So, over at Clarisse’s, there’s this discussion of casual sex. And so, in that discussion, the “I value women who have sex quickly” thing came up, along with the “because we’re compatible” thing that usually accompanies it.

Which, you know….

Well, I guess that I’ll just put it this way: those of us who have casual sex, or have sex quickly, because that’s what we like and want? Women or men, cis- or trans*, het or gay or bi or whatever other term — we’re not here to be compatible with you. And it doesn’t much help to hear from someone that they consider us compatible, and even have great experiences with us, as some way of “breaking the stereotype.” Because it doesn’t. It merely points out that the stereotype isn’t universal, and that to escape the places where it holds… we’re dependent on being recognized as valuable by people who say they do.

Which means that it isn’t about us at all. It’s about establishing why we should value you.

Just as a note about Scalzi’s “Lowest Difficulty Setting” post, which has been tweeted, linked and discussed both into the sky and into the ground by now:1 as a number of people have focused in on, it doesn’t address socioeconomic class very well. But in my view, that’s because class doesn’t fit into the metaphor — as either stat or difficulty. Really, it isn’t part of the game.

Instead, it’s the hardware it runs on, the operating system used, and the type of controller(s) you have. Which doesn’t just affect things like frame rate and lag; it also affects what features of the game are available, what patches have been released, how often it’s updated, what you can mod, and what additional services and DLCs you can get. Compare, for example, running a game through Steam or Desura to running its standalone Linux port. Or running it on the latest Windows release, compared to on a system that’s still running XP.

Add to this that certain operating systems are more hackable than others, and so is certain hardware. And that certain operating systems are more vulnerable than others, and require more attention to security bulletins, and more supplemental software to harden them up; and that they come with different learning curves; and that they have greater or lesser options for expansion and upgrade, and varying access to up-to-date drivers. Not to mention what happens when moving from one OS or console to another, especially when they come from different lines. Save points can be lost, the graphics altered, and the play quality changed — among other things.

And on top of that: there’s the issue of how other gamers will regard you, as a result of the hardware you have and the OS that you run. (Especially at LAN parties.) Which includes how impressive it looks, and how much personalization you’ve been able to put into it.

All of which is quite aside from the issue of hardware breaking, being difficult to repair, and the only one of its type, all of which balances out any of the notable advantages it might initially provide. (Yeah, I’m looking at you, SideWinder Dual Strike. And to a lesser degree, The Claw, too.)

That’s why Scalzi’s post was so weak on the issue of class. Not because he didn’t address it correctly, and not because he doesn’t have the background to do so, but because he couldn’t. Not through the metaphor as it was set up. And that, because it did a passable job in describing the game, but didn’t address the physical interface between game and player.

And as the just-linked post clearly shows, that’s what class, fundamentally, is.

1. This response being one of my favorites.

This isn’t news.

Or, really, it shouldn’t be. But the thing that I find most interesting about it is the “See? We have proof now!” slant to it. As if what the culture said about itself, and what could be understood about it from that, and has been understood about it for quite a while… none of it was sufficient, evidently, until there was an actual record of someone calculating things out to 17 baktuns.

I know, I know. Scientific method. Or, you know, “ain’t no murder unless there’s a body.” Call it the varying ways of pronouncing the name of a fruit.

And it not being news: it isn’t in the “There are Mayans around, so why don’t you ask them?” way, either. Because being of any given ethnicity doesn’t come with knowledge of your culture’s history by default, and that kind of statement is just so much more exotification. Not to mention erasing of history, as if traditions that have been lost, by natural disaster, colonization or genocide, aren’t really lost. Not so long as there are some survivors… somewhere. And even assuming that there are, and even assuming that the tradition has survived: what gives you the right to ask them?

Why wouldn’t they have the right, or even the obligation, to tell you to fuck right off — because it’s something that you have no right to know, unless they decide, on their own, to tell you?

This stuff has meaning. But it isn’t for most of the people who are claiming it.

What this “discovery,” and the reactions to it, really show is this: that sometimes, only the dead are capable of flipping the bird. And that, only when properly autopsied. Which should be a source of profound embarrassment.

Not surprise, not enlightenment, and not news.

Will & Grace? Seriously?

I’d have had a lot more respect for Biden, and for everything else that followed, if he’d mentioned this instead. Which, currently, you can find here.

People often forget the pioneers.

[...]

Oh, and speaking of pioneers: when it comes to Krafft-Ebing & Co., the relatively modern two-sexes scheme, and the whole “invention of sexuality as such” thing… I wonder how many people see that as related to the fact that it was preceded, not just by the start of the Industrial Revolution, but more importantly, by the invention of the battery.

No. Really, you shouldn’t just be able to hide that shit.1

I’ll just go ahead and pass these along.

&

1. Edit: Interestingly, the original full video is still available, because “it’s important to retain the comments.” But the four individual ones aren’t, nor is the playlist that included them, and they’re gradually falling out of the YouTube search results.

So, people have probably seen the “World Population Rank” tweet by now.

But in case you’re interested in knowing… Facebook actually comes in third by a relatively close margin. About halfway between, actually.

According to Wikipedia’s list of countries by population, as of writing:

• China: 1,347,350,000
• India: 1,310,193,422
• United States: 313,508,000

And according to the current info at Internet World Stats, the total number of Facebook users is 835,525,280, up from 664,032,460 a year ago.

But here’s the interesting thing, which I’m guessing most people wouldn’t have counted on: the largest areas of growth have been in South America, with Central America, Africa and Asia coming in almost tied, percentage-wise, behind it.

And the North American penetration percentage, being the highest on the list? That seems to be hovering right at or below the 50% mark.

And there might be reason to believe that Twitter’s numbers are growing substantially, and it isn’t as far off as its last place position would suggest. In fact, MySpace is evidently at about 25 million, which would actually place it there, about 100,000,000 active accounts below. And that’s counting registered users, not active, which is what’s used for the other two.

But that’s probably just a slight glitch in @TheGoogleFacts’ reporting. I’m sure that it’s nothing much to note.

I’ve already left brief a comment at Clarisse’s regarding this post, but I thought that a further note might be in order here, to clarify why; to have written an extended one there, I think, wouldn’t have been appropriate. Regardless, it’s in regard to this:

Like Psychopathia Sexualis, the original DSM called homosexuality a disorder. This changed in 1973, partly in response to gay activists. But subsequent versions of the DSM are still criticized for many reasons. Our cultural diagnoses of mental illness are shaped by lots of people with very different motives, and truth is hard to find. A 2010 New Yorker article by Louis Menand outlined many critiques of the DSM, such as the allegation that today’s psychiatry “is creating ever more expansive criteria for mental illness that end up labelling as sick people who are just different.” Naturally, the medical establishment has an incentive to do this, since it makes money selling treatments for illness, and more illness means more treatment.

– Clarisse Thorn, “The Psychology of S&M“

I get the point that’s being aimed at, here, and I can’t say that I disagree with the intention: that something is different doesn’t necessarily make it pathological, and that’s especially the case with the non-normative. Particularly when it comes to sexuality, which is still, comparatively speaking, young.

But the problem is that people who are going to the behavioral health system for help are often already dealing with a heavy stigma regarding validity — one that argues that their concerns and issues are not valid, and that they only exist because they’ve been defined as such. That they aren’t genuine conditions; that the DSM, of whatever edition, is the only evidence that they exist, or that the existence of a medication serves the same. That they are, essentially, both lacking in ability to overcome their problems, and mere stools for the profit of the medical establishment.

And that’s what bothers me about this kind of argument: it reduces one stigma by worsening another. Even if that wasn’t the intended effect, and even if it’s done without knowledge of the stigma itself. It weakens the grasp of psychiatric diagnosis upon BDSM, but it does this by playing upon the very same ideas that make things difficult for behavioral health patients themselves.

What concerns me most about this approach is the effect that it can have upon someone who is both a BDSMer and someone with a behavioral health concern: while it can validate the one, it can lead to invalidation of the other, which runs the risk of driving them into engaging with BDSM for precisely the wrong reasons. Instead of seeking out treatment through therapy — which, for them, might be both appropriate and needed — or informed decisions for medication — which might be appropriate and needed, as well — they might decide to attempt to work those concerns out through scene. Which, even when feasible, is not a decision to be entered into lightly.

This is worsened when considering otherwise beneficial initiatives such as the linked Kink-Aware Professionals list: while substantial, it’s nowhere near comprehensive, and this becomes extremely problematic when a BDSMer with behavioral health concerns is in an area where professionals on that list are out of reach.1 The doubt introduced, or even the fear, could well result in refraining from attempting to get the services one needs. Or from disclosing what might be necessary for therapy to work.

Both of which can only be addressed by reducing this kind of stigma, through solid advice, balanced criticism and informed critique. Not by compounding it, as results from this kind of approach.

And this is leaving aside, at least for the moment, the problematic effect of statements such as “First things first: S&M is not a pathology, and people who practice S&M are not ‘damaged’ in some way.” Because… what about the cases in which a BDSMer does have a behavioral health concern? Would this kind of position not cause them to doubt whether or not their sexuality was genuine, or whether or not they were welcome in the scene at all? Does this not simply repeat, for those with behavioral health concerns, the same kind of damage as is talked about (in fact, that Clarisse has written about) in regard to the self-doubt of female submissives?

I’ll reiterate: with the general goal that Clarisse is aiming for, I agree. What’s different shouldn’t be pathologized merely for its difference, nor the non-normative for its place on the margins. But this isn’t the way to go about achieving it.

If one wants to address the casualties that psychiatric diagnosis inflicts, and has inflicted, upon BDSM, one should be careful not to inflict casualties in return.

1. Or when they don’t take one’s insurance, or when one doesn’t have insurance, or when one simply can’t afford them, or when they might be otherwise unsuitable or unavailable.