[LMB] Slash was re: Levels of Sexuality

Whit Johnstone whitinohio at gmail.com
Fri Jan 7 05:59:55 GMT 2011


Interestingly enough, I'm gay, and I have a number of straight female
friends.  I'm not partered and most of my friends, regardless of sexual
orientation, are single as well.  However, one old female friend of mine had
graduated and gotten married, and dropped off my radar. Two years later she
and her husband turned up at my church, and in a few weeks we were thick as
thieves again.  I felt it necessary to ask if she thought her husband would
mind us meeting alone- the last thing I needed was a confrontation with a
jealous husband who wouldn't believe me when I said I was gay.  I come from
Texas, which is one of the most sexist parts of the US, and I just had to
worry that a guy wouldn't want his wife spending time one-on-one with
another guy, even one he knew was gay.    

-----Original Message-----
From: lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk
[mailto:lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk] On Behalf Of Paula Lieberman
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 9:19 PM
To: Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold.
Subject: [LMB] Slash was re: Levels of Sexuality

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A Wenrich" <wawenri at msn.com>
To: "lois-bujold " <lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [LMB] Slash was re: Levels of Sexuality


> Elin B wrote:
>
> Well, it certainly bugs me as well, but if it does bug Mr Weinrich, he
> didn't mention it in his initial post, only singling out slash (which I 
> took
> to mean non-canon m/m, as the usage I'm the most familiar with, but I
> acknowledge that I may have been mistaken) as the point of disturbance.
> Hence my remark.
>
> =====================================
>
> I did single out the slash (yes, I did mean the non-canon m/m) but only
> because it stands out as prominent intrusion of sexuality not endorsed by
> the author. The entire constellation of relationships can be had with no
> sexuality. Also, even when there is attraction, there is no necessity for
> action.
>
> I am attracted to a great many women with whom I would never have a sexual
> relationship and not only because they would never be attracted to me. The

In  the Starcruiser Shenandoah series by Roland Green, there is a 
relationship between two senior officers, where each of them is attracted to

the other, and their working relationship acknowledges it, at least once 
explictly, but with both of them knowing that they will never act upon that 
attraction in an affair.

Hauling the thread back on-topic, that reminds me again of Miles and Bel--by

the time Miles decided he should have taken Bel up on Bel's offer, it was 
years too late... not the situation of the two in the Rolan Green series, 
who were both quite a bit older than Miles.

> old chaperone system that said that a man and a woman could not be alone 
> in
> a room is dead or should be.

It depends on the culture and subculture, I'm fairly certain there aer 
subcultures in the USA where it's still true, and it's true in regions of 
the world where shari'a or other strict sex-segregations rules are otherwise

in effect.
>
> As to whether a woman's (or I guess a man's but I've never run across the
> construction) clothing is, "asking for it," I've always stated that, "a
> naked virgin with a bag of gold in each hand should be able to walk from 
> the
> mountains to the sea unmolested." That does not mean that I think she 
> should
> test the theory.
>
> Note: My last name has only one 'I'.

--
Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to whitinohio at gmail.com
Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold




More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list