Ask a Deaf White Atheist Chick…

In honor of Woozie’s recent installment of “Ask a Black Dude” (which tickled me tremendously; I could have asked 10,000 questions, but I restrained myself), I hereby introduce my first ask-me-anything-question-and-answer segment!

Contain yourselves, my children! This is but a modest venture, a humble experiment–such display is unseemly!

First the rules: there are no rules! You can ask me ANYTHING about ANYONE and ANYWHERE and ANYHOW. I will do my best to honor the integrity of your queries with the seriousness it is asked (which means, of course, if you ask me a foolish question, I will give you a foolish answer, but I do welcome foolish questions regardless!).

So ask me anything, my dear friends! Be you serious or silly, foolish or penetrating, I await your inquiring minds with bated breath.


31 thoughts on “Ask a Deaf White Atheist Chick…

  1. Okay I got one. I always read that women cannot separate sex from love. Do you think there’s such a thing as Friends with Benefits? Is it possible to have great sex with a guy friend without becoming romantically attached?

  2. Franki:
    That’s a tough question! The answer is yes it is possibleto be “friends with benefits” without romantic entaglements, but it is not possible to avoid emotional repercussions. The fact of the matter is people of both sexes instinctively form bio-emotional bonds to the people with whom they are intimate–and the closer that person is to you in non-intimate circumstances, the stronger that sexual attachment will become; and the more often you engage in intamacy, the attachment grows proportionally stronger. Moreover, if either partner is seeking a mate (either consciously or subconsciously), then the risk of emotional attachment rises significantly.

    There are pros and cons to the idea of “friends with benefits” but there are many reasons why it is not recommended.

    here are some links for you to read…


  3. Jazz:
    Another toughie!

    Actually, I was raised without religion by parents who were (at the time) atheist. There was a time in my mid-teens when I sought God and faith, and there was a short span of time when I was almost certain that God did exist–and I tried very hard to beleive that He was real. But that quickly passed, and by the time I was 17, I was done with searching for certainties that could never be certain, of searching for validation of an invalid concept.

    I wrote a more detailed post on this back in August…here is the link to that post.

  4. miranda:
    ooo. My musical knowledge is so small, I’m having a hard time with this one…um…after some thought, I’ll go with Tubthumper’s “Pissing the Night Away.” There’s only two parts of the song I actually remember, but I suppose they relate to my life: “I get knocked down, but I get up again” and “Pissing the night away”…which I adopt as saying that even though I make mistakes, or have wasted time, or lost my sense, I accept the consequences and “get up again” keep on going with my life, keep on “pissing”.

  5. woozie: bears on submarines, hands down.
    A: bears are massive, densly built mammals. Their energy needs are higher than that of a snake.

    B: Bears require large spaces to den and forage, mot to mention their emotional territorial requirements. Snakes are content in comfined spaces.

    C: Snakes, being cold-blooded, can be lulled into a stupor by lowering ambient temperatures, restricting food, and dimming lights. Bears will hunt for meat regardless of conditions, if they are hungry enough.

    BTW, I’ve never seen “snakes on a plane” and I never will.

  6. woozie; hmm. but then again, its easier to kill a single rampaging bear than a plauge of homicidial snakes…and a submarine is more likely to house a variety of leathal weapons…

    so, maybe Snakes ona plane ARE more dangerous!

  7. dawn: most tv characters are archetypes of personalities, and I (like the majority of humanity) am not an archetype. Also, I don’t watch much tv anymore to know what characters are being portrayed at this time, either…This is a hard question for me because I’ve never identified with any fictional character in tv, movie, or book.

    For some reason, though, I am inclined to say that I am some blend of Chandler and Pheobe from Friends. I have that goofy dorkiness that both characters exhibit in both their idiosynocritic ways: the ditzy glee of Pheobe and the wry observationalism of Chandler. They are also the two characters most off to the side, so to speak, in that the other characters often dominated the storylines. I do not dominate anything–you can find me off to the side watching and commenting, often to myself or to a select audience.

  8. woozie: depends on what I’m in the mood for. If I prefer self-aggrandizment, the Colbert. If self-depreciation, then Jon Stewart.

    I like them both about equally, otherwise.

  9. CS: There are three issues that are important to me, and it is very difficult for me to prioritize any of them over the others. They are: the environment, universal health care, and the arts.

    I would like to contribute money to a Environmental group that is more proactive than reactive. A group that combined forestry education with systematic replanting, for example.

    As for the Arts, any organization that provided resources such as education, studio space, and grants to emerging artists, would be on my charitable hit list.

    And Universal Health Care…IS there any organization doing more than just demanding Universal Health Care? If there were an organization that was actively and proactively pushing for “socialized” Health Care–research, education, proposals, etc…I would give them my money in a heartbeat.

    I really can’t answer your question, because I cannot choose between these issues–the are all related to each other in so many little ways: for example, artists derive much of their inspiration from the environment; the environment directly influences the health of people, and good health makes happy, productive, and creative individuals.

  10. slip: hahah!

    It used to happen very frequently before I started carrying a PDA and sketchbook around: now I record everything I want to remember in either of those devices. But nonetheless, I STILL DO forget things in the space between the thinking and the uttering–its a strange, annoying phenomenon, for sure! It probably happens because I am thinking on too many things at once!

  11. Bob: I have no idea what a “pooftah” is. Therefore, you can rest assured that there are no rules against “pooftahs”.

  12. Puss: I have no idea, but for the sake of discussion, I shall conjecture.

    First, Let’s assume that “good in bed” means being able to provide excitement and great pleasure to one’s partner. Obviously that requires some sense of one’s partner’s emotional and physical needs, as well as a willingness andthe ability to satisfy those needs. Therefore one needs empathy and sexual mobility.

    Now, lets consider the Dancer. A good dancer is an athlete. He or she is flexible, strong, and has tremedous stamina. He or she is congnizant of how his/her body moves, and if dancing in pairs or groups must also be cognizant of the bodies of others. Obviously, those attributes do translate well to sexual mobility, and the congnizance of others indicates a potential for physical empathy.

    However, those attributes will mean nothing if the dancer is not empathetic to his/her partner’s emotions. It means nothing how well one moves if what one does not please or excites the partner. Sexual empathy requires a sexual mind and an awareness of the sexual mind of the other. That is an attribute not shown to be correlated with dancing or physical appitude.

    Of course, I could be wrong about this; as I said from the outset, I haven’t a clue.

  13. woozie:
    1) I was, indeed, born deaf. Moderately deaf to be precise. Then, when I was 6 years old I contracted a bad bout of tinnitus after a fever, and lost most of the hearing I had. I am now profoundly deaf, which means, as my mother puts it, “deaf as a doornail.”

    2) I was being polite. You are, afterall, an overworked senior with far too much homework to do, (I assume), and don’t have all night to answer some silly white chick’s silly questions. but now that I’ve got your tacit approval, next month, I SHALL ask you as many silly white-chick questions as I can!

  14. Sophia: That’s a tough question, and no one really knows the answer. I have my own ideas, based on my knowledge of evolution, genetics, and sociology. But that requires its own post, so please check back later next week! But for now, lets just say that its very anthrocentric to assume that morality is a purely human phenomenon.

    Woozie: I’m afraid I don’t find His Noodly appendages to be noodly enough. Mere demi-god, is He!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s