http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16552173
I suppose you'd have to describe me as hyper-sexual. I would happily have sex numerous times a day every day, and have done in the past.
I certainly experience discrimination if I ever choose to admit how much sex in a relationship means to me. Thankfully the outright disgust is often masked by an assumption that I'm merely lying to be macho, although being thought a liar is hardly the best of responses to a personal confession. I also object to the assumption that I'm a gullible fool who tries to impress people by falling into established stereotypes. It's not a particularly obvious assumption to make for anyone who's ever met me, exposing even more the antipathy people have towards the idea of a high sexual appetite.
I find it sad that we still live in an era of special interest groups appealing for special tolerance, rather than the sort of broad-mindedness that would help anyone who happens to be a bit different.
The last article I saw on the BBC about having a lot of sex was about a sex addict who was preaching to us all how much better he feels not having sex so much. Perhaps the prudish BBC, and the population in general, has some way to go before sexual taste is truly treated as a matter of personal preference. I have no doubt that if there were a special-interest group trying to protect people like myself against discrimination from conservatives and religious nutters we'd be laughed at, and probably rightly so, because we should be campaigning against bigotry in general.
It's frustrating though, to have a worthy article telling us all to accept people with no sexual appetite, and a worthy article telling us all that abstaining from having as much sex as we might feel we need can make us feel fulfilled. It seems all one-way. Why not an article about a loser telling us all how much happier he is now that he earns money and can hire a prostitute every so often? Why not an article by someone like me appealing for tolerance of those who have a high sex drive?
The bias seems obvious to me, in the selection of which well-meaning subjects to publish. The BBC, known for its current habit of putting up an alternative view to any opinion, however wacky that alternative might be, seems to have missed a golden opportunity. If climate change deniers get a slot, despite being utter idiots, I think my opinions should get a slot, being based as they are on a question of taste. Anyone who doubts whether I'll be happy having lots of sex is welcome to set up an experiment to test it.
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Saturday, 8 January 2011
Class and classiness
My second subject for today is about class. Britain is renowned as a class-ridden society, in which no social interaction is without class signals. Kate Fox, in her book 'Watching the English', dissects various aspects of this (amongst the English specifically). The book is not universally liked, but I found it amusing and informative. One recurring feature was the similarity between the working and upper classes, with the middle classes splitting them.
The USA, despite claims to the contrary, seems to me to be more class-ridden than England. Class might not be based on birth or speech, but it has far more influence over people's lives. The most well-known is their attempts to 'keep up with the Joneses' through conspicuous consumption, which is also an unendearing feature of the English middle classes. Conspicuous consumption is very blatantly not about quality, despite the initial descriptions one might encounter. Expensive wine, when blind-tasted, tastes worse to most people than cheap wine. The whole of fashion is the same. It is a way to show off. It is how people show power and superiority, in just the same way as peacocks strut their pretty but pointless tails to peahens.
I had a good friend at university who was visiting for a year abroad. We got along very well; she proved herself to be a rational and sensible person who dealt with my foibles sanely and pleasantly. My reserve wasn't a friendship-breaker: it was an endearing aspect of my culture. This attitude is sadly absent amongst people who actually live in my culture. Perhaps one grows sick of reserve if one deals with it all the time.
She moved to the US and found a good job with a big banking firm, as one would expect for a motivated and intelligent economics major. Like a candle in the wind, her attitudes changed. Being around bankers, what mattered was expense. I should wear expensive clothes, and they should be just what other people wore: tight, v-necked T-shirts and leather loafers. Not one thing could be skipped. In one way, I respect the chameleon-like ability to blend in culturally. On the other hand, it didn't seem conscious: when I objected, I was not met with 'well, it's just the way we do things here', but 'don't be so obnoxious'. Who knows whether she'd just been putting up with England, and had hoped I was the same, or whether her attitudes really did change that much?
It did give me cause to contrast English and American class prejudices. The problem with me being me was that I wasn't 'classy'. My clothes appeared dull, boring and staid, and therefore low class. By not showing off, I was admitting inferiority, and no amount of questioning the implicit assumption that showing-off was necessary not to be inferior could change that belief. English class, on the other hand, operates by speech and taste. One distinguishes oneself as gauche and unclassy by showing-off. It is not genteel; it is protesting too much. It is for the nouveau-riche. Class is in speaking well, in manners and in choosing appropriate items despite cost. It is almost independent of wealth, and given the upper classes' predilection for keeping old items as hand-me-downs, rather than acquiring modern, new replacements, it is possible to live more cheaply in the upper class than in the middle classes.
It seems to me that although neither upper-class has a particularly pleasant outlook on life, the English upper and working classes (in one incarnation) are closer to enlightenment and classlessness than any of the Americans. Inferiority is not dependent on income or spending. The notion of intrinsic inferiority is inherently [incompatible with enlightened intellects...] objectionable. But here in England it is very easy to make the leap from the upper-class disdain for spending and focus on personal traits to a reliance on personality for judging a person's worth, which is how I think it should be done.
I do not think that all people have the same worth. I do think that characteristics such as trustworthiness, kindness and thoughtfulness make a person much more worthy than the opposites. This is a very far cry from American attitudes that suggest that showing off one's body and income implies superiority. It is galling not to be allowed to question this assumption, and I'm glad I live in a country where at least some of the population have the class and wisdom to allow me to do so. Of course, the working class now has disposable income, and even people on benefits compete in these grotesque displays of worth. Similarly, the old class beliefs are dying as the nouveau-riche are no longer nouveau, and so the middle class and American notions of class are spreading in both directions.
It is only amongst the poorest of the poor, such as immigrant workers, and some of the rich, including, I suppose, the academic world, that one can find the classic traits of openness, acceptance of difference and engagement with those differences that make a person truly superior.
That's a nice place to end, but as always I have more to add after my finely-crafted finish. These traits that I appreciate are important for many reasons: they include the questioning of assumptions and therefore the self-controlled imposition of free will over external influences, the deep engagement that constitutes real friendship and relationships that so many people seem to desire, and the judgement of individuals that as well as precluding class markers also eliminates racism and discrimination.
Finally, I have found that many of the nicest people I have met, who display these traits in abundance, were bullied misfits of some sort at school. There is nothing like that sort of upbringing to ingrain the ability to question cultural values, think for oneself, avoid discrimination and accept (other) misfits.
The USA, despite claims to the contrary, seems to me to be more class-ridden than England. Class might not be based on birth or speech, but it has far more influence over people's lives. The most well-known is their attempts to 'keep up with the Joneses' through conspicuous consumption, which is also an unendearing feature of the English middle classes. Conspicuous consumption is very blatantly not about quality, despite the initial descriptions one might encounter. Expensive wine, when blind-tasted, tastes worse to most people than cheap wine. The whole of fashion is the same. It is a way to show off. It is how people show power and superiority, in just the same way as peacocks strut their pretty but pointless tails to peahens.
I had a good friend at university who was visiting for a year abroad. We got along very well; she proved herself to be a rational and sensible person who dealt with my foibles sanely and pleasantly. My reserve wasn't a friendship-breaker: it was an endearing aspect of my culture. This attitude is sadly absent amongst people who actually live in my culture. Perhaps one grows sick of reserve if one deals with it all the time.
She moved to the US and found a good job with a big banking firm, as one would expect for a motivated and intelligent economics major. Like a candle in the wind, her attitudes changed. Being around bankers, what mattered was expense. I should wear expensive clothes, and they should be just what other people wore: tight, v-necked T-shirts and leather loafers. Not one thing could be skipped. In one way, I respect the chameleon-like ability to blend in culturally. On the other hand, it didn't seem conscious: when I objected, I was not met with 'well, it's just the way we do things here', but 'don't be so obnoxious'. Who knows whether she'd just been putting up with England, and had hoped I was the same, or whether her attitudes really did change that much?
It did give me cause to contrast English and American class prejudices. The problem with me being me was that I wasn't 'classy'. My clothes appeared dull, boring and staid, and therefore low class. By not showing off, I was admitting inferiority, and no amount of questioning the implicit assumption that showing-off was necessary not to be inferior could change that belief. English class, on the other hand, operates by speech and taste. One distinguishes oneself as gauche and unclassy by showing-off. It is not genteel; it is protesting too much. It is for the nouveau-riche. Class is in speaking well, in manners and in choosing appropriate items despite cost. It is almost independent of wealth, and given the upper classes' predilection for keeping old items as hand-me-downs, rather than acquiring modern, new replacements, it is possible to live more cheaply in the upper class than in the middle classes.
It seems to me that although neither upper-class has a particularly pleasant outlook on life, the English upper and working classes (in one incarnation) are closer to enlightenment and classlessness than any of the Americans. Inferiority is not dependent on income or spending. The notion of intrinsic inferiority is inherently [incompatible with enlightened intellects...] objectionable. But here in England it is very easy to make the leap from the upper-class disdain for spending and focus on personal traits to a reliance on personality for judging a person's worth, which is how I think it should be done.
I do not think that all people have the same worth. I do think that characteristics such as trustworthiness, kindness and thoughtfulness make a person much more worthy than the opposites. This is a very far cry from American attitudes that suggest that showing off one's body and income implies superiority. It is galling not to be allowed to question this assumption, and I'm glad I live in a country where at least some of the population have the class and wisdom to allow me to do so. Of course, the working class now has disposable income, and even people on benefits compete in these grotesque displays of worth. Similarly, the old class beliefs are dying as the nouveau-riche are no longer nouveau, and so the middle class and American notions of class are spreading in both directions.
It is only amongst the poorest of the poor, such as immigrant workers, and some of the rich, including, I suppose, the academic world, that one can find the classic traits of openness, acceptance of difference and engagement with those differences that make a person truly superior.
That's a nice place to end, but as always I have more to add after my finely-crafted finish. These traits that I appreciate are important for many reasons: they include the questioning of assumptions and therefore the self-controlled imposition of free will over external influences, the deep engagement that constitutes real friendship and relationships that so many people seem to desire, and the judgement of individuals that as well as precluding class markers also eliminates racism and discrimination.
Finally, I have found that many of the nicest people I have met, who display these traits in abundance, were bullied misfits of some sort at school. There is nothing like that sort of upbringing to ingrain the ability to question cultural values, think for oneself, avoid discrimination and accept (other) misfits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)