, starting to not work so much will tend to put that job in jeopardy. There are also many social skills that are learned about dealing with the opposite sex (or the same sex if you're into that) in a more romantic way that isn't going to be learned in the boardroom. I could go one.

But, what I see happening is that these people will find someone that they get along with to have children and live together. Please note that this doesn't mean that they love each other, nor does it mean that they want kids. They're just doing it to do it and think this is what life really is.

So, what happens is that these people don't really raise there kids, and there kids grow up in a loveless home. The kids are likely to be dysfunctional and the parents aren't likely to know how to cope. This has obvious effects, both in the short and long term.

We are actually already seeing this and it is getting worse. What I think needs to be hammered into peoples heads is that life is not something that can be planned in stages. If you find someone you want to be with at 22, then do so. There is less and less a chance of finding someone and one gets older. Also, kids are not status symbols. If you don't want kids because you want to have and raise kids with your spouse, then do the world a favour and don't have them. Also, marriage isn't about companionship. It's about so much more. If you only feel like you could live with that person for the rest of your life, then your marriage is doomed to fail and/or be cold and heartless. One needs to actually click with the other person and that click is not just sex.

There are many more problems with the above that I could get into. But, I'm hungry. So, I'm going to eat now.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:05 PM

CORNCOBB


In reference to the original topic:
I read this before, ages ago, when it was only one page long. It was disturbing enough then. This woman needs therapy.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:06 PM

BYTEMITE


Work as a focus is true... We work longer hours with less vacation than any other nation on Earth (except maybe Japan), and it's had some serious ramifications on our health and wellbeing.

But I still see a lot of "love will make my life worthwhile, romance can redeem me and make me whole." I think only THEY can do that for themselves. Tying who they are, their identity and self-worth to someone else is not a good plan.

I think that the problem is that people don't know themselves.

And there's also kind of a disturbing trend I've noticed, it seems to me a lot of people grow up not being very emotionally mature these days. This generation has been a bit sheltered by our parents, not that we can blame our parents for caring about us so carefully, but I think it results in young adults who aren't very conscious or considerate of other people. People who are also kind of dependent. Who give up when things are hard.

Don't mean to offend! I don't think anyone on here is like that. And maybe every generation has some examples like this. Just seems like there are a whole lot nowadays.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:40 PM

SIGMANUNKI


I'm not saying that the 'love thing' isn't there. I'm just saying that it's disappearing in favour of something that is rather empty.


I'm also not saying that the 'love thing' requires tying anyone's self-identity to another person. I'm married and still have my own identity, same with the wife. Perhaps that's part of the problem. People think that if they get married, they loose a sense of self. Or at least married under whatever conditions.

I can and have gone out by myself and with friends. My wife has done the same. When we're at home some of our free time is spent separately. I'd say that if a couple can't do this, then there is something unhealthy going on.


I'd also say, this generation is a lot sheltered. When I went to University over 15 years ago (the first time), my parents didn't trust me with a blank cheque to pay for the books. I was one of a very few that had parents with them. I was embarrassed and visibly so. When other students saw me, they gave a sympathetic look. Today on the other hand, there are students walking around with there parents, getting books, student cards, etc, etc, etc, as if it were normal. There doesn't seem to be a sense of wanting/needing true independence (even though they say the opposite).

Part of that is probably because the parents have become largely taxis, doormats, etc. This translates into a very self-centred person. As in, "My parents treat me like a princess, therefore I am and everyone should treat me like that." The equivalent for the males as well.

I know I'm generalising. But, the point is that this has become so common, that it has become a stereotype. And if that isn't enough to make one fear for the future, I don't know what is.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL