Fat Cat, Skinny Cat

9 10 2008

Guess which is which.





Get me on

8 10 2008

Little discussion of sex.

I know, much more fun to have than to discuss. Still.

Does sex matter, beyond pleasure? Can the act of sex be separated from any possible meanings? Should it be?

Blech. Okay, I see where’ y’all are coming from. Even I don’t want to talk about this right now.

And no, it’s not because I’m about to have sex.

*Sigh*





Yesterday, once more

7 10 2008

Lucretia, as usual, is forcing me to sharpen my thoughts in response to her own perspicacious observations.

So: the varieties of tolerance. I’ve been focussing on political tolerance, tolerance among citizens, and tolerance among strangers. The first might be a kind of structural or constitutional tolerance; the second, for those who move within a particular political or constitutional tolerance; and the third, for those about whom one knows little, and for which no relationship of even the minimal constitutional type is necessarily defined.

I haven’t said much about this third type, mainly because I’ve been preoccupied with the political and there’s nothing particularly political about this. Still a brief: A certain defensive wariness may be apt when among this last group, insofar as the encounters may happen ‘outside of the law’ (e.g., a deserted street or minimally populated area, with no obvious authority present), as it were. That these encounters may be ‘lawless’, however, doesn’t mean they have to be violent or aggressive or even threatening: One may wish only to move through or around strangers, and however much the strangers may eye one another, each nonetheless decides to leave the other alone. (This might be considered a literal ‘toleration of existence’, and a necessary precondition for politics.)

Perhaps somewhere in there should be tolerance of acquaintances (feel free to offer a better term): These are the people we work with or see regularly or engage in genial conversation, even if we wouldn’t invite them into our home and they wouldn’t invite us into their home. We might like one another ‘well enough’ or find each other ‘interesting’ or ‘worth talking to’, but wouldn’t, really, call a friend. Someone you know, kinda, and are satisfied with that.

Anyway, what poked at me from Lucretia’s comment was about the personal side of toleration. I noted that I wouldn’t be friends with someone who merely tolerated me, but Lucretia adds some shading to this statement:

As for wanting more than tolerance from my friends – maybe. I’m finding as I get older that I am more tolerant than I thought I could be. I can be friends with someone even if there are one or two things about them I really don’t like or even actively disapprove of, because they have other qualities that shine brighter, and because everyone has faults and blind spots, including me. But I agree, that if a person only tolerates something that I feel is the very core of my being, it’s going to be much harder to feel close to that person, and trust them.

I was getting at more the ‘very core of my being’ aspect, as opposed to the ‘I’ll put up with’ or ‘I’ll overlook this’ aspect of tolerance. My sense of not wanting to be friends with someone who merely tolerated me arises both out of a desire for dignity and from not wanting to feed my occasionally raging neuroses. Why hang out with someone who doesn’t think you’re, basically, okay to hang out with? Why do that to yourself?

But Lucretia’s right: Ain’t none of us perfect, so even dear friends are going to irritate us (and vice versa). What then to do? Nothin’. Let it pass. Be glad for the friendship, be glad the other person is as flawed as you, be glad you don’t have to be perfect to have a friend or be a friend.

When I was younger I used to say ‘I don’t judge.’ Hah! I judged all the time, but since I didn’t want to be judgmental, I wasn’t honest about it. As a result, I was never able to reflect on those judgments; they were unconsidered. Now I know I judge all the time, but I also let a hell of a lot more judgments go. So X is always late and Y never calls, but I know that, and I still want to be around them. So I set aside time for X and I’m the one who calls Y. At some point, I decided not to moralize these behaviors. Yeah, it’d be nice if X were prompt and Y could pick up the phone, but so what: the people matter more than the irks. (And I’m glad that goes both ways.)

Yeah, sometimes the irks overwhelm the people, and it becomes difficult to remain friends. And sometimes things just change so radically you have to reconsider everything. (I’m thinking of my friendship with someone who moved her Christian faith from the periphery to the center of her life. Another post, perhaps.) But at that point I think the issue is less a matter of tolerance and more a matter of compatibility.

Huh. Perhaps the distinction should be between tolerance of persons (which is not somethings friends do to one another) and tolerance of acts (which friends, citizens, and strangers may allow).

Does this help, or am I just fucking it all up again?





Sandra at the beach

5 10 2008

There were some interesting comments about ‘tolerance’ in the Fray at XX Factor (Slate.com), in response to posts by Abby Collard (Oct 3) and EJ Graff (Oct 4). Neither Collard nor Graff thought tolerance was sufficient; Collard wrote that

Tolerance is widely accepted as an admirable virtue, but it still feels cheap to me. Essentially what Palin is saying is that she puts up with homosexual couples. There’s no approval there, no acceptance, just respectful disregard. The difference between “tolerance” and “acceptance” is like the difference between looking the other way and actively supporting something. Her tolerant speech doesn’t mean she supports, or even approves of, homosexuality. It means she just doesn’t act out against it.

Well, yeah. And maybe that’s all that can be expected from someone who thinks there’s something wrong with homosexuality. A number of Fraysters echoed Collard & Graff’s unhappiness with the tolerance, but Wren W noted that, given all of our differences, tolerance may be the best we can get. Although I disagree with a number of the opinions Wren expresses in her (his?) comment, I think she’s right that those who despair of tolerance do so because they seek something more: approval and acceptance (which is what Collard wrote, above).

So. Those of us who are pro-queer or are queer want those who are not to accept and approve of LGBT folk. This is not unreasonable. But it may be unreasonable to expect those opposed to accept and approve. Yes, we should act to expand acceptance, but that we have to act ought to signal that not everyone does approve of homo-, bi-, and transsexuality. Hell, until very recently it was quite acceptable to denounce gays and lesbians as contemptible perverts. What does Sarah Palin really believe, in her hockey-lovin’ heart? I don’t care—but I sure as hell do care about her behavior, that she not ‘act out against’ gays and lesbians. I prefer politicians who are pro-gay rights, but I’ll take a ‘tolerant’ politician over a hateful one any day.

Now, this is all complicated somewhat by the fact that Palin is an elected official, and a candidate for even higher office. She is in a position of ‘power over’, so a discussion of what she as a politician tolerates is a different matter than what a fellow citizen, who is my equal, tolerates. Still, there are two similarities:

One, I have low expectations of accord amongst a mixed crowd. I see us as working our way ‘up’ to tolerance, rather than falling ‘down’ to it. In other words, I begin from a position of conflict rather than comity.

Two, while I may accept that tolerance is the most I can expect from strangers, I wouldn’t be friends with someone who merely tolerated me. That is, in moving through the world, it is enough for others to tolerate me, to not act against me, but with friends, more is expected.

That, after all, is why they’re friends: Because I can expect more.

Yes, there’s more to be said. But this was worth a quick hit.





I want your sex

4 10 2008

I found (via Feministing) this mutual interview between Gloria Steinem and Suheir Hammad, and homed in on this comment by Hammad:

. . . [I]n the nineties you had the sense that you could sleep with anyone you wanted, and we thought we knew enough about safe sex. And there wasn’t any reference to the emotional reality of sharing yourself with people you didn’t trust. Some of my friends are able to make the distinction between love and sex.

I used to say, semi-seriously, that a woman should sleep with someone earlier rather than later, to find out if he (or she) were worth the emotional investment. So when I read this I thought, Yeah, I remember thinking that.

Now, I was never much of a slut. (Was that because I practiced self-control—or because I lacked opportunities?) Regardless, I was impatient with the notion that sex had to mean anything other than pleasure. Sure it could be about getting closer to your partner, deepening intimacy, blah blah, but hey, couldn’t it also just be about a fun toss?

I really wanted to believe that. I liked the idea that sex was simply another form of bodily pleasure, akin to the pleasures of a good run or workout or dancing or any other physically happy endeavor. There was no reason to make it more than it is.

Except I never believed myself. Sex was—is—different. Why? Why the hell is sex different? Is it about the vulnerability, that one is, literally, naked before another person?* Why is physical nakedness more meaningful than emotional nakedness?

(*Nothing against threesomes or more. I’m just trying to capture something about the act the way most of us do it most of the time.)

Ah. Maybe it’s not. Maybe that’s where I got tripped up: I wanted it to be different from emotional vulnerability (with which I have my difficulties), so tried to strip (sorry!) sex down to its bare (okay, that one I did on purpose) essentials.

No more snarkiness. What I mean is, I wanted to be able to have sex without having to worry about any emotional entanglements. I didn’t want it to mean anything, wasn’t sure I wanted the other person to mean anything to me, wasn’t sure I wanted to mean anything to the other person.

Still, this hardly explains why sex matters, or even, really, that it matters. Maybe it really is about the emotional component, and the difficulty of separating the emotional from the sexual. In other words, I was right, in a way, before: sex is just sex, and the issue is with its shotgun rider, emotion.

Hmpf. This post is all over the place. If anyone is reading this, can you PLEASE chime it to say if sex matters or not, and why?





Young Americans

2 10 2008

I can’t stand it—having fleas headline my blog. So even tho’ it’s late and I don’t really have anything to say, I thought I’d offer the music list for some cds I made some years ago for my niece. (No, I don’t know if she ever actually listened to them.)

Anyway.

Songs For An American Girl:
Know Yer Pop! (I)
Marvin Gaye: I Heard It Through the Grapevine
John Lennon: Instant Karma
Bruce Springsteen: Born to Run
U2: Seconds
Talking Heads: Burning Down the House
Romeo Void: A Girl in Trouble
Lou Reed: Walk on the Wild Side
Police: Invisible Sun
Pretenders: Brass in Pocket
Midnight Oil: Beds Are Burning
Gang of Four: Call Me Up
Elvis Costello: (The Angels Wanna Wear My)
Red Shoes
David Bowie: Under Pressure
Beatles: With a Little Help from My Friends
John Cougar Mellencamp: Jack and Diane
Violent Femmes: blister in the sun
Sly & the Family Stone: Everyday People
Diana Ross & the Supremes: Reflections
10,000 Maniacs: Peace Train

Songs For An American Girl:
Know Yer Pop! (II)
Clash: This Is Radio Clash
BoDeans: Fadeaway
Eddie Cochran: Somethin’ Else
Jam: Town Called Malice
Belly: Feed the Tree
CCR: Bad Moon Rising
Patsy Cline: Walkin’ After Midnight
Five Stairsteps: Ooh Child
Pretenders: Stop Your Sobbing
REM: It’s the End of the World As We Know It
World Party: Way Down Now
Police: When the World is Running Down
Primitives: sick of it
Eurythmics: Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)
Kate Bush: Running Up That Hill
Blondie: Call Me
Replacements: Achin’ To Be
Garbage: Only Happy When It Rains
Joni Mitchell: Chelsea Morning
Nick Drake: Pink Moon
Bob Dylan: The Times They Are A-Changing

Songs for An American Girl:
Know Yer Pop! (III)
B-52’s: Love Shack
Van Morrison: Moondance
Temptations: Treat Here Like A Lady
Roy Orbison: Oh Pretty Woman
Sinéad O’Connor: nothing compares 2U
Elton John: Tiny Dancer
Cranberrries: Linger
Earth Wind & Fire: Got To Get You Into My
Life
Elvis Costello: Sneaky Feelings
Terence Trent D’Arby: Wishing Well
CCR: Susie Q
Macy Gray: Why Didn’t You Call Me?
Janis Joplin: Me and Bobby McGee
Wilson Pickett: Mustang Sally
Bruce Springsteen: Hungry Heart
Clash: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
Patty Smith: because the night
Violent Femmes: add it up

Songs For An American Girl:
Know Yer Pop! (IV)
Feelies: Time For A Witness
Clash: Rock the Casbah
Dead Kennedys: California Über Alles
U2: The Refugee
Police: Message In A Bottle
REM: Radio Free Europe
Marvin Gaye: What’s Going On
Gang of Four: I Love A Man In A Uniform
Beck: Loser
Chambers Brothers: Time Has Come Today
Peter Gabriel: games without frontiers
David Bowie: Space Oddity
Otis Redding: (Sittin’ On)The Dock of the Bay
Pogues: Thousands Are Sailing
Michelle Shocked: (Making the Run to)
Gladewater
Mamas & the Papas: California Dreaming
B-52’s: Roam
Three Dog Night: Joy To The World

There are other cds for other family members; I guess I’ll post them when I need another palate cleanser.

And yeah, these lists are limited, because I drew from my own cd collection (as opposed to pulling songs off Napster or iTunes or wherever); I’m old-fashioned like that. Oh, and I think the idea was to create ‘historical’ discs. Whatever.

Off to read Bedlam Farm. A fine way to close out the evening.