About Me #1: Love

["About me" posts, despite their name, are meant to have some relevancy to the reader as well. See my introduction to them here.]

Yet another unexpected twist.. this was not what I had prepared as the first "about me" post, but regular readers (all, like, two of you) already know my best-laid plans consistently seem to combust before they've ever been made. In this case, I'll even say what triggered the sudden switcheroo: I was dumped today, though in rather frustrating, "you're basically great in every way. Goodbye" style. Liked her, too, dammit. So yes, I'm going to write some of my thoughts about love, no less - in hindsight, the best first "about me" I could have (not) planned for..

Up until not too long ago, I was in a fairly bad mental trap where relationships were concerned: For one thing, they were few and far between; consequently, this made being in one all the more fateful to me. Both combined - it's sort of a chicken and egg situation - meant that every new potential "match" underwent severe scrutiny for the extra long haul.. i.e. "is this the person I would want to be with? Do I really want to compromise? it's my friggin life we're talking about here.." I was ratcheting up cons faster than I could type the word "pro". I'm oversimplifying tremendously here, and doing myself something of an injustice, but overall I would have to admit I may have been a little trigger-happy on the ol' "abort" button. The basic outlook was as much testing her as just trying to enjoy time spent with her. I was disproportionally focusing on all the ways she differed from what I thought I knew I needed. Sounds long-winded, but read that last sentence again - if you're single and wondering why, I'll bet at least some of it applies to you as well!

Anyway, a series of events I won't go into, combined with some unlikely but gradual maturation, has brought me to (what I'd like to think is) a (healthy?) new attitude on the whole issue of relationships, what makes us tick, etc:

First of all, I'm a romantic at heart - I believe that true love exists. I don't, though, believe in a shopping-list of traits that make up the person who is somehow "right for me". I've dropped that one altogether. I believe everything you go through in life, including relations but not limited to them, changes you and (usually) brings you closer to a phase that's right for you. At different stages along the way, you're open to different types of people - all, of course, on their own journeys - with whom you're receptive and capable of real love. These changes are different from person to person and, more importantly, you can't know when you've hit the right phase for which person, nor how to induce or prolong it. When we're there we're there, and we won't know until we see its results in hindsight. Am I essentially talking about maturity here? yes, but not only. It's your maturity and your experiences that make you receptive enough for true love. Or if you prefer, it is all about maturity, but experiences help to build it.

Two important qualifications: this is still a two-way street. Whatever phase you're in, you still have to find someone who'se there as well, which is what makes it so evasive to many of us. Also, I'm not sidestepping the vitally important issue of physical attraction. If anything, I think physical attraction is the only glue that can sustain a relationship, especially in its early stages when a couple are still getting to know each other. Talk is nice but, you know, come on... ;)

Now, I know this is all a little unclear, so here are some of the ramifications of what I'm saying, that might help make it a little more tangible:

a) There's no "The right person for me", there's being in the right place for this person. love has as much to do with where you are as it does with the other person. You have to be receptive to it, and if you're not there, you're not there. It explains those situations when you wonder what's wrong with you: you think someone's a really teriffic person, charming, funny, engaging, smart, mature, exciting, responsible, good-hearted, whatever you like - elastic - yet the spark just isn't there. You're not (necessarily) a bad person for it.

b) Don't think in terms of trait checklists. Give him/her a real chance even if they seem very different to you on paper. You don't ever fully know who'se right for you. You don't know where you are on this route, so yes, go with your instincts, but be flexible with what you've been so sure is or is not acceptable. what you "need" in the other person is dynamic, changing as you do. Also, a lot of the stuff you're looking for in a meaningful relationship can only come out/be built over time. That really sucks - especially for us impatient guys - but it's true.

c) This isn't be-all and end-all. Noone's getting married. (Yet.)

d) Don't moan and groan about your "failed" relationships and stinging break-ups. In most cases they've taught you something, they've made you more mature. It was something you had to go through and, like I mentioned above, you'll only realize later how or why.

I'm aware this is all something of a leap of faith, that I can't prove any of it, but then that's what love is all about anyway. If you still believe it's out there, take this post as some friendly advice from a fellow romantic.

Interim Report: "I Love Rock'N'Roll"!

Banality warning: this will be one of those posts...
--------

Yeah, I haven't posted in a while, I know. In explaining this to a good friend, he suggested I post about that. Touche!

The thing is, after returning from the gigantic tour (mentioned briefly elsewhere), I had been incarcerated at my folks home for a few weeks as I'd badly sprained my ankle. This meant, among other things, watching stairs become virtually impenetrable walls, having a hell of a time trying to shower - you hobble along with one foot up in the air and try to get in there! - and, most importantly, being away from my guitars. This last fact, combined with taking time off from work, meant I had all the time in the world to post on this here thang. Turns out blogging's awefully time-intensive (isn't everything?)

I've since gotten much better, thank you, and am back in the confines of my own apartment, a veritable sea of guitars at hand. So I've gotten sidetracked. But watch this space. I'm not giving up the war, possibly the battle. Or the other way around. The point is, we shall rise to fight another day. A day in which "job" is but an afterthought, and guitars, with their sinewy shapes and beckoning essentia, will be far from my mind. In other words, I'll keep posting but expect sporad..icy? icism? icness? icity? icitness? eosity?*

"You men, always with the commitment issues". WHY? Why make this a gender thing? Listen, ya little squirt, it's my blog and I'll post when I want to / post when I want to / post when I want to.

Catch y'all later!


* I could go all day, baby, aaaaaallll day....


------- !!UPDATE!! -----------

Hah! How quickly things change.. my next post is dangerously near completion. I can practically hear the palpitations.

The Ultimate Open Challenge: the Two-Girl Fortress

OK, I know I said I'd post more about myself, but it's a fast-paced world out there. If something springs up urgently, well, damned if I don't write about it! Fear not (I'm sure you do..), the first "about me" post is under construction, awaiting my next stretch of concentration... Anyway:

I'm going to give you a puzzle to try to solve, and I welcome any and all attempts to crack it, ok?

here's the situation: I go out to a bar/restaurant-type place. As I enter, I notice a girl who catches my fancy. Great! now I'm psyched.. I sit at a table, with my good (male) friend. she's having a lively chat with her girlfriend. they're sitting two tables down from us, her friend facing me, "my" girl with her back to me. and now the question: what on earth do I do?

This is a TGF, Two-Girl Fortress*. It's impenetrable to me. And it exists virtually everywhere I go. Now, there are occasional circumstances that make it possible - difficult, but possible. At a bar, for instance, I might be able to sit next to her and start a conversation. Even table situations can sometimes work, if I can initiate eye-contact and see what the response is. If she sends enough of a "go ahead" smile, I might actually work myself up to doing something about it. But in this case - with no physical proximity or eye-contact - I'm dead in the water. I'd call it a UTGF (Ultimate TGF) if it weren't too long and cumbersome.

Here's my problem: I need a ruse. I cannot, under any circumstances, walk up to two girls in the middle of a conversation and say "hi", without having some reasonable excuse for doing it. I'm towering above them as they sit, I'm cutting into their lively conversation, and I'm still basically nobody to them. I don't care if she or both are single and looking; I don't care how many times you'll tell me it's "normal" and "expected" and "flattering"; I don't care if you've uncovered her secret diary expressly saying she wishes someone who looked just like me would walk up to her right in the middle of a conversation and start talking - I will never feel like anything other than an intrusive stranger butting in. My price for being civilized.

A priceless piece of advice I've heard is to ask to join the table. If you suggest that, you obviously haven't been reading. join the table? Are you kidding me?? Look, I'm aware this might not be nearly as unacceptable as it feels like to me, but I need a minimal level of truthfulness with myself, because I'm extremely transparent - I'm no actor. If what I'm feeling is that I'm an intrusive stranger, I can't try to exude this charming, nice guy who's confidently asking to join the table like it's perfectly natural for me. It ain't. Doing that is like trying to stab myself in the hand with a fork - just can't do it!

I've gotten all sorts of well-intended advice on this subject, but it's all regretfully immaterial to the basic problem: how do i interrupt two strangers' conversation with little or no acting ability? Solve this one, and you've solved one of (my) life's greatest mysteries!


* I know we've said we'll use "lady", but it really doesn't work in this context.

About Me - Intro

I'm really quite new to this whole blogging thing.. I've started reading a few to get a sense of how things work, and one nagging feeling keeps popping up: who are you? I never feel I know the person writing.. I don't mean I need to know anyone's shoe size or inclination on Nietzschean theories of Transgressive Ethno-Hippopotamy, but I'd like to know a little about the person who took the effort to write whatever it is I'm reading. Many of these bloggers seem to be writing essentially to their group of friends - though at the same time they obviously want as many readers as possible to comment on their trip to the ATM or how Gregory and Muriel are getting married. Others seem to write a strong opinion piece and then fade right back into the shadow of their own anonymity.

Needless to say, things come across between the lines - a touch of dryness in "Ex-Brooklyn-ite furious about our defeatist government"'s writing, some pop-culture saturation in "thought I left England behind but it followed me", a certain je ne sais quoi about "Religious Mom X's" - but overall, without a clue as to who these people actually are, they're writing missives without a source. The anonymity has a certain advantage to it for polemical/political-style blogs, where the writer may well prefer to leave her/himself out for "purity of argument"'s sake, but most of the more personal/anecdotal blogs seem strangely up in the air.

So I'm going to tell you, by drips and drabs, about myself, so far as I can tell. now, hold on.. I know this sounds like a practice in sheer vanity, but I'll try to keep it somewhat relevant to, well, people besides myself. So, to be continued. That is, if I stay on track long enough to follow through on this idea and not just write some more about Jerusalem girls ladies. mmm....


----------- PS ------------

I'm working on it, I'm working on it.. The first part'll be up in the next day or too. Meanwhile, read my other posts. They're grrreat!

Them American Ladies

Was horrified to see my last two posts were political, as if what I really care about isn't what all my fellow male hetero 28-year-olds care about: women.

Or can I use "girls"? "women" sounds so old to me - when I think of that word, I see a faded, 1910's photo of a girdled 55-year-old with a shower cap on. But can I use "girls" without sounding patronizing? I'll go with that term simply because it fits the excitement, curiosity and intellectual and emotional inspiration (I mean that!) that you girls awaken in us, far better than "women". You're with me, right? I mean, if I say "I like women", it only works if I slur the last syllable because I'm a toothless 88-year-old blind blues player: "Ah like wiMUH". Sheesh, four hundred trillion words in the English language and they can't come up with something that captures the spirit better than "girls" or "women"..

So yeah, I'm talking about those females in their 20s and 30s, who inevitably draw the attention of us males in our 20s and 30s. Whatever, if you've decided I'm a sexist pig by now, I'm better off without you. :) But if you know what I'm talking about, welcome, fellow 20-39 year-old singles. [in Stewie Griffin accent] You know exaaactly what I mean.

Background info: I Just got back from a month and a half tour of the States with a rock band I won't name. It was a serious tour, a tour tour: 37 shows played, 11000 miles driven (that's close to 18000 Kms for you locally bred folk), all in 46 days. We were everywhere from NY and Boston to Texas to LA to Seattle and back east, east coast, west coast, midwest, south, everywhere. Hell, we even hit Ashville (not Nashville, Ashville), Tennessee. It was the whole rock'n'roll shebang. I don't mean Led Zeppelin style - we're not big and certainly not famous - but more along the spirit of that AC/DC song... roughing it, the long drives, meager food, sleeping on floors but loving every minute of it.

"will you get to the girls already?" Well, not to disappoint but I'm not going to divulge any details of my romantic encounters.. Just isn't that kind of blog. But I would like to point out the difference, nay, gulf that exists between the girls I've met here - at least in Jerusalem - and those I met over there.

Maaaahn, what a difference. I'm really a shy guy. I don't mean with any self-esteem problems, just shy - it's awkward for me to strike up a conversation with a total stranger. But on tour, I could talk with any of them. True, they were softened, so to speak, by my brilliant performance in the rock band, but still.. I was struck by this culture of politeness that meant I could feel comfortable talking with any girl. And if I thought "hey, I like her, maybe I'll make a move", that was fine; and if not - that was fine too. The whole thing just was not such a big deal. I mean, god, over here, the whole exercise is so fraught with suspicion and stress. you just get near an Israeli girl and they give you this look. Try talking with her - there's always, alllllways a friend with her - and she excuses you with a withering comment. That is if you haven't gotten a squaker who all but hollers "rape! rape!" because she's used to all these other low-life creeps hitting on her. It's hard. It's hardened me. I would never have written something like this - I truly, truly fall into the nice-guy category - if I weren't frustrated at, well, being in the nice-guy category.

It was a real change of pace over there. I could talk to a girl, and even if she wasn't interested, if she already had a boyfriend, then she would bring it up, but gently. Nothing's sudden, nothing gives a bad taste to the evening. They won't blow the wind right out of you and leave you just wanting to go home, like Israeli girls can. We would both feel like we had a pleasant conversation and we're both really nice people and we actually found each other pretty attractive but we won't act on it because she has a boyfriend but it's been very nice talking and where do you go tomorrow and you guys rocked and.... All very pleasant.

So is there anything I can do? Is there any kind of positive action I can take to try to make Jerusalem's Bnot Yisrael (daughters of Israel) a little less paranoid and a little more friendly? No. but if some of you readers fit this description, or know those who do, spread the word: not all of us are lowlife chimpanzees. If you close off all access because you're fed up with them, which I can understand, just remember you're also blocking off us well-meaning guys.

And then we'll be reduced to blogging about it...


------ IMPORTANT UPDATE ---------

I graciously accept your proposals to use "ladies". thanks tafkaPP and Dooby!

Momkiss - thanks for the advice. I keep hearing that (the "be yourself" bit) so often, I'm beginning to think it might even true!

Tafkapp - brilliant. sure, it renders entire paragraphs obsolete, but hey - I enjoyed writing them..

Dooby - coming for you, anything sounds suave. But I know what ya mean..

Angela - you're definately a girl - to you. but I needed a word that captures what the girls are to me - and "ladies" is pretty damn close. now PUT YOUR HANDS UP IN THE AIR! AND WAVE EM LIKE YA JUST DON'T CARE! BOOYAAAAH! P.S. - All the way from Edmonton, wow. so.. hi!

"They are Trying to Get Rid of Us in any Way Possible"

..said Ahmed Tibi. This is in response to various proposals for electoral reform that suggest raising the electoral threshold to five percent. Tibi's claim is that the Arab sector is harmed in that the three major Arab-sector parties - Rahat-Ta'al, Balad and Hadash - will be forced to merge, thus proving anti-Arab electoral tinkering. Without getting into politics (though, I suppose, who am I kidding really..), Tibi's accusations are unfounded.

Tibi's claim of discrimination in the proposed new electoral systems is only valid if they cut back dispropotionately more on the choices facing Arab voters than those for the rest of the population. The irony is that right now, in sharp contrast to Tibi's wailing, Arab voters are actually more "spoiled for choice", per voter, than the remaining population: in the last elections, the three Arab parties picked up a combined 252,944 votes, or roughly one party for every 85,000 Arab voters. The remaining 2,884,120 had 25 parties to split between them, or one for every 112,000. So per voter, the Arabs face more sector-based parties than do the voters represented by those Tibi is so certain "are trying to get rid of us".

Tibi claims the proposed changes will eliminate choice altogether by forcing the three parties to merge. I disagree.

The parties currently hold 10 seats in the Knesset. the proposed threshold will be 6 seats, and so this would still allow for two large Arab parties, provided the Arab parties invest enough effort in encouraging their constituency to care enough to vote. True, this eventuality will cut back on the choices - two parties instead of three - but is a far cry from no choice at all, and is presumably what most of the population wants in order to bring about a less fractured, more efficient Knesset. That a sector making up one tenth of the voter population will be faced with two large sector-oriented parties is still certainly reasonable.

Like any downsizing, like any act of "trimming the fat", the smaller contestants in the next race will all have to work harder to swim and not sink - Jewish and Arab alike. But there's no foul play here.