?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
i spent entirely too much time composing this nonsense
i'm ready for my close up mr demille
soopageek
Location: Birmingham, Alabama

The soopageek 50 States MemeTM


Bold the states you've visited, italicize the states you've lived-in, underline the state in which you currently live

All, Altered, Ambivalence, Anger, Apathy, Bank, Bliss, Chaos, Cynicism, Dinner, Energy, Extended Adolescence, Fair, Fear, Finals, Happiness, Head of, Heightened Awareness, Hospital, Idealism, Incredulous, Inter, Intra, Joy, Limbo, -ment of Intent, Lethargy, Mediocrity, Melancholy, "My name's Doug and I'm outta here!", Oblivious, Optimism, Peace, Pessimism, Petulant, Pragmatism, Preoccupied, Police, Prison, Rest, Rights, The Obvious, Tournament, Trance-like, Transcendental, Trooper, Union Address, Univeristy, Ward, Welfare




fujerica thinks I need a girlfriend.  I believe she is right, but like, I need about six of them, in different states.  I can see each of them twice per year.  Christmas would suck and remembering birthdays would be a nightmare, but I think this is a superb idea.  I thought perhaps I should draft a personal ad for some future internet-dating website.  If you or someone you know fits this description, please forward their interest to my journal.


Seeking intelligent, attractive ladies of reasonable mental and emotional stability for position(s) of Girlfriend. Successful applicants must fancy the idea of a long-distance, intense-yet-casual, sporadic, non-exclusive relationship with an attention-mongering, hedonist, transient with an obnoxious need to be clever.  Cryptic emails and innocuous dinner conversations about pop-culture and teh intarweb at the on-set may later blossom into inept attempts at flirtatious IM chats and awkward romantic gestures.  Ideal position for busy, career-minded professionals seeking romance without the hassle of drama-laden, time-consuming, possessive S.O. entanglement.  Position is also well-suited for otherwise involved polyamorous individuals seeking secondary/tertiary geometry.

Preferred candidates will be between the ages of 25 and 45 but willing to consider outside target demographic with the right qualifications.  However tempting, statutory age (or age of consent where applicable) is required.  Physical gratification commensurate with experience. Lack of moral certitude a definite plus, but willing to train.





Incidentally, did you know that the age of consent of Pennsylvania is fourteen?




Speaking of exploitation, justamy and I got briefly on this topic last night when I mentioned the new Kirstie Alley reality show Fat Actress and it made me remember something I've wanted to address for sometime but have never gotten around to it.  Let me preface this by saying that: 1) I don't really watch TV and 2) I never watch reality programming.  Finally, I have no problem with exploitation, so long as it is between consenting parties.  That said...

A couple of years ago, someone pitched the idea and production work was begun on a reality TV series based on The Beverly Hillbillies.  The gist of the idea is that a family of hicks from some backwards part of the country would be set up with a mansion in Beverly Hills and an outrageous spending allowance.  The family members would attend area schools and and be injected into the upper-eschelon of Los Angeles social-circles.  Hi-jinks and hilarity would most certainly ensue.  When word of this reached the masses, the public outcry caused the show to be shelved.  For some reason, the idea of allowing this family to consent to their own exploitation for their personal (and the televison network's) gain was incongruous with the sensibilties of the entertainment market.

Why is it somehow more acceptable that a train-wreck like Anna Nicole-Smith or Gary Busey can exploit their own vacuous station in life for their personal gain?  Hell, Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie did the precise opposite of the social fish-out of-waterBeverly Hillbillies scenario in The Simple Life, exploiting the polar opposite sheltered existence to be mocked.  Why do we feel that the "privileged" of our society are capable of deciding at what level they will choose to be exploited but others are not?  Imagine the outcry if a reality show was based on the premise of Trading Places, where some ex-con gang-banger was removed from South Central LA and given a position with a Wall Street stocks firm.  The reverse of that premise would be totally acceptable, however: putting some white, suburban corporate monkey-boy in the 'hood to run a by-the-hour flophouse or adult bookstore.  It is this sort of protection of the non-privilieged while simultaneously applying a double-standard for the privileged that perpetuates a system of inequality.  As the non-privileged have their choices removed from their reach because middle America deems they are not capable of deciding it for themselves, we re-inforce their status as second-class citizens. 

So pipe down the next time you think someone is being "exploited".  So long as it is not forceable, who the hell are you to judge?
Tags: ,

  • 1
women are nothing but a world of hurt and should be avoided at all costs.

me too!
i mean...
in the sense that we aren't all constant sources of hurt and stuff...

Those polyamorous folk make me feel pretty pukey inside.

Oh I dunno. I have an interest in the concept of ethical non-monogamy, a term I prefer to polyamory. It seems strange that love is the only emotion we treat in this way. If you were mad at two differnt people, you wouldn't decide you could only be mad at one. Same with anger, jealousy, envy, sadness, etc.

I think everyone is poly to a degree. One loves both their parents, or multiple children, and the love for one doesn't diminish the love for another. I don't see why this can't be true of romantic love as well. I think it's a choice that most people make: to be monogamous. Ironically, many still "carry torches", practice "serial monogamy", and/or "cheat".

I have to concur with you, though, that a lot of people who identify themselves as being "poly" are an odd lot, almost to the point of being cliche. I've hung-out at some poly-friendly functions and they were kinda creepy. It is for this reason I've come to dislike the term "polyamorous". Not all of us interested in ethical non-monogamy are pagans and witches. We just believe that human relationships should go to whatever level is natural for both parties involved. It could simply be friendship, or make-out partner, or as deep as physical and emotional intimacy. But trying to stifle an emotion which can't be helped - one that is the greatest emotion of all - seems counter-productive.

I understand everyone has their view, though. :)





(Deleted comment)

they're not secrets if someone else knows :)

  • 1