This past weekend I was telling a coworker friend about this documentary:
I meant to email her the link to the above trailer, but I copied and pasted the wrong URL, and instead I sent her this:
She was obviously confused and responded to my email with "How to shave your groin??" I was embarrased for about two seconds and then I started laughing uncontrollably. I called to explain to her that I sent her the wrong link and had to leave her a message, but all she got in this voice mail was a bunch of laughing, wheezing and I think I even snorted once.
I had been watching the groin video just before I pulled up the Tabloid trailer because a friend had posted the following video on Facebook and you know that thing when you watch videos on Youtube and it recommends other videos and maybe it recommends one with a hot shirtless dude in the shower and so you click on it to watch it? That's what happened. And then with all these videos up, I grabbed the wrong one to send to my friend.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
discuss this
My friend Christina send me this article from The Atlantic and it got me thinking. I have to admit, I've never fully felt on board with the whole "born this way" as an argument for gay rights. My reservations have mostly come about because I think stating it that way simplifies sexuality into something binary - either you're gay or you're straight - and I don't think that's the way it works. I suppose that's why the letter Q seems to have found its way into the alphebet soup (LGBT) used to describe those who experience something other than pure heterosexuality (whatever that is). It makes me wonder what it would be like to have lived 100 years ago when these terms and labels and categories didn't really exist, at least not like they do today. It's nice be able to categorize and label things, but I think it's too often used as a tool to separate others who aren't like us and see them as less than. I think all these labels also serve to limit what we can understand about who we are and how we experience our sexuality.
The author of the article doesn't like the "born this way" argument because she believes that it shouldn't matter whether she was born that way or chose to pursue her attraction to women by having a same sex spouse. She says that to her, by using that argument, it sounds like we are saying that if I could, I would be different but I can't. In the end, it shouldn't matter if it's purely genetic or choice or some mix of things we don't yet understand. People should have the right to be with who they want to be with. I get that and I agree with her.
But then I also kind of groan inside, because she talks about how for her it has been a choice. She seems to experience a much greater degree of fluidity or flexibility in her attractions than I do. She says she has dated both men and women and has felt and can feel enough attraction to men that she could probably make marriage to a man work. My groaning comes because I think of the people who will read that who aren't able to see nuance, and who might project her experience onto others (like me) who don't experience the same degree of fluidity or flexibility and say, "See! It is a choice!"
I enjoyed her brief exploration into how a same sex marriage challenges traditional gender roles and how those roles operate in a heterosexual marriage. There are those who would identify this challenge as a threat to "traditional" marriage. I think that this challenge provides a helpful contrast though. I think the differences in the dynamics of a same sex marriage could challenge traditional gender roles in a helpful way that could actually strengthen heterosexual marriage. (As an sidenote, I think it's entertaining when people feel the need to identify who is the man and who is the woman in same sex relationships.)
What about you? What do you think about the article?
(Oh, I also found the Homosexuality in Perspective study to be interesting as well.)
The author of the article doesn't like the "born this way" argument because she believes that it shouldn't matter whether she was born that way or chose to pursue her attraction to women by having a same sex spouse. She says that to her, by using that argument, it sounds like we are saying that if I could, I would be different but I can't. In the end, it shouldn't matter if it's purely genetic or choice or some mix of things we don't yet understand. People should have the right to be with who they want to be with. I get that and I agree with her.
But then I also kind of groan inside, because she talks about how for her it has been a choice. She seems to experience a much greater degree of fluidity or flexibility in her attractions than I do. She says she has dated both men and women and has felt and can feel enough attraction to men that she could probably make marriage to a man work. My groaning comes because I think of the people who will read that who aren't able to see nuance, and who might project her experience onto others (like me) who don't experience the same degree of fluidity or flexibility and say, "See! It is a choice!"
I enjoyed her brief exploration into how a same sex marriage challenges traditional gender roles and how those roles operate in a heterosexual marriage. There are those who would identify this challenge as a threat to "traditional" marriage. I think that this challenge provides a helpful contrast though. I think the differences in the dynamics of a same sex marriage could challenge traditional gender roles in a helpful way that could actually strengthen heterosexual marriage. (As an sidenote, I think it's entertaining when people feel the need to identify who is the man and who is the woman in same sex relationships.)
What about you? What do you think about the article?
(Oh, I also found the Homosexuality in Perspective study to be interesting as well.)
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
the point of power
I'm friends with Eckhart Tolle on Facebook. Well, maybe I just "liked" him. Either way, he addresses me as friend in this post from today, so I'm saying we're friends. Anyway, this is what he had to say today:
Dear Friends,
Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said: "Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you". In other words: freedom consists in finding the point of power, which is always in the present moment. It also means: how you respond to what happens is more important than what happens.
With love
Eckhart
Or as I've said before on here, content doesn't matter, it's how we hold it that does.
Have you ever made flirty eyes at a complete stranger? I think you should try it. I just got back from lunch in the mall and I crossed paths with a cute black man who smiled at me and I smiled back. We both did the over-the-shoulder glance back after crossing paths and smiled again. He went down the stairs and was walking a floor below me, but could still see me one level up and the flirty eyes continued. It might be the perfect way to ease back into a work week after a three day weekend.
Dear Friends,
Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said: "Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you". In other words: freedom consists in finding the point of power, which is always in the present moment. It also means: how you respond to what happens is more important than what happens.
With love
Eckhart
Or as I've said before on here, content doesn't matter, it's how we hold it that does.
Have you ever made flirty eyes at a complete stranger? I think you should try it. I just got back from lunch in the mall and I crossed paths with a cute black man who smiled at me and I smiled back. We both did the over-the-shoulder glance back after crossing paths and smiled again. He went down the stairs and was walking a floor below me, but could still see me one level up and the flirty eyes continued. It might be the perfect way to ease back into a work week after a three day weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
