What Is Wanting?

(Originally posted on my Tumblr.)

In the English language, we use the word “want” in different ways. Is it possible to decide to want something?

If I am riding in a car with my friend, I can say, “Will you pull in here? I want to run in and get some milk.”

If the waitress is asking for my decision between two rather mediocre choices, I can say, “I want the zucchini pie.”

If a coworker asks me to take a break and go out for something to drink, I can say, “No, I want to finish this today.”

These are all common uses of the word “want.”

But then I see something like these:




















































This is an entirely different kind of want. This produces the desire for some sort of action— I want to make and eat that dessert, I want to cuddle those cats. This produces awareness of some sort of lack— I am aware viscerally that I do not have that dessert to eat nor those cats to cuddle in a way that I am not viscerally aware that I do not have milk, zucchini pie, or a completed task at work.

Yet both are accurate uses of the word want. Is it also accurate to label the latter experience as desire? Or is that an inaccurate use of the word, or does its standard use in sexual contexts render it inapplicable here?

Sometimes people say, “How can you be asexual? You want to have sex!” Well, yes. But it’s zucchini pie want, milk want, not cat want. It’s not the same thing at all, to me, and yet we use exactly the same word for it.

Thoughts?

(Photo credits: Graham Cracker S’mores Candy, Cats on Windowsill)

Sexual Orientations: Not In Short Supply

Sometimes I come across remarks that amount to, “Why does everyone have to split themselves into smaller and smaller groups? This labeling thing is ridiculous. I mean, c’mon, asexuality? Demisexuality? I’m expected to believe in those now too?”

This is a very silly attitude, and it seems to be based on a number of problematic assumptions. First is the assumption that anybody’s sexual orientation needs your approval or validation to be a real thing. Second is the idea that you “believe in” certain sexual orientations simply because it’s expected of you. The third assumption underlying this general attitude is that if you haven’t experienced it or it doesn’t fit your worldview, it must not exist. But underlying all of this seems to be a scarcity model of sexual orientations.

What do I mean by that? It often seems that people are distressed by the recognition of a “new” sexual orientation, as if it calls into question the validity of the “old” sexual orientations. It’s as if they’re operating from the model that there’s only a certain amount of sexual orientation validity to go around, and the more we give away to these “niche” sexual orientations, the less there is for the “real” sexual orientations— or, alternately, the greater the number of sexual orientations that are recognized, the more they dilute the validity of the “real” sexual orientations. But this is obviously ridiculous, since no such scarcity exists. There is no inherent value to trying to make people confine themselves to a set number of (often ill-fitting) boxes. We don’t lose anything by acknowledging that people are different. Imagine if this scarcity model were applied to race and ethnicity: “Why can’t you just call yourself white? Why can’t you just call yourself brown? What does it matter where your ancestors were 500 years ago?” (On a side note, according to Wikipedia, the number of people in the world who claim Irish ancestry is roughly equal to our best guess for the number of asexual people in the world. Fun fact!)

If someone tells me they’re dendrosexual, sexually attracted to trees, I’m most likely going to believe them in the absence of a very good reason not to. Sure, it’s statistically unusual and not something I encounter on a regular basis, but my experience isn’t the be-all and the end-all of the world. Why shouldn’t I believe them? If they’re not distressed, and not engaging in non-consensual activity (I’m operating under the belief that trees, unlike animals, have no consciousness and therefore the idea of consent for trees is meaningless), what does it hurt me to believe what someone tells me about hirself? To put it the other way, what grounds do I have for thinking that I’m really justified in telling them no, you can’t possibly be right, I know better than you about you? What possible objection could I make? “But that’s not a real thing!” There’s no evidence for that, and evidence against it right in front of me in the form of someone claiming to be dendrosexual. “That’s not a real thing” is something people used to say, and still say, about every sexual orientation that isn’t heterosexuality. In every case, they were wrong.

We’re not running out of sexual orientations. Acknowledging the validity of one sexual orientation (which isn’t a prerequisite for it to actually be valid, of course) doesn’t call into question the validity of another. Let’s stop acting like it does.

(originally posted at my Tumblr.)

Weasel Words (Trigger Warning, Police Brutality)

(Originally posted at my Tumblr.)

This post, from the NY Daily News: Wall Street protesters cuffed, pepper-sprayed during ‘inequality’ march. This first sentence is, “Scores of protesters were arrested in Manhattan Saturday as a march against social inequality turned violent.”

The relevant bits: “a march… turned violent.” This language implies that the marchers were the ones who turned violent, who initiated the violence. However, reading on, it becomes clear that the violence was almost entirely on the side of the police: the article references “the dramatic mood shift in an otherwise peaceful demonstration,” “80 people carted away in police vehicles and up to five… hit with pepper spray near 12 St. and Fifth Ave., where tensions became especially high,” and “footage of other police altercations.” Multiple witnesses talk about the pepper spraying, police slamming protesters to the ground, and police striking protesters who were already on the ground. In contrast, “one demonstrator was charged with assaulting a police officer.”

By saying “a march… turned violent,” the article takes a supposedly “balanced” look at the facts that, in this case, obscures what really happened and makes it sound like the protesters were the ones who became violent. This is, in my opinion, poor journalism; it’s not terribly surprising, however, since the supposedly liberal media is… not particularly liberal.

Adventures in Vegetarianism

I can't walk by the lobster tank at the grocery store without wincing and having brief visions of going all Elliott-from-E.T. I know that lobsters have roughly the mental capacity of bugs, since they are basically giant aquatic bugs, but it just doesn't feel right to keep them penned up like that, awaiting death (don't get me started on the manner of cooking a lobster...). I'm sure they don't mind the tank, I just... well, I wince.

I also usually don't have any reason to go by the meat section, just because of what I usually buy and how the store is laid out, but yesterday I was grabbing something from a frozen food case, and I happened to look to my right, and it was just like... "Oh. That's a dead chicken. Wrapped in plastic."

(Cross-posted at Musings of an Ist.)

The Illusion of Being Powerless

One reason why people give up on causes is because they feel powerless. If you can't change anything, why bother trying? It's just wasted effort, right? The world is too big, and too messed up, so best pull your head into your little shell and look after yourself and yours.

On which I cry shenanigans, bullpucky, and utter ridiculousness.

I am an American. Though I am a student with no steady employment, I am still one of the richest people in the world. I have free access to clean water, good food, a roof over my head, clothes on my back, and even spending money. I have enough of an education to allow me to comprehend arguments and make my own. I have access to various forums to exchange opinions with others and make my voice heard. Unlike many other people in the world, I have elected officials who ostensibly represent my interests, and the freedom to lobby them without fear of reprisal. The government to which they belong is one of the most powerful in the world. The economy in which I participate in a day-to-day basis is one of the most powerful in the world. My political decisions, and my economic decisions, have an enormous amount of weight compared to those of most of the rest of the world. I suspect this is true for residents of most developed countries.

With great power comes great responsibility; I can use my dollars to help fix the world, support low-impact food sources that are fairly traded and ethically sourced, buy clothes made by employees paid a living wage, and contribute to public transportation. I can lobby my elected officials to support renewable energy products, end tax breaks for polluters, and increase foreign aid. Or, I can use my dollars to have a less positive impact, to buy toys, gadgets and luxury items that I don't need, foods that contribute to the clearing of the forests and the pollution of our waterways, and lobby my elected officials to make sure I get mine, to make sure we cling to the increasingly indefensible and unsustainable status quo.

No matter what I do, my actions will have an impact. I am not powerless. The question now becomes, what kind of impact do I want to have on the world with my power? Do I want to have a positive impact... or a negative one?