Check out my Slide Show!

Talk to the Animals

Well, it's time for a little introspection. It all started when I heard a discussion on the radio -- can't remember where or what -- about why women aren't allowed to go topless in public but men are. It's an issue that I've never really understood. I admit that I'm not particularly modest about my body: I've often gone to nude beaches, clothing-optional gay resorts, gym shower rooms, etc. Even after gaining 30 or 40 pounds, I still have a "this is who I am -- take it or leave it" attitude.

So then I started wondering what's behind this bizarre need we have to cover ourselves. It occurred to me that much of the Puritanism in our society arises from one cause: a very deep-seated need to deny anything about ourselves that reminds us that we are ANIMALS. Our bodies are animal bodies. A woman's breasts perform the ancient mammalian function of nourishing offspring. The sex-drive that we're not supposed to talk about links us directly to animals. Our inevitable but whispered-about meeting with Death returns us to dust just as it does with animals. Of course, this way of thinking makes sense to religious believers whose scriptures tell them that human beings are not animals and who don't want to be reminded that we, in fact, are.

OK so where does the introspection come in? My train of thought next led me to consider the human propensity for violence. I am forever bemoaning our inability to leave those drives behind. But, if I consider this issue honestly, I have to admit that those instincts are also proof of our animal nature. All you have to do is watch the National Geographic or the Discovery Channel to see animals eerily exhibiting exactly the same behaviors that we see all around us every day. Whether we use violent or other means, our actions often replicate the territorial battles seen among our animal ancestors. So, in expecting us to be able to just get over our need to physically dominate each other, I am trying to deny that we are animals just as much as those who prefer to hide our bodies and our sexual activities.

So where does that leave me in this argument? How do we decide which animal drives we should work to overcome and which we should accept or even enjoy? Why do I embrace my lusty side but reject my violent side? Can we divide these drives into those that bring pleasure and those that bring pain? But then, don't unwanted pregnancies and STI's cause pain? And wasn't Hitler defeated with violence?

So far I haven't even begun to resolve this dichotomy that makes such a hypocrite of me. Maybe someone out there can offer a more profound analysis of this question. Someone once said that the duty of the artist is not to offer answers, but to raise the important questions. Well, there is my issue for the day. What do you think?

Why Are We So Out of Touch?

I'm going to begin this entry with some definitions to avoid confusion about what I'm saying about this very touchy subject. When I say "eroticism," I am referring to contact that, intentionally or not, has a sexual component. When I say "sensuality," (I haven't looked in the dictionary . . . this is my working definition) I mean the NON-SEXUAL bodily contact that all animals require to maintain their psychological health.

And now to get to my point. Americans are so freaked out -- and with very good reason -- about child abuse, that we carry our caution to extremes and deny our kids the sensual contact that they -- and we -- need.

Strangely enough, I guess I began thinking about this when I was lying in bed with my dogs. I get immense sensual pleasure from being close to them and stroking them, but I certainly do NOT want to have sex with them. As I said, and as psychologists have proven, non-erotic touch benefits animals in general and humans in specific.

Of course this means that children need to be touched. They need to be hugged and kissed and caressed in appropriate ways. Many years ago, I had a job as a teacher's assistant for a kindergarten class in a Los Angeles public school. Very early on, the teacher told me that under no circumstances should I let a child sit on my lap because of the potential for misinterpretation by a parent or other adult. While I agree that the teacher did me a favor by warning me about the danger, I also thought, "How very, very sad that we live in a world where an adult can't let a 5-year-old child sit on his lap." And how tragic the loss of opportunities for healthy connection.

But what can we do? Child abuse is a very common and very serious problem. As I've said in other entries, I have no solution to offer, but I think it's important to realize what we are missing and think about what it's doing to us and our children.

Dysfunctional or Typical?

Cliff and I went to see "Little Miss Sunshine" this evening, and we found it very touching, very funny and borderline profound. We also agreed that it's a shoe-in when the Screen Actors Guild hands out the award for ensemble acting next year.

So here's the problem I have. Every time I hear anything about this film, the person commenting invariably refers to the "dysfunctional" family portrayed therein. Dysfunctional? Did they say some mean and hurtful things to each other? Yes. Did they all have neuroses and personal problems that made their relationships difficult? Of course. Could they have been better at taking care of each other? Without a doubt. You've already figured out that I'm going to challenge anyone to find a family for which these things are not true.

But there are plenty of things they do right. Without a second thought, Sheryl takes responsibility for her suicidal brother and takes him into her home. The family has also offered asylum to Grandpa who has been kicked out of his senior-living situation. I should also mention the fact that they eat dinner as a family, a tradition which, I am bewildered to hear, people must be reminded is a good idea these days.

Let me get to the central part of the story: Olive wants very badly to compete in the Little Miss Sunshine Pageant, and her family goes to extremes to assist her fulfillment of that dream. When I look at the other little girls participating in the pageant, I can't help but assume that their elaborate costumes and makeup, those professional performances reflect their parents' very high standards rather than those of the girls. Is there any doubt that the mothers we see in the audience could give Mama Rose a run for her money? In contrast, Olive does her own thing in the pageant, admittedly with Grandpa's help, but without being pushed by anyone. So which families are dysfunctional?

Most importantly, there are several moments in the film when the family members express their love and support for each other IN SO MANY WORDS. What's more, we can see how sincere these expressions of affection are. How many families are lax about expressing these things? And that's the bottom line. We know that there is real love and concern among the Hoovers.

So while there are many things that the Hoovers teach us NOT to do as families, there are plenty of things that they do as well as if not better than most families. Let's stop calling them dysfunctional and admit that, for better or for worse, they are a typical family.

The Real Deal on the Democratic Party

Though I'm registered in the Green Party, my fear of Republicans almost always forces me to vote for Democrats. I'm tempted to say, "As if there were a difference between the two major parties," but let's face it, there is.

Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that since the presidency of FDR, NO DEMOCRATIC HAS BEEN ELECTED BECAUSE THE PUBLIC AGREED WITH HIM ON THE ISSUES. Bear with me . . . I think I have a good argument.

Let's start with Truman and Johnson. Both took office following the death of the presidents under whom they served as vice-president, and, as we all know, incumbency gives any candidate a huge boost, so these two pretty much started off as shoe-ins.

Then there's Carter. (A good president? Who knows? But certainly the one president in my lifetime who truly qualifies as a mensch!) We all remember that Carter was elected in the wake of Nixon's post-Watergate resignation, meaning, of course, that the Dems could have run Mickey Mouse and won.

That leaves Kennedy and Clinton. Do any of us doubt that some major factors in their elections were their good-looks and charisma? Remember that polls taken after the Kennedy-Nixon debates showed that those who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won -- on the issues -- while those who watched on TV felt that Kennedy had won because he looked handsome while Nixon looked sweaty. Most pundits take for granted that appearance and charisma account for the discrepency.

So what does this mean? It means that in the post-FDR years, as I said earlier, Democrats have never won the presidency strictly on the issues. Sounds depressing, huh? No wonder they've worked so hard to look more and more like Republicans. I wish I had a solution to the problem, but it really comes down to the fact that we progressives have a long, long way to go before the majority of the people understand our point of view.

Which gives new resonance to that old song, "Am I Blue?"

Thank You, Mr. Clooney

One of the most noted aspects of this year's Oscar presentation was George Clooney's acceptance speech. I would like to second his motion in favor of those who are out of touch.

What does it mean to be out of touch? It means NOT to jump on the bandwagon. It means NOT to follow the trends. Most importantly, it means NOT to let others do your thinking for you. It means to view the world from a different angle, and, as anyone remotely acquainted with optics can tell you, at least two points of view are necessary to see the world in all its three dimentions. How incredibly dangerous to think that whatever the majority believes must always be right! I'm constantly surprised that this nation -- home of the power of the individual -- is also soooooooooooo demanding that everyone conform

Moreover, I hardly need point out that to many Americans the Founding Fathers were out of touch when they decried the monarchy. Abraham Lincoln was out of touch when he ended slavery. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were out of touch when they attempted to realize the promise of freedom. Germaine Greer and Bela Abzug were out of touch when they fought for the rights of women.

Of course, the great irony of the Right's claims about Hollywood elitism and separatism is that Hollywood only makes the product that will sell to Middle America. The job of show biz really is to be directly in touch with the audience. The best evidence of this is the ENORMOUS economic and success of pornography. Somebody out there is buying it. Oh, I know. You're just buying it so you can speak out against the garbage dirtying our nation. Because it will corrupt the mind of anyone who sees it. Except of course you.

So, try to be a little more out of touch. Try to find new ways to see the world. You can always get back in touch, but chances are, you won't want to.

The Kissing Closet Part II

Well, I've been thinking some more about the problems caused by keeping our physical affection in the closet, and today, during a heated debate following an appearance by Diana Ossana -- co-writer of Brokeback Mountain -- I almost got a chance to speak my mind, but time was short, so I didn't. Anyway, that's what blogs are for, so here goes.
If you read my profile, you know that I'm a graduate student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. As do many major universities, our university claims to be a haven of acceptance for LGBT people. There are gay organizations, gay meetings, openly gay students, openly gay faculty and staff, huge visible rainbow flags at the University Center, stickers on many professors' office doors that say "Safe Zone." All of that is wonderful.
But then I began to think, "Wait a minute. When was the last time I saw a same-sex couple kissing or even holding hands on campus?" Answer: Never! A woman at the appearance today seconded my feelings when she argued that the situation in Brokeback Mountain does not exist just in that place and time, but exists right there on the university campus. What is up with that? It proves once again that much of society is just fine with us as long as we are eunuchs. Some of our biggest supporters would groan if they saw us kissing. You know what? Will I be the one to start? Probably not. But look, folks, we have to start (with apologies to Stephen Sondheim) somehow, someday, somewhere.
In fact, my partner, who goes to school at Cal State University, Long Beach said that, at least in his music department, no one would think twice about two guys or two girls kissing. And that means that much of the problem is our own internalized homophobia because we're afraid people will freak. Well, maybe they will and maybe they won't. That's their problem.
If we lived in Wyoming in 1963 when there was no gay community for support and we might actually have risked death, maybe things would be different. But we don't. So let's get out there and start locking lips!