On The Sofa (8)

[Missy @missy]

@theconsultingdoctor

I finally got to the site you recommended and received a blow. I assumed – incorrectly – that the recording was an actual video – film.

I’ve got this story on a CD, with Derek Jacobi as MR James, and the tale performed as a play with the BBC players.

It’s wonderful. Thank you anyway.

Cheers,

Missy

[Missy @missy]

@ichabod

Ah now, poor Mycroft. He definitely loves his little brother, but like most genius’s he’s flawed – as is William
Sherlock Scott.

Cheers,

Missy

[Anonymous @]

@missy

Bit difficult for me to keep track of multiple conversations on here so sorry for asking…which site, on my recommendation,  we’re you referring to?

[Anonymous @]

@ichabod

Glad you liked the video! Maybe sad wasn’t exactly the right word. I just found it emotional when John was given a bit of hope, but Sherlock still couldn’t reveal that he was alive. In my opinion, the best part was the response in the comments of “Wrong. Friends protect people.” I don’t really see John and Sherlock’s story as a love story. I see it as the best story about their friendship. That, to me, is what the show is about. I would give anything to have a friendship as strong as Sherlock and John’s.

I’m also glad you mentioned the “high-functioning sociopath” thing. I agree with you about it. You can read a bit more of what I have to say about it in my Redbeard Theory posted in the TAB thread if you haven’t read it. The link at the end there is not something I wrote, but I did write a bit about it above the link.

What I have heard in interviews with the Sherlock writers is that Sherlock himself is not a bad person, but Mycroft has influenced him as a big brother by teaching him things like “caring is not an advantage”. I hope they go more into that in Season 4. Hope you continue to watch the show!

[ichabod @ichabod]

@theconsultingdoctor  Well, friendship is fine too — though it would be a sort of adolescent boy-worships-superior-boy thing, seems to me — Watson’s adoring glances, usually shot to put Holmes’s face higher on the screen than his — makes that abundantly clear, IMO.  No sex need be involved, but I’d put Watson as much in the “devoted follower” category as that of “BFF”.

The “high functioning psychopath” is ludicrous, really, since at worst Sherlock is “high-functioning social misfit”, with *plenty* of strong feelings (including affection) the *lack* of which pretty much defines a psychopath or sociopath.  The latter do not have feelings, let alone empathy, and the articulate ones will say so right up front and without any embarrassment.  Brain studies (mostly conducted on long term inmates of prisons for violent offenders) show actual brain deformation (essentially bad DNA code inhibiting the development of important areas of the prefrontal cortex, as I recall — Morgan Freeman’s series about “God” just ran an ep about evil that covered this in some detail).  Sherlock has had strong feelings that he can’t cope with all his life, so he represses them fiercely and uses “high functioning psychopath” as a (ridiculous) cover story to excuse the resultant air of cold detachment.

It’s a nagging irritation that nobody seems prepared to call him on it.  His usual attitude seems to be a common model of not dealing with emotional life for upper class British men and women, at least according to fiction by and about them), what’s the big deal?

[Anonymous @]

@ichabod

Hey, no reason to be rude about it. If you don’t get it, your loss. I was with you on the not a sociopath thing.

[ichabod @ichabod]

@theconsultingdoctor  OOps, sorry — electronic tone fail?  I didn’t mean to offend.  “What’s the big deal?” was a question to other characters in the story whose reactions to Sherlock seem to provoke this need for him to explain himself this way.  In any case, apologies for my own verbal clumsiness.

[Anonymous @]

@Theconsultingdoctor

Absolutely nothing @Ichabod wrote was rude whatsoever. 🙂 Believe me, in reading her discussions rudeness aint ever fit  🙂

Anyway, ichi (a published writer of some note who uses vocabulary and complex concepts in an academic tone) was referring to how others’ responded to Sherlock and his subsequent “gone viral” euphemistic declaration of being a ” “high functioning psychopath” as a (ridiculous) cover story to excuse the resultant air of cold detachment” common in the class system of the UK in earlier times and which, itself, provokes an interesting discussion about the nature of class systems in England, France, Russia, Australia (apparently we’re all immigrants by way of the ‘boat’ – both ways -‘making a better life’ and sentenced as convicts) and now the US.

The high functioning sociopath/psychopath hasn’t quite been ‘locked up’ and thrown away as a sensible medical diagnosis just yet. Whether it works with Sherlock I’m not fit to argue  -barring 18 months of med school (during which I performed dreadfully) so that diagnosis might still be up in the air, as it were, but in Sherlock’s case, it’s hardly likely the correct prognosis.  Others more keen than I have expressed their deductions with considerable lucidity.

Kindest,

Puro and Son.

[Anonymous @]

@ichabod

Oh, no offense taken and my sincerest apologies. I realized very soon before reading your explanation that I had misinterpreted what you had written. I understand what you were trying to say now. 🙂

[ichabod @ichabod]

@puroandson  I think there are lots of honest-to-goodness “high-functioning psychopaths” in finance and banking, the upper reaches of dominant corporate circles, and anyplace where massive amounts of money are made via a finely adjusted balance of high intelligence and the cold ruthlessness that comes with the inability to feel empathy that’s the defining characteristic of psychopathy, IMO.  Not to mention the most successful “businessmen” in the drugs and guns trades, human trafficking, and vice.

I mentioned Mycroft in this connection because he seems definitely to be engaged in government skulduggery, and unbothered by it in any way.  He has found a way to put his psychopathy (if I’m reading him correctly) and brilliance to work in a way that rewards instead of punishing him for ruthless behavior.  I’m judging strictly by demeanor and delivery here, of course — and consider that many, many ruthless men are famous for how loyal and loving they were known to be to their own family members, so his looking after Sherlock is an unreliable indicator.  (I’m thinking of Josef Fouche, creator of the French Secret Police in Revolutionary France, commonly known as “The Butcher of Lyons” for exactly the kind of actions you imagine, and famously devoted to his own family.  Or, closer to home, Dexter Morgan.)  The Other Holmes Show, “Elementary”, uses this problem very well, only it’s Sherlock’s father (John Noble) who’s the HFP, dabbling in gun-running and wars, for which Sherlock hates him.

For a contrast, think of George Smiley as played by Alec Guinness.  That character does the kind of thing that Mycroft does at a higher administrative level, but clearly carries the weight of the implications of this on his emotional shoulders (Guinness was himself a devout Catholic).  UK Sherlock stays clear of Mycroft when he can, but maybe not because he hates that remote, superior willingness to destroy the lives of others for his chosen “good cause” (the Empire, of course), but because he both admires Mycroft’s lack of empathy — and also dreads recognizing that he already has?  Maybe he only *aspires* to be a HFP, with what he imagines as the emotional painlessness that goes with it.

[ichabod @ichabod]

@puroandson  Thanks for those kind words!  And yes, the cultivated appearance of unshakable sang froide is, from what I can tell, a given for the British upper class, and a measure for telling the “blue bloods” from vulgarly anxious and expressive  arrivistes.  What good is class without “You can tell at once that he’s not one of us”?

@theconsultingdoctor  No problem, truly.  We do happen to be well into a Mercury Retrograde right now, which operates (astrologically speaking) as a delaying and distorting device affecting communication at all levels, plus tech breakdowns and necessary mends, an opportunity to slow down and look backward toward re-addressing jobs left undone.  Don’t ask why, it makes no more sense than the rest of astrology, but in my experience is does work, to the extent that cutting everyone more slack than usual (self included) is a usually helpful.  Not to worry.

 

 

[Anonymous @]

@ichabod

You may be bored with this topic by now, but I happened to come across a quote by Steven Moffat in an article I was reading about Sherlock that I think is a good description of the relationship between Sherlock and John:

“Creator Steven Moffat says that Sherlock is “definitely a love story” between John and Sherlock, but he questions why that means they need to have sex. “What a weirdly sexualized world we live in where you insist they must be having sex … you can love someone without fancying them.” I appreciate Moffat’s sentiments and applaud the courageous creativity it took to write about non-sexual love between two men. It’s a difficult theme to present in a hypersexualized world that equates almost all love with romantic, sexual love.”

Just thought you might find it interesting. Again, I do not “ship” the two myself, but I do admire their chemistry.

[Arbutus @arbutus]

@TheConsultingDoctor    @ichabod

I’ve been reading this discussion with interest, and your last post has reminded me of something. There have always been the “buddy movies”, in which (usually) two males of disparate personality are forced together by circumstances and form a bond. Usually, these movies have been action-oriented, with varying degrees of humour, and occasional forays into the arena of actual emotions. I don’t know whether it occurred to any portion of the viewers to try and “ship” the characters in these films– if it did, it perhaps happened somewhere out of mainstream view! But nowadays, film and in particular, serial TV, tends to want to go much deeper into emotional territory that used to be touched on more lightly most of the time. This, perhaps, sets up a show like Sherlock for more of these assumptions, that sexual attraction must accompany deep emotion. I agree with Moffat’s view that what is essentially a “buddy film” is being viewed through a sexualized lens. I guess if this is what turns people’s crank, then so be it. Personally, I find it pretty limiting.

[Missy @missy]

@theconsultingdoctor

Garostudiochannel

Ttfn

Missy

[Missy @missy]

@ichabod

Your mention of psychopath or sociopath was interesting.
Some time ago, there was a programme on TV about psycopaths. Unfortunately I don’t remember the title of the programme, or the chap who presented it, other than he was an American and was involved with medicine in some way.
It was decided to take brain x-rays or scans of known psycopaths serving a life sentence, and ordinary everyday people. They took 6 of each group. Looking at these x-rays a large portion of the brain was missing (coloured green) in the 6 psycopaths, but in tact in the other group.
Ironically, the chap presenting the programme, was told by his mother, that he had a mad relative. Just for fun, he had an x-ray taken of his brain and guess what – a large portion was missing, just like the prisoners. Weird!
He then told us that his son had told him, that he (son) had always been afraid of him.
He topped the programme, by saying that when he’d attended the funeral of an Aunt recently, he’d walked out and went fishing. He knew it was wrong, but he simply didn’t care.
His childhood had been happy with no big traumas, had it been different, he may have been violent.
Interesting don’t you think?

Ttfn

Missy

[Missy @missy]

I have heard that hrere are different kinds of psycopaths and that we all probably know at least one.

ttfn

Missy

[ichabod @ichabod]

@theconsultingdoctor  Oh, I absolutely agree with Moffat on this hyper-sexualization of *everything*, even when that’s not actually what a story is about.

@arbutus  Exactly, re the long-standing tradition of “buddy” movies (I meant to do a post just about that, but you’ve done it, so thanks).  The deeper exploration of non-sexual but powerful bonds between “miss-matched” pairs is an old trope in SF — “Enemy Mine” or the better-known “Left Hand of Darkness”, for example.  That’s part of what women writers (and some unusually flexible-minded men) overtly cracked open in the SF/F fields in the seventies when they — when we flattened the Old Boys’ walls of fascinating technology and macho values to let in the *other* half of human experience, the female half *beyond* “Get us some coffee, Nancy, will you, from the nourishment replicator, while I explain my complicated scientific ideas to you.”  Naiomi Mitchison was an early female bounds-buster, with “Memoirs of a Spacewoman”; sex with Submariner, as it were, in a swimming pool . . .

Not that some men hadn’t made their own inroads — Ted Sturgeon was famous for it after “The World Well Lost”, a story of two male spacers in love written in the fifties, I think.  Why not?  It was “just” trivial adventure-fantasy for boys (and some weird girls) in those days.  Things have changed incredibly fast now, so of course we’re going too far in reading sexual shenannigans into all sorts of fictional paired relationships, same-sex or otherwise.  I don’t think 19th c readers tened to  question heroic but very warm and committed “manly” friendships in fiction, or female characters who expressed deep girlish friendship with a kiss on the lips.  Now it’s innuendo 24/7, which is, I think, exactly the challenge that Moffat took up in S8 and S9 of DW, as well as in “Sherlock”.  It’s that kind of time: boundary-busting, querying everything, for our own rebels, while reactionaries look on in horror.  And *now* who’s gibbering?!  ‘nother glass of wine, and lights out.

[ichabod @ichabod]

@missy  I saw a very similar study referenced on a Tv program here just recently.  It’s very interesting indeed; I’ve been reading about the stuff since I was a kid — abnormal psychology always fascinated me.  I remember one book by a psychiatrist on the subject in which he told about a patient of his who, as a boy living in some posh and horsey area of Connecticut, used to take his horse out at night and go jumping gravestones in the local cemetery . . . that stuck in my head, all right!

Of course that doc didn’t have brain scanning equipment handy; but I’m not surprised that they’re now finding physical commonalities in the brains of people identified by their behavior as psychopaths (though I dislike this word because its usage makes no sense to me — a psychopath, seems to me, is a genuinely crazy person in that he kills you because he really and truly believes that you are a dangerous Orc from Middle Earth; a sociopath kills you because he’s bored, or because he stands to gain from your death, and feels nothing about it since he has no empathy so he can’t imagine your pain and loss as experienced from inside, only his own pleasure in killing you.  I think these distinct meanings have been blurred together now, and it’s a loss to the language, but there you are).

[PhantomTollbooth @thephantomtollbooth]

Hi,
I’m starting a wiki library of Doctor Who theories (I want to mainly stick to longstanding ones so they don’t all get disproved right away). Does anyone know of any longstanding theories I could make entries on? I’m going to be researching whatever theories I can and try to compile as much evidence as I can on them, as well as counter-arguments. If you’re interested in making an entry yourself, or editing one, it’s here below. But it would really help to even just get some suggestions for theories to cover. My Wiki

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

@ichabod @puroandson

The problem with the stereotypical British sang froid (which, remember, literally means cold blood) and aloofness is that it evaporates in the face of real danger, where people for whom danger is a daily fact of life save blue blooded bacon.

As with many an entitled berk finds, it ain’t quite so easy when the target shoots back.

(BTW, in fiction – and genre fiction especially – shippers and slashers bear a lot of responsibility for hyper-sexualisation. Twilight <spit> wouldn’t exist without Buffy shipper fic. Marketeers will feed the beast, so long as it pays.)

[Anonymous @]

@pedant “Twilight <spit>” very funny!

But what is a “slasher”. It’s related to the dastardly ‘shipperism’ ? Or something else entirely.

[Anonymous @]

@thephantomtollbooth

That sounds daunting and interesting! Welcome to the Forum. One theory constantly played around with is, “is the Doctor part human?”

I don’t believe he is but just sayin’.

To what extent is the Doctor a good man? Does he, as some suggest on screen, prefer others to do his ‘dirty work’ for him -as he doesn’t want to ‘see’ more blood (considering his role in the Time Wars).

How old is the Doctor -predicting the time he spent on Trenzalore and how old he was when he left Gallifrey.

Also, is he inclined to help others in need because of something which happened to him on Gallifrey when he was a relative youngster? Where, for example, he slept in the barn, on his own away and from the other boys.

Good luck with your task. Once you’re in the Tardis’ world, it’s like a black hole: you can’t get out, you may not want to and there’s so many theories and ideas piling up on you! I’m sure @ichabod will have some interesting theories to put forward – far more eloquent than my rather pat ideas  🙂

Kindest,

PuroSolo

[Anonymous @]

Out of interest has anyone seen the show ‘Numbers’? I think it started 7-8 years ago and may well have finished by now. Just wondering if it’s a ‘recommend’ at all?

Thank you,

Puro and Son.

[ichabod @ichabod]

@thephantomtollbooth   Good luck with your project — check reddit for lots of what I think you’re looking for!  People there set up odd theories as discussion subjects, which (if you check the comments) can give you an idea of how common a theory is, and what kind of support it has.

@pedant  I’ve come to think that true sang froid is widespread in northern Europe — that’s a tough environment, the north, in all its manifestations, and particularly in rural areas where the task has always been to survive the weather and stony soils, and do what has to be done to support that survival without complaining (we have similar conditions and attitudes in the harsher north of the US, and Canada).

Maybe the ruling classes react to getting beyond that struggle for bare survival by taking that stubborn, tight-lipped endurance and “refining” it, and partly justifying their position by pretending to have a higher level of these stoic  virtues than the “mere” peasantry has.  In fact, some really do have it, some don’t, I would think, though the working folk have a lot less choice in the matter — miners, fishermen, farmers, stockmen, all need it just to manage the risks in their lives (in the States, too, that’s the deal — our highest work related accident rates are found in rural areas, usually related to the heavy machinery it takes to run a farm or a fishing boat or timber business these days).

The owner classes fetishize stoicism as part of their claim to be as much “of the land” as those who do most of the actual work on it, and to be superior at it, too.  I think it’s partly to make themselves seem like natural leaders of their “inferiors” in stressful and dangerous times, the way your feudal overlord used to shelter everyone behind his castle walls and then lead the men at arms out to engage the enemy — though challenging situations are much larger and more out of local control than they used to be, not usually just the baron next door suddenly at your gates with *his* men at arms, Game of Thrones style.

I’m not claiming to be any sort of expert on UK and class so this is just theory, but that’s how it looks to me.  Super simplistic, of course; but anywhere near real, do you think?

@puroandson  (PuroSolo)  “fanfic” is, as I understand it, the overall label encompassing fiction about a favorite show or even characters from different shows brought together in some fictional context, to tell new stories that fill in gaps that the fans find compellingly in need of filling.  “Slash” is the erotic sub-genre of fanfic, and, I am told, began with (mostly female and/or gay) fans setting out to write stories exploring their sense that erotic tension that clearly existed between characters in the series was being deliberately avoided or censored by the writers and producers — so why don’t we write that part ourselves?!  As long as it’s not commercially exploited, copyright etc. is not infringed.  The first “Slash” fiction that I’m aware of was original stories by fans about erotic relations between Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock.  This became known as K/S fiction; note the forward “slash” between the letters.

It got very raunchy very fast, and other pairings from other shows sprouted their own versions (Emma Peel/Mr. Steed, Starsky/Hutch, Batman/Robin, etc.).  And it’s been roaring along ever since (tons if for various pairings from GoT, for instance, or One Upon a Time, or — you name it — Doctor # whatever/the Master, Clara/Missy, and on and on, including controversial real-people Slash which usually combines the personas of public figures, sometimes with fictional ones).  And no doubt lots more — I’m don’t keep up to date on it, though there are several academic studies out there by people who do).

“Fifty Shades of Drek” began, I’ve read, as Twilight fanfic.  Gabaldon’s Highlander series began, if you can believe it,  as DW fanfic (the immortal time traveler + Scottish highlands).  Writers of this material by and large, though, don’t do it for money (since you can’t legally profit from it unless your disguise your fanfic so heavily that it can be sold as original variations on a common theme — in literature, ideas are not copyrightable, any more than titles can.  Alfie Bester’s “The Stars my Destination”, a pretty damn brilliant riff on “The Count of Monte Christo”, was an award-winner and rightly so (excellent book, terrible gender politics though — Alfie had bad divorces, as I recall).  That’s ff of a kind, too.

This is why I can’t bring myself to condemn “fanfic” wholesale.  It’s an outlying, rebellious, and often extreme area of the long conversation of stories, one to another, that makes up literature; and sometimes an exceptional example becomes very mainstream indeed (“Ulysses” by Joyce as fanfic of “The Odyssey”?).  Most of it is dreck; but so is 90+ % of the fiction published today, IMO.

But for Slash, specifically, you need a strong stomach if you’re sensitive at all about sex and gender politics.  The writers use it to talk freely about transgressive issues in these areas, issues that they want to see explored openly and honestly in their favorite shows, but that usually aren’t even acknowledged there.  I feel I have to honor the impulse, even though I can’t often slog through the results (too much tv and not much actual reading of high quality literary fiction usually = execrable writing; sad but true, and not just about fanfic either).

Ugh, too long — signing off, and thanks for your patience.

 

 

 

[Missy @missy]

@theconsultingdoctor

“Creator Steven Moffat says that Sherlock is “definitely a love story” between John and Sherlock, but he questions why that means they need to have sex. “What a weirdly sexualized world we live in where you insist they must be having sex … you can love someone without fancying them.” I appreciate Moffat’s sentiments and applaud the courageous creativity it took to write about non-sexual love between two men. It’s a difficult theme to present in a hypersexualized world that equates almost all love with romantic, sexual love.”
Just thought you might find it interesting. Again, I do not “ship” the two myself, but I do admire their chemistry.

I could not agree more. I believe emotion is called “man love.”

Ttfn

Missy

[Missy @missy]

@ichabod

Difficult in’t it. How does one define a 1. psychopath or 2.sociopath?
Perhaps it’s as simple as: 1. behaves in an antisocical way, does bad things, is aware of it, but doesn’t care.
2. Does all the above, but sees no harm in what he does and can’t see what all the fuss is about.
I know that’s simplistic, but am unable to come up with any other explanation.

ttfn

Missy

[Missy @missy]

PuroSolo

Like you, I have no desire to “get out.”
Staying in the tardis, is much safer than the real world. Sometimes one needs an escape route, and the Tardis is mine.

Ttfn

Missy

[ichabod @ichabod]

@missy  Well, no, I think it’s pretty easy.  A psychopath is mentally ill, a psychotic who lives his or her life in a world of internal delusions (“My dog told me to do it”, Son of Sam, murderer of courting couples).  They’re nuts.  They’re the aluminum hat brigade who need to be medicated if they’re let out on the street.

A sociopath is maladapted to live in human society because of an inability to recognize others as beings as real and significant as his or her own self, ie he has no empathy, can’t even imagine feeling what others feel because their feelings aren’t “real” to him but a pretense, a hypocritical charade.  They think that normal talk about empathy and sympathy, but are lying; to them, everyone has the same feelings as the sociopath, however they disguise them (this is the common pedophile’s defense, look it up: “Everyone wants to behave as I behave, only they don’t have the guts, but I do” is a common theme heard from these people.  “I am the one being true to human nature; they are hypocrites and liars, too weak to give in to their true inner natures.”  Ask the cops and psychiatrists who deal with these people.  To them, only the ego-self is real, significant, worth advancing and protecting).  It’s a physiological deficit in the brain.  That’s the best “explanation” I’ve been able to find.  And there is no medication for this disorder; it’s a brain structure problem.

Modern sloppiness has conflated these two words, IMO.  Too bad; the distinction was useful.  Now, they are used interchangeably about people with very different roots to their aberrant behavior.

[Arbutus @arbutus]

@TheConsultingDoctor   @missy      Isn’t it sad that this has to be qualified? That we’ve come to a place where love isn’t considered a naturally manly emotion unless it is either sexual or familial? The deep sense of caring and protectiveness that Sherlock and John come to feel for one another over the course of the show felt very satisfying to me, as both of them are portrayed as damaged and isolated when they first meet. It could be an equally effective arc in a male-female relationship, if our culture didn’t make it just as difficult to portray non-sexual love between men and women.

[ichabod @ichabod]

@arbutus   Sad, and bad for us as a culture.  A lot of men seem to be so insecure about the adequacy and focus of their own sexuality that they shy away from any degree of ambiguity or blurring of boundaries between this type of love or that type of love — complexity of any kind, really, around the subject.

[Missy @missy]

@arbutus Indeed it is.

@ichabod Ww women don’t have this problem.
It’s quite acceptable for us to say that we love our friends.
A great shame.

Ttfn

Missy

[Anonymous @]

“Ww women don’t have this problem.
It’s quite acceptable for us to say that we love our friends.”

That all depends on the geography as you certainly can’t do that around here without being labeled a Lesbian or a Dyke, and that has been true for decades, ever since gay culture has set in. When I was very young (before the anti-sodomy law was struck down) this was not the case, but now one has to be very careful about that, in order to avoid being misinterpreted, regardless of gender.

[Missy @missy]

@stitchintime

How annoying and childish! *rolls eyes*
If we all went around being careful we might as well stay in bed.
Of course, then there’d be a law against that!

ttfn

Missy

[Anonymous @]

@missy

Well, that is another way of looking at it. You have certainly given me something to think about. 🙂

[Anonymous @]

@stitchintime

Certainly you’re right, one does need to be careful.  I agree with you!

Now, I hope @mudlark doesn’t mind me mentioning her. Mudlark is recovering from her hip op at home amongst blue skies looking on to her garden. I wish her a speedy recovery and hope she’ll be back with us soon.

Kindest,

Puro and Son.

[Anonymous @]

@puroandson
“Certainly you’re right, one does need to be careful. I agree with you!”

Thank you for that. 🙂

@puroandson
“Mudlark…I wish her a speedy recovery and hope she’ll be back with us soon.”

I too offer my best wishes. 🙂

[Anonymous @]

@stitchintime @missy

Yes, I hope @mudlark will get better soon. She is our ‘academia’ but brings a lot of humour and knowledge of recent Who and interpretations.

The issue of ‘care’ regarding speaking to different groups of people is an understandable one.

I remember in Europe, decades ago, watching same sex people holding hands and arms around each other -I met them -this was a small town and we were all headed to the same destination and small concert. Turns out, those women (as couples) and men (likewise) were best mates. During interval we conversed and then I asked them about, and congratulated them on, their convivial and open ‘behaviour’.  They laughed good naturedly and asserted that it’s “the way it’s always been. We’re very believing of showing our platonic love for each other. I have a wife and 3 kids and Pepa is my best friend.  He was my best man at my wedding 10 years ago”.

Today, I suppose this ‘behaviour’ is seen as immediately gay. I mentioned the attitude to this group of people and even then they said it was pretty fundamental as an idea but that they didn’t mind either way. If people thought something was “happening” they said they couldn’t care less. This was about 1991.

I feel it’s harder now. Certainly from my own experience in giving blokes (friends) a hug and a kiss that there’s always an interpretation of “oh, so you’re having it on! -with girls in Bris or Sydney the same thing happens so it’s about clarity of the language I suppose. But it’s annoying having to be on the ‘defence’ all the time about these ishoos.

It’s part of critical communication these days.  But sadly, in the area in which I live, despite the community of bakers, restaurateurs, butchers, boutiques and salons, if one sees two openly gay people, there’s immediate ‘muttering’ from others sitting or walking casually nearby. I feel ready, sometimes, to get on a soap box and yell at these fools for their insufferable behaviour- which of course would give them oxygen/ammunition. Together, never a good combination.

We, as a world, have a helluva lot of growing up to do yet. I can see, though, in schools, there’s some movement towards teaching and learning in these areas. For instance Son’s last English teacher was reading the class excerpts of The Left Hand of Darkness and also short stories from the Lesbian and Gay Community -a few parents were affronted and made their way to the Parents and Citizens Community but fortunately, whilst their opinions and concerns were listened to respectfully, the teacher was able to continue her work and analysis.

I don’t know how this situation is in America, for example? @lisa might give some insight into this. And @arbutus in Canada also.

Kindest,

Puro and Son

PS; to the mods, I’m aware this heavy discussion is generally best served in the Pub as The Sofa is for light hearted conversation and for new members to introduce themselves -apologies to all for my little (ish) rant 🙂

[Anonymous @]

@puroandson
“I feel it’s harder now….it’s annoying having to be on the ‘defence’ all the time about these ishoos.”

That is pretty much how I feel and in my area there are plenty of opportunities for genuine misunderstandings of that sort as there are quite a few openly gay couples and individuals. I myself have actually been “cautioned” by a few such people that I need to watch how I am behaving so as not to confuse GAY people! ^^ I have had past negative experiences with those who are not, as well, however; so, as you say, we all still apparently have a lot to learn from each other. 🙂

[Missy @missy]

Perhaps it’s my age, I don’t know, but I have little patience with all this “Political Correctness.”
Let’s face it, all the above is virtually – or at least on the borders of – PC.
Be careful not to hurt or offend, naturally, but if I want to go arm in arm with my best friend, I shall.
I feel that if people keep quiet about ‘sensitive issues (the word is correct in this context) then nothing will change, except to get worse.
That’s how I feel at any rate.
Lecture over. *grin*

Ttfn

Missy

[Missy @missy]

PS.

I also offer my best wishes and sympathy to mudlark. May she be leaping about like a 10 year old very soon.

Ttfn

Missy

[Missy @missy]

@stitchintime @puroandson

This is my opinion, and may not be that of others.
Unfortunately, there appears to be a “nanny” thingy taking root.

[Missy @missy]

And now for something completely different.
I think that this applies to you @ichabod.

Whilst trawling YouTube, imagine my surprise, then delight, when two Videos put out by the BBC in the 70’s, coughed up: Lost hearts and A Warning to the curious – both by M.R. James!
The first was, I admit, a little dated, but enjoyable all the same.
I have yet to watch the latter and wonder whether or not there are any more.

Thought this news might be of interest?

ttfn

Missy

[Missy @missy]

Excellent news, there are quite a few more M.R. James to watch.

Ttfn

Missy

[ichabod @ichabod]

@missy   Thanks for the “more M.R. James”  — good place for me to hang out for a while.  And I second your good wishes for mudlark!  On the gay etc. situation, it’s changing rapidly but still rather wildly in flux in many places, but the general trend in the West seems (to me) to be positive.  Things are so fluid these days — I bought some art supplies last week at a local store, and came back a few times for advice.  The young woman who’d had answers to my questions during several previous visits to the store, said, as she was ringing up my stuff, “You don’t have a partner, do you?”  It was a pretty obvious advance.  I said, without thinking about it, “Well, I have a husband; he’s been in an Alzheimer’s unit across the river these past two years, so yes, and no, I guess.”  She said with quick sympathy, “Oh, I’m so sorry you have that situation to deal with!” “Ah, well,” says I, the way you do; she gave me my change, and home I went.

What interests me, in retrospect, is that no apologies or hemming and hawing followed, because neither of us felt a need address her initial mis-perception that I was gay.  I wasn’t surprised (it’s not the first time) or perturbed, since I’m more the rangy, casual-clothes and short gray hair kind of older woman than the permed, made-up “cougar” of modern folklore, and it’s actually rather flattering to be hit on, by *anybody*, at 76!  Mainly, I really liked the tone of the exchange — so different from in days of yore . . . No nervous anxiety, no disapproving glances from bystanders, none of that stuff.  It’s a new day, at least in some places and settings.

I like it.  I hope she finds herself “a partner” soon.  As for me, it would have to be someone incredibly special before I’d be at all interested.  Age has its privileges, and not giving a damn about pairing up again is one of them.  Re being PC or not about such things, who’s to say, really?

[Anonymous @]

Hi

Does someone knows about good Doctor Who video game
<p style=”text-align: left;”>Thanks RYCBARM</p>

[Anonymous @]

@missy
Unfortunately, there appears to be a “nanny” thingy taking root.

I am not familiar with the expression “‘nanny’ thingy,” but I am guessing that what you mean is that some of us are feeling that our freedom of action is being negatively impacted, although based on my reading of what @ichabod has just posted, it appears that others may actually be feeling freer.

Anyhow, in response to @rycbarm’s question, I’m afraid I don’t know of any off hand, but would certainly be interested to know if anyone else does.

[Anonymous @]

@missy you’re referring to a “nanny state”?

No, not under the umbrella of what we’re talking about.

That’s different. As my post suggested it’s good to be aware of different issues. It shouldn’t incapacitate anyone.

 

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

“Political correctness”: a term invented by the obnoxious to belittle the courteous.

[ichabod @ichabod]

@pedant  “Political correctness”: a term invented by the obnoxious to belittle the courteous.

Someone once accused Ursula LeGuin (a prominent U.S. science fiction author, for those who don’t recognize the name) of advancing “political correctness” in a public conversation at a convention.  Ursula, who suffers fools not at all, snapped back along these lines (I was there, but my recall is not exact): “Yes, I do try to be politically correct: I’m against slavery, the brutal exploitation of working people, ‘jokes’ meant to hold female and non-white people up to public ridicule, and corporate crime, among other things.  If you’re not, you might want to ask yourself why not.”

I have heard of situations where people holding such “liberal” values have gone to ridiculous extremes in their efforts to reverse generations of filthy and prejudiced behavior quickly, while the iron is hot; reform often involved over-reach.  That doesn’t make efforts to reform outworn shibboleths worthless, absurd, or criminal, IMO, but mileage varies, of course.  In my experience, when something is sneeringly dismissed as “political correctness”, that thing is *usually* well worth supporting.

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

@rycbarm

if you look around the BBC Doctor Who site I am pretty sure there are some there.

[Author]

Posts