it just gets worse as you keep going...
welcome to my world.
me: what doing?
John: fighting with my ex via text.
can we make love
me: um, no. i don't even know you, and making love is one of those things i only do with folks I know.
John: what about just sex?
me: maybe, but that would take some more negotiation.
why would i want to have sex with you?
John: because i am nice, and i really need the intimacy right now
me: I'm sure you're very nice, and I'm sure intimacy would feel good, but you're going to need to do a better job of salesmanship than that.
see, i have this terribly fragile yet well-defended little heart, and it's attached to the rest of me, and while I'm as sex-positive as the next girl, i also really don't need an ass-kicking right now.
John: ass kicking? you mean physically?
me: physically and emotionally
John: i dont want to hurt you. i promise you. that is not what i want
i swear on everything.
me: I'm sure you don't. However, me-getting-hurt results from me-being-inauthentic. and while meaningless sex might feel good, i learned in the last week that for me right now, any sex with a boy is bound to have strange head-trips that go along with it.
(my, that's a lot of modifiers)
John: you had sex with a guy in the last week then?
me: not exactly.
John: pleas give me a chance. i really need you to make an exception for me.
me: my sexuality is fairly complicated, and exceptions just don't happen.
John: this is what i need, i really do
me: ever wondered what I might need?
sometimes sex is about what both people need. but you know that. you're a smart boy.
[Ed. note - actually, he's not. but I'm nice.]
John: it is give and take, i know that. but thats what i need, what you need i can try to give also
me: i don't know about that.... I'm not sure if anyone but me can give me what I need right now.
John: then at least help me, if you wont let me help you
please, understand
me: (that's what I mean about authenticity)
sorry, hon. I don't have the energy right now to help anyone but me.
John: all you have to do is lay there
i swear
me: ew.
no.
John: sigh
its not ew
me: yeah, actually, it is.
girl laying there (not enjoying herself), guy fucking her, getting off... that's exploitative and icky.
now, maybe if she's getting paid, it would be different, but the way you've brought it up, it's fuckin' using her body for your own needs, and that's gross.
John: ok. so you dont want me
me: not particularly, no.
John: ok.
me: good luck, man.
John: nothing can help me
me: somehow, i don't feel sorry for you right now. i kinda feel like i should go take a shower.
John: thanks
me: well, you tell a total stranger that all she has to do is lay there...
John: i was trying to make it easy for you, but i said it all wrong. so
me: one in four girls has been raped, y'know.
John: yea, every female in my family has.
me: sex is more complicated than it should be, and it's not fair to anyone, but there it is.
John: leave the rape thing alone, that has nothing to do with me
me: if that's the case, you should know better.
except when you present sex as something someone can do "for" you...
John: i dont feel sorry for you just because youve been raped
me: i could really care less.
John: i know youre used to getting your way with that excuse but
it does not work on me
me: hey, man. I never said i was raped, and I never said i wasn't.
John: i dont want to have sex with you anymore.
me: well, that's good.
John: have a nice life.
me: you too. good luck.
for fuck's sake. is that really how people think sex works? i like to think that this particular guy is just more inept than most, and that somewhere out there exist men who don't think of sex as something like shopping for socks (maybe they're hanging out with the girls who manage that balance of independence and mutual support that's so hard to come by in dyke-world.)
if anyone knows where I can find them, that would be great.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
hipp(it)y hop
Point # 1:
I had the best first date of my ever last night with hippy boy... laundromats, wine, garlic pizza, beer.
It was not at all what I expected and I didn't want it to end.
He's great, and smart, and slightly odd, and he smells nice, and I felt safe and normal and understood and stuff.
I don't know about sexy, though. I don't think I was very sexy. Which is kinda shitty.
I'm all sorts of crushed out and don't know what to do with it. He's exactly the person i was looking for.
Also, I look like I was recently wrestling with a lamprey.
Point # 2:
Racecar boy and I went out to the hippity hoppity bar tonight, and as we were discussing gender and how I frequently discomfit people, I made a point of smiling at and making eye contact with the biggest 'thuggiest' guy in the room.
I find that it's easier to confront these things right away rather than try to hide from something that could be uncomfy.
And he'd been staring at me for half an hour, so I thought I'd give him the opportunity to say something.
He took me up on it, waltzed on over and said "hey man, what's your problem?!?"
I said "nothin, man - I'm just having a good time"
he looked me up and down.
"what's your gender?"
"I'm a girl. Wanna see my ID?"
"yeah, right. and I'm LDS."
"No way, man... I really am a girl." (I pull back my button-down and try to show some boob through my t-shirt. This seemed like a good idea at the time.)
he turns to uber-male racecar boy sitting next to me.
"You a girl too?"
"No, man. I'm a guy."
much looking at my chest and RCBs crotch.
"uh, can I see those?" (gesturing at my boobs)
"No way, man, I don't even know you." (said with my best knock-em-dead grin)
blink.
blink.
(oh shit, I think. this could go a couple of different ways. I'm not liking my odds right now.)
he looks me right in the eye, and goes from stony glare to big genuine smile.
"Hey girl, you're all right. I'm the owner here, and you have a good time, okay? I'm glad you came in."
"thanks, man. I'm having a great time. nice place you have."
geez.
now i have to go theorize race and gender, and try to articulate why I feel safer showing my boobs to a black man with a gun than I do to an abercrombied-out frat boy.
he gets mad props for asking the question everyone else was (possibly) thinking.
and now I'm exhausted.
I'd really like hippy boy to call me back.
I had the best first date of my ever last night with hippy boy... laundromats, wine, garlic pizza, beer.
It was not at all what I expected and I didn't want it to end.
He's great, and smart, and slightly odd, and he smells nice, and I felt safe and normal and understood and stuff.
I don't know about sexy, though. I don't think I was very sexy. Which is kinda shitty.
I'm all sorts of crushed out and don't know what to do with it. He's exactly the person i was looking for.
Also, I look like I was recently wrestling with a lamprey.
Point # 2:
Racecar boy and I went out to the hippity hoppity bar tonight, and as we were discussing gender and how I frequently discomfit people, I made a point of smiling at and making eye contact with the biggest 'thuggiest' guy in the room.
I find that it's easier to confront these things right away rather than try to hide from something that could be uncomfy.
And he'd been staring at me for half an hour, so I thought I'd give him the opportunity to say something.
He took me up on it, waltzed on over and said "hey man, what's your problem?!?"
I said "nothin, man - I'm just having a good time"
he looked me up and down.
"what's your gender?"
"I'm a girl. Wanna see my ID?"
"yeah, right. and I'm LDS."
"No way, man... I really am a girl." (I pull back my button-down and try to show some boob through my t-shirt. This seemed like a good idea at the time.)
he turns to uber-male racecar boy sitting next to me.
"You a girl too?"
"No, man. I'm a guy."
much looking at my chest and RCBs crotch.
"uh, can I see those?" (gesturing at my boobs)
"No way, man, I don't even know you." (said with my best knock-em-dead grin)
blink.
blink.
(oh shit, I think. this could go a couple of different ways. I'm not liking my odds right now.)
he looks me right in the eye, and goes from stony glare to big genuine smile.
"Hey girl, you're all right. I'm the owner here, and you have a good time, okay? I'm glad you came in."
"thanks, man. I'm having a great time. nice place you have."
geez.
now i have to go theorize race and gender, and try to articulate why I feel safer showing my boobs to a black man with a gun than I do to an abercrombied-out frat boy.
he gets mad props for asking the question everyone else was (possibly) thinking.
and now I'm exhausted.
I'd really like hippy boy to call me back.
Monday, February 19, 2007
well now; isn't that interesting
I happened to stumble across this fascinating little article while I was drooling over lovingly restored /5s, and liveaboards in Juneau with Force 10 2 burner propane stoves and roller furling headsails, and jobs for philosophers in places like Prague and Glasgow.
... sigh ...
So, anyways, I'm strangely drawn to the idea of applied ontology, but I think the cog sci folks are getting it wrong. Here - read this:
An ontology research pipeline
Mike Uschold
Boeing Phantom Works, Seattle, WA, USA
(I snipped the first four sections because, well, they don't make much sense. You can go read them on your own at this website, if you really want: http://iospress.metapress.com/media/eafy7jvwvmdjwb0mhm2u/contributions/0/g/a/p/0gap235ukd5e9mge.pdf)
5. Summary and conclusion
I look to Applied Ontology to support the development of a research pipeline that disseminates
academic research results into industry and government. I call attention to various important issues that need to be addressed. First, we must clearly articulate the value propositions for using ontologies. What are the business cases? Under what circumstances do they apply? Benefits need to be demonstrated in a convincing way. This requires progress in evaluating specific techniques and tools used in ontology-based solutions. Where possible, evaluation should be done using a scientific methodology, and in all cases the range of applicability of approaches should be made clear. Limitations as well as strengths need to be highlighted. Ontologies need to be engineered for particular purposes to ensure successful deployment, yet they also should be re-usable as much as possible. Tools and infrastructure to support
the creation, use, and maintenance of ontologies must be created and evaluated. Finally, I call attention to the challenge of living with ambiguity and exploring the limits of what kinds of semantic processing can be automated.
[Applied Ontology 1 (2005) 13–16 13; IOS Press]
Can you see why I think this is a little screwy?
Problem 1: From academia to government? Since when have philosophers (especially ontologists) performed a prescriptive role in civil discourse? Anyone? Why would ontologists be especially well-equipped to tell folks in business and government what sort of ontology to adopt? Why should anyone listen?
Problem 2: Since when do I need to articulate the "business cases" of an ontology as a criteria for determining their value? Is he really saying that the best ontology is the one that gives me the ability to describe the most stuff in the way that gets me the most items of value? Is cash value a concept applicable to an ontology? That just seems flat-out wrong - I can't arbitrarily assign that sailboat or this motorcycle an ontological status of "mine" (or owned-by-me, if you'd rather), because it simply isn't true.
Problem 3: Evaluation should be done using "a scientific methodology," apparently. Doesn't seems to matter which one. No questions about the sort of ontological assumptions inherent in any of the methodologies one has at one's disposal.
Problem 4: "Ontologies need to be engineered for particular purposes to ensure successful deployment, yet they also should be re-usable as much as possible. Tools and infrastructure to support the creation, use, and maintenance of ontologies must be created and evaluated." Say what?
So ontologies are like parachutes? Or old german sports cars? Or bombs?
Ontologies don't seem inuitively to be the sort of things which one engineers, or deploys, or sends to the shop for maintenance with some sort of conceptual socket wrench - it's a strangely mechanical way to speak about an organic process. (Organic meaning "arising in a non-silicon brain/mind" as opposed to mechanical meaning "arising in a constructed apparatus." An arbitrary distinction, true... but bear with me.)
As far as an infrastructure to support my ontology, that would have to be an epistemology and a metaphysics... now there are some under-studied fields of applied philosophy.
I applied ontology gives you a bunch of engineers and cog sci folks sitting around the lab grumbling about how to get their computer programs to talk to one another, then what would a room full of applied epistemologists look like?
A library? a Mensa meeting?
I don't think you could get two applied metaphysicians into a room together, but if you could, it would probably look like something out of a Beckett play.
... sigh ...
So, anyways, I'm strangely drawn to the idea of applied ontology, but I think the cog sci folks are getting it wrong. Here - read this:
An ontology research pipeline
Mike Uschold
Boeing Phantom Works, Seattle, WA, USA
(I snipped the first four sections because, well, they don't make much sense. You can go read them on your own at this website, if you really want: http://iospress.metapress.com/media/eafy7jvwvmdjwb0mhm2u/contributions/0/g/a/p/0gap235ukd5e9mge.pdf)
5. Summary and conclusion
I look to Applied Ontology to support the development of a research pipeline that disseminates
academic research results into industry and government. I call attention to various important issues that need to be addressed. First, we must clearly articulate the value propositions for using ontologies. What are the business cases? Under what circumstances do they apply? Benefits need to be demonstrated in a convincing way. This requires progress in evaluating specific techniques and tools used in ontology-based solutions. Where possible, evaluation should be done using a scientific methodology, and in all cases the range of applicability of approaches should be made clear. Limitations as well as strengths need to be highlighted. Ontologies need to be engineered for particular purposes to ensure successful deployment, yet they also should be re-usable as much as possible. Tools and infrastructure to support
the creation, use, and maintenance of ontologies must be created and evaluated. Finally, I call attention to the challenge of living with ambiguity and exploring the limits of what kinds of semantic processing can be automated.
[Applied Ontology 1 (2005) 13–16 13; IOS Press]
Can you see why I think this is a little screwy?
Problem 1: From academia to government? Since when have philosophers (especially ontologists) performed a prescriptive role in civil discourse? Anyone? Why would ontologists be especially well-equipped to tell folks in business and government what sort of ontology to adopt? Why should anyone listen?
Problem 2: Since when do I need to articulate the "business cases" of an ontology as a criteria for determining their value? Is he really saying that the best ontology is the one that gives me the ability to describe the most stuff in the way that gets me the most items of value? Is cash value a concept applicable to an ontology? That just seems flat-out wrong - I can't arbitrarily assign that sailboat or this motorcycle an ontological status of "mine" (or owned-by-me, if you'd rather), because it simply isn't true.
Problem 3: Evaluation should be done using "a scientific methodology," apparently. Doesn't seems to matter which one. No questions about the sort of ontological assumptions inherent in any of the methodologies one has at one's disposal.
Problem 4: "Ontologies need to be engineered for particular purposes to ensure successful deployment, yet they also should be re-usable as much as possible. Tools and infrastructure to support the creation, use, and maintenance of ontologies must be created and evaluated." Say what?
So ontologies are like parachutes? Or old german sports cars? Or bombs?
Ontologies don't seem inuitively to be the sort of things which one engineers, or deploys, or sends to the shop for maintenance with some sort of conceptual socket wrench - it's a strangely mechanical way to speak about an organic process. (Organic meaning "arising in a non-silicon brain/mind" as opposed to mechanical meaning "arising in a constructed apparatus." An arbitrary distinction, true... but bear with me.)
As far as an infrastructure to support my ontology, that would have to be an epistemology and a metaphysics... now there are some under-studied fields of applied philosophy.
I applied ontology gives you a bunch of engineers and cog sci folks sitting around the lab grumbling about how to get their computer programs to talk to one another, then what would a room full of applied epistemologists look like?
A library? a Mensa meeting?
I don't think you could get two applied metaphysicians into a room together, but if you could, it would probably look like something out of a Beckett play.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
shit, man... for real?
January sucked. In the worst kind of way.
On the 21st, dear Mr. Tim colicked and died. That was terrible, though I'm grateful that I was there and could help him go out as peacefully as possible.
Chris came over and held on to me that night, and gave me a shoulder to cry on and fed the dogs and talked to me for hours about risk and loss and love and death.
On the 30th, he fell 200 feet while ice climbing, broke his neck, and died.
www.chrishunnicutt.com
His memorial sevice is tomorrow.
Dammit, I loved that kid.
For fuck's sake.
Other shit happened too, but I don't want to talk about it right now.
On the 21st, dear Mr. Tim colicked and died. That was terrible, though I'm grateful that I was there and could help him go out as peacefully as possible.
Chris came over and held on to me that night, and gave me a shoulder to cry on and fed the dogs and talked to me for hours about risk and loss and love and death.
On the 30th, he fell 200 feet while ice climbing, broke his neck, and died.
www.chrishunnicutt.com
His memorial sevice is tomorrow.
Dammit, I loved that kid.
For fuck's sake.
Other shit happened too, but I don't want to talk about it right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
