From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #86 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, March 3 1998 Volume 07 : Number 086 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: More politics. (a sermon) [Capuchin ] Re: More politics. (a sermon) [Eb ] Re: robyn orgy wrapup [sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain)] Re: robyn orgy wrapup [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 22:47:12 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: More politics. (a sermon) On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Gregory Stuart Shell wrote: > On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Capuchin wrote: > > > > If you express a sexual preference, that is sexism by definition. > > Does that mean lesbians are sexist pigs? Yep. Anyone who calls themself as an individual "homosexual" or "heterosexual" is sexist, strictly speaking -- needlessly discriminatory and attributing characteristics that do not exist. An individual cannot be homosexual or heterosexual; that is to change the meaning of the words. Couples or groups are homosexual or heterosexual. If two are more people are of the same sex, then that group is homosexual. If they are of differing sexes, then the group is heterosexual. We've narrowed the definition of these words down to mean only pairs or groups that engage in romantic/sexual activities. But to narrow the word even further to mean people that prefer romantic/sexual partners of the same/different sex exclusively is nonsensical. So these individuals that say they are "heterosexual" or "homosexual" are not only misusing the word, but outright stating their blatant, unwarranted sexism. Certainly it's a sexism deeply ingrained in our culture, but a harmful discrimination nonetheless. A couple can be heterosexual or homosexual and not be sexist because choosing an individual for that kind of partnering is a fair discrimination. You choose one that has characteristics you can enjoy and makes some connection that poets for centuries have failed to describe... or maybe they're just there and willing. Whatever. But to choose one whole section of the population and say "You are not suitable for my romantic or sexual involvement!", that is painfully sexist. The one argument would be, of course, that you just like that particular set of body parts that quite rightfully belong to just that one sex. That makes your discrimination a fair one because it is based only in those real charateristics that define the one sex against the other. I just think that's shallow (though being shallow isn't nearly as harmful to others as being sexist). Ask yourself this: Is the physical part the most important thing? What Am I willing to work around? What happens if you find the "right" person up to a point and then discover that this person has had an accident and can no longer perform those tasks or use those body parts that make you choose one sex over the other? Does that disqualify the person for consideration? Is what you do in bed the strongest defining factor in whom you choose for partnering? I think a civilized, intelligent, and compassionate person would say "no" to those last two questions. What you do in bed is simply an extension of how you feel for one another or an attempt to gain some pleasure and give some in return. There's always some way to fulfill that aspect of the relationship. Look at folks who, for one reason or another, cannot participate in your usual sex acts. You can still love them. You can still partner with them. You just have to change how you express some things. It's a very minor compensation. The simple fact remains that, outside of the defining physical characteristics, there is no quality or set of qualities you can define for a man that cannot be found in some woman, somewhere and vice versa. To exclude is a waste. End of sermon. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:01:06 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: More politics. (a sermon) Boy, I reeeeeeeeelly regret bringing up Paula Cole. Eb np: The Who/Odds & Sods, the expanded reissue -- 12 extra tracks!!!! >> On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Capuchin wrote: > >Anyone who calls themself as an individual "homosexual" or "heterosexual" >is sexist, strictly speaking -- needlessly discriminatory and attributing >characteristics that do not exist. > >An individual cannot be homosexual or heterosexual; that is to change the >meaning of the words. Couples or groups are homosexual or heterosexual. >If two are more people are of the same sex, then that group is homosexual. >If they are of differing sexes, then the group is heterosexual. We've >narrowed the definition of these words down to mean only pairs or groups >that engage in romantic/sexual activities. But to narrow the word even >further to mean people that prefer romantic/sexual partners of the >same/different sex exclusively is nonsensical. > >So these individuals that say they are "heterosexual" or "homosexual" are >not only misusing the word, but outright stating their blatant, >unwarranted sexism. Certainly it's a sexism deeply ingrained in our >culture, but a harmful discrimination nonetheless. > >A couple can be heterosexual or homosexual and not be sexist because >choosing an individual for that kind of partnering is a fair >discrimination. You choose one that has characteristics you can enjoy and >makes some connection that poets for centuries have failed to describe... >or maybe they're just there and willing. Whatever. But to choose one >whole section of the population and say "You are not suitable for my >romantic or sexual involvement!", that is painfully sexist. > >The one argument would be, of course, that you just like that particular >set of body parts that quite rightfully belong to just that one sex. That >makes your discrimination a fair one because it is based only in those >real charateristics that define the one sex against the other. I just >think that's shallow (though being shallow isn't nearly as harmful to >others as being sexist). Ask yourself this: Is the physical part the >most important thing? What Am I willing to work around? > >What happens if you find the "right" person up to a point and then >discover that this person has had an accident and can no longer perform >those tasks or use those body parts that make you choose one sex over the >other? Does that disqualify the person for consideration? Is what you do >in bed the strongest defining factor in whom you choose for partnering? > >I think a civilized, intelligent, and compassionate person would say "no" >to those last two questions. What you do in bed is simply an extension of >how you feel for one another or an attempt to gain some pleasure and give >some in return. There's always some way to fulfill that aspect of the >relationship. Look at folks who, for one reason or another, cannot >participate in your usual sex acts. You can still love them. You can >still partner with them. You just have to change how you express some >things. It's a very minor compensation. > >The simple fact remains that, outside of the defining physical >characteristics, there is no quality or set of qualities you can define >for a man that cannot be found in some woman, somewhere and vice versa. >To exclude is a waste. > >End of sermon. >J. >________________________________________________________ > >J A Brelin Capuchin >________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 01:55:29 -0600 From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain) Subject: Re: robyn orgy wrapup >On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Capuchin wrote: > >> What's the source for In The Mood? Where can I hear it? > >it's on Live At The Portland Arms. embarrassingly, i don't know the >original source, though i think harry connick jr. did a version of it a >few years ago. Haven't heard "Portland Arms". Is it Glenn Miller's "In the Mood" possibly? That has tremendous hilarity potential, I should get my hands on it at some point :). Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:16:18 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: robyn orgy wrapup On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, amadain wrote: > Haven't heard "Portland Arms". Is it Glenn Miller's "In the Mood" possibly? > That has tremendous hilarity potential, I should get my hands on it at some > point :). Yeah, I was assuming it was Glenn Miller. I was just awaiting confirmation. Anyone? This would make me leap out and find a copy of Live At The Portland Arms faster than anything, I think. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #86 ******************************