Well, I've been away for a while. A loong while - I'd previously managed at least one passing thought worthy of comitting to silicon every month or two but poof, it's a half year gone by. Yes, this can only mean one thing: I'm in a relationship.
Avid reader(s) may read enough between the lines of the previous 2-3 years to figure this hadn't really happened. And as my last post showed, I'd faced the cold reality of life squarely, and walked away a little dispirited, but at least comfortable with seeing the truth. That, of all times, was when lightning struck. (Substitute with Cupid reference of your choice).
The story is long and primarily our - and our friends' and parents' - business, but it's a good one. Which is nice. The point is, though, I'm still a freak. I mean, not a freak per se, but still a little out of step with some basic elements of living that others seem to pull off at reasonably well. And here comes someone who'se ok with that. And who fills a room with joy. and who'se laugh is... and who'se got so many things going for her, it's obvious she'd be taken when I was first seriously interested, as she was. Luckily, I had the chance to keep up the acquaintance and, with some uncanny luck and some major twists and turns, earn her willingness to put up with me. Which I'm still grateful for, several days shy of 5 months in.
It feels real, because we're both ourselves. It feels like a 30-something connection, not a 20-something one. We're formed people. We continue to be ourselves and have our separate interests, but luckily there's plenty of common ground and willingness to respect each other's space, and all kinds of mature stuff way ahead of what I - Mr. 1-2 dates guy - thought I could ever pull off at this stage. Unsurprisingly, I'm still occasionally doing some dumb s&%t and getting the right slack for it, but it's ok. We move on. This is real, and I love it. and her.
Now not to screw it up.
Showing posts with label singles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label singles. Show all posts
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
House, M.E.
2-3 years after the rest of the world, I've finally caught up with the series "House, M.D." The bits and pieces I had seen of it before led me to severe bias against the show, what with the rapid-fire, "too cool to be real" dialog and the beautiful people on screen. "Blech," I thought, "more American non-realistic drivel." But now that I've finally been watching it - and this only applies through season 2, hoping it doesn't go down hill! - I think the series, and the character of House in particular, are sheer genius.
It would be way too long for me to go into all the qualities I think make the series so good, but there's one aspect in particular I find myself relating to so much - House's repeated ducking of redemption. He will forego emotion, wrestle with his leg and pill addiction, never actually say a kind word to anyone, etc. If you've watched the series, it's referenced directly many times. But the beauty of the series is in setting up your expectations that he may be saved. After all, the other characters are all so much more emotional.. or emotive. There's subtle humor to soften you as you watch. The characters are beautiful. So you kind of assume that in the thick of it all, House himself will finally be saved. Surely, in the season finale he'll be cured. Or realize something life changing. or fall in love. But the brilliant scriptwriters never allow it to happen.
Oh, how I saympathise. Maybe you've been there - in your 30s, relationship dry spell, somewhat hyperactive mind - or maybe your mind just goes hyperactive because you've been living on your own so long that? On those nights with nothing special to do, you begin analyzing yourself psychologically. and analyzing the fact that you're analayzing yourself. and ideas come and go. they seem so important until the next time a little distraction comes along and you forget all about it. Unless it's 4AM and you think, whilst in the shower, "I've got to get this feeling down." True story - I'm sure you've guessed...
If you're in a situation anywhere near this, maybe you also feel torn. I've spent the last several years unwittingly striking some sort of delicate balance between an almost blind worship of the purely rational - House style, to a degree - yet carrying some hope of redemption. That a truly major change is just around the corner... or maybe a little further on, but it's coming. Meanwhile, of course, my "purely" rational intellect is reminding me this is all nonsense, and that the quicker I put aside these passive hopes and focus on some personal building, then maybe there's some chance of this all not being in vain. But no matter what happens - I mustn't ever, ever count on it. because that's just plain folly. Not now. not after I'm 30, and still nothing big has changed. and no love to be seen.
So House strikes a very deep chord with me. As a series, it fully recognizes the power of these hopes - without poo-pooing them. in fact, it builds you up to believe in their worth. Just as you're primed to really feel something, House will always manage to evade his own happiness. If the opportunity arrises, he'll mess it up; generally, his mind will make sure he doesn't even get that far.
It's just a tv show, I know. But catch me at a certain time, in a certain disposition, and I'll feel just like that. screwed, lost, and trying to rationalize my way away from it. Away, never out of it.
P.S.
After watching season 3, I realize I must've come off as an especially arrogant bastard. It contains an already solidified - and expressly referenced - view of House as near-infallible, genuinely arrogant, and relatively comfortable in loneliness. I didn't mean to compare myself to any of this. Avid viewers with a good memory may recall that none of those were certain in the first couple of seasons. To clarify, my empathy concerned only the "earlier" House, when some kind of redemption still appeared possible and welcome (and the arrogance still appeared a defence mechanism), and had nothing to do with his ostensible brilliance...
It would be way too long for me to go into all the qualities I think make the series so good, but there's one aspect in particular I find myself relating to so much - House's repeated ducking of redemption. He will forego emotion, wrestle with his leg and pill addiction, never actually say a kind word to anyone, etc. If you've watched the series, it's referenced directly many times. But the beauty of the series is in setting up your expectations that he may be saved. After all, the other characters are all so much more emotional.. or emotive. There's subtle humor to soften you as you watch. The characters are beautiful. So you kind of assume that in the thick of it all, House himself will finally be saved. Surely, in the season finale he'll be cured. Or realize something life changing. or fall in love. But the brilliant scriptwriters never allow it to happen.
Oh, how I saympathise. Maybe you've been there - in your 30s, relationship dry spell, somewhat hyperactive mind - or maybe your mind just goes hyperactive because you've been living on your own so long that? On those nights with nothing special to do, you begin analyzing yourself psychologically. and analyzing the fact that you're analayzing yourself. and ideas come and go. they seem so important until the next time a little distraction comes along and you forget all about it. Unless it's 4AM and you think, whilst in the shower, "I've got to get this feeling down." True story - I'm sure you've guessed...
If you're in a situation anywhere near this, maybe you also feel torn. I've spent the last several years unwittingly striking some sort of delicate balance between an almost blind worship of the purely rational - House style, to a degree - yet carrying some hope of redemption. That a truly major change is just around the corner... or maybe a little further on, but it's coming. Meanwhile, of course, my "purely" rational intellect is reminding me this is all nonsense, and that the quicker I put aside these passive hopes and focus on some personal building, then maybe there's some chance of this all not being in vain. But no matter what happens - I mustn't ever, ever count on it. because that's just plain folly. Not now. not after I'm 30, and still nothing big has changed. and no love to be seen.
So House strikes a very deep chord with me. As a series, it fully recognizes the power of these hopes - without poo-pooing them. in fact, it builds you up to believe in their worth. Just as you're primed to really feel something, House will always manage to evade his own happiness. If the opportunity arrises, he'll mess it up; generally, his mind will make sure he doesn't even get that far.
It's just a tv show, I know. But catch me at a certain time, in a certain disposition, and I'll feel just like that. screwed, lost, and trying to rationalize my way away from it. Away, never out of it.
P.S.
After watching season 3, I realize I must've come off as an especially arrogant bastard. It contains an already solidified - and expressly referenced - view of House as near-infallible, genuinely arrogant, and relatively comfortable in loneliness. I didn't mean to compare myself to any of this. Avid viewers with a good memory may recall that none of those were certain in the first couple of seasons. To clarify, my empathy concerned only the "earlier" House, when some kind of redemption still appeared possible and welcome (and the arrogance still appeared a defence mechanism), and had nothing to do with his ostensible brilliance...
Monday, June 02, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
"Every Man a Matchmaker." And?
(I'll start by pointing out that I'm not religious. Just FYI... Still, I come from a traditional home, haven't an ounce of "anti", and get by just fine with my religious friends. Put another way, I'm not particularly gagging to move to Tel Aviv. :) )
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has been named "the most famous rabbi in America" by Newsweek. I first ran into his name through reviews of his bestseller Kosher Sex which, at the time, screamed "sensationalist" to me. I've since come to see he's got some good ideas up his sleeve, even if - like so many other self-anointed saviors - he often states what should be the obvious. His expansion of what "attraction" means, beyond the surface-level denotation it has today, is remarkably important, especially to the many guilt-ridden religious people out there. I take issue, though, with his last syndicated article, "Every Man a Matchmaker", which ran in this weekend's Jerusalem Post.
The article certainly makes for a good read, and though he's mainly writing to religious Jewish singles here, much of his descriptions will sound familiar to singles of all stripes. Boteach gives a reasonably accurate, if somewhat simplistic, overview of the reasons singles today aren't getting married (or at least not to the right person).
The first part of the problem, as Boteach sees it, lies with today's "shallow values" (his words). He claims these have penetrated "even" the "very Orthodox dating scene, where stick-thin women are paired up to young men from wealthy families, and where character is subordinated to pedigree." As he goes on to say, "In the secular world, of course, it's much worse." So, in short - it's a crisis of values. I'll get back to this later.
He then goes on to paint an amusing picture of the dire options facing the average single - covering singles parties, bars, speed dating, internet dating and matchmaking - and ruling them out. In one particularly sharp observation, he writes:
The second part of the problem, then, lies with flawed options for how to meet people.
Having set out such a frank overview, I had high hopes for whatever solution he was going to come up with. Must say I found it more than a little disappointing. The solution, he claims, is having everyone play matchmaker:
That's it? After having systematically ruled out the other possibilities as inherently flawed to the point of pointlessness, he's going with the friend-brings-friend system? A quick look around my hometown shows that this system is at least as flawed as any of the others he finds fault with. (You'll either have to trust me on this or read the article, if you haven't yet. Go! Read! it's not long.) Jerusalem's infamous "swamp", that area of neighborhoods teeming with semi-cool, semi-desperate religious 20-somethings, has everyone busy matchmaking all the time, with plenty of still-frustrated singles complaining about feeling smothered, seeing the same old faces, feeling it's all a bit too forced. My point isn't that this system is bad, only that it has its own problems, and isn't fundamentally better than the rest.
So what's my solution, you ask? Well, as far as what options to go for, I just say - whatever you're comfortable with. Diversify. I wouldn't fundamentally endorse any technique over another - odds are fairly low no matter what you do - but you can try to enjoy yourself while you're looking.
As for the main problem, I agree with Rabbi Boteach that at heart, it's those "shallow values". I do take issue, however, with his off-hand assumption that the problems are "much worse" in the secular culture. I would say they're different, but not "much worse". The secular problems are quite widely known, so let me just point out one problem I see quite often in the religious world: many of them seem paralyzed by the sheer gravity of it all. They have more guilt for lusting, since they ought to be "caring about the inside". They can't touch, yet are dying too. But mainly, every encounter becomes incredibly decisive - since marriage is such an immediate, pressing concern. This brings a tendency to focus on every flaw in the other person - "do I want to live my whole life with this person? I should decide now" - and to measure every word, instead of just enjoying oneself and giving the relationship some breathing-space.
Obviously, for many if not most religious singles this isn't the case, and people handle it differently. The imperative to marry can bring more "results", but it can also paralyze. I am not generalizing, only saying it does happen, and more often than Boteach seems to think. "Shallow values" may be slightly more acute among the secular, but religious singles certainly have problems of their own in this "get-married-now" ethos.
So how do we deal with shallow values? Well, they're all around us, so the battle becomes quite individual. A proper answer would be quite long, but as time goes on, I feel more and more that the gist of it is: by growing up.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has been named "the most famous rabbi in America" by Newsweek. I first ran into his name through reviews of his bestseller Kosher Sex which, at the time, screamed "sensationalist" to me. I've since come to see he's got some good ideas up his sleeve, even if - like so many other self-anointed saviors - he often states what should be the obvious. His expansion of what "attraction" means, beyond the surface-level denotation it has today, is remarkably important, especially to the many guilt-ridden religious people out there. I take issue, though, with his last syndicated article, "Every Man a Matchmaker", which ran in this weekend's Jerusalem Post.
The article certainly makes for a good read, and though he's mainly writing to religious Jewish singles here, much of his descriptions will sound familiar to singles of all stripes. Boteach gives a reasonably accurate, if somewhat simplistic, overview of the reasons singles today aren't getting married (or at least not to the right person).
The first part of the problem, as Boteach sees it, lies with today's "shallow values" (his words). He claims these have penetrated "even" the "very Orthodox dating scene, where stick-thin women are paired up to young men from wealthy families, and where character is subordinated to pedigree." As he goes on to say, "In the secular world, of course, it's much worse." So, in short - it's a crisis of values. I'll get back to this later.
He then goes on to paint an amusing picture of the dire options facing the average single - covering singles parties, bars, speed dating, internet dating and matchmaking - and ruling them out. In one particularly sharp observation, he writes:
"Speed-dating is one of the most puzzling relationship ideas to come along in years. Take a generation of commitment-phobic young people, who are already dating-addicts and love anorexics, and cater to their obsession for variety by having them date 10 people at once! What wonderful preparation for monogamy!"
The second part of the problem, then, lies with flawed options for how to meet people.
Having set out such a frank overview, I had high hopes for whatever solution he was going to come up with. Must say I found it more than a little disappointing. The solution, he claims, is having everyone play matchmaker:
"Every man and every woman must take it upon themselves to introduce the single people they know to each other. We all believe in giving charity and we all believe in acts of loving-kindness. Now, is there any higher act of kindness than curing someone else's loneliness?"
That's it? After having systematically ruled out the other possibilities as inherently flawed to the point of pointlessness, he's going with the friend-brings-friend system? A quick look around my hometown shows that this system is at least as flawed as any of the others he finds fault with. (You'll either have to trust me on this or read the article, if you haven't yet. Go! Read! it's not long.) Jerusalem's infamous "swamp", that area of neighborhoods teeming with semi-cool, semi-desperate religious 20-somethings, has everyone busy matchmaking all the time, with plenty of still-frustrated singles complaining about feeling smothered, seeing the same old faces, feeling it's all a bit too forced. My point isn't that this system is bad, only that it has its own problems, and isn't fundamentally better than the rest.
So what's my solution, you ask? Well, as far as what options to go for, I just say - whatever you're comfortable with. Diversify. I wouldn't fundamentally endorse any technique over another - odds are fairly low no matter what you do - but you can try to enjoy yourself while you're looking.
As for the main problem, I agree with Rabbi Boteach that at heart, it's those "shallow values". I do take issue, however, with his off-hand assumption that the problems are "much worse" in the secular culture. I would say they're different, but not "much worse". The secular problems are quite widely known, so let me just point out one problem I see quite often in the religious world: many of them seem paralyzed by the sheer gravity of it all. They have more guilt for lusting, since they ought to be "caring about the inside". They can't touch, yet are dying too. But mainly, every encounter becomes incredibly decisive - since marriage is such an immediate, pressing concern. This brings a tendency to focus on every flaw in the other person - "do I want to live my whole life with this person? I should decide now" - and to measure every word, instead of just enjoying oneself and giving the relationship some breathing-space.
Obviously, for many if not most religious singles this isn't the case, and people handle it differently. The imperative to marry can bring more "results", but it can also paralyze. I am not generalizing, only saying it does happen, and more often than Boteach seems to think. "Shallow values" may be slightly more acute among the secular, but religious singles certainly have problems of their own in this "get-married-now" ethos.
So how do we deal with shallow values? Well, they're all around us, so the battle becomes quite individual. A proper answer would be quite long, but as time goes on, I feel more and more that the gist of it is: by growing up.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
In Praise of (Single) Womankind
This isn't going to be some feminist manifesto, nor some teenage-y "grrrls do it better" populist blather. It won't be in praise of any "innate" multitasking abilities at child-rearing or home keeping (it's not anyway), emotional depth, ability for compassion, "fairer sex" theories etc. The fact of the matter is, I haven't lived with you, nor been in a long-term relationship with you. I'm going to write from the only angle I have - that of perennial single-guy.
This can be saddening and disheartening at times. But only now am I finally settling down to realize that through it all, even with the disappointments and perplexing acts of self-contradiction, irrationality and occasional cruelty, it's always been fun. It's always been thrilling to get the attention from those of you that have given it. Even when it's felt badly mismatched - and I've gotten pretty good at weeding those out beforehand - It's always been interesting. I say this at eye level, not cynically and not arrogantly: thank you. Besides music, I know of nothing else nearly as life-affirming.
Keep driving me nuts. I'm open.
This can be saddening and disheartening at times. But only now am I finally settling down to realize that through it all, even with the disappointments and perplexing acts of self-contradiction, irrationality and occasional cruelty, it's always been fun. It's always been thrilling to get the attention from those of you that have given it. Even when it's felt badly mismatched - and I've gotten pretty good at weeding those out beforehand - It's always been interesting. I say this at eye level, not cynically and not arrogantly: thank you. Besides music, I know of nothing else nearly as life-affirming.
Keep driving me nuts. I'm open.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The TGF (Two-Girl Fortress) Has Fallen!
In a previous post, I introduced the TGF - Two Girl Fortress - as the impregnable wall, the unsolvable riddle, the nemesis of Nice Guys the world over. No longer. Today, I've officially cracked it. Hurray, the king is dead!
Quick recap: Often occurring at a night spot, a TGF is a situation where 1) two (or more) ladies are engaged in conversation, 2) you're interested in one of them, and 3) there's no possibility of eye contact with her (e.g. she has her back to you), and thus no hope of a reciprocated "go ahead" smile.
Why not just talk to her, you ask? Hold on, there's more.. As I'd written in said post:
Quick recap: Often occurring at a night spot, a TGF is a situation where 1) two (or more) ladies are engaged in conversation, 2) you're interested in one of them, and 3) there's no possibility of eye contact with her (e.g. she has her back to you), and thus no hope of a reciprocated "go ahead" smile.
Why not just talk to her, you ask? Hold on, there's more.. As I'd written in said post:
"Here's my problem: I need a ruse. I cannot, under any circumstances, walk up to two ladies 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 right up to her 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."
So, 4) I'm a polite non-actor who doesn't enjoy butting into total strangers' lively conversation with a ludicrously transparent agenda. The situation's stressful enough as it is! There you have it: the TGF. One tough nut to crack.
Fast forward to this evening. Ran into a classic TGF: I was at a bar with a couple friends, sitting at a table, there were two girls ahead of me, and the one I was interested in was with her back to me. My brain goes into action again, furiously trying to figure out how to solve this old doozy. Clutching at straws, I thought I'd try a technique I had once fantasized about doing, a trick that requires a great deal of confidence and good humor to work. Tonight, for a change, I had it - encountering this dilemma yet again, after so many other instances, allowed me to see its comic side, and ease up just enough to try. I won't say what the trick is, because it's kind of embarrassing. For the sake of the story, I'll just say that it allows me to stay seated and yet try to get her attention.
So I gave it a try. Just as I started, however, she got up to go to the bathroom, rendering my attempts futile. This felt like a sign from the heavens: some higher force, the same one who's enjoyed taunting me for years with beautiful, attached ladies and TGF's, was laughing at my attempts to storm the old fortress. Predictably, this took most of the wind out of it for me. My army had thundered towards the walls, morale high, with all their bravery and might, only to storm an empty fortress. Needless to say, they now saw their commander as kind of a jackass...
Normally I would stop here. There's only a short window of opportunity where you're still hopeful and self-confident enough to try these things; after that, you slide into self-awareness and thus lose any chance of being charming enough for a total stranger to accommodate you. But I couldn't give up yet. Something about still, after all these years, being unable to come up with a reasonable solution to this frustrating quandary told me that. She came back to the table.
I summoned what little remaining ease and confidence I had, and tried again. But this time, there was simply no response. Try as I did to raise my voice, she couldn't seem to hear me. If she did, she certainly wasn't showing it.. She must've assumed I'm a loud busybody - surely an endearing quality! My army had attacked the correct fortress all right, but this time it had been roundly defeated. Bruised and battered, the surviving few came back to report it's time to call it quits. With my friends trying to console me - poor guys, they probably wondered why I was taking this so personally; if only they knew the demons I was facing! - I pretty much did.
Then her friend got up to go to the bathroom.
By this point, I'd become quite sick and tired of this feeling of helplessness. "aw, fuck it!". With no hesitation, and certainly no game-plan, I got up and sat opposite her. I was smiling. This was going to be honest. "Look," I said, "I've been trying all night to figure out a way to hit on you. Now, I know this is kind of sudden and out of the blue, but I'll be sitting right over there. If you think you might be interested, feel free to let me know on your way out or something. No pressure, and sorry if I've made you feel uncomfortable."
I got up and went back to my seat, exhausted but vindicated. I'd done it! Thing is, though, about halfway through my little speech, she gave me that look of "that's sweet but I have a boyfriend; you can stop now. Please?" I wasn't too optimistic, but at least I'd tried, and that was something.
I'm back at the table. No response from her. She doesn't turn around, her girlfriend facing me doesn't give any communicative, playful looks at me, nothing. I wait for a while longer and then announce to the guys we can go - I get the message.
As I step out - another rejection for the record books - the unthinkable happens. She gets up and practically chases after me outside the bar. "Is it still relevant?" she asks. So cute.. "Of course it is!" Apparently, I'd completely misinterpreted her reaction.
A short conversation later, I had her number. :)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
"That's the End of That" - by Resident Traveler
Introduction here.
(AKA "The Impossible Dream", AKA "She's a Frecha")
They say every pot has its lid. But whenever I look around:
She's a frecha* - and that's the end of that.
If she's not a frecha, she's a neo-hippie - and that's the end of that.
If she's not a frecha, nor a neo-hippie, she's either the over-driven career type, a scantily-clad, deathly-thin Mars-creature, or a sour-faced urban burnout - and that's the end of that.
If she's not (any of the above), she's not physically attractive enough (hard as I try to overlook it), and that's the end of that.
If she's still not any of the above, she lacks heart. Or any kind of joi d'vivre (joy of life), and that's the end of that. (Lots of these. Lots and lots and lots.)
ISSNAOTA, she's married, or has a long-term boyfriend. She does. Trust me. No "that" to end. (OODLES of these.)
ISSNAOTA, she's got serious emotional baggage from past relationships, can't shake it off - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's "going through a rough period in her life", turning hot and cold at the drop of a hat - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's intensely interested in fashion and/or new-ageism, excessive materialism, hip-hop, smoking or, god help me, "real men" - commanding, go-getting, impulse-driven, egotisitical, insensitive, stubble-faced men - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she simply doesn't know what she wants. I give up! That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's insecure - which on its own is ok - but expresses said insecurity in an unwillingness to attach to anyone and will string me along like I'm a toy. Once reality finally seeps in - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's just sort of apathetic. Has no burning interest in something - anything. And for me - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, are you sure she doesn't have a boyfriend? Thought so. That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's rabidly anti-religion, anti-Zionist or anti-any form of capitalism, with a major chip on her shoulder, and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's religious. Just a liiittle too religious to give me a chance because, after all, she wants to get married, so why waste her time with someone who isn't her particular micro-stream of orthodoxy? - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA - and we're already talking about something rarer than an incorrupt politician - she doesn't give a damn about music and has no artistic interest (either would be surmountable). For me - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, did I mention we're talking only about women here? Who are under 40? Without children? WHO LIKE MEN? Thought so. That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, This is it, I've found her. After years of searching, I've found my one-in-a-million. My holy grail, my lid. I'm ecstatic, and can now preach to my pessimist single friends not to lose heart; that despite all the potential pitfalls, they are out there.
But remember, all this has only been half the equation: she still has to like me. And guess what:
That's the end of that.
* - Frecha: the Israeli equivalent of whatever they call women overly preoccupied with an intensely juvenile fashion sense in your country.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
(AKA "The Impossible Dream", AKA "She's a Frecha")
They say every pot has its lid. But whenever I look around:
She's a frecha* - and that's the end of that.
If she's not a frecha, she's a neo-hippie - and that's the end of that.
If she's not a frecha, nor a neo-hippie, she's either the over-driven career type, a scantily-clad, deathly-thin Mars-creature, or a sour-faced urban burnout - and that's the end of that.
If she's not (any of the above), she's not physically attractive enough (hard as I try to overlook it), and that's the end of that.
If she's still not any of the above, she lacks heart. Or any kind of joi d'vivre (joy of life), and that's the end of that. (Lots of these. Lots and lots and lots.)
ISSNAOTA, she's married, or has a long-term boyfriend. She does. Trust me. No "that" to end. (OODLES of these.)
ISSNAOTA, she's got serious emotional baggage from past relationships, can't shake it off - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's "going through a rough period in her life", turning hot and cold at the drop of a hat - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's intensely interested in fashion and/or new-ageism, excessive materialism, hip-hop, smoking or, god help me, "real men" - commanding, go-getting, impulse-driven, egotisitical, insensitive, stubble-faced men - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she simply doesn't know what she wants. I give up! That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's insecure - which on its own is ok - but expresses said insecurity in an unwillingness to attach to anyone and will string me along like I'm a toy. Once reality finally seeps in - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's just sort of apathetic. Has no burning interest in something - anything. And for me - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, are you sure she doesn't have a boyfriend? Thought so. That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's rabidly anti-religion, anti-Zionist or anti-any form of capitalism, with a major chip on her shoulder, and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's religious. Just a liiittle too religious to give me a chance because, after all, she wants to get married, so why waste her time with someone who isn't her particular micro-stream of orthodoxy? - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA - and we're already talking about something rarer than an incorrupt politician - she doesn't give a damn about music and has no artistic interest (either would be surmountable). For me - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, did I mention we're talking only about women here? Who are under 40? Without children? WHO LIKE MEN? Thought so. That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, This is it, I've found her. After years of searching, I've found my one-in-a-million. My holy grail, my lid. I'm ecstatic, and can now preach to my pessimist single friends not to lose heart; that despite all the potential pitfalls, they are out there.
But remember, all this has only been half the equation: she still has to like me. And guess what:
That's the end of that.
* - Frecha: the Israeli equivalent of whatever they call women overly preoccupied with an intensely juvenile fashion sense in your country.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Monday, July 16, 2007
"You're Single? How Come?" (AKA "That's the End of That" - Introduction)
It's moving season, and this time I decided I'd rent on my own (I'm 29, figured it's time). The hunt is thankfully over, but while I was searching, I noticed a pattern: the landlords, in their 50s and 60s, would ask whether I am, indeed, looking just for myself. When I'd answer in the affirmative, they'd give me a cockeyed look and ask, "you're single? Really? How come?" This happened several times...
While I was resisting the temptation to give an answer along the lines of "they ran out of my size at the girlfriend store" or "because I ate them all", they'd usually temper the question with a compliment - "I'm just saying.. good-looking guy like yourself..". Obviously they meant well, but this only underscored the assumption, still somewhat common amongst our parent's generation, that unless something's really wrong with you, the only thing separating the average single and a sustained, happy relationship is merely the decision to have one.
So, to try and properly answer the question, I've cooked up a little song/ditty/prose-poetry piece (not all based on personal experience, it should be noted) called "That's the End of That", which addresses this issue. It's being finalized as we speak (you read?), and I'll put it up in the next few days.
[...and, it's UP!]
Important clarification:
This post has been picked up by the good people over at Israelity, and I'm grateful for it. Looks like I left this somewhat open to interpretation, however, so let me clarify:
This post wasn't an expression of having chosen singledome, but rather of frustration over how impossible it is to find anyone! This should be made abundantly clear with my next post...
While I was resisting the temptation to give an answer along the lines of "they ran out of my size at the girlfriend store" or "because I ate them all", they'd usually temper the question with a compliment - "I'm just saying.. good-looking guy like yourself..". Obviously they meant well, but this only underscored the assumption, still somewhat common amongst our parent's generation, that unless something's really wrong with you, the only thing separating the average single and a sustained, happy relationship is merely the decision to have one.
So, to try and properly answer the question, I've cooked up a little song/ditty/prose-poetry piece (not all based on personal experience, it should be noted) called "That's the End of That", which addresses this issue. It's being finalized as we speak (you read?), and I'll put it up in the next few days.
[...and, it's UP!]
Important clarification:
This post has been picked up by the good people over at Israelity, and I'm grateful for it. Looks like I left this somewhat open to interpretation, however, so let me clarify:
This post wasn't an expression of having chosen singledome, but rather of frustration over how impossible it is to find anyone! This should be made abundantly clear with my next post...
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Male-Bashing and Romance (What's Left of It)
"Hiding in my room / safe within my womb
I touch no one and no one touches me"
Simon and Garfunkel, I am a Rock.
Men. We've done some horrible things in our time. We've cheated, looted, raped and pillaged. All things being equal, we're more likely to lose our temper and resort to violence. We can be sophomoric and inattentive. We've mismanaged countries and instigated wars - one of us had Rome burnt to the ground - for our own ego's sake. I don't know what to say - some men really stink.
But things are getting out of hand.
It's enough to look at the wildly popular Ynet* "relationships" section to see that there's some kind of war going. For the women, it's as if most men are likely to do one or any combination of the above offenses - daily, judging by their (women's) talkbacks. Either that or we're spineless wimps not worth the time, effort or heartache (for those rare romantics who still speak of something so syrupy as the "heart"). Those feeble voices trying to defend us are dismissed as naive. The men, for their part, seem to have recoiled in horror from Israeli women, complaining of their allegedly over-demanding nature, like some huge, usurping, Jabba-the-Hutt-esque blob. So everyone's more defensive towards each other; everyone's more suspicious. What went wrong? Where'd the romance of our parents' or grandparents' generation go?
The answer lies partly in the gradual loosening of social conventions (worthy of its own post sometime), but primarily in today's widespread availability of information. We're getting bombarded by it on all sides, so everyone's become more aware. Go back several generations, and it was a lot easier to have romantic notions. It was, of course, also a lot easier to scam someone, rob a bank, kidnap a child** and, yes, rape someone and get away with it. Greater innocence meant everyone was easier to take advantage of. Now that we're more informed, we know more of the tricks; we're more wary. But this new awareness, while vitally important in protecting us from the scumbags of society, comes with a price. "Some" or "freak" instances of wrongdoing have intuitively become "most" or "typical". We're not just more suspicious, we're that much more cynical. And cynicism is a serious romance killer.
Our information is disproportionately negative, so the more of it we get, the more negative information we get. Just like on the ynet talkbacks, combative emotions - ranging from argumentativeness to out-and-out antagonism - seem to draw far more people to action than positive ones. Also, there's simply a basic lack of newsworthiness to most things good. Crimes of all sorts, wars, betrayals at the highest political echelons - these grace the news pages every day, but acts of common decency do not. No one's going to come running with report after report of good human behavior, including good male behavior.
We've all heard about the two-timing, harassing, good-for-nothing man; but you won't hear about the good ones. What about deep, romantic displays of love? An arm around the shoulder on a cold winter's night? A sympathetic ear at a time of crisis? The compliment you didn't know how badly you needed? Errands run, promises kept? who outside your direct circle will ever give you news of this? Statistics on sexual offenses are meticulously tabulated, reaffirming accusations of man-as-incorrigible-predator, but you're never going to get stats on consensual, glorious, tender sex. It sounds funny, I know, but therein lies the most basic of biases in our information - for all sorts of reasons, you're not hearing about a lot of the good stuff, and this means you're not getting the true picture.
I've kind of gone in circles here, but my bottom line is this - if we allow ourselves to get too protective and cynical from all the negative information, we'll end up like the protagonist from that Simon & Garfunkel song. Things aren't as bad as they seem. You may be sure all the good men are gone, but it only seems that way because, in a certain sense, they're less interesting. They are out there, though, so keep the faith, keep your guard (reasonably) down, and keep your eyes open!
P.S.
(Yes, I suppose I'm projecting ever so slightly... Thanks, Freud!)
* Israeli online newspaper
** Excluding the effects of internet chat rooms and the like. I'm only referring here to people's gullibility.
Friday, December 22, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, December 04, 2006
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!
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!
Monday, February 13, 2006
Me? Blog?
It's gotten a hold of me! AHHH! get it off!
I'm 27 (in 2006), single, male, Jewish, am relatively not messed up by organized theologies or crashing, failed relationships (by which I mean there haven't been any), am completely incapable of bullshitting. You'll probably see that here. Love music of the more independent rock variety, and play in several bands. I find partisanship and deceitfulness to be the dumbest, most confounding signs of our time, am essentially an optimist, get excited about down-to-earth people, ideas and art, have a nasty lazy streak sometimes and am not as self-confident as these last few sentences would have you believe. But yeah, I guess I'm ok.
I've had an uneasy relationship with online interaction simulators/enhancers/userpers for a while... For example, I couldn't stomach the idea of online dating services - and I've stuck to that doctrine to this very day! - even at my loneliest. It just seemed like a final concede of defeat. And worse, it seemed to say our lives have gotten the best of us. That we're really too busy to get out there and meet in person, our standards are too high, let's now meet online where we can get loads of information on each other and make sure we're juuust the right temperature before we pop the potato out of the microwave.. It made perfect sense. it was clean, scientific and pragmatic. It was depressing. It meant no old-fashioned romance in my book, and that's what I couldn't take. Every day not succuming online dating sites, I'm quite proud of myself.
And blogging - what was that all about? What induced people to write all their personal crap? It seemed like the same sad story.. For me, stepping away from the screen and out of your house was and is the only reality. Not that I do it often enough, but I enjoy it through and through when I do. All the witty comments in the world, even when coming from very real people, can't hold a candle to meeting them! So why? why?
Here's the real, unexciting reason: I found that I have an unexplained tendency to spill every once in a while. I'd figure I ought to write an old friend in the States, ponder how there's nothing to say ("there's never anything to say!"), start writing whatever's in my head, and find a twisted, sprawling letter half an hour later. And I'd go back and look at it. And I'd see that it was good - not the writing ("uch! this could be worded SO much better! damn 'send' button") - but my feeling after writing it. Anecdotes would pile up, thoughts - some temporary and some reconsidered and revised to the point of doctrine - I had to write something. So here it is.
But people, I ask only one thing: sitting at home reading blogs can be fun/interesting/informative, but don't let it get a hold of you. Get out there and LIVE, BABY! This comes from el numero uno wild child on the block, I assure you all...
No idea what direction this blog will take - political, personal, romantic whining, music adulation, Fugazi call-to-arms - but heeere we go!
I'm 27 (in 2006), single, male, Jewish, am relatively not messed up by organized theologies or crashing, failed relationships (by which I mean there haven't been any), am completely incapable of bullshitting. You'll probably see that here. Love music of the more independent rock variety, and play in several bands. I find partisanship and deceitfulness to be the dumbest, most confounding signs of our time, am essentially an optimist, get excited about down-to-earth people, ideas and art, have a nasty lazy streak sometimes and am not as self-confident as these last few sentences would have you believe. But yeah, I guess I'm ok.
I've had an uneasy relationship with online interaction simulators/enhancers/userpers for a while... For example, I couldn't stomach the idea of online dating services - and I've stuck to that doctrine to this very day! - even at my loneliest. It just seemed like a final concede of defeat. And worse, it seemed to say our lives have gotten the best of us. That we're really too busy to get out there and meet in person, our standards are too high, let's now meet online where we can get loads of information on each other and make sure we're juuust the right temperature before we pop the potato out of the microwave.. It made perfect sense. it was clean, scientific and pragmatic. It was depressing. It meant no old-fashioned romance in my book, and that's what I couldn't take. Every day not succuming online dating sites, I'm quite proud of myself.
And blogging - what was that all about? What induced people to write all their personal crap? It seemed like the same sad story.. For me, stepping away from the screen and out of your house was and is the only reality. Not that I do it often enough, but I enjoy it through and through when I do. All the witty comments in the world, even when coming from very real people, can't hold a candle to meeting them! So why? why?
Here's the real, unexciting reason: I found that I have an unexplained tendency to spill every once in a while. I'd figure I ought to write an old friend in the States, ponder how there's nothing to say ("there's never anything to say!"), start writing whatever's in my head, and find a twisted, sprawling letter half an hour later. And I'd go back and look at it. And I'd see that it was good - not the writing ("uch! this could be worded SO much better! damn 'send' button") - but my feeling after writing it. Anecdotes would pile up, thoughts - some temporary and some reconsidered and revised to the point of doctrine - I had to write something. So here it is.
But people, I ask only one thing: sitting at home reading blogs can be fun/interesting/informative, but don't let it get a hold of you. Get out there and LIVE, BABY! This comes from el numero uno wild child on the block, I assure you all...
No idea what direction this blog will take - political, personal, romantic whining, music adulation, Fugazi call-to-arms - but heeere we go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)