Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: [B7L] Biology, culture and the crush
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/26/01 5:14:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, stephend999(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: << Is it ? I had better tread carefully here but I would have thought that the feelings one has for Avon, or whoever, who we know are fictional characters are going to be different to the feelings we have for our significant others. Assuming that identical physiolgical changes occur when someone undergoing a crush sees Avon and when someone who is in love with a real person sees their beloved we are, none the less, identifying two discrete phenomenon. >> The *relationship* we have with our significant others is quite different, if only because we have access to them in the real world. The mechanism that makes us fall in love or develop a crush on them at the beginning of the process is identical. The crush on the TV character is "safe" in our society's context because there is no contact and no realistic expectation that the relationship can ever be anything but a fantasy. It seems reasonable to assume that the chemical process that triggers this leverence process was developed to help us form lasting relationships and allow our offspring a better chance for survival and continuance of our genes, because both of the parents might still be together, protecting and providing for the offspring, a few years later. There would be no logical genetic justification for a 'separate' crush mechanism on an unattainable potential mate. Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] Homophobia
by Ashton7＠aol.com 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/25/01 2:21:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, jacqueline.lyst(a)jthijsen.demon.nl writes: << Sure it can be. It's just that calling the other side immoral doesn't sound like an opening to a discussion. It sounds more like an insult. >> Exactly. It is an insult and I certainly took it that way. Calling slash "character assassination" is also more likely to be perceived as an insult than an opening to a discussion. And then folks wonder why lists like Freedom City have to exist and why there can't be open discussion among fans about slash. Personally, I don't give a flying flip if someone else doesn't like slash, whatever their reasons. It's not like anyone is forcing you to read said "character assassination" against your will. If you don't like it, don't read it. Problem solved. Annie

2 1

re:
by Alison Page 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Louise said - >>It must be difficult for someone who is religious to start cutting and chopping away at what they have been led to believe. But then we're back to my dislike of organised religion.<< I see your point. I suppose I'm less tolerant of that process just because I've been through it, at the age of about 13. Like ex-smokers being more anti-smoking than those who never have indulged. Or something Alison ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

1 0

Re: [B7L] reasons
by Shane Little 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Una wrote: >Shane wrote: > > > Lisa wrote: > > > > >Shane Little wrote: > > > > > >>But the original show was about politics, not sex, after all, and we > > >>shouldn't let the politics of it be overwhelmed by the sex. > > > > > >Who's "we" > > > > Me and my militant army of slash-eating penguins, that's who. > >'Scuse me, sir - do you have a licence for those penguins? I don't need a license, they've all sworn an oath of allegiance. Shane "Zoooom" -Liberator Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

2 1

RE: [B7L] (no subject)
by Louise Rutter 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Alison wrote: >In contrast to Louise I think beliefs which lack compassion can be >criticised equally whether or not they are part and parcel of a religious >world view, but in many cases they are imposed on that religion, rather than >imposed by it IMHO. I agree about the imposed on rather than imposed by bit. But that doesn't change the fact that religion comes as a huge cultural package with hundreds or thousands of years of accumulated baggage. It must be terribly hard for someone who is religious to start cutting and chopping away at what they have been led to believe. But then we're back to my dislike of organised religion. Louise

1 0

RE: [B7L] Homophobia
by Louise Rutter 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Kathryn wrote: >I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to pretend to be someone or >something other than I am. And most people here wouldn't dream of asking you to. You made your comments in a perfectly polite, intelligent, well-thought-out manner to explain your point of view and I cannot see why some people consider that offensive. >I could start raving on about religious tolerance, but I know that >religious tolerance is a myth. It only applies to percieved minorities. Some of us try our best. Personally I'll cut a hell of a lot more slack to someone who disapproves of homosexuality because of their religion than I would to someone who was just bigoted without the religious background. You wouldn't like my views on organised religion at all, but religious people I have no problem with. >One reason why slash discussion has been encouraged not to take place >here, but on the Other List, is because it doesn't seem to be possible >for people to dialogue happily about it. It is, as Ellynne said, like >talking in a foriegn language -- nobody seems to understand what the >other person is saying. I agree that nobody is going to change anyone's mind as a result of these discussions, because both sides believe that they are morally right. Doesn't mean we can't discuss it in a sensible manner, though, as most people have been doing. I don't think the problem is understanding - the folk here are generally intelligent enough to understand where the other side is coming from, they're just never going to agree. Whether it's better not to discuss when you know from the start there can be no resolution is another question, but personally I think discussion is better since it might increase the level of understanding. Louise

1 0

Re: [B7L] Homophobia
by Shane Little 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Leah wrote: > What has me scratching my head is the sheer intensity of the emotion against > slash in B7 by those who find it morally negative. Point one: this should be on the spin list. Point two: I submit that this was _not_ sent to the spin list for the simple reason that Leah and Annie are both trying to stir up trouble by attacking people and trying to bring the slash debate onto morality issues. For somebody who keeps telling me to shut up about slash because "it ain't gonna change," you seem pretty eager to try and change the minds of people on the lyst who disagree with you. And why? Are you trying to protect your market? Are you trying to get me, Jacqueline and the other gay and gay-positive members of the lyst on your side? And why didn't you answer my questions from the last two posts? What have you got to be afraid of? Shane Largo: Why do I feel as if I'm on trial here? Avon: Why do I feel as if you should be? Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

Vindicated!
by Una McCormack 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

I mentioned that I was a B7 fan on my INFJ mailing list last week, and this quite wonderful post about it arrived in response. Note which episode supplies this 'stand out' moment. None of your 'Rumours of Death' or 'Blake' shit. Una >> It's been years since I've seen Blake's 7. I only caught a few episodes, though, so I was ignorant of its backstory. I could *tell that the characters had a history together! One scene in particular stands out. The villainess, a close-cropped brunette who is more evil than evil who is the head of an intelligency agency or a tyrant or something, gets one of her predecessors' scientist minions out of retirement to quiz him about a black program which he'd run, something from long before her time. They have a lovely chat about deeds covert and dark, and she especially turns on the charm because he suffers from an incurable and fatal disease which has blinded him. After he leaves she, of course, orders him killed. Let's call her henchman Mort. Her Herness: "Mort, so-and-so who was just here for tea... Liquidate him." Goon: "Yes, Madame Vileness" (or whatever). (pause) Her Herness: "And Mort? Make it quick." <<

1 0

Re: [B7L] Biology, culture and the crush
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/22/01 2:02:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << > > You could say that we are genetically programmed to develop crushes on > > actors! > > I would rather say that we are socially conditioned :)-- and repeat that I'm > not entirely sure that the function of the crush is purely one related to > the propagation of genes.... >>As I said above, not 'purely', because genes can't work directly. They have to hoodwink us with other satisfactions peripheral to their purpose.>> Falling in love, either with an actor or a person in your life, is a biological condition triggered by chemicals. As coldly scientific as that sounds, the condition of leverance has been proven in the lab. It can have many different degrees, but it follows a prescribed biological pattern, and has perpetuated in the genes of our species (and probably in other species) as a means of continuing the species. One can fall into the emotional condition known now as 'leverance' under a host of circumstances, including weekly exposure to an attractive television character we have come to feel close to and care about. This displacement is a modern phenomenon, but chemically, it's every bit as real as meeting someone you come to regard as 'the one' (someone you wish to mate with). We are rational, thinking creatures--but only recently. We still dwell in a biological engine that can't rely on rational thought for survival, and isn't taking any chances. A few thousand years of self-awareness and civilization structure isn't going to change that. Leah

3 2

Re: [B7L] reasons
by Jenny Kaye 26 Mar '01

26 Mar '01

Shane wrote: > > Me and my militant army of slash-eating penguins, that's who. Can my Fox's Glacier Mint-sucking polar bears join your slash-eating penguins? Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 March 2001