charliesmum: (multi sexual fandom (by Brienze ))
Was having a LJ conversation with [livejournal.com profile] fluffyllama the other day, stemming from John Barrowman's use of the 'why would someone choose to be gay' comment on Jonathan Ross. John Barrowman, for those who might not know, currently plays an omnisexual human from the 51st century. He is explained by the Doctor to Rose in series one that by the 51st century people had moved past the whole 'categories thing' and, with so many actual species to choose from, the gender of your partner was not an issue. In Torchwood, John Barrowman's Doctor Who spin-off, he says to someone 'you people and your quaint little categories'.

So this got me thinking about the whole sexual orientation thing. If I understand Kinsey correctly, everyone has a little bit of both in them; some people are just higher on the scale than others. So basically, everyone has the potential to be at least bi-sexual.

Now bear with me, because I'm still working this out in my head.

The sex drive at a primal level is to procreate, but we humans long ago evolved past that, and now sex is, or should be, about love and intimacy. Maybe we can evolve now to where we can stretch our boundaries of what love is, and love someone fully, regardless of gender, because we have respect and trust and understanding of that person.

This isn't to say everyone will be running around 'engaging'* each other with no thoughts of monogamy. It's the opposite, really. You meet someone, you connect, you find joy and respect with each other, you fall in love, you join together, and you live happily ever after, and the pronouns of that particular story won't have to matter.


*Brave New World's version of having sex. At least in the movie version
charliesmum: (Default)
Was having a LJ conversation with [livejournal.com profile] fluffyllama the other day, stemming from John Barrowman's use of the 'why would someone choose to be gay' comment on Jonathan Ross. John Barrowman, for those who might not know, currently plays an omnisexual human from the 51st century. He is explained by the Doctor to Rose in series one that by the 51st century people had moved past the whole 'categories thing' and, with so many actual species to choose from, the gender of your partner was not an issue. In Torchwood, John Barrowman's Doctor Who spin-off, he says to someone 'you people and your quaint little categories'.

So this got me thinking about the whole sexual orientation thing. If I understand Kinsey correctly, everyone has a little bit of both in them; some people are just higher on the scale than others. So basically, everyone has the potential to be at least bi-sexual.

Now bear with me, because I'm still working this out in my head.

The sex drive at a primal level is to procreate, but we humans long ago evolved past that, and now sex is, or should be, about love and intimacy. Maybe we can evolve now to where we can stretch our boundaries of what love is, and love someone fully, regardless of gender, because we have respect and trust and understanding of that person.

This isn't to say everyone will be running around 'engaging'* each other with no thoughts of monogamy. It's the opposite, really. You meet someone, you connect, you find joy and respect with each other, you fall in love, you join together, and you live happily ever after, and the pronouns of that particular story won't have to matter.


*Brave New World's version of having sex. At least in the movie version
charliesmum: (Default)
Pushing thru the market square, so many mothers sighing
News had just come over, we had five years left to cry in
News guy wept and told us, earth was really dying
Cried so much his face was wet, then I knew he was not lying
I heard telephones, opera house, favourite melodies
I saw boys, toys electric irons and t.v.s
My brain hurt like a warehouse, it had no room to spare
I had to cram so many things to store everything in there
And all the fat-skinny people, and all the tall-short people
And all the nobody people, and all the somebody people
I never thought Id need so many people


We will never forget, but what is it we are actually remembering?

The government, I think, wants us to remember the anger and the fear, but what I want to remember is the good was exhibited during that time.

The strangers that reached out to each other.
The many anonomous people who did what they could to help out those in pain or sorrow.
The police and fireman who did their duty, because it was their duty, and died for it.
The goodwill of people throughout the world who grieved with us.

Despite the evil we witnessed on 9/11/2001, we also had the opportunity to see the goodness people have within themselves. We may have seen the devil in the smoke of the towers, but we saw God in the actions of many, many people.

And that's what I'm going to remember.
charliesmum: (Default)
Pushing thru the market square, so many mothers sighing
News had just come over, we had five years left to cry in
News guy wept and told us, earth was really dying
Cried so much his face was wet, then I knew he was not lying
I heard telephones, opera house, favourite melodies
I saw boys, toys electric irons and t.v.s
My brain hurt like a warehouse, it had no room to spare
I had to cram so many things to store everything in there
And all the fat-skinny people, and all the tall-short people
And all the nobody people, and all the somebody people
I never thought Id need so many people


We will never forget, but what is it we are actually remembering?

The government, I think, wants us to remember the anger and the fear, but what I want to remember is the good was exhibited during that time.

The strangers that reached out to each other.
The many anonomous people who did what they could to help out those in pain or sorrow.
The police and fireman who did their duty, because it was their duty, and died for it.
The goodwill of people throughout the world who grieved with us.

Despite the evil we witnessed on 9/11/2001, we also had the opportunity to see the goodness people have within themselves. We may have seen the devil in the smoke of the towers, but we saw God in the actions of many, many people.

And that's what I'm going to remember.
charliesmum: (Death - Gaiman (by nosprinkles))
So I'm reading Thud! by Terry Pratchett and once again he has, what to me, are some very profound insights right along with some side-splitting humor.

This line caught my eye last night, because I think it sort of sums up the whole Abu Gharib debate.

You couldn't say 'we're the good guys' and do bad guy things.

In other news, the Sally/Angua dynamic in this new book is sticking all sorts of femmeslash plot bunnies in my head. Naughty.
charliesmum: (Default)
So I'm reading Thud! by Terry Pratchett and once again he has, what to me, are some very profound insights right along with some side-splitting humor.

This line caught my eye last night, because I think it sort of sums up the whole Abu Gharib debate.

You couldn't say 'we're the good guys' and do bad guy things.

In other news, the Sally/Angua dynamic in this new book is sticking all sorts of femmeslash plot bunnies in my head. Naughty.
charliesmum: (Default)
So, say you put 65 cents in the candy machine to get a brownie, and the brownie gets stuck on the little metal circle thingy, so you smack the machine, and then not only does your brownie fall, but you get another brownie gratis. Is that, in the strictest sense of the word, stealing?

After all, if one went into a store and walked out with a brownie under one's hat, that would be stealing pure and simple, whereas when one simply says 'hurrah! free brownie!' and trots back to one's desk to eat it, it doesn't seem exactly like stealing. After all, it isn't one's fault that the brownie thingy dropped two brownies for the price of one, and it's not like one jimmied the machine open or anything. It was a happy accident.

However, In the Noble Eightfold path of Buddhism, one of the steps is "Right Action" that states unwholsome actions lead to unsound states of mind. This means one should abstain from things like harming sentient beings to not take a life and to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty

So, in a strictly moral sense, one should make a good faith effort to pay for the brownie, right?

Now, you may point out that it's pretty hard to return a brownie to a vending machine. However, one could put a note on the machine saying that one owes the vending guy 65 cents when he comes to fill the machine. That would be the right thing to do.

Meanwhile...ummm...ill-gotten brownie...
charliesmum: (Default)
So, say you put 65 cents in the candy machine to get a brownie, and the brownie gets stuck on the little metal circle thingy, so you smack the machine, and then not only does your brownie fall, but you get another brownie gratis. Is that, in the strictest sense of the word, stealing?

After all, if one went into a store and walked out with a brownie under one's hat, that would be stealing pure and simple, whereas when one simply says 'hurrah! free brownie!' and trots back to one's desk to eat it, it doesn't seem exactly like stealing. After all, it isn't one's fault that the brownie thingy dropped two brownies for the price of one, and it's not like one jimmied the machine open or anything. It was a happy accident.

However, In the Noble Eightfold path of Buddhism, one of the steps is "Right Action" that states unwholsome actions lead to unsound states of mind. This means one should abstain from things like harming sentient beings to not take a life and to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty

So, in a strictly moral sense, one should make a good faith effort to pay for the brownie, right?

Now, you may point out that it's pretty hard to return a brownie to a vending machine. However, one could put a note on the machine saying that one owes the vending guy 65 cents when he comes to fill the machine. That would be the right thing to do.

Meanwhile...ummm...ill-gotten brownie...
charliesmum: (Default)
Last evening I was outside with Charlie, as he was playing with his sidewalk chalk. We live on a busy road, so cars were zooming by as he was making this elaborate 'race course' with his chalk. A car pulled over and a young couple with a toddler in the back seat, looking very harried. They had been driving for over an hour, and were very lost. I didn't recognize the street they were looking for and they didn't have a phone, so I offered my cell, but the person they were looking for didn't answer. I eventually sent them back towards the Ben Franklin bridge, as they thought they could just start over again. A few minutes later the woman they called called my cell, and I told her where I was, so if they called again, she could tell them where they went wrong. (They were in the completely wrong town.) Charlie and I were still outside when they drove by again, going in the right direction, and the husband honked as they drove by, and they waved and pointed, indicating they finally knew where they were going. I waved back. The point of this long story is that I felt good about this encounter. Not because I was particularly helpful, but because I made human contact with strangers. It occurred to me that whenever I do something like that, I feel better about life, but I don't do it nearly enough.

Being nice. It is one of the first things we are taught. Do unto others, share your toys, say please and thank you, etc. You would think it would be an ingrained habit, yet the easier path seems to be one of indifference, or hatred, or violence. This is why every single belief system tells us to be, well, nice. Because it is the hardest thing for human beings to do.

But I'm hopeful. Things like Live Journal shows me that people do have more similarity than differences, and that gives me hope for the world at large.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a world leader who didn't take the easy path? That instead of retaliating with violence, he (or she) took the time to find the path of kindness, and tried to find a peaceful solution? But no. It would take too long, and would likely not have the same dramatic effect as dropping bombs on a country until there is nothing left of it.
charliesmum: (Default)
Last evening I was outside with Charlie, as he was playing with his sidewalk chalk. We live on a busy road, so cars were zooming by as he was making this elaborate 'race course' with his chalk. A car pulled over and a young couple with a toddler in the back seat, looking very harried. They had been driving for over an hour, and were very lost. I didn't recognize the street they were looking for and they didn't have a phone, so I offered my cell, but the person they were looking for didn't answer. I eventually sent them back towards the Ben Franklin bridge, as they thought they could just start over again. A few minutes later the woman they called called my cell, and I told her where I was, so if they called again, she could tell them where they went wrong. (They were in the completely wrong town.) Charlie and I were still outside when they drove by again, going in the right direction, and the husband honked as they drove by, and they waved and pointed, indicating they finally knew where they were going. I waved back. The point of this long story is that I felt good about this encounter. Not because I was particularly helpful, but because I made human contact with strangers. It occurred to me that whenever I do something like that, I feel better about life, but I don't do it nearly enough.

Being nice. It is one of the first things we are taught. Do unto others, share your toys, say please and thank you, etc. You would think it would be an ingrained habit, yet the easier path seems to be one of indifference, or hatred, or violence. This is why every single belief system tells us to be, well, nice. Because it is the hardest thing for human beings to do.

But I'm hopeful. Things like Live Journal shows me that people do have more similarity than differences, and that gives me hope for the world at large.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a world leader who didn't take the easy path? That instead of retaliating with violence, he (or she) took the time to find the path of kindness, and tried to find a peaceful solution? But no. It would take too long, and would likely not have the same dramatic effect as dropping bombs on a country until there is nothing left of it.

Profile

charliesmum: (Default)
charliesmum

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123 456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 08:33 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios