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

Thomas R. Wier scripsit:
> 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
> 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.
I don't think so, unless you class authoritarian societies with
totalitarian ones.  Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin,
China under Mao, Kampuchea under the Khmer Rouge, are something
qualitatively different from their precedessors and successors.
(There may be others that belong to this list.)

--
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

Reply