Misc. comments 9

[redbird]

To yonmei, who is good at getting me to think:

But the edge is just possibly there when a woman dumps a woman for a man (or a man dumps a man for a woman) and it would behoove the dumper to be aware of this and not rub in the social approval their new relationship gets because it looks heterosexual, if the dumper and the dumpee are still talking after the split.

This is true. Not only are there added stresses in a same-sex relationship because it doesn't have the same social credibility and approval, but there are more potential other-sex partners than same-sex partners for any given bisexual person. So if s/he does leave someone for another lover, that new lover is more likely to be of the other sex. I also suspect that some people, if they've broken up with A, will seek someone who is as unlike A as possible, and that can include gender.

Addendum to the above:
There's definitely a cultural attitude that a relationship that produces children is "real" and one that doesn't isn't. We know that same-sex relationships can produce children (including but not limited to adoption), and plenty of other-sex relationships (like my long-standing partnership with cattitude) are childfree by choice: but the not-always-conscious belief that children come only from heterosexual relationships is there, and is a factor here, I think. (Ye gods, I'm still not sure how much of my mother's delighted approval of Cattitude was because he's a really cool person who loves me and is good to me, and how much of it was (or is) because he's male, let alone whether the desire for grandchildren was a factor there. If so, she never said. (eve99, if you're reading this, you are not required to comment.))

---

In bisexual, in response to somewhat rambling post about identity:

Are you sure that you aren't choosing between a specific, and known-to-be-flawed (you know him, you know his flaws as well as his virtues) man and an idealized perfect woman?

Other than that, I think you've defined me as not-a-woman: my lips aren't exactly taken care of, and hand lotion isn't a gendered trait as far as I know. I have no problem with you wanting a femme--I have a major problem with you defining "woman" so that only femmes qualify.

---

In response to rysmiel, who is also very good at getting me to think, and who wrote "There should probably be a metric for scaling how unlikely common sense is to fit any given problem.":

Definitely worth thinking about. Related to this--and sparked in part by having just read Matt Ruff's Sewer, Gas, and Electric, which I'll try to write about when I surface from work again--is that humans (and probably other kinds of people) are all too good at clinging to premises after those premises have been shown to be anywhere from partial maps of the world to completely absurd.

---

yonmei asked people when we'd learned to cook:

My brother and I both learned to cook from my mother. It was basic cooking: not much on spices, because there weren't any around, but honest ingredients and techniques. Not much baking, then: we bought good rye bread from a nearby bakery (I still do, though it's a different bakery now), Mom baked cakes on occasion or bought cookies and pies, and we'd have ice cream, chocolates, and fruit--lots of fruit--for desserts. The first thing I learned to make alone was plain omelets, for my own breakfast on mornings that I didn't want cold cereal.

I've gotten a lot better at it in my adult life: a familiarity with far more herbs and spices, and a lot of confidence that comes from experience and getting it right often enough. When I was in Montreal for New Year's, I was describing a variation on papersky's cakelings to her, and said "it's easy", and she pointed out "it's easy if you know how to cook"--which not everyone does, and which at this point I sometimes take as much for granted as literacy, a thing I can forget that not everyone learns, let alone enjoys.

Comments

[ckd]

I often read these recaps and think "darn, I'd love to see the context for that, assuming I could find the original post, but it's in a high-traffic community"

I realize it'd be more work, but if you could include a link to the original post/thread for each comment (or set thereof, if more than one on the same post), I'd appreciate it.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I realize it'd be more work, but if you could include a link to the original post/thread for each comment (or set thereof, if more than one on the same post), I'd appreciate it.

Me too.

But since two of these comments come from my journal, I can save redbird the work this time: the post about bisexuality (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/265647.html) and the post about cooking (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/271981.html).

[ckd]

Thanks much!

[angeyja.livejournal.com]

Not only are there added stresses in a same-sex relationship because it doesn't have the same social credibility and approval, but there are more potential other-sex partners than same-sex partners for any given bisexual person.

MMM. I think that logically I know that's true; but have to admit that there are times when it feels very much the opposite, as the vast amount of my social contacts these days are female. I'm not intersted in a partner as that would most typically be defined; but, it crosses my mind that if I were and looking amongst people I "know" that's the case. And re: the child issue, I've been seeing this online for a while but I honestly don't know where the concern with real is coming from. And my apologies in advance if the question is naive. I accept that this may just be a blind spot for me.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

I personally get tired of being told I have to rein in my relationships regardless of who's asking. Avoiding "rubbing it in" about my mixed-gender relationships sounds like putting them in the closet, and that hits a major hot button with me. Of course, that boils down to making sure I only date women who understand that enjoying my time with a man isn't a slam on my same-gender attractions nor an attempt to fit in to the dominant paradigm.

[redbird]

I think "rubbing it in", in this context, wouldn't be you talking about having had a date with the_ogre, or how good things are with blackfyr, but making a point of "And I can take him to the company picnic/home to meet my parents" if you couldn't do those things with a female partner. I suppose that if someone--I can't quite see you as that someone--made a point of not taking a same-sex partner to meet zir parents, and then broke up with her, that ex might reasonably be irritated when told "I took him to meet my parents, and they were so pleased!"

[faithhopetricks.livejournal.com]

There's definitely a cultural attitude that a relationship that produces children is "real" and one that doesn't isn't.

As someone who's been married for 11 years (together for 12) in a coupling intended to be child-free from the very start, oh how I hear you on this one.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

There's definitely a cultural attitude that a relationship that produces children is "real" and one that doesn't isn't.

You later mention adoption, but in fact even adoptive families are not seen as "real" by some people, though I haven't encountered anyone (but would not bet they don't exist!) who doesn't consider a straight, married adoptive couple as not having a "real" relationship themselves.

I think you've defined me as not-a-woman: my lips aren't exactly taken care of, and hand lotion isn't a gendered trait as far as I know. I have no problem with you wanting a femme--I have a major problem with you defining "woman" so that only femmes qualify.

That resonates with me, in other contexts. I've had women tell me, not explicitly, but in the clear ramifications of their words, that I am not a woman because I have not suffered certain of the insults and injuries that many women do. (Either that, or that I'm repressing or in denial. I do not take that well, not well at all.)

In a men's group, my husband was once told that something he wanted to discuss was not a "men's issue." His response: "I'm a man, and this is an issue for me. That makes it at least a man's issue."

"Gender" is one of my list of things--along with "family" and "marriage"--that only the involved party/parties can define.

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

. . humans (and probably other kinds of people) are all too good at clinging to premises after those premises have been shown to be anywhere from partial maps of the world to completely absurd.

How true. I find it especially problematic regarding people's opinions of other people: once they have a certain "take" on someone, it takes an earthquake (if that) to get them to see a person differently. It's not the sort of situation where simple facts always exist. Of course, it's particularly a problem if it's someone I have to deal with and their opinion of me. It's much easier to provide reality checks as a third party.