"I think you might be reading too much into it," said my date.
That right there goes at the top of the "dealbreaker" list.
I totally love SBF. But while I admire MASS's dress sense, she seems kinda wimpy.
I have always said the the first criteria for my friends is that they have opinions on things that they care about.
I can get along fine with people that I disgree with, but I get frustrated by people who don't state or don't defend their opinions.
That doesn't mean that I want my friends to be spouting opinions constantly, but just that the presence of considered opinions about controversial subjects is a positive in my opinion not a negative.
This is why blogs were invented.
I don't link to Havrilesky enough in these comments.
Why go to an avant-gardie art event if you refuse to read anything into it?
And yes, that short film sounds incredibly annoying.
the short movie sounds like a New Yorker cartoon, circa 1993 - maybe i'd have to see it, but from the description, it doesn't sound like an attempt to marginalize date rape education at all. am i missing something?
1 gets it right. And it has nothing to do with the feminism or otherwise of what you said. He was dismissing your thought in the most deadening way. In other words, he's not genuinely interested in you.
Missing out on a nightcap at Tia's place, now.
Mike D, much wise was cracked, circa late 90's if I recall, about how anti date rape feminists were going to make everyone ask "Can I nibble on your ear now?" etc. Much of it may have been in response to a particular college's policy on ideal sexual communication between new lovers, but I can't remember which college now, or what their policy actually was. What do you think "romance deserves better than this" means?"
I think it's an attempt to make fun of some of the (admittedly weird when spelled out) Amherst-like sexual ethics guidelines. What a cringe-worthy tagline. Wasn't it more romantic when I didn't have to not be a jackass?
Oh, thanks Cala, maybe it's Amherst I'm thinking of.
in retrospect, Reitman saw that his movie could have been a little better, and thought he ought to say so.
11: I tell him and tell him, and for WHAT???
Did you agree to go on a second date? Because if so, your MASS did get the better of you because that guy just sounds incurious. If not, well, you didn't pick a fight on a first date, and so much, I think, the better.
I could be totally making it up.
I do remember that wherever it was, it was made fun of a lot, because the wording was something like 'before the next step in a sexual encounter, explicit permission must be sought', hence the ear nibbling-feminazi jokes. And yeah, it is weird, and totally not how my dates go, but making a movie to make fun of it is really reading like 'Wasn't just easier when if she said 'yes' to a drink I could pork away?'
In other news, I just watched Thelma and Louise for the very first time and I'm not quite sure what I think of the movie, except I probably would have shot the bastard, too.
9,10,12: I believe you're thinking of the Antioch College Sexual Offense Prevention Policy.
It was Antioch, not Amherst. Here is a Saturday Night Live sketch about it, which I'm not going to read right now because I'm supposed to be wrapping the cat in packing tape to send to Ogged and anyway it looks annoying.
See, I don't know whether my recollections of those sexual guidelines are accurate or whether they reflect overstated backlash, but I recall they were specifically prescriptive about the language to be used: "I would like to touch your breast now, may I?" That sort of thing.
Isn't it dangerous to send your cat to someone with so much practice killing kittens?
Unlike this cat, my love for you will never die.
I have relatives that graduated from Antioch, so I'm inclined to defend them.
The policy appears to have changed, but here is a copy from 1998. I can understand why people would make fun of it, but I can also see what they were trying to accomplish.
I do like this sentence in wikipedia: "In 1993 Antioch became the focus of national ridicule with its "sexual offense prevention policy". This document got more publicity for the college than anything since the student strike of 1973."
1. For the purpose of this policy, "consent" shall be defined as follows: the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexual contact or conduct.
2. If sexual contact and/or conduct is not mutually and simultaneously initiated, then the person who initiates sexual contact/conduct is responsible for getting the verbal consent of the other individual(s) involved.
3. Obtaining consent is an on-going process in any sexual interaction. Verbal consent should be obtained with each new level of physical and/or sexual contact/conduct in any given interaction, regardless of who initiates it. Asking "Do you want to have sex with me?" is not enough. The request for consent must be specific to each act.
I dunno. I think that policies like that are a good idea for guys who are terrified of false rape claims. From the point of view of the terrified guy, it ensures that you have consent, which you can (if needed) swear to in court. From the point of view of the girl, it demonstrates that the guy is terrified of false rape claims, which means he's an anti-feminist jackass.
Everyone else can just go ahead and have sex and not worry about it.
That was it. Amherst, Antioch, I was 13 in 1993, whatever.
And the policy isn't nearly as weird as its caricature. And hey, maybe if the frat boys weren't interpreting 'Yes, I'd like punch' as 'When I pass out, you can scribble slurs on me and gang rape me!', there wouldn't have to be such detailed policies.
From the point of view of the girl, it demonstrates that the guy is terrified of false rape claims, which means he's an anti-feminist jackass.
This I don't agree with, largely because it describes most of my male friends at some point in their youth, who have bought into the idea that any past sexual experience they've had could ten years down the road turn into a credible rape accusation. And it mostly seems to stem from guilt like 'It was the first time I had sex and I really sucked. What if she regrets it? Will I go to jail?' They're not jackasses, just woefully ignorant. I don't think the terror is indicative of jackassery.
It's worth noting that Antioch has a long history of both student radicalism and student government.
For better or for worse, the impression that I got when the policy became a story was that within Antioch the policy was not something set in stone, but part of an evolving community process.
From my link in 17:
Two date rapes occurred on campus. There was a general feeling from the Community that the administration was responding with apathy and serious issues were not being dealt with. An organization of womyn calling themselves the Womyn of Antioch was formed. Womyn of Antioch wrote the original Sexual Offense Policy during a couple of late night meetings in the Womyn’s Center. The following Tuesday, they stormed Community Meeting, participated in a direct action in front of the Community, and presented the policy....
Six to eight open Community Meetings were held. All who were interested in having their voices a part of this process (including staff, faculty and administrators) were encouraged to attend. It was in these meetings that Community Members wrote the policy themselves.
(Though you do have to laugh at this line, "Gray areas grew as more people asked for clarity concerning certain aspects of the policy.")
It doesn't sound like either a perfect policy or a perfect process, but both were grew out of Antioch's character as an institution.
Wait—you're sending your cat to ogged?
I don't think the terror is indicative of jackassery.
It could be that the last sentence of 24 was itself an instance of jackassery.
27, 28: Pay attention! Are we going to have to revoke your Kotsko Fellowships?
(Links in 30 reversed. Yay, linking issues!)
A Kotsko Fellowship is when you find out you have a tax bill, no?
Ah, but a 'Smasher-Saiselgy Endowment is when you receive a $2,000 bill from the water authority.
I have said before, I just don't get this worry -- although I understand it's real for some people.
Simplistically: Either the person you're with is into you or not, and if you're not totally clear that they are into you... why would you be there, doing what you're doing? It's not like it's super difficult to tell when someone is into you.
I actually didn't read any of that thread, since I don't like those games.
Now I see it was solved pretty fast.
It's not like it's super difficult to tell when someone is into you.
Sez YOU.
Sez YOU.
Well, I can see how it's hard to tell whether someone's into you enough to make that first move (see this discussion) but this is a different question. I think it's a lot easier to tell whether the person you're making out with on the couch would mind taking things back into the bedroom than whether the person you're sitting across from on the couch would mind if you went in for that first kiss.
I usually go in for the first kiss about the first time the pop ballad swells in the soundtrack and the lens goes soft-focus. A couple of close-up shots of her anticipating eyes is a dead giveaway, too.
25, 29: Yeah, I think . From the point of view of the girl, it demonstrates that the guy is terrified of false rape claims, which means he's an anti-feminist jackass. is either a joke or fairly stupid.
People are fucked up about sex. Especially when they're young, and especially when they're inexperienced. If you tell a group of men who've only just worked up the nerve to talk to women that their female friends need to be very, very worried about date rape, they're going to look around the room, see that the only people there are them, and assume that what they had thought of as "moves" may be tantamount to rape. There don't seem to be many other options.
In the end, people muddle through, get experience and get over it. If some of the guys end up being overly careful, I'm OK with that.
re: 37
Exactly. First kiss, etc. Major nerves, 'does this person really like me?' etc.
But when things have gone for enough that there's any potential possibility that a rape allegation could get made, surely, you ought to know.
The question on everyone's mind: did Tia agree to see him again?
Obviously, it's easier to read the signs too if your first intimate experiences have been with, say, a long-term girlfriend where you know for definite where the boundaries are.
I suppose I can see how, maybe, if your first ever experiences that go beyond a chaste kiss, or whatever, are with a total stranger or near stranger, then sign-reading might be harder.
And that might expain the caution referred to in 39.
40: Aren't you the guy who's always like, "In the UK we just all get drunk and randomly pair up" (or something)? I suspect the key factor here is alcohol.
43: Or there might be more restricted notions of rape in the UK. It looks like the UK started having this conversation about 10-15 years after we did.
Lord, 'smasher, what on earth have you and Saiselgy been doing in the shower for all that time?
Also, into you != consent for any sex act. It is, in fact, hard to tell what the other person is up for, especially when you're young and stupid. I don't think establishing verbal consent for serious escalations, at least in new relationships where you don't understand the person's cues yet, is a bad idea. I mean, you wouldn't assume someone's going to consent to anal, at least in a het situation (obvs. you shouldn't in any situation), so there's an example of a time you'd have to have a li'l conversation. Why is it so onerous at other times?
If some of the guys end up being overly careful, I'm OK with that.
On the other hand, though, coyness is nice and all, but coyness can stop you from doing some of the things you want to.
I said, sure, yeah let's see each other again in a way meant to convey that I did not want to see him again.
re: 40
I don't think the two are really related. The 'drunk and pair up' conversation was re: a discussion of dating culture for working people in their twenties and thirties rather than say, kids in their late teens, i.e. the claim that possibly a certain degree of hedonistic abandon shortcuts some of the tension and stresses that seem endemic to dating US culture. ( from my largely 2nd hand and hence possibly ill-informed perspective)
The friends and acquaintances I am talking about in that context are, I hope, old enough and wise enough to know when their advances are welcome and when they're not.
Also, I wouldn't want to exaggerate the drunkeness thing. I'm also the guy who generally thinks that drunkeness to the point of total loss of self-control is much more a US thing -- what with a drinking age of 21 and a somewhat all or nothing approach to drink among college students -- rather than a UK thing.
{Not that I'd want to put the UK forward as an exemplar of healthy drinking culture .. far from it. UK drinking culture has its own messed up facets}
Adults getting a bit pissed, having a good time and pairing up is not the same thing at all as drinking to the point of passing out resulting in (to quote an earlier comment) 'When I pass out, you can scribble slurs on me and gang rape me!' behaviour.
I said, sure, yeah let's see each other again in a way meant to convey that I did not want to see him again.
Boo to that. This is an area where explicit is better than implicit, because not everyone's going to have the same s3kr1t decoder ring you have.
re: 46
I hope I didn't imply that 'into you = consent for any and all sex acts'.
42: It's not uncommon to have serious communication problems in relationships if you're young and/or stupid. For that matter, some people never learn the uncoolness of coercive behavior that falls short of rape, but is nevertheless not really designed to make sure the other person's wishes are respected. Emphasizing what consent really is, and how freely it should be given, might help them understand the uncoolness.
50: I think he understood Ben. He didn't call.
Admit it, Ben. You'll be playing the same song during your first gay experience.
45: It was either the running toiled we left unattended for far too long or the Seaworld park we just opened.
"For that matter, some people never learn the uncoolness of coercive behavior that falls short of rape, but is nevertheless not really designed to make sure the other person's wishes are respected. Emphasizing what consent really is, and how freely it should be given, might help them understand the uncoolness."
Definitely. My point was more that, if you're engaging in coercion and/or it's not transparently obvious that the person you're with is totally into you and into what's happening then maybe that's a bloody good sign that things have gone far enough.
Conversations are also cool. It makes perfect sense if people aren't sure what's OK and what's not that they talk about it.
I just have a slight problem getting my head round the phenomenology of date-rape self-doubt, the 'maybe I'm a date rapist' thought.
Speaking of SBF's dealbreakers, I was out on a date recently in which the topic of manners came up. We were having a great conversation about the changing parameters of etiquette, including swearing, when date says "Frankly, I think manners are very important." I sort of shrug a little, thinking "hey, a little traditional, but whatever, polite isn't bad," and then he adds "especially for girls." I nearly spat out my beer, and MASS knew to take a hike after that comment. What I can't understand is that even after I totally chewed him out and we spent 20 minutes arguing about gender stereotypes, he calls me up again and wants to see me again? Wtf, dude? Go date someone who's a shrinking violet, not a foul- ( and loud!)-mouthed chick like me.
As to the Antioch thing, I would prefer that than the "now I am going to place your hand on my dick" strategy employed by many of my peers. Look, motherfucker, when I want to touch your cock, I'll do it myself. I hate that.
You'll be playing the same song during your first gay experience.
There's an efficient way to take care of this.
You see, Tia? Tim just totally failed to pick up on my play for him.
I just have a slight problem getting my head round the phenomenology of date-rape self-doubt, the 'maybe I'm a date rapist' thought.
I think in this discussion this doubt has mostly been suggested as an ex ante concern among men with no real experience to speak of.
59: I'm just not that into you, Ben. See, Tia, sometimes you have to be pretty explicit.
I'm just not that into you, Ben.
That's ok, I can be into you if you prefer it that way.
Ben's comments in this thread have been dead on. Less coyness, please.
63 written before I saw 62, but I decided to post it anyway.
So who here thinks Stern Bespectacled Feminist is probably pretty hot?
Also, 'Smasher's 60 gets it exactly right. The issue is less "that didn't go very well, I hope she doesn't accuse me of rape" (although there's probably that too) than "fuck, how will I know if she really consents?"
The movie sounds like a rip-off of this ancient Kids in the Hall sketch, which is not about date rape at all.
Y'all can watch the movie at the link ya know.
They didn't specify the strength of the gin, the fools!
55: Dude, you guys' toilet was running when I was there in December.
At the height of the crisis, according to water authority data!
I'd just like to whine that I'm still at work.
Isn't 'smasher's job to write an art blog? Boo hoo.
That is just one job of many and I doubt the one where he is trapped this evening.
49: UK drinking culture has its own messed up facets
Go on . . .
27-8: Why is one an em-dash and another not? (Or is that an en-dash? I can't tell.)
Alas, I'm even missing out on a late-night museum event (featuring the art and turntable skillz of Jim Lambie) due to my work elsewhere.
Nevertheless I've greatly exceeded the permissable whine quotient in this thread.
27-8: Why is one an em-dash and another not? (Or is that an en-dash? I can't tell.)
It is I, Captain HTML Entity, with my — and my –
I use them because I'm a giant nerd.
Is Lambie's turntablism any good? I start with a massive prejudice against it, because "artist playing DJ" carries whispers of dillettantism, and if that artist is prone to advertising his semi-rock star friends that makes it even worse.
I dunno. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in my office and he's DJing at the Hirshhorn.
Perhaps you should take this as "I bet his DJing sucks" and be consoled.
Also, I wanted an excuse to link to my review.
I read those a while ago and passed them on to a friend who worked at the Carnegie. You know one of the pieces caught on fire during install? I forget which one, I'd have to look at my notes.
More whining! Why does iPod not understand that podcasts are inappropriate for shuffling?
Amherst-like sexual ethics guidelines
I was very surprised and concerned to hear about these.
Musta been -- ah, I may have to look at my notes --
Eva Rothschild? I vaguely remember that the sculpture was made of incense sticks, which I thought were supposed to be alit at one point, but which burned faster than expected.
No no, that's it, except that there was a fire incident involving Eva Rothschild and another work. This apparently happened during install. I can't remember teh details though I can clearly remember the room in my mind. I have the little mini-catalog at home and I wrote down the story in the back.
Ha! I'd like to hear the full version of the story.
Stanley: — — – –
ok, I haven't read past 45, and I'm new enough here that I don't know if that is ok by local etiquette, but I have to rant:
Any time someone says, “talking about X destroys the mystery,” or any such shit, they are simply trying to protect the status quo. “Asking permission before diving in destroys the mystery” “Stopping to put on a condom breaks the mood” “Talking candidly about sexual history makes everyone seem gross”--all of these statements amount to saying “there is information out there which will pop my little bubble of safety and entitlement”
Cruel universe, why did you introduce me to Rob Helpy-Chalk, only to make him married? Isn't it ironic?
I'm going to bed. What, I slept really poorly last night. I have plans tomorrow.
Keep hope alive, Tia. Rob knows the code.
In other news, I just watched Thelma and Louise for the very first time and I'm not quite sure what I think of the movie, except I probably would have shot the bastard, too.
And another gun nut was born.
Tia only just developed a crush on him, but Rob Helpy-Chalk had me at his handle.
So to speak.
98: Haha, shot varsity rifle in high school. Not a nut, exactly, jut not afeared a the guns.
Why do you keep posting "Kobe!" on 100, Becks? You should be posting "Wilt!" Or "Kobe!" on #81. No?
Off-Topic: Grrr...I just pulled up a view of the 150 most recent comments and 149 of them were spam.
(If you've been getting a bunch of ISE 500 errors, I suspect that's why. We're getting about 15 spam comments a minute today.)
Spammers à la lanterne!
I'm not sure T&L makes the best case for gun nuttery. Things didn't work out that great for them in the end.
My favorite is the spammer we had today that was using the email address x@nospam.com. Even he realizes spammers are douchebags.
You have to wonder how effective spamming is any more.
Are the spammers like cargo cultists, just pouring spam into the ether in the hope that the customers will return?
I think there are enough blogs that don't police their comments that linkspamming will overall be an effective way to increase your page rank. Plus, if you're EVIL, you will want to continue to spam people who are taking anti-spam measures, for it reduces the incentive to take those anti-spam measures.
Further questions can be directed to D/avid Gau/thier.
Ah, good point.
Plus, we don't get enough chances to call people EVIL here...
I'm not sure T&L makes the best case for gun nuttery. Things didn't work out that great for them in the end.
They had to run because they did it right there in the parking lot. Cala on the other hand was on the rifle team. She could have waited until later and taken him her hiding place in a field, say, five or six hundred yards out.
all behind here, but re Tia's 46--it just slipped, baby!
gswift, isn't that an argument for a ban on handguns? Only carry weapons that can be used to take out acquaintance-rapists from a safe hiding place.
(NB I don't actually believe that)
The next Unfogged project can be to take up funds to get Cala a sniper rifle. Then she can she can go on patrol. Guys who just will not take no for an answer get a bullet in the leg.
In the leg? I'm sure Cala's a better shot than that.
A good liberal of course tries to educate first.
Seriously, I guess this is as good a place to ask as will present itself. How many of us here, "grew up with guns?"
I did, and the whole range of experiences that go with it probably effect many of our attitudes, if we have had those experiences.
And naturally, she'll need a sidekick.
OMG KITTY WITH RIFLE!!!
(Grew up around guns. And Louise's mistake was to get that close with the gun. It's a distance weapon, peeps, no need to press it into his neck where he can grab your arm.)
How many of us here, "grew up with guns?"
I grew up with them, although my dad wasn't a collector or anything. Just a couple rifles and a pistol that were in the family from his dad. Shooting was just something I was taught growing up, the same way he taught me to flyfish, and any number of other things.
That didn't turn out great either.
I just realized that that's where the rathergood audience members come from (sound 'n' video).
Didn't grow up with guns at all.
I've never even seen a real gun -- except for the couple of times I've seen armed police or soldiers in the streets.
Likewise. Mind you, in London last year that was not too infrequent.
Except I just realised that's completely untrue, having spent most of my life in Australia where police are armed. I even saw them shoot someone dead once. Blam!
That said, I've never been close to a gun or (gasp) touched one.
I was raised by guns. Here I am on my fifth birthday, holding my Uncle Charlie. (He was rendered sterile by the placement of an orange "vasecto-cap" on the end of his barrel.)
No guns in our house when growing up, though many people in the wider area hunted.
I had rifles pointed at me a bunch of times, in N. Ireland. One time soldiers with guns pulled up next to my uncle's car on some kind of stealth platform. One minute there was nothing, and the next two soldiers were aiming inside our car. They had us confused with someone else, I think.
How many of us here, "grew up with guns?"
Like SCMT, there were no guns in our house, but I saw guns through neighbors and relatives who hunted.
I was around weapons all the time during my military career, of course, but I have never owned a gun.
I didn't grow up with guns, exactly, but I visited them. You don't go for a hike in the countryside up North without a beargun. I learned to fire a .22 once, but I sucked tremendously; that was before anyone noticed that I really needed glasses.
When I was a little older, after that weird strength in the early nineties when California looked like it was going to burn down, break away from the mainland, and disintegrate into riots, my grandad gave my father a shotgun. Thanks, Grandad! The only time it's ever come close to being used was when my dad nearly killed me one night when I was sneaking in and out of the house: a gun in the suburbs was the last thing we needed.
No guns in the past, no guns in the future. Unless there actually *is* a revolution.
after that weird strength in the early nineties when California looked like it was going to burn down, break away from the mainland, and disintegrate into riots,
Huh? Maybe I had some sort of drinking problem in the 90s; I should remember this.
This is probably part of it?
And wasn't there a bunch of mudslides and wildfires around that time?
Oh, I had a gun quasi- pulled on me by a cop in Amsterdam once.
A friend and I were 18 and sitting on the pavement chatting to these two French girls who were selling trinkets or something. The cops asked us to move, and we treated them like we were use to treating them at home. Politely, but with mild contempt. And we were a bit cheeky, in a very mild way.
The guy started unbuckling his holster and pulling out his gun. We buggered off, double quick. I was pretty surprised/shocked.
89--quake in the South Bay.
90--the Oakland hills burn down
91--wildfires in LA, I think
92--quake in LA
92--Rodney King riots
93--mudslides in LA
I think there was a smallish riot in Berkeley around then too. It all calmed down a bit in the later 90s.
I've had guns pointed at me by cops more than once. Albuquerque cops are famously quick with the deadly force.
I had a gun quasi- pulled on me by a cop in Amsterdam once.
We think of them as being all warm and fuzzy, but police on the Continent do not mess around. Once, in the days of my misspent youth, we (seven of us, ages 3 to 36) spent two weeks parked by a canal in Amsterdam--sleeping in the van at night and hanging out and sightseeing during the day. A couple of times during that time, we were awakened by the Dutch police. A group (four or five) would open all of the doors of the van simultaneously, look inside and, apparently satisfied that a hippy family posed no threat, would say "OK", close the doors, and disappear into the night.
The first time I ever saw a machine gun was when, earlier in that same trip, I was picked up by the police while hitchhiking on the autobahn. They carried both sidearms and submachine guns. Not people to mess with.
A group (four or five) would open all of the doors of the van simultaneously, look inside and, apparently satisfied that a hippy family posed no threat, would say "OK", close the doors, and disappear into the night.
Hippie family? Who are you, and what have you done with Idealist?
Who are you, and what have you done with Idealist?
Life is long. Lots of stuff happens.
Living in a cabin with no running water or electricity, grinding grain by hand so you can bake bread in your wood stove, sounds cool, but the romance wears off quick (four months, in my case). Especially when there are bills to pay. It was relaxing, though. Lots of time to read and listen to the sound of the wind in the trees. I miss that.
Living in a cabin with no running water or electricity, grinding grain by hand so you can bake bread in your wood stove, sounds cool
Um, no.
Has anyone else read T. C. Boyle's Drop City?
Short version: hippy commune in California relocates to the wilderness of Alaska to pursue in greater purity and sexual liberation the "simple life." Mood: darkly comic.
I have never killed another living thing with a firearm, that I know of. I've fired into the bush enouth not to be completely sure.
Both my grandfathers were born on farms, yet I never heard anything about guns concerning them; I just don't know. As it was the mid to late nineteenth century, any family guns would have been muzzle loaders. My father never owned a gun, although he had a responsible job during WWII at the naval dockyards, and keeping track of small arms was what he did. His knowledge of them and their parts could amaze me years later.
My brother is 8 1/2 years older than I am, has been fascinated by guns all his life, and no wonder. When we were little, neighbors would often bring deer, and sometimes bear, home on the roofs and trunks of their cars, sometimes hanging them up to dress. Even before we left Ontario, he owned a rifle and a pistol, which I don't remember making the trip. In the states, he was introduced to a group who've been his closest friends ever since.
This group had lots of guns among them, often changing hands. My brother worked at Sears in sporting goods; with his discount he bought guns for himself and for me. Afternoons and weekends, I went along with them. In this way, I was introduced to all the major types: rifle, pistol, shotgun, revolver, and inducted into the culture of their use. We mostly shot at cans, bottles, targets, and skeet, with a hand-launcher I often operated. For a twelve and thirteen-year-old boy, which is what I was, this initiation into the mysteries of beer and firearms was very exciting. This was the early sixties. The whole thing was a lot like the hunting scenes in The Deer Hunter.
I went for the marksmanship merit badge, where I probably learned about sights, positions, windage, "squeeze the trigger," etc. I remember mounting a swivel strap to my BB gun, to practice positions. Years later, when I read Faulkner's The Bear, the sense of noviate-like dedication in pursuit of purety which the boy has felt very familiar to me.
I was also exposed to what I'll call "sexual doctrine" in this association. Some of the propositions advanced in that connection were so startling, so counterintuitive, that I was moved to run them by my father. The face he made while fixing my gaze and slowly shaking his head told me all I needed to know.
Many of the guys were married within a couple of years, and by-and-large, those marriages did not last. OK, it was the late sixties, but if there was any relation between theory and practice, this result was not to be wondered at.
Guns: My Dad had a friend from Georgia who was really into hunting and whose wife used to win shooting prizes. So, my Dad went hunting with him a few times and bought a rifle, which was silly, because my Dad didn't take to hunting. The thing lived in a room of our basement that was locked up, and I never saw it. Eventually my Dad got riid of it. I was told never to go in that room, and I didn't. I would have liked to have seen it though, and I was careful enough that if I had been allowed in, I wouldn't have actually touched it or tried to play with it.
I've also lived in parts of Maine where you have to make sure that your dog wears an orange vest and where you might want to wear orange even if you're not walking through the woods.
89--quake in the South Bay.
90--the Oakland hills burn down
91--wildfires in LA, I think
92--quake in LA
92--Rodney King riots
93--mudslides in LA
Don't stop there, 1994 was the Northridge quake. It was my senior year (jesus, I'm turning 30 this year). I grew up out in Arcadia, so for me the riots and all that was watching the smoke plumes without being very close to any of it. Quite a few of my Korean friends were in the thick of it though, helping relatives defend their stores.
I have never killed another living thing with a firearm, that I know of. I've fired into the bush enouth not to be completely sure.
I've never gotten into hunting. I thought I might when I moved to Utah, and bought a rifle, but never got around to it. I sold it largely unused a few years back to help pay for a ring made for a fifth anniversary present. I've only ever shot small animals like rabbits and birds. I grew up shooting a lot of birds with a pellet gun. My dad's a biologist, so the guidelines were "shoot all the exotics you want, but I had better not catch you shooting any native species."
I'd really like to hunt pigs though. If there's an animal in this world begging to be shot and eaten, it's a feral pig.
I think the Oakland fire was in 1991. And wasn't there flooding in 1995 when the drought finally ended?
Yeah, I knew I was going to get the chronology all kinds of wrong, but looking it up would have been sick and perverse, cruel and calculated, pitiful and inauthentic. The point stands: in the early nineties, California was widely perceived as being about to burn down, fall into the ocean, and rise up in anarchy. Like a phoenix!
I've never lived in a house with guns, though like Tim's 128, hunting was common so I saw them growing up at friends' houses and such.
