It was one of those surreal conversations where we were on opposing sides but it was hard to see why. He brought up statistics on PTSD and spousal abuse by veterans; he talked about rampant sexual misconduct in his unit during bivouacs. He believed nobody under 25 should be in a combat zone because at that age they don’t have the maturity or wisdom to follow any of the Geneva Conventions at all, from what he saw – except then he clarified that there were a few rules they held sacred, like not shooting red cross vehicles. He thought we were in Iraq for the wrong reasons.

At the end, he restated his position that he just didn’t like the extremist anti-war protests … and he looked at our area for a few seconds. People writing names in chalk on a sidewalk. Silhouettes of bodies painted with cornstarch and water that will wash off in the first rain. No chanting, no yelling. One person was reading names of US and Iraqi dead. Then he said he guessed ours wasn’t really extreme. We shook hands before he headed off to class.

The thing that reminded me of this blog entry was that he’d originally thought about enlisting in the reserves. His recruiter talked him out of it, saying he’d regret taking a reserve position because it was a sissy move (phrased with a little more vulgarity), and that he should sign up for an active duty/combat position because it was “like an aphrodisiac.”

An aphrodisiac. That’s an odd word choice, I said. He nodded in agreement.

It was one of those moments when there’s nothing to do but stare face to face with a total stranger, each understanding the impact of a seemingly minor thing that’s been said.

i’m a newbie poster (not a newbie reader) and didn’t want to make myself an unwelcome participant on what i consider to be an oasis of intelligent thought.

and when i referred to your work, i didn’t mean just your “lone ramblings,” which i find to be intensely passionate, compassionate and intellectual, something i consider rare.

this website and everything in it is part of your work. you have created a vortex of intense thought–yours and others’–and for that i am grateful.

I think Elaina’s remarks were, like yours, directed to Charles. She can correct me if I’m wrong. I’m very tired, but that doesn’t seem clear here.

This forum — and VERY VALID voices like yours — is what this blog is for, and the collective work there is far more important than any of my lone ramblings… tho I am flattered by the vote of confidence.

yes, the conversation has unraveled.

but men talking about their own sexual “philosophies and strategies”? that seems a bit unfair.

someone equated the word “fuck” with “making love.” i disagreed, in part because i think the vast majority of people who use that language with that meaning are male. i think that is relevant to the discussion of skull-fucking as illustrative of male supremacy.

someone made a comment about my personal life–the comment you just referred to. i didn’t appreciate it.

i probably didn’t need to respond to the personal comment but, for similar reasons to those you are expressing now, i didn’t see it as relevant or necessary.

i wonder how people would feel if the same comment was made to a woman who had suffered adverse consequences as a result of “fucking” and what they would expect as an appropriate response.

i think i’ll go back to soaking up stan’s work and leave the forum to those with valid opinions.

How is it that a post intended to highlight the phenomenon of skullfucking as illustrative of male supremacy turned into a forum for men to talk about their own sexual philosophies and strategies?

Fuck that. There’s plenty of other places to go and talk about that on the web. Seems to me like it’s a waste of space here.

fair enough. i think if you read the thread and my posts it’s not that ambiguous. even the examples you offered are clarified repeatedly.

this isn’t something i’d say to express solidarity with someone whom i concluded had suffered harm as a result of “fucking”:

**Sorry to hear that by your experience fucking has more to do with “doing serious harm” than with “making love(lite)”.**

my mistake.

When you say, “if i equate “fuck” with anything in a sexual context, it is the act of having sex.” and

“to me, even without any romantic connotation, “making love” has to be more than merely having sex, or there is no “love” about it”

It’s a bit ambiguous whether or not you are referring to “a general discussion about language and reality”.

again, i didn’t say anything about my personal sexual experiences. i said I don’t NEED to have negative personal experiences to know others do. i think that is a fairly common phenomenon.

you’ve twice made remarks about my personal sexual experiences in the context of a general discussion about language and reality. i don’t see why that is necessary or appropriate.

i’m sure we can move on now.

i didn’t say anything about my personal experience. i didn’t say there was anything wrong with “having sex” or “fucking” or “sharing” or “making love.” that is not my choice to make for anybody else.

i don’t need to have a negative experience personally to have known many people who have suffered a wide array of negative consequences as a result of mere “fucking.”

i just find it interesting who calls “making love” “fucking” and who doesn’t.