corvus

*gasp* You didn't like Hamlet or Antigone!? I loved Antigone! I agree about Wuthering Heights, though. Couldn't get past the written accent, and then I couldn't get past the feeling that Heathcliff was a bit creepy. I also agree about Brave New World and -- especially -- Beloved. Great book, that was. It kind of broke open my head. I haven't read any of the others except the Stranger, which I'm relatively lukewarm about. I guess I'm not an existentialist!

Thou art a monster, Kevin. In Chinese culture, four is the worst number because it has the same sound as the word for death, though a different tone. You don't need to worry about it though. Umberto Eco in his "Name of the Rose" did a very interesting analysis on the power of numbers. Four was one of them, I believe.

IMO Anne Rice did to vampires what JK Rowling did to wizards and witches -- i.e., reinvented the genre. Very impressive. And I, like Rose, think Rice an awfully stupid cow for her whole "conversion." I wonder what her son thinks. Lol, I used to read that sort of thing a lot -- online, of course. Needed to know more about "my culture," after all.

Lol, I just did this survey. I love how you had to justify why you were without underwear. "Pajamas, remember!" Right...

I'm okay with light PDA's in general, but after a certain point it's like being force fed a scene out of a really bad soap opera. On the other hand, I support gay's showing PDA because, otherwise, it's like they're not there, and I want to know that they exist! It's -- you know -- inspirational.

That, Kevin, is why one should listen to opera. Since opera is always telling a story, the *only* way to properly listen to it is to be engaged in it. Of course, on purely musical terms, it serves adequately as background. But the best experience is when you know the story behind each piece, and can go along with it. That's also why it's so distracting to listen to opera while doing homework. Sigh. Tragic, I know. I don't think we even defined 'gay idol' on this thread, but generally gay idols are strong female characters with a streak of vulnerability underneath. Maria Callas fit the bill on that, I think. The members in the chorus would wet their pants when she went into killer mode for roles like Norma and Medea. She did have a vulnerable side, though, and some people would go on and on about how she sold her life for the love of this Greek shipping tycoon, who dumped her for Mrs. Kennedy. So that is why Callas is my favorite gay idol. A rare bit of film of Callas in 'Tosca' -- the famous murder scene.

I finished Toibin's The Master. Bette Davis once said that Greta Garbo's mastery over the camera was pure witchcraft. The same goes for Toibin's mastery over the page. I don't know how he does it... *shakes head* Right now I'm reading Don Delillo's Mao II, partly for my own enjoyment and partly because Delillo is one of those Important Authors You Should Read (dixit Mr. Harold Bloom). The part of it that's the latter is, sadly, rather high. Delillo is one of those authors who writes things that make you think, 'Oh, so this is the profound part. Mm-hmm.' It's not hopeless, though, and I'm halfway through already.

So back to the topic on hand... Hmm, honestly I don't know. I've never thought about marrying anyone. To me, it's analogous to saying "I love you." There's a lot of baggage contained in that, and unless it comes as a natural outcome of a present feeling, it'd feel very odd and stilted. I probably just have a limited imagination, haha. On the other hand, I can imagine both saying it and it being said to me. Maybe I'm just trying to say that it's a very foreign concept.

I think that's a good mindset to have. At the end of the day, you simply have to please yourself. It doesn't matter how the world adores you, or others think highly of you, you have to recognize it for yourself. That's kind of why I was hesitant about putting that up as a choice -- it's almost a given, an a priori issue. Yeah, the extent to which people affect me shows up most obviously in 'hurtful' or 'negative' ways. It implies that the mindset is that the status quo should be happiness, which could be dangerous. And 'other' would suit for 'other family.' By platonic I meant someone who isn't your parents, children, spouse, etc., as I assume those family members and lovers may very well be your best friends as well. These terms are definitely very ambiguous, and their definitions very lax, but words are symbolic anyway, and I was hoping you'd manage to assign your own substance to the emblems.

What personal relationship affects you the most? I wondered if I should have asked, 'What personal relationship is the most important to you?' but that invites all sorts of moral evaluations and thoughts of should-be and should-not's. This just wants to know what relationship affects you most powerfully. I remember a time when my mom could drive me to tears with a single comment. I once wrote to her, in a very embarrassing letter and when I was very young (haha), that she routinely "raped" my mind. Evidently that was how I felt about it then. Now that I've moved out for college, seen my mother in a different light, and had a questionably successful coming-out episode, I think it's lessened -- or at least changed. But no doubt it's still a very strong tie I have. I haven't got a significant other... although my ex-boyfriend can still drive up my blood pressure. I have very few close friends, and they're very important to me, but I don't think they'd be able to hit me like lightning. Society can be a bitch, but, as I'm in hiding, it doesn't aggress itself on me very much. (Yeah, I made that word up. You know, aggressive?) I think my relationship with myself is also very important. I talk to myself a lot, especially over tea on Sunday afternoons. (Just kidding.) But I think a lot of my happiness depends on how I evaluate myself and my accomplishments (which, of course, are in reflection against my society, friends, and parents). I'm still not sure if this was a great choice to put up, but there it is. So... what about you?

I'm totally celebrating this site being back up. I was on withdrawal for the past couple of days. It was so bad I actually started early on my problem sets. (!!!)

Glad to see you're back. I hope the surgery goes well...!

Same here! It's spring, and my concentration gets shot every time a hot guy walks past. I'm never going to get anything done. :wacko: Most everyone on this thread has claimed that this is superficial and shallow, but it's probably more important than we give it credit for -- physical attraction, that is. I mean, it's almost an a priori issue when it comes to deciding relationships. If you don't feel a physical spark, it's hard to get the romance going. Otherwise, you might as well just marry some girl you were "really good friends with." It's always interesting, then, when you see these factors at play -- 'He's really hot, but our personalities won't mesh;' 'It'd be great to be his boyfriend, but he's just too hairy'.

I should take that personality test, but this piqued my interest. I agree with what you said about self-reflection, Kevin -- I get tons of epiphanies, and I haven't seen a psychiatrist ever. But, a lot of people still do go see psychiatrists -- more, I wager, than the number of people with serious mental disorders/problems -- because it's lovely to hear someone say, 'It's not you, it's your depression/manic bla/OC/etc.' Two strategies give you tremendous power over something: making it an "other," and giving it a name. Once that happens, you can compartmentalize it with guilt-free grace. The problem is, sometimes it makes for temporary solutions, and -- with the whole guilt-free thing -- not taking responsibility for what's, ultimately, your own problem. There's a difference between blaming your depression for your suicide attempt and blaming yourself. Lots of overlap, but still a difference. I guess my overall point is that creating 'problems' and 'disorders' is both a method of self-reflection and a method of coping. It's sometimes a good strategy, and sometimes not.

Good. Glad to know I'm not being a racist bigot, haha. That's amazing, that there's such a hold in the third world country! I've not heard of that. No wonder so many Asian guys have this fear of "yellow fever" -- i.e., white guys taking all the Asian chicks. I think 'positive' is different from 'attractive.' Yes, Asians are stereotypically smarter than everyone else, and higher achievers, blablabla, but how many nerds do you see modeling? The clean but primal edge in jock/athlete types, which I imagine fuels a lot of attraction, is a white male thing.

I disagree with the part I've bolded. I think you can change people's minds, even they don't seem open to change. Sure, the rednecks in homophobic Bible belts probably won't be welcoming gays with open arms any time soon, but if gays exude an image of good Christian faith and home spun values, those good old Baptists would have a much harder time justifying their hatred. (Of course, that's not going to happen any time soon -- unless gay love happens in a socially normative institution, such as marriage, it'll be renegade; and unless it's socially normative, it won't be institutionalized. That's why not being "out" is harmful to gays everywhere -- it maintains homosexuality as a marginal, otherized issue.) The above wasn't really convincing. But I do think people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are good examples of people who headed "positive" change -- in other words, actively tried to prove the worth of their identities -- in other words, "themselves." Actually, the degree to which I agree/disagree depends a lot on how everything is defined, haha.

Hey, I read the two posts you've made already, and they're very interesting/long/amusing, so I hope you're here to stay.

I've read in the news once or twice some school or other exclusively for GLBT people, but I think that's not what old bob is thinking of. Certainly having that sort of exclusive institution doesn't do much for everyone else's tolerance level. I don't agree with Demetz that "tolerance education" is a wasted cause. Firstly, instituting that sort of program is a policy option that's actually feasible -- you can't force parents to teach kids this or that, but you can make schools do so. Secondly, as kids spend half their day at school, what goes on there can't *not* be an influence. Thirdly, and most importantly, my theory for why we have it so hard is because homosexuality is extremely easy to otherize -- that is to say, the concept of "gay people" to most people probably equals garish pride parades, stereotypical hairdressers, and special interest groups. It's a non-people issue. By introducing tolerance education into the public school system, we might chip away at the walls and get *some* sort of integration into the minds of little kids everywhere.

I think the concept of "attraction" merits further definition. There's a difference between thinking a guy is cute/hot and having this fiery gut instinct. That sort of gut instinct, the most visceral and animalistic implication of attraction, comes to me most often w/ Caucasians and Hispanics. My racial domain of "cute" preference (which I'd describe as a lukewarm attraction) is much broader than that, though it doesn't happen to include African Americans. (I feel a tad bit guilty about that. Is it being racist?? :wacko: ) Anyway though, attraction is a very finicky sort of thing. Although you could say my attraction preference leans to individuals outside my own racial group, the only person I've ever had a crush on (yes... I've only had one "emotional" crush, I'd say) is Asian. I do wonder why this is the case. There must be a lot of habituation (i.e. why many people don't find siblings, relatives attractive) and media involvement at work. I mean, you see a lot of hot *white* guys who embody positive values. Much less of other racial groups.

This straddles the edge of OT-ness, but -- for all of you who hate hair on your own body -- is it because you hate *your* body having body hair, or because you find *others* with body hair less attractive? Conversely, do people who are fine with their own body hair feel so because they think body hair is an attractive thing on others? This is one thing that makes homosexuality so interesting. It has to the potential to be very narcissistic.

Yes, and no. Typical answer from me. I do think that, if you want to look for repeated plot elements and character-types, then there's very little that's truly new. However, that's no reason to discount the "trappings" or "variations" that set each story apart. I think those little things are integral to the story as a whole. Often, originality comes more from "how" than "what."

MARIA CALLAS! (Although she's so much more than any such labeling, categorization, iconification, blabla.) Madonna is pretty cool, too. As is ABBA.

Ah, you guys are so weird. It's not that I find hair particularly attractive, and I'm intimidated by The Forest as much as the next guy (or gal), but really... Maybe the relative scales of hairiness are off -- maybe what I consider 'hairy' is actually 'slightly hairy' for you guys. I do wonder what happens to develop these sexual tastes. Some weird thing to do with how hairy the father figure was? I read somewhere that body hair developed evolutionarily as a way of showing clan-relation, or genetic closeness. That would explain why hairy guys aren't really into people of similar hairiness -- there'd be an underlying fear of incest.

People without body hair are in danger of seeming plasticine, prepubescent, and puerile. (No offense except to my generally hairless ex-lover, who was [is?] also a prude and a psychopathic.) Jack Frost -- not all Asians are hairless on the chest. Ex. Indians, and me. PS I staunchly believe that, under all those robes, lady liberty is quite a hairy woman. *waggles eyebrows*

I can say it, but even at my most emotional, even when I've meant it the most, the words have tasted fake. I'm sure circumstances exist in which I'd be able to say them without feeling that way, but said circumstances haven't occurred yet.