One species was born of necessary association with humans, the other from convenient association Dogs were wolves who needed humans to survive so they adopted humans as their new pack, with all the loyalty and submission that entails; cats were self-sufficient and solitary desert felines who figured out that hanging around humans guaranteed them a cozy life, and really didn't need humans to survive, hence no loyalty. By their very origin, dogs are much more of a man's animal than cats.
A person who has feelings of loyalty and indebtedness to another will always see that person as being greater than they really are. A person without feelings of loyalty will always see themselves as greater than they really are.
Nice to see you post something that made me laugh again! Hurry up and get domestic with B already, I can tell you want to! :)
I kind of assumed it was a romantic relationship between you. Is it platonic? From the way you've written about him, I though the two of you were intimate. Sorry if I got it wrong. If, however, the two of you are involved, then by domestic I mean live with him. In his house or yours, figure it out.
I've only been on this world for two decades, but I recognize the way he can pull you out of a black mood. Any person who can do that for you is somebody to hold on to. Whatever you want to call it, marriage, commitment, best friends, blood brotherhood, we should take time to mark the special male-male relationships we have. Maybe you've done that with B but still, don't let go of him.
Oh look at me, the protege lecturing the mentor. My head's bigger than usual today! Mea culpa!
Pack predator vs. solitary predator. Actually, cats all have Asperger's. A lesser-known fact is that they were originally developed in ancient Egypt by crossing bunny-rabbits with cobras.
Rabbits and cobras? You mean, a cross between cute and fluffy and cold and deadly? Because if that's the case, I agree 100%. I have never met a cat who liked me. I've spent way too long around dogs to have the patience for an animal who sees you as a convenience at best, a nuisance at worst.
Cats with Asperger's. Good one. Your access to esoteric and ancient lore is always enlightening, Nathan.
(With the new DSM-5, though, Asperger's is history, so they wind up with a diagnosis on the autistic spectrum. With each new edition, that book gets bigger, wordier, and less interesting.)
The whole craze over autism diagnoses increasing seems stupid when you realize that the list of symptoms that can get you an autism diagnosis has increased. Of course, the litigation mania hasn't helped either. Damn vultures, Shakespeare's advice about dealing with lawyers sounds tempting.
Another change was the "removal" of transexuality. A big flap on the Catholic sites, complete with prerequisite Chaz Bono pics. It merely got placed under the umbrella of gender confusion; gender dysphoria, if you want to be technical. Now, if only we could get people to acknowledge it as the disorder that it is. I wouldn't mind seeing LGBT shortened to LGB. That association is tenuous on its own, but what to transgenders and transexuals have to do with same-sex attraction, or even both-sex attraction?
The inclusion of the T in the acronymn has much to do with my departure from the "LGBT" community.
Funny how it just sorta happened, without a democratic plebiscite of the "community." Typical elitism of those who are supposedly in love with process and inclusion.
Adding T makes "gayness" about gender deviance, not erotic orientation. That serves the purposes of the radicals and the feminists.
Funny how social liberals and social democrats talk about "democracy" and "let the people decide," when they really mean, "let a bare majority of the people get a hazy and very qualified support for something before I legislate a law that conforms to my views of the topic."
I told my formerly best female friend that I had left the Church, and she practically had a heart attack. She tried to tell me that a transsexual she met at college was Catholic. I very bluntly replied, "well he's going to have to do some explaining when he dies." But then she tried to tell me that it was only gay sex that the Church had a problem with. So rejection of one's biological sex is completely compatible with Catholicism, but not the expression of one's innate sexual desires?
Needless to say, it's stuff like this that made me gradually distance myself from her.
@Sean: I am also thinking of the cat's tactical sneaky slithery movements.
Mr. Donovan says he doesn't like cats because "they move in a serpentine way, like women," -- and then I think "but they aren't serpentine for the reason women are, but for the reason serpents are."
Re ass-burgers and ought-ism -- if it's going to be a spectrum disorder in its basic nature, then there will always be cogent reasons statable by different factions for increasing or decreasing it a little; there's no clear wall built-in. Me, I have reason to prefer to be seen as a slightly odd version of a normally-neuro'd person than an oddly normal version of an abnormally neuro'd person. At least for the forseeable.
Ex, help me out here. Why are gay people saying, "Once we get gay marriage, we can get to work dismantling the institution all together." Why? Why do they want to destroy the thing they have worked to get? Was this all part of a bigger plan? Have the religious conservatives been right that gays don't really care about marriage? Are LGBTs really as duplicitous as all that?
Do they believe that this was merely a step in destroying something they hate? Are the gay couples marrying useful idiots? I know most partnered gay couples are saying they don't want to marry? You've had far more experience with gay people than I have. Please explain what the hell is going on here!
Just found my answer. Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen said the destruction of the institution of marriage is, in fact, the ultimate goal. My absolute vitriol for gay activists has just increased 10-fold. I cannot believe that there are people out there who, because they have no feeling of loyalty or desire for permanence with their romantic partner, assume that those who make such pledges are lying and want to tell them, "Stop that." And have the gall to blatantly lie about it.
I also cannot believe how much support it has in the gay community. So are they all in on it? Or are there people who are fighting for it with good intentions?
13 comments:
One species was born of necessary association with humans, the other from convenient association Dogs were wolves who needed humans to survive so they adopted humans as their new pack, with all the loyalty and submission that entails; cats were self-sufficient and solitary desert felines who figured out that hanging around humans guaranteed them a cozy life, and really didn't need humans to survive, hence no loyalty. By their very origin, dogs are much more of a man's animal than cats.
A person who has feelings of loyalty and indebtedness to another will always see that person as being greater than they really are. A person without feelings of loyalty will always see themselves as greater than they really are.
Nice to see you post something that made me laugh again! Hurry up and get domestic with B already, I can tell you want to! :)
-Sean
Domestic with B?
I kind of assumed it was a romantic relationship between you. Is it platonic? From the way you've written about him, I though the two of you were intimate. Sorry if I got it wrong. If, however, the two of you are involved, then by domestic I mean live with him. In his house or yours, figure it out.
I've only been on this world for two decades, but I recognize the way he can pull you out of a black mood. Any person who can do that for you is somebody to hold on to. Whatever you want to call it, marriage, commitment, best friends, blood brotherhood, we should take time to mark the special male-male relationships we have. Maybe you've done that with B but still, don't let go of him.
Oh look at me, the protege lecturing the mentor. My head's bigger than usual today! Mea culpa!
-Sean
Mr B and I are not platonic. Never have been. Way too much spark for that :) Even after six years.
I have no intention of letting him go, as long as he wants to stay. And he shows no sign at all of wanting to leave.
As for cohabitation, not in the cards. We're two old dogs who do better with our own kennels. Phone and text and regular visits do the trick.
He does light me up, as you can tell. The most likeable man I've ever known.
Pack predator vs. solitary predator. Actually, cats all have Asperger's. A lesser-known fact is that they were originally developed in ancient Egypt by crossing bunny-rabbits with cobras.
--Nathan
Rabbits and cobras? You mean, a cross between cute and fluffy and cold and deadly? Because if that's the case, I agree 100%. I have never met a cat who liked me. I've spent way too long around dogs to have the patience for an animal who sees you as a convenience at best, a nuisance at worst.
-Sean
Cats with Asperger's. Good one. Your access to esoteric and ancient lore is always enlightening, Nathan.
(With the new DSM-5, though, Asperger's is history, so they wind up with a diagnosis on the autistic spectrum. With each new edition, that book gets bigger, wordier, and less interesting.)
The whole craze over autism diagnoses increasing seems stupid when you realize that the list of symptoms that can get you an autism diagnosis has increased. Of course, the litigation mania hasn't helped either. Damn vultures, Shakespeare's advice about dealing with lawyers sounds tempting.
Another change was the "removal" of transexuality. A big flap on the Catholic sites, complete with prerequisite Chaz Bono pics. It merely got placed under the umbrella of gender confusion; gender dysphoria, if you want to be technical. Now, if only we could get people to acknowledge it as the disorder that it is. I wouldn't mind seeing LGBT shortened to LGB. That association is tenuous on its own, but what to transgenders and transexuals have to do with same-sex attraction, or even both-sex attraction?
-Sean
The inclusion of the T in the acronymn has much to do with my departure from the "LGBT" community.
Funny how it just sorta happened, without a democratic plebiscite of the "community." Typical elitism of those who are supposedly in love with process and inclusion.
Adding T makes "gayness" about gender deviance, not erotic orientation. That serves the purposes of the radicals and the feminists.
Count me out.
Funny how social liberals and social democrats talk about "democracy" and "let the people decide," when they really mean, "let a bare majority of the people get a hazy and very qualified support for something before I legislate a law that conforms to my views of the topic."
I told my formerly best female friend that I had left the Church, and she practically had a heart attack. She tried to tell me that a transsexual she met at college was Catholic. I very bluntly replied, "well he's going to have to do some explaining when he dies." But then she tried to tell me that it was only gay sex that the Church had a problem with. So rejection of one's biological sex is completely compatible with Catholicism, but not the expression of one's innate sexual desires?
Needless to say, it's stuff like this that made me gradually distance myself from her.
-Sean
@Sean: I am also thinking of the cat's tactical sneaky slithery movements.
Mr. Donovan says he doesn't like cats because "they move in a serpentine way, like women," -- and then I think
"but they aren't serpentine for the reason women are, but for the reason serpents are."
Re ass-burgers and ought-ism -- if it's going to be a spectrum disorder in its basic nature, then there will always be cogent reasons statable by different factions for increasing or decreasing it a little; there's no clear wall built-in. Me, I have reason to prefer to be seen as a slightly odd version of a normally-neuro'd person than an oddly normal version of an abnormally neuro'd person. At least for the forseeable.
--Nathan
Ex, help me out here. Why are gay people saying, "Once we get gay marriage, we can get to work dismantling the institution all together." Why? Why do they want to destroy the thing they have worked to get? Was this all part of a bigger plan? Have the religious conservatives been right that gays don't really care about marriage? Are LGBTs really as duplicitous as all that?
Do they believe that this was merely a step in destroying something they hate? Are the gay couples marrying useful idiots? I know most partnered gay couples are saying they don't want to marry? You've had far more experience with gay people than I have. Please explain what the hell is going on here!
-Sean
Just found my answer. Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen said the destruction of the institution of marriage is, in fact, the ultimate goal. My absolute vitriol for gay activists has just increased 10-fold. I cannot believe that there are people out there who, because they have no feeling of loyalty or desire for permanence with their romantic partner, assume that those who make such pledges are lying and want to tell them, "Stop that." And have the gall to blatantly lie about it.
I also cannot believe how much support it has in the gay community. So are they all in on it? Or are there people who are fighting for it with good intentions?
-Sean
Post a Comment