(no subject)

[deckardcanine]

I take interest whenever I hear of evidence of a continuing trend in racism, sexism, or a similar ism. In a way, knowing about them gives me a perverse kind of pleasure, like I can use it as a comeback for those who seem to think we've advanced enough socially.

Many of the trends that I've heard about in the last couple years have connections to show business, which is hardly surprising when you consider that certain roles pretty much require a given racial appearance, etc. The "Hollywood White-Out" may have declined -- at least, I haven't heard about it since 2000 -- but there are still many movies with a Magic Negro, a flawless, pastless Black character who exists chiefly to help a White character with self-realization (Peter Jackson's King Kong, anyone?). These days, a non-White actor who doesn't request otherwise typically is given a costar of a different race in order to tell the audience that it's not just a "Black film" or whatnot. Black men (but not women) almost never get sex scenes, presumably because White men feel threatened by a show of that kind of power, or else they just think it's gross. There's a coolest man in the world most of the time (presently George Clooney), but women always have to settle for being the hottest at best. The masses are largely to blame for these iniquities; producers just go along with them.

I bring this up now because I'm not sure what to make of what I saw in the Express two days ago. The article is called "Love Can Reeeeally Hurt," subtitled "Your handy guide to getting it on without permanent injuries." (No, I am not opposed to such articles being buried in a free family newspaper.) The accompanying photo shows a dark brown man's chest and abs with a fair-skinned hand clutching them. Are they using diversity for maximum demographic appeal? Was it the sexiest male torso with the sexiest feminine hand they could find? Or is it a subtle suggestion that a Black man having sex with a White woman is a recipe for disaster? That is traditionally the most despised pairing, is it not? Think back a few weeks to the notorious attack ad on Harold Ford....

Eh, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. So far, there haven't been any letters to the editor on anything connected with the article.

Comments

[ruediix.livejournal.com]

Mind if I quote from one of those movies?

"A person is smart, but people are stupid aggressive animals, and you know it"

I think that has to do with it. The entire complex of society is not the same as the individual people.

Society is very slow to change, even if the vast majority individual people change, the noisy minority of extremists can make a lot of influence. I have to say racism is a lot less now than in the past, but I know VERY well that racism is still extremely common. However, eliminating this too quickly will only really suppress the problem, thus leading to backlash. This is not a wise idea.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

If you're citing Men in Black, I believe the exact quote is, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous creatures, and you know it."

[ruediix.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the correction.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Indeed. A church, a congress, and a corporation will do things that their individual members would not. They aren't inherently evil, but "distributed responsibility" is not particularly effective.

Europe is experiencing the effects of the suppression you describe; they've collectively decided that honor killings and female genital manipulation are OK with them, because the alternative -- objecting to these crimes -- might cause them to be considered "racist".

===|==============/ Level Head

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

RH Junior has talked about this recently in comic strips and forums. He may have questionable politics and be difficult to get along with, but he's right that many people sacrifice too much judgment in the name of cultural tolerance.

Thanks for reading my journal, BTW.

[ruediix.livejournal.com]

Female genital manipulations? I haven't heard of that one. I'm against any forced elective surgery.

The common male genital manipulation is actually quite painful, believe it or not. Interestingly, it is sometimes done to reduce risk of certain infections, and other times to change the person's "sexual feel."

One of my other pet-peeves is the pressure to conform in behavior. For instance, people seem to think all humans HAVE to be sexually active or they are depriving themselves. I have to say that my sexual status of virgin on my wedding night is proof of that, and the fact that I spent a month and a half with only foreplay before having intercourse as even further proof.

Intolerance of admitting certain extremes and even the suppression of those extremes, and then the common forcing other extremes onto others is an awful pattern in society.

Often I find that not only are neither side completely right, but both sides, in their insistence that every point made by the other is false, makes both sides severely wrong and misguided. If we just took a cue from nature and used a far lighter touch, we would be able to do a lot better work.

Big infrastructures made out of millions of people like Companies, Governments and Churches all have a tendency to make better support structures and safety nets, than actual enforcers of all but the most essential rules of human existence, which are clear and well defined in almost all cases.

Small people and organizations should instead be in charge of influencing change for the better in the world, and larger organizations should just provide a world in which they can work without fear.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Welcome!

Female genital manipulations? I haven't heard of that one.

It is a large problem in Europe and the Middle East -- whereas most in the US think of it as an "African quirk".

For some quick exposure, Google[genital mutilation Europe]. Interestingly, a BBC apologetic article shows up near the top of this list, in which almost every assertion made about the problem is completely false. You will see that as you read the other topics.

===|==============/ Level Head

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Often I find that not only are neither side completely right, but both sides, in their insistence that every point made by the other is false, makes both sides severely wrong and misguided.

I'd generally agree -- but there are occasions in which the falsehoods put out by a particular source are large and blatant and worth pointing out.

However, I do seek to gather information from all sides of an argument, and often find it quite interesting to hear a presentation from someone of a different viewpoint. To me, an important thing is the data -- and to how many decimal points.

===|==============/ Level Head

[ruediix.livejournal.com]

Well, also the accuracy of the assumptions.

"Cows cause more global warming than cars" Is partially true, they cause more greenhouse gasses by far, but they produce methane, which is biodegradable, and returns to the soil from which it came, while CO, CO2, SuO2 produced by cars remains in the atmosphere for extended periods of time, and even when it gets back to the soil, it had come from deep underground, not from the soil.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

The issues involved here are ... rather more complex, I think, than the presentation offered. But we should save this for another time, and not burden our host with yet another runaway thread. ];-)

===|==============/ Level Head

[level-head.livejournal.com]

One of my other pet-peeves is the pressure to conform in behavior. For instance, people seem to think all humans HAVE to be sexually active or they are depriving themselves. I have to say that my sexual status of virgin on my wedding night is proof of that...

I have rather old-fashioned notions of respect and chivalry myself. But I'm a bit confused by the wording here.

Are the statements proof that ... you have the pet peeve, or proof of the pressure? Congratulations, incidentally, on holding to your own code of behavior in the face of that pressure.

===|==============/ Level Head

[ruediix.livejournal.com]

Sort of both, and wow you are as chatty as me.

I'll drop by your blog later.

There was a recent Maury episode where there was a psychologist claiming that a man needed treatment because he had absolutely no interest in sex. She chocked it up to Asperger's syndrome (a variant of High Functioning Autism). I have Asperger's syndrome and it does make such things more common, but it may just be that people are less likely to feel obligated to cave into pressure if they don't seem to meet other social obligations of behavior.

The idea that people have to have sex is as much bullshit as saying there aren't a select few who will go absolutely crazy without it.

Myself, it is nothing about chivalry in the traditional sense of right and wrong. It is just that just like whacking off is a cheap way to curb the urge for a little bit when it gets over the top; I find that for some people "cheap sex" is not only has less fulfillment in people who lean towards monogamy, but it drains off the desires in the same amount as monogamous sex.

I say monogamous sex, as sometimes getting a formal institution to recognize a marriage is difficult. This was true long before today's incidents with gays. In the South it used to be illegal for blacks and whites to wed. Many clergy were hung for giving Church-recognized only marriages to such individuals.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I'll drop by your blog later.

*chuckle*

I didn't realize until you said that that this wasn't. I hope DecardCanine, our mutual host, will forgive the side conversation.

And, of course, you're still welcome. ];-)

I imagine that the folks on my friends-list with the "Little Professor" syndrome are already known to you.

The nickname is wryly amusing, as it was applied to me when I was very young. At least I'm no longer "little". And I've never been diagnosed with that problem, which I know can be very challenging. I wish you success in your interactions with society -- and it sounds like you're already doing well in that arena.

===|==============/ Level Head

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

I figured out when you said "Welcome!" that you didn't know where you were. But I don't mind; my LJ could use more interaction. Besides, I'm learning a few things.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

And I even managed to mistype "DeckardCanine". ]:-/

In the South it used to be illegal for blacks and whites to wed. Many clergy were hung for giving Church-recognized only marriages to such individuals.

Yes, the old pattern of prejudices, on the decline for many years in the US, is the new rising trend in Europe -- where many people are killed for marrying (or even socializing) out of their race or nationality or religion. It's not in the news much as it is not Politically Correct to pay attention to.

One famous case was a girl killed by her father because a song was dedicated to her on a radio show request line -- he was the wrong type of person, and the father felt that if the girl knew him well enough that he would mention her in public than she deserved the killing. He stabbed her 11 times, then slit her throat -- but both the prosecution and defense (this was one of the relatively few that actually involved an arrest) agreed that they must proceed carefully in order to be "culturally sensitive" and avoid any hint of racism.

Here's a quote about honor killings from the governor of Van in Turkey a few weeks after my visit there. The quote is reflective of the tone of such trials as mentioned above:

We can't solve this problem by attacking these people's values and thus harming their feelings by ignoring the culture, traditions, customs and convictions here. Even if the subject is certain customs and traditions which might be dangerous or improper, while speaking of them, one needs to take both the social psychology and the individual psychology into consideration. Otherwise, there is a risk of pushing people into a more isolated life in the name of protecting their own values, ossifying their psychological defense mechanisms.

Perhaps as a result of that "consideration", the problem continues to grow throughput Western Europe. But the last issue of "The Independent" to return a search hit on "honor killings" was published seven years ago -- and does not mention Islam or Muslim at all. Just ... "religious groups". And the article mentions nothing about the practice in Europe, focusing instead on Pakistan.

But occasionally, the European aspect is visible. It even identifies one perpetrator as Muslim. (Note that "Asian" in the context of that article includes Pakistan and Afghanistan.)

===|==============/ Level Head

[ruediix.livejournal.com]

I think you got that wrong. I have proof that I chose on my own to ignore the more popular side in a cultural argument, and it was for reasons other than "what's traditional."

I think rebelling by doing the direct opposite of tradition is rebelling in your own way. Me and my wife are far from traditional in the sex department. I actually went with the more modern route of taking it slow and waiting a few months after sexual contact to have intercourse, rather than just trying to "be gentle." That's something from the new line of thought that actually does make sense.

I also defy both sides by making sure my wife knows that she doesn't have to wait for me to be done if she's done. If that makes her in the mood more often, than I'm all for it. We also feel that "coming" as they say, every time as being a necessary part of sex is a big myth, but then again we both mentally focus on each other during "the act" instead of what's going on, so that slows down everything.

After all, some pretty insane stuff is traditional, as you and I have mentioned, so I feel no obligation to honor tradition unless it actually does make some sense. As you can see I put "guys don't do girl talk" on the top of the "stupid traditions" list.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I think you got that wrong.

Well, I was trying not to reach any conclusion at all, and asked for clarification of what "proof of that" referred to. I think I understand now. Thanks.

I've never ranked "stupid traditions" -- but agree that there are a number of them. And a number of others that make much sense, especially if understood correctly.

But there are also new styles or fads that have replaced old traditions; some of these will be short-lived. And there are old well known "traditions" that turn out to be nowhere near as commonly used as many people think.

I sometimes follow a tradition for reasons rather different from the one originally intended, perhaps a bit like the Mason Williams piece "The Prince's Panties". ];-)

===|==============/ Level Head

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I just now caught it. "Mutilation" -- not "maniplation". Arrgh.

===|==============/ Level Head

[ruediix.livejournal.com]

I know what you meant. Surgical Manipulation of any external body part is mutilating.

I don't think any modern person male or female would object to female genital manipulation. :) Sex would be pretty painful for most women without proper foreplay.

Another surgical manipulation I object to that a lot of other people don't is cosmetic surgery and cosmetic dentistry. That is, of course, excluding reconstructive variety.

It really sickens me that they are wasting skin from tissue donors on these people's vanity. That skin should be used to correct massive scaring on burn patients.

[ruediix.livejournal.com]

Being straight, I may not have the best ability to tell a sexy man, but since Will Smith went for film over music, he's gotten quite sexy. If I could switch bodies with any man in the world for one day it would be him, Jackie Chan (at his prime no less), or Antonio Banderas. None of them white, and all sexy.

Part of the sex scene problem is there are tons of white actors, so pressuring one to do a scene with simulated sex is no problem, black actors are harder to come by, and any that would do the scene are probably on the "other side of the hill" as there is a racism in the "other" movie industry for "dark meat" if you catch my drift.

What is really stupid is that the sex scenes are sometimes added to the screen play to draw people in. That is as bad as cutting out one that was there in my book. This is another example of stereotyping consumers.

As of that Express magazine, the cover was probably intended to confuse. That was the idea, sex is confusing. Especially rough sex, and "quick sex". I could fill your head with all sort of ideas on how this could relate to the type of sex, but every single one would be a remark of possible racist comments, and frankly it is quite true.

My experience as a photographer, and as an athlete tells me two things that aren't racist.

1. a white hand on a black body is high contrast. It is a very emotional statement, possibly with no racist connotation at all.

2. As an athlete I have noticed that the black body tends to be very quick to drain away fat when properly trained. Getting a black sculpted body with "rock like abs" in a model was thus EXTREMELY easy, while a white model with the same abs would be difficult. Chock that one up to genetic diversity.