the many languages of love


Yes, I know I am a day late.


8 thoughts on “the many languages of love

  1. Surely you can tick multiple boxes? In any case, why is Bisexual a “type” and not “straight”, “Lesbian” or “gay”?

  2. This has nothing to do with being “academic” — all “academia” stems from the world around us, anyway. If someone who is gay or lesbian saw this, they’d ask the same question — and it’s a valid one anyway. You’re alright, of course, but someone who is more ignorant and more prone to believing stereotypes will only be further damaged by this.

  3. You’re more intent on labelling me than answering my question. If you want to call me an academic, fine. But that still doesn’t answer my question. Which is somewhat like saying, “Yes, there may be a person burning in the distance but HA, I KNEW you write with your right hand!”

  4. Except that writing with your right hand and person-burning-in-the-distance are connected in this case. My 'intention to label' you stems from the comment I want to make on your perspective. Like in the case of the facebook-wikileaks post, you take 'comics' seriously; serious enough to make 'academic' (I use the term loosely) comments. The idea is to make fun, have fun. Sometimes at the expense of stereotypes. Sure, this list is grossly incomplete, in so many ways. But it didn't set out to be a an exploration of sexual and relational truths. It was an artist drawing something up for V-Day that will bring a smile to your face and get him on the NY Times.

  5. This distinction that is constantly drawn between being ‘academic’ and ‘having fun’ is something I don’t get. Is fun supposed to be ‘had’, forcibly, even if something doesn’t make sense? Most works of art (literature, etc) aren’t ‘set out’ to be deliberate explorations — this is what people see in them, because it reflects the way people think, the way people are affected on a subconscious level. The only problem I have with this is that it distinguishes between ‘bisexuality’ and other ‘types’, as I have mentioned, and the knowledge that something like this has been done subconsciously, unintentionally, is even more saddening — because it reflects the way the world is shaping up. And this knowledge, forgive me, does not make me smile. I can see the humour and even appreciate the overall idea, but I can’t not think about why the artist did this in a particular way. I understand making fun, but I probably differ in the ways I go about it. there are far too many ignorant people on the net, making irresponsible comments, and while you’rre not one of them, obviously, since you recognize tongue-in-cheek humour, there are several people who surf blogs, who are.

  6. I understand where you are coming from. Your objections arise from your knowledge and you are sensitive to these concerns. But (there's always a 'but'), just because you are sensitive to some form of discrimination doesn't mean you can't enjoy humour based on it. We would all be kidding ourselves if we said that we never indulged in 'Sardar/Santa-Banta' jokes. The English equivalent would be Irish jokes and the American parallel is Canadian jokes. We always knew these jokes were exploiting stereotypes. If from that you deduce that the people who indulge in this humour are necessarily unaware of the issues upon which it is built ("the knowledge that something like this has been done subconsciously, unintentionally, is even more saddening") than it is a tall claim. There is no legitimate premise to claim that the artist Ji Lee drew this up because of ignorance, subconsciously seeing bisexuality as a 'type' while being unaware of other 'types'. Just as excluding gay/lesbian sexualities is 'wrong' or offending; singling out Sikhs/Irish/Canadians should be offensive too. But all these jokes don't offend us like humour based on sexuality does. In fact, if you look at it in context of nationality, race & intelligence research, all these jokes should be 'banned' because there are far too many ignorant people on the Internet. Violence against children is a legitimate concern and yet we have Dead Baby Jokes. I do not support violence against babies, but I confess I enjoy reading these. Either certain jokes works for or it doesn't. Either way, it is a personal thing. I was reading this report on Global Security and I laughed after the first two lines. It's perspective that makes it funny. While we readily see certain things in perspectives that lend themselves to humour; we screen out other things because they offend us (Dead Baby Jokes will offend many). Charges of insensitivity, ignorance and subconscious perception go a long way in explaining the way you see it; but it kills the joke for me. Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process. — E. B. White

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s