PiscusFiche:
Microbiology nerdiness coming to the fore about the heart attack risk: yay, education strikes again!
Anyway, the link is this, if I remember correctly; anybody with the basic energy to look up details feel free to correct me, because I sold that textbook back long ago. Anyway.
One of the usual bacteria in your mouth, a streptococcus IIRC, is totally harmless in your mouth. A variant of said strep (not necessarily the one any given human has, and I don't remember the percentage), if it gets into your bloodstream, releases a chemical or has a surface protein that triggers something else that can cause a heart attack. Long, completely forgotten chemical explanation ensued.
Toothbrushing, or flossing, does diddly to lower the prevalence of this kind of strep, but it *does* make it less likely that you will have irritated or bleeding gums, especially in that it helps you avoid gums that bleed due to flossing, ironically enough. No bleeding, no place for the strep to enter your bloodstream, and hence no chemical emission leading to heart attack.
So yes, people who brush badly are clearly deserving of heart attacks. The logic is plain. Also, by all means feel free to stop eating glass.
TNH: That was a brilliant post. thanks.
To add another point to the argument about eradicating diseases: AIDS, given proper education, is eradicable. Unlike your common cold, or SARS, or malaria. It's hard to transmit, it's hard to catch, and education dollars could do so much more than they are right now, to prevent immense amounts of suffering. Instead, as several people have pointed out, we suffered through Reagan's judgmental idiocy, and now through the resurgence of "abstinence-only" education.
Tom: Are you reading people's replies to you? Several people have addressed the idea of "risky behavior." Do you have a counter-argument, or are you just not seeing it?
If you get mugged tonight, is it ok if I call the cops and tell them not to spend their limited budget on going out to pick you up, and that an investigation isn't worth it, because you probably shouldn't've been walking there anyway?
To extend the analogy: We don't expect the police force to make restitution for the money you lose if you get mugged. Their job is, effectively, to prevent it from happening, by punishing the person who did it, and (in theory) by dissuading others from trying it. Likewise, no medical patient is going to have their life returned back to perfect normal. You seem to want people to suffer for their sexuality; believe me, they do. All the medical and educational money is doing is trying to prevent the crime from happening to more people.
Pericat:
*snort*
You are evil. Evil, I tell you!
Have you seen the BBC version of Tipping? They did a decent job of the adaptation.
Did anyone notice the links to POD publishers at the end of the article?
Appalling, muckraking, lurid prose.
Diogenes was not flaming Plato but pointing out a gaping hole in the argument; it would have been a flame if Plato had asked why Diogenes was putting his mother on display in the nude, and the start of a flame war if Diogenes had then asked why Plato couldn't recognize his own father....
My cats just gave me worried looks because of extreme giggling. Nice one.
But I remain unconvinced that removing the Taliban from power, and taking al Qaeda's previously assumed safe havens in Afghanistan out of the equation, didn't accomplish something for the greater good.
I remain equally unconvinced that the people of Afghanistan have benefited by it. Whose greater good are we talking about here?
Xopher: I know you weren't talking about transgender people. I've heard the line about adam's apples trotted out before, though, by people who are, or who don't differentiate between transvestitism and transgender (I noticed from your original phrasing that you weren't doing that. Much appreciated). I'm not offended, and I certainly wasn't trying to start a fight. I just wanted to point out that it's a silly, inaccurate stereotype. Which might be why it's a joke; but I know people take it seriously. honestly, if me being hair-trigger about gender-stuff can spare any of the trans-people I know one tiny bit of the crap they have to deal with, I think it's worth it. I admit it's one of my "causes" though.
You're right, getting the adam's apple reduced is frequently a part of the surgery. There are a lot of pre-op transgender people out there, though, which is one reason for my comment. I know many more pre- than post-op, and almost as many who don't intend to get any of the various surgeries, for financial and other reasons--although that's more in the MTF crowd.
Shalanna--'sokay, I don't think the joke qualifies anyone for a "horse's ass" award. I thought the movie was funny, and got the reference. I ..ahem... jump at the gun? when issues of transgender and related subjects come up. I also spent last weekend defending one of my close friends, who *is* transgender, against my birth family, who would like to be the ones loading their guns. Not to continue the metaphor or anything, but my "gender-education" reflexes are a little hair-triggered right now :).
Xopher, Mitch, Shalanna--slight (off-topic) addendum: While transgender women do not fall into the "transvestite" category, they can (and sometimes are) assumed to be either your #2 or #3, and the "adam's apple" joke can be extremely hurtful to them. It really isn't an identifying characteristic, especially if you're living in a decent-sized urban area in the US, where transgendering is becoming increasingly common. In any event, best to treat people, gender-wise, as they request to be treated.
sennoma: interesting article. thank you.
Yonmei: Ok, but holy books can say whatever they want. Few people of any religion live by them. It's not entirely a bad thing, either; I for one am quite content that Gerald Gardner's fascination with flagellation doesn't play a more central role in neopaganism. People more familiar with Christianity, Islam, and Judaism can probably all name bits of their own holy books that they prefer to ignore.
In the case of this social worker, it just doesn't seem like the Qu'ran is going to have a real impact on her decisions. What she has to live with is the reality where it does in fact make sense to take into account religious prejudice, intolerance, and violence. To live every day in fear of them? Not necessarily. But to be aware of them? makes sense to me.
TNH: "How about "exacerbate"? Will you settle for "exacerbate"? He has power, and he has moral agency. We do need some way to say "He makes things worse generally in order to enlarge himself personally."
very true. very well put. thank you.
PNH: "It's possible that nobody else in this exchange is old enough to remember that all the now-sainted leaders of the 1950s and '60s civil rights movement were constantly charged with "stirring up" otherwise nonexistent racial tensions and "harping on" grievances. Not by extremist racists, but by the editorial pages of most respectable newspapers."
Good point. I bow to the wisdom of the ancient masters.
However, with all due respect, I don't think I was attempting to blame the entirety of our nation's racial problems on Al Sharpton or anybody else using his types of discourse. I said he was a twerp and a twitball, not a focus point of any kind of significant social movement. Putz is an even better word for it.
I think a lot of people who don't want to admit the presence of racism wouldn't admit it whether it was brought up or not, and are going to continue their behavior regardless of the discussions around them. Sharpton and others of his ilk aren't going to make their racism any more entrenched--it's already there.
"If being "divisive" and "harping on racism" is enough to indict any black leader, then racial progress is impossible."
...eh. I think you state this a bit too strongly. Speechifying is useful for changing social and legal institutions, which is worth doing, but the remaining targets for legislation are so tricky and ambiguous (discrimination in education? cultural biases in test-writing? They're all there, but what's the simple solution?). These things just don't lend themselves to rabble-rousing simplified arguments, and sometimes it seems as though your average demonstration, protest, speech, what-have-you, is doing more to distract than to help.
Xopher: "He's a race-baiting asshole, IMO. He'll go in and stir up trouble among people of different races who were getting along fine until he showed up."
This just sounds (to me) too much like personal experience to take it as "carrying water" for anybody. I see it happen all the frigging time. We can all talk politely and interact like normal people, and then some self-serving twitball like Sharpton or Limbaugh starts harping either on a.) the existence of racism; or b.) the existence of Whiny Black People (respectively), and then suddenly we all remember that oops, we're on the opposite side of the racial divide, and I guess we shouldn't be talking after all.
Do these issues need to be discussed? Obviously. Do one-sided attacks by these twerps do anything to further the discussion? Again, obviously not.
I s'pose I do reserve a larger portion of my distaste and irritation for Limbaugh, though. Surprisingly enough.
(Yonmei): "But the situation you describe is not one I would recognise as likely to happen - I mean, for starters, we're talking about a Jewish family fostering a Muslim child, and therefore religiously speaking, even the most fundamentalist of Muslims wouldn't have a problem: Jews, like Christians, are "children of the Book".
How exactly are you defining "religiously speaking"? It seems as though approximately two thousand years of cultural warfare would tend to disagree. I think I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
Xopher: ok, this is a tangent taken way too far...but, I'm not just talking about Talking About Our Relationship talks, or the talc-ing talkers that talk then. (Powder To The People!) I meant the question "who doesn't like to talk about things that are important to them" to include things like, oh, politics, for one, and religion, and environmentalism and what have you. I don't see them as being all that different.
Margene:
hope you're still reading this! just got back from out of town. If you would be willing to email me stuff, that would be fantastic. I'd also just love to know more about how you got where you are..I know a few stable poly groups firsthand, many more poly people, and everybody does it differ'nt. Fun to know. The email address behind my name works to email me, or you can post one for me to mail to, whatever works.
Mitch:
If I wanted to be really cynical and offensive I'd say that polyamory represents more birthdays and anniversaries to forget! More people who have food preferences different from yours, thus making meal selection and preparation even more complicated! More obnoxious in-laws coming by to visit! Good thing I didn't say those things, though.
Ahem. Thank you for making me laugh. It just sounds so much like me, not bewailing polyamory, but bewailing living with two other girls. In-depth discussions on everything. Who knew dirty dishes had so much psychological import. Anyway. Humor value is good.
Seriously, I don't think of talking about relationship definitions etc. as work. It's part of a process of finding out more about myself and the people I'm with--it's not like these things wouldn't come up in random conversations. I mean, who doesn't like to talk about the things that are important to them?
************
The discussion of sexual abuse, it's repercussions and our culture's weird attitudes towards children's sexuality has all kinds of reverberations. Last week I watched TV for the first time in probably a year, an episode of Law & Order, the eternal show. My parents adore that show. They watched..oh, three episodes in a row, I think? as I wandered in and out. And all three of them had to do with the sexual abuse of children, generally by family members, at least the fragments I saw.
The emphasis seems a.) obscene and b.) prurient in the extreme. Part of me is glad this is no longer a taboo subject, we can admit children get molested by their families, but this kind of obsessive focus on it? There is something weird in our collective psyche.
As for the effects of abuse on the victim, and the weird hierarchy of severity that seems to sometimes exist (Stefanie, Lydia, several others)--yeah, I think every case of abuse is different, in the perpetrators, in the type, in the victim, in the situation, how many more ways can it vary? It makes the laws trickier, and the need for people who can make good judgment calls all the greater.
And it's an interesting question, how much social mores and reactions contribute to the effects of abuse. There's the obvious type, the "I can't talk about this or everybody'll think I'm a slut" reaction. There's the extreme discomfort that many people seem to have on being confronted with the reality of abuse, which can make it seem all the more shameful. And ironically, I think sometimes our weird overexposure to stories of child abuse has an effect too, in that the reaction of one's acquaintances, friends, family, what-have-you, frequently assumes that once it happens, Life As We Know It Is Now Over.
I truly, truly do not mean that last one to belittle or criticize the experiences of other victims of abuse. It wasn't even the most significant aftereffect *I* experienced, but I know it was there; somehow, all this stuff that I and various people I talked to about it had seen gave me this pattern of reactions that I thought I was supposed to be having, and it took me years to figure out what was me and what was that.
It's a pattern that I saw not only in those idiotic Law & Order episodes, but one I can remember seeing in some fantasy fiction when authors try to be "gritty". Charles de Lint and Mercedes Lackey come to mind, although it's been years since I read either of them. They've always seemed to me like people trying to write dark fiction who haven't actually been there themselves, and they're writing based on having read the reactions of those who have, but the underlying flavor just isn't there.
TNH:
I'm still trying to figure out your comment about commitment to multiple relationships, but I guess my question echoes Mris'. I just don't see, from my own life or the other polyamorous people I know, that either multiple partners or monogamy is related to commitment. It seems like you personally know other people doing this sort of thing (polygamy or polyamory), so is this based on what you've observed with them? Or is it more abstract?
Margene:
I hear you, I hear you. My family and I have yet to begin the majority of the paperwork that this kind of thing entails, but all of the legal advice I've heard makes me almost despair before we start. It all boiled down to "we'll write it as well as possible, but anything can be challenged, and it only takes one judge." This from a widely experienced lawyer and friend. I don't even hope for social *support* for my "lifestyle" any more. I just wish it wasn't screwed from the get-go.
********
My other favorite thing about polyamory is that since we're acting outside the usual ideas of love and marriage, we end up thinking about, and defining, what we're doing, much more so than your average married couple does (at least most of the ones I know). And during all the discussions, our agreements with each other have come down to two things: unity as a family, and responsibility for our children. It kind of echoes the "marriage" in Heinlein's Time Enough For Love, in that the central promise (although we have others) is to care for our children.
I keep wondering, if the "marriage" vows (if such exist) in Short Creek involved that provision, or even centered around it, would the situation have ever gotten this bad?
My optimistic side wants to say that it couldn't have, that even people who don't *mean* it are at least given pause by the wording of the oaths they take, and that this might have given more power to early dissenters. My pessimistic side points out all the nice normal het people (ahem, Britney Spears, not to flog a dead meme) who can blithely recite vows they have no intention of keeping. Don't know. It's a nice hope, I guess.
So random question that I thought I might as well throw out here: anybody flown with circulars lately? I want to finish my project on the plane tomorrow but I also don't want to end up checking them (snark, snark).
The last time I tried, they went through just fine, but that was a year ago and since there were also scissors (pointy ones, no less) in the bag, I'm kinda thinking that was a statistical anomaly.
Mitch:
Quick clarification. Polygamy, technically, means multiple spouses, and said spouses can be of whatever gender combination you desire, and marriage (however you define it) is a definite part of the equation. Polygyny is the more correct term for what's going on in Short Creek, and refers to one man, multiple women. Polyandry is the rarely seen opposite, wherein you have one woman, multiple men.
Polyamory is a whole different ball game than the other three, in that marriage (however you define it) is not a requirement. Polyamory is a belief in romantic love for multiple people.
Would someone more familiar with healthy adult Mormon relationships care to tackle the question about polygyny? I'm pretty sure it can be, as I can't see any logical reason why not, but I must admit all of the people I know firsthand who're doing this are in polyamorous or polygamous relationships.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 28 |
Total: 28 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Varia:
Show all comments by Varia.