All right sports fans - it seems that my time in my present job is limited and that I will soon be getting the axe. Canned, 86'd - again. It's time to start the death watch. We can take bets (for entertainment purposes only) as to when my last day will be. It could be any day now, though I feel like it'll be sometime late next week. Any takers?
-cjfer-
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Interesting misspelling
go to http://www.theplanet2show.blogpsot.com/
it's sot not spot. Freaky
-cjfer-
it's sot not spot. Freaky
-cjfer-
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Happy Terror and Boredom
I know this is a little late - Those of you have seen Terror and Boredom know that it takes places some time in the future. Well, now, it takes places sometime in the past. The dates that it is set over - March 13, 14, 15 2007 have passed. Whooo! No blowed up! So, here we are, alive, making connections, etc. Just thought that was interesting.
-cjfer-
-cjfer-
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
On reading an abridged version of "the work of art in an age of Mechanical Reproduction"
I just finished reading a shortened, abridged version of Walter Benjamin's 1935 Essay - "The work of art in an age of Mechanical Reproduction." It's a wonderful essay, and I encourage anyone who can to read it.
Some of the things I took away from the essay were:
1. Art, unlike in the old days was made for ritualistic/spiritual reasons, and wasn't necessarily made for "art's sake." The mechanical reproduction of art allows for, and destroys the connection between the original use of the piece of art, and how we use it today. We don't necessarily take the same meaning out of ancient Greek art as the ancient Greeks.
2. The mechanical reproduction of art destroys authenticity or "aura." Because the event of viewing a piece of artwork is no longer singular, because you can buy a picture of the Mona Lisa anywhere, it destroys whatever value there was in the authenticity or aura in that piece of art. Insofar as those pieces of art are connected to the traditional, their meaning seems to change.
3. Fascism is bad. If someone wants to go more in depth on that front, I'd be interested.
Anytime something can be reproduced on a mass level, I think it has the possibility to destroy whatever meaning or value there was in the original art. It also is a way of comparing. You can have 1000 copies of the Mona Lisa and 1000 copies of a Thomas Kinkade. In this light, because anything can be reproduced so easily, it seems to equate the things and put them on the same level, when, perhaps they shouldn't be.
I would argue that people actually have a sense of history and aesthetics and they know, at least in some part, that Michelangelo is better than a cheap watercolor. I think giving people access to works of art that they wouldn't have otherwise - if they couldn't get to the work of art - but it also creates a reverences for the original object. Because of the mechanical reproduction of art, we know that the Mona Lisa has some sort of meaning. If we were to see the this painting in person, it would be a revered thing and it would engender an aesthetic if not emotional response from us. These pieces of art become things to be seen - and the actual object, the authentic object can retain it's aura because people know, to some degree, it's value. I don't think anyone actually mistakes a reproduction for the real thing, and it becomes an event to go out and see the real thing in person. Works of art become famous. They are important. Someone might not know about them otherwise, and if they didn't have a particular sense for art, they might not notice them the way they're supposed to be noticed. Without historical context, the David is just a statue, but it is people who give it meaning. While the context is different from the original context and perhaps we don't get the same meaning we might get out of these pieces of art as we would if were there when they were created (the David is no longer representative of a culture) they still do have some context and meaning and the thing itself, while not having cultural meaning, does represent something that is beautiful and therefore perfect. It's not like these famous works of art don't tell a story or have their own reasons for why they look the way they do. The David's ability to represent a figure at the moment before a great event (or after I forget) and insofar as it represents a reinvigorated sense of the human body is something that is always cool.
Don't let the bed drugs fright
-cjfer-
Some of the things I took away from the essay were:
1. Art, unlike in the old days was made for ritualistic/spiritual reasons, and wasn't necessarily made for "art's sake." The mechanical reproduction of art allows for, and destroys the connection between the original use of the piece of art, and how we use it today. We don't necessarily take the same meaning out of ancient Greek art as the ancient Greeks.
2. The mechanical reproduction of art destroys authenticity or "aura." Because the event of viewing a piece of artwork is no longer singular, because you can buy a picture of the Mona Lisa anywhere, it destroys whatever value there was in the authenticity or aura in that piece of art. Insofar as those pieces of art are connected to the traditional, their meaning seems to change.
3. Fascism is bad. If someone wants to go more in depth on that front, I'd be interested.
Anytime something can be reproduced on a mass level, I think it has the possibility to destroy whatever meaning or value there was in the original art. It also is a way of comparing. You can have 1000 copies of the Mona Lisa and 1000 copies of a Thomas Kinkade. In this light, because anything can be reproduced so easily, it seems to equate the things and put them on the same level, when, perhaps they shouldn't be.
I would argue that people actually have a sense of history and aesthetics and they know, at least in some part, that Michelangelo is better than a cheap watercolor. I think giving people access to works of art that they wouldn't have otherwise - if they couldn't get to the work of art - but it also creates a reverences for the original object. Because of the mechanical reproduction of art, we know that the Mona Lisa has some sort of meaning. If we were to see the this painting in person, it would be a revered thing and it would engender an aesthetic if not emotional response from us. These pieces of art become things to be seen - and the actual object, the authentic object can retain it's aura because people know, to some degree, it's value. I don't think anyone actually mistakes a reproduction for the real thing, and it becomes an event to go out and see the real thing in person. Works of art become famous. They are important. Someone might not know about them otherwise, and if they didn't have a particular sense for art, they might not notice them the way they're supposed to be noticed. Without historical context, the David is just a statue, but it is people who give it meaning. While the context is different from the original context and perhaps we don't get the same meaning we might get out of these pieces of art as we would if were there when they were created (the David is no longer representative of a culture) they still do have some context and meaning and the thing itself, while not having cultural meaning, does represent something that is beautiful and therefore perfect. It's not like these famous works of art don't tell a story or have their own reasons for why they look the way they do. The David's ability to represent a figure at the moment before a great event (or after I forget) and insofar as it represents a reinvigorated sense of the human body is something that is always cool.
Don't let the bed drugs fright
-cjfer-
Friday, March 9, 2007
Downright Freaky
I just had a conversation - well, I'd hardly call it that - with an automated voice machine. I called 1800-pick-ups - and a woman's voice comes over the phone. She asks you to say what you want. So i said "order supplies" to which she says, what kind of supplies, gives me options, and I tell her. Then I tell her the fax number, which she repeats back, and tells me that she'll fax me an order form.
What a world we live in where you don't even have to talk to actual people. You can talk to fake people, who are just as helpful and not belligerent.
It reminds me of a conversation when someone said that the Mcdonald's drive through window voice job was outsourced. Can you imagine talking to a guy who says his name is "Brian" in India, and telling him your order?
"Hello. This is Brian. Welcome to McDonald's, can I take your order?"
"I'd like a number 2, three number 3s, a number six...do you cheese on that...and a number 4 without cheese"
Pause
"How about you buy me a hamburger, fatboy. I'm starving here in India!"
-cjfer-
What a world we live in where you don't even have to talk to actual people. You can talk to fake people, who are just as helpful and not belligerent.
It reminds me of a conversation when someone said that the Mcdonald's drive through window voice job was outsourced. Can you imagine talking to a guy who says his name is "Brian" in India, and telling him your order?
"Hello. This is Brian. Welcome to McDonald's, can I take your order?"
"I'd like a number 2, three number 3s, a number six...do you cheese on that...and a number 4 without cheese"
Pause
"How about you buy me a hamburger, fatboy. I'm starving here in India!"
-cjfer-
what are u in 2?
Yes, Fine, Fine! I admit it. I write about what I read on the nytimes, because who cares about sports or movies...wait...we'll see. It's this.
Calvin Klein is trying to figure out what the next hip fragrance is to market to youth culture. They had fragrance and cultural hits in the early 90s - we may remember if only through some ancillary back of the head notion - the CK ads of marky mark if not the Lolita-esq Brooke shields of the late 80s. Back then, they were cool because they created, or at least tapped into something about the blow up - now they're trying to recreate that success by contriving a new fragrance meant to do the same thing it did 15 years ago. The difference is that instead of being on the leading edge of that culture, they're trying to hitch on the bandwagon. Calvin Klein, not even owned by Calvin Klein, is trying it's latest fragrance in2u. Because yup, that's how we talk and write. In fact, I don't even know why I'm bothering with sentences. Bro, r u crazy? Deh. Roo crazy? What bothers me about this, is two things.
1. The co-opting of youth culture by big corporations. Yes, youth culture is flawed and amorphous. Everyone has different likes and experiences, and no, it's not hard for us to imagine the CK brand marketing to urban 20 somethings, in the same Manhattan that hosts the CK offices. This generation, that the article lovingly describes as the millennials, or the technosexuals, is self described as being resistant to advertising. Yes, finally, out post modern senses allow us to resist ideology - corporate or otherwise. Back up a minute, Have we named our generation? Truly, the name technosexual was coined by the company to describe us. It's a marketing name that seems to have little to do with the reality. So, there's something weird about marketing to young people who describe themselves as being resistant to marketing. There's also something odd about a company that is not only trying to be in step with youth culture so that they can sell to youth culture - but at the same time is creating youth culture. Is it that out of the realm of possibilities - i have no sources here - to see a CK party hosted in a posh Manhattan loft, and featuring a lot of young, hipster, indie urbanites. The powers at be, be contriving a culture that young people are so resistant to - yet not totally unwilling to accept. After all, we're powered by coin.
1a. Do people even buy fragrances anymore? I mean, really? Especially young hipsters?
2. Problem 2 is that we actually talk like that. Well, you don't, and I don't - but the people of this generation - described as 1982-1995 do talk like that. The problem is that it gets worse the younger you get. There wont' even be language in 20 years. It will be like mike judges "idiocracy" - not a great film about the dumbing down of America in the future.
So, as I am working to defeat Emo, the question is, what do we do? Are we so resistant to any ideology that we ignore everything, or do we get sucked in and become patsies for the man? It's sad to think that there's no culture that exists anymore that can't be co-opted by a corporation. Ironically, even being resistant to being advertised to/being co-opted by someone, seems to be co-opted. If they can make some money off of it, they will sell it to masses. I think ultimately if you like something you buy it, if you don't you don't. It's a tough world we live in, where it's harder and harder to make what increasingly becomes a morally right choice. There seems to be a moral value in what you buy. Is the thing pro-environment, is it anti-corporate, is it green, free trade, is it trendy, is it anti-trendy, is it because you need it or because you want it, and whose side are you on? Hybrid drivers are liberal, gas powered car drivers are conservative.
There might have been more to this, but I was interrupted, so i don't remember.
-cjfer-
Calvin Klein is trying to figure out what the next hip fragrance is to market to youth culture. They had fragrance and cultural hits in the early 90s - we may remember if only through some ancillary back of the head notion - the CK ads of marky mark if not the Lolita-esq Brooke shields of the late 80s. Back then, they were cool because they created, or at least tapped into something about the blow up - now they're trying to recreate that success by contriving a new fragrance meant to do the same thing it did 15 years ago. The difference is that instead of being on the leading edge of that culture, they're trying to hitch on the bandwagon. Calvin Klein, not even owned by Calvin Klein, is trying it's latest fragrance in2u. Because yup, that's how we talk and write. In fact, I don't even know why I'm bothering with sentences. Bro, r u crazy? Deh. Roo crazy? What bothers me about this, is two things.
1. The co-opting of youth culture by big corporations. Yes, youth culture is flawed and amorphous. Everyone has different likes and experiences, and no, it's not hard for us to imagine the CK brand marketing to urban 20 somethings, in the same Manhattan that hosts the CK offices. This generation, that the article lovingly describes as the millennials, or the technosexuals, is self described as being resistant to advertising. Yes, finally, out post modern senses allow us to resist ideology - corporate or otherwise. Back up a minute, Have we named our generation? Truly, the name technosexual was coined by the company to describe us. It's a marketing name that seems to have little to do with the reality. So, there's something weird about marketing to young people who describe themselves as being resistant to marketing. There's also something odd about a company that is not only trying to be in step with youth culture so that they can sell to youth culture - but at the same time is creating youth culture. Is it that out of the realm of possibilities - i have no sources here - to see a CK party hosted in a posh Manhattan loft, and featuring a lot of young, hipster, indie urbanites. The powers at be, be contriving a culture that young people are so resistant to - yet not totally unwilling to accept. After all, we're powered by coin.
1a. Do people even buy fragrances anymore? I mean, really? Especially young hipsters?
2. Problem 2 is that we actually talk like that. Well, you don't, and I don't - but the people of this generation - described as 1982-1995 do talk like that. The problem is that it gets worse the younger you get. There wont' even be language in 20 years. It will be like mike judges "idiocracy" - not a great film about the dumbing down of America in the future.
So, as I am working to defeat Emo, the question is, what do we do? Are we so resistant to any ideology that we ignore everything, or do we get sucked in and become patsies for the man? It's sad to think that there's no culture that exists anymore that can't be co-opted by a corporation. Ironically, even being resistant to being advertised to/being co-opted by someone, seems to be co-opted. If they can make some money off of it, they will sell it to masses. I think ultimately if you like something you buy it, if you don't you don't. It's a tough world we live in, where it's harder and harder to make what increasingly becomes a morally right choice. There seems to be a moral value in what you buy. Is the thing pro-environment, is it anti-corporate, is it green, free trade, is it trendy, is it anti-trendy, is it because you need it or because you want it, and whose side are you on? Hybrid drivers are liberal, gas powered car drivers are conservative.
There might have been more to this, but I was interrupted, so i don't remember.
-cjfer-
God I love America
This nytimes article - if you read the times online, you've probably seen it - its great. It's about about a Chinese girl, adopted from China to two New York Jewish Lesbians.
I f'n love this country.
-cjfer-
I f'n love this country.
-cjfer-
Thursday, March 8, 2007
And now you're in the New York Times
Gob bless the new york times for something to blog about. That's right. I wrote Gob.
This article is about three girls who were suspended for using the "V" word during a school forum - and I don't mean Valedictorian. It seems to me that if left unsuspended, the story would be what it should be - a non story. But, now you, Mr. Principle are in the New York Times.
The girls were told not to say the word, vagina, during the school forum because it is vulgar. They were suspended for insubordination, for dissent. Not only it not a vulgar word, as it is the actual word for something - it's not a euphemism, like fucking would be for sex - it's the actual biological, medical, term - it's the freaking dictionary. So, vulgar? It was what it is. Is the word Penis any less vulgar? It seems that it's not, although ask yourself if a male principal would have as much a problem with that word.
The second idea is that the students were insubordinate. There's something that doesn't sit right with me with that term. Insubordination is a term used in the military. These students signed no contracts. Not saying certain medical terms is not, it seems, part of the established school rules. The idea that we should use words like disobeying a directive, which is an order, seems wrong to me. You shouldn't be ordering students to do things. You should ask them to do things, and if they don't do them, then I think there needs to find a better term than insubordination.
The reason they weren't allowed to say the word that there could have been children in the audience. The last we want is children knowing words like vagina or earlobe.
Just let Kevin Bacon dance. You only get controversy when you don't let Kevin Bacon dance. There's certainly a gray area between what we should allow and we shouldn't allow - but then you need to think about it and make a decision. Harmless things like dancing and saying legitimate words aren't things we need to police. You only make a bigger deal out of it by prohibiting it. You only get kids more willing to dance.
A word is a signifier that represents a signified thing. The relationship between the thing and the word for the thing is completely arbitrary. So, who cares? Imagine if the word vagina was reversed with the word Rose.
"These vaginas smell lovely"
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
There might have been more, but I gotta scoot.
-cjfer-
This article is about three girls who were suspended for using the "V" word during a school forum - and I don't mean Valedictorian. It seems to me that if left unsuspended, the story would be what it should be - a non story. But, now you, Mr. Principle are in the New York Times.
The girls were told not to say the word, vagina, during the school forum because it is vulgar. They were suspended for insubordination, for dissent. Not only it not a vulgar word, as it is the actual word for something - it's not a euphemism, like fucking would be for sex - it's the actual biological, medical, term - it's the freaking dictionary. So, vulgar? It was what it is. Is the word Penis any less vulgar? It seems that it's not, although ask yourself if a male principal would have as much a problem with that word.
The second idea is that the students were insubordinate. There's something that doesn't sit right with me with that term. Insubordination is a term used in the military. These students signed no contracts. Not saying certain medical terms is not, it seems, part of the established school rules. The idea that we should use words like disobeying a directive, which is an order, seems wrong to me. You shouldn't be ordering students to do things. You should ask them to do things, and if they don't do them, then I think there needs to find a better term than insubordination.
The reason they weren't allowed to say the word that there could have been children in the audience. The last we want is children knowing words like vagina or earlobe.
Just let Kevin Bacon dance. You only get controversy when you don't let Kevin Bacon dance. There's certainly a gray area between what we should allow and we shouldn't allow - but then you need to think about it and make a decision. Harmless things like dancing and saying legitimate words aren't things we need to police. You only make a bigger deal out of it by prohibiting it. You only get kids more willing to dance.
A word is a signifier that represents a signified thing. The relationship between the thing and the word for the thing is completely arbitrary. So, who cares? Imagine if the word vagina was reversed with the word Rose.
"These vaginas smell lovely"
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
There might have been more, but I gotta scoot.
-cjfer-
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Jean Baudrillard Dies...I think
Jean Baudrillard, French Postmodernist and critic, who was admired by those who've studied his crazy thoughts has died. At least, if he was even real to begin with.
Click here to read
Sad news, yo.
-cjfer-
Click here to read
Sad news, yo.
-cjfer-
Can you imagine a world without your favorite celebrity?
I know I can't. But think about it. Any movie staring your favorite celebrity, is made in a world without your favorite celebrity. In a movie like Mr and Mrs Smith for example, we would have to say that that world doesn't contain a Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. If it did, there would have to be two people who looked and sounded exactly a like. In that world, you need a different celebrity culture. It's possible to say that that world does have a Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, but they don't look or sound like the Brad Pitt and Angelia Jolie that we've come to know and tolerate. Weird.
-cjfer-
-cjfer-
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Internet Fakery and thoughts about Surveillance
Hi,
When reading an nytimes page, as I often do, and as I often blog about, I came across what may or may not be some sort of opinion page (I'm not sure, I wasn't paying attention) about public shaming. Ahh public shaming. I'm glad it's back in action. It's the idea, that video sites like youtube are places where people post videos of their friends or others in order to publicly same them These people are often drunk, but sometimes they're not. So, while I'm rarely if ever drunk, I am slightly protective of my image being recorded and put on youtube for whomever to laugh at and make fun of without my permission. I'll do the blog, because I can control and regulate the blog, and it doesn't exist as a public forum for people to make fun or shame other people. But things like facebook or myspace or any sort of picture or image website is scary to me, for one reason, is that you don't have control over your image. Who is to stop someone from creating a false identity on that site? Yes, it's scary if it's someone you don't know, but it's also scary if someone you do know recreates them self, or represents them self falsely on an internet site.
Which brings me back to the my original point. This video a college student breaking up with his girlfriend in public. By all accounts, he advertised a public breakup on the face book, and had a girls a capella group sing a break up song to the girl as hundreds of students came out to see it. They had a public fight and the video was broadcast on youtube. You can read all about it. The video is a bonafide Internet hit. The problem is that it was represented as being real, but it wasn't. The whole thing was staged and became an internet hit. Question...If everyone knew it was staged, would they all have turned out to see it? Would it be as popular on youtube if people didn't think it was real? There's something terrible and mean about breaking up with your girlfriend publicly, but something downright nasty about posting it on the Internet. Yet, if the thing was staged, does that make it better? This type of video doesn't bother me, but the implications of it can be far more dangerous. If we can't tell which images and which videos are authentic and which ones are false, we're going to be in trouble.
With the far reaching scope of cameras and surveillance equipment, we have to be more cautious as to letting ourselves be photographed and letting the government and others invade our privacy. There's a theory, I'm thinking of Michel Foucault's panopticon - pan meaning everywhere, opticon from optics meaning to see - that says that if people are constantly being watched, then they will not act out or commit crimes. Now, say someone isn't watching you. Say it's a video camera. Now, say that that video camera takes a picture of you doing something illegal. But what if it's not you? There's something dangerous about being able to fake images and convince people that they're real. When internet shaming stops becoming funny and starts becoming about controlling people by discouraging behavior, things get messy.
Keep you ear to the grindstone
-cjfer-
click for some sweet public shaming
When reading an nytimes page, as I often do, and as I often blog about, I came across what may or may not be some sort of opinion page (I'm not sure, I wasn't paying attention) about public shaming. Ahh public shaming. I'm glad it's back in action. It's the idea, that video sites like youtube are places where people post videos of their friends or others in order to publicly same them These people are often drunk, but sometimes they're not. So, while I'm rarely if ever drunk, I am slightly protective of my image being recorded and put on youtube for whomever to laugh at and make fun of without my permission. I'll do the blog, because I can control and regulate the blog, and it doesn't exist as a public forum for people to make fun or shame other people. But things like facebook or myspace or any sort of picture or image website is scary to me, for one reason, is that you don't have control over your image. Who is to stop someone from creating a false identity on that site? Yes, it's scary if it's someone you don't know, but it's also scary if someone you do know recreates them self, or represents them self falsely on an internet site.
Which brings me back to the my original point. This video a college student breaking up with his girlfriend in public. By all accounts, he advertised a public breakup on the face book, and had a girls a capella group sing a break up song to the girl as hundreds of students came out to see it. They had a public fight and the video was broadcast on youtube. You can read all about it. The video is a bonafide Internet hit. The problem is that it was represented as being real, but it wasn't. The whole thing was staged and became an internet hit. Question...If everyone knew it was staged, would they all have turned out to see it? Would it be as popular on youtube if people didn't think it was real? There's something terrible and mean about breaking up with your girlfriend publicly, but something downright nasty about posting it on the Internet. Yet, if the thing was staged, does that make it better? This type of video doesn't bother me, but the implications of it can be far more dangerous. If we can't tell which images and which videos are authentic and which ones are false, we're going to be in trouble.
With the far reaching scope of cameras and surveillance equipment, we have to be more cautious as to letting ourselves be photographed and letting the government and others invade our privacy. There's a theory, I'm thinking of Michel Foucault's panopticon - pan meaning everywhere, opticon from optics meaning to see - that says that if people are constantly being watched, then they will not act out or commit crimes. Now, say someone isn't watching you. Say it's a video camera. Now, say that that video camera takes a picture of you doing something illegal. But what if it's not you? There's something dangerous about being able to fake images and convince people that they're real. When internet shaming stops becoming funny and starts becoming about controlling people by discouraging behavior, things get messy.
Keep you ear to the grindstone
-cjfer-
click for some sweet public shaming
Friday, March 2, 2007
The Planet 2 show reunited
I've extended an invitation to Chris Mastellone to be a contributor to this blog. It'll be like our radio show "the Planet 2 show" in the print medium. He'll be CCMAS, so pay attention to who's blogging what. If you're upset, make sure it's me your upset at.
-cjfer - the planet 2 show.
-cjfer - the planet 2 show.
Holy Shit a Comment!
It was either that as a title, or holy cock, a shomment! I think it's better to discuss this in the form of a post instead of having it be relegated to the backlogs of comments that no one's going to read anyway. It's also a way of me saying that I value your opinion and I'm not trying to say what I think is right. Actually that's wrong, I am trying to organize the world in my mental image of myself. Think combination of Nathan Fillion and Brad Pitt. So, here's what David had to say:
Dear reader, in response to your question - (I say that as if I have readers and as if I don't know David).
Indeed, this is my opinion and not the opinion of the large men standing behind me. Let me start by saying that I don't know what you mean by "do you not think it works?" Hey, if you can get it to work for you, do it. Let's just put out there that hugh hefner is perhaps the ultimate mac daddy when it comes to this. He can make it work for him, so why not? I think that it happens, but I'm not sure it's best for America.
My larger point, which was really just to discuss the issue and give some ideas on it is this: I ultimately think that there's something unnatural about it. Another way of thinking about it is...and don't faint, but I think hooking up with multiple people in adult or even semi-adult environment is something that runs contradictory to what is absolutely good. Bear with me because I have another point to make in a minute. If we're going to exclude the social phenomenon known as college - and we can include it later (this might need two parts) - I think there's just something immoral and inconsistent with decency about multiple sexual partners in a short span of time/at once (ain't nothing wrong that that, slap it). It seems to run contrary to whatever social value seems to be valued as good. We can say this because it requires taking an unnatural step out of the normal flow of life (thinking stepping out of a river, or even a lazy river) and into a different world, that I think generally there's something about it that we, in the larger social context, can call "wrong." It's like murder. Well, not it's not at all, but bear with me. (It's my typing and you can't chime in.) In order to murder, unless you're clinically insane - it takes a part of you to cross a certain line. Once you cross that line, it becomes easier to live with. Sometimes you get so far past the line, that you can't see it anymore and everything in the world is as it is for you, and there's no higher ideal to aspire to. So, if you can do it, do it - but I'm saying be prepared for a part of you to have to change as a result.
I think there's something good about saying I'm going to give this person (alone) a shot. If I like them, I like them, if I don't, I'll give the next person a shot. I like the netflix example, but it's more like having netflix, and blockbuster and say a third internet video rental company - we'll call it intervidtalcompy - all at once. If I'm Netflix, might I be justified in saying "hey, give me the 30 day trial period before moving on to blockbuster? I would think so. If I was that other guy, who decided to put out my goods (we all what that means), I might say give me a shot to impress you first. It just strikes me as something that seems...not how I would do things. I'm not gonna say wrong, people don't like that word. In an adult world, it just seems immature. There also seems to be something cheap (I need new words) about hooking up with multiple people. (what will you look like when you're 35 and still at it?) Because then you place no value on your sexuality, or yourself emotionally. Seriously who wants to date Paris Hilton? (Fewer people have been in Fenway park) They just use her for her sexuality. And even if you want to make the argument of she uses them too - don't we have to deal with the larger issue of being used? Sex and sexuality just seems like something that can't be easily thrown around. It seems to take a lot from a person to be able to make those choices. (Except porn stars). Maybe I'm too respectful of it, but I'm not sure we live in the world where sexual choices don't impact people emotionally. Therefore, I don't support hooking up with multiple people because I don't think it's possible to make it work. I think in the end, it creates more problems than it solves. I don't think people are really ready emotionally for that kind of thing, so I think people get hurt when they say they're not going to. Just because you agree on something, doesn't mean that that's a fixed thing. You can't stop people from feeling. I'd love to live in the other world, where sex was free and didn't carry moral or emotional repercussions, but it does. Why make a commitment if you don't have to, though? It's a question of the things you value.
I'm not advocating one thing or the other. I'm just trying to figure out if, as John Mayer says "we're living it right" or not.
A note about words. First of all, you don't get anywhere by calling people dumb, or idiots, or saying that their lifestyle is wrong, or you disapprove it, even if it it might be the case (this could be a fox news blog) . I'm not saying I disapprove of your lifestyle and I'm not saying it's wrong and I'm right. I'm saying two things.
1. I don't care about your lifestyle. I really don't. What I mean by that is that if you're doing something that I wouldn't do, or you believe something that I don't believe, I don't care. I think we need to get out of this mindset. Do what you do. People can have differences and still get along. Curt Shilling is a conservative republican, I'm not. I don't care. I love the guy. I love his pitching and I love his outspoken views. I support people in their choices and beliefs, and I think I sometimes get a bad rap because I have different choices and beliefs. Or wait, ideas. Kevin Smith says beliefs are bad. I could care less that I think different things than other people on certain subjects. Put in a days work, be good to the people around you, don't hit dogs. We need to celebrate our disagreements and be open about them instead of being distrustful or moving on from those people because we think differently. Hello, we're people, it happens, get over it, drink your milk. PS. I don't care if you think my ideas are wrong. That is possible when you've thought about your ideas and the alternative and come to a personal thought. If you've really done the thinking, you'll be fine. If you have to question something you've never questioned before and accepted as true, you might get discombobulated. Case and Point, Malcom X's belief in Elijah Muhammad.
2. Words hurt don't they? Sticks and stones may break my bones...yeah right. Don't words hurt? You're wrong, your lifestyle is wrong. Hey man, back off. Yeah, it hurts, and those are just words. If that hurts, I can't help but thinking that being disingenuously involved with someone emotionally or sexually can hurt too.
2a. Don't worry about words. Everyone has some scope of right and wrong, and if you fall into the wrong category, so be it. If I think something is right, and you do something opposite of that, you then, by the associative property, fall into the category of wrong. It has to be that way, it's logic. But, going back to point one - I don't care!
Let me say this too. If you're reading this, you disagree with me. That's fine with me. Is it fine with you? If it's not, why not? 5 paragraph essay please, or one of your own topic.
The larger discussion to be had is. "What are our values?" Now, I don't think you can just lay out 10 things that everyone can agree on. And, I don't think those values need to conform to social or cultural tradition. They just have to be thought out, and, yes, they can be contradictory. That's what's so great about life. That's drama. It's contradiction. Don't we love TNT? Doesn't TNT know drama? So, what are you values? What is good? What are your highest ideals? And honestly, I wouldn't have a problem if you smoked that fictional cigarette and said "ideals, values, morals...ha! All of this is bullshit! These terms are archaic and immoral!" But I thought "moral" was archaic? Is moral...immoral? (Shakes head). How much thinking do you do about yourself and what you believe, and is it time for more?
Our generation is inheriting America, and we have to figure out what to do with it. Personally, I don't want to sell it, I want to fix it/continue to work on it. We can either unite everyone under a certain set of ideals and values or we can diversify into enclaves of independent thought. I don't care, but we have to do some thinking about it first. Break's over.
Big Sky Montana
-Brad Fillion/Nathan Pitt
Well, let's get some things out there first:
The 1950s.
Nazism.
Okay, now that you've got the requisite hyperlinks.... ;)
Consider this comment points of clarification from the perspective of someone ... who has been on the other side (dun dun dunnnn)..
People don't tend to dates multiple people at once, a la the 1950s. They tend to hook up with multiple people at once. Or openly date one person and hook up with others -- which is not cheating unless you've agreed to be exclusive.
That's more the 2007 norm. Let's see if I can go more in depth through some massive if-then statements. (Yeah, I'm going there.)
If people have been seeing each other for a while, or dating, then there usually follows a discussion between said people about whether they are exclusive or not. Once that discussion is held, you know where you stand.
If you are exclusively dating someone, then it's more of a trial run (like a 30 day free trial of Netflix). It can quickly (or slowly) lead into a serious (i.e. committed) relationship (like when you pay Netflix a monthly fee), or you can realize the other person is not for you. (Netflix can be cancelled at anytime.)
If you're not exclusive, then there's nothing insidious about going and hooking up with other people. It's your right in what is typically called an "open relationship". Granted, these types of relationships don't usually last long and probably aren't the healthiest, but they're out there. Note that I think it's much more the norm to hook up with others in an open relationship than it is to actually date others.
Also, it is understood that if you don't have aforementioned discussion, then you are not exclusive. You're innocent because there are no agreed-upon rules! Only when there are rules can you be guilty!
And yes, I most certainly agree that labels have gotten out of hand. But that's a whole separate conversation about how we, as an American society, have a difficult time just being with anything and have to classify it in a hierarchical way. It's probably derivative of the Newtonian worldview... but that's all tangential.
I know this is all your opinion, but here's my question, especially given that you concede towards the end: Do you just not like the idea of hooking up with multiple people, or do you not think that it works?
Dear reader, in response to your question - (I say that as if I have readers and as if I don't know David).
Indeed, this is my opinion and not the opinion of the large men standing behind me. Let me start by saying that I don't know what you mean by "do you not think it works?" Hey, if you can get it to work for you, do it. Let's just put out there that hugh hefner is perhaps the ultimate mac daddy when it comes to this. He can make it work for him, so why not? I think that it happens, but I'm not sure it's best for America.
My larger point, which was really just to discuss the issue and give some ideas on it is this: I ultimately think that there's something unnatural about it. Another way of thinking about it is...and don't faint, but I think hooking up with multiple people in adult or even semi-adult environment is something that runs contradictory to what is absolutely good. Bear with me because I have another point to make in a minute. If we're going to exclude the social phenomenon known as college - and we can include it later (this might need two parts) - I think there's just something immoral and inconsistent with decency about multiple sexual partners in a short span of time/at once (ain't nothing wrong that that, slap it). It seems to run contrary to whatever social value seems to be valued as good. We can say this because it requires taking an unnatural step out of the normal flow of life (thinking stepping out of a river, or even a lazy river) and into a different world, that I think generally there's something about it that we, in the larger social context, can call "wrong." It's like murder. Well, not it's not at all, but bear with me. (It's my typing and you can't chime in.) In order to murder, unless you're clinically insane - it takes a part of you to cross a certain line. Once you cross that line, it becomes easier to live with. Sometimes you get so far past the line, that you can't see it anymore and everything in the world is as it is for you, and there's no higher ideal to aspire to. So, if you can do it, do it - but I'm saying be prepared for a part of you to have to change as a result.
I think there's something good about saying I'm going to give this person (alone) a shot. If I like them, I like them, if I don't, I'll give the next person a shot. I like the netflix example, but it's more like having netflix, and blockbuster and say a third internet video rental company - we'll call it intervidtalcompy - all at once. If I'm Netflix, might I be justified in saying "hey, give me the 30 day trial period before moving on to blockbuster? I would think so. If I was that other guy, who decided to put out my goods (we all what that means), I might say give me a shot to impress you first. It just strikes me as something that seems...not how I would do things. I'm not gonna say wrong, people don't like that word. In an adult world, it just seems immature. There also seems to be something cheap (I need new words) about hooking up with multiple people. (what will you look like when you're 35 and still at it?) Because then you place no value on your sexuality, or yourself emotionally. Seriously who wants to date Paris Hilton? (Fewer people have been in Fenway park) They just use her for her sexuality. And even if you want to make the argument of she uses them too - don't we have to deal with the larger issue of being used? Sex and sexuality just seems like something that can't be easily thrown around. It seems to take a lot from a person to be able to make those choices. (Except porn stars). Maybe I'm too respectful of it, but I'm not sure we live in the world where sexual choices don't impact people emotionally. Therefore, I don't support hooking up with multiple people because I don't think it's possible to make it work. I think in the end, it creates more problems than it solves. I don't think people are really ready emotionally for that kind of thing, so I think people get hurt when they say they're not going to. Just because you agree on something, doesn't mean that that's a fixed thing. You can't stop people from feeling. I'd love to live in the other world, where sex was free and didn't carry moral or emotional repercussions, but it does. Why make a commitment if you don't have to, though? It's a question of the things you value.
I'm not advocating one thing or the other. I'm just trying to figure out if, as John Mayer says "we're living it right" or not.
A note about words. First of all, you don't get anywhere by calling people dumb, or idiots, or saying that their lifestyle is wrong, or you disapprove it, even if it it might be the case (this could be a fox news blog) . I'm not saying I disapprove of your lifestyle and I'm not saying it's wrong and I'm right. I'm saying two things.
1. I don't care about your lifestyle. I really don't. What I mean by that is that if you're doing something that I wouldn't do, or you believe something that I don't believe, I don't care. I think we need to get out of this mindset. Do what you do. People can have differences and still get along. Curt Shilling is a conservative republican, I'm not. I don't care. I love the guy. I love his pitching and I love his outspoken views. I support people in their choices and beliefs, and I think I sometimes get a bad rap because I have different choices and beliefs. Or wait, ideas. Kevin Smith says beliefs are bad. I could care less that I think different things than other people on certain subjects. Put in a days work, be good to the people around you, don't hit dogs. We need to celebrate our disagreements and be open about them instead of being distrustful or moving on from those people because we think differently. Hello, we're people, it happens, get over it, drink your milk. PS. I don't care if you think my ideas are wrong. That is possible when you've thought about your ideas and the alternative and come to a personal thought. If you've really done the thinking, you'll be fine. If you have to question something you've never questioned before and accepted as true, you might get discombobulated. Case and Point, Malcom X's belief in Elijah Muhammad.
2. Words hurt don't they? Sticks and stones may break my bones...yeah right. Don't words hurt? You're wrong, your lifestyle is wrong. Hey man, back off. Yeah, it hurts, and those are just words. If that hurts, I can't help but thinking that being disingenuously involved with someone emotionally or sexually can hurt too.
2a. Don't worry about words. Everyone has some scope of right and wrong, and if you fall into the wrong category, so be it. If I think something is right, and you do something opposite of that, you then, by the associative property, fall into the category of wrong. It has to be that way, it's logic. But, going back to point one - I don't care!
Let me say this too. If you're reading this, you disagree with me. That's fine with me. Is it fine with you? If it's not, why not? 5 paragraph essay please, or one of your own topic.
The larger discussion to be had is. "What are our values?" Now, I don't think you can just lay out 10 things that everyone can agree on. And, I don't think those values need to conform to social or cultural tradition. They just have to be thought out, and, yes, they can be contradictory. That's what's so great about life. That's drama. It's contradiction. Don't we love TNT? Doesn't TNT know drama? So, what are you values? What is good? What are your highest ideals? And honestly, I wouldn't have a problem if you smoked that fictional cigarette and said "ideals, values, morals...ha! All of this is bullshit! These terms are archaic and immoral!" But I thought "moral" was archaic? Is moral...immoral? (Shakes head). How much thinking do you do about yourself and what you believe, and is it time for more?
Our generation is inheriting America, and we have to figure out what to do with it. Personally, I don't want to sell it, I want to fix it/continue to work on it. We can either unite everyone under a certain set of ideals and values or we can diversify into enclaves of independent thought. I don't care, but we have to do some thinking about it first. Break's over.
Big Sky Montana
-Brad Fillion/Nathan Pitt
What are we Fighting for?
It's a good line, "what are we fighting for." I never realized it's a pun. What are we fighting to gain, and why are we fighting? I'll pose it this way. Why do we fight wars? What are we hoping to protect? In this blog I'm going to stop shirking my responsibilities as the "voice of my generation" (thunder clap). That's right, I'm gonna take off my shirk, and slip into something nice.
(PS. I think being a voice of one's generation is a misguided notion. The generation is so wide and full of voices that it's impossible and immoral to single out one person and his or her opinions as speaking for others. Lord knows that blogs were created by people who didn't want others to speak for them).
I was reading a cute article on the New York Times this morning called "who's bed is it" (awww shit, hyperlink). The article is sweet. It's about children who sleep in their parents beds. My question for you, home boys and girls, is where are we going? Not in the grand scheme, but rather in terms of, "where are people who are 20-25" headed, socially, in America?
Can you imagine, at this point if your life, living in a sweet, posh Manhattan brownstone with your husband/wife and kids? Can you imagine having to be 35 and deal with the issues of not getting enough sleep because your kids are climbing into bed with you? The lives of the people in the article are well kept, affluent and busy. The parents come home from a long day at work exhausted and get to spend a few hours at best with their spouse. When bed time comes around, it's possible that if the parents want to "parent" they have to spend 1-2 hours in the middle of the night telling their kids that they can't sleep in their beds. On nights when they're really tired, they don't do parenting and they let their kids sleep where they want.
Culturally, according the article, this happens as a sort of "backlash" from the young parents of today having such strict boundaries from their parents. The lives of these parents are busy, hectic, wealthy, and they don't seem to have enough to time to really parent, and declare boundaries for their children. On any level, can you imagine this being your life? And what about the kids...what becomes of them?
What do you imagine your life being like? Perhaps you're so focused on what you're doing now that you can't concentrate on the 10 years from now, and that's fine. It is interesting to think about it though because time is slipping up on us quicker every year (as it would be wont to do). But think about living a life where you're the center of attention, where you have your degrees from you highly touted academic institutions and you have your nice job (and as days go by...water rolling under grou...) and all of that suddenly takes a back seat to your second life. Having kids is like the playoffs. You've played the game before, but it's a whole new ball game now.
It's going to have to start coming up - those notions of where our generation, people our age, are going, and what are values are. What is our art going to be about, what are our politics? Are we going to be the parents with kids, and no love lives or intimacy, are we going to be those fast powered adults who hit the clubs and the bars until our early 40s, are we going to be the work-a-holics, the locals, the jet setters, the ones trying to figure our lives out, or we going to be caught in a state of arrested development ?(hey that's the name of the show)
There's a notion if fantasy storytelling of the loss of something from the past. It's not fantasy, it's a nightmare...well, a nightmare fantasy.
Big ups to Brooklyn
(PS. I think being a voice of one's generation is a misguided notion. The generation is so wide and full of voices that it's impossible and immoral to single out one person and his or her opinions as speaking for others. Lord knows that blogs were created by people who didn't want others to speak for them).
I was reading a cute article on the New York Times this morning called "who's bed is it" (awww shit, hyperlink). The article is sweet. It's about children who sleep in their parents beds. My question for you, home boys and girls, is where are we going? Not in the grand scheme, but rather in terms of, "where are people who are 20-25" headed, socially, in America?
Can you imagine, at this point if your life, living in a sweet, posh Manhattan brownstone with your husband/wife and kids? Can you imagine having to be 35 and deal with the issues of not getting enough sleep because your kids are climbing into bed with you? The lives of the people in the article are well kept, affluent and busy. The parents come home from a long day at work exhausted and get to spend a few hours at best with their spouse. When bed time comes around, it's possible that if the parents want to "parent" they have to spend 1-2 hours in the middle of the night telling their kids that they can't sleep in their beds. On nights when they're really tired, they don't do parenting and they let their kids sleep where they want.
Culturally, according the article, this happens as a sort of "backlash" from the young parents of today having such strict boundaries from their parents. The lives of these parents are busy, hectic, wealthy, and they don't seem to have enough to time to really parent, and declare boundaries for their children. On any level, can you imagine this being your life? And what about the kids...what becomes of them?
What do you imagine your life being like? Perhaps you're so focused on what you're doing now that you can't concentrate on the 10 years from now, and that's fine. It is interesting to think about it though because time is slipping up on us quicker every year (as it would be wont to do). But think about living a life where you're the center of attention, where you have your degrees from you highly touted academic institutions and you have your nice job (and as days go by...water rolling under grou...) and all of that suddenly takes a back seat to your second life. Having kids is like the playoffs. You've played the game before, but it's a whole new ball game now.
It's going to have to start coming up - those notions of where our generation, people our age, are going, and what are values are. What is our art going to be about, what are our politics? Are we going to be the parents with kids, and no love lives or intimacy, are we going to be those fast powered adults who hit the clubs and the bars until our early 40s, are we going to be the work-a-holics, the locals, the jet setters, the ones trying to figure our lives out, or we going to be caught in a state of arrested development ?(hey that's the name of the show)
There's a notion if fantasy storytelling of the loss of something from the past. It's not fantasy, it's a nightmare...well, a nightmare fantasy.
Big ups to Brooklyn
Thursday, March 1, 2007
The Universality of Truth?
The universality of Truth. Is what's true for me, true for you? Answers? Show of hands? Anyone? A resounding no?
Me: I like chicken
You: I don't like chicken
Result: What's true for me, is not true for ewe.
Wrong.
I'm here to tell you that universal truth does exist. Oh my my, how the tables of turned. Think about that phrase for a moment. The Universality of Truth. Take out the definite article and the preposition and what are you left with. Universality Truth. Break it down now. Universal Truth. Universe Truth. Is there truth in the universe? Indeed, there is. Does this help?
Fact: What is
Truth: A statement about facts.
What you have to do is to pay attention to the natural truth of the universe. Can we agree that things with mass have gravity? Does that seem to be a true statement about facts? It does to me. Things have that have matter have gravity, that's a fact. Therefore, my statement about that fact is true. A false statement would be "things with mass don't have gravity."
So, let's take another truth. Killing is wrong. Isn't it?
Me: Killing is wrong
You: No it's not, the Nazi's thought killing was right.
Me: So that makes it right? If the Nazi's jumped off a bridge, would you? Since when did the Nazi's become your example on things?
You: Some people think it's okay, some people don't. It's not universally true.
Me: I don't care what people think. We're talking about the universe. In the universe, in life, we can say that things that are alive tend not to die until they do. If something is killed or murdered, then that seems to interrupt the natural flow of life. The universal truth seems to be that things will live until nature decides to end their lives. Therefore, anything that prematurely puts an end to life, seems to go against the natural flow of the universe, seems to be wrong. It seems to be wrong to act in a contradictory manner to the universe.
You: You're right, I'm wrong. Here's money.
The natural universe tends to be organized in a certain way, and it's possible, if you're wondering what is good or right, to look at the way the universe is organized and align yourself with it. Lying, cheating, stealing - these things seem to be contradictory to the natural organization to the universe. Therefore, they are universally wrong. Therefore, they go against universal truth.
Much Love.
Me: I like chicken
You: I don't like chicken
Result: What's true for me, is not true for ewe.
Wrong.
I'm here to tell you that universal truth does exist. Oh my my, how the tables of turned. Think about that phrase for a moment. The Universality of Truth. Take out the definite article and the preposition and what are you left with. Universality Truth. Break it down now. Universal Truth. Universe Truth. Is there truth in the universe? Indeed, there is. Does this help?
Fact: What is
Truth: A statement about facts.
What you have to do is to pay attention to the natural truth of the universe. Can we agree that things with mass have gravity? Does that seem to be a true statement about facts? It does to me. Things have that have matter have gravity, that's a fact. Therefore, my statement about that fact is true. A false statement would be "things with mass don't have gravity."
So, let's take another truth. Killing is wrong. Isn't it?
Me: Killing is wrong
You: No it's not, the Nazi's thought killing was right.
Me: So that makes it right? If the Nazi's jumped off a bridge, would you? Since when did the Nazi's become your example on things?
You: Some people think it's okay, some people don't. It's not universally true.
Me: I don't care what people think. We're talking about the universe. In the universe, in life, we can say that things that are alive tend not to die until they do. If something is killed or murdered, then that seems to interrupt the natural flow of life. The universal truth seems to be that things will live until nature decides to end their lives. Therefore, anything that prematurely puts an end to life, seems to go against the natural flow of the universe, seems to be wrong. It seems to be wrong to act in a contradictory manner to the universe.
You: You're right, I'm wrong. Here's money.
The natural universe tends to be organized in a certain way, and it's possible, if you're wondering what is good or right, to look at the way the universe is organized and align yourself with it. Lying, cheating, stealing - these things seem to be contradictory to the natural organization to the universe. Therefore, they are universally wrong. Therefore, they go against universal truth.
Much Love.
I think it's time we stop dating...and start a relationship
"Wait...what were we just doing?"
"Oh, that? That was meaningless. In fact I've had the exact same thing with countless women, countless."
"Countless?"
"Countess...Count Choculous?"
What?
The 1950's signaled a very important time in American History, (I wish I could underscore that and have it link to wikipedia where you could read about it. Actually, one day I hope to post entirely with underlined, blue highlighted words that take you to different reference sites. By the last paragraph they'd take you to porn sites for no reason) especially in terms of American Culture. After WWII or WW!! as I almost wrote (World War Whooo!!!) Americans began a large winged migration, out of cities into the surrounding towns and neighborhoods thus creating the rise of the suburbs (thunder clap). We, people from the suburbs, today are descendants of those people who moved to the suburbs so long ago - namely our grandparents, and quite possibly our parents. Thus, a brief history of suburbia. That's under urbia. Super Urbia? That's above Urbia. That's the OC.
So culture, oiy? In the 1950's dating practices were similar to this (although I wasn't around in the 50's). Saturday night was date night (also bath night [not baath night unless you were in Iraq]). On these rarefied occasions in the teenage suburban landscape, people would occasionally go out on dates with people. It might be one person one Saturday night and someone else the next Saturday night - unless you weren't cool. But really, I think getting into the mindset that everyone just exchanged partners every Saturday (Unless you were going steady [as represented by giving a girl your pin {I'm still not sure what pin you're giving}]). I think that that practice occurred and was somewhat prevalent, but I don't wish to mean that that's the standard. In truth, our parents didn't really even come of dating age until the end of the 50's or early 60's.
In my archaic view of thinking - or forward view of thinking - I didn't think this was still in practice today. I am, as I have been informed, wrong. The 2007 version of this archetypal model that was created some 50 years ago still exists. Apparently, it is not uncommon for a man to date one woman on a Monday, another on a Wednesday, and a third on a Friday. To me, I would consider this cheating, but as long as you're not in an officially defined and controlled "relationship" this is okay (or Tokay as the spell checker would have you believe.) Everyone, willing or not, has agreed to the basic compact that says "as long as we haven't declared it official, it's not official." As with many things, this is my response. If this is how we want to live in the world, fine, let's live there. You can do what you want, you just to to be able to live with the consequences. If everyone's agreed to this, that's fine.
My problem, and I wouldn't be doing my job as a blogger, is that to me this sounds ludichris. Wait...ludicrous. Here are some reasons why:
1. The sexual revolution. The sexual revolution (vive la sexy-stance!) has made it much more common for men and women to sleep together after 1 or a series of dates. Of course, here, I'm talking about adults. So, my issues lies with the fact that a man could be sleeping with many women during the course of the week, each one may or may no about it. Hey, I love that world, but I don't think it's possible. Would you want to be dating someone who you knew was sleeping with other men or women? (Think about the herpes) Would you want to be with someone you didn't tell you they were sleeping with other women? It would make me feel less important in that person's life, certainly one person might like another unfairly disproportionately. It would be like that person was cheating on me. Yes, cheating, that's what it is. It doesn't make sense to me in an age of more sex and sexual repercussions for someone to carry on multiple sexual relationships at one time. That my friends, is high risk sexual behavior. It's nice work if you can get it, or get away with it, but if you itch down there, don't look at me.
2. Patriarchy. Dating multiple women at one time without any emotional involvement? (because what is a relationship if it isn't dating with emotional involvement) Doesn't that sound awfully like a bunch of guys got together and came up with that over beer while watching porn. It's right after that part in the conversation when someone points out that a bunch of dudes are watching porn together. I guess I don't know if it's possible for someone to date multiple people and have no emotional involvement. There also seems something sexist about it. It's like lining up a bunch of women and grading them on their performances as a lover. "Ummm...you, blondie, turn around...uh, huh. I'm gonna go with number 4....can I super size that?" The inverse is true as well.
3. Isn't that cheating?
4. Over Analysis. How like our generation to over think, or over analyze something. Not our grand parents generation. Nazi's bad, kill Nazi's. (good time for another hyperlink). Our generation, very much with the thinking and the thinking again. "I like her...I like her...positive thoughts...I like her...what if she says no...what?...what if she doesn't remember my name...what's my name?...Oh, hi Cindy...see you later....shit!" Thus, the thought process of the modern suburban male. Think about over thinking this way -- "You're hanging out, but you're not hooking up, you're hooking up but you're not dating, you're dating but you're not in a relationship, you're in a relationship, but it's not a serious relationship, you're in a serious relationship, but you're not getting engaged, you're getting engaged but you're not getting married, you're getting married but you're not having kids, you're having kids, but you're not staying married...." If you're with someone, be with them. Don't over think it. Terms like "dating" or "relationship" or even "marriage" are just labels we put on two people who like each other enough to hang out. I mean, who cares what you call it. We've gone too far with labeling things and we've forgotten about just living.
5. I concede. If you can get 2 or 3 or 4 men or women to date you at once, you are awesome and more power to you.
6. Are we sure that's not cheating?
7. Biology. The biology tends to bear out the trend that men want multiple partners and women want one. Thus we have the creation of a patriarchal society. I don't mean to be a spokes person for women, and I'm sure many people don't want me to, well, they wouldn't want me to be if they were reading. I just happen to think that it's easier said than done, and that one time or another you're going to get involved with someone emotionally who doesn't want anything to do with you emotionally. On the average, I don't think it works like that. And if it does work like that for you, if you can be with someone intimately physically or emotionally and never get emotionally attached (I'm not even going to try physically attached) well, to me, there just strikes me as there being something wrong about that.
Again, It's nice work if you can get it.
In my world, you'd spend time with someone, and if you like each other enough you go out on a date. If you still like each other, you later, rise, and repeat. If not, you find someone else - according to TV and movies, it's not that hard. In my world someone wouldn't date multiple people at the same time because there seems like there's something universally unnatural about it.
I think that's all I have for now. Thanks for reading, dear viewer...of words.
I love you all.
"Oh, that? That was meaningless. In fact I've had the exact same thing with countless women, countless."
"Countless?"
"Countess...Count Choculous?"
What?
The 1950's signaled a very important time in American History, (I wish I could underscore that and have it link to wikipedia where you could read about it. Actually, one day I hope to post entirely with underlined, blue highlighted words that take you to different reference sites. By the last paragraph they'd take you to porn sites for no reason) especially in terms of American Culture. After WWII or WW!! as I almost wrote (World War Whooo!!!) Americans began a large winged migration, out of cities into the surrounding towns and neighborhoods thus creating the rise of the suburbs (thunder clap). We, people from the suburbs, today are descendants of those people who moved to the suburbs so long ago - namely our grandparents, and quite possibly our parents. Thus, a brief history of suburbia. That's under urbia. Super Urbia? That's above Urbia. That's the OC.
So culture, oiy? In the 1950's dating practices were similar to this (although I wasn't around in the 50's). Saturday night was date night (also bath night [not baath night unless you were in Iraq]). On these rarefied occasions in the teenage suburban landscape, people would occasionally go out on dates with people. It might be one person one Saturday night and someone else the next Saturday night - unless you weren't cool. But really, I think getting into the mindset that everyone just exchanged partners every Saturday (Unless you were going steady [as represented by giving a girl your pin {I'm still not sure what pin you're giving}]). I think that that practice occurred and was somewhat prevalent, but I don't wish to mean that that's the standard. In truth, our parents didn't really even come of dating age until the end of the 50's or early 60's.
In my archaic view of thinking - or forward view of thinking - I didn't think this was still in practice today. I am, as I have been informed, wrong. The 2007 version of this archetypal model that was created some 50 years ago still exists. Apparently, it is not uncommon for a man to date one woman on a Monday, another on a Wednesday, and a third on a Friday. To me, I would consider this cheating, but as long as you're not in an officially defined and controlled "relationship" this is okay (or Tokay as the spell checker would have you believe.) Everyone, willing or not, has agreed to the basic compact that says "as long as we haven't declared it official, it's not official." As with many things, this is my response. If this is how we want to live in the world, fine, let's live there. You can do what you want, you just to to be able to live with the consequences. If everyone's agreed to this, that's fine.
My problem, and I wouldn't be doing my job as a blogger, is that to me this sounds ludichris. Wait...ludicrous. Here are some reasons why:
1. The sexual revolution. The sexual revolution (vive la sexy-stance!) has made it much more common for men and women to sleep together after 1 or a series of dates. Of course, here, I'm talking about adults. So, my issues lies with the fact that a man could be sleeping with many women during the course of the week, each one may or may no about it. Hey, I love that world, but I don't think it's possible. Would you want to be dating someone who you knew was sleeping with other men or women? (Think about the herpes) Would you want to be with someone you didn't tell you they were sleeping with other women? It would make me feel less important in that person's life, certainly one person might like another unfairly disproportionately. It would be like that person was cheating on me. Yes, cheating, that's what it is. It doesn't make sense to me in an age of more sex and sexual repercussions for someone to carry on multiple sexual relationships at one time. That my friends, is high risk sexual behavior. It's nice work if you can get it, or get away with it, but if you itch down there, don't look at me.
2. Patriarchy. Dating multiple women at one time without any emotional involvement? (because what is a relationship if it isn't dating with emotional involvement) Doesn't that sound awfully like a bunch of guys got together and came up with that over beer while watching porn. It's right after that part in the conversation when someone points out that a bunch of dudes are watching porn together. I guess I don't know if it's possible for someone to date multiple people and have no emotional involvement. There also seems something sexist about it. It's like lining up a bunch of women and grading them on their performances as a lover. "Ummm...you, blondie, turn around...uh, huh. I'm gonna go with number 4....can I super size that?" The inverse is true as well.
3. Isn't that cheating?
4. Over Analysis. How like our generation to over think, or over analyze something. Not our grand parents generation. Nazi's bad, kill Nazi's. (good time for another hyperlink). Our generation, very much with the thinking and the thinking again. "I like her...I like her...positive thoughts...I like her...what if she says no...what?...what if she doesn't remember my name...what's my name?...Oh, hi Cindy...see you later....shit!" Thus, the thought process of the modern suburban male. Think about over thinking this way -- "You're hanging out, but you're not hooking up, you're hooking up but you're not dating, you're dating but you're not in a relationship, you're in a relationship, but it's not a serious relationship, you're in a serious relationship, but you're not getting engaged, you're getting engaged but you're not getting married, you're getting married but you're not having kids, you're having kids, but you're not staying married...." If you're with someone, be with them. Don't over think it. Terms like "dating" or "relationship" or even "marriage" are just labels we put on two people who like each other enough to hang out. I mean, who cares what you call it. We've gone too far with labeling things and we've forgotten about just living.
5. I concede. If you can get 2 or 3 or 4 men or women to date you at once, you are awesome and more power to you.
6. Are we sure that's not cheating?
7. Biology. The biology tends to bear out the trend that men want multiple partners and women want one. Thus we have the creation of a patriarchal society. I don't mean to be a spokes person for women, and I'm sure many people don't want me to, well, they wouldn't want me to be if they were reading. I just happen to think that it's easier said than done, and that one time or another you're going to get involved with someone emotionally who doesn't want anything to do with you emotionally. On the average, I don't think it works like that. And if it does work like that for you, if you can be with someone intimately physically or emotionally and never get emotionally attached (I'm not even going to try physically attached) well, to me, there just strikes me as there being something wrong about that.
Again, It's nice work if you can get it.
In my world, you'd spend time with someone, and if you like each other enough you go out on a date. If you still like each other, you later, rise, and repeat. If not, you find someone else - according to TV and movies, it's not that hard. In my world someone wouldn't date multiple people at the same time because there seems like there's something universally unnatural about it.
I think that's all I have for now. Thanks for reading, dear viewer...of words.
I love you all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)