The Hetero-Nomative Box
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 12:25 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Nobody said you should though, but it is better to know about the existence of other ranges of possibilities, to know oneself and to know other better. And to have a more accurate understanding of people in general.

I was just clarifying my position with an extreme example for the sake of dialogue. However, I wonder what the world would look like if the extreme was the norm. It seems that extremes can only function in a world where the average is dominant and therefore provides some stability.

In the context of sexuality, if the vast majority of people go the standard route of marriage and 2.5 kids, they provide the societal foundation that allows minority groups like asexuals and omnisexuals to safely express their bent (provided they receive tolerance from the majority).

After all, to be viable a society must be economically and reproductively stable, and asexuals and omnisexuals are probably less likely to go the family route. That's not to say they are a force for anarchy - on the contrary, they can contribute in a more unencumbered way to the arts, science, medicine, etc. (the idea of the "Creative Class"). And yes, they also provide a window into different ways of sexual expression, thus exemplifying "other ranges of possibilities".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Atheist_pilgrim's post
19-07-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(18-07-2013 10:48 PM)BrokenQuill92 Wrote:  Some atheist are still thinking within a hetero-normative box and not thinking outside of the straight white male landscape when it comes to the standard of beauty, sex, sexuality, and sexual expression.

I am a straight, white male. Why do I need to think outside that 'box' about my standards of beauty?

I recognize that other people have other standards. So?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 01:40 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
Why don't I question the 'hetro-normative box'? Because it is the culture, because it is a necessary part of life, because doing so is futile, because gender roles go back to pre-history. Even if I wanted to throw it out to do so would be folly, one doesn't go to a knitting club and start ripping ass and smoking cigars. One cannot go through life without making assumptions based on gender and come out the other side in one piece. I wouldn't go up to a group of bikers and tell them how pretty their shoes are and expect to walk out of the bar. Shall we knock down bathroom walls? I wouldn't mind but I know some women who would probably never go in public again.

We generalize and compartmentalize because it serves us, because it is necessary. By your argument we should throw out all division between species because we can't be putting all chimps into a separate box from bonobos.

Is tolerance not enough? Must I start dressing in drag on Friday nights, will that make you happy?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 01:54 PM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2013 01:57 PM by nach_in.)
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 01:40 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Why don't I question the 'hetro-normative box'? Because it is the culture, because it is a necessary part of life, because doing so is futile, because gender roles go back to pre-history. Even if I wanted to throw it out to do so would be folly, one doesn't go to a knitting club and start ripping ass and smoking cigars. One cannot go through life without making assumptions based on gender and come out the other side in one piece. I wouldn't go up to a group of bikers and tell them how pretty their shoes are and expect to walk out of the bar. Shall we knock down bathroom walls? I wouldn't mind but I know some women who would probably never go in public again.

We generalize and compartmentalize because it serves us, because it is necessary. By your argument we should throw out all division between species because we can't be putting all chimps into a separate box from bonobos.

Is tolerance not enough? Must I start dressing in drag on Friday nights, will that make you happy?

taking a bit to the extreme are we?

One thing is to THINK outside the box as a means to an end (a slow but steady progression towards a society where you can compliment a biker on his shoes) and a completely different thing is to just throw everything away and start ACTING crazy.

Women who wanted the right to vote questioned the hetero-normative box, gay people who fight for the right to equal rights question the box, people against racism question the box... the box is big and the box is everywhere. It isn't futile to question it, it is necessary.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 02:01 PM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2013 02:06 PM by ridethespiral.)
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 01:54 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 01:40 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Why don't I question the 'hetro-normative box'? Because it is the culture, because it is a necessary part of life, because doing so is futile, because gender roles go back to pre-history. Even if I wanted to throw it out to do so would be folly, one doesn't go to a knitting club and start ripping ass and smoking cigars. One cannot go through life without making assumptions based on gender and come out the other side in one piece. I wouldn't go up to a group of bikers and tell them how pretty their shoes are and expect to walk out of the bar. Shall we knock down bathroom walls? I wouldn't mind but I know some women who would probably never go in public again.

We generalize and compartmentalize because it serves us, because it is necessary. By your argument we should throw out all division between species because we can't be putting all chimps into a separate box from bonobos.

Is tolerance not enough? Must I start dressing in drag on Friday nights, will that make you happy?

taking a bit to the extreme are we?

One thing is to THINK outside the box as a means to an end (a slow but steady progression towards a society where you can compliment a biker on his shoes) and a completely different thing is to just throw everything away and start ACTING crazy.

Nach ever cool...

I agree, I just didn't get that tone from the OP. It felt accusatory, like "Why are you so ignorant with your heterosexual ways!?"

You know I endorse no restriction on personal freedom so long as it does no harm...but I don't appreciate being called backwards or ignorant because I like things that go vroom, lighting stuff on fire and drinking beer.

All those things you listed are basic human rights and should be defended. I just don't like being told that I think within a box, it makes me hostile...I've spent my whole adult life attempting challenging pre-conceptions.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 02:01 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 01:54 PM)nach_in Wrote:  taking a bit to the extreme are we?

One thing is to THINK outside the box as a means to an end (a slow but steady progression towards a society where you can compliment a biker on his shoes) and a completely different thing is to just throw everything away and start ACTING crazy.

Nach ever cool...

I agree, I just didn't get that tone from the OP. It felt accusatory, like "Why are you so ignorant with your heterosexual ways!?"

You know I endorse no restriction on personal freedom so long as it does no harm...but I don't appreciate being called backwards or ignorant because I like things that go vroom, lighting stuff on fire and drinking beer.

All those things you listed are basic human rights and should be defended. I just don't like being told that I think within a box, it makes me hostile...I've spent my whole adult life attempting challenging pre-conceptions.

Yeah, the OP sounds a bit harsh. I kind of fail to see that now because after I wen't down the rabbit's hole of gender studies I found myself so narrow minded and sexist that it kind of forced me to make a pretty big mind shift, fuck I'm gay and I have homophobic tendencies!!! Tongue

It's like learning a new language, at some point you find that the word for table in other languages have a slightly different meaning, and that's the same for every word, at some point you realize that you've been missing a whole universe of ideas and connections because you thought your language pretty much covered everything...

That's the thing with the box, once you get out of it, the world is full of weird possibilities, you don't want to try everything, but just knowing they're there gives you a really profound understanding of the word "different" not better not worse, not higher, not abnormal, not in another part of a known spectrum.
Completely and absolutely different... like a flat land inhabitant seeing the 3D world different.

mindfuck I tell you... that's why some feminist end up being crazy feminazis... mind-fucking-fuck

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
I took it as the OP talking about intolerance of cisgender hetero scum toward anything else, and perhaps questioning if they have questioned their status. But I'd say the reason a cisgender hetero person hasn't likely questioned his/her status as such would be that he/she is cisgender and heterosexual, not that he/she is in the closet or something and is really a fabulous omnisexual drag queen.

(19-07-2013 01:29 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  After all, to be viable a society must be economically and reproductively stable, and asexuals and omnisexuals are probably less likely to go the family route. That's not to say they are a force for anarchy - on the contrary, they can contribute in a more unencumbered way to the arts, science, medicine, etc. (the idea of the "Creative Class"). And yes, they also provide a window into different ways of sexual expression, thus exemplifying "other ranges of possibilities".


In my experience, lots and lots of asexuals have and want children. Not sure what "omnisexual" is, but if that means the same as "pansexual," it means potential to be attracted to any gender, it doesn't mean "sleeps around with thousands of people and never settles down," so I'd see no reason why such a person wouldn't have a family either. In fact, if there is one thing I've learned from asexuality and transgender internet forums, it's that the majority of all groups tend to want a two-person relationships and usually also children.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 10:48 PM)BrokenQuill92 Wrote:  Some atheist are still thinking within a hetero-normative box and not thinking outside of the straight white male landscape when it comes to the standard of beauty, sex, sexuality, and sexual expression.

I am a straight, white male. Why do I need to think outside that 'box' about my standards of beauty?

I recognize that other people have other standards. So?
All I'm saying is right now for the vast majority America that is a default setting in our social construct and what right does it have to be over any other? It's not to poke an accusatory finger. It's just something to think about. Why when I walk down the street with my boyfriend are we both automatically assumed to be straight? When in fact we're both pansexual. Why do you always hear comments in America like "You're pretty for a 'insert race/disability here' girl"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 02:35 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 02:31 PM)BrokenQuill92 Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am a straight, white male. Why do I need to think outside that 'box' about my standards of beauty?

I recognize that other people have other standards. So?
All I'm saying is right now for the vast majority America that is a default setting in our social construct and what right does it have to be over any other? It's not to poke an accusatory finger. It's just something to think about. Why when I walk down the street with my boyfriend are we both automatically assumed to be straight? When in fact we're both pansexual. Why do you always hear comments in America like "You're pretty for a 'insert race/disability here' girl"

When I see others in the street, I don't automatically assume anything about their sexuality.
Why are you concerned what others assume or why do you think they assume anything?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 02:28 PM)amyb Wrote:  I took it as the OP talking about intolerance of cisgender hetero scum toward anything else, and perhaps questioning if they have questioned their status. But I'd say the reason a cisgender hetero person hasn't likely questioned his/her status as such would be that he/she is cisgender and heterosexual, not that he/she is in the closet or something and is really a fabulous omnisexual drag queen.

(19-07-2013 01:29 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  After all, to be viable a society must be economically and reproductively stable, and asexuals and omnisexuals are probably less likely to go the family route. That's not to say they are a force for anarchy - on the contrary, they can contribute in a more unencumbered way to the arts, science, medicine, etc. (the idea of the "Creative Class"). And yes, they also provide a window into different ways of sexual expression, thus exemplifying "other ranges of possibilities".


In my experience, lots and lots of asexuals have and want children. Not sure what "omnisexual" is, but if that means the same as "pansexual," it means potential to be attracted to any gender, it doesn't mean "sleeps around with thousands of people and never settles down," so I'd see no reason why such a person wouldn't have a family either. In fact, if there is one thing I've learned from asexuality and transgender internet forums, it's that the majority of all groups tend to want a two-person relationships and usually also children.

It is part of the hetero-normative to catalogue any kind of non-heterosexual orientation as promiscuous and unstable, gays are promiscousm, bisexuals only want to fuck everyone and never settle down... When sexual orientation is actually only a definition of the range of people one wants to have sexual relations with, it say nothing about the romantic aspirations of the individual or the family they dream of having (if any) or anything else.

But that's part of the subtle effect the box has, is like a theist assuming atheist worship the devil, they can't grasp the idea of disbelief, so they try to define it in their own terms (hence the devil worshipping thing) instead of acquiring new terms to define things they don't understand.

The worst part of our boxes is that they're invisible, we don't know we have them until we brake them

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: