Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: One, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
Is that really the final word on the Dux? I hadn’t heard. God.
I wouldn't take a "final word" on anything that hasn't had a bulldozer driven through it already, frankly. We got a report from the kids' school the other day:
Vicki Buck reported that the Grand Chancellor is expected to be demolished by April. The school may be able to move back to its buildings in the CBD in August 2012. However, the fate of the Southern Star building is still unclear.
This was damage from February. They're looking at being able to assess Southern Star in April next year.
“…that you’re never going to drink in the Dux again” – it’s that sort of thing, isn’t it, that really gets you.
It is. We shifted our "visitors from out of town" drinking spot to No. 4 in Merivale, but we've never again had one of those conversations that we used to have at the Dux. There was just something about that building. Or at least, sitting outside that building and making beer runs.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to andin,
Somewhere in some BATcave someone
Heh, dude, it's Carrick Gra...
Never mind.
-
Vaguely back on topic, Annie Sprinkle (OMG, Annie Sprinkle, etc) is looking for people in relationships to do this survey on relationship and sexual satisfaction. From the places I've seen it turning up, they may have problems getting enough men, so, y'know, it's For Science and all.
-
Up Front: I'll Be in My Bunk, in reply to Robert Urquhart,
Oh, man, that's the weekend I'm in Wellington. Anyone want to take my kids?
-
Up Front: I'll Be in My Bunk, in reply to Lilith __,
Wow, you watch Torchwood and don’t like Gwen, Emma?! That must be very tortuous!
There are Compensations. And slightly less frivolously, bisexual role models for my children? Pretty thin on the ground.
-
Up Front: I'll Be in My Bunk, in reply to Steve Barnes,
No mention of Captain Jack? says it all really.
Well, it doesn’t say, “This is the character who gets most of the lines in every episode”, so no.
I did hear Jack appears to have transitioned from Omnisexual to Just Really Gay
There is still, IMO, Stuff Going On with him and Gwen. I may be over-sensitive to this, what with Gwen being the character equivalent of nails down a blackboard. Also, I was terrified that the most marketable thing to do with a pansexual man in the US would be to straighten him, so I was hugely relieved by the presence of Hot Gay Sex.
ETA: There is of course no possible way I could have watched the first eight episodes of this. None whatsoever, not since Skynet.
-
Up Front: I'll Be in My Bunk, in reply to Lilith __,
Did it suck?
I didn't think so, though there are moments (about three or four episodes in, one screamingly painful moment) where you can certainly tell that it's now being made primarily for a US audience. But it's still being written in the main by Russell T Davies and Jane Espenson. And the majority of Espenson's episodes feature Hot Gay Sex. So... swings and roundabouts. Episode 7, IMO, features some of the loveliest Torchwood backstory ever.
So I guess you have to balance "guys coming on to Jack's coat" with "bit shiny, lots of CIA, things explode".
-
Up Front: I'll Be in My Bunk, in reply to BenWilson,
I most like doing that after a hard day's work.
One of the many ways in which sex is unlike beer.
Another thing that makes sex rather unusual is that it is illegal for minors nearly everywhere.
One of the ways in which sex is quite like beer.
the lack of legal and cultural models for polyamorous relationships
This is a biggie. In the mid-nineties I was in what would have been a polyamorous relationship if any of us had known what that was. It was extraordinarily difficult, and having no model, and no-one whose experience I could draw on, made it much worse. And when you're in a relationship, and you have no concept of anything other than two-person relationships, and you find you have strong feelings for a third? That you can love another person and not fall out of love with your partner? The first reflex is to lie.
It's my view that with a greater acceptance of polyamory, monogamy would come to have more meaning, because it would actually be a conscious choice, not a simple default.
-
Up Front: I'll Be in My Bunk, in reply to Max Rose,
This is one of those pondery inconclusive things that really needs discussing over a few drinks. Because there are parellels between the LBGT experience (generalising heavily here) and the polyamorous one. I mean, the "player" (always male) who thinks he isn't monogamous and then meets "the one" and completely reforms is a staple of the romantic comedy, and it is a refusal to accept that that experience really exists. You'll never see either him, or a "permanent" polyamorous relationship portrayed positively. A relationship that contains more than two people can't be legally recognised. And the "everyone is monogamous" prejudice is one I think we don't really even realise we have.
-
At work, so I won't go browsing that site, but do they bring up old Judith Reisman and her erotoxins?
The Ms Naughty link covers that, and boy is she hilarious.
Thus you end up with Judith Reisman telling the US senate that porn produces poisonous “erototoxins” that damage the brain. According to Wikipedia, Reisman defined “erototoxins” as being the natural chemicals and hormones testosterone, adrenaline, oxytocin, glucose, dopamine, serotonin, and phenylethylamine.
That’s right. These people actually think testosterone and the pleasure-producing chemicals serotonin and oxytocin are harmful. They also push the idea that masturbation is sinful and addictive because, according to the X3pure website: “Studies have shown that ninety-nine percent of all masturbation involves lust and mental fantasy*, which disconnects you from real relationships with real people. Despite these difficulties, masturbation can be conquered. If your desire is to change, God can heal and bring restoration.”