Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/5/01 3:30:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << Aside from the fact that 'unnatural' is an adjective rather than a noun, there are plenty of living creatures on Earth for whom it is perfectly natural to abstain from reproduction. Many species of the Hymenoptera form colonies of which the overwhelming bulk of the population consists of sterile females. Among vertebrates, deliberate abstention from reproduction has been recorded in Florida scrub jays and at least one species of mole rat.<< Yeppers, but these examples are in the vast minority, and we don't belong to any of them. We are homo sapiens, the subject of the discussion at hand, and among primates, our males not only have the largest sexual organs, but we have no reproductive time. As a species, we can breed virtually anytime, anyplace...something few other mammalian species can lay claim to. If we were scrub jays and mole rats, that would most certainly be unnatural. But we ain't. >>Asexual reproduction is abundant in both animals and plants, including those plants that have turned to apomixy as an alternative to sexual reproduction. Parthenogenesis is a normal mode of reproduction for many insects of the Phasmida and Hemiptera.<< And the reason to proudly emulate phasmida and Hemiptera, mole rats and scrubs jays... would be one's own choice, not subject to criticism. But it would still not be the natural intent of the species. >>Reproduction is universal to all species, but not all individuals of some species, and reproduction does not automatically mean sex. As far as human beings are concerned, sex does not necessarily imply reproduction.<< ...and sex does not necessarily imply 'nasty activity to be avoided and censured, contrary to social mores of the past few centuries. >>And it's 'Homo sapiens' - capital H - not 'homo sapiens'.<< Where shall I put the gold star on your loose leaf paper? >>Whatever your intent, your remark came across as an insult, albeit one not directed personally at me. Not, incidentally, for suggesting that I was somehow 'unnatural', but for the implication that I am somehow a lesser human being for pursuing an essentially celibate lifestyle.<< You read something that is completely absent from both my words and my intent as an 'insult'. Perhaps you are looking for it where none exists. To what purpose, I cannot imagine. >> I get enough of that from the macho idiots I work with, when they're in macho idiot mode (which is thankfully not all the time). There is in fact an awful lot in our lives that is unnatural. Swaddling ourselves in shaped pieces of fabric, including some made from chemically synthesised fibres, is pretty unnatural. So is putting bits of glass in front of our eyes to correct defective vision.<< Exactly! So why would one regard it as an insult to point out that it isn't natural for the human animal to wear glasses or clothing? Is the alternative true? Why would the truth be some sort of personal insult? Most of what human beings do nowadays is not 'natural'. Why else would the phrase 'natural ingredients' be a cause for rare attention, rather than the other way around? If I point out that pole vaulting, synchronized swimming and bungee jumping is not natural to the human species, have I personally insulted all pole vaulters, synchronized swimmers and bungee jumpers? Geez, if you took it that way, I'm sorry for your misimpression. >> I can think of no other creature on Earth that habitually acquires its food encased in tin-plated steel, cardboard or synthesise polymers through the exchange of metal or paper tokens, nor one that habitually labours fixed hours on a weekly basis, regardless of seasonal changes, for no purpose other than the acquisition of this means of exchange. Nor can I think offhand of any species that devotes large quantities of time to discussion of fictional realities that went out of production over two decades previously.<< Exactly! Thank you for proving my point. None of the above are 'natural', nor should those who do any of the above be insulted by the statement of this fact. Why would someone who chooses to behave differently take insult when it's pointed out that they are behaving differently from the natural design? >>There is very little about human beings that is 'natural', so to assert the imperative of one particular aspect of human behaviour (and one that is *not* necessary to any particular individual) on the basis of it being 'natural' is both thoughtless and presumptive about what it means to be human. >> Nope, sorry. The discussion is about sexuality and porn. Seizing upon an interest in graphic sexuality between consenting adults of either sex and branding it as 'unnatural' or evil is simply incorrect, because it's been amply demonstrated to be natural. If one chooses NOT to participate in these interests, they are excersizing their individual taste. Things only become 'unnatural' in the negative sense when they demand that their own taste be imposed on everyone else in their society...whether that society be a nation, or a mailing list. Leah

2 1

Next batch of classic B7 zines has been posted...
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

...on Annie's ongoing eBay auction page. There will be more items going up tonight; keep checking back. Good luck! http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/ashton7/

1 0

Re: CWC
by Steve Rogerson 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Joanne said: << I suggest that this thread be taken off to the Other List at once, seeing as, potentially, it involves large quantities of butter being spread around. Or people with husk-y voices. Or the nefarious practice of "corn on the cob". (Whatever that entails...) >> I don't see any reason why corn should not be placed along side other more general products. You are just trying to marginalise us and we won't have it. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption

2 1

Re: [B7L] Kathryn's convention report/slash
by Tavia 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Neil: >Like I said, Dana's a wind-up merchant I suspect the same could be said of a certain Mr Faulkner. Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: CWC
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/6/01 1:24:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, steve.rogerson(a)mcr1.poptel.org.uk writes: << I don't see any reason why corn should not be placed along side other more general products. You are just trying to marginalise us and we won't have it. >> You meant 'margerineize' , and you know it. You're subtle, wicked and bad to the pone. Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] CWC (corn? what corn?)
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/6/01 8:21:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, una(a)qresearch.org.uk writes: << If this thread proves anything, it's that we are what we wheat. >> Oh no, you don't...we aren't moving along into bread references. That ground has been thoroughly plowed, elsewhere. You win. Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: slash (not much shorter)
by Tavia 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

The usual warning applies.... Fiona: >can you give me an example, either online or on an offlist post? A few (non-Etrix) slash stories I particularly liked when I reread them in the cold calm light of day: The Ballad of Reading Gaol -- Vanessa Mullen (Forbidden Star 1) White Mutiny -- Vanessa Mullen (Forbidden Star 2) Three Times Daily -- Julia Stamford (Forbidden Star 2) The Honest Man -- Bryn Lantry (Fire&Ice IV) The Ghosts of Gauda Prime -- Natasha Solten (Fire&Ice III) Walls -- Nova (Bend Me Shape Me) Dreams of an Insomniac -- Nova (Tales from Space City 2) Fire and Rain -- Nova (Forbidden Star 3) Nightmare -- Jenner (ttba) ****Some of these are pretty explicit**** Tavia

1 0

Slash (Mine's a Large One)
by Dana Shilling 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

D'oh! How could I forget the work of Hera/Hades/Catriona/Legion when discussing slash stories with depth and psychological complexity? -(Y)

1 0

Re: [B7L] Kathryn's convention report/slash
by Tavia 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Neil in response to Dana: >No, what I meant was that his sexual proclivities bear no relation to his >actions as a revolutionary. Although there are scenarios in which one could >argue that his sexuality may have directed him towards becoming a >revolutionary in the first place, a man blowing things up is a man blowing >things up, regardless of whether he prefers to ... [description of possible sexual activities deleted] As I'm sure you're aware, Neil, there's been at least some fanfic written about whether the accusations of paedophilia against Blake reduced his popular support or prevented other resistance groups from allying with Blake's group. If one assumes that the Federation discourages homosexuality -- which I personally consider a very likely possibility -- then Blake's sexual orientation again might be important in terms of limiting popular support for his political cause. I'd hate to get back in the US politics rant, but as a (politically naive) outsider, it seems to me that Clinton would be a case in point -- a leader with charisma and at least some good policies, discussion of whose merits currently appears to be limited to his sexual proclivities. >Well, I'm afraid tastes differ. And who's to say that one's is any better >than another's? If you want to read B7 as a gay soap opera (to quote from >an earlier post of yours) then fine, do so. I can't stop you and it would >be unreasonable of me to want to do so*. But that doesn't mean that B7 *is* >a gay soap opera, merely that you choose to read it as such. Personally I >would consider calling the show a 'soap opera' to be an unconscionable >insult to the series. And if you choose to blind yourself to the wider >and - IMO - more interesting possibilities opened up by relegating sex to >the margins of the action, then that's your loss. I feel I ought to stand up in support of Dana's exceptionally wide-ranging B7 fiction output, which certainly doesn't all fall into the gay soap opera genre. Unfortunately I can't give examples without revealing her pseud. Tavia

4 3

Re: [B7L] Slash
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/6/01 7:18:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2(a)yahoo.com writes: << None of this alters what I said, that sex and pornography are two seperate but related things. A photgraph of me in Paris is not the same thing as me being in Paris. Even if I look at the photograph of me in Paris whilst I am actuallty in Paris, the photpgraph is not the same as me being in Paris. >> We are splitting hairs and arguing semantics. I will just have to scratch my head and continue to wonder how pornography, for you, does not have anything to do with sex, graphic or otherwise...just as I wonder how thinking, being or reading about paris might sometimes have nothing to do with France. Fine, suit yourself. Leah

3 2

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 March 2001