or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 35  

post #511 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

Similar taste in beer and earphones to me it seems...


My hunch says you're a closeted Miller Girl lol

post #512 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Oh, I'm not discounting femininity by any means. Like I was saying, there's often quite a bit of overlap. However I'm saying one shouldn't always see "girl = feminine,"

 

Yes, agreed.  For one, doing so would imply that a girl is less of a girl if she were less feminine.  And I could also see the TS crowd getting into an uproar as well.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

in contrast some view femaleness as being part of that substance, even down to a cellular level (*cough* Von Balthasar...).

 

What you say?!  Why you bring up such crazy talk?  biggrin.gif  So what is he saying?  That girls have softer amd smoother mitochodria?  GREAT name though!  Damn, if I had a name like that, I'd feel inspired to do something epic, like rule the world or something.

 

For the record, while I perfectly understand the above on a rational level, I still find myself very attracted to femininity (as currently embodied by my wife who is very "girly").  Yeah, I know that last sentence is probably making you roll-eyes like I'm just not gettin' it.  Can't help it though.  wink.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

is one attracted to gender roles, or is one attracted to an individual?  It's a tricky question, and I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.

 

I think that - for many heterosexual men - it can be more basic than that.  Not to revert to an earlier point, but I have found that the visual summation of physical features tends to be the first step in most cases of attraction.  This can sometimes be very humorous when encountering TS, but I see your point.

 

Maybe one isn't so much attracted to gender roles, perhaps gender roles serve as a guideline - a definition of limits if you will.  We are then attracted to individuals within that range depending on all kinds of factors that we can't even being to touch upon here.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

I will say that I do think what makes a girl a girl isn't completely subsumed by the symbolic order: that is, there is a remainder which escapes any attempt to attribute a girl's being as such to social norms. When one is attracted to girls, could it be that it extends beyond the social construct ingrained into one's schema?

 

What would we call such a thing?  We must give this quintessential je ne sais quoi of latent girl-ness a name.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

However to throw a wrench into the works, I'll ask another question: is one ever *completely* homosexual? Or heterosexual? Some say no. In other words, just because I'm "homosexual from birth" doesn't mean I can't be attracted to masculine social norms, even allowing a definition of sexuality as attraction to such norms.

 

Or is one ever exclusively homo/hetero sexual?  I'm thinking bisexuals would cry no.  In this case, I do think that it might simplify matters to boil it down to a base sexual act.

 

For example, do I think Rachel Maddow is a girl?  Yes.  Does she act girly?  Sometimes, especially when she gets all giddy about election coverage.  Do I find her pretty darn cool on several levels?  Yes.  Do I wanna get it on like Donkey Kong with her?  Hmm, no not really.  And in my case, I would consider that to be the result of a lack of physical attraction.  BTW, I am totally ignoring her preference in the above example.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

And like I said before, sometimes the attraction is there because the girl is not adhering to those gender roles.

 

Yeah, I don't get that.  I mean I get it, but I don't get it.  Not saying it's not invalid, just not easy for me to relate to.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

I don't think so, because desire is relational in most cases. We desire the Other, and a large part of attraction stems from that Otherness.

 

So an identical twin who is homosexual may possibly find their twin attractive but not themselves?  I should note that I am speaking of physical attraction primarily.

 

BTW, how do you feel about the words "gay" or "straight" as boil-down terms?  I ask this not for any deep or meaningful discussion, but because they're simply shorter/faster to type.


Home of the Liquid Carbon, Liquid Crimson, Liquid Glass, Liquid Gold and
Liquid Lightning headphone amplifiers... and the upcoming Liquid Spark!

post #513 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post


My hunch says you're a closeted Miller Girl lol

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/237457/official-team-beer-fi-beer-appreciation-thread/1680#post_8165620

 

I'm mainly into German beer.

post #514 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

What would we call such a thing?  We must give this quintessential je ne sais quoi of latent girl-ness a name.

 

Well, the very fact that it escapes the symbolic order means it escapes any attempt to define it in linguistic terms. As soon as we give it a name, it is no longer what it was.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

 

So an identical twin who is homosexual may possibly find their twin attractive but not themselves?  I should note that I am speaking of physical attraction primarily.

 

 

Are you familiar with Tegan and Sara?

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

BTW, how do you feel about the words "gay" or "straight" as boil-down terms?  I ask this not for any deep or meaningful discussion, but because they're simply shorter/faster to type.

 

I'm fine with them. I use them myself.

post #515 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

What you say?!  Why you bring up such crazy talk?  biggrin.gif  So what is he saying?  That girls have softer amd smoother mitochodria?  GREAT name though!  Damn, if I had a name like that, I'd feel inspired to do something epic, like rule the world or something.

 

We all have girl's mitochondria anyway since it's passed on matrilineally...

 

And mitochondria are just symbiotic prokaryotic cells our eukaryotic ancestors picked up so long ago that they've essentially become part of whatever makes us "us"...

 

/pedantry

 

Sometimes I can't help myself...

 

biggrin.gif

post #516 of 21760

I tend to like pale beers, with allagash maybe being my favorite.  I got drunk 4 times this week while my friends and I were working on the worst LP of all time.  Needless to say I felt like a zombie the rest of the time.

 

How long has this attraction conversation been going on?  I don't feel like jumping in now, but I'd like to add that I'm constantly attracted to girls who remind me of my cousins (one of whom looks vaguely like me except in good shape and an attractive female) or male actors I appreciate.  I used to be completely infatuated with this girl who looked like Kyle Maclachlan

 

http://www.defectivegeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/dale-cooper.jpg

 

except with boobs and nice hair.

post #517 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

What you say?!  Why you bring up such crazy talk?  biggrin.gif  So what is he saying?  That girls have softer amd smoother mitochodria?  GREAT name though!  Damn, if I had a name like that, I'd feel inspired to do something epic, like rule the world or something.

 

 

Von Balthasar was a 20th century Catholic theologian who was kind of part of the same circle as De Lubac and Ratzinger (the current pope). He's best known for his 15-or-so-volume Trilogy (Glory of the Lord, Theo-Drama, and Theo-Logic). I actually think a lot of his systematic theology is quite beautiful, but his theory about gender and gender relations is a major exception and quite primitive, shockingly so in my humble opinion. He postulated that males and females are always in binary opposition, so much so that this opposition is part of what defines humankind. One is born ether male or female, and what makes you one or the other goes to the very core of your being, down to even a cellular level. He tried to say that both genders were equal before God, but that at the same time, perplexingly enough, males were hierarchically above females and females were pretty much created to help man fulfill his role. Without getting too far into the particulars, he further postulated that men were monads and females diads (another reason for their being hierarchically lower), saying females had a split nature and consequently vacillated between two identities, always in some kind of state of flux, and so men could never "understand" women truly. His theory sort of denies the subjectivity of women, as they're there to basically "return the gaze of man" while "man looks around." (In other words, their preoccupation is with man, and man's preoccupation is with loftier things). It also gets into some pretty questionable fodder for denying women entry into the priesthood (as men can "represent something higher" but women can "only ever be themselves.")

 

More or less.

post #518 of 21760
I always find it curious when a priest proclaims to have all the answers on relationships, sex, etc. It's like getting advice on running shoes & gloves from a quadruple amputee...
post #519 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Von Balthasar was a 20th century Catholic theologian who was kind of part of the same circle as De Lubac and Ratzinger (the current pope). He's best known for his 15-or-so-volume Trilogy (Glory of the Lord, Theo-Drama, and Theo-Logic). I actually think a lot of his systematic theology is quite beautiful, but his theory about gender and gender relations is a major exception and quite primitive, shockingly so in my humble opinion. He postulated that males and females are always in binary opposition, so much so that this opposition is part of what defines humankind. One is born ether male or female, and what makes you one or the other goes to the very core of your being, down to even a cellular level. He tried to say that both genders were equal before God, but that at the same time, perplexingly enough, males were hierarchically above females and females were pretty much created to help man fulfill his role. Without getting too far into the particulars, he further postulated that men were monads and females diads (another reason for their being hierarchically lower), saying females had a split nature and consequently vacillated between two identities, always in some kind of state of flux, and so men could never "understand" women truly. His theory sort of denies the subjectivity of women, as they're there to basically "return the gaze of man" while "man looks around." (In other words, their preoccupation is with man, and man's preoccupation is with loftier things). It also gets into some pretty questionable fodder for denying women entry into the priesthood (as men can "represent something higher" but women can "only ever be themselves.")

 

More or less.

 

Wow.  That would totally hilarious if it wasn't serious.

 

As a side note, whenever I see someone going on and on about theology I have to suppress the urge to take some outrageous position and justify with references to something like the DC Comics universe or the Forgotten Realms D&D setting...

post #520 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Von Balthasar was a 20th century Catholic theologian who was kind of part of the same circle as De Lubac and Ratzinger (the current pope). He's best known for his 15-or-so-volume Trilogy (Glory of the Lord, Theo-Drama, and Theo-Logic). I actually think a lot of his systematic theology is quite beautiful, but his theory about gender and gender relations is a major exception and quite primitive, shockingly so in my humble opinion. He postulated that males and females are always in binary opposition, so much so that this opposition is part of what defines humankind. One is born ether male or female, and what makes you one or the other goes to the very core of your being, down to even a cellular level. He tried to say that both genders were equal before God, but that at the same time, perplexingly enough, males were hierarchically above females and females were pretty much created to help man fulfill his role. Without getting too far into the particulars, he further postulated that men were monads and females diads (another reason for their being hierarchically lower), saying females had a split nature and consequently vacillated between two identities, always in some kind of state of flux, and so men could never "understand" women truly. His theory sort of denies the subjectivity of women, as they're there to basically "return the gaze of man" while "man looks around." (In other words, their preoccupation is with man, and man's preoccupation is with loftier things). It also gets into some pretty questionable fodder for denying women entry into the priesthood (as men can "represent something higher" but women can "only ever be themselves.")

More or less.

How did he justified the whole monad/dyad thing? Where did the second nature come from? And if this is getting too far into the weeds, can you suggest a good source to read him?
post #521 of 21760

Just read through all the posts I missed.

 

Only thing I have to add is that I'm looking forward to the E12, FiiO has generally made "useable" products at low price ranges that just work. The E17 sure has this and that but it adds an extensive list of features at that price so again, we have FiiO here at a low price trying to make a "functional" product but then we have the E12 which is to me seems to be their first real starting competitor to the others.

 

However they aren't perfect. The E02i itself has a design error that FiiO is aware of where if the device is on, if you plug or pull out headphones you will get a VERY loud sound of a pop or a groan and then pop. Their device did not come out as expected in early september so I am guessing they ..possibly may be fixing that?

post #522 of 21760

Not many like her.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by compoopers View Post

I'm kind of on the fence for if I find that stupid or funny.

You think it's funny.

post #523 of 21760

.


Edited by music_4321 - 9/16/12 at 4:31am
post #524 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post

I think, to be honest, that Nokia has been in an economic crisis, and still are in somewhat bad shape. I remember their CEO making remarks about using Android is like pissing in the snow, or something like that. The thing is that they haven't flourished quite like the other mobile giants, and I think a major part is the lack of Android. While the other giants were thriving and selling phones to the left and right, Nokia were still experimenting with Sybians, Linux and whatnot. They've always made pretty and quality phones, but with the lack of Android, or some other big system, they just haven't been right on the inside, so to say. Code wise, that is.

 

Now, with Windows 8 I think that might change.

 

I think that Nokia has developed a decent OS. I've read that Meego was awesome and I remember that The Verge ( former Engadget) journalist Vlad Savov wrote a plea to Nokia "how come you abandoned such a great OS"? But the main problem of Nokia and other OEMs that they can't make an ecosystem. There is no coincidence that the strongest OSs belong to the US companies Apple, Google and Microsoft.

 

Ecosystem is a software plus media-content. The most popular media-content which can be accepted by the international market is made in English speaking countries, mostly in the US. Music, movies, magazines etc. What kind of content Nokia can generate? How will Nokia make a connection to giants of media which are situated in the US? 

 

If Nokia joined Android it would have become one of many and lost it's individuality. Now they are an exclusive partner to Microsoft and play an important role. Of course other OEMs like Samsung, Sony etc. will join producing WP8 phones also but they are losing their exclusivity working for two camps.


Edited by mutabor - 9/15/12 at 4:15pm
post #525 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Von Balthasar was a 20th century Catholic theologian...

 

I was wondering how far I would read until I saw the words "monad" and "dyad". Not totally certain why, either; it's not because I'm well-read in either theology or modern philosophy.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2