meretricula (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
meretricula) wrote2007-12-17 09:54 pm
meretricula) wrote2007-12-17 09:54 pm
paper paper blah blah paper
guess what! I'm writing a paper!
...no, you don't want to hear about it. that's okay. I don't really want to hear about it either, and I have to write it. in one of my many fits of procrastination, I took a quiz - a Supernatural quiz.
Which Supernatural character are you?
You're Sam! Smart, kind, and all-around good guy. You care about people and you always try to do the right thing. But there's more to you than meets the eye -- if someone gets on your bad side, they better watch out.
Take this quiz!
Quizilla |
Join
| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code
yay I got Sam with attractive hair! in second season he looked really nasty for a few episodes. now he is cute again, but his nose is still scary. it's a nose of Snapean proportion! why does nobody talk about that? ~le shrug~
have some gay sex related musings, while I'm here.
so, I worked out what bothers me about scholarship on ancient homosexuality (or ancient sexuality in general) - sex is only ever about power. and yes, I can see that most of the time. anal, oral, vaginal, even intercrural sex - penetration is taking place. somebody is on top. it is in and of itself an expression of one person's dominance over the other. but I honestly cannot believe that nobody in all of ancient history had sex with someone not because he wanted to prove that he was the man in the relationship, but just because he liked his partner. are we supposed to believe that nobody in ancient Rome traded handjobs with his buddy as a spontaneous expression of affection? that not a single one of those impressive statesmen liked to finger his wife before they went to sleep because he wanted to make her feel good?
when we analyze sex, we clean it up. it becomes clinical, hygienic, sterile, which is ironic in all the obvious ways. but come on. I'm not saying that sex must have been an expression of all-consuming love, but at least some of the time, couldn't it have been just for fun?
...no, you don't want to hear about it. that's okay. I don't really want to hear about it either, and I have to write it. in one of my many fits of procrastination, I took a quiz - a Supernatural quiz.
Which Supernatural character are you?
You're Sam! Smart, kind, and all-around good guy. You care about people and you always try to do the right thing. But there's more to you than meets the eye -- if someone gets on your bad side, they better watch out.
Take this quiz!
Quizilla |
Join
| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code
yay I got Sam with attractive hair! in second season he looked really nasty for a few episodes. now he is cute again, but his nose is still scary. it's a nose of Snapean proportion! why does nobody talk about that? ~le shrug~
have some gay sex related musings, while I'm here.
so, I worked out what bothers me about scholarship on ancient homosexuality (or ancient sexuality in general) - sex is only ever about power. and yes, I can see that most of the time. anal, oral, vaginal, even intercrural sex - penetration is taking place. somebody is on top. it is in and of itself an expression of one person's dominance over the other. but I honestly cannot believe that nobody in all of ancient history had sex with someone not because he wanted to prove that he was the man in the relationship, but just because he liked his partner. are we supposed to believe that nobody in ancient Rome traded handjobs with his buddy as a spontaneous expression of affection? that not a single one of those impressive statesmen liked to finger his wife before they went to sleep because he wanted to make her feel good?
when we analyze sex, we clean it up. it becomes clinical, hygienic, sterile, which is ironic in all the obvious ways. but come on. I'm not saying that sex must have been an expression of all-consuming love, but at least some of the time, couldn't it have been just for fun?