posted
Not surprisingly, the complexities don't change that ripping a family apart is (almost always) not in their best interest and isn't done for them at all.\
Pretending that it is is just an attempt to justify selling them down the river.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're just asserting our positions sans evidence, I'll say that while of course everything is much more complicated and nuanced when we're writing textbooks about it, as far as general principles go, kat's post is entirely accurate.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that where we go wrong is in insisting that families all be alike. Parents that don't live together have not necessarily abandoned thier children. Parents do not have to be of opposite genders. People can be family without breeding.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: If we're just asserting our positions sans evidence...
So far, that's what every poster in this thread has done. It's been asserted that certain evidence exists, but that's all apart from anecdotes.
I haven't looked at the evidence on this issue because I don't have plans to procreate. My only comment is that in the context of a marriage with one gay partner and one straight partner, I see no reason to assume that it's only the gay partner whose sexual and/or romantic desires are unfulfilled.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my perspective, I agree with Kat and I don't.
(Way to sit on the fence!)
My parents divorced when I was in my 20s, because of infidelity. I firmly believe that it was selfish of my father to have an affair, and to not be willing to give that person up. I don't believe it was selfish for my mother to demand that he either cease the affair or the marriage ended. I also believe there were many complex issues at play. If one partner won't contribute towards making the marriage work, then I think there sometimes is no option.
As an adult child of divorce - it affected me. My younger siblings were 14 and 6, and I know it affected them. It still does.
That said, for our situation, divorce was the best option, given the reality of the situation . My Dad is a better parent now than he was in the last 5-10 years of his marriage. Do I wish my parents could have worked it out? Of course. But they couldn't.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we're just asserting our positions sans evidence, I'll say that while of course everything is much more complicated and nuanced when we're writing textbooks about it, as far as general principles go, kat's post is entirely accurate.
Yes, but you would be wrong.
A parent can have behavior/characteristics that are not abusive but which make it better (on average) for a child to be raised in a single parent home rather than with them. There are also parental dynamics that are harmful to a child such that the parents divorcing would (on average) be in the child's best interest.
In most cases absent abuse (certainly much more than seems accepted by American society as a whole), the kids are going to be better off with a two parent household, but this is not even close to always true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure, kat, are you interested in conversing with me on this or not?
---
If so, I'd note that the statement I was responding to:
quote:Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
doesn't actually have qualifications on it. And that, unless you are using an extremely broad meaning of "almost always", your qualification on the above statement is wrong.
posted
You know, I don't think I actually have research to back this up (although, had I - or someone else - time, I'm pretty sure that it is out there), but I'd wager that the children of parents who are constantly fighting are often better off if those parents divorce rather than raise the children in an atmosphere of constantly hostility.
Of course, the optimal solution would be for them to either not have gotten married and had kids in the first place until they were mature enough to handle these things or to work on it so that they stop fighting all the time, but that's kind of beside the point.
---
edit:
I'm pretty strongly against our culture's permissiveness on divorce and parental selfishness and think that one of the big problems with families in this country is that many parents are not mature enough to have gotten married and had kids and put their needs ahead of that of the family, but if you're going to say that "All (or later, almost all) parents, absent abuse, who get divorced do so for selfish reasons and care more about themselves than their children's well-being", well that I just can't agree with. That sort of thinking shows some pretty big selfishness on its own right to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't believe you. And I do think that fighting for years is just as selfish as not resolving it. You have a family - deal with your issues and fix things. Walking away from your promises is not a solution, and neither is deliberately making people around you miserable.
I also doubt that a parent who can't stop fighting in front of his or her children to the point that the atmosphere is toxic is actually going to improve anything by breaking up the home - I would imagine that the misery caused by married parents who fight all the time is not resolved by divorced parents who fight all the time.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe you. And I do think that fighting for years is just as selfish as not resolving it. You have a family - deal with your issues and fix things. Walking away from your promises is not a solution, and neither is deliberately making people around you miserable.
I know. And with war, why don't people just deal with their issues and fix it too? Why do people even have interpersonal problems, when all they have to do is just fix it? I mean, how hard can that be?
The real world is more complex than that. A marriage is made up of two people. Even if one has the drive and maturity to effectively work on their problems, without the cooperation of the other parent, there is only so much that can be done.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not overwhelming evidence by any means, but from here:
quote:What About Divorce?
Not all conflicts can be resolved. Sometimes parents find that they cannot continue with their relationship. Does this harm their children?
Jones, an expert in children of divorced parents, says kids do suffer when their parents' marriage breaks up. But it's even harder if parents stay together solely for the sake of the kids.
"There's been consistent evidence over the years that the process of divorce itself is hard on children," Jones says. "But even more important is the level of conflict between the parents. If children are experiencing a lot of fighting — especially if the children are drawn into those fights — that may be more harmful to their development than a divorce."
Cahir strongly agrees.
"If parents come to terms with the fact they are not happy with each other and cannot work it out, the children are better off if they divorce," Cahir says. "The bottom line is if the children see happy, content parents, they are better off. … I have had many clients say, 'I wish my parents had gotten divorced earlier,' because kids know when parents aren't happy. They learn that early on."
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well...
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is.
I'm sorry to gainsay you, but I immediately added mentally: "to you." To many people, my defining characteristic of existence is correcting their English pronunciation. My defining characteristic of existence to the Vietnamese lady who runs the store down the street from my flat is that I'm an insane Eiskaffee enthusiast who occasionally drinks mango juice, and never engages in smalltalk. My Highschool students at first assumed I was married and had children, and once they found out I didn't they assumed I was gay. They really didn't understand much about my particular cultural background, and they didn't conceive the correct image of my actual standing in life (in terms of money, age, priorities) because they knew me as a lecturer and not as a friend or colleague. And to them, it would appear as if I projected a false image of myself onto them in order to teach them, if they suddenly found me amongst their social circle.
I have one friend, the SO of a friend of mine, who only ever sees me at Pub night, and so is probably sure that I am a convivial and eternally happy alcoholic who eats nothing but pickled cheese.
It's just too much for you to say that this is the defining characteristic of someone's whole existence. But to you, it is. Now when we're talking specifically about gays, whether men or women, they are encouraged or forced in some cases to appeal to social stereotypes of their typical behaviors and mannerisms, just like any other minority. So to you, perhaps one of your gay friends seems defined by his sexuality because it is a constant foil, while another gay friend seems totally nonsexual... until you consider the vast number of your friends who also never talk about sex or sexuality *with you*, or don't even consider it a good topic of conversation. How do you know sexuality is less important to them based only on what you observe? Because I don't consider myself to be a very apt judge of things like that, and I really do lean more to believing that nobody is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ironic thing about this argument is that *I* would wager that none of us think divorce is a good thing for anyone and that divorce is too often considered before seeking other solutions. (If any of you involved in this debate feel that divorce is great and that we should all get one, please let me know!)
That being the case, I can't honestly say I'm 100% sure what we're arguing about here. It seems to me that Kat is suggesting (please correct me if I'm wrong) that unless someone is getting abused (spouse or children), people should stay married come what may and get over whatever issues they have.
The reason that I haven't brought in any references or citations is that I'm really not at all sure what the heart of the argument is. That people should stop being human and start being perfect? I don't think citations are needed to refute that.
Marriage is a complex subject. It is not black and whit and not every couple enters into a marriage with the same set of expectations. There are a lot of different types of families out there, even within the two-person opposite sex couples.
Sometimes, people get married too young and for the wrong reasons. When they grow up, they have to figure out what to do about their situation.
Should they get a divorce? I don't know....it really depends upon what the issues are between them. Professional counseling is a good pre-divorce step, but unfortunately the only person you can change is you. There are times when your spouse needs to change and you can't change him or her.
I have a theory that most people do not understand what marriage is when they get into it. I think that many of them learn but that far too many leave without that understanding. The people who "fall out of love" with their spouse, for example, just make me roll my eyes. Most of the time I think they are confusing the excitement of those first moments with love and don't understand that love is a verb -- it's something you do, not something you feel until happily ever after.
Once upon a time, our parents picked our partners and that was it. Now, we choose our own and don't always know what we're doing or how to live with the choice afterward.
And human beings are imperfect.
So, we can either expect humans to become perfect or we can simply work within the bounds of human nature to do the best job we can and stop judging one another for every slight -- real or imagined.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
So, we can either expect humans to become perfect or we can simply work within the bounds of human nature to do the best job we can and stop judging one another for every slight -- real or imagined.
Christine, I think that, given that we are fallible human beings ourselves, this is excellent advise. We all are going to need some mercy at some point.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a theory that most people do not understand what marriage is when they get into it. I think that many of them learn but that far too many leave without that understanding. The people who "fall out of love" with their spouse, for example, just make me roll my eyes. Most of the time I think they are confusing the excitement of those first moments with love and don't understand that love is a verb -- it's something you do, not something you feel until happily ever after.
Right now, I'm trying to adapt the intro to Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving as a reading for my wedding based all around this idea. Love isn't something that happens to you. It's a faculty that you exercise and a shared creation that you have to work at.
But that doesn't sell anyone anything and it's hard and I think our culture has largely come to see love as solely the magical spark between people.
edit:
And really, I think that is very sad for the people involved. In a lot of cases, I think that they really don't know what they are getting into. It's possible that they are missing out on real, abiding love because they don't even realize that that is what they should be trying to achieve. Our culture has told people so many stories of fairy tale marriages and divorce has become so permissible that people hit that wall where they're not feeling the spark and figure "Well, this marriage didn't work." not realizing that no marriages ever work with just the spark. And the tragedy is that I think that many of these have all the stuff that could grow into real, strong marriages, but that they don't realize that that is what they should be doing. /edit
---
I think this spark is important and while it doesn't last at the intensity that you start with, it is important to keep it alive in a marriage. I think sex is also really important in a marriage, for a variety of reasons. Bonding definitely and shared recreation, but also it really helps smooth out the rough spots (or it least it does for me).
That's the thing I'd find most interesting in a gay person married to a straight one. I do believe that it is possible to have the deep abiding type of love between these people and in the family that they create. But I'd be very interested to see how they got around missing those aspects of a married relationship.
The linked posting that started off this thread doesn't really go into the how of anything at all. It seems all about stating that "I'm doing this." It seems to be concerned about establishing the relationship, not explaining it. That's why (even if I thought it was real), I find it not particularly interesting.
posted
kmbboots: I disagree. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I think there are useful generalities we can make in some situations. Of course there is a tremendous room for variation within the family structure, but at a certain point we have to draw lines somewhere or definitions become meaningless. Which is, of course, what some people think is for the best, but personally, I think it just leads to a sort of postmodern morass of confusion. *grin*
Twinky: the bit you quoted was aimed at everyone in this conversation; it was my attempt to recognize exactly what you pointed out.
I agree with your observation as well.
MrSquicky: We're talking about different things. It seems like, very often, when people are discussing generalities, someone pops up and talks about the exceptions to the rule -- the idea being, apparently, that anyone talking in general terms is willfully refusing to recognize the complexities inherent in relationships.
And I think it is in fact important to note those exceptions, because we don't want to become rigidly Puritanical about these things. At the same time, I think it's needlessly pedantic to, for instance, pick apart kat's posts to the degree you have. I don't think it's correct to assume that if a person posits a general rule, that they are necessarily ignoring those exceptions.
I actually agree with all your observations regarding the permissive culture of divorce, and especially with your thoughts about love being a shared creation, etc. Seems like people assume that when you say you have to "work" at a relationship, it can't be as good as the intoxicating hormonal first couple of months of puppy love; but the "working" at the relationship is actually far more satisfying, and, in some ways, fun.
Edit: If anyone in this thread is interested, I'd recommend Fatherless America, and The Future of America both by David Blankenhorn, for a decent overview of the general issues and evidence available about this topic. The author is good about keeping his arguments in the secular realm and backing everything up with evidence, though like most studies of this sort it is by necessity more correlation-based than "proven" causally. I just find the correlation to be too great to ignore.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Unless abuse is the cause, people who divorce are harming their children."
True, but the harm done could be the lesser of two evils. In cases where the parents fight constantly or use the children as either targets for their anger or pawns in their battles, more harm emotionally is done than done in a good divorce.
"Parents who argue constantly, turn to their children in their anger, or use them as pawns in their anger are damaging their children and are wrong."
True.
But what are we to do about it?
To remove the option of divorce unless of violence may stop that pain, but it won't stop the pain of parents who are too simple, too mean, or too thoughtless to think of their children first. Yes its Daddy's or Mommy's fault that the family is torn apart. What can we do about it?
This is the problem with laying blame. All it succeeds in doing is removing you from having to help with a solution. To blame the problems of high divorce rates or childhood trauma's on those parents who think with their anger or lust instead of their hearts or their heads is fine, but it doesn't help the children.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: kmbboots: I disagree. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I think there are useful generalities we can make in some situations. Of course there is a tremendous room for variation within the family structure, but at a certain point we have to draw lines somewhere or definitions become meaningless. Which is, of course, what some people think is for the best, but personally, I think it just leads to a sort of postmodern morass of confusion. *grin*
So? Why? My sister-in-law was just as much my family before she and my brother had a child. A husband and wife are still family even if they are childless. A widower and his children are family. Adopted children are still family to their parents. Grandparents raising their granchildren are family.
Why do you think that families have to look the same?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they have to look the same. You are continually rephrasing the argument and attacking your own strawman. I have never claimed that any of the relationships you listed are not family, so please stop suggesting I have.
At a certain point, we have to draw lines in order to speak meaningfully. We disagree about where to draw those lines, but I think we'd both agree that our bosses at work are not family, regardless of how often we get together and have barbecues.
Look, no one is saying that a relationship is necessarily lessened or of an inferior sort if they're not family. It's just a different type of relationship. Categorizing things in such a way is not prejudice, it is the willingness to define things with useful clarity. And it's worth pointing out that in some cases, some relationships really are unhealthy.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto, then I am confused. You, I thought, were disagreeing with this statement:
quote:I think that where we go wrong is in insisting that families all be alike. Parents that don't live together have not necessarily abandoned thier children. Parents do not have to be of opposite genders. People can be family without breeding.
Where are you drawing lines that disputes this?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto, kat didn't posit a general rule that admitted exceptions. Here's what she did say:
quote:Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
I saw that as an unjust accusation of many parents putting their gratification ahead of their children's well-being. Certainly many people do so, but this is not the case in many other divorces.
So, firstly, I spoke up to defend those people from an unjust accusation.
Second, the idea that the only situation where getting divorced results in a better environment for the children is one where their is abuse going in is flat out wrong. This is a statement of ideology that is not matched by the facts and should, I think, be noted as such. I would hate for people to make decisions based on false information like that.
You may see this as unnecessary nit-picking, but to me, it was, as I said, a defense of an unjust pejorative and countering a wrong but pervasive view of divorce and children's health.
edit: And I want to note, my initial comment was merely that things are more complicated than what was said. It is only upon repetition of the same incorrect information that I went into more detail.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm disagreeing with that statement because you say that I'm "insisting that all families be alike". I think families are tremendously varied, and each one has idiosyncratic quirks that have never been seen on the earth before. At the same time, they do fit general underlying patterns that allow us to distinguish between them and other types of relationships in the first place.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto, my first post wasn't addressing you in particular. If you tell us where you draw your lines, maybe we can find where we agree and where we differ.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto, Would you agree then that the cases that boots mentioned can accurately be called families?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky: You probably disagree, but I think kat has sufficiently clarified that she is speaking in generalities. Maybe slightly hyperbolically, but still accurate. I don't think she was unjustly accusing anyone, and though I can see how it might be read that way, I don't think it's a correct read. To be honest, I think the longstanding feud you two have going contributes to both of you consistently reading each other in the worst (and most exactingly precise) light possible.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
It depends on how colloquially we're talking, I think. I can say my best friend is "family", but that's just a hyperbolic way of saying that I love my family and I love my friend and we have the same closeness that a good family has.
If we're talking a little more precisely, I would say that anyone who is biologically related (to a more immediate degree than "we're all part of the same species") is automatically (and by definition) family. I also think biological parents are different in kind than step-parents, though this says nothing about the quality of the relationship; in my own case, for instance, even if he is not biologically my dad, I have a very high regard for my stepfather.
Because such people are taking responsibility for others and -- this part is important -- fulfilling certain gender-roles in the "hetero-normative" (as the jargonists say) social organization embedded in our culture, I would consider all the people boots mentioned to be family, though in some cases they are not biologically related.
Edit: sorry, edited this a couple times for clarity.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well...
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is.
I'm sorry to gainsay you, but I immediately added mentally: "to you." To many people, my defining characteristic of existence is correcting their English pronunciation. My defining characteristic of existence to the Vietnamese lady who runs the store down the street from my flat is that I'm an insane Eiskaffee enthusiast who occasionally drinks mango juice, and never engages in smalltalk. My Highschool students at first assumed I was married and had children, and once they found out I didn't they assumed I was gay. They really didn't understand much about my particular cultural background, and they didn't conceive the correct image of my actual standing in life (in terms of money, age, priorities) because they knew me as a lecturer and not as a friend or colleague. And to them, it would appear as if I projected a false image of myself onto them in order to teach them, if they suddenly found me amongst their social circle.
I have one friend, the SO of a friend of mine, who only ever sees me at Pub night, and so is probably sure that I am a convivial and eternally happy alcoholic who eats nothing but pickled cheese.
It's just too much for you to say that this is the defining characteristic of someone's whole existence. But to you, it is. Now when we're talking specifically about gays, whether men or women, they are encouraged or forced in some cases to appeal to social stereotypes of their typical behaviors and mannerisms, just like any other minority. So to you, perhaps one of your gay friends seems defined by his sexuality because it is a constant foil, while another gay friend seems totally nonsexual... until you consider the vast number of your friends who also never talk about sex or sexuality *with you*, or don't even consider it a good topic of conversation. How do you know sexuality is less important to them based only on what you observe? Because I don't consider myself to be a very apt judge of things like that, and I really do lean more to believing that nobody is.
I understand you are speaking on how others perceive you. I don't think that is what BlackBlade was trying to say. It is how that person perceives himself, and what he does to share that perception with others.
A good example would be (forgive me for this one) Uncle Rico in Napolean Dynamite. In the film Uncle Rico was obsessed with the last game of his high school career. They lost the game and he felt that if had done things differently they would have won the game. He has his van in the middle of nowhere and he spends his days filming himself throwing passes with the ball. He even buys a fake time machine on ebay with hopes he can go back in time and change things.
It could be argued that this is just how we are perceiving him, and that would would be valid. However one can see that it is more than just a personal perception on our part, that this character obsesses about it, and that he feels it defines his existence.
I don't define myself by my sexuality, I define my life by accomplishments. If I had a child and thought that their life would be better or that they would be happier in a certain situation, I would do whatever I could to make sure they were happy, no matter what those arrangements were.
In my opinion when you have a child their wants and needs go before yours. You brought them into this world, you have a responsibility to care for them. Whether in a single parent home, two parent home (whatever the gender of the parents), or another living arrangement, you have a responsibility to that child.
That being said, most people only think that which is what is socially acceptable. Homosexuality has been been frowned upon by the majority until recently. The outlook on a family unit has changed over the years. Women are looked at differently. The Civil rights movement ocurred.
In another hundred years, it may be socially acceptable to do any number of things that are not accepted by the general population now. It is all based on perception, and little by little those who want the perception to change can influence many people over the years. We can't judge whether the current perceptions are right or wrong, just as we can't judge whether the new perceptions being introduced are right or wrong. No one can prove either perception is valid, because it will always be based on an individual's personal beliefs.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto, The only qualification that I've seen kat offer was that parents who get divorced are acting selfishly and putting their gratification ahead of their kids well-being in almost all cases. To me, almost all at it's widest would be something like 95% of cases. Does that seem like a reasonable number to you?
In that case, would agree with that characterization? That 95% of all non-abuse divorce situations can be put on selfish parents who don't care much about their kids? Because that seems unjust to me.
Likewise, I believe that it is obviously not the case that at most only 5% of cases of divorce (absent abuse) where the kids would have been better off if the parents stayed together. What's your take on that?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well...
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is.
I'm sorry to gainsay you, but I immediately added mentally: "to you." To many people, my defining characteristic of existence is correcting their English pronunciation. My defining characteristic of existence to the Vietnamese lady who runs the store down the street from my flat is that I'm an insane Eiskaffee enthusiast who occasionally drinks mango juice, and never engages in smalltalk. My Highschool students at first assumed I was married and had children, and once they found out I didn't they assumed I was gay. They really didn't understand much about my particular cultural background, and they didn't conceive the correct image of my actual standing in life (in terms of money, age, priorities) because they knew me as a lecturer and not as a friend or colleague. And to them, it would appear as if I projected a false image of myself onto them in order to teach them, if they suddenly found me amongst their social circle.
I have one friend, the SO of a friend of mine, who only ever sees me at Pub night, and so is probably sure that I am a convivial and eternally happy alcoholic who eats nothing but pickled cheese.
It's just too much for you to say that this is the defining characteristic of someone's whole existence. But to you, it is. Now when we're talking specifically about gays, whether men or women, they are encouraged or forced in some cases to appeal to social stereotypes of their typical behaviors and mannerisms, just like any other minority. So to you, perhaps one of your gay friends seems defined by his sexuality because it is a constant foil, while another gay friend seems totally nonsexual... until you consider the vast number of your friends who also never talk about sex or sexuality *with you*, or don't even consider it a good topic of conversation. How do you know sexuality is less important to them based only on what you observe? Because I don't consider myself to be a very apt judge of things like that, and I really do lean more to believing that nobody is.
I understand the principle you are talking about. There are definitely different aspects of my personality that I project to different people. But I think you are overstepping a bit when you think there is no way I could know somebody intimately to the point that there is far less I don't know than I do.
I know my friends and acquaintances to varying degrees for sure, but there are some I know better than anybody else, just as there are some I am sure do not open up to me all the way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a lesbian. It is a part of my identity, but not my entire identity. I'd argue that there are very few people who will choose one aspect of themselves and insist that that one aspect is the sum total of their entire being. I am also a mom, a wife, a professional, a foreign car driver, a Hatrack member, a writer, a volunteer worker and an American.
I won't deny any of these parts of me. Some of them are much bigger pieces of the puzzle than others. But whether or not your sexuality is "important" to you or not so much, it really is a big part of the puzzle. It is a very basic chunk of our human psyche. And if you don't think that being straight is a part of your identity, that is probably because it is such a big part of your identity that you take it for granted.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well...
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is.
I'm sorry to gainsay you, but I immediately added mentally: "to you." To many people, my defining characteristic of existence is correcting their English pronunciation. My defining characteristic of existence to the Vietnamese lady who runs the store down the street from my flat is that I'm an insane Eiskaffee enthusiast who occasionally drinks mango juice, and never engages in smalltalk. My Highschool students at first assumed I was married and had children, and once they found out I didn't they assumed I was gay. They really didn't understand much about my particular cultural background, and they didn't conceive the correct image of my actual standing in life (in terms of money, age, priorities) because they knew me as a lecturer and not as a friend or colleague. And to them, it would appear as if I projected a false image of myself onto them in order to teach them, if they suddenly found me amongst their social circle.
I have one friend, the SO of a friend of mine, who only ever sees me at Pub night, and so is probably sure that I am a convivial and eternally happy alcoholic who eats nothing but pickled cheese.
It's just too much for you to say that this is the defining characteristic of someone's whole existence. But to you, it is. Now when we're talking specifically about gays, whether men or women, they are encouraged or forced in some cases to appeal to social stereotypes of their typical behaviors and mannerisms, just like any other minority. So to you, perhaps one of your gay friends seems defined by his sexuality because it is a constant foil, while another gay friend seems totally nonsexual... until you consider the vast number of your friends who also never talk about sex or sexuality *with you*, or don't even consider it a good topic of conversation. How do you know sexuality is less important to them based only on what you observe? Because I don't consider myself to be a very apt judge of things like that, and I really do lean more to believing that nobody is.
I understand the principle you are talking about. There are definitely different aspects of my personality that I project to different people. But I think you are overstepping a bit when you think there is no way I could know somebody intimately to the point that there is far less I don't know than I do.
I know my friends and acquaintances to varying degrees for sure, but there are some I know better than anybody else, just as there are some I am sure do not open up to me all the way.
I'm not sure I understand the turn this took. BB, you were talking about what people self-identify as, right? Then it seems to me that Orin went in a very different direction with how other people view someone.
I don't see how the how other people see people as all that relevant to what we are discussing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky: I was saying people do make certain physical aspects of themselves their defining characteristic. Orincoro disagreed that I could know that as people merely project parts of themselves to everybody around them. I agreed that is often the case, but disagreed in that you can know certain people to the point that you know if they have a defining characteristic.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
