The Invisible Counterpoint

@ Michael Fellman and Tyee readers (and you guys too, at Open Salon!): Anybody else beginning to worry that if you spoil yourself and buy something real nice to wear, you risk it being "lost" in a tarred and feathered ruin of an evening? (In this climate, God help you if you have a taste for anything fine in anything other than organic coffee/food.) And is anybody else wondering how right this writer is in thinking that the wealthy are safe from pitchfork prodding? But what if someone offers to serve them up to satisfy (if only temporarily) the bottomless hunger of those who hate, hate, hate the greedy rich -- how long do you think they'll last, then? And when they're gone, who might we turn to next? -- Why how 'bout the Americans, even if Obama's still at the helm, who have surely made greedy, presumptive use of our generous, neighborly will for far too long! Mightn’t indeed the short term bathos be such that it'll become difficult to keep the long-...

No, not a fantasy, James. The most advanced psychoclass would be all about peace, of course. However, they would have within their ranks the most creative (least stultified, least rigid--most free) thinkers on earth, who could ably attend to such necessities as insuring they are not vulnerable to their "barbarian" brethren's perpetual need to war and sacrifice (their own). (They' be like Apple -- fun, happy, with technology that outpaces all competition.) I know it's easy to imagine those who are most loving as a bunch of wayward nymphs and pixies. But what they'd really be would be those who, when forced into combat (for them it would really be last resort -- if they sensed their "enemies" [lower psychoclasses] were in the mood for war, they'd be the type to figure out a way to address their opponent's need with the least amount of bloodshed as possible), they would be most ably constituted to resist sacrificing th...

Couples who spend most of their life together in a loving, sharing way, are not best understood as traditional, for history has offered us very little of such. My guess is that the healthiest of the current generation, who are very at ease with the specific sort of talk about multiple-partners, orgasm and pleasure, Vanessa offers, and who would find 50’s Playboy stuff, at best, humorously clumsy and silly, will end up in the kind of lifelong (essentially) monogamous relationships History has so long held up as the ideal. Not about control, not about putting a ring on it -- but about life partners enjoying an ongoing, enjoyable "conversation"--sexual and otherwise--with one another. Relaxed and fun, not tight and dutiful. We've got to stop teaching boys a history where their origins are in the management and abuse of women. It's sin-focused and abusive. Something drove men to feel the need to want to control women. The current answer seems to amount to suggestions ...