From: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org (angry-psychos-digest) To: angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Subject: angry-psychos-digest V7 #338 Reply-To: angry-psychos@smoe.org Sender: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "angry-psychos-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. angry-psychos-digest Friday, December 13 2002 Volume 07 : Number 338 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: kpr: Boyfriend bans Poe? ["Pierce, Marshall" ] Re: kpr:Boyfriend bans Poe? [] Re: kpr:Boyfriend bans Poe? [] NPR: Mary Hansen from Stereolab dies... :*( [NoisyPollution@aol.com] Re: NPR: Mary Hansen from Stereolab dies... :*( [LivTheMdns@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:44:35 -0500 From: "Pierce, Marshall" Subject: RE: kpr: Boyfriend bans Poe? OK, I'm going to be short and sweet here. Since I am, in fact, a male, I feel perfectly comfortable in bashing my own kind. Part the problem here is self determination. I dislike anyone inflicting there views upon me forcefully, and the lack of respect for someone else's feelings is also shown here. In a relationship you have to learn to communicate in a better manner then saying "Turn off your slutty music" and unless you are SURE that the other person is being quote 'positive' about the use of a normally vulgar word, then you should not use it. I feel, from the little I know that his actions were at best, questionable. You can dress that failure up anyway you want to, but in the end it is rationalization. He was being a jerk, and he should have known for her like of the artist (weather it be Poe or else wise) and been a little more tactful. Now weather this is a true character flaw, or just an aberration I cannot say, because I do not know him. It does bear further attention though, if this is supposed to be a long term relationship in the making. As a Male, I find his behavior reprehensible in its lack of respect for someone he is supposed to care about. I am a Male this is my right...=) - -----Original Message----- From: PURPLMOJO@aol.com [mailto:PURPLMOJO@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:47 PM To: angry-psychos@smoe.org Subject: Re: kpr: Boyfriend bans Poe? If people get off the male bashing bandwagon and actually stop to think for a moment. One might be able to rationalize that it is possible the song can affect someone in a negative way. Male or female. Perhaps his ex cheated on him and so yes he does have a issue with Promiscuity. Which what the term slut means, Female who is sexually promiscuous. (In the past this was thought of as a negative. In the pc world this is thought of as good. Pc world sexually promiscuous female= liberated Sexually promiscuous male=two timing jerk) By that rational if the guy was cheated on and he does have issues with being cheated on, then stands to reason song about promiscuity(least how he interprets it) would be offensive. However he may have lacked tact in how he addressed it, Atleast he was being open and honest about his feelings. Also chaotic reactions like blasting the music to piss them off and doing everything else possible to continue insulting or hurting thier feelings is reactionary & equally lacking in the consideration and feelings of hurt one might have felt from the comment. Irregardless of whether he was cheated on, Most people the thought of someone they care deeply romantic about or Love find the thought of the significant other being sexually promiscuous an appalling thought as well as stir up either insecurity issues or jealousy and such feelings are not limited to so called insecure Males. Most people also do not want to imagine their significant other being wanton & lustfull with other people. I myself find the idea of someone sexually promiscuous a good thing. I think there should be free love and orgy's. A decadent society may lead to collapse of society & goverments, but we would have a great time getting there and would surely end with a bang LOL "My girl will do you and rest of your friends, She'll do whatever you want, But at the end of the day. Baby comes home to me"-Adam sandler song (this is not actuale lyrics, but I didn't want to be to vulgar as there are youngins on the list) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:38:32 -0800 (PST) From: mark alec Subject: Re: kpr: Boyfriend bans Poe? From: It seems that alot of men can't bear to be around women who are 'liberated' (or trying to be) and most women who are a) independent b) secure in their sexuality and c) aware of their own personal power are viewed, more times than not, as a threat. And the backlash can be brutal. What the f**k? man... why can't i find a woman who's a) independent b) secure in their sexuality and c) aware of their own personal power???!!!! - -alec.. contemplating why a guy *wouldn't* want the above type of girl and wondering why he, himself cannot find said girl... Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:04:49 -0500 From: Subject: Re: kpr:Boyfriend bans Poe? I agree, people can take different meanings from a song. If he doesn't like the song for his own reasons, than perhaps you, Eryn, should respect that and not play it around him. But, the reasons behind it could be the subject of scrutiny and something perhaps to discuss with him. They might be potential 'red flags' you may want to pay attention to. Then again, I *don't* know the whole situation, and it really is none of my business, so I'll butt out. =) However, as I said, the topic made me think of something that troubles me about my gender. I was addressing the absurdity I find in men wanting a 'perfect little doting girl' and being far from an 'ideal' mate themselves. I have an equal distaste for women who do the same (or similar) thing. I really just don't like double standards. Mojo, I see your point about the double standard of a promiscuous man vs. a promiscuous woman, but I think your confusing sexual promiscuity with a liberated person. I don't think the two necessarily have that much to do with each other. Neither are they mutually exclusive. If a person only defines their 'freedom' by their sexual proclivities, then how 'liberated' are they really? It seems to me they are rather pigeon-holed and one dimensional. To me, a person who makes up their own mind about their sexuality and their inclinations is more liberated than someone who just 'indulges' in being promiscuous or 'follows the herd' and is not promiscuous, thereby behaving in a way that is deemed 'socially acceptable'. That's easy, anybody can do that. Personally, I feel that being monogamous and committed takes more work, but that's my preference. I've been both monogamous and polyamourous, and being monogamous is a conscious decision I've made. Some just know without 'experimenting' if they are or aren't monogamous. And either is fine, so long as the person is responsible to their mate(s) and themselves. But I digress. Sex and somebody's sexuality is a private thing, and I feel that should be left alone (barring obvious circumstances). Yes, finding power through sexuality is liberating and a great experience, but its also (IMO) a very personal thing. I'm not overly fond of people who brazenly flaunt their sexuality because its the only way they've been able to find power and define themselves. To me, if that's the ceiling of somebody's power, that becomes boring and trite very quickly. It's not the same thing as somebody who is secure and makes no apology for who they are. I just don't like it when people are too 'in your face' with it. (This applies to both (or all) camps of thought on sexuality. I think it is just one way of many that a person should find their own 'power'. But that's just me. I don't mean what I say as gospel, its just what I found works me. >;) D ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:05:31 -0500 From: Subject: Re: kpr:Boyfriend bans Poe? I agree, people can take different meanings from a song. If he doesn't like the song for his own reasons, than perhaps you, Eryn, should respect that and not play it around him. But, the reasons behind it could be the subject of scrutiny and something perhaps to discuss with him. They might be potential 'red flags' you may want to pay attention to. Then again, I *don't* know the whole situation, and it really is none of my business, so I'll butt out. =) However, as I said, the topic made me think of something that troubles me about my gender. I was addressing the absurdity I find in men wanting a 'perfect little doting girl' and being far from an 'ideal' mate themselves. I have an equal distaste for women who do the same (or similar) thing. I really just don't like double standards. Mojo, I see your point about the double standard of a promiscuous man vs. a promiscuous woman, but I think your confusing sexual promiscuity with a liberated person. I don't think the two necessarily have that much to do with each other. Neither are they mutually exclusive. If a person only defines their 'freedom' by their sexual proclivities, then how 'liberated' are they really? It seems to me they are rather pigeon-holed and one dimensional. To me, a person who makes up their own mind about their sexuality and their inclinations is more liberated than someone who just 'indulges' in being promiscuous or 'follows the herd' and is not promiscuous, thereby behaving in a way that is deemed 'socially acceptable'. That's easy, anybody can do that. Personally, I feel that being monogamous and committed takes more work, but that's my preference. I've been both monogamous and polyamourous, and being monogamous is a conscious decision I've made. Some just know without 'experimenting' if they are or aren't monogamous. And either is fine, so long as the person is responsible to their mate(s) and themselves. But I digress. Sex and somebody's sexuality is a private thing, and I feel that should be left alone (barring obvious circumstances). Yes, finding power through sexuality is liberating and a great experience, but its also (IMO) a very personal thing. I'm not overly fond of people who brazenly flaunt their sexuality because its the only way they've been able to find power and define themselves. To me, if that's the ceiling of somebody's power, that becomes boring and trite very quickly. It's not the same thing as somebody who is secure and makes no apology for who they are. I just don't like it when people are too 'in your face' with it. (This applies to both (or all) camps of thought on sexuality. I think it is just one way of many that a person should find their own 'power'. But that's just me. I don't mean what I say as gospel, its just what I found works me. >;) D ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:08:38 EST From: NoisyPollution@aol.com Subject: NPR: Mary Hansen from Stereolab dies... :*( Mary Hansen from the 5RC band Schema, and also from Stereolab, was killed in East London on Monday afternoon after being struck by a car while riding her bicycle. She was 36. Although no-one at KRS/5RC had actually ever met Mary, we considered her one of us, and we grieve. We feel fortunate to have been able to release some of her work during her time here on Earth. Our condolences go out to her friends and family and band-mates. The world has lost a great one. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:27:28 EST From: LivTheMdns@aol.com Subject: Re: NPR: Mary Hansen from Stereolab dies... :*( In a message dated 12/12/2002 2:56:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, NoisyPollution@aol.com writes: > Mary Hansen from the 5RC band Schema, and also from > Stereolab, was killed in East London on Monday afternoon > after being struck by a car while riding her bicycle. She > was 36. Speaking as someone who went through the same thing (I got hit by a car riding my bike last month on westwood) all I can say is ouch. Wear a helmet people. ------------------------------ End of angry-psychos-digest V7 #338 ***********************************