…or, “strangeness in Franklin’s email yesterday.”
So. My Web site generates rather a lot of email, some of which tells me I’m going to hell, some of which is incoherent and relentlessy bizarre, but most of which is quite positive.
And then there’s this one, that just arrived:
Came across your website (http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html), and had a strong reaction. I hope you might be interested. This is not your ordinary “you will burn in hell” flame mail.
You have revealed a great deal of yourself online–far more than any properly modest person would do (but you do not regard modesty as a virtue)–and my reaction to that is to analyze and critique what you have revealed. I’m embarrassed, even mortified for you. If ever you actually find a little more wisdom, I think you will look back at your online missives with utter horror for the rest of your life. But of course, stubborn fools die all the time.
The fact that you do not understand how mortifying it is to have so much of yourself, and of your friends, on display is very indicative to me. Once upon a time was nearly as self-revealing as you are, and so I’m motivated to offer you some unsolicited advice.
Your openness about yourself shows more clearly than anything else could that you believe that you are morally “in the clear.” That there’s nothing wrong with you or the way you live. For someone as arrogant as you are, I know that moralizing will not impress or help you in the slightest. The only thing that has a chance of helping you, actually, is a combination of intelligent criticism and real, liberal education (not just reading a lot of books).
You’re perfectly aware of your self-confidence. Among your other writings is a revealing section called “Three easy steps to self-confidence.” Self-confidence is in general, of course, a very good thing. But it seems you have confused positive self-confidence with the capacity to turn off your natural feelings of conscience, i.e., the ability to quell healthy and natural self-doubt. In this way, sociopaths are made, cults are born, and civilizations are ruined.
Every page on your webpage also conveys the message that you think you have it all figured out: you’ve thought it all through, and this is how it’s done. Your Polyamory FAQ is a perfect example. You’ve got it all covered. If you answer all the critical questions cleverly, that shows that polyamory as you approach it is morally OK. The trouble, of course, is that your FAQ proves no such thing. Your FAQ is absolutely full of elementary errors of reasoning and fundamental assumptions, which any sufficiently well-educated person could spot instantly. It is a statement of your personal dogma. The only thing it really proves is to me is that you are, underneath the facade you put on for yourself and others, a very confused person.
That’s why I recommend very strongly that you take some time out and get a real liberal education (from other, sane people–at a university) and learn the habit and virtue of self-examination. It’s quite evident both that you really have not learned that habit and that you think you have learned it. You are evidently reflective, and you pride yourself inordinately on that reflective habit. But you must not confuse a habit for reflection and introspection (i.e., self-indulgent navel-gazing, which any teenage girl can do) with a habit for well-informed, critical self-examination. The latter requires wisdom and critical thinking, which requires liberal education. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you’re an excellent example of why this is so.
Feel free to share this mail with your friends; amuse yourselves with it.”
Now, this is a very interesting piece of email, for a number of reasons. It’s not completely incoherent, but at the same time, I’m having a very difficult time understanding what this guy is saying, aside from the fact that he doesn’t much cotton to folks like me.
He seems to be saying, if I’m reading him correctly, that a deep and abiding sense of personal shame is the only thing that keeps society healthy, and that this deep sense of shame is the result of a proper education. I get the sense that for him, education, privacy, shame, and morality are all connected, and that for him, anyone who is not private both lacks shame and is “confused.”
I also get the sense that there’s a subtext here which suggests that this sense of shame is the only thing which prevents people from behaving unethically. He seems to feel that it’s lack of shame which characterizes a sociopath. (Most psychologists would say that a sociopath is characterized by a lack of empathy and emotional connection with other human beings; I wonder if this person feels that shame and empathy are the same thing, or that one can not connect with others emotionally if one is not shameful.)
An irony here is that he seems to feel a “liberal education” would fix my problems. This is ironic in no small part because I have sex [EDIT: Six! Six years’ worth! Aargh!] years’ worth of college education behind me, much of it a liberal arts education. It’s also ironic because, generally speaking, there is often an inverse correlation between degree of schooling and tendency to adopt socially and religiously conservative views; those who have a liberal education are, statistically speaking, more likely to talk about, and live, in unconventional ways.
Y’know, sometimes I just don’t get the way people think.
because I have sex years’ worth of college education
best typo ever
yeah i caught that and giggled.
Heh. Ever late to the punch. Already commented upon.
even later
I thought so too. Kind of like a… light year? only not.
because I have sex years’ worth of college education
best typo ever
Gosh, I’d summarize this email as follows:
Part 1. “This is not your ordinary ‘you will burn in hell’ flame mail.”
Part 2. Ordinary “you will burn in hell” flame mail (except with better grammar and spelling.)
Gosh, I’d summarize this email as follows:
Part 1. “This is not your ordinary ‘you will burn in hell’ flame mail.”
Part 2. Ordinary “you will burn in hell” flame mail (except with better grammar and spelling.)
I skimmed it,, that’s what I got too.
I skimmed it,, that’s what I got too.
yeah i caught that and giggled.
Heh. Ever late to the punch. Already commented upon.
Yeah, his argument really isn’t clear. He seems to be saying, “If you just think MORE, you’ll think like me” or “I’m dismissing you as unenlightened because you disagree with me.” Accurate?
That’s the impression I get, with a liberal dose of “and it’s clear and obvious why you’re wrong, but I’m not going to provide any counterexamples or any places where I believe it’s clear and obvious that you’re wrong.”
Hey, maybe you should do a Polyamory Weekly segment on ‘how the Weirdo American community perceives polyamory.’
Yeah, his argument really isn’t clear. He seems to be saying, “If you just think MORE, you’ll think like me” or “I’m dismissing you as unenlightened because you disagree with me.” Accurate?
This e-mail raised my eyebrows.. mostly because I also maintain a website that is revealing of myself. So, this person could have written the same thing to me.
While I don’t agree with his assessment of a ‘real’ education aiding to anything or that such self-declarations are over-justifications for morality (although, I’m not thoroughly convinced that he is trying to argue that what you’re doing is immoral); some of his concerns are ones I ask myself regularly for my reason’s behind keeping such a public face and revealing so much about myself.
His line The only thing it really proves is to me is that you are, underneath the facade you put on for yourself and others, a very confused person. is one I reflect on often for myself.
Do I present an image of myself to try and convince others that’s who I am or what I’m doing is right.. or is that really me? And even so, it is only a snap-shot, as I am an evolving person. And why I do I feel a desire to put that image out there? I’d like to think it forces me to think through who I am and what my ideas are.. and by being public about, that process has to be very well considered to be put into words that will be under scrutiny of others. But could I not just be sharing a part of my own process of figuring out confusion with the world at large? I think I do.
I know that you are in a process of deciding what your own approach is towards relationships, now that you find yourself in a post poly-mono situation and able to make your own individual decisions. Could there not be some kernel of truth that your website is in part a piece of your self exploration and accomplished by posting snap shot pieces of how you see to solve the puzzle? You do make proclamations of ‘how it should be done’ – can you honestly say that you follow your own advice all of the time, or that you even understand your own relationship paradigms enough to put rules around them? May he be correct and you are at least slightly confused in some respects to your own life (perhaps not in the ways he’s inferring)?
Me, too.
Leaving aside the point of veiw that the writer seemed to be arguing for (somethig like: “you should be ashamed of yourself, because I came to be from a situation like yours and I need to believe my choice was right”), there are some questions presented which I find worthy of consideration.
Why do I want to tell anyone more about me than they need to know? Am I trying to prove something? If so, what and to whom? Where is the line between [honest, open, unashamed] and [arrogant, immodest, self-righteous]? How do I want to be known to the world? Is it that same as how I am to myself/ intimates? Am I presenting myself publicly as I do privately, or is there conflict?
“Why do I want to tell anyone more about me than they need to know? Am I trying to prove something? If so, what and to whom? Where is the line between [honest, open, unashamed] and [arrogant, immodest, self-righteous]? How do I want to be known to the world? Is it that same as how I am to myself/ intimates? Am I presenting myself publicly as I do privately, or is there conflict?”
Yep, I think those are legitimate questions. Here’s my take
There are a number of reasons why someone might be open about the way he lives, and talk openly about his life and his ideas. And, as with just about anything, some of those reasons are better than others.
I’ve known people who are open, usually to the point of confrontation, about things they believe because they use that openness to conceal insecurity. I suspect that many of the more vocal members of the anti-gay crusade fall into this trap; for example, the people in the American Family Association who argue “We need strong social boundaries against being gay because if we don’t have those, then men will naturally want to be with men and women will naturally want to be with women” (an argument I’ve heard a surprising number of times) are, I think, saying “without strong social stigma aganst being gay, I’d be gay, and I don’t want that because being gay is bad.”
There are people who are open abut their lives, and particularly about their sexuality, because it’s exciting; because they fetishize or eroticise being open, and because that openness is a sort of intellectual exhibitionism. The journal of is a great example; though it is no longer being updated, and there are posts scattered here and there on mundane topics, that journal was for the most part created by its author as a public record of her (very interesting and unusual) sex life. It’s clear that she eroticised writing it, and it’s clear that most of the readers received a sexual experience from reading it. I imagine the person who emailed me would be quite appalled by it.
And then there are people who are open and public for reasons that are more practical. Alfred Kinsey shocked and horrified the public by publishing several books about sex, but his goal was strictly scientific; he realized that very little was known about the human sexual experience, and as a result, a great deal of advice and counselling that was given to people about sex and sexuality was based on stereotype, guesswork, prejudice, prevailing social standards, and ignorance, and as a result was ineffective or downright wrongheaded.
I know that I am open about the things I do and believe in for several reasons, the two biggest of those being that I feel my sexual identity is a fundamental part of who I am and I will not conceal who I am; and that I am deliberately seeking to counter the idea that there is only one right way to live.
Being kinky and polyamorous is a fundamental part of me; a person who does not know this about me does not know me. It is not necessary for everyone to know me, of course; the relationship I have with my dentist or with the person who rings up my food at McDonald’s doesn’t rely on either of us really knowing anything about the other, and I don’t share these things with those people. But I do share them with people in my social circle.
More importantly, though, there is not one right way to love. There are alternatives to monogamous heterosexual dyadic families, and these alternatives are every bit as valid and rewarding (and ethical!) as conventional monogamous heterosexual dyadic families. However, because only monogamous heterosexual dyadic families are socially accepted, there are only support structures in place for those kinds of families; anyone else is pretty much on his own. I try to create resources for people who are polyamorous and kinky, because I think that my own life would have been a lot easier (and many of the mistakes I have made would not have been made) had I had a community of people like me.
One of the consequences to doing this is that one must be willing to speak from his own personal experience; relationship advice or ideas that are theoretical but not grounded in actual experience aren’t very useful, and ultimately, we all speak from our own experience anyway.
I think there’s a difference between saying “I am an evolving person and these are my thoughts as I’ve figured them out so far” (which is, I believe, true of anyone who is intellectually honest) and “Anyone who does not think like I do is confused.” It’s been my experience (so far!) that when someone, particularly someone who is socially or religiously conservative, says ‘You’re confused,” what he actually means by that is “You only believe you are happy even though you do not think the way I think–if you did become enlightened enough to think the way I think, you would realize how wrong you are right now.”
That’s where I think this person is coming from. I don’t believe that he’s telling me I’m confused because my ideas are still being developed (which they are, and I hope that process continues as long as I’m alive). I think he’s telling me I’m onfused because I seem to be quite content to live life in a way that he responds negatively to, so he operates from the assumption that my happiness must be a delusion.
I think there are a lot of reasons why someone might keep a public face, though I’m going to go into that in the comment below…
This e-mail raised my eyebrows.. mostly because I also maintain a website that is revealing of myself. So, this person could have written the same thing to me.
While I don’t agree with his assessment of a ‘real’ education aiding to anything or that such self-declarations are over-justifications for morality (although, I’m not thoroughly convinced that he is trying to argue that what you’re doing is immoral); some of his concerns are ones I ask myself regularly for my reason’s behind keeping such a public face and revealing so much about myself.
His line The only thing it really proves is to me is that you are, underneath the facade you put on for yourself and others, a very confused person. is one I reflect on often for myself.
Do I present an image of myself to try and convince others that’s who I am or what I’m doing is right.. or is that really me? And even so, it is only a snap-shot, as I am an evolving person. And why I do I feel a desire to put that image out there? I’d like to think it forces me to think through who I am and what my ideas are.. and by being public about, that process has to be very well considered to be put into words that will be under scrutiny of others. But could I not just be sharing a part of my own process of figuring out confusion with the world at large? I think I do.
I know that you are in a process of deciding what your own approach is towards relationships, now that you find yourself in a post poly-mono situation and able to make your own individual decisions. Could there not be some kernel of truth that your website is in part a piece of your self exploration and accomplished by posting snap shot pieces of how you see to solve the puzzle? You do make proclamations of ‘how it should be done’ – can you honestly say that you follow your own advice all of the time, or that you even understand your own relationship paradigms enough to put rules around them? May he be correct and you are at least slightly confused in some respects to your own life (perhaps not in the ways he’s inferring)?
What I think this person is saying is (to quote a fairly famous song)
“oh lord…it’s hard to be humble,
…when yure perfect in ev-ery waaay.
Cain’t wait to look in the mirror,
’cause I get better lookin’ each dayyyy.
Some say I’m egotistical,
hell I don’t even know what that means…
Oh Lord, it’s hard to be humble,but….
I’m doin the best that I can.”
In other words, being very confident comes across as arrogant and arrogance is abrasive to anyone who doesn’t take the time to know a person and whether or not the arrogance is promlugated complete or sans malice.
This particular smackdown breaks down when you consider the target. Heck, I’ve met Franklin several times and confident yes, arrogant, no. It’s hard (for people like Franklin) to talk to (many) people when you’re a screaming genius. I should know.
‘oohhhhhh….c’mon sing it with me…
LORD…IT’S HARD TO BE HUMBLE….’
🙂
What I think this person is saying is (to quote a fairly famous song)
“oh lord…it’s hard to be humble,
…when yure perfect in ev-ery waaay.
Cain’t wait to look in the mirror,
’cause I get better lookin’ each dayyyy.
Some say I’m egotistical,
hell I don’t even know what that means…
Oh Lord, it’s hard to be humble,but….
I’m doin the best that I can.”
In other words, being very confident comes across as arrogant and arrogance is abrasive to anyone who doesn’t take the time to know a person and whether or not the arrogance is promlugated complete or sans malice.
This particular smackdown breaks down when you consider the target. Heck, I’ve met Franklin several times and confident yes, arrogant, no. It’s hard (for people like Franklin) to talk to (many) people when you’re a screaming genius. I should know.
‘oohhhhhh….c’mon sing it with me…
LORD…IT’S HARD TO BE HUMBLE….’
🙂
What I find most interesting in this email is simply…. projection, much?
What bothers me most is the complete lack of actual examples within the “critique”, especially in the context of this sentance: Your FAQ is absolutely full of elementary errors of reasoning and fundamental assumptions, which any sufficiently well-educated person could spot instantly.
I don’t agree with him, but let’s assume that he’s right: Any conversation, viewpoint, perspective, etc. has fundamental assumtions. If we didn’t make fundamental assumptions (such as assuming that when someone says “Hello” they generally don’t mean “I’m going to gut you like a deer”), there would be NO communications whatsoever.
Also, for someone who is critiquing you on fundamental assumptions, he/she seems fling alot of them around.
And since when is self-doubt all that f’ing healthy?!
Edit: Assuming that he COULD have a point, etc. etc…
I think you’ve hit upon an important point. Why doesn’t he cite a single example to back up *any* of his points?
Additionally, as has been pointed out, there is a strong correlation between education and acceptance of/openness to alternative lifestyles. This is a documented fact, as I learned while studying the General Social Survey as a part of my own “liberal education.” 😉
I do think that this person should be given props for not being crude or evangelical. At least the criticisms are being delivered with civility.
For the record, I do think that Franklin has a tendancy toward arrogance and a belief that his way is the One True Way, but given that he’s absolutely dead-on right 99% of the time I think it’s understandable. Additionally, I only feel justified in forming an opinion about this because I’ve known him personally for years, consider him a very good friend, have on occassion emphatically disagreed with him, respect him enormously, am in regularly in awe of him. I can’t see how someone who only has access to one’s web site- even one as extensive as Franklin’s- can proclaim to have insight into one’s inner psyche.
*THAT* is true arrogance!
“I do think that this person should be given props for not being crude or evangelical.“
Crude he wasn’t, but I take exception for his lack of evangelism. Look how he opens:
True, it isn’t ordinary; but it is a vague and backdoor “burn in hell” missive.
He also knows no amount of moralizing will work, so he obfuscates the moralizing with tantalizing tidbits designed to titillate a questing soul.
By refering constantly to Franklin as “confused” and hiding behind a shroud of rakish arrogance, and by constantly refering to others as “sane” and wise — without, as you say, describing to Franklin their particular wisdom or sanity compared to him — he is snidely assuming himself, not Franklin, to be correct.
That is one of the hallmarks of evangelism, certainty of belief. Evangelists use this projection of certainty to bull through the doubts of those filled with doubt.
By in essence questioning the sincerity of Frankin’s resolve regarding his stated lifestyle, this guy or gal is fishing for a weak spirit to guide to the light. Totally evangelistic.
What I find most interesting in this email is simply…. projection, much?
What bothers me most is the complete lack of actual examples within the “critique”, especially in the context of this sentance: Your FAQ is absolutely full of elementary errors of reasoning and fundamental assumptions, which any sufficiently well-educated person could spot instantly.
I don’t agree with him, but let’s assume that he’s right: Any conversation, viewpoint, perspective, etc. has fundamental assumtions. If we didn’t make fundamental assumptions (such as assuming that when someone says “Hello” they generally don’t mean “I’m going to gut you like a deer”), there would be NO communications whatsoever.
Also, for someone who is critiquing you on fundamental assumptions, he/she seems fling alot of them around.
And since when is self-doubt all that f’ing healthy?!
Edit: Assuming that he COULD have a point, etc. etc…
You have good reason to be baffled.
The letter blames your lack of shame. Reminiscent of Catholic shame. So easily you expose yourself, your feelings, and your life for which you should be blamed. Because of easily accepting yourself and being confident in the personal choices made, denotes a lack of conscience rather than a good sense of conscience. Lack of conscience plays heavily into the lack of morality and shame.
I have to amend, I haven’t read any of your webpage. I flisted you based on a posted link of a friend and like your take on a number of issues. People have a right to happy with personal choices. People have a right to voice opinions about whatever they want be it right or wrong. Each person decides what is wrong or right for themselves.
The letter is personally baffling because the writer seems to attribute issues with your openness and opinions to your lack of proper education. What I see in the letter is a writer who is unable to express personal thoughts and feelings due to the long term societal guilt placed upon us from birth. Maybe you can be taught shame and guilt from a liberal university? Learning is a life long aspiration, it never stops. Being able to happy with oneself against the constraints of culture, religion, and society is a life long struggle.
How did your site get to the writer’s browser? What was he searching for?
You have good reason to be baffled.
The letter blames your lack of shame. Reminiscent of Catholic shame. So easily you expose yourself, your feelings, and your life for which you should be blamed. Because of easily accepting yourself and being confident in the personal choices made, denotes a lack of conscience rather than a good sense of conscience. Lack of conscience plays heavily into the lack of morality and shame.
I have to amend, I haven’t read any of your webpage. I flisted you based on a posted link of a friend and like your take on a number of issues. People have a right to happy with personal choices. People have a right to voice opinions about whatever they want be it right or wrong. Each person decides what is wrong or right for themselves.
The letter is personally baffling because the writer seems to attribute issues with your openness and opinions to your lack of proper education. What I see in the letter is a writer who is unable to express personal thoughts and feelings due to the long term societal guilt placed upon us from birth. Maybe you can be taught shame and guilt from a liberal university? Learning is a life long aspiration, it never stops. Being able to happy with oneself against the constraints of culture, religion, and society is a life long struggle.
How did your site get to the writer’s browser? What was he searching for?
The fact that you do not understand how mortifying it is to have so much of yourself, and of your friends, on display is very indicative to me. Once upon a time was nearly as self-revealing as you are, and so I’m motivated to offer you some unsolicited advice.
Nothing like the fervor of the converted, I would say… except that he does not explain what brought him to his great change. It couldn’t merely have been “a liberal education”.
I’m also suspicious of people with agendas who “happen upon” websites that spontaneously incite them to compose some sort of missionary epistle worthy of Paul himself. He’s trying to save you. How nice. Only, missionaries don’t just show up. They go looking for people to save.
Still not sure what he’s selling here. But perhaps he just can’t bring himself to reveal that much. It would be immodest.
The fact that you do not understand how mortifying it is to have so much of yourself, and of your friends, on display is very indicative to me. Once upon a time was nearly as self-revealing as you are, and so I’m motivated to offer you some unsolicited advice.
Nothing like the fervor of the converted, I would say… except that he does not explain what brought him to his great change. It couldn’t merely have been “a liberal education”.
I’m also suspicious of people with agendas who “happen upon” websites that spontaneously incite them to compose some sort of missionary epistle worthy of Paul himself. He’s trying to save you. How nice. Only, missionaries don’t just show up. They go looking for people to save.
Still not sure what he’s selling here. But perhaps he just can’t bring himself to reveal that much. It would be immodest.
He makes lots of references to your various errors of thinking, but never says specifically what they are (because, of course, they’re so obvious that “any sufficiently well-educated person could spot [them] instantly”). Hmph. I think he really means “any sufficiently well-indoctrinated person would know that they had been told that all this stuff is bad and that’s that.” I have a feelings that what this person refers to as “liberal education” would have an awful lot of focus on one particular book, of dubious origin.
“Sex years” of college education, eh? Damn, I must have gone to the wrong college. 🙂
He makes lots of references to your various errors of thinking, but never says specifically what they are (because, of course, they’re so obvious that “any sufficiently well-educated person could spot [them] instantly”). Hmph. I think he really means “any sufficiently well-indoctrinated person would know that they had been told that all this stuff is bad and that’s that.” I have a feelings that what this person refers to as “liberal education” would have an awful lot of focus on one particular book, of dubious origin.
“Sex years” of college education, eh? Damn, I must have gone to the wrong college. 🙂
I think you’ve hit upon an important point. Why doesn’t he cite a single example to back up *any* of his points?
Additionally, as has been pointed out, there is a strong correlation between education and acceptance of/openness to alternative lifestyles. This is a documented fact, as I learned while studying the General Social Survey as a part of my own “liberal education.” 😉
I do think that this person should be given props for not being crude or evangelical. At least the criticisms are being delivered with civility.
For the record, I do think that Franklin has a tendancy toward arrogance and a belief that his way is the One True Way, but given that he’s absolutely dead-on right 99% of the time I think it’s understandable. Additionally, I only feel justified in forming an opinion about this because I’ve known him personally for years, consider him a very good friend, have on occassion emphatically disagreed with him, respect him enormously, am in regularly in awe of him. I can’t see how someone who only has access to one’s web site- even one as extensive as Franklin’s- can proclaim to have insight into one’s inner psyche.
*THAT* is true arrogance!
One thing about this persons email really bugged me.
“That’s why I recommend very strongly that you take some time out and get a real liberal education (from other, sane people–at a university) and learn the habit and virtue of self-examination.”
What is a real liberal education? One that gives you a degree at the end so you can actually have a career or one that is a pretty wall hanging? I’d also like to know where are sane people at University? How does academic learning equate to sanity? As for developing this habit and virtue of self-examination, wouldn’t one be better off going and doing personal development rather than University? Plenty of huff and puff but absolutely no logic, no examples to explain the reasoning and no persuasive argument to make you even consider changing the way you present yourself.
In Australia, we call people like the author of this email “wankers, nongs and up-themselves dickheads”.
How does academic learning equate to sanity?
At a guess, I’d say that it’s an inverse relationship.
One thing about this persons email really bugged me.
“That’s why I recommend very strongly that you take some time out and get a real liberal education (from other, sane people–at a university) and learn the habit and virtue of self-examination.”
What is a real liberal education? One that gives you a degree at the end so you can actually have a career or one that is a pretty wall hanging? I’d also like to know where are sane people at University? How does academic learning equate to sanity? As for developing this habit and virtue of self-examination, wouldn’t one be better off going and doing personal development rather than University? Plenty of huff and puff but absolutely no logic, no examples to explain the reasoning and no persuasive argument to make you even consider changing the way you present yourself.
In Australia, we call people like the author of this email “wankers, nongs and up-themselves dickheads”.
even later
This guy’s scary. Not only is he “one of them”, but he *sounds* intelligent. I prefer “them” to be frothing-at-the-mouth loonies that no respectable person pays any attention to. People who are able to sound reasonable and credible while still being wrongheaded are very dangerous, IMO.
This guy’s scary. Not only is he “one of them”, but he *sounds* intelligent. I prefer “them” to be frothing-at-the-mouth loonies that no respectable person pays any attention to. People who are able to sound reasonable and credible while still being wrongheaded are very dangerous, IMO.
I thought so too. Kind of like a… light year? only not.
Modesty is not exactly what you’d call high on the list of modern American values, anyway… I mean, look what teenage girls are wearing these days! Look at reality TV! Look at tell-all exposes! Modesty, while, I think, a reasonable virtue, is pretty much outmoded.
I mean, look what teenage girls are wearing these days!
Mmmm… yeah…
Oh cruft! I’ve gone and missed the point again, haven’t I? 😉
Modesty is not exactly what you’d call high on the list of modern American values, anyway… I mean, look what teenage girls are wearing these days! Look at reality TV! Look at tell-all exposes! Modesty, while, I think, a reasonable virtue, is pretty much outmoded.
I mean, look what teenage girls are wearing these days!
Mmmm… yeah…
Oh cruft! I’ve gone and missed the point again, haven’t I? 😉
How does academic learning equate to sanity?
At a guess, I’d say that it’s an inverse relationship.
As others have said, he never actually gets to his point. As in WHY it’s immodest. Just that it is. Of course his response might be that he doesn’t have to, it’s apparent to ANY reponsible truly “liberally educated” person.
I wonder what he’d make of me since I DO have BA.
As others have said, he never actually gets to his point. As in WHY it’s immodest. Just that it is. Of course his response might be that he doesn’t have to, it’s apparent to ANY reponsible truly “liberally educated” person.
I wonder what he’d make of me since I DO have BA.
Me, too.
Leaving aside the point of veiw that the writer seemed to be arguing for (somethig like: “you should be ashamed of yourself, because I came to be from a situation like yours and I need to believe my choice was right”), there are some questions presented which I find worthy of consideration.
Why do I want to tell anyone more about me than they need to know? Am I trying to prove something? If so, what and to whom? Where is the line between [honest, open, unashamed] and [arrogant, immodest, self-righteous]? How do I want to be known to the world? Is it that same as how I am to myself/ intimates? Am I presenting myself publicly as I do privately, or is there conflict?
Well structured sentences.
Thoughtful tone.
Total bollocks.
Tacit, don’t spend much time with crap e-mails like that one.
.
Heh. Probably good advice there. 🙂
Well structured sentences.
Thoughtful tone.
Total bollocks.
Tacit, don’t spend much time with crap e-mails like that one.
.
That’s the impression I get, with a liberal dose of “and it’s clear and obvious why you’re wrong, but I’m not going to provide any counterexamples or any places where I believe it’s clear and obvious that you’re wrong.”
Hey, maybe you should do a Polyamory Weekly segment on ‘how the Weirdo American community perceives polyamory.’
I think there’s a difference between saying “I am an evolving person and these are my thoughts as I’ve figured them out so far” (which is, I believe, true of anyone who is intellectually honest) and “Anyone who does not think like I do is confused.” It’s been my experience (so far!) that when someone, particularly someone who is socially or religiously conservative, says ‘You’re confused,” what he actually means by that is “You only believe you are happy even though you do not think the way I think–if you did become enlightened enough to think the way I think, you would realize how wrong you are right now.”
That’s where I think this person is coming from. I don’t believe that he’s telling me I’m confused because my ideas are still being developed (which they are, and I hope that process continues as long as I’m alive). I think he’s telling me I’m onfused because I seem to be quite content to live life in a way that he responds negatively to, so he operates from the assumption that my happiness must be a delusion.
I think there are a lot of reasons why someone might keep a public face, though I’m going to go into that in the comment below…
“Why do I want to tell anyone more about me than they need to know? Am I trying to prove something? If so, what and to whom? Where is the line between [honest, open, unashamed] and [arrogant, immodest, self-righteous]? How do I want to be known to the world? Is it that same as how I am to myself/ intimates? Am I presenting myself publicly as I do privately, or is there conflict?”
Yep, I think those are legitimate questions. Here’s my take
There are a number of reasons why someone might be open about the way he lives, and talk openly about his life and his ideas. And, as with just about anything, some of those reasons are better than others.
I’ve known people who are open, usually to the point of confrontation, about things they believe because they use that openness to conceal insecurity. I suspect that many of the more vocal members of the anti-gay crusade fall into this trap; for example, the people in the American Family Association who argue “We need strong social boundaries against being gay because if we don’t have those, then men will naturally want to be with men and women will naturally want to be with women” (an argument I’ve heard a surprising number of times) are, I think, saying “without strong social stigma aganst being gay, I’d be gay, and I don’t want that because being gay is bad.”
There are people who are open abut their lives, and particularly about their sexuality, because it’s exciting; because they fetishize or eroticise being open, and because that openness is a sort of intellectual exhibitionism. The journal of is a great example; though it is no longer being updated, and there are posts scattered here and there on mundane topics, that journal was for the most part created by its author as a public record of her (very interesting and unusual) sex life. It’s clear that she eroticised writing it, and it’s clear that most of the readers received a sexual experience from reading it. I imagine the person who emailed me would be quite appalled by it.
And then there are people who are open and public for reasons that are more practical. Alfred Kinsey shocked and horrified the public by publishing several books about sex, but his goal was strictly scientific; he realized that very little was known about the human sexual experience, and as a result, a great deal of advice and counselling that was given to people about sex and sexuality was based on stereotype, guesswork, prejudice, prevailing social standards, and ignorance, and as a result was ineffective or downright wrongheaded.
I know that I am open about the things I do and believe in for several reasons, the two biggest of those being that I feel my sexual identity is a fundamental part of who I am and I will not conceal who I am; and that I am deliberately seeking to counter the idea that there is only one right way to live.
Being kinky and polyamorous is a fundamental part of me; a person who does not know this about me does not know me. It is not necessary for everyone to know me, of course; the relationship I have with my dentist or with the person who rings up my food at McDonald’s doesn’t rely on either of us really knowing anything about the other, and I don’t share these things with those people. But I do share them with people in my social circle.
More importantly, though, there is not one right way to love. There are alternatives to monogamous heterosexual dyadic families, and these alternatives are every bit as valid and rewarding (and ethical!) as conventional monogamous heterosexual dyadic families. However, because only monogamous heterosexual dyadic families are socially accepted, there are only support structures in place for those kinds of families; anyone else is pretty much on his own. I try to create resources for people who are polyamorous and kinky, because I think that my own life would have been a lot easier (and many of the mistakes I have made would not have been made) had I had a community of people like me.
One of the consequences to doing this is that one must be willing to speak from his own personal experience; relationship advice or ideas that are theoretical but not grounded in actual experience aren’t very useful, and ultimately, we all speak from our own experience anyway.
Heh. Probably good advice there. 🙂
“I do think that this person should be given props for not being crude or evangelical.“
Crude he wasn’t, but I take exception for his lack of evangelism. Look how he opens:
True, it isn’t ordinary; but it is a vague and backdoor “burn in hell” missive.
He also knows no amount of moralizing will work, so he obfuscates the moralizing with tantalizing tidbits designed to titillate a questing soul.
By refering constantly to Franklin as “confused” and hiding behind a shroud of rakish arrogance, and by constantly refering to others as “sane” and wise — without, as you say, describing to Franklin their particular wisdom or sanity compared to him — he is snidely assuming himself, not Franklin, to be correct.
That is one of the hallmarks of evangelism, certainty of belief. Evangelists use this projection of certainty to bull through the doubts of those filled with doubt.
By in essence questioning the sincerity of Frankin’s resolve regarding his stated lifestyle, this guy or gal is fishing for a weak spirit to guide to the light. Totally evangelistic.
“That’s why I recommend very strongly that you take some time out and get a real liberal education (from other, sane people–at a university). . . .“
Oh, now I get it. We all thought he meant “university” like the kind most of us attended/are attending.
He meant Bob Jones U or Trinity College.
Duh.
“That’s why I recommend very strongly that you take some time out and get a real liberal education (from other, sane people–at a university). . . .“
Oh, now I get it. We all thought he meant “university” like the kind most of us attended/are attending.
He meant Bob Jones U or Trinity College.
Duh.
Well.. not to give credence were I oughtn’t.. there is a good point in there somewhere about modesty and self reflection.
I think I’ve read most of the site and while I tend to agree with much of what is written, enjoy the tone, and smile to myself as I scan – it is written very much from a strong ‘this is what works’ first person viewpoint were the confidence can be interpreted as arrogance and the lack of repeated (and milquetoast) caveats that another way might work could be seen as having not given complicated topics a thorough examination.
That said.. I think you would have to be looking for something to be disapproving of to interpret the writing that way and the feedback only serves to demonstrate the difference in the hierarchy of values rather than work as anything like criticism.
What the email sparked in me, however, was an issue I wrestle with.. where I have a tendency to obfuscate my own (inner) thoughts and feelings by confounding someone with large volumes of truth and information so they are distracted from seeing within me. This sometimes has an appearance of immodesty and lack of shame or keeping close council on things that are sacred and beautiful.. Similarly I behave and engage the world confidently (and the confidence is real.. it just isn’t in-total) and eschew letting on about my faults and fears. That omission, to me, is about becoming the person I choose to be. That omission, to some, is being false and fake.
Well.. not to give credence were I oughtn’t.. there is a good point in there somewhere about modesty and self reflection.
I think I’ve read most of the site and while I tend to agree with much of what is written, enjoy the tone, and smile to myself as I scan – it is written very much from a strong ‘this is what works’ first person viewpoint were the confidence can be interpreted as arrogance and the lack of repeated (and milquetoast) caveats that another way might work could be seen as having not given complicated topics a thorough examination.
That said.. I think you would have to be looking for something to be disapproving of to interpret the writing that way and the feedback only serves to demonstrate the difference in the hierarchy of values rather than work as anything like criticism.
What the email sparked in me, however, was an issue I wrestle with.. where I have a tendency to obfuscate my own (inner) thoughts and feelings by confounding someone with large volumes of truth and information so they are distracted from seeing within me. This sometimes has an appearance of immodesty and lack of shame or keeping close council on things that are sacred and beautiful.. Similarly I behave and engage the world confidently (and the confidence is real.. it just isn’t in-total) and eschew letting on about my faults and fears. That omission, to me, is about becoming the person I choose to be. That omission, to some, is being false and fake.
Cloudiness in ice cubes is the result of dissolved air in the water, which is displaced and forms thousands of tiny bubbles when the water freezes. Boiling the water drives out the dissolved air, which produces ice that is transparent when it freezes.
If only the MythBusters had know! Heh.
Spiff article. I’ll have to try it sometime.
Cloudiness in ice cubes is the result of dissolved air in the water, which is displaced and forms thousands of tiny bubbles when the water freezes. Boiling the water drives out the dissolved air, which produces ice that is transparent when it freezes.
If only the MythBusters had know! Heh.
Spiff article. I’ll have to try it sometime.
Thank you sir!
Thank you sir!