Re: virus: Andro-homo-gynes

Zloduska (
Tue, 04 May 1999 11:45:34 -0500

Wade wrote:

>It [homosexuality] may very well be a fad, in as much as it is a
non-requirement of
>reproduction and a by-product of pleasure, (I'd be willing to say, right
>now, that that is what lesbianism is...), albeit a historically
>continuing one, or at best and foot-first a function of sexuality in
>general, but it does more seem to be cultural than biologic. So far....

Let me get this straight...when you fall in love and/or are attracted to a woman, it is your extreme 'male' nature causing it, but when two homosexuals fall in love, it's a "fad"?! How can something that has persisted for soooooo long, social taboo or not, be just a passing phase? As for your summation of "lesbianism", I *strongly* disagree. If I didn't like you so much, I would just say that's "bullshit", period. Again, you are saying that your strong attraction (from deep in the pit of your loins, or something like that) is natural and necessary (which it is), but if a woman feels this exact same way, to the very core of her being (and I know many who do), it is just an illusion- a "by-product of pleasure" and a "non-requirement of reproduction"? theory is that men who disprove of or misunderstand homosexual women somehow feel insulted. "How dare a woman not be attracted to me! How dare a woman be so bold as to claim she doesn't NEED a man, and actually live independantly! How dare she go against nature and not bear my fruit!" It is the selfish and insecure man that wants to feel important, and is threatened and angry if he is 'discarded' for a mere woman. A man feels the need to "conquer" a woman, and he can never attain that conquest if she rejects males. Lesbianism, as you put it, makes him impotent to exercise control. He wants to lord over women with his erect penis in iron hand, but a woman that is fulfilled in every way by another woman cannot be his subject. And so they use absurd reasoning to tell a female why she shouldn't be taken seriously. I don't think I'm getting carried away or exaggerating here. Frequently, either I see this 'anti-lesbian' tendency in men, or else they are anti-gay, but pro-lesbianism because it turns THEM on. If anything, Wade, lesbianism is a by-product of pleasure for MEN, not women. For said women, it is a beautiful and natural thing.

>I view myself as 'male' because I am attracted to 'female', not because I
>identify with any set of 'maleness' qualities, whatever they are at any
>time and place. Androgynosity is a sham, an insult, to these attractions,
>and not appreciated.

First of all, I don't think 'androgynosity' is even a word (correct me if I'm wrong), and how can you possibly say it's a sham, an insult, and not appreciated? Where on earth did THAT come from? And if you say that being androgynous or an 'androgyne' is at all those negative things, then I think you have missed the point of everything I have said so far. I'd hate to think that I wasted my breath... to be insulted.

>Yin just don't _fit_ to yin. But while the
>not-understood is not a threat to me (as a good skeptic), it is to many,
>and this may be a core of the resentment.

Yes, exactly. "Yin don't *fit* to yin" is precisely the kind of thing a religious nut would say to justify their anti-homosexual hatred and prejudice. In fact, I've heard it many times: Your statement sounds a lot like, "Man just does not _lie_ with man. God made man and woman for each other, and anything else is an abomination." I know that's not at all what you said or intended, but that is exactly the argument used by fundamentalist hate-mongers. For that reason, I find the "Yin don't fit to Yin" remark to be unconvincing and empty.

>And the whole Gaia thing- all this androgyneity, _if_ it leads to reduced
>population growth

...and I'm getting kind of tired arguing that it doesn't ;-\

>would lend some credence to this theory, assuming less
>people is what this tired old planet really needs. Then again, Malthus is
>right all the time, so far.... Gaia has always seemed to me to be a sort
>of PC Malthus....

Er, I think we should drop the topic. First of all because it is a personal topic to begin with, so there is no clear-cut right or wrong. Secondly, because I know you are intelligent and have reasons for your beliefs, as do I, and being as strong-willed (er, stubborn) as I am, it's unlikely that either of us will change the other's mind.