I think I’ve realized something today:
The reason why a monolithic minority of people seek autonomy, secession or an exit from rule by a larger, (possibly) more diverse group or nation-state is because that minority of people ultimately see rule by, or interaction with a larger demographic that is not constituent to their own smaller minority group as a form of sexual relations in which they (the minority) is subservient, prone or more malleable to that larger group’s own intentions.
They don’t want to be prone, as the potential or eventual intercourse could lead to some sort of pain or scarring. They don’t want to be subservient, as that would violate their own self-interests whenever such interests become a priority for that minority. Neither do they want to be malleable and "easy" to the larger group, as the larger group could lead them down a path from whence there is no return.
I guess this is why, when someone identifies as a "fanboy" of a certain company, a certain government, or some other such identity, they are accused of being the paid receiver of oral or anal sex – or being the doers of the oh-so-common "brown-nosing" – by others who identify as an anti-fanboy. However, these are common sexual actions and fetishes.
It enters into political discourse, where one who criticizes Obama’s campaign or personage are accused of "bottoming-up" for, or "brown-nosing" "neocons" like McCain or Wolfowitz; shilling is also seen as a sort of "whoredom", where one performs undercover actions which are considered reprehensible in normal discourse for payment or accolades.
This may go even further, where, since we have already made the term "bitch" partly-synonymous with the word "whore", we are merely reducing the value of our opponents to the "class/caste" level of animals (below us unsexed humans) through sexual metaphors that imply subserviency and idiocy.
But isn’t sex (supposed to be) enjoyable? Does it usually entail that one has to be bottom and one has to be top, anyway? Is being "bottom" supposed to immediately entail that one is not enjoying the sex, or does it entail that one is willfully submitting oneself for the taking by another?
What’s wrong with being "open"? Why is it such a bad thing to be open for "use" by another, unless, during or approximate to the time of the relationship, they hurt us or hurt others through us?
Ahh…..maybe that’s what we fear. The hurt.
And we’d rather hurt ourselves than be hurt by, or hurt someone else.
Members of the female gender can be hurt by, and hurt others. The mentally handicapped can be hurt by, and hurt other people. Animals can be hurt by, and hurt other people. Drug users can be hurt by, and hurt other people.
But we’re so above them and above the hurt that they cause….as least, with all the "you’re retarded" – "you’re a shill" – "you’re a whore" – "he was a savage beast" that’s bandied about in Internet discussions – you’d think that we are above that from first glance, right?
