tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post4137198848991579946..comments2023-05-23T07:26:54.524-07:00Comments on Yes, She is My Husband: No Rainbow ConnectionMarnihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17627512510408880545noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-38576410622010117512011-09-19T20:19:46.843-07:002011-09-19T20:19:46.843-07:00Honestly dear, I really wouldn't know, as I am...Honestly dear, I really wouldn't know, as I am about as far from "asexual" as one could get and I just don't "do" rainbows. I "do" men.<br /><br />I hope you do not consider that too biased. In truth it is more of a sexual fetis, Yumm Yumm...:-))Annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02696670919817140802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-16776187011508311742011-09-18T07:09:43.531-07:002011-09-18T07:09:43.531-07:00Hi Anne!
I wonder if, perhaps, an asexual person ...Hi Anne!<br /><br />I wonder if, perhaps, an asexual person might either be more toward the middle of the rainbow in the chartreuse area or on another rainbow entirely. :-)Marnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18383127758637225562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-69272940105628012802011-09-17T12:19:54.887-07:002011-09-17T12:19:54.887-07:00Hmmm..I'wondering how a confirmed Ludite might...Hmmm..I'wondering how a confirmed Ludite might enter into this "rainbow" of nerdiness.<br /><br />In truth, with the passage of the years, Ihave come to a place, similar to Marni's: "a heterosexual who can sometimes feel turned on by the same sex but has no desire to do anything about it." <br /><br />"What about them? What is their color on the rainbow? Eh?" Myexperience has been an "outsider", an "other".Annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02696670919817140802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-22175992663236466462011-09-01T19:10:00.866-07:002011-09-01T19:10:00.866-07:00@Teagan: Ad ultimum concedo nerdiness. But shouldn...@Teagan: Ad ultimum concedo nerdiness. But shouldn't it have been, "Latine scribo hoc," and not "hic"?<br /><br />You're totally awesome!Marnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18383127758637225562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-33487277614458415872011-09-01T16:50:09.316-07:002011-09-01T16:50:09.316-07:00Ego perdidi color bella, sed diam Latine scribo hi...Ego perdidi color bella, sed diam Latine scribo hic. Ergo, Ego sum omnium maximus nerd.Falinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006373893076810290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-18869930368772042292011-08-29T18:14:52.159-07:002011-08-29T18:14:52.159-07:00Okay, Teagan. Now I have to counter with uber-geek...Okay, Teagan. Now I have to counter with uber-geek forensics skills.<br /><br />I said, "white is all colors blended together." I did not say that the rainbow has white. Ergo (see? I used a syllogistic logic term there), your geeky response did not contradict my point. <br /><br />So there! :-)Marnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18383127758637225562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-57661163848972055852011-08-28T14:43:04.906-07:002011-08-28T14:43:04.906-07:00I hate to out-geek you in your own blog, but....
...I hate to out-geek you in your own blog, but....<br /><br />Not quite. The rainbow does not have white. White is the "color" of light before it gets refracted through water. Light being refracted through water is what causes a rainbow... the "white" is split up into a continuous spectrum of colors. Way more colors than Roy G. Biv would have you think, but sorry, white is not among them.Falinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006373893076810290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-66785366347019037352011-08-28T10:57:38.460-07:002011-08-28T10:57:38.460-07:00@Ariel, thank you for sharing your views. I do hav...@Ariel, thank you for sharing your views. I do have to correct you, though, since a) I'm a geek and b) it supports my point...<br /><br />In terms of color-as-light, black is not a color and white is all colors blended together. So, yes, the rainbow represents all colors, including white. :-DMarnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18383127758637225562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-73043186302293338202011-08-27T20:08:16.874-07:002011-08-27T20:08:16.874-07:00Actually, a rainbow does not include all colours. ...Actually, a rainbow does not include all colours. There is no black or, perhaps most germaine, no white. Us primarily-hetero people get to be white. That's what being normative is all about. We're not "colourful."<br /><br />Yes, I wrote "us." I'm in a same-sex relationship. We're married. Those who don't think we're girl friends (we often get asked if we'd like "separate bills") assume we're a lesbian couple. They don't ask whether we have sex or whether either of us is sexually attracted to women. But that doesn't change my own sexual orientation. It's just a bit under wraps, and that's OK with me.<br /><br />As for the rainbow, marginalized groups often band together. They are "othered" by the majority, so they in turn stick together. In the case of lesbian and gay people, it's an actual culture, and many really don't want those of other "cultures" to invade, however friendly they might be. It's because those of a particular culture speak the same language, and they like the fact that they will be understood.<br /><br />I quite appreciate my women-only groups. If there were men in my book club, it would change the dynamic considerably. It wouldn't be bad, just different. And I like things they way they are.<br /><br />But I understand your point about the rainbow. The political "rainbow coalition" was supposed to be all-inclusive. I don't think, however, that you're going to wrest the rainbow away from LGbt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-39902487781744415432011-08-26T03:23:00.280-07:002011-08-26T03:23:00.280-07:00Having just seen this, I must say I agree with you...Having just seen this, I must say I agree with you. I have always wondered about the symbolism of the rainbow. It encompasses all colors which makes the example you referred to so regarding children compelling.Kathryn Dumkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054997856180869508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-29958332290044929442011-08-25T20:00:22.925-07:002011-08-25T20:00:22.925-07:00Okay everyone! Since Natasha missed the point of m...Okay everyone! Since Natasha missed the point of my rant, I'll assume that she's not alone. Let me clarify: <br /><br />My point is that THE RAINBOW IS NOT A GOOD SYMBOL FOR GROUPS THAT DO NOT INCLUDE ALL OF SOMETHING!!! It's all about the rainbow, okay? I love rainbows and to see them so misrepresented just makes me sad. Rainbows are used for children's groups, too, where their aim is to bring ALL cultures together for understanding and sharing. That's a great use of a rainbow. See? Again, IT'S ABOUT THE RAINBOW!<br /><br />I love you all. Now, I'm going to sulk on the sofa.Marnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18383127758637225562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-28152895376647422642011-08-25T19:38:19.638-07:002011-08-25T19:38:19.638-07:00Ah, Teagan, you played right into my little trap!!...Ah, Teagan, you played right into my little trap!!! Tee hee. No, I am not complaining because I'm not a part of a group that combats discrimination. I am complaining because a rainbow contains every color, not most, and so if a group wants to use the rainbow efficiently, it should include heterosexuals in its group. <br /><br />In reality, with the exception of groups that really are trying to combat discrimination, I have problems with any group that excludes others just because they are "not." I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well, here (I'm actually having a bad mental moment and trying to write around it), but as a woman, for example, I think that any feminist group that excludes men entirely from their efforts because they are men are dumb. Men can support feminism just as much as heterosexuals can support non-heterosexuals.<br /><br />And, no, I definitely don't think I'm going to be rejected by any group to which my spouse becomes a member. I, however, might not feel a real part of the crowd.<br /><br />I like the pun, by the way. :-D<br /><br />@Sonora - I am not sexually attracted to Natasha's feminine features. That's the problem. I love her with my entire soul, but what I think I'm willing to try with her in the sex department is not because I would be turned on, per se, but because I love her and want to make her happy.<br /><br />Trust me: I've had enough experiences in my life to know what I do and do not find stimulating to my sex drive. I may not be at the far end of the hetero side of the spectrum, but I'm far from close to the middle, too. :-)Marnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18383127758637225562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-19721502186658763112011-08-25T18:06:13.956-07:002011-08-25T18:06:13.956-07:00While I generally agree with Teagan, I'd also ...While I generally agree with Teagan, I'd also like to suggest that at some point in time, you may come to label yourself as something other than heterosexual. You're still physically attracted to Natasha, right? And you acknowledge that Natasha is a woman, right? So there's at least <b>one</b> woman that you're physically attracted to.<br /><br />You don't have to leap all the way over to lesbian. There's a whole host of labels to pick from. Here's a <a href="http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Orientations" rel="nofollow">very comprehensive list</a> to browse through. Although I have only been in relationships with men, and in years past would have probably told anyone who asked that I was heterosexual, my ex's eventual identification as some flavor of trans* and my own "I'm okay with that" response, coupled with the attractions I've felt since we split, have led me to try on a few different labels. The 'Pan-' ones often apply to partners who are unfazed by transition, as "their partner's gender does little to define their relationship". In my case, gendered characteristics - whether physical or behavioral - play almost no part in whether I'm attracted to someone.<br /><br />Your case may be different - the heterobservant label is interesting - but "never say never". I can't imagine anyone who is part of a LGBTetc.etc. group dismissing a person who is romantically and sexually attracted to, and partnered with, someone of the same gender, as "too straight for us"!Sonora Sagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03656006414649269766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624094217975192456.post-5646281502839868452011-08-25T17:26:22.723-07:002011-08-25T17:26:22.723-07:00Those groups, for the most part, exist to combat d...Those groups, for the most part, exist to combat discrimination against members of the group. The rainbow exists because non-heteronormative people, whether it be in the area of sexual orientation or gender identity, are marginalized and discriminated against.<br /><br />This is not a problem for straight cisgender people.<br /><br />So let me get this straight, pardon the pun. You are complaining because you are not demographically part of a group which exists to combat discrimination against members of the group?<br /><br />Cry me a rainbow.<br /><br />And besides. You're a woman who is attempting to stick with her transitioning spouse. Do you seriously think you'll be rejected by an alphabet-soup group? If you are, that says a hell of a lot more about the group than you. If they don't accept you, the hell with them, but at least give them the chance to before you assume that you cannot be a part of them.Falinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006373893076810290noreply@blogger.com