Re: polyamory, bi***uality, and flirting

Aahz Maruch wrote:
> In article <q4fkh5-pm2.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Aqua  <aqua@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Aahz Maruch wrote:
>>> In article <8mkjh5-re2.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Aqua  <aqua@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Aahz Maruch wrote:
>>>>> In article <l99ih5-k5b.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>> Aqua  <aqua@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> It's very sad that when a man genuinely is fascinated by a woman's
ideas 
>>>>>> and conversation, there's a general assumption he wants to have ***
with 
>>>>>> her.  (It also could go some way towards explaining why it
sometimes 
>>>>>> feels impossible to be a female scientist working with adult male 
>>>>>> colleagues.)
>>>>> Well, the honest truth is that if I'm the man in question, I
probably do
>>>>> want to have *** with her, for values of "want" that generally don't
>>>>> contain a lot of force behind them.  And I get the impression that
I'm
>>>>> not particularly unusual.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, I like to think that I'm sufficiently socialized that my
>>>>> tongue isn't hanging out all the time, but I think that the general
>>>>> prevalence of male ***ual interest (regardless of whether it's
social or
>>>>> genetic) must have some effects.
>>>> Oh good deity or quantum effect of reader's choice.
>>>>
>>>> It's not like I haven't ever worked with colleagues I found ***ually 
>>>> attractive, and hey, there might even have been some interaction
between 
>>>> their ****ny brains and the rest of whatever is required for me to
take 
>>>> ***ual interest in someone.
>>>>
>>>> If you're suggesting that research grants should only be awarded to 
>>>> scientists who've demonstrated they can interact with people they may

>>>> find ***ually attractive, without letting that noticeably bias the
way 
>>>> they judge the scientific work and abilities of those people,
positively 
>>>> or negatively, I'm all for it.
>>> Because my followup was purely to address the existence of the
"general
>>> assumption", I don't really have a convenient hook to respond here.  I
>>> don't have clear thoughts about how to handle this issue.
>> I suspect what I meant by "general assumption" was rather more, shall
we 
>> say, action-oriented, than your actual behaviour would justify.
> 
> Oh.  Um....  Never mind!  </litella>

I think it's one of those cases where it's hard to substitute for the 
lived experience.

Aqua