Deb’s House Concerts
I’ve Written About “The Architect’s Garage” Before
I don’t know why I keep reading (and, watching) this video blog. I guess it’s like a soap opera. I want to see what will happen next. I care about what happens to the characters. I’m pulling for the hero and the heroine, but they don’t seem to be pulling for themselves. I see what it looks like they’re trying to do with the plot, but there is an underlying theme that is louder than any of the things that are deliberately spoken by either of the main characters.
Zucchinis and Tube Socks
Really???? Is that what we are, men and women, nothing more than the body parts alluded-to with these images (shown repeatedly, and held up as demonstration items, during this video diary entry)? We are asked to comment, and in our comments tell if we are a ‘zucchini’ or a ‘tube sock’.
What’s My Point?
The point I tried to make with my comment was that we are all much more than our male or female body parts. And, relationships between men and women, or men and men, or women and women, are much more than just those ‘parts’ doing something. That’s what I said in my comment. Humans, and relationships between humans, are so much more than body parts.
“Health” AND “Peace, Justice and Equality”
I’m linking this post to these categories only because I believe it is more healthy to be honest with yourself than dishonest. That’s the ‘health’ connection. The ‘peace, justice and equality’ connection is that there is no peace, justice or equality as long as people are taught from childhood that they are less than (not to mention evil, wicked, perverted, child molesters, and an abomination to God) by religious teachings that make every effort to keep a foot on the necks of those who don’t fit into the “male + female = acceptable to God” category.
The Comment I Submitted
I responded with a comment to the repeated statements that men are ‘zucchinis’ and women are ‘tube socks’, and that ‘zucchinis’ are (by nature) dominant and ‘tube socks’ are (by nature) submissive, and that it just doesn’t make sense for two ‘zucchinis’ or two ‘tube socks’ to be together, because ‘zucchinis’ are supposed to be in ‘tube socks’. It just seemed like such an over-simplification of ‘relationships’ and an obsession with body parts as the only measure of what makes a valid relationship. This is the comment I submitted (plus one more sentence in []):
deb said…
I wrote a comment, and then my browser crashed the comment window, and I lost the comment. I hesitated about trying to rewrite it, because you may not want to post it anyway, but I do want to share my thoughts.
I agree with what Jon said. Human sexuality is so much more than ‘zucchinis’ and ‘tube socks’. People are so much more than their body parts. Relationships are so much more than sexual acts.
Exploring the issue of Adam and Eve and God and men and women being together for a reason, I have a few questions. If men and women are together for the purpose of procreation, what about the couples who are unable to have children? What about older couples who meet after their childbearing years have ended? What about couples who no longer have ‘zucchini and tube sock’ sex because of illness, or disease, or injury? What about the couples who have had all the children they plan to have? What should these couples do? Should they end their relationships because they are not having sex and bringing children into the world?
People are so much more than their sexual body parts. Relationships are so much more than specific acts. Viewing human sexuality through the perspective of pornography is no better than saying a photocopy of picture of a mountain is the mountain itself.
If you want to use movies to try to understand ‘gay’ and why two men might be together, why not look at movies that are about relationships instead of contrived sexual scenes? Watch something sweet like “A Touch of Pink” and see a movie-version of a relationship between two men who love each other. You never once see their ‘zucchinis’, but you see how they love each other. You see a real (Hollywood style) relationship. It’s a movie, so it’s not real life, but it’s much more real than porn. [It’s fluffy and sweet, and one of the guys has an imaginary friend he confides in, but it’s definitely more ‘real’ than ‘zucchinis’, ‘tube socks’ and porn explanations of sexuality and relationships.]
Why not ask your readers and viewers to recommend movies you can watch to try to imagine relationships between two men? That’s what sexuality is about. It’s not about porn-movie sex. It’s about relationship.
February 23, 2010 12:51 PM
What Was I Responding To?
This is a complete transcript of Rob’s video post called “Mechanics”:
Monday, February 22, 2010
Mechanics
00:06
Are you a zucchini or a tube sock?
00:17
Let’s just say zucchinis are like men and tube socks are like women.
00:35
I want to talk about mechanics today.
00:44
Never have I been able to, knowing that I’m one of these, make the jump, or take the leap, in my own mind, to really understand and accept putting two of these together, or, putting two of these together.
01:32
There’s always seemed to be a very natural, ordered connection between these two things, that I believe that God-breathed, or IS God-breathed.
02:10
Question for you, if you’re gay or lesbian: How did YOU justify taking THIS, and adding two it, saying, “two of these together make sense, or two of these together make sense.” Or, perhaps you completely reject this, and maybe consider it to be something it’s not.
03:03
I would really find it interesting to know, maybe because you’ve got same-sex attractions that you justify in your own mind that that is enough to either discount this or add to this.
03:33
Maybe you were abused as a child and that was introduced, “that” being some sort of homosexual environment or “act” was forcibly introduced to you and it changed your thinking. um.
04:10
I have never been able to get past the pragmatic notion of two zucchinis together, um, obviously a zucchini, just by its nature, is a, is a dominating object. And, the tube sock is more of a submissive object.
05:06
Now, I realize I’m just talking about physicality. So, taking two of the same object and putting them together always seemed to have little, if any, appeal to me, purely from a logical standpoint.
05:47
Of course, the Bible talks about homosexuality. It’s very clear that it’s not part of God’s plan. Even if you go back to Genesis, you look and you see God created man, woman, put them together for intended purposes. Even after the fall those purposes more or less stayed the same.
06:17
So, I offer this as an opportunity for you as a individual who struggles with same-sex attraction and isn’t actively involved with someone of the same sex, or maybe you’ve got same-sex attraction and you ARE involved.
06:43
Maybe you’re in a monogamous relationship, or not. I’d like to know your opinion.
06:54
I’d like to know what separates you from me in terms of your thinking. How do you justify, from a pragmatic standpoint, bringing together two members of the same sex together.
07:17
Signing off.
Read Full Post »
Once before, when I was in Oklahoma, I lived a mile from a Braum’s Ice Cream store. I really like milkshakes, and I could easily use half of a box of ice cream in a huge milkshake. I also enjoyed the variety of flavors they had. So, at one point, I ate a container of ice cream every other day for a month. I did it because could, because I wanted to, and because it tasted good. I quit after I gained about ten pounds in a month. I think I lost those ten pounds later, or most of them, but I don’t remember now.
