D.N. asks, "I read the following on an old high school friend's Facebook status update this week.
'My daughter just came home from school and ran to her room, slamming the door. Even though she's got the music turned up pretty loud, I can still hear her heartbreaking sobs of anguish through her door. I try and I try to get her to talk to me, but she just asks me to leave her alone no matter how many times I tell her to confide in me. All I can think is that something horrible happened to her at school today. Doesn't she know that I went to high school too and could probably solve whatever her silly little problem is? Somebody please tell me what to do!'
What followed was an exceptionally long list of comments, all of which empathized with the mother before going off on their own kids' selfish behavior.
No one, especially the mom in this case, stopped to think that, gee maybe something horrible DID happen at school that day. Maybe it was all the young woman could do to simply 'hold it together' until the end of the day where she could (supposedly) seek refuge in the only 'safe' place she has to go to. Maybe the only thing that could be possibly WORSE than whatever happened is to have her mom -- IN A PUBLIC FORUM -- THAT HER 'FRIENDS' FROM SCHOOL CAN EASILY ACCESS -- complain about her level of distress and her supposed selfishness for not wanting to immediately share the 'silly' details of her 'silly' problem.
My question, I guess, is this. Are Facebook parents the most narcisistic generation of parents in the history of the world? Or are we just the dumbest?
D. N."
Hi, D.N.
I don't think this is necessarily a case of Narcissism or stupidity. Let me explain. No, there is too much; let me sum up. Buttercup is marry Humperdink in little less a half an hour. All we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, and make our 'scape. After I kill Count Rugen.
Sorry, got a little distracted there. Back on track.
I think we need to look at this in the proper context. Parents today have to deal with all sorts of things that parents of previous generations didn't have to think about at all. The whole concept of "adolescence" is only about 100 years old - prior to that, you were a kid who became an adult. That's it. And the more we explore adolescence, the more confusing it becomes. Nowadays, you're Satan's Mistress if you spank your child, but not so long ago, children received regular beatings all in the name of "teaching them good manners." Children used to go to school and then come directly home to help out with the chores on the farm (or around the house) instead of sleeping through classes and then coming home to play World of Warcraft for six hours before bed. I'm not saying things like drugs and alcohol and sex weren't as big a deal back then, but the way we handle our children and their problems is different now. The way our children behave in school is different than it used to be, too. How many girls do you see in photographs from the 1880's wearing cut-off t-shirts and mini skirts? Not so many, right? But the way girls dress now invites all kinds of fun new slurs, taunting remarks, and derogatory terms. And we, as parents, need to learn how to help our kids through the torture chamber known as the public education system.
So your friend's kid came home all upset about something and not wanting to talk about it. Okay. Your friend wanted to talk to her kid and try to help and that is a good thing. She should be commended for her impulse. The kid should not be lambasted for her choice to not want to talk to her mom. What if the problem is that the other kids at school were teasing her for some rumor that the mom is a slut? Or what if she was found in the janitor's closet with a varsity football player and neither of them was wearing any pants? These are not the sort of things you want to talk to your mom about. In the case of the first thing, nobody wants to have to ask their mom if she is a slut because neither answer is a good one. If she's not, you look like an ass for asking in the first place and if she is, you get to have nightmares for the rest of your natural born life. And no teenage girl wants to talk to her mom about her super secret sex life for fear her mother will chime in with some story about her super secret sex life when she was a teenager and we're back to having nightmares for the rest of your natural born life again.
I guess it is possible that the issue at school was something that might not be completely mortifying to talk to one's own mother about. Maybe she got a bad grade on a test or tripped on her own shoelace walking down the hall. But what the mom needs to realize is that everyone processes things in their own way. Maybe what the kid needs is to curl up in bed and listen to music for a while until the embarrassment dies down a bit and she can talk about it. The simple fact that the mother considers whatever is causing her daughter's "heartbreaking sobs of anguish" is a "silly little problem," means that there is some sort of disconnect happening here. And maybe the daughter knows her mom will think the problem is silly and wants to be a little more composed before they chat about it so she can show her mom that really, she is fine as opposed to her mom laughing it off with, "I was in high school once, too, you know."
And the other thing about the "I was in high school once, too, you know," defense. Yes, you were. But you have not been in high school for several years. You may remember that "the love of your life" dumped you two weeks before the prom, but since that time, you met your husband who proved to be the real love of your life and you've had kids and you have a mortgage now and have been to seventeen fancy dress fundraisers so the whole prom thing isn't that big of a deal anymore. It's called "healing and moving on." Yes, you lived through it and came out on the other side. No, you don't actually remember what it was like when it happened. You have the luxury of looking at the event through Detachment Glasses. When you remember it, you look back on a younger version of yourself who you know has great things in store. But you have forgotten what it felt like to not see good things in store for you down the line. So in order to understand what your daughter is going through, you need to put it in terms of your own life where you are now. Maybe her boyfriend dumped her. Imagine your husband came home one day, packed a suitcase, and left you for his secretary. That is how she's feeling now. Empathize with that, as opposed to minimizing her problem as some silly high school trifle.
Which brings us back around to Facebook. I think the mom has the right to ask her friends for help in this situation, because I'll let you in on a little secret: none of us know what we're doing. Parents (the good ones, anyway) always think they're going to fuck up their kids and that is the most terrifying thought in the world. Your friend is wondering if she's a bad mom for letting her daughter cry, or if she's a bad mom for trying to force her daughter to talk. It feels like a no-win situation. She wants to help and doesn't know how. So she asks her friends for advice. I think that's okay. I think the problem is that the friends take sides. They should know better than to bash a kid on Facebook for having a bad day.
So to answer your question, Facebook parents are not narcissistic, nor are they dumb. They're confused and lost and reaching out for help, just like the rest of us. And no, the daughter is not being selfish because she wants to process her horrible day in her own way. The mom is right to be concerned, but at the moment, it probably best for her to let her daughter know that she is there, she loves her no matter what, and then wait for the daughter to come talk to her in her own time. But yeah, the mom's friends are probably making things worse in their attempts to comfort the mom. They should watch that.
Thank you, D.N. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Friday, February 11, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Universal Truth
A.A. asks, "Why, Miss Kitty? WHY?!?
Thank you, Miss Kitty. Hope all is well. Happy New Year. I look forward to your reply.
A."
Such a polite email for such a passionate question. And the answer is very simple.
Because.
Because the Earth revolves around the Sun. Because gravity keeps us here. Because it feels good. Because he makes me smile. Because I think single spaces after a period make text look smooshed together and sometimes I want to give my readers a bit more of a pause than just one space will allow. Because they scored more points. Because I love you. Because she's your wife. Because he's my best friend. Because if you don't, you'll get fired. Because if you do, you'll get hurt. Because that's where the Boogie Man lives. Because that information is on a "need to know" basis and you don't need to know. Because we borrowed it from the Germans. Because it's more fun to paint things that don't really exist. Because he did too many drugs in his teens. Because she always looks bored and pissy. Because he is over-exposed. Because that's what they think we want. Because that's what we think we want. Because he's funny and charming and smart and damn fine to look at. Because I just want to make people laugh. Because we're not going anywhere else. Because it's time. Because it's easy. Because if someone were to turn this into a monologue, they would need to know each circumstance to give each answer it's proper weight and I would love to see them try. Because it's fun. Because he's a genius. Because the work being produced there is stimulating and exciting. Because it's warmer. Because it's snowing. Because there is honestly no good reason to let the phone ring three times before you answer it when your job is to answer the phone. Because nobody knows. Because everyone is nosy. Because we need to fill our lives with something to distract ourselves from the futility of it all. Because nobody wants to be forgotten.
Why?
Because I said so and I'm your mother, that's why.
Thank you, A.A. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Thank you, Miss Kitty. Hope all is well. Happy New Year. I look forward to your reply.
A."
Such a polite email for such a passionate question. And the answer is very simple.
Because.
Because the Earth revolves around the Sun. Because gravity keeps us here. Because it feels good. Because he makes me smile. Because I think single spaces after a period make text look smooshed together and sometimes I want to give my readers a bit more of a pause than just one space will allow. Because they scored more points. Because I love you. Because she's your wife. Because he's my best friend. Because if you don't, you'll get fired. Because if you do, you'll get hurt. Because that's where the Boogie Man lives. Because that information is on a "need to know" basis and you don't need to know. Because we borrowed it from the Germans. Because it's more fun to paint things that don't really exist. Because he did too many drugs in his teens. Because she always looks bored and pissy. Because he is over-exposed. Because that's what they think we want. Because that's what we think we want. Because he's funny and charming and smart and damn fine to look at. Because I just want to make people laugh. Because we're not going anywhere else. Because it's time. Because it's easy. Because if someone were to turn this into a monologue, they would need to know each circumstance to give each answer it's proper weight and I would love to see them try. Because it's fun. Because he's a genius. Because the work being produced there is stimulating and exciting. Because it's warmer. Because it's snowing. Because there is honestly no good reason to let the phone ring three times before you answer it when your job is to answer the phone. Because nobody knows. Because everyone is nosy. Because we need to fill our lives with something to distract ourselves from the futility of it all. Because nobody wants to be forgotten.
Why?
Because I said so and I'm your mother, that's why.
Thank you, A.A. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Friday, January 14, 2011
Too Far?
M.A. asks, "I made a Facebook page for my cat. Have I gone too far?"
My initial reaction to this question was, "Yes, yes, a thousand times yes," but then I had to give it a bit more thought. Because while I'm sure you may be actually offending your cat instead of honoring your cat (more on that in a minute), we, of course, have to consider what is "too far."
You're familiar with LOLcats, yes? How could you not be? I currently have this guy hanging on my cubicle wall at work because he just makes me giggle every time I look at him. With his little tongue sticking out. So cute. And I love LOLcats - I really do. But I am almost positive that there are some cats on there into whose mouths words were placed that do not belong there. For example, I created this one with my cat, based on his undying love of my yoga mat. But then two other people recaptioned it, one of them naming my cat "Millie." His name is not "Millie." And while the caption is kind of funny, I know (because we've chatted about it) that those were not the thoughts running through my cat's head at the time. And he was a little offended by the fact that someone thought his tan was fake.
The point I'm trying to make here is that unless your cat gets to update his/her own Facebook page, or has some sort of creative control over the content, you may find that you are actually completely mis-representing your cat to the rest of the cats on Facebook. And the rest of the humans, for that matter. So I'd just be careful what you put up there. If you post, "ate mouse today and LOL'd" as a status update and wake up with scratches all over your face, well, you'll really only have yourself to blame.
But then I read this article on Cracked.com (fantastic site, by the way, if you're into the whole random factoid kind of thing, which I totally am). Go ahead and take the minute or two to read the thing. Or just skip to the number one entry. Yeah. That, I think, would constitute going too far. As Janeane Garofalo said in The Truth About Cats and Dogs, "It's okay to love your pets, just don't love your pets." Or bang and eat them.
So in that context, no, I don't think creating a Facebook page for your cat it going too far. Just be careful what you post there or you might, you know, suddenly have a very unpleasant living situation at home.
Thank you, M.A. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
My initial reaction to this question was, "Yes, yes, a thousand times yes," but then I had to give it a bit more thought. Because while I'm sure you may be actually offending your cat instead of honoring your cat (more on that in a minute), we, of course, have to consider what is "too far."
You're familiar with LOLcats, yes? How could you not be? I currently have this guy hanging on my cubicle wall at work because he just makes me giggle every time I look at him. With his little tongue sticking out. So cute. And I love LOLcats - I really do. But I am almost positive that there are some cats on there into whose mouths words were placed that do not belong there. For example, I created this one with my cat, based on his undying love of my yoga mat. But then two other people recaptioned it, one of them naming my cat "Millie." His name is not "Millie." And while the caption is kind of funny, I know (because we've chatted about it) that those were not the thoughts running through my cat's head at the time. And he was a little offended by the fact that someone thought his tan was fake.
The point I'm trying to make here is that unless your cat gets to update his/her own Facebook page, or has some sort of creative control over the content, you may find that you are actually completely mis-representing your cat to the rest of the cats on Facebook. And the rest of the humans, for that matter. So I'd just be careful what you put up there. If you post, "ate mouse today and LOL'd" as a status update and wake up with scratches all over your face, well, you'll really only have yourself to blame.
But then I read this article on Cracked.com (fantastic site, by the way, if you're into the whole random factoid kind of thing, which I totally am). Go ahead and take the minute or two to read the thing. Or just skip to the number one entry. Yeah. That, I think, would constitute going too far. As Janeane Garofalo said in The Truth About Cats and Dogs, "It's okay to love your pets, just don't love your pets." Or bang and eat them.
So in that context, no, I don't think creating a Facebook page for your cat it going too far. Just be careful what you post there or you might, you know, suddenly have a very unpleasant living situation at home.
Thank you, M.A. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Christmas Gifts
M.C. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty
What was the worst Christmas gift you ever received?"
This is actually a really tough question to answer because most of the Christmas presents I've been given have been spot on. Usually because I ask for stuff and people get it for me. And it's also hard for me to say a gift is "bad" because someone took the time to buy me a gift in the first place, which was really sweet and I have to applaud the effort. I did get a book once, though, that was just WAY off base. It was about how feminism was just sort of a fad and isn't it nice that we're moving back towards a society wherein women like to stay home and cook and clean and take care of the family? I think. I didn't read the thing. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being a stay at home mom. When I have kids, if it financially viable, I may choose to do just that because how awesome would it be to get to see your kids grow up every day? But that's just it - I may choose to stay home. I would not stay home because society told me I should. Which is kind of what feminism is about. Which means feminism is alive and well and it rocks, baby!
Oh! And another time, a co-worker (boss-type) of mine who lives in Europe brought me this nice little box of European chocolates for Christmas. None of which were vegan (which I am). On the up side, I got to give those away to the rest of the people in the office, so at least somebody got to enjoy them.
I used to have these sort of nightmares (not really nightmares, but awful thoughts) that someday, when I'm rich and famous, my fabulous rich and famous boyfriend (or boss, or co-star or someone) would buy me a fur coat as a gift (not that any of those people would, I just wanted to add some links to this post). I honestly don't know what I would do. I wouldn't take it, first of all, but I would probably then have to question our whole relationship. So thank goodness I'm not rich and famous and I don't have any rich and famous friends/coworkers/costars!
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
What was the worst Christmas gift you ever received?"
This is actually a really tough question to answer because most of the Christmas presents I've been given have been spot on. Usually because I ask for stuff and people get it for me. And it's also hard for me to say a gift is "bad" because someone took the time to buy me a gift in the first place, which was really sweet and I have to applaud the effort. I did get a book once, though, that was just WAY off base. It was about how feminism was just sort of a fad and isn't it nice that we're moving back towards a society wherein women like to stay home and cook and clean and take care of the family? I think. I didn't read the thing. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being a stay at home mom. When I have kids, if it financially viable, I may choose to do just that because how awesome would it be to get to see your kids grow up every day? But that's just it - I may choose to stay home. I would not stay home because society told me I should. Which is kind of what feminism is about. Which means feminism is alive and well and it rocks, baby!
Oh! And another time, a co-worker (boss-type) of mine who lives in Europe brought me this nice little box of European chocolates for Christmas. None of which were vegan (which I am). On the up side, I got to give those away to the rest of the people in the office, so at least somebody got to enjoy them.
I used to have these sort of nightmares (not really nightmares, but awful thoughts) that someday, when I'm rich and famous, my fabulous rich and famous boyfriend (or boss, or co-star or someone) would buy me a fur coat as a gift (not that any of those people would, I just wanted to add some links to this post). I honestly don't know what I would do. I wouldn't take it, first of all, but I would probably then have to question our whole relationship. So thank goodness I'm not rich and famous and I don't have any rich and famous friends/coworkers/costars!
Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Monday, December 6, 2010
Tolerance
J.M. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty:
I believe that I'm intelligent enough to know that the deeply-ingrained nature of a large chunk of the US that is "against" LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage and elimination of DADT, is that they are not actually "homophobic," per se, in that they
literally have a "fear of homosexuals," but rather that they simply have an aversion to homosexuals or the idea of same-sex activity.
I understand that there is a religious justification to be "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity, but many of the folks "against" LGBTs neither "fear" them, nor use religious justification for persecution.
So my question is, what other justifications are there for the social "othering" and persecution of LGBT Americans, does sexuality and sexual attraction have a moral standard outside of religion, and why is the resistance to LGBT acceptance so intense even in secular America?"
Hi, J.M.
First of all, I don't think there are any legitimate justifications for being "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity.
None.
I'm saying that right out at the front so everyone knows what kind of post this will be. If you disagree with me on that point, you may want to stop reading right now because I will offend you. But that is my opinion, one I hold very dear, and I am allowed to have that opinion as much as you are allowed to disagree with it.
Now, that being said, there are a lot of people out there who still feel kind of ooky when they see two men kiss (and for those of you who have no problem with it, those are three separate links, for which I will just say, "You're welcome"). Okay, they have a hang-up. That's their business.
I think the larger issue here is that America is, really, a very sexually repressed country. We like to think we are advanced, but we're not. I would go so far to say that it is only in the last few years that the idea of heterosexual sex with the woman on top became mainstream. Prior to that, it meant she was a crazy sex-fiend lunatic and that poor man she's with had better watch out because there's no telling what she'll do to him.
We are taught from a very young age to be ashamed of our bodies. Keep everything hidden. Don't touch anyone or let anyone touch you because it might lead to something bad. And certainly don't let anyone that you like know that you like them because that means opening yourself up to someone which means you will get hurt and oh dear god, we should never ever ever allow ourselves to get hurt!
But even when they try to be open about it and teach us about sex in school, it is done from a very sterile, clinical perspective. "When the man becomes aroused, he experiences increased blood flow to the penis, which then becomes hard." There is absolutely no discussion about what happens to make him become aroused. And all of those poor little boys running around wearing corduroy pants that just feel so good start to think they are crazy because their own pants turned them on. There is nobody to tell them that this is normal, and that it doesn't mean they are in love with corduroy pants and need to marry corduroy pants someday to have little half-human half-pants children, that it's all just a matter of their hormones going ape shit at the moment. And, of course, since he's too embarrassed to say anything, it becomes a shameful secret, which (oddly) then makes him get more turned on by his own pants and it becomes this vicious cycle wherein he asks all of his adult sexual partners to invest in corduroy undergarments. All because we were taught only the mechanics of heterosexual sex in school, but none of the other physical, spiritual, or emotional components of intimacy.
So we're weird about sex in general. It's how we are. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad. It is the state of our culture right now. Americans are weird about sex. We're fine with watching people blow one another up in movies and video games, but as soon as there is intimacy involved, that shit gets an NC-17 rating and your friends and colleagues look at you funny if you express any interest in seeing that film or playing that video game.
What makes this so hard for the LGBT community, then, is that for people who are not LGBT, that is a completely foreign kind of sex. Completely. A lot of them can't even figure out the mechanics of it. Yes, it is true that a lot of people out there are also unfamiliar with things like bondage, but they can at least try it on a smaller scale in the comfort of their own bedroom and they get to feel all naughty for using silk scarves in their basically missionary sex. It is close to the realm of the imaginable. For men who are sexually repressed, the idea of things going into or coming out of certain orifices is just not imaginable. Therefore anyone who likes that sort of thing must be really friggin' weird. And seeing as the man in question is really repressed in the first place, he's not too keen on being anywhere near anyone who is really friggin' weird. Which is probably better for us weirdos. He just happens to be really loud, too, which is annoying.
I think that that same sexually repressed man is also weirded out by people with fetishes, exhibitionists, any person whose sexual experience isn't exactly like his. He thinks he knows what sex is and what sex is supposed to be and anyone who does anything else is wrong. Because if there is the possibility that they are right in what they are doing, then he must be wrong and a deviant and all of that stuff, which just really doesn't fit in with his world view.
The thing is, people with fetishes and exhibitionists and the like aren't as vocal as the LGBT community. I'm not saying that if the LGBT community would just shut up that things would be fine - I am not advocating that AT ALL. If anything, I'm saying the exhibitionists should speak up more. Sex is a very personal thing. A VERY personal thing. I might even go so far as to say that people's sexual preferences are like snowflakes - no two people are turned on by exactly the same thing. And maybe if as a society, we were more aware of just how diverse everyone's tastes are, we'd be more accepting of all of them. And more accepting of ourselves.
I kind of have to thank the LGBT community for being the trailblazers here. It's not easy to be the first to say, "We like something that is different to what you like," so thank you for doing that. Hopefully someday we'll all be able to talk openly about sex and preferences and such without anyone getting hurt.
Thank you, J.M. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I believe that I'm intelligent enough to know that the deeply-ingrained nature of a large chunk of the US that is "against" LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage and elimination of DADT, is that they are not actually "homophobic," per se, in that they
literally have a "fear of homosexuals," but rather that they simply have an aversion to homosexuals or the idea of same-sex activity.
I understand that there is a religious justification to be "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity, but many of the folks "against" LGBTs neither "fear" them, nor use religious justification for persecution.
So my question is, what other justifications are there for the social "othering" and persecution of LGBT Americans, does sexuality and sexual attraction have a moral standard outside of religion, and why is the resistance to LGBT acceptance so intense even in secular America?"
Hi, J.M.
First of all, I don't think there are any legitimate justifications for being "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity.
None.
I'm saying that right out at the front so everyone knows what kind of post this will be. If you disagree with me on that point, you may want to stop reading right now because I will offend you. But that is my opinion, one I hold very dear, and I am allowed to have that opinion as much as you are allowed to disagree with it.
Now, that being said, there are a lot of people out there who still feel kind of ooky when they see two men kiss (and for those of you who have no problem with it, those are three separate links, for which I will just say, "You're welcome"). Okay, they have a hang-up. That's their business.
I think the larger issue here is that America is, really, a very sexually repressed country. We like to think we are advanced, but we're not. I would go so far to say that it is only in the last few years that the idea of heterosexual sex with the woman on top became mainstream. Prior to that, it meant she was a crazy sex-fiend lunatic and that poor man she's with had better watch out because there's no telling what she'll do to him.
We are taught from a very young age to be ashamed of our bodies. Keep everything hidden. Don't touch anyone or let anyone touch you because it might lead to something bad. And certainly don't let anyone that you like know that you like them because that means opening yourself up to someone which means you will get hurt and oh dear god, we should never ever ever allow ourselves to get hurt!
But even when they try to be open about it and teach us about sex in school, it is done from a very sterile, clinical perspective. "When the man becomes aroused, he experiences increased blood flow to the penis, which then becomes hard." There is absolutely no discussion about what happens to make him become aroused. And all of those poor little boys running around wearing corduroy pants that just feel so good start to think they are crazy because their own pants turned them on. There is nobody to tell them that this is normal, and that it doesn't mean they are in love with corduroy pants and need to marry corduroy pants someday to have little half-human half-pants children, that it's all just a matter of their hormones going ape shit at the moment. And, of course, since he's too embarrassed to say anything, it becomes a shameful secret, which (oddly) then makes him get more turned on by his own pants and it becomes this vicious cycle wherein he asks all of his adult sexual partners to invest in corduroy undergarments. All because we were taught only the mechanics of heterosexual sex in school, but none of the other physical, spiritual, or emotional components of intimacy.
So we're weird about sex in general. It's how we are. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad. It is the state of our culture right now. Americans are weird about sex. We're fine with watching people blow one another up in movies and video games, but as soon as there is intimacy involved, that shit gets an NC-17 rating and your friends and colleagues look at you funny if you express any interest in seeing that film or playing that video game.
What makes this so hard for the LGBT community, then, is that for people who are not LGBT, that is a completely foreign kind of sex. Completely. A lot of them can't even figure out the mechanics of it. Yes, it is true that a lot of people out there are also unfamiliar with things like bondage, but they can at least try it on a smaller scale in the comfort of their own bedroom and they get to feel all naughty for using silk scarves in their basically missionary sex. It is close to the realm of the imaginable. For men who are sexually repressed, the idea of things going into or coming out of certain orifices is just not imaginable. Therefore anyone who likes that sort of thing must be really friggin' weird. And seeing as the man in question is really repressed in the first place, he's not too keen on being anywhere near anyone who is really friggin' weird. Which is probably better for us weirdos. He just happens to be really loud, too, which is annoying.
I think that that same sexually repressed man is also weirded out by people with fetishes, exhibitionists, any person whose sexual experience isn't exactly like his. He thinks he knows what sex is and what sex is supposed to be and anyone who does anything else is wrong. Because if there is the possibility that they are right in what they are doing, then he must be wrong and a deviant and all of that stuff, which just really doesn't fit in with his world view.
The thing is, people with fetishes and exhibitionists and the like aren't as vocal as the LGBT community. I'm not saying that if the LGBT community would just shut up that things would be fine - I am not advocating that AT ALL. If anything, I'm saying the exhibitionists should speak up more. Sex is a very personal thing. A VERY personal thing. I might even go so far as to say that people's sexual preferences are like snowflakes - no two people are turned on by exactly the same thing. And maybe if as a society, we were more aware of just how diverse everyone's tastes are, we'd be more accepting of all of them. And more accepting of ourselves.
I kind of have to thank the LGBT community for being the trailblazers here. It's not easy to be the first to say, "We like something that is different to what you like," so thank you for doing that. Hopefully someday we'll all be able to talk openly about sex and preferences and such without anyone getting hurt.
Thank you, J.M. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)