Indian wedding costume
I'm totally biased because I'm fascinated with India, but I think Indian wedding dress is one of the most stunning and beautiful things I have seen. I prob'ly say that about a few things though. But the ornamentation (jewelry, make-up, clothing) is often excessive yet manages to come off as the exact opposite of gaudy and tacky. Don't get me wrong, I love tacky and gawdy atimes, but too often the person was going for glamorous and sophisticated.
Anyway, it made me understand why some women might look at their wedding day, however naively, as the day when they will be more beautiful than any other day. I suppose that's a nice illusionfor a day and those leading up to it. I'll have to go research Indian festivals and other times when extavagence is called for.
-----------------------------------
sexual orientation v. desire
If I say I'm straigtht, it's true enough. But it's not right. It doesn't really say anything about me. Besides, it;s an uninteresting fact about anyone to learn the sex of those they like to get off with. It also fails to account for the fact that I can get hard from sounds, good food, everday inanimate objects, landscapes, words and who knows what else will do it in the future.
The point is that sexual orientation would appear to be interchangeable with sexual desire. But if that's the case, then straright, bi and queer might just be lazy and conveinient categories. There's some truth and reality to them, science will tell us that much about gay and straight men (not about women though).
But what does it do to focus on sexual orientation (As if the sole point of sex had to do with the gender of the other person)? What if we focused more on our sexual desire in regards to the things that incite desire in us?
For one, I think we would acknowledge the fluidity of sexuality and ourselves. With so many things that turn us on that are incomparable (unlike gender), we migt just stop trying to figure it out and go with flow.
How did we get to focus so intensely on sexuality according to our partner's gender? Breeding. Family. Marriage. So even for the sexual outcasts, their sexuality comes to be defined off of the straight archetype. It''s not the same, but I think there are some overtones of those living in a x-ian society who do not fit into it, thinking of themselves as evil in some way. "If I'm not straight, I must be bi or queer." Maybe even a tranny.
When we talk about desire instead of sexual orientation, we may fall out of that archetype. True, we have fetishes, but I believe they fail as well. I don't have any particular fetish. I'm too inconsistent for that. We also have terms like poly-sexual, "try"--sexual, and omni-sexual (which one's did I miss?). Those terms don't really tell a person much either, but they do side-step the question quite nicely.
But what happens if we fall from the archetypes of sexual orientation that have been given to us? While we wouldn't lose breeding and family would they look different? Without family, the supposed bedrock of our society, how do our laws change? How does our TV change? Our love stories? Our tragedies? Would it open us up in general? Would we have one less word to hang our identity on? One less tiresome piece of meaning fo memorize for ourelves and the world?
I'm too tired for those questions now. They're difficult and require the flame and wings of my imagination.
I'm gonna listen to some Cyndi Lauper and Sinead.
I'm totally biased because I'm fascinated with India, but I think Indian wedding dress is one of the most stunning and beautiful things I have seen. I prob'ly say that about a few things though. But the ornamentation (jewelry, make-up, clothing) is often excessive yet manages to come off as the exact opposite of gaudy and tacky. Don't get me wrong, I love tacky and gawdy atimes, but too often the person was going for glamorous and sophisticated.
Anyway, it made me understand why some women might look at their wedding day, however naively, as the day when they will be more beautiful than any other day. I suppose that's a nice illusionfor a day and those leading up to it. I'll have to go research Indian festivals and other times when extavagence is called for.
-----------------------------------
sexual orientation v. desire
If I say I'm straigtht, it's true enough. But it's not right. It doesn't really say anything about me. Besides, it;s an uninteresting fact about anyone to learn the sex of those they like to get off with. It also fails to account for the fact that I can get hard from sounds, good food, everday inanimate objects, landscapes, words and who knows what else will do it in the future.
The point is that sexual orientation would appear to be interchangeable with sexual desire. But if that's the case, then straright, bi and queer might just be lazy and conveinient categories. There's some truth and reality to them, science will tell us that much about gay and straight men (not about women though).
But what does it do to focus on sexual orientation (As if the sole point of sex had to do with the gender of the other person)? What if we focused more on our sexual desire in regards to the things that incite desire in us?
For one, I think we would acknowledge the fluidity of sexuality and ourselves. With so many things that turn us on that are incomparable (unlike gender), we migt just stop trying to figure it out and go with flow.
How did we get to focus so intensely on sexuality according to our partner's gender? Breeding. Family. Marriage. So even for the sexual outcasts, their sexuality comes to be defined off of the straight archetype. It''s not the same, but I think there are some overtones of those living in a x-ian society who do not fit into it, thinking of themselves as evil in some way. "If I'm not straight, I must be bi or queer." Maybe even a tranny.
When we talk about desire instead of sexual orientation, we may fall out of that archetype. True, we have fetishes, but I believe they fail as well. I don't have any particular fetish. I'm too inconsistent for that. We also have terms like poly-sexual, "try"--sexual, and omni-sexual (which one's did I miss?). Those terms don't really tell a person much either, but they do side-step the question quite nicely.
But what happens if we fall from the archetypes of sexual orientation that have been given to us? While we wouldn't lose breeding and family would they look different? Without family, the supposed bedrock of our society, how do our laws change? How does our TV change? Our love stories? Our tragedies? Would it open us up in general? Would we have one less word to hang our identity on? One less tiresome piece of meaning fo memorize for ourelves and the world?
I'm too tired for those questions now. They're difficult and require the flame and wings of my imagination.
I'm gonna listen to some Cyndi Lauper and Sinead.