There isn't always safety in numbers because you could be stuck with a lousy set of numbers. As I've realized recently, one can be surrounded by people and still feel alone. Among the places where a person can feel this sort of isolation (a waiting room, a classroom on the first day of school, a subway car), a nightclub heightens it like no other place.
Thus, I don't like clubbing or even going 'out' to dance. I don't believe I ever have.
There have been moments where I've enjoyed it— most memorably, an evening out with close friends when I went to Atlanta sushi-bar-turned-night-club Aiko, where I was wearing was wearing sky-high stilettos for the very first time. Earlier in the spring, I found myself at a popular Boston club non-elegantly called the Liquor Store. I dressed to emulate Audrey Hepburn— it's not important why– in a black shift dress, pumps, and a black wide-brimmed hat. Several college-aged boys walked by me and lifted the brim of the hat to get a better look at me, which I found most vexing. A once-over was all they wanted.
Environments that aren't conducive to conversation don't make sense to me. For this reason, I end up feeling intensely alone in a club, because I'm enveloped by people that don't invite communication. Simultaneously, I’m unable to talk to my own friends. It’s like being under the sea and breathing silently, talking and drawing in water instead.
I find it unsettling to dance in clubs. Club dancing, like courting, is a mating ritual. If the dancing doesn't involve hip-hop (where it's more about self-expression), then you're left feeling very self-aware of your body's weight and motion. Any other kind of dancing (choreographed or not) is about so much more than a "come hither." If I'm going to be dancing, I desire structure and rhythm (as I unconsciously desire it in poetry), which is probably why I loved ballroom when I had lessons in college.
To me, any non-choreographed dancing is the most fun and fulfilling when it's simply about one's reactions to music with a good bass-line, a certain tempo, and occurs amongst people who don't care if you can't 'carry a tune' with your body. Think dormitory parties celebrating birthdays, All Hollow Eves, New Year's, and themed parties. I was around a lot of people (some I knew and some I didn't) and never felt alone. Parties at our own apartment enabled my friend & I to pull capers like sneaking in “West End Girls” by the Pet Shop Boys, regardless of the theme or music.*
In these settings, it doesn't even matter if the music isn't even good for dancing. The party itself isn't always the most anticipated part of the evening. What I've always enjoyed most about the process is the lead-up-- getting dressed, going over to a friends’ places, chatting, having a little bit to eat and drink, the drive over, and perhaps mostly, Waffle House afterward (this is a Southern thing). Or more recently, the few minutes I shared with a friend while sitting on a bench at the Boylston T-stop waiting for a friend of his to arrive. We had a chat filled with non-sequiturs as usual, and I was at ease.
Clubbing is banal, freestyle dancing isn't always enjoyable. Could you concur? Can you see what I see in this observation?
Century Fille's own YiQi C. has noted that when someone like me makes this kind of realization, a waiting audience sees nothing but logic and sense in it. In contrast, when she make such claims --and then proceeds to say that 90 percent of what social people find fun (like amusement parks and mini-golfing) she finds completely not fun— she is cast as the brooding gothic even though she’s not decked out in emo gear. She says it must have to do with the differing vibes we give off. She is perceived as a party pooper, whereas I appear the wise one who has stumbled upon the truth that bumping & grinding on a dance floor (for the sake of being seen and not to spend time with friends per se) isn't fun. I say it has to do with my higher tolerance for and adaptability to sub-optimal environments. However, this also comes with my lower ability for discerning the sub-optimal situation in the first place.
It's not only that I do not like clubbing, I find it a colossal waste of my time. I'd rather be out for drinks and dinner. Or just dinner. Or coffee. Or at a quieter lounge. Or shopping. Or at home with a good book or an academic journal. Not to suggest I can't be enticed out to an 80s night every now and then— it’s just very unfortunate during my last opportunity to do so, I decided to take a nap before going out, watched some of the mind-blowing Battlestar Galactica mid-season finale, fell asleep during it, and then managed to somehow make it through Doctor Who to catch up again with my favorite colonials & cylons at the midnight hour.**
* No matter how loud you turn up the volume on this song, it is impossible to dance to.
**I’m an Anglophile, sensitive to British humor, and I don’t get Doctor Who.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Sunday, June 1, 2008
In the Head : Outside the Body
Some may beg to differ, but thought does not equal action.
Something I scooped from the internet:
Orientation is not Behavior
Orientation is who/what gender one is attracted to. This applies to both sexual and romantic orientation. Who you are attracted to does not necessarily determine how you act towards those individuals. Personally, I do not believe that orientation is a choice. However, I do believe that one's orientation CAN change multiple times over the course of one's life, though it does not HAVE to change.
Behavior is how you act towards people, in romantic and sexual contexts. One is more likely to pursue an individual that one is attracted to, but there are countless other factors that will determine couplings/intimate relationships (some examples of these other factors; familial pressure, societal norm, religious law and custom, fear of rejection, holding another value in higher priority to sexual behavior or preference). Personally, I believe that behavior is entirely within one's own control, and that no-one else is to be held accountable for romantic or sexual behavior (with the exception of situations involving coercion or force). I believe that one's behavior CAN change multiple times over
the course of one's life, though it does not HAVE to change.
One's orientation does not determine behavior, though it will most likely influence it.
Homosexuals and bisexuals in the past have had to deny their orientation in their behavior due to societal norms. They have had to behave as heterosexuals in order to avoid persecution. This does not mean that they are not bi/homosexual, just that they do not display bi/homosexual behavior. If their behavior changes, it does not mean they have 'become gay'; it simply means that they have chosen a certain way to act in certain situations.
Sexuals do not always follow a sexual life style. Taking religious dedication as an example, many people take vows of celibacy. This does not mean that they become asexual, or that they are no longer sexual; it simply means that they have chosen a certain way to act in certain situations.
Asexuals do not always follow a celibate life style. Many asexuals enjoy sex for it's own sake, or for the sense of connection that it enables with their partner. This does not mean that they are not asexual; it simply means that they have chosen a certain way to act in certain situations.
I have no problems with any romantic or sexual practices or traditions, as long as all participants are fully informed individuals enabled with fully-functioning faculties to make critical decisions about personal well-being, and have fully consented to all activities under no duress, coercion, or force.
I believe no one has the right to criticize another's orientation or behavior, with the exception of ensuring that all parties are involved consensually. Past that altruistic concern, no one has the right to judge another's orientation or behavior.
There is no right or wrong orientation or behavior (save for non-consensual activities), and every factor changes with every individual.
We love who we love.
source: Boards at Aven.
Something I scooped from the internet:
Orientation is not Behavior
Orientation is who/what gender one is attracted to. This applies to both sexual and romantic orientation. Who you are attracted to does not necessarily determine how you act towards those individuals. Personally, I do not believe that orientation is a choice. However, I do believe that one's orientation CAN change multiple times over the course of one's life, though it does not HAVE to change.
Behavior is how you act towards people, in romantic and sexual contexts. One is more likely to pursue an individual that one is attracted to, but there are countless other factors that will determine couplings/intimate relationships (some examples of these other factors; familial pressure, societal norm, religious law and custom, fear of rejection, holding another value in higher priority to sexual behavior or preference). Personally, I believe that behavior is entirely within one's own control, and that no-one else is to be held accountable for romantic or sexual behavior (with the exception of situations involving coercion or force). I believe that one's behavior CAN change multiple times over
the course of one's life, though it does not HAVE to change.
One's orientation does not determine behavior, though it will most likely influence it.
Homosexuals and bisexuals in the past have had to deny their orientation in their behavior due to societal norms. They have had to behave as heterosexuals in order to avoid persecution. This does not mean that they are not bi/homosexual, just that they do not display bi/homosexual behavior. If their behavior changes, it does not mean they have 'become gay'; it simply means that they have chosen a certain way to act in certain situations.
Sexuals do not always follow a sexual life style. Taking religious dedication as an example, many people take vows of celibacy. This does not mean that they become asexual, or that they are no longer sexual; it simply means that they have chosen a certain way to act in certain situations.
Asexuals do not always follow a celibate life style. Many asexuals enjoy sex for it's own sake, or for the sense of connection that it enables with their partner. This does not mean that they are not asexual; it simply means that they have chosen a certain way to act in certain situations.
I have no problems with any romantic or sexual practices or traditions, as long as all participants are fully informed individuals enabled with fully-functioning faculties to make critical decisions about personal well-being, and have fully consented to all activities under no duress, coercion, or force.
I believe no one has the right to criticize another's orientation or behavior, with the exception of ensuring that all parties are involved consensually. Past that altruistic concern, no one has the right to judge another's orientation or behavior.
There is no right or wrong orientation or behavior (save for non-consensual activities), and every factor changes with every individual.
We love who we love.
source: Boards at Aven.
Friday, May 2, 2008
There is That
I'm not surprised that Atlanta made the list. For anyone who isn't familiar with GA's capital city, here are a few points to consider:
1. It takes just about 20 minutes to go anywhere in Atlanta--unless you're going fewer than 3.75 miles. Without traffic, it could take about 12 minutes to go anywhere that's fewer than 10 miles from your starting point.
2. Unmarried couples or unmarried singles may have a shorter commute...as they wouldn't necessarily be living in the best school districts, which might put them at least thirty-minutes away from their place of employment.
3. Houses in the suburbs are less expensive than those closer to town. Thus, a longer commute.
4. Just as any amount of precipitation puts some drivers into a state of torpor, any kind of visually distracting stimuli at the side of the road will compel some motorists to cruise and gaze. What would've been a seventeen-minute drive could easily turn into a twenty-five minute trip.
5. Mishmash of drivers going too slowly with those going too quickly creates a less than optimal dynamic.
6. School buses--dare I even suggest it--that pick up a horde of children on the street in front of apartment complexes (rather than just inside the complex).
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Audrey Loren March
Sophia Loren will be the Star of the Month in June TCM. As I was formatting images of her for the June Memory Game, I thought to myself, Sophia Loren is like the voluptuous version of Audrey Hepburn," which gave way to, she and Jane March look somewhat alike too, which produced (click the image for the complete view):
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Janet: What you’ve done for us lately
It was Janet Jackson’s appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live (Feb. 29) which for me signaled the existence of her new album, Discipline. Her charming, unaffected demeanor caught my attention, and I went out and bought the CD the next day.
I love Janet Jackson. I always have. While she’s never really surpassed the quality of her 1989 Rhythm Nation, a brilliant concept album which is also a lot of fun and resulted in an unparalleled seven top 5 hits, she’s done extremely well. She’s had nine consecutive albums debuting in the top three on the Billboard charts. It’s unfortunate that most recently, she’s better known for her 2004 Super Bowl wardrobe snafu while performing with Michael Jackson wannabe Justin Timberlake during the half time show, rather than for her music. While 2006’s 20 Y.O (the title in part a nod to 20 years since the release of Control in 1986) is pleasant for a rainy day or a 16-hour flight, it is sometimes bland.
Released on Feb. 26, Discipline entered the charts at #1. At 41, she proves to all the amateur pop starlets that she still reigns in her status as a pop cultural icon. And unlike Madonna, who has constantly reinvented herself (for better and for worse), all Janet has had to do is be herself. And she looks fantastic. The collaboration with her long-time boyfriend, music producer Jermaine Dupri, is successful. Overall, Discipline is a sexy, racy, dirty, and gritty album (mind you, with zero profanity). It’s better not to pay too close attention to the lyrics, because if you’re sensitive like me, you’ll just be gasping every few seconds.
It opens with the charging, industrial-sounding “Feedback” and by the end of it you’re also thinking “yeah, that’s sexy, sexy, sexy.” It’s followed immediately by the uplifting, light “Luv,” perfect for a spring day. The danceable “Rock With U” (phonetically the same title as brother Michael’s 1979 hit from Off the Wall) is somewhere between Duran Duran and Kylie Minogue. “2Nite” has a pop flair that makes me want to listen to it repeatedly. “The 1” with Missy Elliot shows us how effortlessly relevant Janet remains.
Janet continues the tradition of formatting her album with “interludes,” which are primarily spoken. While rarely reviewed, this element is one of my favorite aspects of a Janet album. She began doing it with Rhythm Nation, in which they are extremely effective in keeping the album cohesive and tying together what I see are basically the 3 sections of it – the socially conscious section, the lighthearted dance/pop section, and the ballad section. There’s nothing quite as brilliant as the 4-second “Get the point? Good, let’s dance” (which Michael lip-synched for his on-stage performance of “Dangerous”) on Discipline, but the club-setting “Bathroom Break” and the meant-to-be-provocative “The Meaning” keep the listener’s interest piqued.
The verdict is that Janet still has it. To be honest, she’s kind of up there in a league of her own compared to anyone else out there today. She has nothing to prove but proves it anyways. And listening to her music is always a delightful escapade : )
As a dancer, she pretty much has no comparison besides her own brother. For your pleasure, along with a Good Morning America performance of "Feedback," I include a little old school Janet, the “Rhythm Nation” video. I enjoy few dance sequences more - possibly only the video for Michael Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal.”
I love Janet Jackson. I always have. While she’s never really surpassed the quality of her 1989 Rhythm Nation, a brilliant concept album which is also a lot of fun and resulted in an unparalleled seven top 5 hits, she’s done extremely well. She’s had nine consecutive albums debuting in the top three on the Billboard charts. It’s unfortunate that most recently, she’s better known for her 2004 Super Bowl wardrobe snafu while performing with Michael Jackson wannabe Justin Timberlake during the half time show, rather than for her music. While 2006’s 20 Y.O (the title in part a nod to 20 years since the release of Control in 1986) is pleasant for a rainy day or a 16-hour flight, it is sometimes bland.
Released on Feb. 26, Discipline entered the charts at #1. At 41, she proves to all the amateur pop starlets that she still reigns in her status as a pop cultural icon. And unlike Madonna, who has constantly reinvented herself (for better and for worse), all Janet has had to do is be herself. And she looks fantastic. The collaboration with her long-time boyfriend, music producer Jermaine Dupri, is successful. Overall, Discipline is a sexy, racy, dirty, and gritty album (mind you, with zero profanity). It’s better not to pay too close attention to the lyrics, because if you’re sensitive like me, you’ll just be gasping every few seconds.
It opens with the charging, industrial-sounding “Feedback” and by the end of it you’re also thinking “yeah, that’s sexy, sexy, sexy.” It’s followed immediately by the uplifting, light “Luv,” perfect for a spring day. The danceable “Rock With U” (phonetically the same title as brother Michael’s 1979 hit from Off the Wall) is somewhere between Duran Duran and Kylie Minogue. “2Nite” has a pop flair that makes me want to listen to it repeatedly. “The 1” with Missy Elliot shows us how effortlessly relevant Janet remains.
Janet continues the tradition of formatting her album with “interludes,” which are primarily spoken. While rarely reviewed, this element is one of my favorite aspects of a Janet album. She began doing it with Rhythm Nation, in which they are extremely effective in keeping the album cohesive and tying together what I see are basically the 3 sections of it – the socially conscious section, the lighthearted dance/pop section, and the ballad section. There’s nothing quite as brilliant as the 4-second “Get the point? Good, let’s dance” (which Michael lip-synched for his on-stage performance of “Dangerous”) on Discipline, but the club-setting “Bathroom Break” and the meant-to-be-provocative “The Meaning” keep the listener’s interest piqued.
The verdict is that Janet still has it. To be honest, she’s kind of up there in a league of her own compared to anyone else out there today. She has nothing to prove but proves it anyways. And listening to her music is always a delightful escapade : )
As a dancer, she pretty much has no comparison besides her own brother. For your pleasure, along with a Good Morning America performance of "Feedback," I include a little old school Janet, the “Rhythm Nation” video. I enjoy few dance sequences more - possibly only the video for Michael Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal.”
Monday, February 25, 2008
And the Golden Statuette Goes to...
Last night was the 80th Annual Academy Awards; I am so happy that Tilda Swinton won for Best Supporting Actress, Javier Bardem for Best Supporting Actor, Daniel Day-Lewis for Best Actor, and No Country For Old Men for Best Director and Best Picture.
Read more about the ceremony here.
Click here for photos.
Read more about the ceremony here.
Click here for photos.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)