A.A. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
I hope you are meeting the heat and humidity with a healthy dose of conditioned air.
Do you know we lub you and if so, do you know we lub you *this* much?
Thanks as always,
AA"
My air is as nicely conditioned as my hair, and I owe my hair to Lamas. Not Lorenzo. Though he had nice hair back in the day, too, but I doubt he used this stuff 'cuz I don't think it was around then. But side note: I recently got about seven inches chopped off of my hair and my stylist was floored by how healthy it was, all the way to the tips, with no dye or product or extensions or anything in it. Which I took to mean, I grow good hair. And condition it well.
Anyway. I digress.
I have to admit, I was a bit puzzled by your question, as I'm not necessarily up with all of the hip lingo the youngsters are using these days. I was working on a film not too long ago with a group of kids who all thought it was kitschy that I use the word "groovy." It's coming back, man, just you wait. So I had to look up what "lub" means. In large part to make sure you didn't just forget the "e" on the end, in which case, this is a much more personal question than we should probably be posting on the interweb. And according to the Urban Dictionary, "lub" is one of those totally non-committal words that wusses use when they don't have the balls to tell someone how they really feel. Or when they're too afraid to admit how they feel. It's described as being something between like and love, which in my day, we referred to as like-liking someone. As in, "I like him, but I don't like-him-like-him, so I said no when he asked me to Homecoming."
Now, I know you're married to a lovely woman, which may explain the usage of "lub" as opposed to "like" or "love," but you also say, "we," which leads me to believe I have a lot of sort-of-timid-non-committal friends which is mildly disturbing. I'd like to think the sentiment behind the message was a sweet one, but I'm just sort of left feeling like I'm stuck in limbo, not knowing where I really stand with anyone. And apparently, these are very strong non-committal feelings. I don't even know how that works. Did I do something to offend you all? How is it that I'm sitting on the fence between like and love and y'all can't make up your minds? If I was taller, would that help? Or if I gave everybody kittens for Christmas? Hell, I'd even call you all really mean names so I'd move over into hate territory because even that is clearer than this whole "lub" thing.
I need to lie down now.
Thank you, A.A. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Showing posts with label understanding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label understanding. Show all posts
Monday, July 11, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Facebook Parents
D.N. asks, "I read the following on an old high school friend's Facebook status update this week.
'My daughter just came home from school and ran to her room, slamming the door. Even though she's got the music turned up pretty loud, I can still hear her heartbreaking sobs of anguish through her door. I try and I try to get her to talk to me, but she just asks me to leave her alone no matter how many times I tell her to confide in me. All I can think is that something horrible happened to her at school today. Doesn't she know that I went to high school too and could probably solve whatever her silly little problem is? Somebody please tell me what to do!'
What followed was an exceptionally long list of comments, all of which empathized with the mother before going off on their own kids' selfish behavior.
No one, especially the mom in this case, stopped to think that, gee maybe something horrible DID happen at school that day. Maybe it was all the young woman could do to simply 'hold it together' until the end of the day where she could (supposedly) seek refuge in the only 'safe' place she has to go to. Maybe the only thing that could be possibly WORSE than whatever happened is to have her mom -- IN A PUBLIC FORUM -- THAT HER 'FRIENDS' FROM SCHOOL CAN EASILY ACCESS -- complain about her level of distress and her supposed selfishness for not wanting to immediately share the 'silly' details of her 'silly' problem.
My question, I guess, is this. Are Facebook parents the most narcisistic generation of parents in the history of the world? Or are we just the dumbest?
D. N."
Hi, D.N.
I don't think this is necessarily a case of Narcissism or stupidity. Let me explain. No, there is too much; let me sum up. Buttercup is marry Humperdink in little less a half an hour. All we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, and make our 'scape. After I kill Count Rugen.
Sorry, got a little distracted there. Back on track.
I think we need to look at this in the proper context. Parents today have to deal with all sorts of things that parents of previous generations didn't have to think about at all. The whole concept of "adolescence" is only about 100 years old - prior to that, you were a kid who became an adult. That's it. And the more we explore adolescence, the more confusing it becomes. Nowadays, you're Satan's Mistress if you spank your child, but not so long ago, children received regular beatings all in the name of "teaching them good manners." Children used to go to school and then come directly home to help out with the chores on the farm (or around the house) instead of sleeping through classes and then coming home to play World of Warcraft for six hours before bed. I'm not saying things like drugs and alcohol and sex weren't as big a deal back then, but the way we handle our children and their problems is different now. The way our children behave in school is different than it used to be, too. How many girls do you see in photographs from the 1880's wearing cut-off t-shirts and mini skirts? Not so many, right? But the way girls dress now invites all kinds of fun new slurs, taunting remarks, and derogatory terms. And we, as parents, need to learn how to help our kids through the torture chamber known as the public education system.
So your friend's kid came home all upset about something and not wanting to talk about it. Okay. Your friend wanted to talk to her kid and try to help and that is a good thing. She should be commended for her impulse. The kid should not be lambasted for her choice to not want to talk to her mom. What if the problem is that the other kids at school were teasing her for some rumor that the mom is a slut? Or what if she was found in the janitor's closet with a varsity football player and neither of them was wearing any pants? These are not the sort of things you want to talk to your mom about. In the case of the first thing, nobody wants to have to ask their mom if she is a slut because neither answer is a good one. If she's not, you look like an ass for asking in the first place and if she is, you get to have nightmares for the rest of your natural born life. And no teenage girl wants to talk to her mom about her super secret sex life for fear her mother will chime in with some story about her super secret sex life when she was a teenager and we're back to having nightmares for the rest of your natural born life again.
I guess it is possible that the issue at school was something that might not be completely mortifying to talk to one's own mother about. Maybe she got a bad grade on a test or tripped on her own shoelace walking down the hall. But what the mom needs to realize is that everyone processes things in their own way. Maybe what the kid needs is to curl up in bed and listen to music for a while until the embarrassment dies down a bit and she can talk about it. The simple fact that the mother considers whatever is causing her daughter's "heartbreaking sobs of anguish" is a "silly little problem," means that there is some sort of disconnect happening here. And maybe the daughter knows her mom will think the problem is silly and wants to be a little more composed before they chat about it so she can show her mom that really, she is fine as opposed to her mom laughing it off with, "I was in high school once, too, you know."
And the other thing about the "I was in high school once, too, you know," defense. Yes, you were. But you have not been in high school for several years. You may remember that "the love of your life" dumped you two weeks before the prom, but since that time, you met your husband who proved to be the real love of your life and you've had kids and you have a mortgage now and have been to seventeen fancy dress fundraisers so the whole prom thing isn't that big of a deal anymore. It's called "healing and moving on." Yes, you lived through it and came out on the other side. No, you don't actually remember what it was like when it happened. You have the luxury of looking at the event through Detachment Glasses. When you remember it, you look back on a younger version of yourself who you know has great things in store. But you have forgotten what it felt like to not see good things in store for you down the line. So in order to understand what your daughter is going through, you need to put it in terms of your own life where you are now. Maybe her boyfriend dumped her. Imagine your husband came home one day, packed a suitcase, and left you for his secretary. That is how she's feeling now. Empathize with that, as opposed to minimizing her problem as some silly high school trifle.
Which brings us back around to Facebook. I think the mom has the right to ask her friends for help in this situation, because I'll let you in on a little secret: none of us know what we're doing. Parents (the good ones, anyway) always think they're going to fuck up their kids and that is the most terrifying thought in the world. Your friend is wondering if she's a bad mom for letting her daughter cry, or if she's a bad mom for trying to force her daughter to talk. It feels like a no-win situation. She wants to help and doesn't know how. So she asks her friends for advice. I think that's okay. I think the problem is that the friends take sides. They should know better than to bash a kid on Facebook for having a bad day.
So to answer your question, Facebook parents are not narcissistic, nor are they dumb. They're confused and lost and reaching out for help, just like the rest of us. And no, the daughter is not being selfish because she wants to process her horrible day in her own way. The mom is right to be concerned, but at the moment, it probably best for her to let her daughter know that she is there, she loves her no matter what, and then wait for the daughter to come talk to her in her own time. But yeah, the mom's friends are probably making things worse in their attempts to comfort the mom. They should watch that.
Thank you, D.N. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
'My daughter just came home from school and ran to her room, slamming the door. Even though she's got the music turned up pretty loud, I can still hear her heartbreaking sobs of anguish through her door. I try and I try to get her to talk to me, but she just asks me to leave her alone no matter how many times I tell her to confide in me. All I can think is that something horrible happened to her at school today. Doesn't she know that I went to high school too and could probably solve whatever her silly little problem is? Somebody please tell me what to do!'
What followed was an exceptionally long list of comments, all of which empathized with the mother before going off on their own kids' selfish behavior.
No one, especially the mom in this case, stopped to think that, gee maybe something horrible DID happen at school that day. Maybe it was all the young woman could do to simply 'hold it together' until the end of the day where she could (supposedly) seek refuge in the only 'safe' place she has to go to. Maybe the only thing that could be possibly WORSE than whatever happened is to have her mom -- IN A PUBLIC FORUM -- THAT HER 'FRIENDS' FROM SCHOOL CAN EASILY ACCESS -- complain about her level of distress and her supposed selfishness for not wanting to immediately share the 'silly' details of her 'silly' problem.
My question, I guess, is this. Are Facebook parents the most narcisistic generation of parents in the history of the world? Or are we just the dumbest?
D. N."
Hi, D.N.
I don't think this is necessarily a case of Narcissism or stupidity. Let me explain. No, there is too much; let me sum up. Buttercup is marry Humperdink in little less a half an hour. All we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, and make our 'scape. After I kill Count Rugen.
Sorry, got a little distracted there. Back on track.
I think we need to look at this in the proper context. Parents today have to deal with all sorts of things that parents of previous generations didn't have to think about at all. The whole concept of "adolescence" is only about 100 years old - prior to that, you were a kid who became an adult. That's it. And the more we explore adolescence, the more confusing it becomes. Nowadays, you're Satan's Mistress if you spank your child, but not so long ago, children received regular beatings all in the name of "teaching them good manners." Children used to go to school and then come directly home to help out with the chores on the farm (or around the house) instead of sleeping through classes and then coming home to play World of Warcraft for six hours before bed. I'm not saying things like drugs and alcohol and sex weren't as big a deal back then, but the way we handle our children and their problems is different now. The way our children behave in school is different than it used to be, too. How many girls do you see in photographs from the 1880's wearing cut-off t-shirts and mini skirts? Not so many, right? But the way girls dress now invites all kinds of fun new slurs, taunting remarks, and derogatory terms. And we, as parents, need to learn how to help our kids through the torture chamber known as the public education system.
So your friend's kid came home all upset about something and not wanting to talk about it. Okay. Your friend wanted to talk to her kid and try to help and that is a good thing. She should be commended for her impulse. The kid should not be lambasted for her choice to not want to talk to her mom. What if the problem is that the other kids at school were teasing her for some rumor that the mom is a slut? Or what if she was found in the janitor's closet with a varsity football player and neither of them was wearing any pants? These are not the sort of things you want to talk to your mom about. In the case of the first thing, nobody wants to have to ask their mom if she is a slut because neither answer is a good one. If she's not, you look like an ass for asking in the first place and if she is, you get to have nightmares for the rest of your natural born life. And no teenage girl wants to talk to her mom about her super secret sex life for fear her mother will chime in with some story about her super secret sex life when she was a teenager and we're back to having nightmares for the rest of your natural born life again.
I guess it is possible that the issue at school was something that might not be completely mortifying to talk to one's own mother about. Maybe she got a bad grade on a test or tripped on her own shoelace walking down the hall. But what the mom needs to realize is that everyone processes things in their own way. Maybe what the kid needs is to curl up in bed and listen to music for a while until the embarrassment dies down a bit and she can talk about it. The simple fact that the mother considers whatever is causing her daughter's "heartbreaking sobs of anguish" is a "silly little problem," means that there is some sort of disconnect happening here. And maybe the daughter knows her mom will think the problem is silly and wants to be a little more composed before they chat about it so she can show her mom that really, she is fine as opposed to her mom laughing it off with, "I was in high school once, too, you know."
And the other thing about the "I was in high school once, too, you know," defense. Yes, you were. But you have not been in high school for several years. You may remember that "the love of your life" dumped you two weeks before the prom, but since that time, you met your husband who proved to be the real love of your life and you've had kids and you have a mortgage now and have been to seventeen fancy dress fundraisers so the whole prom thing isn't that big of a deal anymore. It's called "healing and moving on." Yes, you lived through it and came out on the other side. No, you don't actually remember what it was like when it happened. You have the luxury of looking at the event through Detachment Glasses. When you remember it, you look back on a younger version of yourself who you know has great things in store. But you have forgotten what it felt like to not see good things in store for you down the line. So in order to understand what your daughter is going through, you need to put it in terms of your own life where you are now. Maybe her boyfriend dumped her. Imagine your husband came home one day, packed a suitcase, and left you for his secretary. That is how she's feeling now. Empathize with that, as opposed to minimizing her problem as some silly high school trifle.
Which brings us back around to Facebook. I think the mom has the right to ask her friends for help in this situation, because I'll let you in on a little secret: none of us know what we're doing. Parents (the good ones, anyway) always think they're going to fuck up their kids and that is the most terrifying thought in the world. Your friend is wondering if she's a bad mom for letting her daughter cry, or if she's a bad mom for trying to force her daughter to talk. It feels like a no-win situation. She wants to help and doesn't know how. So she asks her friends for advice. I think that's okay. I think the problem is that the friends take sides. They should know better than to bash a kid on Facebook for having a bad day.
So to answer your question, Facebook parents are not narcissistic, nor are they dumb. They're confused and lost and reaching out for help, just like the rest of us. And no, the daughter is not being selfish because she wants to process her horrible day in her own way. The mom is right to be concerned, but at the moment, it probably best for her to let her daughter know that she is there, she loves her no matter what, and then wait for the daughter to come talk to her in her own time. But yeah, the mom's friends are probably making things worse in their attempts to comfort the mom. They should watch that.
Thank you, D.N. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Monday, January 17, 2011
Universal Truth
A.A. asks, "Why, Miss Kitty? WHY?!?
Thank you, Miss Kitty. Hope all is well. Happy New Year. I look forward to your reply.
A."
Such a polite email for such a passionate question. And the answer is very simple.
Because.
Because the Earth revolves around the Sun. Because gravity keeps us here. Because it feels good. Because he makes me smile. Because I think single spaces after a period make text look smooshed together and sometimes I want to give my readers a bit more of a pause than just one space will allow. Because they scored more points. Because I love you. Because she's your wife. Because he's my best friend. Because if you don't, you'll get fired. Because if you do, you'll get hurt. Because that's where the Boogie Man lives. Because that information is on a "need to know" basis and you don't need to know. Because we borrowed it from the Germans. Because it's more fun to paint things that don't really exist. Because he did too many drugs in his teens. Because she always looks bored and pissy. Because he is over-exposed. Because that's what they think we want. Because that's what we think we want. Because he's funny and charming and smart and damn fine to look at. Because I just want to make people laugh. Because we're not going anywhere else. Because it's time. Because it's easy. Because if someone were to turn this into a monologue, they would need to know each circumstance to give each answer it's proper weight and I would love to see them try. Because it's fun. Because he's a genius. Because the work being produced there is stimulating and exciting. Because it's warmer. Because it's snowing. Because there is honestly no good reason to let the phone ring three times before you answer it when your job is to answer the phone. Because nobody knows. Because everyone is nosy. Because we need to fill our lives with something to distract ourselves from the futility of it all. Because nobody wants to be forgotten.
Why?
Because I said so and I'm your mother, that's why.
Thank you, A.A. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Thank you, Miss Kitty. Hope all is well. Happy New Year. I look forward to your reply.
A."
Such a polite email for such a passionate question. And the answer is very simple.
Because.
Because the Earth revolves around the Sun. Because gravity keeps us here. Because it feels good. Because he makes me smile. Because I think single spaces after a period make text look smooshed together and sometimes I want to give my readers a bit more of a pause than just one space will allow. Because they scored more points. Because I love you. Because she's your wife. Because he's my best friend. Because if you don't, you'll get fired. Because if you do, you'll get hurt. Because that's where the Boogie Man lives. Because that information is on a "need to know" basis and you don't need to know. Because we borrowed it from the Germans. Because it's more fun to paint things that don't really exist. Because he did too many drugs in his teens. Because she always looks bored and pissy. Because he is over-exposed. Because that's what they think we want. Because that's what we think we want. Because he's funny and charming and smart and damn fine to look at. Because I just want to make people laugh. Because we're not going anywhere else. Because it's time. Because it's easy. Because if someone were to turn this into a monologue, they would need to know each circumstance to give each answer it's proper weight and I would love to see them try. Because it's fun. Because he's a genius. Because the work being produced there is stimulating and exciting. Because it's warmer. Because it's snowing. Because there is honestly no good reason to let the phone ring three times before you answer it when your job is to answer the phone. Because nobody knows. Because everyone is nosy. Because we need to fill our lives with something to distract ourselves from the futility of it all. Because nobody wants to be forgotten.
Why?
Because I said so and I'm your mother, that's why.
Thank you, A.A. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Gay Scientologists
S.B. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
I am torn. Part of me wants to lend actor John Travolta my heartfelt support in coming out of the closet. This part is, of course, at war with the part of me that wants to mock him out for belonging to the Church of Scientology. Which part should win?
S.B.
Mockery. Mockery always wins.
See, the thing is, I'm not terribly versed in the tenants of Scientology, but from what I can tell, homosexuality is not really, um, celebrated within the Church. So if a gay man chooses to believe in Xenu over allowing himself to be who he is...well, I'm not really in a position to judge anyone, but that sounds kind of unhealthy to me. And/or, if a person feels the need to repress such an integral part of his own personality so that he will be accepted by a bunch of people who are happy to take his money as long as he insists that he likes banging women...again, I'm not one to judge. And/or if a person subscribes to a belief system that does not allow him to be who he is...I think you get my point.
Now, there are, apparently, some gay Scientologists who say L. Ron didn't really mean it when he called homosexuals "sexual perverts," "skulking coward[s]," "far from normal and extremely dangerous to society," and "quite physically ill," or that those terms were taken out of context, or that the Church has eased up on the whole homosexuality debate since L. Ron wrote "Dianetics" in 1950. But really, you have to wonder about homosexuals who find themselves drawn to a way of life that so obviously hates them. Do they hate themselves that much? That makes me sad.
I do understand the desire to support someone's decision to come out, though. I think everyone should be able to come out in the manner of his or her own choosing when the time is right. But you and I are not therapists, counselors, or psychoanalysts. And near as I can tell, neither of us is personally involved with John Travolta, so as much as we might like to say, "Hey, John, we'll still love you if you come out (as long as you never make another movie like Battleship Earth)," I don't know that it is really our place to do that. Perhaps we are best served by mocking him for denying who he is so he can get regular thetan level readings because when one is so far removed from the subject, sometimes the only way one's voice can be heard is through mockery. And through mockery, perhaps we can help him see the contradictions in his life that need straightening out. And then, once he has come out, we can applaud him for his brave choice.
And then continue to mock him for keeping 700 copies of "Dianetics" lying around his house...
Thank you, S.B. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I am torn. Part of me wants to lend actor John Travolta my heartfelt support in coming out of the closet. This part is, of course, at war with the part of me that wants to mock him out for belonging to the Church of Scientology. Which part should win?
S.B.
Mockery. Mockery always wins.
See, the thing is, I'm not terribly versed in the tenants of Scientology, but from what I can tell, homosexuality is not really, um, celebrated within the Church. So if a gay man chooses to believe in Xenu over allowing himself to be who he is...well, I'm not really in a position to judge anyone, but that sounds kind of unhealthy to me. And/or, if a person feels the need to repress such an integral part of his own personality so that he will be accepted by a bunch of people who are happy to take his money as long as he insists that he likes banging women...again, I'm not one to judge. And/or if a person subscribes to a belief system that does not allow him to be who he is...I think you get my point.
Now, there are, apparently, some gay Scientologists who say L. Ron didn't really mean it when he called homosexuals "sexual perverts," "skulking coward[s]," "far from normal and extremely dangerous to society," and "quite physically ill," or that those terms were taken out of context, or that the Church has eased up on the whole homosexuality debate since L. Ron wrote "Dianetics" in 1950. But really, you have to wonder about homosexuals who find themselves drawn to a way of life that so obviously hates them. Do they hate themselves that much? That makes me sad.
I do understand the desire to support someone's decision to come out, though. I think everyone should be able to come out in the manner of his or her own choosing when the time is right. But you and I are not therapists, counselors, or psychoanalysts. And near as I can tell, neither of us is personally involved with John Travolta, so as much as we might like to say, "Hey, John, we'll still love you if you come out (as long as you never make another movie like Battleship Earth)," I don't know that it is really our place to do that. Perhaps we are best served by mocking him for denying who he is so he can get regular thetan level readings because when one is so far removed from the subject, sometimes the only way one's voice can be heard is through mockery. And through mockery, perhaps we can help him see the contradictions in his life that need straightening out. And then, once he has come out, we can applaud him for his brave choice.
And then continue to mock him for keeping 700 copies of "Dianetics" lying around his house...
Thank you, S.B. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Monday, December 20, 2010
Belly Dancing
H.B. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,
So my new girlfriend takes these bellydance classes and they have a performance coming up that's called a 'hafla.' I've been to one before, and she kept asking me all of these questions about the other dancers: "Did you notice when the one woman shimmied so hard her boobs almost fell out? Did you notice the beading on the butts? The appliques? Aren't the fifteen year-old's hip drops amazing? What did you think of the chest work?" etc. How do I answer these questions in such a way that it sounds like I paid attention without making it sound like I paid TOO MUCH attention? And is it better for me to act like I'm being dragged to the event or do you think it's ok to show my enthusiasm for the dancing?
H. B."
Kudos on landing a chick who belly dances, dude. Well done.
I have to say, first of all, that chances are when your girlfriend asks you those kinds of questions, she's chatting about the show the same way anyone would after seeing any kind of show. Or she's fishing. One of the two. It can be hard to tell because women are sneaky.
But I can help you, with simple suggestions on how to answer such questions in a polite "I was watching the show" kind of way without venturing into "I had to take an extra ten minutes in the men's room at intermission" kind of a way.
For example, when she asks, "Did you notice when the one woman shimmied so hard her boobs almost fell out?" you can reply, "Thank goodness they didn't!" Just make sure to make it sound sincere - any sarcasm here could be the end of your relationship. As could expounding on the subject, thus turning yourself into the bumbling idiot in every romantic comedy movie ever made.
When she asks, "Did you notice the beading on the butts? The appliques?" simply reply, "No. I was listening to the music and didn't really notice." This will show you were paying attention to the show, but not oogling the other dancers.
When she asks, "Aren't the fifteen year-old's hip drops amazing?" it is okay to just let that question sink to the bottom of the conversation, never to be found again, not even by those guys who found the Titanic. There is no good answer to that question, so it's probably best to become violently ill, or have your mouth full to something that you can either spray at her when she asks (in an attempt to speak with your mouth full - if it looks like a spit-take, she'll get suspicious), or that you can "choke on" because you "swallowed wrong." In any case, a swift change of subject is the best response.
And finally, when she asks, "What did you think of the chest work?" tell her that hers was amazing and give her a quick kiss.
If you are dating a woman who belly dances, she gets it. She knows it is a type of performance and it is to be viewed as an art form, so she would probably appreciate it if you showed some sort of enthusiasm about going to see her show. Specifically, going to see her in her show. The other performers are blurs of color and jingles that just make her look that much better.
Got it?
Thank you, H.B. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
So my new girlfriend takes these bellydance classes and they have a performance coming up that's called a 'hafla.' I've been to one before, and she kept asking me all of these questions about the other dancers: "Did you notice when the one woman shimmied so hard her boobs almost fell out? Did you notice the beading on the butts? The appliques? Aren't the fifteen year-old's hip drops amazing? What did you think of the chest work?" etc. How do I answer these questions in such a way that it sounds like I paid attention without making it sound like I paid TOO MUCH attention? And is it better for me to act like I'm being dragged to the event or do you think it's ok to show my enthusiasm for the dancing?
H. B."
Kudos on landing a chick who belly dances, dude. Well done.
I have to say, first of all, that chances are when your girlfriend asks you those kinds of questions, she's chatting about the show the same way anyone would after seeing any kind of show. Or she's fishing. One of the two. It can be hard to tell because women are sneaky.
But I can help you, with simple suggestions on how to answer such questions in a polite "I was watching the show" kind of way without venturing into "I had to take an extra ten minutes in the men's room at intermission" kind of a way.
For example, when she asks, "Did you notice when the one woman shimmied so hard her boobs almost fell out?" you can reply, "Thank goodness they didn't!" Just make sure to make it sound sincere - any sarcasm here could be the end of your relationship. As could expounding on the subject, thus turning yourself into the bumbling idiot in every romantic comedy movie ever made.
When she asks, "Did you notice the beading on the butts? The appliques?" simply reply, "No. I was listening to the music and didn't really notice." This will show you were paying attention to the show, but not oogling the other dancers.
When she asks, "Aren't the fifteen year-old's hip drops amazing?" it is okay to just let that question sink to the bottom of the conversation, never to be found again, not even by those guys who found the Titanic. There is no good answer to that question, so it's probably best to become violently ill, or have your mouth full to something that you can either spray at her when she asks (in an attempt to speak with your mouth full - if it looks like a spit-take, she'll get suspicious), or that you can "choke on" because you "swallowed wrong." In any case, a swift change of subject is the best response.
And finally, when she asks, "What did you think of the chest work?" tell her that hers was amazing and give her a quick kiss.
If you are dating a woman who belly dances, she gets it. She knows it is a type of performance and it is to be viewed as an art form, so she would probably appreciate it if you showed some sort of enthusiasm about going to see her show. Specifically, going to see her in her show. The other performers are blurs of color and jingles that just make her look that much better.
Got it?
Thank you, H.B. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
"The Devil Wears Prada" - SPOILERS
L.W. asks,"Hey,
If you haven't seen the movie 'The Devil Wears Prada', then please don't read this question. I only recently saw the movie myself and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, so if you haven't seen it but plan to in the future, please stop reading now.
Dear Miss Kitty,
As Stephen Hawking once said, "the male mind is a weak tool," -- especially when it comes to understanding women. I am a guy who has somehow found myself in the middle of an argument with an old female friend and could sorely use some of your sage advice. It all began innocently enough when I finally got around to watching the film 'The Devil Wears Prada.' I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, especially the hero's journey the lead character undergoes armed only with her youthful 'courage and pluck.' What I failed to understand is why the film ends with this character getting back together with her lame boyfriend. Perhaps I failed to understand why he refused to emotionally support her for a single year working a job that would have provided her with a resume that would allow her to land any future job she chose. Instead of viewing her 'apprenticeship' as one would medical school or law school, her boyfriend and their 'friends' are shown to ridicule and undermine her at every opportunity (except when she discovers lingerie). His 'non-apology apology' at the conclusion of the film coupled with the fact that the most supportive action he ever took was feeding her leftover cheese makes it difficult for me to suspend my disbelief that this smart, charming, beautiful, hard-working woman would beg him to take her back.
So, I thought I had missed something and emailed a female friend for her take on the film. Her response:
'I have indeed seen Devil wears Prada. We used to joke about it a lot at my old job since we basically worked for the same woman. I do find it interesting that you've focused your attention on the side plot of this romance. And I don't recall her ever being subservient to him. I think the message of the story is about leading a life you chose, and that is by definition feminism. I don't think there is anything wrong with a nice boy who will cook you dinner when you've had a bad day. It's a lot better than what most gals have. She didn't stay with him because she had to and she checked out some other merchandise.
But then again, I left my high profile job for one where the money is less, but the respect is far greater. And I gave up searching for a powerful partner filled with money and excitement for a boy who listens to me, buys me ice cream and walks my dog at 4 am.'
I am now utterly confused. Is the boyfriend character in the film really a great guy and I'm just not seeing it? And why is my friend now angry with me?
L.W."
Hey, L.W. I had not previously seen the movie, but as I have promised to answer every question that is asked, I went to the video store, forked over $3.23, and watched the thing. I hadn't watched it previously because it didn't look like the kind of movie I would enjoy. And I was right.
I will say that Meryl Streep was brilliant as her character, but then, she's Meryl Friggin' Streep. And Stanley Tucci was lovely, as always, but then, he's Stanley Friggin' Tucci. So please keep in mind that nothing I say in the rest of this post is intended as a reflection on either of them. I thought they were great.
In general, though, I thought the film was crap. Sorry, the script was crap. Or maybe they just performed it crappily. Or maybe I just don't have a strong enough sense of disbelief to think that there is a world wherein this woman is considered fat and ugly. Oh no! They put a frumpy sweater on her and teased the bottom inch and a half of her hair! She's hideous! Yeah, not buyin' it. And I know that the modeling/fashion industry is really hard on the collective female self image, but I'm also not buyin' it that Ms. Hathaway is a size six. Her supposedly gorgeous coworker does not look smaller than Anne. She maybe just has smaller boobs. But she did manage to marry John Krasinsky, so good on ya, mate.
So okay, let's say that is just me and the rest of y'all are willing to buy into the plaid skirt = atrocious philosophy. Let's take a look at her relationships. She's living with a guy who has a dream of being a chef, and at the end of the film, he's moving to Boston to pursue his dreams and isn't that great? But like you observed, he begrudges her taking this annoying job at the magazine in pursuit of her dreams. Kind of a douche. And yes, she could have blown of the gala and gotten fired so she could be there for his birthday, but seriously, who is going to say to Dragon Lady boss, "I'm not going to go to this fabulous event where I get to wear amazing clothes and meet people who can further my career because my boyfriend will get pouty if I miss his birthday dinner?" Who does that? Yes, it is an option, but not an option that any career motivated-type person is going to take. Especially since we see at the beginning of the film that this is the only job she's even gotten an interview for since graduation. Has Boyfriend forgotten that if she loses her job, she also loses her paycheck? Which I'm guessing has to be a pretty decent size, considering how much she was able to turn her wardrobe around in such a short amount of time. Because really, do we honestly believe that Stanley Tucci is dressing her out of the sample closet every morning when she's too much of a cow to fit into anything they have back there in the first place? So yeah, you're right. Boyfriend is a douche. And your friend is also kind of right - we don't really see her being subservient to him, but she does come home with a cupcake and an apology which he refuses to take. I was waiting for her to scream, "I just passed up an opportunity to schmooze with the Editor-in-Chief of The New Yorker so I could bring you this sad little cupcake and you're pissed at me?" I would have. Or at least I'd like to think I would have. But yeah. He owes her an apology for being completely non-supportive of anything she does, except when she brings him free crap from work. But instead, she apologizes for REALLY NOT CHANGING AT ALL.
That's right. I said it. I don't see her change at all. Except her wardrobe. At the beginning, she's a strong, confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. At the end, she's a strong confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not, who dresses better. At no point in the film does she become a conniving bitch, even though she is made to think she is. Which brings me to the next two relationships that don't make any sense in this film.
Her best friend. Otherwise known as "the only non-Caucasian person in the film." Look at how diverse we are! One second, she's in love with Ms. Hathaway's character because she just received a really expensive, impossible to find, one of a kind handbag for free. FOR FREE. And not ten seconds later, she's pissed that Ms. Hathaway "slights" her to answer a call from her boss. Who was the provider of the beautiful free bag in the first place. Hello! If she doesn't take the call from her boss, and jump every time her boss tells her to, she doesn't get all the pretty pretty swag which she then gives to you. That scene might have made more sense if as Anne was walking out the door, the friend said, "Take your stupid bag with you. I'd rather have dinner with my friend." But no, she sits clutching the bag like it's her precious, scowling at the person who just gave it to her. And then we flash to a few nights later when Anne shows up to her friend's art show. Anne's being supportive! Which none of her friends have bothered to be of her, but she's there. And the friend witnesses a kiss on the cheek between Anne and an "unknown gentleman" and all of a sudden, Anne isn't the person she knew anymore? What? They weren't making out. They were talking and he kissed her goodbye the way you'd kiss your grandmother goodbye. Hell, I'm willing to bet that 85% of the people in the fashion industry say goodbye that way. But without even letting her get a word out, bam! They're not friends anymore. No thank you for the bag, but I'm keeping it anyway.
And then, the relationship with the coworker across the corridor. Who is horrible to Anne through the entire movie. Seriously, she never does one nice thing for her. Makes fun of her to her face. Tells her to shut up and go away when she tries to make small talk. Is a selfish, self-centered bitch. And Anne, for some unknown reason, feels this devotion to her, as if she owed her something. This person has never been nice to you. There is no indication that this person will ever be nice to you. You do not have to feel guilty for doing a better job at work than she does. This is the straw that supposedly breaks her at the end of the film - she "took" the trip to Paris away from Emily. Except no, she didn't. She worked harder and proved herself to be more reliable (and less germ-ridden and less on-crutches-after-being-hit-by-a-car), and she was rewarded for that. Sure, she could have turned it down, but first of all, who would turn down a promotion for a co-worker who treats you like shit, and secondly, there was no guarantee that Emily would have gone to Paris if Anne hadn't. Meryl says that she wants to take the best team with her to Fashion Week and that no longer includes Emily. Which, to me, sounds more like Emily screwed herself out of a trip to Paris than anything sneaky and conniving that Anne did. Especially since Anne does nothing sneaky and conniving in the entire film.
And just because I have a little bit of a rant left in me, her relationship with Stanley Tucci's character. He's marvelous. The more I see of him, the more I like him. But he's not exactly welcoming of her when she joins the company. He, too, calls her fat and makes fun of her clothes. So she goes to him when she's having a bad day and needs advice? What? When did they become friends? Yes, they become friends later in the film, after she lets him play with her wardrobe, but that's kind of random and needy, don't you think? If anyone in the film had the right to be irked by her behavior, it was him. And he was not. He grew to love her and find her charming and delightful. So why don't any of her friends love her and find her charming and delightful?
And why does she take the non-supportive boyfriend back at the end of the film? Because as much as she wants to be the strong, powerful woman who knows what she wants, she is most comfortable in abusive relationships. It's the only explanation, really. It explains why she chose those friends in the first place. It explains why she didn't walk away from that job a half-dozen times. It explains why it becomes so important to her to impress Meryl. It explains why she feels some twisted loyalty to Emily. She may be a good writer, and she may be a beautiful woman. But from where I was sitting, I saw a woman who has some really screwed up ideas of what relationships are supposed to be, so it really was no surprise that after everyone has beaten her down through the entire film, she goes crawling back to her bum of a boyfriend (who she will probably leave New York for) under the guises of "this is my choice." If you really wanted to choose something good for yourself, a happy life for yourself, you would choose to get rid of all of the abusive relationships in it, not just quit your job. And she didn't even use the connections she made in the craptastic job! Not really. She interviews at the end for "The New York Mirror." She supposedly just "sold her soul" to get a credit on her resume that would take her anywhere so she "chooses" to go to Sheboygan? Really? If you can do anything, you're going to write for a paper nobody reads? Okay. Sure. This is a film about feminism and female power and choosing the life you lead. I can't wait to show this to my daughters to teach them to work extremely hard and be extremely nice so they can settle for eighth best and call it a "choice."
And I suppose I now sound like the Meryl Streep character. Oh well.
I'm sorry. I was supposed to be answering a question, but instead I'm ripping on a film. In short, no, the boyfriend is not a good guy. I was kind of sickened when she went back to him at the end. I would prefer a guy like your friend has, who would listen to me and buy me ice cream and walk my dog (if I had one). I think your friend, though, may have been equating your thoughts on the boyfriend in the film to her boyfriend in real life. Because we also need to mention the other romantic interest in the film (the guy with too much product in his hair), who is probably like the "powerful partner filled with money and excitement" that your friend gave up looking for. Which she probably took to mean you meant she wound up with the boyfriend from the film, who you were calling a douche, ergo, you were calling her boyfriend a douche. Which is why she is upset with you. Go apologize to your friend. And then go watch a good movie, where the lead character goes on a journey somewhere more interesting than to the mall.
Thank you, J.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
If you haven't seen the movie 'The Devil Wears Prada', then please don't read this question. I only recently saw the movie myself and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, so if you haven't seen it but plan to in the future, please stop reading now.
Dear Miss Kitty,
As Stephen Hawking once said, "the male mind is a weak tool," -- especially when it comes to understanding women. I am a guy who has somehow found myself in the middle of an argument with an old female friend and could sorely use some of your sage advice. It all began innocently enough when I finally got around to watching the film 'The Devil Wears Prada.' I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, especially the hero's journey the lead character undergoes armed only with her youthful 'courage and pluck.' What I failed to understand is why the film ends with this character getting back together with her lame boyfriend. Perhaps I failed to understand why he refused to emotionally support her for a single year working a job that would have provided her with a resume that would allow her to land any future job she chose. Instead of viewing her 'apprenticeship' as one would medical school or law school, her boyfriend and their 'friends' are shown to ridicule and undermine her at every opportunity (except when she discovers lingerie). His 'non-apology apology' at the conclusion of the film coupled with the fact that the most supportive action he ever took was feeding her leftover cheese makes it difficult for me to suspend my disbelief that this smart, charming, beautiful, hard-working woman would beg him to take her back.
So, I thought I had missed something and emailed a female friend for her take on the film. Her response:
'I have indeed seen Devil wears Prada. We used to joke about it a lot at my old job since we basically worked for the same woman. I do find it interesting that you've focused your attention on the side plot of this romance. And I don't recall her ever being subservient to him. I think the message of the story is about leading a life you chose, and that is by definition feminism. I don't think there is anything wrong with a nice boy who will cook you dinner when you've had a bad day. It's a lot better than what most gals have. She didn't stay with him because she had to and she checked out some other merchandise.
But then again, I left my high profile job for one where the money is less, but the respect is far greater. And I gave up searching for a powerful partner filled with money and excitement for a boy who listens to me, buys me ice cream and walks my dog at 4 am.'
I am now utterly confused. Is the boyfriend character in the film really a great guy and I'm just not seeing it? And why is my friend now angry with me?
L.W."
Hey, L.W. I had not previously seen the movie, but as I have promised to answer every question that is asked, I went to the video store, forked over $3.23, and watched the thing. I hadn't watched it previously because it didn't look like the kind of movie I would enjoy. And I was right.
I will say that Meryl Streep was brilliant as her character, but then, she's Meryl Friggin' Streep. And Stanley Tucci was lovely, as always, but then, he's Stanley Friggin' Tucci. So please keep in mind that nothing I say in the rest of this post is intended as a reflection on either of them. I thought they were great.
In general, though, I thought the film was crap. Sorry, the script was crap. Or maybe they just performed it crappily. Or maybe I just don't have a strong enough sense of disbelief to think that there is a world wherein this woman is considered fat and ugly. Oh no! They put a frumpy sweater on her and teased the bottom inch and a half of her hair! She's hideous! Yeah, not buyin' it. And I know that the modeling/fashion industry is really hard on the collective female self image, but I'm also not buyin' it that Ms. Hathaway is a size six. Her supposedly gorgeous coworker does not look smaller than Anne. She maybe just has smaller boobs. But she did manage to marry John Krasinsky, so good on ya, mate.
So okay, let's say that is just me and the rest of y'all are willing to buy into the plaid skirt = atrocious philosophy. Let's take a look at her relationships. She's living with a guy who has a dream of being a chef, and at the end of the film, he's moving to Boston to pursue his dreams and isn't that great? But like you observed, he begrudges her taking this annoying job at the magazine in pursuit of her dreams. Kind of a douche. And yes, she could have blown of the gala and gotten fired so she could be there for his birthday, but seriously, who is going to say to Dragon Lady boss, "I'm not going to go to this fabulous event where I get to wear amazing clothes and meet people who can further my career because my boyfriend will get pouty if I miss his birthday dinner?" Who does that? Yes, it is an option, but not an option that any career motivated-type person is going to take. Especially since we see at the beginning of the film that this is the only job she's even gotten an interview for since graduation. Has Boyfriend forgotten that if she loses her job, she also loses her paycheck? Which I'm guessing has to be a pretty decent size, considering how much she was able to turn her wardrobe around in such a short amount of time. Because really, do we honestly believe that Stanley Tucci is dressing her out of the sample closet every morning when she's too much of a cow to fit into anything they have back there in the first place? So yeah, you're right. Boyfriend is a douche. And your friend is also kind of right - we don't really see her being subservient to him, but she does come home with a cupcake and an apology which he refuses to take. I was waiting for her to scream, "I just passed up an opportunity to schmooze with the Editor-in-Chief of The New Yorker so I could bring you this sad little cupcake and you're pissed at me?" I would have. Or at least I'd like to think I would have. But yeah. He owes her an apology for being completely non-supportive of anything she does, except when she brings him free crap from work. But instead, she apologizes for REALLY NOT CHANGING AT ALL.
That's right. I said it. I don't see her change at all. Except her wardrobe. At the beginning, she's a strong, confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. At the end, she's a strong confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not, who dresses better. At no point in the film does she become a conniving bitch, even though she is made to think she is. Which brings me to the next two relationships that don't make any sense in this film.
Her best friend. Otherwise known as "the only non-Caucasian person in the film." Look at how diverse we are! One second, she's in love with Ms. Hathaway's character because she just received a really expensive, impossible to find, one of a kind handbag for free. FOR FREE. And not ten seconds later, she's pissed that Ms. Hathaway "slights" her to answer a call from her boss. Who was the provider of the beautiful free bag in the first place. Hello! If she doesn't take the call from her boss, and jump every time her boss tells her to, she doesn't get all the pretty pretty swag which she then gives to you. That scene might have made more sense if as Anne was walking out the door, the friend said, "Take your stupid bag with you. I'd rather have dinner with my friend." But no, she sits clutching the bag like it's her precious, scowling at the person who just gave it to her. And then we flash to a few nights later when Anne shows up to her friend's art show. Anne's being supportive! Which none of her friends have bothered to be of her, but she's there. And the friend witnesses a kiss on the cheek between Anne and an "unknown gentleman" and all of a sudden, Anne isn't the person she knew anymore? What? They weren't making out. They were talking and he kissed her goodbye the way you'd kiss your grandmother goodbye. Hell, I'm willing to bet that 85% of the people in the fashion industry say goodbye that way. But without even letting her get a word out, bam! They're not friends anymore. No thank you for the bag, but I'm keeping it anyway.
And then, the relationship with the coworker across the corridor. Who is horrible to Anne through the entire movie. Seriously, she never does one nice thing for her. Makes fun of her to her face. Tells her to shut up and go away when she tries to make small talk. Is a selfish, self-centered bitch. And Anne, for some unknown reason, feels this devotion to her, as if she owed her something. This person has never been nice to you. There is no indication that this person will ever be nice to you. You do not have to feel guilty for doing a better job at work than she does. This is the straw that supposedly breaks her at the end of the film - she "took" the trip to Paris away from Emily. Except no, she didn't. She worked harder and proved herself to be more reliable (and less germ-ridden and less on-crutches-after-being-hit-by-a-car), and she was rewarded for that. Sure, she could have turned it down, but first of all, who would turn down a promotion for a co-worker who treats you like shit, and secondly, there was no guarantee that Emily would have gone to Paris if Anne hadn't. Meryl says that she wants to take the best team with her to Fashion Week and that no longer includes Emily. Which, to me, sounds more like Emily screwed herself out of a trip to Paris than anything sneaky and conniving that Anne did. Especially since Anne does nothing sneaky and conniving in the entire film.
And just because I have a little bit of a rant left in me, her relationship with Stanley Tucci's character. He's marvelous. The more I see of him, the more I like him. But he's not exactly welcoming of her when she joins the company. He, too, calls her fat and makes fun of her clothes. So she goes to him when she's having a bad day and needs advice? What? When did they become friends? Yes, they become friends later in the film, after she lets him play with her wardrobe, but that's kind of random and needy, don't you think? If anyone in the film had the right to be irked by her behavior, it was him. And he was not. He grew to love her and find her charming and delightful. So why don't any of her friends love her and find her charming and delightful?
And why does she take the non-supportive boyfriend back at the end of the film? Because as much as she wants to be the strong, powerful woman who knows what she wants, she is most comfortable in abusive relationships. It's the only explanation, really. It explains why she chose those friends in the first place. It explains why she didn't walk away from that job a half-dozen times. It explains why it becomes so important to her to impress Meryl. It explains why she feels some twisted loyalty to Emily. She may be a good writer, and she may be a beautiful woman. But from where I was sitting, I saw a woman who has some really screwed up ideas of what relationships are supposed to be, so it really was no surprise that after everyone has beaten her down through the entire film, she goes crawling back to her bum of a boyfriend (who she will probably leave New York for) under the guises of "this is my choice." If you really wanted to choose something good for yourself, a happy life for yourself, you would choose to get rid of all of the abusive relationships in it, not just quit your job. And she didn't even use the connections she made in the craptastic job! Not really. She interviews at the end for "The New York Mirror." She supposedly just "sold her soul" to get a credit on her resume that would take her anywhere so she "chooses" to go to Sheboygan? Really? If you can do anything, you're going to write for a paper nobody reads? Okay. Sure. This is a film about feminism and female power and choosing the life you lead. I can't wait to show this to my daughters to teach them to work extremely hard and be extremely nice so they can settle for eighth best and call it a "choice."
And I suppose I now sound like the Meryl Streep character. Oh well.
I'm sorry. I was supposed to be answering a question, but instead I'm ripping on a film. In short, no, the boyfriend is not a good guy. I was kind of sickened when she went back to him at the end. I would prefer a guy like your friend has, who would listen to me and buy me ice cream and walk my dog (if I had one). I think your friend, though, may have been equating your thoughts on the boyfriend in the film to her boyfriend in real life. Because we also need to mention the other romantic interest in the film (the guy with too much product in his hair), who is probably like the "powerful partner filled with money and excitement" that your friend gave up looking for. Which she probably took to mean you meant she wound up with the boyfriend from the film, who you were calling a douche, ergo, you were calling her boyfriend a douche. Which is why she is upset with you. Go apologize to your friend. And then go watch a good movie, where the lead character goes on a journey somewhere more interesting than to the mall.
Thank you, J.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Monday, December 6, 2010
Tolerance
J.M. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty:
I believe that I'm intelligent enough to know that the deeply-ingrained nature of a large chunk of the US that is "against" LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage and elimination of DADT, is that they are not actually "homophobic," per se, in that they
literally have a "fear of homosexuals," but rather that they simply have an aversion to homosexuals or the idea of same-sex activity.
I understand that there is a religious justification to be "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity, but many of the folks "against" LGBTs neither "fear" them, nor use religious justification for persecution.
So my question is, what other justifications are there for the social "othering" and persecution of LGBT Americans, does sexuality and sexual attraction have a moral standard outside of religion, and why is the resistance to LGBT acceptance so intense even in secular America?"
Hi, J.M.
First of all, I don't think there are any legitimate justifications for being "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity.
None.
I'm saying that right out at the front so everyone knows what kind of post this will be. If you disagree with me on that point, you may want to stop reading right now because I will offend you. But that is my opinion, one I hold very dear, and I am allowed to have that opinion as much as you are allowed to disagree with it.
Now, that being said, there are a lot of people out there who still feel kind of ooky when they see two men kiss (and for those of you who have no problem with it, those are three separate links, for which I will just say, "You're welcome"). Okay, they have a hang-up. That's their business.
I think the larger issue here is that America is, really, a very sexually repressed country. We like to think we are advanced, but we're not. I would go so far to say that it is only in the last few years that the idea of heterosexual sex with the woman on top became mainstream. Prior to that, it meant she was a crazy sex-fiend lunatic and that poor man she's with had better watch out because there's no telling what she'll do to him.
We are taught from a very young age to be ashamed of our bodies. Keep everything hidden. Don't touch anyone or let anyone touch you because it might lead to something bad. And certainly don't let anyone that you like know that you like them because that means opening yourself up to someone which means you will get hurt and oh dear god, we should never ever ever allow ourselves to get hurt!
But even when they try to be open about it and teach us about sex in school, it is done from a very sterile, clinical perspective. "When the man becomes aroused, he experiences increased blood flow to the penis, which then becomes hard." There is absolutely no discussion about what happens to make him become aroused. And all of those poor little boys running around wearing corduroy pants that just feel so good start to think they are crazy because their own pants turned them on. There is nobody to tell them that this is normal, and that it doesn't mean they are in love with corduroy pants and need to marry corduroy pants someday to have little half-human half-pants children, that it's all just a matter of their hormones going ape shit at the moment. And, of course, since he's too embarrassed to say anything, it becomes a shameful secret, which (oddly) then makes him get more turned on by his own pants and it becomes this vicious cycle wherein he asks all of his adult sexual partners to invest in corduroy undergarments. All because we were taught only the mechanics of heterosexual sex in school, but none of the other physical, spiritual, or emotional components of intimacy.
So we're weird about sex in general. It's how we are. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad. It is the state of our culture right now. Americans are weird about sex. We're fine with watching people blow one another up in movies and video games, but as soon as there is intimacy involved, that shit gets an NC-17 rating and your friends and colleagues look at you funny if you express any interest in seeing that film or playing that video game.
What makes this so hard for the LGBT community, then, is that for people who are not LGBT, that is a completely foreign kind of sex. Completely. A lot of them can't even figure out the mechanics of it. Yes, it is true that a lot of people out there are also unfamiliar with things like bondage, but they can at least try it on a smaller scale in the comfort of their own bedroom and they get to feel all naughty for using silk scarves in their basically missionary sex. It is close to the realm of the imaginable. For men who are sexually repressed, the idea of things going into or coming out of certain orifices is just not imaginable. Therefore anyone who likes that sort of thing must be really friggin' weird. And seeing as the man in question is really repressed in the first place, he's not too keen on being anywhere near anyone who is really friggin' weird. Which is probably better for us weirdos. He just happens to be really loud, too, which is annoying.
I think that that same sexually repressed man is also weirded out by people with fetishes, exhibitionists, any person whose sexual experience isn't exactly like his. He thinks he knows what sex is and what sex is supposed to be and anyone who does anything else is wrong. Because if there is the possibility that they are right in what they are doing, then he must be wrong and a deviant and all of that stuff, which just really doesn't fit in with his world view.
The thing is, people with fetishes and exhibitionists and the like aren't as vocal as the LGBT community. I'm not saying that if the LGBT community would just shut up that things would be fine - I am not advocating that AT ALL. If anything, I'm saying the exhibitionists should speak up more. Sex is a very personal thing. A VERY personal thing. I might even go so far as to say that people's sexual preferences are like snowflakes - no two people are turned on by exactly the same thing. And maybe if as a society, we were more aware of just how diverse everyone's tastes are, we'd be more accepting of all of them. And more accepting of ourselves.
I kind of have to thank the LGBT community for being the trailblazers here. It's not easy to be the first to say, "We like something that is different to what you like," so thank you for doing that. Hopefully someday we'll all be able to talk openly about sex and preferences and such without anyone getting hurt.
Thank you, J.M. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
I believe that I'm intelligent enough to know that the deeply-ingrained nature of a large chunk of the US that is "against" LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage and elimination of DADT, is that they are not actually "homophobic," per se, in that they
literally have a "fear of homosexuals," but rather that they simply have an aversion to homosexuals or the idea of same-sex activity.
I understand that there is a religious justification to be "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity, but many of the folks "against" LGBTs neither "fear" them, nor use religious justification for persecution.
So my question is, what other justifications are there for the social "othering" and persecution of LGBT Americans, does sexuality and sexual attraction have a moral standard outside of religion, and why is the resistance to LGBT acceptance so intense even in secular America?"
Hi, J.M.
First of all, I don't think there are any legitimate justifications for being "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity.
None.
I'm saying that right out at the front so everyone knows what kind of post this will be. If you disagree with me on that point, you may want to stop reading right now because I will offend you. But that is my opinion, one I hold very dear, and I am allowed to have that opinion as much as you are allowed to disagree with it.
Now, that being said, there are a lot of people out there who still feel kind of ooky when they see two men kiss (and for those of you who have no problem with it, those are three separate links, for which I will just say, "You're welcome"). Okay, they have a hang-up. That's their business.
I think the larger issue here is that America is, really, a very sexually repressed country. We like to think we are advanced, but we're not. I would go so far to say that it is only in the last few years that the idea of heterosexual sex with the woman on top became mainstream. Prior to that, it meant she was a crazy sex-fiend lunatic and that poor man she's with had better watch out because there's no telling what she'll do to him.
We are taught from a very young age to be ashamed of our bodies. Keep everything hidden. Don't touch anyone or let anyone touch you because it might lead to something bad. And certainly don't let anyone that you like know that you like them because that means opening yourself up to someone which means you will get hurt and oh dear god, we should never ever ever allow ourselves to get hurt!
But even when they try to be open about it and teach us about sex in school, it is done from a very sterile, clinical perspective. "When the man becomes aroused, he experiences increased blood flow to the penis, which then becomes hard." There is absolutely no discussion about what happens to make him become aroused. And all of those poor little boys running around wearing corduroy pants that just feel so good start to think they are crazy because their own pants turned them on. There is nobody to tell them that this is normal, and that it doesn't mean they are in love with corduroy pants and need to marry corduroy pants someday to have little half-human half-pants children, that it's all just a matter of their hormones going ape shit at the moment. And, of course, since he's too embarrassed to say anything, it becomes a shameful secret, which (oddly) then makes him get more turned on by his own pants and it becomes this vicious cycle wherein he asks all of his adult sexual partners to invest in corduroy undergarments. All because we were taught only the mechanics of heterosexual sex in school, but none of the other physical, spiritual, or emotional components of intimacy.
So we're weird about sex in general. It's how we are. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad. It is the state of our culture right now. Americans are weird about sex. We're fine with watching people blow one another up in movies and video games, but as soon as there is intimacy involved, that shit gets an NC-17 rating and your friends and colleagues look at you funny if you express any interest in seeing that film or playing that video game.
What makes this so hard for the LGBT community, then, is that for people who are not LGBT, that is a completely foreign kind of sex. Completely. A lot of them can't even figure out the mechanics of it. Yes, it is true that a lot of people out there are also unfamiliar with things like bondage, but they can at least try it on a smaller scale in the comfort of their own bedroom and they get to feel all naughty for using silk scarves in their basically missionary sex. It is close to the realm of the imaginable. For men who are sexually repressed, the idea of things going into or coming out of certain orifices is just not imaginable. Therefore anyone who likes that sort of thing must be really friggin' weird. And seeing as the man in question is really repressed in the first place, he's not too keen on being anywhere near anyone who is really friggin' weird. Which is probably better for us weirdos. He just happens to be really loud, too, which is annoying.
I think that that same sexually repressed man is also weirded out by people with fetishes, exhibitionists, any person whose sexual experience isn't exactly like his. He thinks he knows what sex is and what sex is supposed to be and anyone who does anything else is wrong. Because if there is the possibility that they are right in what they are doing, then he must be wrong and a deviant and all of that stuff, which just really doesn't fit in with his world view.
The thing is, people with fetishes and exhibitionists and the like aren't as vocal as the LGBT community. I'm not saying that if the LGBT community would just shut up that things would be fine - I am not advocating that AT ALL. If anything, I'm saying the exhibitionists should speak up more. Sex is a very personal thing. A VERY personal thing. I might even go so far as to say that people's sexual preferences are like snowflakes - no two people are turned on by exactly the same thing. And maybe if as a society, we were more aware of just how diverse everyone's tastes are, we'd be more accepting of all of them. And more accepting of ourselves.
I kind of have to thank the LGBT community for being the trailblazers here. It's not easy to be the first to say, "We like something that is different to what you like," so thank you for doing that. Hopefully someday we'll all be able to talk openly about sex and preferences and such without anyone getting hurt.
Thank you, J.M. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)