There are purposes to life outside of love. Issac Newton, miserable person as he was, is a perfect example of a good life lived without love.
I'd like to give some advice to anyone out there, male, female, straight gay or bi, who is looking for their perfect person.
Stop.
First: Be certain you can honestly say that you love yourself. If you can say that and also say that you don't know yourself, you're lying about the love. Know yourself, first, then trust yourself, then you can love yourself. After all, if you can't love yourself, how can anyone else really love you?
Second: eliminate your preconceptions. Your perfect person, isn't. Get rid of your notions of what your perfect someone is, and that will let you open up to the infinite possibilities surrounding you. This may take time, or it may swat you in the face with an iPad.
If you find someone you like to be around who also likes to be around you, go with him/her/it. If you two have no deal-breakers (religion is common, drug use too, allergies vs dogs is another, etc), and your favorite thing to do is either spend time with one another (clingy, okay if both are) or updating each other on your lives (non-clingy, also should be bothwise), you might wanna put a ring on it.
Third: know when to quit! If you find someone who meets the above criteria, and they feel the same way, cash in! If you're with someone who makes you unhappy, be clear that you'll be dating around and it'll be nice to talk to them sometime, later on. Either way, do what's best for YOU.
Fourth: (optional) Marriage isn't for everyone, but if it is for you, you truly know you're ready when you can honestly say to yourself that you want all that person's problems to become your problems. This essentially is what marriage entails, after all, and if you can find a stranger with that appeal to you, and they feel the same way, sign that nuptial.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Future of Gender and Orientation
I can envision a day when the labels of "gay" and "straight" no longer exist.
We, speaking from the overall global human society, are becoming more accepting of sexual orientation. As an effect of this, we're also becoming more open to gender identity; as one expands, so does the other. This is good. People, previously bigoted, are becoming more accepting when they realize that "gay" doesn't mean "compulsive horrible anal rape."
As more lifestyles are becoming accepted, so too are more lifestyles coming to light. Even most 'social conservatives' (read: bigots) understood that you have more than one type of man who likes men, even if they didn't understood that this often didn't include transvestites.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are too intertwined in the mind of today, probably with good reason. Orientation, in this case, means an affinity toward a specific gender identity.
It seems to me that you have first, what your physical gender is, second, what role is ingrained in you, third, what you feel compelled to be, and fourth, what you prefer. Sexual orientation and gender identity, together, becomes what I like to call "SexID."
The traditional oppressive standard would be
"(male, masculine, masculine : feminine female) + (female, feminine, feminine : masculine male)"
...which would be enforced on everyone, upon adjudicated chemical therapy (Alan Turing) or pain of death (modern Uganda).
In most open western societies, however, this
"(male, feminine, diaper-fetish fursuit : masculine female)
+ (female, masculine, masculine, : feminine diapered fursuit male)"
...necessarily must be acceptable, but is definitely not the ultimate limit. "Poly" relationships involving three or more people in any number of ways both serially or simultaneously, must also be prepared for. (I could chart out such a polyamorous relationship, but as I've probably lost everyone with the previous example, I won't.)
Bestiality, too, is definitely something that will be discussed more often in an open society. In general, the rules of sexual activity cover the question of legal consent. Minors and legally retarded* people cannot give consent. Can animals? Obviously they can; dogs, for example, will hump inanimate objects and legs, and have no qualms about switching to human orifices. If they do not consent, they will definitely make their objection known, unless they're physically restrained, and in that case it is obviously wrong.
I think that the only major legitimate argument with this (personal disgust is NOT a legitimate argument, and offspring are generally impossible), however, is an aspect of serious peril, as animals used for sexual purposes generally aren't conditioned by people who understand animal psychology. Further, due to the taboos surrounding this activity, the people involved are necessarily shifty about this behavior. As such, abused animals, dogs especially, as reflections of their humans, can become dangerous, simply due to their humans being unbalanced or afraid.
That being said, until appropriate guidelines are established for the safe conditioning and environment of a human-animal sexual relationship, the future of human+animal will remain if not explicitly illegal, then at least taboo. This will take much longer, but, in a respectful environment, I can see it becoming normal, too.
To sum up: in the future, sexual orientation and gender identity will become simply a question of legal consent. "Gay" and "straight" will become archaic terms referring only to specific "SexID" archetypes.
* (I forget the modern PC term, so I've regressed to one that was PC a long time ago. No matter what you officially call a 'mentally challenged,' or 'retarded,' or 'slow' person, whatever term you legislate will eventually become a slur.)
We, speaking from the overall global human society, are becoming more accepting of sexual orientation. As an effect of this, we're also becoming more open to gender identity; as one expands, so does the other. This is good. People, previously bigoted, are becoming more accepting when they realize that "gay" doesn't mean "compulsive horrible anal rape."
As more lifestyles are becoming accepted, so too are more lifestyles coming to light. Even most 'social conservatives' (read: bigots) understood that you have more than one type of man who likes men, even if they didn't understood that this often didn't include transvestites.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are too intertwined in the mind of today, probably with good reason. Orientation, in this case, means an affinity toward a specific gender identity.
It seems to me that you have first, what your physical gender is, second, what role is ingrained in you, third, what you feel compelled to be, and fourth, what you prefer. Sexual orientation and gender identity, together, becomes what I like to call "SexID."
The traditional oppressive standard would be
"(male, masculine, masculine : feminine female) + (female, feminine, feminine : masculine male)"
...which would be enforced on everyone, upon adjudicated chemical therapy (Alan Turing) or pain of death (modern Uganda).
In most open western societies, however, this
"(male, feminine, diaper-fetish fursuit : masculine female)
+ (female, masculine, masculine, : feminine diapered fursuit male)"
...necessarily must be acceptable, but is definitely not the ultimate limit. "Poly" relationships involving three or more people in any number of ways both serially or simultaneously, must also be prepared for. (I could chart out such a polyamorous relationship, but as I've probably lost everyone with the previous example, I won't.)
Bestiality, too, is definitely something that will be discussed more often in an open society. In general, the rules of sexual activity cover the question of legal consent. Minors and legally retarded* people cannot give consent. Can animals? Obviously they can; dogs, for example, will hump inanimate objects and legs, and have no qualms about switching to human orifices. If they do not consent, they will definitely make their objection known, unless they're physically restrained, and in that case it is obviously wrong.
I think that the only major legitimate argument with this (personal disgust is NOT a legitimate argument, and offspring are generally impossible), however, is an aspect of serious peril, as animals used for sexual purposes generally aren't conditioned by people who understand animal psychology. Further, due to the taboos surrounding this activity, the people involved are necessarily shifty about this behavior. As such, abused animals, dogs especially, as reflections of their humans, can become dangerous, simply due to their humans being unbalanced or afraid.
That being said, until appropriate guidelines are established for the safe conditioning and environment of a human-animal sexual relationship, the future of human+animal will remain if not explicitly illegal, then at least taboo. This will take much longer, but, in a respectful environment, I can see it becoming normal, too.
To sum up: in the future, sexual orientation and gender identity will become simply a question of legal consent. "Gay" and "straight" will become archaic terms referring only to specific "SexID" archetypes.
* (I forget the modern PC term, so I've regressed to one that was PC a long time ago. No matter what you officially call a 'mentally challenged,' or 'retarded,' or 'slow' person, whatever term you legislate will eventually become a slur.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)