Rodney69

Jan 1, 2013

Well we are, doesn't mean we have to act on it :)

sfguyyy

Jan 1, 2013

 

OK, I give up on you. :P

23Malaclypse

Jan 1, 2013

Well said.

Merry927

Jan 13, 2013

I think the great majority of kinky people regularly engage in vanilla sex. I have never given it up. I just have a broad range of interests.

Also, there are plenty of people who accept monogamy as a paradigm and fuck around a lot more than many poly people. There's nothing about being poly that implies that you have a greater than average number of partners over your lifetime. Some people do not date that much or have closed relationships with multiples.

Sure, some poly and kinky people may enjoy what might be considered excess to others. So what? So do many monogamous and vanilla people. What's wrong with that anyway? Is denying oneself for no reason a virtue? Is thinking of relationships as requiring unnecessary sacrifice really all that healthy? Does it lead to greater happiness? Does it necessarily cause problems to enjoy a broad range of sexual practices and/or partners?

I find the answers to those questions to be much more contingent on the way a person conducts their relationships than the form the relationship takes. I've seen absolutely no evidence that just picking a social accepted way of interacting with others is going to guarantee success and fulfillment.

 

daishaface

Jan 13, 2013

I'm poly (and 30 goddamned years old) and I have had consensual sex with fewer than 10 people.

fetishgloves

Jan 20, 2013

No,  I've been the way I am since a very young age, long before I ever had the chance to get bored doing vanilla sexual stuff.  I started out with bondage and spanking with my very first gf at 17.

 

I believe that like being gay or straight or bi, you're hardwired from birth and up to a point will always have certain leanings in one direction or another, vanilla or kinky.

23Malaclypse

Jan 20, 2013

I would never doubt for an instance someone's assertion that they personally are hard wired for one proclivity or another (or sexuality, etc) but through direct experience I know for fact that some of those same things can be formed later in life. 

fetishgloves

Jan 20, 2013

The question is, were those desires truly formed later in life, or did the person simply always have a particular proclivity and simply not realize it until later in life?

23Malaclypse

Jan 20, 2013

Being the one with the direct experience, I attest to the former. 

Rodney69

Jan 26, 2013

I realized I was bi when I was about 18. After that I fantasized about nearly everything you could think of. I was always horny as a kid, too, so I would say I've always been this way to a certain extent.

Merry927

Feb 4, 2013

Another question is, "Are predilections that manifest early in life partly or wholly a response to experiences one doesn't remember?" An infant's neurology is developing rapidly after birth, that development is highly influenced by experience, and they are sponges for information, especially social information. 

 

23Malaclypse

Feb 4, 2013

Yeah, who knows? It could be diet. It could be the whole gaian being thing, tinkering with us. i think that subtext following the nature/nurture assertions from the queer community "i've been this way since birth (so stop harassing us, trying to reform us, treating us like subhumans, etc)". 

perhaps there wouldn't be any interest in nature/nurture debates or the supposed dichotomy in our consciousness at all, if the hetero and gender normatives sort of went away.

 

Roboscopy

Feb 9, 2013

perhaps there wouldn't be any interest in nature/nurture debates or the supposed dichotomy in our consciousness at all, if the hetero and gender normatives sort of went away.

I've felt that way for a while now.
I think the only criterion for whether or not we accept people's decisions should be whether or not it strongly affects a person in a way they would not give their informed consent to.

If I decide to cut one of my arms off for funsies, well... maybe the people I care about should be like "Hey, arms are useful, and taking care of your arm stub can be expensive." but after that, they should respect my decision, no matter how silly it is, as long as no-one else gets hurt.

So like... being gay or bi, or poly, or a furry, or trans, or wanting to cover your entire body with tattoos... it doesn't hurt anyone... not really, and everyone should realize that, and just be like "well that person is different, but still just as valid as everyone else." and shouldn't be discriminated against.
We shouldn't have to prove to everyone on the planet that we have an incurable genetic mental condition or something for them to shut the fuck up about why we need to be like everybody else.

Not that there's anything wrong with normalcy (I mean, I'm not a huge fan of it, but it isn't wrong.)... but our culture... perhaps almost every culture is obsessed... Just completely obsessed with being normal for little more than the sake of being normal... and that's idiotic in theory, and relatively oppressive in practice... but most people think it's the best possible option.

23Malaclypse

Feb 9, 2013

That was a wonderful comment!

Roboscopy

Feb 10, 2013

I have my moments.

Jythexinvok

Feb 10, 2013

perhaps there wouldn't be any interest in nature/nurture debates or the supposed dichotomy in our consciousness at all, if the hetero and gender normatives sort of went away.

 

I doubt it. People would just find some other dividing line.  In-group/Out-group is a pretty low level human construct, and I doubt anything will remove it from play.

Roboscopy

Feb 10, 2013

Well I think that the hypothetical scenario of hetero and gender normatives going away (and presumably staying away) would actually be accomplished by a culture that perpetuated the idea that people with gender variation and the like are simply part of the in-group.

 

I agree that people have like this... inherent xenophobia that encourages them to just... not like things that are different... and it'd be next to impossible to change that, but what we can do (or at least what would be more successful, with less effort) is to kinda force people to care about specific others so that everyone automatically accepts those others into their in-group.

 

I'm pretty sure that's how we lessened the prevalence of racism in America... we simply made more people think that people of different races can be friends and whatever.

What9Thousand

Feb 11, 2013

I'm pretty sure that's how we lessened the prevalence of racism in America... we simply made more people think that people of different races can be friends and whatever.

But we also did it by making more people (rightly) think that racists are morally repulsive people, worthy of mockery and ridicule. An out-group of sorts.

memoryharper

Feb 12, 2013

 

 

But we also did it by making more people (rightly) think that racists are morally repulsive people, worthy of mockery and ridicule. An out-group of sorts.

 

haha, we create inclusion by changing who we exclude.  brilliant. 

Merry927

Feb 13, 2013

I don't think hierarchy depends much on the paradigm of nature vs. nurture. It can exist easily without it, even if it stills hangs on because of these arguments about gender and sexuality.

But that conceptualization is starting to disappear. We just know too much about neurological development in infants and children and how both innate factors, like temperament, and environment influence it these days for the concept to have much traction. It just doesn't have much utility anymore.

Post a comment