Gender Equality

[Liar]

I'm NOT necessarily talking about gender alone here, again, I reiterate... we all have masculine and feminine energies in us. I guess it's fairly Platonic (or neo-Platonic) in theory... that there are archetypal energies in the universe, and masculine is one of those, and so is feminine... so I wouldn't say that "flower arranging" is just for girls... what I WOULD say is that beauty falls into the realm of the feminine (in BOTH genders.) While I wouldn't say that hockey is just for boys... I would say that competition and challenge fall into the realm of the masculine (in BOTH genders.) Make sense?

Yah. Makes sense enough. But we should really change the terms for it. If we are not talking about traits that are linked to gender, calling them words that are linked to gender is what causes the confusion.

 

[yui]

I'm NOT necessarily talking about gender alone here, again, I reiterate... we all have masculine and feminine energies in us. I guess it's fairly Platonic (or neo-Platonic) in theory... that there are archetypal energies in the universe, and masculine is one of those, and so is feminine... so I wouldn't say that "flower arranging" is just for girls... what I WOULD say is that beauty falls into the realm of the feminine (in BOTH genders.) While I wouldn't say that hockey is just for boys... I would say that competition and challenge fall into the realm of the masculine (in BOTH genders.) Make sense?

It's a yin yang thing, eh?

 

[Speedbumps]

Yah. Makes sense enough. But we should really change the terms for it. If we are not talking about traits that are linked to gender, calling them words that are linked to gender is what causes the confusion.

lol you would have to come up with terms with no linkage though.

I tried to think of some existing words and couldn't find any that someone wouldn't find offensive.

Soft and Hard? nope I will probably get flamed just for suggesting it.

Any other ideas?

 

[Stella_Omega]

crawling out onto the skinny branches here... <ahem>

I think assigning these kinds of things to a GENDER... is actually more than silly, it's hurtful.

But I do believe that assigning certain qualities to the masculine or feminine is not only helpful, but fairly inherent, and even necessary...

I'm NOT necessarily talking about gender alone here, again, I reiterate... we all have masculine and feminine energies in us. I guess it's fairly Platonic (or neo-Platonic) in theory... that there are archetypal energies in the universe, and masculine is one of those, and so is feminine... so I wouldn't say that "flower arranging" is just for girls... what I WOULD say is that beauty falls into the realm of the feminine (in BOTH genders.) While I wouldn't say that hockey is just for boys... I would say that competition and challenge fall into the realm of the masculine (in BOTH genders.) Make sense?

And I do so wonder what the horsie has to say about this...

This guy isn't complaining about that. I read some of his other posts, and he's pretty vocal about destroying stereotypes of all kinds. What he's complaining about here is- his perception that the slash community- which is made up of mostly women- nearly all women as far as I can tell- does not feel inclusive or welcoming to him, a man.
The guy writes a shitload of fanfic.

YOu could call your archetypical energies- "Aggressive" and "passive" I have always seen these two polarisations as being further divided, human-wise; passive masculine, passive feminine, aggressive masculine, aggressive feminine. And all the little bits in between, too...

this is NOT to denigrate your idea, but merely to expand on it a little- it's a subject I've thought a lot about in my life...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yah. Makes sense enough. But we should really change the terms for it. If we are not talking about traits that are linked to gender, calling them words that are linked to gender is what causes the confusion.

"feminine" and "masculine" aren't the same as male" and "female" although modern usage has made them so

 

[BlackShanglan]

crawling out onto the skinny branches here... <ahem>

I think assigning these kinds of things to a GENDER... is actually more than silly, it's hurtful.

Agreed. I chose the word "silly" because I hardly care to dignify the position with a grander term. It's quite ridiculous. That said, yes - it's quite dangerous as well. But then so, I would argue, is this:

But I do believe that assigning certain qualities to the masculine or feminine is not only helpful, but fairly inherent, and even necessary...

I'm NOT necessarily talking about gender alone here, again, I reiterate... we all have masculine and feminine energies in us. I guess it's fairly Platonic (or neo-Platonic) in theory... that there are archetypal energies in the universe, and masculine is one of those, and so is feminine... so I wouldn't say that "flower arranging" is just for girls... what I WOULD say is that beauty falls into the realm of the feminine (in BOTH genders.) While I wouldn't say that hockey is just for boys... I would say that competition and challenge fall into the realm of the masculine (in BOTH genders.) Make sense?

And I do so wonder what the horsie has to say about this...

I recognize what you are saying, but disagree very strongly. Or possibly a better way to put this is, I strongly disgree with using "masculine" and "feminine" as the labels by which you distinguish these qualities. I'm quite willing to acknowledge a qualitative difference in the pursuit of beauty and the pursuit of competition and challenge, but I would observe first that these are often found in the same personality - which is important because it suggests to me that the boundaries of these categories are far from rigid - and secondly that (in my opinion) they have nothing to do with one's sex and that therefore it is an unnecessary confusion to refer to them by terms otherwise so used. By attaching a sex to them, we risk perpetuating a range of stereotypes attached to the sexes: men are energetic, competitive, active, and dominant, while women are decorative, retiring, submissive, and compliant. Those are theories that I think really best left unencouraged in any way, even if by the slender support of terms reconditioned for other use.

In the interest of revealing and acknowledging bias, I should explain that I have what are probably best described as radical views on the topic of sex and gender. "Sex" I use to mean anatomical correspondence with "male" or "female" genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics. "Gender" I use to mean a set of behaviors and social roles typically perceived as connected to anatomical sex. I believe gender to be socially constructed in the broadest sense; that is, I believe that it is largely our upbringing and socialization rather than our biology that dictates not only what we perceive as inherent gendered differences between the sexes, but also our belief that there are two and only two antithetical genders, or indeed that such a thing as "gender" exists in any meaningful way. I believe that the sooner we free ourselves from this latter assertion, the happier we might all be. Given that anatomical sex itself is not limited to two and only two antithetical possibilities, it seems to me unlikely that gender, if such a thing existed, would be.

Shanglan

 

[yui]

Given that anatomical sex itself is not limited to two and only two antithetical possibilities, it seems to me unlikely that gender, if such a thing existed, would be.

Shanglan

As a horse of indeterminate gender your observations on this subject are fascinating. Perhaps, because you in the position of embodying a masculine, and a feminine ideal, you are less likely, in this venue, to be limited by either label. In the real world, do you find the same truths workable?

 

[BlackShanglan]

As a horse of indeterminate gender your observations on this subject are fascinating. Perhaps, because you in the position of embodying a masculine, and a feminine ideal, you are less likely, in this venue, to be limited by either label. In the real world, do you find the same truths workable?

I do find them workable. Or perhaps a more accurate statement would be, I find them quite workable as a matter of what one is. The complicating factor is the tendency of humans to attempt to jam individuals into one of those two antithetical models that they have built up in their minds. I have no difficulty with the internal consistency of what I am; my difficulties arise from the incapacity of some humans to recognize that it would be more sensible to adjust their ideas of gender to fit the reality with which they are presented than to attempt to adjust reality to fit their imagined constructions of gender.

For that reason, I tend to agree with those who expand "queer" to encompass all deviance from accepted gender roles. In challenging the explicitly and genitally sexual role of the male and female, gay and lesbian individuals I think have helped to open up a broader discussion of whether those "male" and "female" gender roles really make any sense. When we look back in time (and, really, even at modern ideas), there is still a tendency to try to jam gays and lesbians into that antithetical binary by labelling gay men as feminine or lesbians as butch. Rather than continue to try to pound square pegs into rounds holes (with all possible phallic and yonic implications wholly and gleefully intended), would it not make more sense to confess that our sets of assumptions about gender need a radical overhaul, possibly starting with the theory that there are only two that exist in a state in inherent opposition?

Shanglan

 

[Boxlicker101]

I haven't posted to this thread because I can't figure what it is about. What is meant by "fandom", by "fanfic" and by "fanficrants"?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Shang, this is interesting... all those words <wink> and your entire argument seems to be grounded solely in social learning theory? That differentiation (whether it be dualistic or multiple) of one thing from another does *exist* in a phenomenological paradigm is just not worth arguing unless you happen to be an undergrad philosophy student whose X-Box is broken! Your position might have had a chance if had been a position on non-dual transcendence, but it isn't... unless I'm missing something? Whatever objection you may have to qualities that inhere in our (admittedly and necessarily biased) human paradigm, whether your objections be based on the principle of social justice (or as I suspect, because of some unresolved personal wounds regarding these issues? ) that dualisms and qualities of multiple differentiation present and appear to us is just unarguable. Whether we like it or not, or agree with it or not, we all recognize that some things appear complex and some things appear simple, some things appear just and some things appear unjust, some things appear masculine, some things appear feminine, some things appear short, some things appear tall... see where I'm going here? I see it as far more dangerous to stay hidden behind intellectual arguments and deny the world as it is than to acknowledge and even enjoy the reality of the world as it presents itself to us.

If one takes the position, which I do, that this world is but an illusion, then labels are necessary and useful to navigate from moment to moment in the world. Of course, many labels have and will hurt many people, in many different times and places depending on the cultural context... but you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. The value of naming anything cannot be defined by whether it is personally, socially, or culturally damaging or supporting.

Shang, taking your point to it's logical (and really kinda silly!) conclusion... we would have no words at all, Lit wouldn't exist, stories wouldn't exist... and more than that, we would have a bland, empty, colorless, purely egalitarian, non-judgmental world that I, for one, would rather slit my wrists than live in... in a human paradigm (and in spite of all equine and feline references to the contrary, we are all human) a neutral world might as well be a dead world...

Sorry, but I just can't get behind your semantic nihilism!

 

[Recidiva]

As a woman of large feet I find gender discrimination to be on the whole irrelevant and of the nonfitty kind.

It gets a large "Meh"

Other people's opinions tend to be mocked or dismissed or ferreted away for future devouring or eaten right there as sustenance.

You guys are yummy, thanks.

 

[TheEarl]

Exactly.

Now explain to me why so many erotic markets are women authors only
.
.
.
Refuse to publish my crap because it is crap. Not because I have a penis.

I love you. Have got into long and prolonged arguments with Litizens about this one.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

I haven't posted to this thread because I can't figure what it is about. What is meant by "fandom", by "fanfic" and by "fanficrants"?

Fanfic is fiction written about a particular TV show or set of novels e.g. Star Trek, Anne Rice's vampire series. It takes existing characters and places them in different situations. Since this is Literotica the situations are usually sexual e.g. making love to a Vulcan.

Fandom is the group of people who write and read fanfic. The readers can be very critical if the fanfic deviates from what the readers think is a likely scenario for the character e.g. a Vulcan becoming emotional.

Fanficrants are rants about fanfic from the disappointed readers (see above) or about fanfic from those who think that all fanfic is derivative or bordering on plagarism.

Those are only my views. Others may have different explanations.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

Fanfic is fiction written about a particular TV show or set of novels e.g. Star Trek, Anne Rice's vampire series. It takes existing characters and places them in different situations. Since this is Literotica the situations are usually sexual e.g. making love to a Vulcan.

Fandom is the group of people who write and read fanfic. The readers can be very critical if the fanfic deviates from what the readers think is a likely scenario for the character e.g. a Vulcan becoming emotional.

Fanficrants are rants about fanfic from the disappointed readers (see above) or about fanfic from those who think that all fanfic is derivative or bordering on plagarism.

Those are only my views. Others may have different explanations.

Og

I've written a couple of stories like that. One was about Kelly Bundy from "Married with Children" and the other about the casr of "Friends". I have seen quite a few stories like that, in the Celebrities category. Neither of mine was very well-received but I have gotten only complimentary feedback.

 

[yui]

I do find them workable. Or perhaps a more accurate statement would be, I find them quite workable as a matter of what one is. The complicating factor is the tendency of humans to attempt to jam individuals into one of those two antithetical models that they have built up in their minds. I have no difficulty with the internal consistency of what I am; my difficulties arise from the incapacity of some humans to recognize that it would be more sensible to adjust their ideas of gender to fit the reality with which they are presented than to attempt to adjust reality to fit their imagined constructions of gender.

For that reason, I tend to agree with those who expand "queer" to encompass all deviance from accepted gender roles. In challenging the explicitly and genitally sexual role of the male and female, gay and lesbian individuals I think have helped to open up a broader discussion of whether those "male" and "female" gender roles really make any sense. When we look back in time (and, really, even at modern ideas), there is still a tendency to try to jam gays and lesbians into that antithetical binary by labelling gay men as feminine or lesbians as butch. Rather than continue to try to pound square pegs into rounds holes (with all possible phallic and yonic implications wholly and gleefully intended), would it not make more sense to confess that our sets of assumptions about gender need a radical overhaul, possibly starting with the theory that there are only two that exist in a state in inherent opposition?

Shanglan

Thanks for the reply, Shang. I have questions, but I'm trying to put them in a suitably cognizant manner, so I will be returning to this post a bit later.

Fanfic is fiction written about a particular TV show or set of novels e.g. Star Trek, Anne Rice's vampire series. It takes existing characters and places them in different situations. Since this is Literotica the situations are usually sexual e.g. making love to a Vulcan.

Fandom is the group of people who write and read fanfic. The readers can be very critical if the fanfic deviates from what the readers think is a likely scenario for the character e.g. a Vulcan becoming emotional.

Fanficrants are rants about fanfic from the disappointed readers (see above) or about fanfic from those who think that all fanfic is derivative or bordering on plagarism.

Those are only my views. Others may have different explanations.

Og

Very well explained, Og.

Also, it should be noted that Fanfic can be a tough market because typically the people who enjoy it are very well versed in a show's mythology and characters; and they can get most upset if you deviate from that mythology. Also, few fanfic writers are successful in truly capturing the "voice" and the "heart" of the characters and, as a result, they end up simply calling their own creations by an often beloved character's name. The resulting wail and gnashing of teeth is often brutal.

There are writers who have the ability to nail a character's (or cast of characters) voice perfectly; in Buffyverse, Earl and Mindfiend come readily to mind.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

There are writers who have the ability to nail a character's (or cast of characters) voice perfectly; in Buffyverse, Earl and Mindfiend come readily to mind.

I wholeheartedly second that!!!!

 

[Liar]

"feminine" and "masculine" aren't the same as male" and "female" although modern usage has made them so

Interresting. I haven't exactly dug myself knee-deep into the etymology of the terms, but as far as I can see, the definintion is indeed linked to men and women. Do you have something that I can read about where and when it wasn't?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shang, this is interesting... all those words <wink> and your entire argument seems to be grounded solely in social learning theory?

No, it's not grounded wholely on social learning theory. It also incorporates, in its statement that there are not actually two and only two antithetical physical sexes, an acknowledgement that there are a wide variety of conditions - whether fragile-X, double-y, gender diasphora, deviances in brain chemistry, individuals currently labelled "chimeras," etc. - that refute in an empirically verifiable fashion the binary sex theory.

That differentiation (whether it be dualistic or multiple) of one thing from another does *exist* in a phenomenological paradigm is just not worth arguing unless you happen to be an undergrad philosophy student whose X-Box is broken! Your position might have had a chance if had been a position on non-dual transcendence, but it isn't... unless I'm missing something?

I will assume that it is I who missed something - that is, absolutely clarity in communication of my thoughts - rather than you. I don't deny in the least that differentiation exists. My two objections are to (1) the idea of gender as a construct of two simple antithetical choices and (2) the idea of gender as "a series of social and behavioral differences assigned correlations to physical sex." I think both of these inaccurate and unhelpful. My observations were not meant to suggest that there are no differences between humans, but rather than "gender" as a construct does not help us to understand our differences in any useful way. It attempts to group those differences into correlations that do not, in fact, exist in any consistant way other than as social constructs.

Whatever objection you may have to qualities that inhere in our (admittedly and necessarily biased) human paradigm, whether your objections be based on the principle of social justice (or as I suspect, because of some unresolved personal wounds regarding these issues? ) that dualisms and qualities of multiple differentiation present and appear to us is just unarguable.

I don't believe that I argued that multiple differentiation was not present. I recognize that it is. I simply think that an antithetical gender model neither recognizes the range nor helpfully categorizes the varities of this differentiation.

I also think it an unwarranted level of personal attack to suggest that I could not hold my position without the presence of "unresolved personal wounds regarding these issues." To imply that someone must be the victim of mental or emotional disturbance to hold his opinion is both uncharitable and irrelevent to the factual and logical support for his position. I have not felt it necessary to make unpleasant and wholely ungrounded assumptions about your mental and emotional state.

Whether we like it or not, or agree with it or not, we all recognize that some things appear complex and some things appear simple, some things appear just and some things appear unjust, some things appear masculine, some things appear feminine, some things appear short, some things appear tall... see where I'm going here?

Yes, I do. However, I will observe that the history of humanity is the history of that which we do not understand appearing more simple than it actually is. If we are to run the gamut, particularly in the case of "some things appear complex and some things appear simple," of every case in which people were wholly and often wilfully deluded in their presumptions, we should be here a very long time. That things appear to us in a certain way when we approach them uncritically and with no examination of our own inherent biases and cultural skew is not evidence that they are so. What things appear to be, when one is dealing with any sort of complex system, often tells us more about ourselves than the system itself.

I see it as far more dangerous to stay hidden behind intellectual arguments and deny the world as it is than to acknowledge and even enjoy the reality of the world as it presents itself to us.

I can see no way to repond usefully to such an unpleasant and thoroughly unfounded theory about my own behavior - with which I think I may fairly suggest you are wholly unfamiliar - and so can only say that what you imply is untrue.

If one takes the position, which I do, that this world is but an illusion, then labels are necessary and useful to navigate from moment to moment in the world. Of course, many labels have and will hurt many people, in many different times and places depending on the cultural context... but you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. The value of naming anything cannot be defined by whether it is personally, socially, or culturally damaging or supporting.

That a thing would work swiftly and pragmatically if true is not a reason to believe it. While agreeing that we require words and language to negotiate the world, I see nothing here that suggests why we would choose to cling to inaccurate ones rather than attempting to expand our knowledge and understanding. I assume that you have charitable and reasonable goals, and so won't assume that the only gain that springs to mind - it's easier - could possibly be what you intend.

Shang, taking your point to it's logical (and really kinda silly!) conclusion... we would have no words at all, Lit wouldn't exist, stories wouldn't exist... and more than that, we would have a bland, empty, colorless, purely egalitarian, non-judgmental world that I, for one, would rather slit my wrists than live in... in a human paradigm (and in spite of all equine and feline references to the contrary, we are all human) a neutral world might as well be a dead world...

Sorry, but I just can't get behind your semantic nihilism!

I hope that I have managed to clarify the assumptions that led you to this theory, which is not at all what I intended.

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

If one takes the position, which I do, that this world is but an illusion, then labels are necessary and useful to navigate from moment to moment in the world.

The world is an illusion? So you need labels to navigate it?

I have no idea what this means. Are you saying it's our perceptions of what exists that create our view of a 'world' to which we ascribe meaning?

 

[yui]

The world is an illusion? So you need labels to navigate it?

I have no idea what this means. Are you saying it's our perceptions of what exists that create a 'world' that

The way I read it is that words and word "values" are arbitrarily assigned by the Human Paradigm and as such, they only have the quantitative relation that "we" give them. Words are just a means of communicating perception; they have no inherent, cosmic gender value.

Or not.

 

[Liar]

Or not.

Stop that!

 

[Recidiva]

The way I read it is that words and word "values" are arbitrarily assigned by the Human Paradigm and as such, they only have the quantitative relation that "we" give them. Words are just a means of communicating perception; they have no inherent, cosmic gender value.

Or not.

Oh my.

Intelligent life.

*stalk*

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Shang,

I feel like you have a special kind of sensitivity to labels and labeling... that much is clear from your continued response to it especially in regards to gender on the boards (not unlike mine! I happen to find this an interesting, intriguing and important issue on many levels!) My speaking to your possible wounding in this area was simply an acknowledgment of that sensitivity... I wasn't implying that your view was faulty because of it, but perhaps biased in a certain direction (as is mine!)... as you said yourself, often our perspectives say more about us than they do about the thing we are speaking of...

My two objections are to (1) the idea of gender as a construct of two simple antithetical choices and (2) the idea of gender as "a series of social and behavioral differences assigned correlations to physical sex." I think both of these inaccurate and unhelpful.

But I don't feel that masculine and feminine are antithetical-- or they only are if you are looking at them from that lens. They are also reciprocal and synergistic and necessarily polarized. Without masculine and feminine energies, there would be no sexual attraction at all. Hence my comment that removing them would leave us in a "dead" world. What you see as oppositional, I see as symbiotic. Perhaps, ironically, this is simply the difference between the masculine's (yours) view and the feminine's (mine) view on the issue! <grin> But I imagine you would definitely argue that you are *not* speaking from a primarily masculine place... but I would disagree

I find it interesting that of course we carry different and varied physical sex characteristics that don't always fall along dualistic lines, and I personally find it more interesting to look at our inner sex characteristics... the balance of masculine and feminine in the psyche, and know that they, too, don't fall along dualistic lines. No one is every wholly masculine, or wholly feminine... we are always some blend of both, and it shifts, beautifully, interestingly... it's a dance. It's a dance within, and it's a dance without... and it's not just a human dance, it is a priori... masculine and feminine are energies/qualities that *everything* carries... from the pencil to the flower to the most basic cell structure. Strange concept? Maybe. If your only instrument of perception is one of quantification and empiricism (the realm of the "masculine" by the way... not "MALE" but masculine)... of course this is a completely irrelevant and unsupportable position.

My observations were not meant to suggest that there are no differences between humans, but rather than "gender" as a construct does not help us to understand our differences in any useful way. It attempts to group those differences into correlations that do not, in fact, exist in any consistant way other than as social constructs.

I agree that the "gender" construct doesn't help us understand our differences in a useful way... but I would argue that the idea of "masculine" and "feminine" energy in the world DOES. And I also believe that "masculine" and "feminine" energy DOES exist outside of social constructs...

I simply think that an antithetical gender model neither recognizes the range nor helpfully categorizes the varities of this differentiation.

I will agree with you entirely here.

But my question is, then what? What WILL recognize the range and helpfully categorize the varieties of differentiation?

And I would suggest that seeing masculine/feminine as diametrically opposed, instead of a synergestic blend of energy, is the root issue here. If you allow them to blend, to mix, to settle into their natural polarity, both within and without, there will rarely be a complete 50/50 split. Sometimes it's 60/40, sometimes it's 90/10, there are always shades of grey.

I have not felt it necessary to make unpleasant and wholely ungrounded assumptions about your mental and emotional state.

I'm sorry you felt what I said was unpleasant... as for "ungrounded"... well this is my bias, but I feel as if I don't need to "know" you to feel your heart. and you don't need to "know" me either. You, in fact, knew that I wasn't being intentionally hurtful, that my motives were, as you say, "charitable." There is a felt difference between someone who is trying to hurt you and someone who is trying to reach you. We all can feel it, even if we don't say it out loud or prove with an "empirical evidence" that it's possible...

That things appear to us in a certain way when we approach them uncritically and with no examination of our own inherent biases and cultural skew is not evidence that they are so. What things appear to be, when one is dealing with any sort of complex system, often tells us more about ourselves than the system itself.

I agree that our perceptions are inherently biased. I also believe that there are contructs that exist outside human bias, and we interpret these from within our bias. Your bias is a rational one. You see masc/fem as antithetical in nature. My bias is an essentially neo-platonic one. I see masc/fem as synergistic in nature. It certainly DOES say more about each of us than it does about those inherent energies... !

I can see no way to repond usefully to such an unpleasant and thoroughly unfounded theory about my own behavior - with which I think I may fairly suggest you are wholly unfamiliar - and so can only say that what you imply is untrue.

I know it's a leap in logic to believe that I can feel your heart without having the "facts" of you or your life... it's wholly unsupportable from that perspective, I get that.

I see nothing here that suggests why we would choose to cling to inaccurate ones rather than attempting to expand our knowledge and understanding. I assume that you have charitable and reasonable goals, and so won't assume that the only gain that springs to mind - it's easier - could possibly be what you intend.

I'm all for expanding our knowledge and understanding... further even than seeing things antithetically...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Interresting. I haven't exactly dug myself knee-deep into the etymology of the terms, but as far as I can see, the definintion is indeed linked to men and women. Do you have something that I can read about where and when it wasn't?

Hell, I don't know- back when I was taking Highschool Latin, I remember the teacher saying over and over; "Masculine and Feminine, class! NOT male and female!"
*shrug*

In veiw of selinakittyn's post above me, which certainly sums up my own views on the subject- Let's go with "Yin" and "Yang" instead- and resist strenuously any attempts to assign gender to these two energies. Or "Active" and "Passive" (Yesterday I said "Aggressive" instead of active- damn aphasia! )
And. like SK amd Horsey, I personally feel the balance ofenergies- male and female, masculine, and feminine, active and passive, shift constantly within my body and soul. Like a fucking kaleidoscope. It is, at times, incredibly difficult to have such an insecure foundation for my most basic identity! And, really, that's what fuels my writing. I made lemonade.

 

[yui]

Stop that!

Stop what?!http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/japan/44689.gif

Oh my.

Intelligent life.

*stalk*

Statistical anomaly.


Shang, in your discourse with Selena, you have successfully addressed my questions regarding your internal delineation of gender role in your idea of "what one is". Currently, no further questions forthcoming.

You are splendid. Thank you.