Re: Sexual terminology [was Re: Blowjobs and pant legs in Dutch]

Quoting SuomenkieliMaa <suomenkieli@...>:

> > > And being classified as a "homosexual" has what
> > > effect? Do ordinary folks look down on the
> > > "passive" ones?
> >
> > This is Phalera: of course they do! Homosexuality is
> > not, however, persecuted in the same way that
> > intercaste relationships (even outside of marriage)
> > are persecuted.  It is looked down upon as dirty and
>
> > unclean, but nowhere near as unclean as marrying a
> > peasant.
>
> Well, for the non-straight list members, perhaps it'll
> be a relief to know that the Vya:a:hn culture thrives
> due to the fact that nearly the entire society is
> homosexual. (Heterosexual relations are generally only
> for the purpose of reproduction, and this tends to be
> between opposite-sex close friends)... I won't go any
> further is describing it, yet, though.
>
> BTW, just a personal note, it's a bit discouraging
> that a *conculture* would hold views as that of
> Phalera.  What is so dirty and unclean about gaiety,
> anyhow?  Hmm, to each his own (chaqu'un a son gout,
> non Christophe?)!
You are making one important assumption about concultures:
that any right-thinking person will make his or her
conculture according to the kinds of ideals that he
or she holds.  Unlike many people, I am not aiming to
build an "ideal" universe as a context for conlanging,
inasmuch as I do not believe that humans usually act out
on ideals, even if ideals exist.  Much the contrary:
with Phalera I am aiming to build a believeable society,
where human beings strive after self-interest much as in
this one, and cloak their self-interest in the phraseology
of idealism, much as in this one. This means that I
personally end up disagreeing with lots and lots of
aspects of Phaleran society, but changing it would break
one's suspension of disbelief.  I mean, I totally disagree
with totalitarianism, but totalitarianism of some form
or another has been *far* more common in human history
than liberal bourgeois democracy.  Most societies have
been built on social oppression, so I feel it would be
ridiculous to drop in on Phaleran society just when they
happen to adhere to our modern notions of freedom and
equality.  At the same time, I realized that for the League
of Twolyeo to dominate the planet so wholly, it needed to
have an internal system of restraints on it to ensure
economic stability and prevent chronic outbreak of civil
war.  As such, I envisioned a system whereby the interests
of landed elites were balanced by regional and tribal
interests, as well as the scientifico-religious establishment.
It's rather complicated, but the end result should be that
you get a lot of people competing for tyrrany, but none
can accomplish that goal because of the institutional checks
in their way.

None of this is ideal, but the end result is that personal
and intellectual freedom is possible for some, which has been
the norm throughout human history.

=====================================================================
Thomas Wier <trwier@...> <http://home.uchicago.edu/~trwier>

             "...koruphàs hetéras hetére:isi prosápto:n /
Dept. of Linguistics  mú:tho:n mè: teléein atrapòn mían..."
University of Chicago "To join together diverse peaks of thought /
1010 E. 59th Street   and not complete one road that has no turn"
Chicago, IL 60637     Empedocles, _On Nature_, on speculative thinkers

Replies