Quote of the Day

[jackofallgeeks]

Prester Scott: People who can only think of sexuality when they think of love are beneath contempt.

I just wanted to point out that, yes! Love does not have to be sexual to be real and meaningful, and the one does not imply the other. This is a point that I hold to, and try to convey. Love does not have to be erotic.

Comments

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed -- at the risk of causing somebody great offense, that's one of the reasons I want absolutely nothing to do with the vain, self-indulgent "metrosexual" side of mainstream gay culture (even if I were thin, Aryan, buzzcut, and Armani enough for them). But by the same token, I hold people who can only think of debasement when they think of sexuality beneath contempt as well. I'm not speaking of you or Scott here, who have always been at least reasonably tolerant... But I do often speak of moralists and hedonists as being side of the same coin, because they both cling to the belief that all sexual pleasure is inherently sleazy and ugly. One side fears it, while the other practically insists on it, of course. But both are unwittingly allies against people who want to exalt sexuality as a spiritually and emotionally fertile phenomenon, not a merely self-gratifying or biologically fertile one.

Still, I think you, Scott, and I are mostly on the same side again (it must be that time of year ;> ). People who would deliberately choose sex without affection are like the living dead to me. >_

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

-grins- Glad to hear you think so! And though I think I would more easily err on the side of the 'moralists,' I do agree with you that it's distasteful (to say the least) how some, as you say, insist that sexual pleasure is debased in all it's forms. Sexuality is a natural part of us as human beings, and the most... 'natural' (for lack of a better word) expression of affection. It is only when people make is a self-gratification (in effect objectifying the other person for their own end) that it is debased.

People who choose sex without affection are beyond my ability to understand, though the chief point behind this comment is the fat that people who can't grasp affection without sex are equally as impossible to comprehend.

... I think that's all kind of a backward way of saying 'Yeah, I agree!'

[nif.livejournal.com]

Two things:

1. Sex without love is just another lifestyle, and who am I to judge the way someone else chooses to use his body or the body of someone who would willingly submit to that. Besides, we can always return to the old debate of what constitutes love. Just live and let live.

2. I have to seriously disagree with the generalization of metrosexuals who are firstly, heterosexual by definition, and secondly not always self-possessed or promiscuous. Just to clarify, I don't mean to nitpick, but to say "the metrosexual side of gay culture" is both redundant and contradictory because the term itself is used to describe straight men who act stereotypically "gay".

Oh, and Andrew, I have a new cell number in case you should be interested.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

1) Well, we already know that I, at least, believe that there are things which are objectively good or bad, and though I'll admit I don't know them all, and i'll never know all the factors of anyone's life aside my own (if that), there are things which I believe are damaging and should be avoided. This is, simply put, one of those things. Of course, I never expect anyone to take my opinion as more than it is, an opinion; it
s just something I hold to.

2) *points to Kincaid* That's all his doing. -laughs- Culture terms like 'metrosexual' are beyond my sphere.