S.B. Stewart-Laing's Blog, page 34
June 20, 2012
Ye Genteel Olde Days: No Sex Zone (NSFW)
To state the obvious, your parents had parents. Who had parents. Who had...you get the picture. And yet there is some misconception that no one in Ye Genteel Olde Days thought about sex beyond making babies, and that anything beyond a quickie with the lights out and eyes squeezed shut is the invention of modern life. And never mind gay people. Or females enjoying sex. [Continues after the jump]
Second, the whole idea of ignoring the female orgasm, or the idea that women don't (or shouldn't) enjoy sex is fairly new. Without delving into the sociological reasons, suffice to say that even the most uptight of Puritans were down with female pleasure, so long as it was a married couple getting it on. In fact, many societies have believed that the female orgasm was essential for the woman to get pregnant, so there was a lot of emphasis on the lady having a good time.
Third, homosexuality has not always been a Big Issue, or a social taboo. The very idea of sexual orientation is very recent. Many cultures have taken a 'as long as you have kids, then do whatever' approach, while some ignored the issue, and others carved out a place for non-straight relationships within their society. Again, very specific research is key here. To use an example I'm intimately familiar with, Scottish Celtic culture has long taken a 'huh, yeah, whatever,' approach to homosexual relationships, while our southern neighbours have been more uptight. Within Scotland, you can have zones of happy acceptance and awkward borderline homophobia within a 40-minute train ride of each other based on demographic variation, which is a bit unsettling.
Finally, what counts as a socially acceptable fetish varies wildly between cultures. Not everyone shares the same idea about what physical features make someone hot, what outfits have inherent sex appeal, or what activities are 'normal' vs. 'daring'.
Second, the whole idea of ignoring the female orgasm, or the idea that women don't (or shouldn't) enjoy sex is fairly new. Without delving into the sociological reasons, suffice to say that even the most uptight of Puritans were down with female pleasure, so long as it was a married couple getting it on. In fact, many societies have believed that the female orgasm was essential for the woman to get pregnant, so there was a lot of emphasis on the lady having a good time.
Third, homosexuality has not always been a Big Issue, or a social taboo. The very idea of sexual orientation is very recent. Many cultures have taken a 'as long as you have kids, then do whatever' approach, while some ignored the issue, and others carved out a place for non-straight relationships within their society. Again, very specific research is key here. To use an example I'm intimately familiar with, Scottish Celtic culture has long taken a 'huh, yeah, whatever,' approach to homosexual relationships, while our southern neighbours have been more uptight. Within Scotland, you can have zones of happy acceptance and awkward borderline homophobia within a 40-minute train ride of each other based on demographic variation, which is a bit unsettling.
Finally, what counts as a socially acceptable fetish varies wildly between cultures. Not everyone shares the same idea about what physical features make someone hot, what outfits have inherent sex appeal, or what activities are 'normal' vs. 'daring'.
June 14, 2012
Royal DNA: The Only CV You Need
Leadership is an acquired skill, national level leadership exponentially so. Even if you're just a figurehead, you still have to know a massive amount about etiquette, political maneuverings, foreign policy, and public relations. Some qualifications or relevant experience are generally a good idea. Maybe you've been in a variety of increasingly challenging government positions, or led a company, or been in a public-relations-heavy job (actors in the USA seem to do quite well in politics); or maybe you've been born into a hereditary monarchy and were brainwashed trained from birth on how to perform your duties.
Unless, of course, you live in Fantasyland. There, the qualification seems to be 'royal descent', no matter what the person's previous life experience or training for the role. I dislike this scenario because it is predicated on the following assumptions-- which, when you look at them, are pretty dang suspect:
Your DNA makes you special and qualified, not your accomplishments. LIFE SKILLS ARE NOT HERITABLE. It doesn't matter if Bob the Farmer's biological dad was the Best King Ever. If Bob has not been trained in how to balance a national budget or wrangle Parliament, or run the national church, or negotiate with foreign dignitaries, or whatever it is he needs to do as king, he will be screwed. On a more philosophical level, implying that what someone accomplishes in life (or doesn't accomplish) is made valid (or invalid) by an accident of birth leads precisely nowhere good.Leadership is an innate ability. No one wakes up one day and figures out how to get other people to cooperate with them. That's why our teachers spent so much time making us do group projects, and why people who participate in team sports tend to be more successful in their later careers. We need to learn how to play nicely with others, and will inevitably make mistakes along the way. Some people may have personality traits which help facilitate this learning process, but it's still a process, not some innate ability like being double-jointed or having perfect pitch. Divine right of monarchs. If you want to write a story where this is a feature of the universe, go ahead. However, it opens up an enormous can of worms, many of which are extremely squirmy. See Wednesday's post for more details.
Unless, of course, you live in Fantasyland. There, the qualification seems to be 'royal descent', no matter what the person's previous life experience or training for the role. I dislike this scenario because it is predicated on the following assumptions-- which, when you look at them, are pretty dang suspect:
Your DNA makes you special and qualified, not your accomplishments. LIFE SKILLS ARE NOT HERITABLE. It doesn't matter if Bob the Farmer's biological dad was the Best King Ever. If Bob has not been trained in how to balance a national budget or wrangle Parliament, or run the national church, or negotiate with foreign dignitaries, or whatever it is he needs to do as king, he will be screwed. On a more philosophical level, implying that what someone accomplishes in life (or doesn't accomplish) is made valid (or invalid) by an accident of birth leads precisely nowhere good.Leadership is an innate ability. No one wakes up one day and figures out how to get other people to cooperate with them. That's why our teachers spent so much time making us do group projects, and why people who participate in team sports tend to be more successful in their later careers. We need to learn how to play nicely with others, and will inevitably make mistakes along the way. Some people may have personality traits which help facilitate this learning process, but it's still a process, not some innate ability like being double-jointed or having perfect pitch. Divine right of monarchs. If you want to write a story where this is a feature of the universe, go ahead. However, it opens up an enormous can of worms, many of which are extremely squirmy. See Wednesday's post for more details.
June 13, 2012
Stop F***ing Swearing
When I was a wee kid, Mom and Dad Stewart-Laing gave me a quick ‘don’t swear talk’. The approach was, frankly, genius. “If you say those words, grown-ups will think you’re angry and uneducated and won’t take you seriously,” Mom Stewart-Laing informed me. Magic words to a 7-year-old who thinks their opinions are Serious Business. In one swoop, she killed the forbidden fruit appeal, and instilled in me a truthful assessment of social values. Unfortunately, a lot of people missed this one, and swearing went straight in the ‘cool forbidden thing’ category. The net result is a lot of stories where the dialogue gets peppered with four-letter words in an attempt to make the characters sound ‘adult’ and ‘edgy’. My problem here is the same as my problem with any verbal tic that makes it into print. Before long, it’s not only lost it’s emotional punch, but it becomes an active annoyance to the reader, as they have to filter out all the f***s and d***s and whatever else to get the gist of the dialogue. Sure, lots of people talk like that, but fictional dialogue is unrealistic by requirement. Just a few well-placed cusswords will let us get the flavour of the character’s speaking style, without forcing the reader to plough through a lot of verbal filler. 
June 11, 2012
Ye Genteel Olde Days: He Said a Bad Word!
I came across a book in which a time-traveling character managed to surprise her historical companions (from the 1700s) by teaching them the f-word. The word in question has been in the English language for a solid 500 years, and has actually been more popular and socially acceptable at various points in the past than it currently is.
This book seems to be an example of the idea that people from Ye Good Olde Days didn't swear, or that various vulgar words were super taboo. I think this perception comes from the more recent past (late 1800s to early 1900s), where Western culture went through a somewhat more 'buttoned-up' phase. There are also periods in history where particular subsets of swearing-- usually involving words of religious origin-- were much more scandalous than they are today. However, this can be very specific to time periods, and even to social classes or geographical areas within that, so solid research is key.
This book seems to be an example of the idea that people from Ye Good Olde Days didn't swear, or that various vulgar words were super taboo. I think this perception comes from the more recent past (late 1800s to early 1900s), where Western culture went through a somewhat more 'buttoned-up' phase. There are also periods in history where particular subsets of swearing-- usually involving words of religious origin-- were much more scandalous than they are today. However, this can be very specific to time periods, and even to social classes or geographical areas within that, so solid research is key.
