This week in The Slacktiverse, April 30/May 1 2011

Signs of the Times

TBAT reminds the community that it is a violation of the current Canadian Election Act to publish election results before the polls have closed:

No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district. [Canada Elections Act, Part 16, Section 329.]

Elections Canada officials have announced their intention to enforce this prohibition violations of it could result in (non-nominal) fines. Since many of the members of this community (including one of TBAT) are Canadian we ask that no election advertising, poll results not previously published or election results be posted before all Canadian polling stations are closed (0200 GMT.) Any posts that violate the Canadian Elections Act will be taken down immediately upon TBAT becoming aware of them.

 

The Blogaround

Sarah posted a follow-up to hir Slacktiverse article Camden Resurrected.

Kit Whitfield posted a transcript of her interview with Mika on the subject of the upcoming AV referendum.

Leum posted "The Forest of Shadows: What is Real?" which is a psychological allegory about the nature of reality especially with respect to the metaphysical and supernatural.

Storiteller posted at "Will Bike for Change (or Pie!)" about how Easter influenced her perspective on training for a major bicycle ride and riding 65 miles on one trip.

Laiima posted an article, seeking ways to fail more, about the way writing and books lead to understanding what failure is good for and another, if there is no struggle there is no progress, about "what I mean by *ineffective* failure, a new archetype, and how I found a new lease on life."

Ana Mardoll posted a new Twilight entry on her blog: Twilight: Pretty People Make Pretty…Foster Children.
As backstory is provided for the two “Hale twins”, the reader is left to wonder at the amount of information left out of the Cullen clan cover story. How old was Esme Hale when her niece and nephew were placed with her, and why are the twins still “foster children” after all these years while their “siblings” have all been adopted through the appropriate channels?

mmy posted a review of Clouds of Witness, Dorothy L. Sayer's second "Lord Peter Wimsey" novel.

Literata wrote about the intersections of Beltane, botany, and desire, and about finding herself down in the mud, and realizing it's exactly where she's supposed to be.

Sharon posted a personal review of Win Win, Win Win: The Struggle to Be Good.

The former conservative blogger writes: This week I posted another Savage Nation installment, a blogger expressed his displeasure with my deconstruction of his blog and I deconstructed that, I wrote about a Jacksonville FL city council candidate's rather odd religious views and a (complimentary) response to an atheist blog I like to read.

In case you missed this

William Campbell, who guest starred on both Star Trek (TOS) and Deep Space Nine died this week at the age of 84.

Inquisitiveravn writes: Joanna Russ has also died. Russ's many fans are sharing memories of Russ and her books on a dedicated thread at Making Light (Teresa and Patrick Nielsen Hayden's website.)

|

 

Things you can do

mmy reminds fellows Canadians that Monday, May 2 2011 is election day.

Storiteller is fundraising for the Climate Ride, a 300-mile bicycle ride in May from New York City to D.C. that raises money for 8 different climate change and bicycling organizations: click here to get more information and to donate.

mmy passes along the following from an MSF email alert:
Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson is putting the lives of people living with HIV at stake by refusing to participate in the Medicines Patent Pool, a mechanism designed to lower prices of HIV medicines and increase access to them for people in the developing world.
The Pool has been set up to increase access to more affordable versions of HIV drugs , including fixed-dose combinations that include multiple medicines in one pill, and to develop much-needed pediatric HIV drugs.
Johnson & Johnson, which holds patents on three key new HIV drugs desperately needed throughout the developing world, has so far refused to license these patents to the Medicines Patent Pool.
Click here to tell J&J to join the patent pool.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)

Comments

[Inquisitiveravn]

Joanna Russ has also died. And it looks like I got the first comment.

[The Board Administration Team]

@Inquisitiveravn: Thanks for passing that along -- we will add it to the body of the post.

[Lunch Meat]

I have a request for personal advice--
Several of you may remember that a few months ago, I posted about my experience on my wedding night and honeymoon and how different they were from what I'd been led to believe, and how much I wish someone had warned me what to expect. Well, I have several friends getting married this next month, and a couple of them are very close, and I'm trying to decide if I should say something to them. (They are both from conservative backgrounds and I'm guessing--though I'm not sure--that they probably have as little or less experience with sex than I had.) Obviously I a) would not bring it up with a random woman who was not my close friend, and b) would not talk about it without asking first if they want some advice/warnings or if they would rather figure it out on their own.

I don't want to invade anyone's privacy or offer unwelcome advice or embarass them or act like a know-it-all, but if someone had been considering talking to me about it but had experienced the same doubts, I would have rather they mentioned it. So, slacktivites: is it at all a good idea to bring it up tastefully, or should I just mind my own business?

[Deird, who is worried and upset]

Answer to advice:

I'd suggest you bring it up with her. Tactfully, over coffee. :)

(Coincidental) request for advice:

Closest Friend has decided she vehemently dislikes Boyfriend.

This is not entirely for no reason. 3 months ago she liked him fine, and thought he was perfect for me. Then...
- Boyfriend dumped me
- Boyfriend decided this was a really daft idea
- a month or so later, after a great deal of misery on both our sides, we got back together and are now seeing if this thing is going to work or not

The problem is, Closest Friend saw my misery, but not Boyfriend's, and now has a fervent wish to rip his eyes out with her bare hands and set him on fire.

She now thinks he's horrible, doesn't see his good points at all, and whenever I mention that he's actually pretty nice, says "I'm sure you think that" with a cold smile.

To her credit, she's aware that this is a problem that needs fixing in some way. But... HOW? How the heck is she supposed to get along with him when she's still horribly angry with him for hurting me, and sure he's going to do it again?
And what on earth am I supposed to do about it?

[MadGastronomer]

I suggest bringing it up. It used to be that young women's mothers (or aunts or grandmothers or whoever) would explain things to them ahead of time, but this seems to have been left by the wayside more recently.

Also, personal squee: I can haz a new sweetie! She's tall and blue-haired and brilliant and funny and silly and sexy and makes terrible puns, and I'm all twitterpated and in love. (Which might have something to do with why I've been around less the last couple of weeks. I've been a bit . . . distracted.)

[MadGastronomer]

@Deird First, I suggest that you consider whether she might be right. He dumped you once, and if that's an indicator that he's flighty, or if whatever issue precipitated it has not been fixed, then it's entirely possible that he'll just do it again, and possibly several time if you keep taking him back. And you may be blind to it. So I wouldn't dismiss your friend out of hand. Sometimes, our nearest and dearest see more clearly than we do.

But if you go over it thoroughly and are convinced for reasons independent of your fondness for him that it won't happen again, then I suggest that you either let them fight it out, or just ignore it and don't hang out with them both at the same time, and maybe ask your friend not to complain about your boyfriend to you.

[Deird, who is in church]

MadG, good point, that I definitely must consider. You are awesome and wise.

In this case, I don't think she's right, because I'm getting advice from several observers and family members, and none of them agree with her. It's just that she got to see more of my raw hurt than them, and doesn't know him as much as some of the others do...

Complicated situation is complicated.

[CZEdwards (who was CSHolocene)]

@Lunch Meat:

Um, yes. Something I have to keep in mind all the time (because I work with grad students who are just entering my field) is the notion of beginner's mind: once one has a level of expertise in any field, it becomes really, really hard to remember the difficulties of the novice, but the novice needs to know that those difficulties exist and can be mastered. Sexuality (in marriage or out) is one of those really tough places, and especially if your friends are coming from a place where sexuality isn't talked about, the fore-warning is helpful. I know I would have really liked someone to tell me that between zippers and buttons and just general awkwardness along with anticipation and uncertainty and the mental build-up that Excellence takes time and practice.

I know there are some decent books on Christian sexuality available now, and this blog post (and the associated blog) may be helpful. http://christiannymphos.org/2007/12/27/fantastic-honeymoon-sex-guide-for-the-virgin/ I'm the sort of person who would just pick up a gift bag, a bottle of intimacy liquid and an appropriate book as a bridal shower/pre-wedding gift. (Red Hot Monogamy is very good, though I'm not so fond of some of the editorializing in the beginning.)

[Kit Whitfield]

@Lunch Meat: I'd bring it up, but present it in the way you did here: 'When I got married I didn't know much and it would have helped me if I'd had more information, so if you wanted to talk to someone, I'm here. Your choice, of course.' That way you make it clear that it's an offer, not an imposition, and that you're not trying to come it as Mrs Fancy-Knickers-Knows-Everything.

@Deird: if her problem with his is purely that he's caused you pain, it's very possible that time will cure it - as long as she gets to see him making you happy for a good long period of time. If she feels protective of you, he's got some trust to win back, and that'll go easier if you just let her see you're happy rather than trying to change her mind.

It may be, though, that she has other objections to him and the fact that he caused you pain is a factor, but not the only problem - just the one that it's acceptable for her to tell you about. That would make matters more complicated.

What I'd do is this: say to her, 'I know you don't trust him and think he's going to hurt me. I don't, and I'm hoping that time will show this. If I'm right, I hope eventually you'll forgive him; if I'm wrong, I hope I can trust you to be there for me and not rub it in. Whatever happens, though, I really need to give this relationship a chance because I'd always be looking back over my shoulder if I broke it off with him now. So in the meantime, we both have the right to our own feelings, so how about the two of us hang out without him, stay off the subject and stick to conversations we'll both enjoy?'

[Literata]

Wise Kit is wise.

Yay for twitterpated MadG and sweetie!

CZEdwards, it's cool that there are some good Christian resources about sexuality available, but that site you linked to was totally inaccurate about hymens. The other advice seemed useful and reasonable, but the expectation that every woman has a hymen that will be "broken" by sex is completely nonsense. It's only one step away from the myth of the bloody sheet.

One of my friends tells a very funny story about a devout young Christian woman who was given an introductory book at her bridal shower (with tasteful illustrations with both partners wearing wedding rings) and immediately became so immersed in the book she completely ignored the rest of the shower. "You mean they...we?...ooh..."

[Brin (not Meir)]

immediately became so immersed in the book she completely ignored the rest of the shower. "You mean they...we?...ooh..."

It kind of reminds me of borrowing Brother's puberty book a couple months ago. (My own books said absolutely nothing about male puberty, and I didn't like being so ignorant.) I read it all in one sitting, mostly so I wouldn't have to keep it any longer than necessary.
The things that stuck out about it to me:
Boys learn a lot more about girl puberty than vice versa, or at least they do with this book. Brother won't have to borrow any of my puberty books.
It is, in fact, possible to make sex sound like no big deal. This may not be how the authors* meant to come across, but they did.
They claimed it's common for straight boys to be slightly gay in adolescence and (usually) grow out of it. Is this actually common, and if it is, is it common in girls as well? I have no problem with bisexuality in other people, but I like that when I'm with other girls, I don't have to worry about whether I'm having sexual feelings for them. It only takes one exception to lose that safety.

*Who were both female, oddly enough, though they quoted a lot of other people's personal experiences.

[Kit Whitfield]

@Brin: it's fairly common in both sexes, I think, particularly when people don't have much access to the opposite sex: your libido needs something to fix on and makes do with what's available. But even in a mixed environment of adults, I don't think a passing attraction to someone the same sex as yourself makes you gay, or even necessarily bi. Orientation is a sliding scale rather than a set of boxes, and while you can certainly define 'heterosexual' as 'never attracted to one's own sex at all,' it's equally possible to classify it as 'never seriously attracted to one's own sex to the point that one really wanted to act on it', or 'not attracted enough to one's own sex often enough to make "bi" feel like an appropriate description.'

Sexuality can be fluid and unpredictable, and generally speaking it works best when we define ourselves however feels comfortable. There are times when this could get silly - a man who only ever has sex with other men describing himself as straight is, shall we say, reaching a bit - but if you're primarily attracted to men and don't want to have sex or sexual feelings for women, I'd say 'straight' is a perfectly good way to describe yourself.

Incidentally, if you do want to ask questions and the books don't seem to cover it, I for one would be very willing to do my best to answer, either on the board or in private; my e-mail's kitwhitfield at hotmail dot com if you wanted to talk about anything.

If you're looking for a good book, I'd recommend The Guide To Getting It On. It's primarily a sex manual, but one that's very grounded and informative and full of sound advice and useful facts as well as the how-to-do-it stuff.

[Mmy]

OT -- not sure where to post this.

So, last night spouse and I are watching the hockey game (double overtime!!) and thus were up late enough to notice that the noise/music drifting over from the arena was still noticeably loud at after 1 am. [One normally can barely hear events held there -- even hockey games.] Since we were both awake after the game was over we put on our coats and walked the several blocks to the arena [trusty cell phone in hand.]

The parking lot was not particularly full and so we presumed that a bunch of teen-agers had hung around after a show and commandeered the sound system. Imagine our surprise to see as we came close that
a) the 'loudness' was due in part to the fact that every single door (including the loading doors normally opened briefly to bring in heavy equipment) was propped open.
b) that the sound inside was so loud that when a security guard saw me and walked over to where I was standing (outside the building) he could not hear me when I yelled a sentence at the top of my voice.
c) when the guard could finally hear me (we had both walked several metres away from the building) he responded to my statement "you are violating municipal noise ordinances" with a sigh and a "we are trying to get them to turn off the sound and leave since the event should have ended already. I'll warn them that they better stop the noise."
d) it was clear that the problem for the security guards was that the people inside the arena were not teenagers -- they were adults in their 40s, 50s and up playing "classic oldies" at ear-splitting volume. Teenagers are easier to intimidate than middle-aged individuals trying desperately to re-live their "wild" youth.

I am quite sure that a good percentage of the people awake to hear the noise (a fair number given the fact the hockey went into overtime) probably just assume that the noisemakers were teenagers and will include that complaint in their next diatribe about kids today.

[Brin (not Meir)]

or 'not attracted enough to one's own sex often enough to make "bi" feel like an appropriate description.'

And under other circumstances, if I were more accepting of my sexuality and had an exception or three, I wouldn't consider myself bi. But as I said, if you're looking for guaranteed non-sexual* social contact, it only takes once to void the guarantee.
Thanks for the offer. I would have at least tried asking Mom before coming here about it, but I suspect she would have taken it as "I'm having sexual feelings for a girl, but I'm phrasing it as hypothetical to be less uncomfortable telling you." Not too long ago she told me that while she suspects Brother is straight based on his interactions with girls, she hasn't detected any signs of budding sexuality from me. The way she said it was "you could be a lesbian for all I know", and she's already convinced the oath-of-virginity thing is just a phase I'll soon grow out of, so I don't want to do anything to encourage additional wrongness**.
Passing attractions are really all I have to go on. I've never felt anything serious; my libido seems to have--for the moment--given up on sex with other people involved.

*On my end. It's not really any of my business if a girl (or anyone else) is attracted to me as long as they don't try to act on it.

**I'd rather not think about the possibility she really is right.

I hate loud music. I've found that over the past couple of years, my ideal volume for music has actually gotten lower, to the point where my Sansa is, for some songs, incapable of going quite low enough. I'm told hearing peaks at sixteen, so I guess it makes some sense, since I'm closer to peak age now than I was at thirteen when I bought it. You would think, though, that teenagers are a big enough market for MP3 players that they would make volume controls accommodating the ones who don't want to risk hearing damage.

[Kit Whitfield]

But as I said, if you're looking for guaranteed non-sexual* social contact, it only takes once to void the guarantee.

If you don't mind me asking, why is it so important that the social contact be completely non-sexual?

[Brin (not Meir)]

If you don't mind me asking, why is it so important that the social contact be completely non-sexual?

Because if it isn't it reminds me I have a sexuality. I guess the implications of "the oath-of-virginity thing" and "my libido seems to have--for the moment--given up on sex with other people involved" (because it knows better than to think* I'll allow it) weren't quite clear enough.

*I suppose it can't technically think for itself, but I tend to talk about my libido as if it were a separate entity.

[Kit Whitfield]

(You may have already said this earlier, in which case sorry for missing it.) Are you planning on having a sexual relationship later in life, or is the virginity oath the long-term plan?

[Literata]

Brin, if I'm speaking out of turn here, feel free to tell me to jump in the lake, but the way you talk about "guaranteed non-sexual social contact" is somewhat disturbing to me. I think it's unreasonable to expect that of yourself, and potentially dangerous in the long run. And although I'm impressed that you're educating yourself about what goes on for guys in puberty, that attitude sounds like one that automatically classifies male-presenting people as posing some kind of a risk, danger, excitement, or tension in any social situation, above and beyond whatever your libido is or is not feeding you.

I would respectfully suggest that it is healthier in the long run to consider your libido a part of yourself (rather than an inexorable outside force), and although you don't have (total) control over it, you do have control over your actions, for which it is only one input, even if a very, very compelling one, especially at times in adolescence. Learning to handle that input, even when it's annoying or difficult to deal with, is in my view an integral part of puberty, especially the mental and emotional parts.

tl;dr: In all likelihood, you do have a sexuality, and suppressing it can be destructive. Learning to manage it might be a better approach.

[Brin (not Meir)]

Kit: (You may have already said this earlier, in which case sorry for missing it.) Are you planning on having a sexual relationship later in life, or is the virginity oath the long-term plan?

I did say it earlier.
Me: she's already convinced the oath-of-virginity thing is just a phase I'll soon grow out of, so I don't want to do anything to encourage additional wrongness**.

**I'd rather not think about the possibility she really is right.
(Almost broke the italics trying to do that "is".)

I hear/read plenty about how unhealthy repression is, although usually they're referring to the more common (or at least more well-known) repressed homosexuality, and I just happen to be there. The way I see it, people make unhealthy choices all the time. I'm not putting my life or anyone else's in danger, so even if my reasons (which I don't think I can articulate) wouldn't be considered sufficient to most, it's still a valid choice.
(Which makes me feel like a hypocrite for agreeing with the more specific anti-ex-gay stuff, but there is the issue of coercion.)

[Brin (not Meir)]

I did refresh to check if anyone else had said something before posting, but Literata managed to squeak by.

In all likelihood, you do have a sexuality, and suppressing it can be destructive. Learning to manage it might be a better approach.

What exactly do you mean by "learning to manage it"?

[Literata]

It is a valid choice. I meant to suggest that there are other psychological options available to you that are probably within the scope of your oath. I respect that it's your decision.

[Literata]

Sorry, Brin, we're right on each other's postings. :)

Learning to manage it for me means understanding - not just intellectually, but through experience - that arousal doesn't have to be acted on. It can be accepted as part of my normal experience of life; neither good nor bad per se. I don't know the scope of your oath, of course, and don't know how you regard such things as thoughts, dreams, and physical symptoms, so I don't know how much of an option that is for you.

For me, when arousal occurs in situations where I choose not to act on it (for whatever reason - and there are many of them), I note it, accept it, and move through it to concentrate on whatever else I'm doing. It's a bit like noticing that a muscle is tight when you're stretching; I breathe into it, accept it as there but not as the ultimate determinant of my situation, and go on with what I intend to do to the best of my ability.

I realize that this is so general as to be not terribly useful, but I'd be happy to talk with you more specifically off-boards as well. I'm literatahurley at gmail. I wish you the best with whatever path(s) you take.

[Deird, who was very confused until she worked out the schedule for that]

Orientation is a sliding scale rather than a set of boxes, and while you can certainly define 'heterosexual' as 'never attracted to one's own sex at all,' it's equally possible to classify it as 'never seriously attracted to one's own sex to the point that one really wanted to act on it', or 'not attracted enough to one's own sex often enough to make "bi" feel like an appropriate description.'

Like me. My orientation seems to be in sync with my menstrual cycle: for about one week in every four, I'd temporarily be more-bisexual-than-not, but on average I'm straight...

[Brin (not Meir)]

Learning to manage it for me means understanding - not just intellectually, but through experience - that arousal doesn't have to be acted on. It can be accepted as part of my normal experience of life; neither good nor bad per se. I don't know the scope of your oath, of course, and don't know how you regard such things as thoughts, dreams, and physical symptoms, so I don't know how much of an option that is for you.

I'm not sure I've ever actually experienced arousal--certainly not when awake--and I haven't noticed any physical symptoms. I find erotic dreams annoying, but I know better than to beat myself up over losing control when dreams are clearly rigged against me. (I don't usually have free will in other dreams*; why would these be any different?)

Deird: Oh, you had to mention menstrual cycles. I'm about a week late now. Mom says not to worry, that women sometimes skip entire months for little-to-no reason, but it still makes me a little nervous.

*I have had precisely one power-trip lucid dream. All of the other ones went like this:
Realise I'm dreaming.
Realise I have no control over anything, up to and mostly including my own thoughts.
Watch helplessly and wait for the dream to be over.

[Leum]

My orientation seems to be in sync with my menstrual cycle: for about one week in every four, I'd temporarily be more-bisexual-than-not, but on average I'm straight...

One of my friends has something similar with gender identity. Most of the time she's female, but once a month or so zie has a gender identity crisis.

[Deird, who loves predictable periods - as long as she remembers to *take* the pill]

Deird: Oh, you had to mention menstrual cycles. I'm about a week late now. Mom says not to worry, that women sometimes skip entire months for little-to-no reason, but it still makes me a little nervous.

Unless you have a specific reason why you could be late, like pregnancy, don't worry about it. Until I went on the pill, my cycle pretty much went like this:
- 28 days
- 39 days
- 17 days
- 30 days
- 54 days
- 24 days
- 41 days
- 83 days

Some of us just aren't very regular.

[Lunch Meat]

When I was 17, I missed my period for five months. My mom was pretty worried and made me go to the doctor, and the doctor said it was fairly normal. Up until I went on the pill last year, I'd routinely skip one or two months at a time.

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I saw one of them at lunch today at lunch after church and mentioned that if she ever needed to ask something, I'd be available, and she agreed that it would probably be less awkward than asking their premarital counselor (who is probaby in his fifties). I'll wait and see if she brings it up with me now.

My other friend I'm probably going to have to ask online because I rarely see her.

Also, Kit, if I ever start an advice column, can I please use "Mrs-Fancy-Knickers-Knows-Everything" ad my pseudonym?

[Lunch Meat]

As far as Christian sex manuals go, the best one that's been recommended to me is "Sheet Music" by Kevin Leman, which my in-laws gave to us. It still didn't give any warnings about my particular problem, but it's the best combination of practicality and ideals that I've seen.

[Literata]

{{Brin}} For everything. Thanks, Deird, for mentioning the orientation-cycle connection - it's a good point and one that I've also experienced.

[MadGastronomer]

They claimed it's common for straight boys to be slightly gay in adolescence and (usually) grow out of it.

Your wording is problematic. It is common for both boys and girls to have same-sex attractions and/or crushes in adolescence, or to explore same-sex sexual activity. That is not being "slightly gay," which is a phrase that I find rather upsetting.

I have no problem with bisexuality in other people, but I like that when I'm with other girls, I don't have to worry about whether I'm having sexual feelings for them.

I'm so glad you don't have a problem with my bisexuality. But your phrasing kinda ticks me off.

And under other circumstances, if I were more accepting of my sexuality and had an exception or three, I wouldn't consider myself bi.

So, your oath of virginity is a response to being uncomfortable with your own sexuality? Have you tried learning to accept yourself and your sexuality -- which is a part of you -- instead?

she's already convinced the oath-of-virginity thing is just a phase I'll soon grow out of

Probably because most teens do grow out of attitudes like yours.

I've never felt anything serious; my libido seems to have--for the moment--given up on sex with other people involved.

Don't bet on it. You may have suppressed it, but it is almost certainly not gone for good, and if you're trying to not only not ever have sex, but also not ever have sexual feelings, you're in for a lot of grief.

I'd rather not think about the possibility she really is right.

Internalized homophobia, you haz it.

I suppose it can't technically think for itself, but I tend to talk about my libido as if it were a separate entity.

You really, really need to deal with your issues here. For you. You're not going to be happy this way.

I did say it earlier.

Not in this thread, and it's not reasonable to expect people to remember from previous threads. I take it from context that you mean it's permanent, which, again, is going to be really bad for you if it's because you're just scared of your sexuality.

I hear/read plenty about how unhealthy repression is, although usually they're referring to the more common (or at least more well-known) repressed homosexuality, and I just happen to be there. The way I see it, people make unhealthy choices all the time. I'm not putting my life or anyone else's in danger, so even if my reasons (which I don't think I can articulate) wouldn't be considered sufficient to most, it's still a valid choice.

It's a valid choice if you're doing it in a healthy way, sure. And it's still your choice to make. But this really could put your life at risk. Young people who repressed their sexualities -- yes, usually queer kids -- have much higher suicide rates.

[Leum]

American readers should read AT&T v. Concepcion: Lack of class. Lack of ethics. by Erich Vieth. Vieth explains how the decision uses muddled reasoning to support corporation's ability to defraud customers.

[Leum]

*Sorry, USian readers, not America.

[Brin (not Meir)]

I apologise for phrasing things badly.

Internalized homophobia, you haz it.

Huh? This response has nothing to do with the quote it's responding to.

Not in this thread, and it's not reasonable to expect people to remember from previous threads.
The bit from a previous post I quoted after "I did say it earlier" was from this thread.

It's a valid choice if you're doing it in a healthy way, sure.

You think there is such a thing as a healthy way? Everything else you said implies you don't. What healthy way is there, then?

[Zigforas (who is not late to the conversation today)]

Hi Brin,

You may have discussed this on a different thread, but if you'd be willing to re-explain, I would be interested in knowing more about the scope of your oath-of-virginity and how you came to make it. Also--and this seem like a silly question--how does your own perspective on sexuality compare to that of your peers?

[Brin (not Meir)]

I would be interested in knowing more about the scope of your oath-of-virginity and how you came to make it.

Um...honestly, I don't really know how to explain it, especially with a relatively vague question like that. I might not have words for stuff even if you get more specific.

Also--and this seem like a silly question--how does your own perspective on sexuality compare to that of your peers?

I don't know enough about my peers' views to say, for pretty much any definition of "peer".

[Deird, who is providing less vagueness]

Brin:
1) By oath-of-virginity, do you mean you have temporarily decided to remain a virgin until certain circumstances, or that you have decided to remain a virgin forever?
2) Is it something you decided by yourself, or at the same time as one-or-more other people?
3) Do you plan to
- not have sex
- not have sex or any sexual interaction
- not allow yourself to feel anything sexual whatsoever?
4) Why did you decide that this was what you wanted to do?

[Brin (not Meir)]

1: Foreseeable future isn't quite the same thing as forever. I haven't determined under what circumstances I would stop.
2: By myself.
3: I'm not sure what you mean by "any sexual interaction". Not feeling anything sexual whatsoever is clearly an unattainable goal.
4: Trying to talk about it here is making me realise I should think more in-depth about the "why". Not having an answer when other people ask is bad enough, but I'm not sure I can even answer myself.

[Zigforas (who is not late to the conversation today)]

Um...honestly, I don't really know how to explain it, especially with a relatively vague question like that.

Hmm...Well, I can ask the same question in a less vague way by explaining a little bit about what piques my interest in your oath. I'll preface it, though, by saying that I don't want to sound like I'm assuming that your experience could/would be like mine. People are different.

When I was in my late teens, I took a "purity pledge" with some of the other members of my evangelical youth group. Around the same time, I read books by Joshua Harris and Elizabeth Elliot on dating and relationships that I took very seriously. I decided that what the purity pledge meant for me was that I would save my first kiss for my wedding day. (No jokes about all the other things I could have done without kissing, please. I was both earnest and innocent :)).

Surprisingly--to my parents and to my friends--I stubbornly kept my "no-kissing" interpretation of the purity pledge until I was in my early twenties. (I think I was 17 when I made it and I had my first kiss at 24.) And I did date during that time. Looking back, I can now appreciate the good and bad aspects of my choice. Good: It was MY choice to not kiss, until it was my choice to kiss--I exercised self-determination as a teenager and as a young adult. It also kept me out of a couple bad relationships--though that was arguably luck rather than design. Bad: Some of my early relationships became more about my ideology than about getting to know the other person in a deep and meaningful way. I changed my mind when I realized that my pledge--which I had initially believed would give me self-control, clarity of mind, and insight in my relationships--was actually getting in the way of that. For me. At that point.

All of that TL;DR (sorry!) to provide context for a less vague question or two for Brin:
Did something specific--something you read, or a particular religious context--get you started thinking about virginity and sexuality? Is your oath a religious decision, or a more personal/philosophical decision? Is your decision based in response to something that you have seen or experienced? Or is a decision made in hope of a particular outcome?

I might not have words for stuff even if you get more specific.
If that's the case, that's fine. Sometimes our most important decisions are made on the basis of things that are difficult to articulate. However, if you can find words for it, I would like to know more about your experience.

[Deird, who should be working]

I'm not sure what you mean by "any sexual interaction".

Meaning that, for instance, I'm planning to remain a virgin unless I get married, but have no problems with kissing my boyfriend. There's a difference between "I don't want to do this particular sexual stuff" and "I don't want to do anything sexual with another human being at all".

[hapax]

You may have suppressed it, but it is almost certainly not gone for good, and if you're trying to not only not ever have sex, but also not ever have sexual feelings, you're in for a lot of grief.

Umm, MadG, I can understand that your upset, but do you understand that in expressing it this way you are being horrifically Othering to those who are asexual?

Brin (not Meir), I am actually very interested in this as well -- back when I was planning on an academic career, my primary research focus was religious virginity.

So if you'd care to talk about it, either her or privately (you could PM me at my LiveJournal), I'd be happy to discuss some of the historical Christian perspectives of such a vow.

HOWEVER,

I am very conscious that my interest does not entitle me (or anyone else) to an explanation or justification of such a personal decision, nor to make judgments about your choices and behavior from the little you have chosen to say.

[kisekileia]

Brin, something for you to consider here is that trying to prevent yourself from being sexual at all may actually make it HARDER to control your sexuality and sexual thoughts. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the married men in political and church leadership who have been caught having affairs with other men have held anti-gay views--I suspect that believing their desires for other men were wrong, and trying to repress those desires completely, made it harder for them to stay faithful to their wives than it is for men who are married to women but fully accept that they are bisexual. Personally, when I was a teenager, I had OCD sexual thoughts. They largely went away when I stopped believing masturbation was a sin. So yes, repressing one's own sexuality can both cause mental illness and actually decrease your control over your own thoughts and behaviour.

What I'm most curious about here, Brin, is why you don't want to be a sexual being. I think that's something to think very seriously about. If you didn't want to have sex because you simply didn't have any sexual feelings, that would be a perfectly reasonable thing--you would simply be asexual. It's the fact that you (like the vast majority of human beings) seem to have some innate impulse to sexual feelings, but are repulsed by those feelings and feel a need to repress them, that worries me.

Sometimes when people are repulsed by sexuality, it's because they have experienced sexual abuse or assault of some kind. I have no idea whether that's the case for you, but if it is, I encourage you to seek out therapy when you can and to consider the possibility that developing a healthy sexuality might be in your best interests. Logistically, it may be impossible for you to seek out therapy at this point without telling your parents. However, LEGALLY, as long as you work out the logistics, you CAN get mental health care without telling your parents. In Ontario, youth assume legal control of their own medical care and medical records when they turn 16. Therapists and doctors do have a legal obligation to report child sexual abuse, but you have the right to request that information be kept confidential from your parents and have that request honoured.

I also hope that if you later change your mind about wanting to remain a virgin, you don't feel bound by your oath of virginity. I realize that oaths are a serious thing, but even if you have made an oath to God, I believe God understands that sometimes people make unwise decisions when they are young and need to change those decisions. At age thirteen, I promised God that I would not French kiss until my wedding day. At age nineteen, I abandoned that promise after careful thought and prayer. I think I made the right decision in abandoning that promise, and--much later, after my beliefs had evolved much further--in having sex outside of marriage. I hope that even if you are currently confident in your decision, you leave yourself open to change in the future.

[Brin (not Meir)]

@hapax
I'll make a note in my diary. "If/when I ever figure out how to explain this, consider letting hapax know."

I'd be happy to discuss some of the historical Christian perspectives of such a vow.

Sounds interesting.

@kisekileia
However, LEGALLY, as long as you work out the logistics, you CAN get mental health care without telling your parents. In Ontario, youth assume legal control of their own medical care and medical records when they turn 16.

I know. The first checkup after I turned sixteen, I asked my doctor about a small mark on my breast. (I didn't think it was anything serious, but I was curious about what it was.) She could have simply had my male family members leave the room and looked at it right there and then, but she had me make another appointment so she could have an excuse to talk to me about sexual health in private. She assured me that if I was secretly having sex, I could tell her and she wouldn't tell my parents.
I haven't been abused, but thanks for the concern.

I hope that even if you are currently confident in your decision, you leave yourself open to change in the future.

I'll try.

[Kristin]

Holy crap, just turned on Facebook to see that Osama bin Laden is dead.

[Zigforas (who is not late to the conversation today)]

.....and that he was killed outside of Islamabad. Whoa.

[Andrew Glasgow]

@Kristen: Came here to let the community know the same thing. Wow. Seeing a headline like this feels like "Ruler of Hell, Satan Mekatrig, dead report U.S. Officials."

BBC report, seems to be updating as more information becomes available.

CNN report

[Choir of Shades]

Fouthing the "Holy Spork" on the news. Obama is apparently to give a speech momentarily, going to go watch.

[Jason]

Obama made sure that we would think bin Laden was killed while he was Commander in Chief to try to hide the fact that the President is actually a Muslim terrorist who was born in Kenya. Its all part of the deception. I won't believe it until we see a death certificate that I can somehow verify wasn't photoshopped.

[Andrew Glasgow]

@Jason: Does it hurt when you do that?

[Leum]

Jason, I think the real question is, why did this take so long? Given Obama's ties to Al Quaeda he could easily have demanded bin Laden's head on Day 1 of his presidency. That he delayed so long only proves that he has no real commitment to American security. I think it's pretty obvious he waited until it became painfully obvious that he was born in Kenya to deliver a supposed double-whammy proof of his "American" citizenship (birth certificate and bin Laden dead in the same week? I don't buy it, and neither should you!).

[Lunch Meat]

So why is cheering in the streets and inane nationalistic chanting okay when we do it?