Find better matches with our advanced matching system

—% Match
—% Enemy

umbenannt

25 M Vienna, Austria

My Details

Last Online
Apr 6
Orientation
Bisexual
Ethnicity
Height
6′ 1″ (1.86m)
Body Type
Diet
Vegetarian
Smokes
No
Drinks
Rarely
Drugs
Never
Religion
Agnosticism, and somewhat serious about it
Sign
Education
Working on Ph.D program
Job
Income
Relationship Status
Seeing Someone
Relationship Type
Offspring
Pets
Speaks
English (Fluently), German (Fluently), French (Poorly), Japanese (Poorly)

Similar Users

My self-summary
(last update: November 2013)

Disclaimer: I identify (or much rather disidentify) as queer and genderqueer rather than bisexual and male. I don’t want exclude anyone from potential emotional or sexual interaction based on their gender or sexual identity or anatomy.

Second disclaimer (16 November 2013): Some people seem to construct me as being conceited based on this profile. I hope I’m not. I’m going to try to adapt my profile in order to try to appear less conceited. Does this make me seem disingenuous to you? Maybe I should adapt this paragraph in order to try to appear less disingenuous. ;)

17 November 2013: Finished. Please tell me whether you think I’m conceited and disingenuous if you feel like it. :)

Wieauchimmer. Things that are important about me. How would I know what’s important about me? Should I be privileged in asking and answering this question? I guess one thing that may be relevant (depending on the context) is that I strongly question individual agency (as in ‘free will’). I believe I have reason to believe (what a conceited popourri of reason and belief!) that people are ‘determined’ by external factors: Which non-external factors could ever influence us? Our genetic make-up is external – insofar as ‘you’ cannot influence it because you’re not an agential subject yet. And from then on, all kinds of external influences (social, environmental, biological) shape ‘you’ and fully determine your agency: at no point during this process are you more than the result of such external factors. Every time you encounter a new external factor, your reaction to it is determined by the combinations and interactions between all the external factors that came before this new external factor. So you’re the agglomerate of external factors. That doesn’t mean you don’t have agency, but that agency isn’t your own.

What I think follows from this – and that’s why it’s part of ‘my’ ‘self-summary’ – is that it means that the infliction of violence (which includes verbal and symbolic violence) on others is problematic even if ‘they’ have done something that you consider ‘wrong’. Not only are your understandings of right and wrong not really yours – neither are their actions really theirs. I think this is one foundation of my thinking and living which affects many aspects of my life/lives. That’s another thing about me: I find the idea that people have just one unified self highly unconvincing. Much rather, it seems reasonable to me to assume that we’re all multiple and contingent, that different ‘selves’ come to the foreground in different situations/contexts. These two aspects occur in various combinations. For example, I generally don’t hold grudges: because someone’s ‘mistakes’ are not their fault, and because I think that judging people based on past ‘mistakes’ would do them wrong. Similarly, I generally try to not simply feel sorry for my mistakes, but rather focus on alleviating their effects and not making them again.

As you may have guessed (if you actually read this far), ‘I’ am very political. I can’t and don’t want to offer a neat label for my personal politics. It would probably be considered very left-wing in many respects, maybe partially anarchist. I’m heavily influenced by social constructionism, queer theory, and more recently science and technology studies. I strongly dislike nationalism and other forms of ‘we’ identities. I dislike assimilationist movements of deviant people who want to force deviant people into social norms (like marriage and monogamy and generally being ‘respectable’) in order to get privileges for themselves. I want equality for everyone, not privileges for ‘myself’ or ‘my’ special-interest group. I don’t want to be part of a special-interest group.

Continuing with the theme of contextually contingent multiplicity, I'm in multiple, temporally and spatially contingent, committed, open, not necessarily sexual, not necessarily non-sexual, intentionally diffuse and not neatly labeled relationships with peterpansexuell, DGriffy, and CoKoCo. I'm not necessarily looking for friends or sex partners or love interests or any other categorised kind of relationship but simply anyone whom I might like and who might like me in some way or another.

Also: If everything is contextually contingent and if meaning isn’t a property, but an inter-active process, then so is your potential construction me as conceited, humble, disingenous, honest, boring, interesting, repulsive, attractive, dichotomous, non-dichotomous. So if you think ‘I’ ‘am’ attractive and someone else thinks ‘I’ ‘am’ repulsive – which one is my true self?
What I’m doing with my life
Let’s start with what I’d like to do with my life: I’d like to make a world a better place (from my perspective, that is).

What I’m doing at the moment (November 2013): studying Science and Technology Studies and potentially doing a PhD in that field as well, focusing on how dominant relationship models are constructed in social scientific research. And teaching at a language school (and deviously swapping the genders of all the princes and princesses). And working as a graphic designer. And trying to find time to engage in projects for making the world a better place. I spend a good part of my life thinking about and discussing issues of social inequalities, state violence, power relations, memories of the future and visions of the past (my thanks for these two phrases go to CoKoCo).
I’m really good at
I believe I’m quite good at hypothesising about and making explicit my own semiconscious, socially unacceptable urges and desires.

I’m quite good/bad at mimicking arbitrary norms and conventions to mock their arbitrariness. I’m sometimes not aware that what is blatantly obvious parody to me may not be as blatantly obvious to other people. I’m also really bad at smalltalk. If people ask me where I come from, I can’t help but say, ‘I’m always coming from where I was before.’

I’m not sure whether I’m good at thinking about the world. Nonetheless, I do it a lot.
The first things people usually notice about me
This depends on the context of course.
Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food
My favourite things are fluid and contextually contingent (as I assume are yours, I’ve just made a habit out of emphasising this). The lists below are therefore snapshots of the moments in which I edited them.

Written stuff:
Michel Foucault: The Will to Knowledge.
Walter Moers: Die 13 1/2 Leben des Käpt’n Blaubär.
Donna Haraway: Situated Knowledges (etc.)
Thomas Bernhard: Ein Kind and Die Ursache
Ursula K. Le Guin: The Diary of the Rose
Joey Comeau: Lockpick Pornography
(and many more)

Movies:
The Raspberry Reich
The Hours
Melancholia
Paris je t’aime
Les amours imaginaires, J’ai tué ma mère
Hero
How to Train Your Dragon
Moulin Rouge
(and many more)

Music:
Alexandra Streliski. Amanda Fucking Palmer. Caravan Palace. Gustav. Wir sind Helden. Musicals. Arnold Schönberg. Classical music. This and that. And many more.
I also like looking through albums on Bandcamp and prefer buying music there because I feel I’m really supporting artists rather than just corporations.

Food:
Creative (vegetarian) food.

Languages:
in general
German
English
C# (even though it’s evil of course)

Games:
Mass Effect; Dragon Age; Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Portal and Portal 2
FreeSpace (1 & 2 & SCP)
Rayman Origins
Die Werwölfe von Düsterwald (I’ve been told the corresponding English game might be ‘Mafia’ (not the video game)) and generally games I play with people I like
The six things I could never do without
I hope that I would somehow manage to do without anything. However, there are things I'd very strongly prefer not to lose.

Impression and expression: being changed by the world and changing the world, one moment at a time.
– Certain people who are extraordinarily important to me.
I spend a lot of time thinking about
– Can a problem still exist if it isn’t perceived as such by those who are supposedly affected by it?

– Sources of authority for individuals and institutions and whether authority is necessarily a bad thing.

– How do we navigate constraining people’s choices with the aim of giving them more freedom overall? Isn’t the claim that we’re fighting for more freedom hypocritical anyways if we also believe that people are completely determined by external factors anyways?

Determinism (see somewhere above) and whether it’s politically/ethically useful. I currently believe it is because if you don’t hold people personally responsible, you’re less likely to inflict (verbal/symbolic/physical/…) violence on them. Then again, we can’t not inflict violence on others.

– Whose freedom?

– Is it useful to conceptualise humans not as ‘indviduals’ but as fractured, incoherent, dividual? It seems sensible to me to think of humans not as indivisible, coherent persons, but rather a collection of (related) personae that share a body (to some extent: we change our bodily appearances: clothing, make-up, posture, …).

– Are networks necessarily a bad thing? Does ‘our’ belief that networks that influence who gets which jobs etc. negatively affect ‘our’ political causes? Shouldn’t we instead build queer, feminist, … networks? If who gets a job never depends just on their skills – and their skills are not their own anyways because of all the factors that influence them –, who gets a job cannot ever be fair. Doesn’t a focus on ‘skills’ merely mean collusion with a pseudo-meritocratic system that’s nothing but an illusion anyways? So wouldn’t it be far more sensible to more strongly and openly consider political causes and personal needs?

– Just because something is socially/biologically/howeverly constructed doesn’t make it any less real. Gender may well be constructed, but it also has material effects on people’s lives.

– Whether universalist statements ever make sense. I currently believe that there are no easy one-size-fits-all answers for allegedly fundamental questions. Life isn't fundamental, life is particular. I’m strongly opposed to one-size-fits-all ethics.

– Is the focus on ‘reflexivity’ in much of Gender and Queer Studies and Science and Technology Studies and socially progressive movements a way of privileging ‘our’ (i.e., academics’) knowledges (and ways of producing knowledges) over others?

Social inequalities

Deviance. Mainstream deviances and deviant mainstreams. Normativities. Normative deviances and deviant normativities.

– The interactions between science and politics.

– Processes of categorisation and stereotyping in science and elsewhere.

– That the supposedly clear line between friendships and romantic relationships doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny. Or does, depending on the context. Whose definitions?
Who can and should impose their definitions on others/Others?

– The relationship between privilege and structure: ‘there is a link between identity privileges, and our negotiation of them, on the one hand, and discrimination, on the other. Our identities are reflective and constitutive of systems of oppression.’ – ‘This creates an obligation on the part of those of us with privileged identities to expose and to challenge them.’ (Devo Carbado (2000): ‘Privilege’, in: Johnson & Henderson (eds): Black Queer Studies.) But is the focus on personal privilege indicative of a neoliberal drive towards individualisation and therefore displacement of responsibility?

– ‘Intelligence’ as a socially constructed and reproduced idea.

– If money, by being spent on campaings aimed at obtaining the consent/favour of the people, is an important factor for who gets elected, shouldn't then, in the interest of democracy, extra money be allocated to new, alternative, possibly dissident movements that otherwise could not seriously compete with established factions in allegedly free elections? Or, in other words: Is our democratic system based on capitalist principles of the survival (or at least prevailing) of the financially best-equipped? How can we distribute power more fairly?

Marriage is an oppressive institution and should be abolished rather than just extended to a few more special-interest groups. But on what grounds do ‘we’ (anti-establishment people) refuse the right to marry to relatively oppressed groups?
I’m looking for
  • Everybody
  • Ages 18–100
  • Located anywhere
  • For new friends, long-term dating, short-term dating, casual sex
You should message me if
– you think you could like the me I construct in this profile (or much rather the me you construct me as constructing in this profile) or other mes that you think ‘I’ might offer based on your experience with the me you construct me to construct in this profile.

– you don’t mind that I’m part of a poly amoeba that eludes and rejects easy definition.

– you regard okcupid as a site for meeting people, and you think ‘meeting’ does not equal (but neither does it exclude) going on dates. We could simply do what we both feel is right for us in a particular context.