Number Three: May the Foreskin Be With You
Number Two: Dungeons and Daddies
Number One: Super Barrio Bros. Strike Back!
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Exploring a Thought on Racism
Simultaneously reading Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria and blogs that deal with racism is, well, trippy. There is a trend that I feel I am noticing more and more among a lot of the, um, less polite blogs on the subject.
People pick out news stories or other blogs in which someone, usually Obama, is painted in a way that jives with traditionally racist overtones. Or Clinton is painted in traditionally sexist overtones. And this is decried as proof that the authors are racist/sexist and usually that by extension everything else they say is invalid.
Political blog noise machine aside, here is my struggle with this: I do not doubt that we live in a society where racism is a structural feature of much of the system. I don't think it takes much argument or convincing to notice that there just aren't a lot of black romantic leads (let alone Asian or latino), or that people of color get stuck more easily in poverty cycles, or that there just aren't a representative number of people of color in positions of authority.
But I do kind of take issue when someone points out a particular story or blog (or movie or book) and says "here! This is an example of racism manifesting in society!" Because the things is, they might be right. It could very well be a manifestation of racism. But even in really compelling cases, it also might not be. The best example I can give is this. If this featured Obama, there would be a huge outcry, and reasonably so. There is a huge amount of racist literature comparing African Americans to monkeys, and it would be really hard to argue that such a comparison was not tapping into that dialogue.
But maybe it wouldn't be. Maybe it would honestly be someone comparing Obama's less photogenic moments and saying, "hey look, this kind of looks monkey-like. That's kind of funny!" And that's the thing: in individual instances we can never really get into another person's mind and say what motivated them. Even if there is an undercurrent of racism that sparks a lot of similar-sounding rhetoric, any individual instance of that might not be motivated by racism (or sexism, or whichever ism). It's essentially looking at a scatterpoint and noticing a trend without necessarily being able to account for any individual dot.
And this, I think, sparks what one of the major difficulties is with racism: it's hard to name. It can be hard to see. And in individual instances it can be hard or impossible to know if it is really happening. I don't think anyone is comfortable with that uncertainty, and some people respond by saying that racism doesn't exist at all and others by pointing out every instance of seeming-racism as absolute incarnations of racism in society. And I think the reality is both a lot less certain and a lot less comfortable for everyone.
People pick out news stories or other blogs in which someone, usually Obama, is painted in a way that jives with traditionally racist overtones. Or Clinton is painted in traditionally sexist overtones. And this is decried as proof that the authors are racist/sexist and usually that by extension everything else they say is invalid.
Political blog noise machine aside, here is my struggle with this: I do not doubt that we live in a society where racism is a structural feature of much of the system. I don't think it takes much argument or convincing to notice that there just aren't a lot of black romantic leads (let alone Asian or latino), or that people of color get stuck more easily in poverty cycles, or that there just aren't a representative number of people of color in positions of authority.
But I do kind of take issue when someone points out a particular story or blog (or movie or book) and says "here! This is an example of racism manifesting in society!" Because the things is, they might be right. It could very well be a manifestation of racism. But even in really compelling cases, it also might not be. The best example I can give is this. If this featured Obama, there would be a huge outcry, and reasonably so. There is a huge amount of racist literature comparing African Americans to monkeys, and it would be really hard to argue that such a comparison was not tapping into that dialogue.
But maybe it wouldn't be. Maybe it would honestly be someone comparing Obama's less photogenic moments and saying, "hey look, this kind of looks monkey-like. That's kind of funny!" And that's the thing: in individual instances we can never really get into another person's mind and say what motivated them. Even if there is an undercurrent of racism that sparks a lot of similar-sounding rhetoric, any individual instance of that might not be motivated by racism (or sexism, or whichever ism). It's essentially looking at a scatterpoint and noticing a trend without necessarily being able to account for any individual dot.
And this, I think, sparks what one of the major difficulties is with racism: it's hard to name. It can be hard to see. And in individual instances it can be hard or impossible to know if it is really happening. I don't think anyone is comfortable with that uncertainty, and some people respond by saying that racism doesn't exist at all and others by pointing out every instance of seeming-racism as absolute incarnations of racism in society. And I think the reality is both a lot less certain and a lot less comfortable for everyone.
Friday, June 19, 2009
on the sadness of lost things (or death by implosion)
Let me start off by saying that it is unnecessary to follow the links in this post, and perhaps an immense waste of time. It is more a chronicle of the train of thought that has led me here.
Since I am now reading blogs more frequently than I have in a few years, I have noticed the passage of time impacting some of the stuff I used to read. Nowhere is this more evident than with the Shakesville blog. This is a blog that I used to absolutely love. It taught me a lot about what feminism is, and what it means to be feminist, and why that is something worth standing up for.
I would not start reading it now. Not that there aren't still some excellent posts and some insightful commentary, but the tone has changed and it makes me really and quite viscerally sad. The comments section is an incredibly hostile environment, where it seems to me that people have become so used to trolling that any disagreement is read as trolling and the responses are unmerciful. Perhaps not always, but often enough that it makes me feel ill to see people shot down in the way that they are, or to hear commenters echo the points of the original post using the exact words of the original and trash anyone who doesn't use those words. Or, and this one hurts the most, to see people use terms like "safe space" and "trigger" as ways of minimizing commenters who aren't seen as socially progressive enough.
It turns out that I am not the only person who feels this way, and that just as I have started to read it again the blog is disintegrating under the weight of its own comments section and losing a fair amount of its readership. In fact, it is at the center of a huge internet controversy about what it means to be a "safe space" and an "online community." Perhaps the thing that struck me the most was the blog entry of a former contributor at Shakesville, a contributor whom I liked, essentially trashing what it had become. I hadn't even realized that she no longer contributed, and have to wonder how bad that must have tasted for the creator (Melissa McEwan) to have heard or read.
Here's where I acknowledge that probably nobody reading this actually knows or cares anything about Shakesville. However, I would liken it to the sadness of being disillusioned by a favorite teacher who you find out is racist, or an old TV show that takes a terrible story-arc, or a book series that goes sour (I'm looking at you Terry Goodkind). It's the sadness of a progressive who thinks of change as inevitable and wants that to be a positive thing, but sometimes it isn't. I want something back that I will never have, and its current incarnation only reminds me of that more painfully. A minor thing to grieve, definitely, but still grief.
Since I am now reading blogs more frequently than I have in a few years, I have noticed the passage of time impacting some of the stuff I used to read. Nowhere is this more evident than with the Shakesville blog. This is a blog that I used to absolutely love. It taught me a lot about what feminism is, and what it means to be feminist, and why that is something worth standing up for.
I would not start reading it now. Not that there aren't still some excellent posts and some insightful commentary, but the tone has changed and it makes me really and quite viscerally sad. The comments section is an incredibly hostile environment, where it seems to me that people have become so used to trolling that any disagreement is read as trolling and the responses are unmerciful. Perhaps not always, but often enough that it makes me feel ill to see people shot down in the way that they are, or to hear commenters echo the points of the original post using the exact words of the original and trash anyone who doesn't use those words. Or, and this one hurts the most, to see people use terms like "safe space" and "trigger" as ways of minimizing commenters who aren't seen as socially progressive enough.
It turns out that I am not the only person who feels this way, and that just as I have started to read it again the blog is disintegrating under the weight of its own comments section and losing a fair amount of its readership. In fact, it is at the center of a huge internet controversy about what it means to be a "safe space" and an "online community." Perhaps the thing that struck me the most was the blog entry of a former contributor at Shakesville, a contributor whom I liked, essentially trashing what it had become. I hadn't even realized that she no longer contributed, and have to wonder how bad that must have tasted for the creator (Melissa McEwan) to have heard or read.
Here's where I acknowledge that probably nobody reading this actually knows or cares anything about Shakesville. However, I would liken it to the sadness of being disillusioned by a favorite teacher who you find out is racist, or an old TV show that takes a terrible story-arc, or a book series that goes sour (I'm looking at you Terry Goodkind). It's the sadness of a progressive who thinks of change as inevitable and wants that to be a positive thing, but sometimes it isn't. I want something back that I will never have, and its current incarnation only reminds me of that more painfully. A minor thing to grieve, definitely, but still grief.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
an observation
This American Life uses the Amelie soundtrack a lot.
Also this just in, I'm an aging hipster-nerd. Except mostly without the style or music. Awesome.
Also this just in, I'm an aging hipster-nerd. Except mostly without the style or music. Awesome.
Monday, May 11, 2009
something I don't know
I have noted on numerous occasions, mostly to myself, that sometimes technology seems to expand faster than society's ability to keep up with it, a la texting. When exactly is it appropriate to text versus to call someone? Very brief messages or question requiring a one-word response, obviously, but there are some grey areas (like when/where do you want to meet) that are really just as likely to wind up being a twenty-text conversation (no bueno, for those of us without unlimited texting).
More recently for me, it's Google chat. Is it OK to be surfing the internet while chatting with someone? To read a webcomic? How undivided is your attention supposed to be? Suddenly I have two chats going on, one about relationships and the other about Feist. I am sure this is much less virgin territory for veteran AIMers, but I was never much into that, and I feel like chatting on Google is different (and a little less formal) anyway.
Damn you, ambiguous and evolving social norms!
More recently for me, it's Google chat. Is it OK to be surfing the internet while chatting with someone? To read a webcomic? How undivided is your attention supposed to be? Suddenly I have two chats going on, one about relationships and the other about Feist. I am sure this is much less virgin territory for veteran AIMers, but I was never much into that, and I feel like chatting on Google is different (and a little less formal) anyway.
Damn you, ambiguous and evolving social norms!
Thursday, May 7, 2009
and i'm feeling fine
It's the End the University as We Know It, wherein the chair of the religion department at Columbia makes a case for completely restructuring universities, and in particular graduate programs. His six major points synopsized:
1: remove individual departments in favor of an interdisciplinary web
2. create disciplinary focuses around current problems
3. increase collaboration between universities
4. let people do their dissertations in hypertext and web pages and... video games.
5. expand graduate student options (meaning teach them something practical)
6. abolish tenure, have regular reviews of professors
He definitely makes some interesting points. He starts by pointing out the stiltedness of a lot of graduate academic research. He reflects on how there are too many graduate students for too few faculty positions, and that they will be overworked and accrue massive debt and likely end up doing something else entirely. He also talks about the way that individual departments are isolated and inflexible, preventing a free flow of ideas.
Overall he seems to be saying that the university system as a whole is too rigid and needs room for new staff and completely new frameworks. And y'know, free flow of information and ideas, who is against that? It would be would be like voting against democracy. Interdisciplinary web: hot. Who knows, perhaps I too am merely an ossified relic of the system, but his arguments just don't add up and even make me a little cranky. Are people still really arguing about academics being too removed from reality? I mean, isn't it kind of the point to have a space in society where knowledge is pursued for its own sake, and is that not valuable, oh head of a religious studies department?
And naturally not everyone in higher academia will remain in higher academia. This is already allowing for a certain freedom of academic movement as our scholars of religion and politics and art move in to the fields of... oh I don't know.. religion, and politics, and art. Jesus.
Okay, sure, our system is not all love and rainbows and puppies. Let me frame this in terms of another "I theoretically sympathize but still think it's a bad idea" moment: let's get rid of marriage. Why bother with it? If people want to make a lasting commitment to one another before their communities and God, why does that need to affect how they file their taxes? Why put families and communities through the trauma of divorce proceedings instead of couples who are no longer compatible simply parting ways? And why should we have such a complicated legal framework of rights and privileges, most of them relating to property, when people could simply expand the use of the will system (living or otherwise) to make it clear who has rights over their person and property?
Well, lot's of reasons, actually, and that's kind of my point. People like a certain amount of structural rigidity, probably because it makes you feel secure. People also like to be plugged into a social institution that has been around for pretty much ever. Same thing in academia, really. After all the crap you have to go through (and would still have to go through) as a grad student, at some point I think you've earned your tenure. Besides, imagine how much more ruthlessly professors would squeeze their grad students if they had to constantly worry about job performance reviews? They already have to worry about keeping their names published to avoid sliding into academic irrelevance. And of course grad students would pass much of this on to their lowly undergrads, who would be crushed underfoot like grapes at harvest, their cries of agony echoing unto the heavens.
Besides, organizing departments around current world problems? Really? Besides the fact that you would risk having departments of "Getting Bush Impeached" and "Behaviorism Rules Freud Drools," the nature of the subject matter is likely to change a lot faster than the bureaucracy of the department. And the cost of maintaining the department would skyrocket. And it would be impossible to organize effectively. And people's foundational education would become less globalized as it became tailored to one individual world problem (ie. learning biology only as it relates to water conservation). And it would take a lot more time and energy to maintain institutional memory if you keep changing your academic framework. And if your department is under review every so often, it might get abolished or massively restructured halfway through your degree. And what the hell would a degree even mean anymore?
There have to be better methods of reforming academia than this.
1: remove individual departments in favor of an interdisciplinary web
2. create disciplinary focuses around current problems
3. increase collaboration between universities
4. let people do their dissertations in hypertext and web pages and... video games.
5. expand graduate student options (meaning teach them something practical)
6. abolish tenure, have regular reviews of professors
He definitely makes some interesting points. He starts by pointing out the stiltedness of a lot of graduate academic research. He reflects on how there are too many graduate students for too few faculty positions, and that they will be overworked and accrue massive debt and likely end up doing something else entirely. He also talks about the way that individual departments are isolated and inflexible, preventing a free flow of ideas.
Overall he seems to be saying that the university system as a whole is too rigid and needs room for new staff and completely new frameworks. And y'know, free flow of information and ideas, who is against that? It would be would be like voting against democracy. Interdisciplinary web: hot. Who knows, perhaps I too am merely an ossified relic of the system, but his arguments just don't add up and even make me a little cranky. Are people still really arguing about academics being too removed from reality? I mean, isn't it kind of the point to have a space in society where knowledge is pursued for its own sake, and is that not valuable, oh head of a religious studies department?
And naturally not everyone in higher academia will remain in higher academia. This is already allowing for a certain freedom of academic movement as our scholars of religion and politics and art move in to the fields of... oh I don't know.. religion, and politics, and art. Jesus.
Okay, sure, our system is not all love and rainbows and puppies. Let me frame this in terms of another "I theoretically sympathize but still think it's a bad idea" moment: let's get rid of marriage. Why bother with it? If people want to make a lasting commitment to one another before their communities and God, why does that need to affect how they file their taxes? Why put families and communities through the trauma of divorce proceedings instead of couples who are no longer compatible simply parting ways? And why should we have such a complicated legal framework of rights and privileges, most of them relating to property, when people could simply expand the use of the will system (living or otherwise) to make it clear who has rights over their person and property?
Well, lot's of reasons, actually, and that's kind of my point. People like a certain amount of structural rigidity, probably because it makes you feel secure. People also like to be plugged into a social institution that has been around for pretty much ever. Same thing in academia, really. After all the crap you have to go through (and would still have to go through) as a grad student, at some point I think you've earned your tenure. Besides, imagine how much more ruthlessly professors would squeeze their grad students if they had to constantly worry about job performance reviews? They already have to worry about keeping their names published to avoid sliding into academic irrelevance. And of course grad students would pass much of this on to their lowly undergrads, who would be crushed underfoot like grapes at harvest, their cries of agony echoing unto the heavens.
Besides, organizing departments around current world problems? Really? Besides the fact that you would risk having departments of "Getting Bush Impeached" and "Behaviorism Rules Freud Drools," the nature of the subject matter is likely to change a lot faster than the bureaucracy of the department. And the cost of maintaining the department would skyrocket. And it would be impossible to organize effectively. And people's foundational education would become less globalized as it became tailored to one individual world problem (ie. learning biology only as it relates to water conservation). And it would take a lot more time and energy to maintain institutional memory if you keep changing your academic framework. And if your department is under review every so often, it might get abolished or massively restructured halfway through your degree. And what the hell would a degree even mean anymore?
There have to be better methods of reforming academia than this.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
three epiphanies while cutting into an orange
#1: Oh Jesus it's a grapefruit!
#2: Oh thank God it's a blood orange
#3: Huh, my blasphemies seem to ascend by rank
#2: Oh thank God it's a blood orange
#3: Huh, my blasphemies seem to ascend by rank
women and power tools
This is an interesting study.
I'm not actually sure that it does, although I am willing to rethink my ideas. I find this study challenging for a number of reasons.
One, I would be curious to know under what other circumstances that part of the brain lights up. For instance,
If this is simply a center of the brain that urges us to take action, then I would rather expect it to activate if a person was using power tools or sexually aroused. They are, after all, both actions. The quote also stands out to me; "It's as if they immediately thought to act on theses bodies." The whole acting on the body screams of feminist theory. Now don't get me wrong, feminist theory and I are homies, but inasmuch as it is one framework for understanding the world, it has its limits, and I don't feel that the conclusion here (that women are objectified) is compelled by the evidence (that one region of the brain is activated under two different circumstances).
I am further bothered by the inclusion in this particular article, and I suspect in the discussion section of the original study, that scans of some men show regions of the brain associated with empathy shutting down after looking at these pictures. It is entirely possible that this is a valid research point drawn by the study; I don't know, since I couldn't find it within five minutes of Google searching, got bored and proceeded to look at porn. What percentage of men is some men? Were other random parts of the brain flicking on or off during these scans?
I'm sure part of what is bothering me is the synopsizing of this research for whatever the newspaper equivalent of a soundbite is. Here's my bent, though: I'm humanist enough to believe that people can generally separate out their fantasy lives from reality, and that for most people, even habitual users of porn (which I suspect is most people) this does not seriously impact their view of their fellow humans. Can fantasies be objectiying? Absolutely. Is porn frequently objectifying? I sure think so. But does this mean that images of women's bodies alone, within this culture, lead to overall objectification? That is where this article is pointing to, and I find myself dubious. To me it speaks of a lack of faith in the human ability to separate out their feelings, and generally a lack of faith in human complexity. But I dunno, audience, you tell me.
Now how do you feel about women?
Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated.
Scans of some of the men found that a part of the brain associated with empathy for other people's emotions and wishes shut down after looking at the pictures.
...
The finding confirms a long-suspected effect of sexy images on the way women are perceived, and one which persists in workplaces and the wider world today, Fiske said.
I'm not actually sure that it does, although I am willing to rethink my ideas. I find this study challenging for a number of reasons.
One, I would be curious to know under what other circumstances that part of the brain lights up. For instance,
The brain scans showed that when men saw the images of the women's bodies, activity increased in part of the brain called the premotor cortex, which is involved in urges to take action. The same area lights up before using power tools to do DIY. "It's as if they immediately thought to act on theses bodies," Fiske said.
If this is simply a center of the brain that urges us to take action, then I would rather expect it to activate if a person was using power tools or sexually aroused. They are, after all, both actions. The quote also stands out to me; "It's as if they immediately thought to act on theses bodies." The whole acting on the body screams of feminist theory. Now don't get me wrong, feminist theory and I are homies, but inasmuch as it is one framework for understanding the world, it has its limits, and I don't feel that the conclusion here (that women are objectified) is compelled by the evidence (that one region of the brain is activated under two different circumstances).
I am further bothered by the inclusion in this particular article, and I suspect in the discussion section of the original study, that scans of some men show regions of the brain associated with empathy shutting down after looking at these pictures. It is entirely possible that this is a valid research point drawn by the study; I don't know, since I couldn't find it within five minutes of Google searching, got bored and proceeded to look at porn. What percentage of men is some men? Were other random parts of the brain flicking on or off during these scans?
I'm sure part of what is bothering me is the synopsizing of this research for whatever the newspaper equivalent of a soundbite is. Here's my bent, though: I'm humanist enough to believe that people can generally separate out their fantasy lives from reality, and that for most people, even habitual users of porn (which I suspect is most people) this does not seriously impact their view of their fellow humans. Can fantasies be objectiying? Absolutely. Is porn frequently objectifying? I sure think so. But does this mean that images of women's bodies alone, within this culture, lead to overall objectification? That is where this article is pointing to, and I find myself dubious. To me it speaks of a lack of faith in the human ability to separate out their feelings, and generally a lack of faith in human complexity. But I dunno, audience, you tell me.
Now how do you feel about women?
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
further conversations with my grandmother
gm: So what are you doing right now?
me: Getting ready for a date
gm: Really? With that same guy?
me: Yup. I had a really great time last time. I'm trying to figure out which shoes to wear.
gm: You are putting a lot of thought into it. Hoping to get lucky?
me: Oh, I've tidied up the apartment and everything.
gm: You are hoping for big things.
me: Oh, six inches at least.
gm: ...
me: I apologize for nothing.
me: Getting ready for a date
gm: Really? With that same guy?
me: Yup. I had a really great time last time. I'm trying to figure out which shoes to wear.
gm: You are putting a lot of thought into it. Hoping to get lucky?
me: Oh, I've tidied up the apartment and everything.
gm: You are hoping for big things.
me: Oh, six inches at least.
gm: ...
me: I apologize for nothing.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
I have just re-read this entire blog
and you know what I realized?
My sense of humor has really not changed in the last two and a half years.
It is funny, because I picture myself as such a different, hopefully more mature person than I was back then, thanks largely to my job. I am more comfortable around people, more comfortable in my own skin, and generally a lot more confident. Yet it scares me to think that many of my views have not changed much since then. I suppose I fear becoming stuck in my ways and not growing as a person.
Back then I was grateful to be getting out of school and working. Now I am grateful to be going back to school (which was the progression I was expecting all along). Back then I was cementing a lot of my views on race and gender, and I think a lot of what has happened the last two years has been my heart and gut catching up with my head somewhat.
And while I want to read my own progress as positive, I find myself feeling strangely conflicted about it, wondering if maybe I have not grown enough or if I am missing something. Maybe I fear that I have not taken enough risks, enough chances, that I have held back. And perhaps I am too hard on myself.
Perhaps most importantly, maybe I should not get all nostalgic an hour before I have a date with someone. I bet my newfound friend Pink will snap me out of this!
My sense of humor has really not changed in the last two and a half years.
It is funny, because I picture myself as such a different, hopefully more mature person than I was back then, thanks largely to my job. I am more comfortable around people, more comfortable in my own skin, and generally a lot more confident. Yet it scares me to think that many of my views have not changed much since then. I suppose I fear becoming stuck in my ways and not growing as a person.
Back then I was grateful to be getting out of school and working. Now I am grateful to be going back to school (which was the progression I was expecting all along). Back then I was cementing a lot of my views on race and gender, and I think a lot of what has happened the last two years has been my heart and gut catching up with my head somewhat.
And while I want to read my own progress as positive, I find myself feeling strangely conflicted about it, wondering if maybe I have not grown enough or if I am missing something. Maybe I fear that I have not taken enough risks, enough chances, that I have held back. And perhaps I am too hard on myself.
Perhaps most importantly, maybe I should not get all nostalgic an hour before I have a date with someone. I bet my newfound friend Pink will snap me out of this!
the rules of dating
with examples!
Rule 1: Respect yourself.
Hey, you can trust me, I'm clean!
Hey, you can kiss my ass!
Do we have to do that with a condom too?
Wow, goodbye.
Rule 2: Respect the other person.
You weigh 350 lbs.
Yeah, so? I said that in my online profile.
Your online profile said "beefy"
Exactly! So?
Ugh, I'm not attracted to you, but I also kind of feel like an asshole :(
Rule 3: Have fun (or walk away)
Hey man, fart in my face!
What?
I really like it. Just fart in my face!
Uh, no thanks. Sorry... eeehh...
Rule 4: Never get so drunk or high as to leave yourself vulnerable
What's your name again? Wait, wasn't that the state line?!
Rule 5: Always have an exit strategy
Hey, wanna go to the Barracks? I'll drive.
Sure.
Four hours later: Oh sweet mother of mercy I want to go home!
Hey just a little longer. Wooooooo!
Rule 6: Trust what people do, not what they say
I don't drink that much, really.
Really? Because you just pulled off six belly shots like it was nothing.
So? It was your belly!
Well, yes, but that isn't the point...
Rule 7: Be consistent about what you want and what you are willing to do.
Drink 1: We should just be friends
Drink 2: We should really just be friends
Drink 4: Friends make out with each other
Drink 6: Oral sex isn't really sex
Drink 9: Threeways? I love threeways! Wooooooo!
I suspect this list will continue to grow in the coming weeks and months. Open to suggestions!
Rule 1: Respect yourself.
Hey, you can trust me, I'm clean!
Hey, you can kiss my ass!
Do we have to do that with a condom too?
Wow, goodbye.
Rule 2: Respect the other person.
You weigh 350 lbs.
Yeah, so? I said that in my online profile.
Your online profile said "beefy"
Exactly! So?
Ugh, I'm not attracted to you, but I also kind of feel like an asshole :(
Rule 3: Have fun (or walk away)
Hey man, fart in my face!
What?
I really like it. Just fart in my face!
Uh, no thanks. Sorry... eeehh...
Rule 4: Never get so drunk or high as to leave yourself vulnerable
What's your name again? Wait, wasn't that the state line?!
Rule 5: Always have an exit strategy
Hey, wanna go to the Barracks? I'll drive.
Sure.
Four hours later: Oh sweet mother of mercy I want to go home!
Hey just a little longer. Wooooooo!
Rule 6: Trust what people do, not what they say
I don't drink that much, really.
Really? Because you just pulled off six belly shots like it was nothing.
So? It was your belly!
Well, yes, but that isn't the point...
Rule 7: Be consistent about what you want and what you are willing to do.
Drink 1: We should just be friends
Drink 2: We should really just be friends
Drink 4: Friends make out with each other
Drink 6: Oral sex isn't really sex
Drink 9: Threeways? I love threeways! Wooooooo!
I suspect this list will continue to grow in the coming weeks and months. Open to suggestions!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
flashbacks
I am sitting on my bed, downloading the latest Pink album. An hour later it will happen.
It is two weeks ago. I driving with my friend Jesse in Virginia. He is describing Pink's most recent album. He says that he initially though Pink would be a one-hit wonder.
In ten minutes the album will be downloaded and "So What" will start to play.
It is 2000. I find myself wondering who the hell would listen to someone named Pink.
In thirteen and a half minutes "Sober" replaces "So What." It is the most popular song on the album to date.
It is 2001 and "Get This Party Started" is a hit. I can't stand the damn song, nor the artist.
The album continues to download. I am wondering why the hell I am doing this.
In twenty minutes "Bad Influence" will be playing. It will be my favorite song on this album.
My friend Jesse is still talking while he drives. It is dark out. I am wondering if he sees something in pop music that I am missing.
In 45 minutes I will be listening through most of the songs a second time. The event is almost upon me.
It is 10 minutes ago. On a lark, I decide to download the most recent Pink album, based largely on Jesse's recommendation.
In 55 minutes I will be eating a carrot and humming "Bad Influence." I then realize that I want to listen to it again. I become horrified at this realization and begin experiencing Dr. Manhattan-like flashbacks.
It is still 2001 and a few of my friends are talking. I hear one of them remark, "I really don't feel like listening to someone who's going to have an identity crisis every time she decides to dye her hair a new color."
It is an hour from now. My sense of myself and the universe has lost all cohesion. My mind shatters, my will breaks, my brain feels as if it will implode. At this moment, I will have to admit that I like Pink.
In an hour and ten minutes, I will begin to blog. It will be the first time in several months that I have done so.
It is five days from now, a Sunday. I am going to watch a movie with friends. They tease me mercilessly for all of this.
It is two weeks ago. I driving with my friend Jesse in Virginia. He is describing Pink's most recent album. He says that he initially though Pink would be a one-hit wonder.
In ten minutes the album will be downloaded and "So What" will start to play.
It is 2000. I find myself wondering who the hell would listen to someone named Pink.
In thirteen and a half minutes "Sober" replaces "So What." It is the most popular song on the album to date.
It is 2001 and "Get This Party Started" is a hit. I can't stand the damn song, nor the artist.
The album continues to download. I am wondering why the hell I am doing this.
In twenty minutes "Bad Influence" will be playing. It will be my favorite song on this album.
My friend Jesse is still talking while he drives. It is dark out. I am wondering if he sees something in pop music that I am missing.
In 45 minutes I will be listening through most of the songs a second time. The event is almost upon me.
It is 10 minutes ago. On a lark, I decide to download the most recent Pink album, based largely on Jesse's recommendation.
In 55 minutes I will be eating a carrot and humming "Bad Influence." I then realize that I want to listen to it again. I become horrified at this realization and begin experiencing Dr. Manhattan-like flashbacks.
It is still 2001 and a few of my friends are talking. I hear one of them remark, "I really don't feel like listening to someone who's going to have an identity crisis every time she decides to dye her hair a new color."
It is an hour from now. My sense of myself and the universe has lost all cohesion. My mind shatters, my will breaks, my brain feels as if it will implode. At this moment, I will have to admit that I like Pink.
In an hour and ten minutes, I will begin to blog. It will be the first time in several months that I have done so.
It is five days from now, a Sunday. I am going to watch a movie with friends. They tease me mercilessly for all of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)