What's weird ... unacceptable ... acceptable?
PeaceBang posted an article about a guy who's into infantilism. As you'll see, ChaliceChick said "And the diaper thing is really appalling.". The article refers to the fact that the guy has chosen to be deliberately incontinent, and I'm not sure if CC meant that wearing a diaper is appalling, or being deliberably incontinent is appalling. For the record, the incontinence-in-public thing to me is offensive and unacceptable.In my replies (PB cut off additional posting so I had to move it here) I tried to separate out dressing as an infant from the issue of deliberate incontinence and stick with the former as the issue. The next post I was going to make (after PB said "Paul, I hear you comparing a man who *chooses* to remain in an infantile, socially pathological condition to a gay person. That disturbs me.") was ...
Who's to say what's chosen and not chosen? Many people still believe that homosexuality is chosen. I don't. Gender transformation is another issue ... some people believe that people go through that complex process simply as a choice as opposed to trying to live the way they are.
Personally, I believe that the guy in this article doesn't have the feelings he has by choice any more than gays have their feelings or transgendered folks have theirs by choice.
If there were any group of individuals who I thought would have given this guy some slack (again: putting aside the deliberate incontinence issue) I would have thought it would have been UUs. Whatever happened to the inherent worth and dignity of every person? I know, I know ... we can grant him his dignity as long as he doesn't move into our congregation.
posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 12:35 PM
3 Comments:
Umm... my primary issue WAS the deliberate incontinence as I wrote in my second post in the thread. I don't think it's fair to quote my first post without quoting my clarification.
And I don't think it is reasonable to ask us to put it aside the incontinence issue.
"Aside from all that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
CC
CC,
I stand corrected.
I've attended Gay Pride parades where I've seen (presumably) gay males exposing their genitalia. Do I support gay pride? Absolutely. Do I approve of people exposing themselves in public? No. To me, that's a question of what someone is vs an act they choose to do.
That's the way I see Mr. Baby. In the same way that "your right to swing your arm ends at my face", it's wrong for him to choose incontinence in public because it's physically affecting me. He's being inconsiderate.
Paul
I do not have an especially attractive figure by almost anyone's standards. I'm fat. Shrug. And I'm used to that. I've looked that way for a long time.
If I show up in church every Sunday in a skirt and a bikini top and nothing else, I don't know what my fellow congregants can do to me. They can talk to me nicely, first someone asking if I were cold, then someone gently saying that another outfit would flatter me better. I assume the talks would get more and more heated
Nobody wants someone who looks like that around. They gross people out a bit. They get laughed at. It brings the church down a bit.
Now I could claim that I've always been a surfer girl in my head and that I didn't chose this indentity, it chose me and that it's my right to wear whatever I want. I could claim a lot of things. And they would probably suck it up and let me because they didn't really have a choice.
But to say that I can wear what I want when I want and that's only my business and it doesn't effect others is a ridiculously simplistic view, almost as simplistic as the idea that behavior more subtle than a punch in the face can't really be affecting one.
Gay people are fine. A Transsexual who came to church dressed normally is fine. A transsexual who came to church in full-on drag queen makeup and an outfit better suited for a club might need talking to, but I've known recently divorced women who went through a clubgirl stage who probably needed talking to as well.
If we proudly display that we are a church where normal social standards don't apply, a small number of people will be MORE comfortable. Almost everyone else will be LESS comfortable. They won't know how to expect people to behave and that's fundamentally a freaky concept.
Are people who violate societal standards inherently more valuable, so much more that it's worth scaring off a whole lot of people who are put off by that?
I hope not.
CC
who doesn't think even chronological babies belong in church.
Post a Comment
<< Home