(a woman and man masturbate one another with their left hands)
HE: This is amazing...you are so amazing...
SHE: You're pretty amazing yourself...but there's something i should tell you...
HE: Mmm, what's that...
SHE: (switching hands) I'm not left-handed.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
"Fire with Fire"
(The New Female Power, and how it will change the 21st Century)
-by Naomi Wolf
1993
One of the most essential books on feminism - ever. Breathing the rarefied air of THE SECOND SEX, THE MISMEASURE OF WOMAN, and THE WAR AGAINST WOMEN, Wolf's second book has been dismissed and overlooked, especially in comparison with her classic THE BEAUTY MYTH. Which is a crying shame, as she deftly avoids the overearnest flaws of her debut bestseller.
Like a roller coaster, FIRE WITH FIRE starts out slow and steady. One even begins to worry that the ride might be gradually burying itself in the dirt. But like THE WIZARD OF OZ bursting into color, about a third of the way through Wolf tosses aside the academic/polemic veil, and the book begins to vibrate with self-revelation and clear thinking. The very best books engage us in such a way as to feel like a conversation with the author, a trick Wolf pulls off with unerring grace. She heralds the arrival of global female power during the "genderquake" of 1992 (which had the Thomas/Hill hearings as its epicenter). Tellingly, i used to forget that Thomas' career actually survived those hearings - but my mental lapse mirrored the larger historical shift, as women were ever after empowered with the knowledge that their truth-telling could remove misbehaving males from their power base. That the pendulum was swinging in a new direction cannot be denied. That it swung too far is also hard to deny (i myself got caught in that once, when i got fired for telling a co-worker i liked her smile). In addition, '92 brought elections in which women's voices (now a majority of the electorate) shifted national politics like never before, as Clinton's female-rich administration came to power. It was also presumably the last time that female U.S. senators would more than double their ranks within one year.
Yet just as these changes were taking place, feminism itself had become an unpopular word among both men and women. Going beyond the male power structure's backlash, Wolf explains how this change was due also to dissensions among women. Feminism had come to be perceived as man-hating, dykey, or middle-class and white. In addition, a new distinction was being born - "victim feminism" as compared to "power feminism". Victim feminism points toward inherent gender differences, and how women need to be "rescued". Power feminism places women's salvation in their own hands. Victim feminism places the most victimized woman as the highest moral authority. Power feminism asks us to judge the message, not the messenger. Wolf argues that victim feminism is anti-humanist. Her most clarifying example is the 1992 Berkeley incident wherein female students forced the administration to clothe a male student who went naked on campus, as a pro-freedom, pro-nature statement.
There have been one or two instances when my own writing has been accused of victim feministry, and i almost took it to heart. But like the big sister i never had, Wolf points out that ALL feminism is sourced from the awareness that women have been history's victims, and shedding light on that is vital.
Yet another light went off as i realized that on more than one occasion, i've been chastised for claiming to be more feminist than most women, and admonished that such an observation is insulting. I generally bit my tongue, but Wolf has empowered me to nevermore back down when someone suggests i don't have the right to compare my feminist credentials to anyone's, and chide those who fall short, regardless of gender.
She illuminates the psychological aspect of women that resists power, which is "male" (and therefore carries all the moral baseness inherent thereto). Add to that a resistance to giving up the "moral lightness of being infantilized, the simplicity of having limited choices, the sense of specialness that comes from being treated as a frail exotic". She deconstructs the ways "man as enemy" is self-defeating. She reclaims heterosexual healing, and argues that the roles of pursuer or pursued, possessor or possessed, can be healthy expressions of sexuality - for anyone. She challenges the assumption that men are visual/promiscuous while women are emotional/monogamous, by talking about her college days. She and her female peers made a sport of sex. They greedily related tales of performance and physical endowment, and were often less than faithful. Like men, they had to learn to see the person beneath the sex object. In Hollywood, it's now common for famous actresses to take up with younger (and unfailingly non-ugly) men. Her comments shade toward monogamy being desirable, which runs counter to what science now knows, but that's this book's only real flaw, and you have to have hawk eyes to even notice it.
Wolf talks about her struggles and discomfort with money and fame, and how this touches upon female power illiteracy. I realized how much my own relationship with money parallels the traditional female attitude - just this month, i made a flyer advertising my services that contained the words "pay what you can afford". While my relationship with capitalism has a larger humanist context, the example reminds me of the first time someone told me i had a lot of feminine energy - it's clear she wasn't just blowing smoke up my ass to get me in bed (although some college women do that, apparently). Wolf correctly contends that women need to become comfortable with power if they're to make the complete leap forward which is within our grasp. She argues that powerlust is not alien to women, by examining the behavior of females under the age of five. She calls the "sisterhood" model of feminism insufficient, as women are too diverse and numerous to be united under the umbrella of intimate connection. She outlines ways for women to achieve, hold, and expand their influence in a world of money, votes, and public perception. And the main thrust of this amazing book is that the power is already in women's hands - the only thing that can hold back the dream of equality at this point, is women themselves.
How deeply did this book move me? I'll now forever dream of feeding Naomi.
To understand that one, you'll have to read the book.
-by Naomi Wolf
1993
One of the most essential books on feminism - ever. Breathing the rarefied air of THE SECOND SEX, THE MISMEASURE OF WOMAN, and THE WAR AGAINST WOMEN, Wolf's second book has been dismissed and overlooked, especially in comparison with her classic THE BEAUTY MYTH. Which is a crying shame, as she deftly avoids the overearnest flaws of her debut bestseller.
Like a roller coaster, FIRE WITH FIRE starts out slow and steady. One even begins to worry that the ride might be gradually burying itself in the dirt. But like THE WIZARD OF OZ bursting into color, about a third of the way through Wolf tosses aside the academic/polemic veil, and the book begins to vibrate with self-revelation and clear thinking. The very best books engage us in such a way as to feel like a conversation with the author, a trick Wolf pulls off with unerring grace. She heralds the arrival of global female power during the "genderquake" of 1992 (which had the Thomas/Hill hearings as its epicenter). Tellingly, i used to forget that Thomas' career actually survived those hearings - but my mental lapse mirrored the larger historical shift, as women were ever after empowered with the knowledge that their truth-telling could remove misbehaving males from their power base. That the pendulum was swinging in a new direction cannot be denied. That it swung too far is also hard to deny (i myself got caught in that once, when i got fired for telling a co-worker i liked her smile). In addition, '92 brought elections in which women's voices (now a majority of the electorate) shifted national politics like never before, as Clinton's female-rich administration came to power. It was also presumably the last time that female U.S. senators would more than double their ranks within one year.
Yet just as these changes were taking place, feminism itself had become an unpopular word among both men and women. Going beyond the male power structure's backlash, Wolf explains how this change was due also to dissensions among women. Feminism had come to be perceived as man-hating, dykey, or middle-class and white. In addition, a new distinction was being born - "victim feminism" as compared to "power feminism". Victim feminism points toward inherent gender differences, and how women need to be "rescued". Power feminism places women's salvation in their own hands. Victim feminism places the most victimized woman as the highest moral authority. Power feminism asks us to judge the message, not the messenger. Wolf argues that victim feminism is anti-humanist. Her most clarifying example is the 1992 Berkeley incident wherein female students forced the administration to clothe a male student who went naked on campus, as a pro-freedom, pro-nature statement.
There have been one or two instances when my own writing has been accused of victim feministry, and i almost took it to heart. But like the big sister i never had, Wolf points out that ALL feminism is sourced from the awareness that women have been history's victims, and shedding light on that is vital.
Yet another light went off as i realized that on more than one occasion, i've been chastised for claiming to be more feminist than most women, and admonished that such an observation is insulting. I generally bit my tongue, but Wolf has empowered me to nevermore back down when someone suggests i don't have the right to compare my feminist credentials to anyone's, and chide those who fall short, regardless of gender.
She illuminates the psychological aspect of women that resists power, which is "male" (and therefore carries all the moral baseness inherent thereto). Add to that a resistance to giving up the "moral lightness of being infantilized, the simplicity of having limited choices, the sense of specialness that comes from being treated as a frail exotic". She deconstructs the ways "man as enemy" is self-defeating. She reclaims heterosexual healing, and argues that the roles of pursuer or pursued, possessor or possessed, can be healthy expressions of sexuality - for anyone. She challenges the assumption that men are visual/promiscuous while women are emotional/monogamous, by talking about her college days. She and her female peers made a sport of sex. They greedily related tales of performance and physical endowment, and were often less than faithful. Like men, they had to learn to see the person beneath the sex object. In Hollywood, it's now common for famous actresses to take up with younger (and unfailingly non-ugly) men. Her comments shade toward monogamy being desirable, which runs counter to what science now knows, but that's this book's only real flaw, and you have to have hawk eyes to even notice it.
Wolf talks about her struggles and discomfort with money and fame, and how this touches upon female power illiteracy. I realized how much my own relationship with money parallels the traditional female attitude - just this month, i made a flyer advertising my services that contained the words "pay what you can afford". While my relationship with capitalism has a larger humanist context, the example reminds me of the first time someone told me i had a lot of feminine energy - it's clear she wasn't just blowing smoke up my ass to get me in bed (although some college women do that, apparently). Wolf correctly contends that women need to become comfortable with power if they're to make the complete leap forward which is within our grasp. She argues that powerlust is not alien to women, by examining the behavior of females under the age of five. She calls the "sisterhood" model of feminism insufficient, as women are too diverse and numerous to be united under the umbrella of intimate connection. She outlines ways for women to achieve, hold, and expand their influence in a world of money, votes, and public perception. And the main thrust of this amazing book is that the power is already in women's hands - the only thing that can hold back the dream of equality at this point, is women themselves.
How deeply did this book move me? I'll now forever dream of feeding Naomi.
To understand that one, you'll have to read the book.
Friday, November 22, 2013
ohio movers
Accountants are miserable
Soldiers are afraid
Teachers are depressed
Writers don't get laid
But Ohio movers
get sex when they want
Ohio movers
work three hours a day
Ohio movers
call everyone friend
Ohio movers
They think, laugh, and play
Bankers got no soul
Miners got no goal
Prostitution takes a toll
Scientists got no control
But Ohio movers
get sex when they want
Ohio movers
work three hours a day
Ohio movers
call everyone friend
Ohio movers
They hug, laugh, and play
Musicians got no bread
Doctors get sued
Journalists are owned
And nobody gets nude
But Ohio movers
get sex when they want
Ohio movers
work three hours a day
Ohio movers
call everyone friend
Ohio movers
They sing, shout, and play
Cops get no love
Lawyers are despised
Parenting ain't fun
And painters ain't prized
But Ohio movers
get sex when they want
Ohio movers
work three hours a day
Ohio movers
call everyone friend
Ohio movers
They laugh, jump, and play
Soldiers are afraid
Teachers are depressed
Writers don't get laid
But Ohio movers
get sex when they want
Ohio movers
work three hours a day
Ohio movers
call everyone friend
Ohio movers
They think, laugh, and play
Bankers got no soul
Miners got no goal
Prostitution takes a toll
Scientists got no control
But Ohio movers
get sex when they want
Ohio movers
work three hours a day
Ohio movers
call everyone friend
Ohio movers
They hug, laugh, and play
Musicians got no bread
Doctors get sued
Journalists are owned
And nobody gets nude
But Ohio movers
get sex when they want
Ohio movers
work three hours a day
Ohio movers
call everyone friend
Ohio movers
They sing, shout, and play
Cops get no love
Lawyers are despised
Parenting ain't fun
And painters ain't prized
But Ohio movers
get sex when they want
Ohio movers
work three hours a day
Ohio movers
call everyone friend
Ohio movers
They laugh, jump, and play
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
hive
He offered her good love
She thought it was something else
She's nobody's friend
Least of all herself
She offered them good love
But they didn't want to share
They're nobody's friend
They're going nowhere
Jealous, vain, afraid
Living mental double lives
We're nobody's friend
in this human hive
She thought it was something else
She's nobody's friend
Least of all herself
She offered them good love
But they didn't want to share
They're nobody's friend
They're going nowhere
Jealous, vain, afraid
Living mental double lives
We're nobody's friend
in this human hive
Sunday, November 17, 2013
whither marriage 2
(a follow-up to http://nakedmeadow.blogspot.com/2013/11/whither-marriage.html)
WHITHER MARRIAGE 2/TWO/TOO/TO?
(Or, Raising the Kids)
Some of you are nodding your heads. I hear you thinking, "Okay wrob, that almost makes sense...and frankly most of those things do sound better than the crap life i'm currently up to my nose hairs in. But i'm not ready. Or even if i am, i'm damn sure my schmoopie/spouse AIN'T. So...is there anything i can do to take some, y'know, baby steps in the right direction?"
Of course there are. "Baby steps" - aren't you cute?
I direct the following tips to soon-to-be parents, or parents of children. For marriage is ultimately about children - the way we choose to bring them into the world, and the kind of nurturing we want to provide. Some may pretend that marriage is about being in love, but anyone who's been married over a year knows differently. Without children, marriage is about self-interest (or self-abuse) only. If you're a parent, however...
First, breathe. I'll keep this short, in case your respites from poopy diapers are measured in minutes or seconds.
You're nowhere near ready for polyamorous collectivism, but don't want your babies to become the neurotic mess you turned out to be? Here's whatcha do - find other parents with children (or fetuses) around the same age. Pick some you really like! One other family will work. Two or three will be better. This first step will be easy for those of you still attending birthing class.
Found 'em? Good. Now everybody move within easy walking distance.
Once the babies are birthed, every couple or single parent will be responsible for one night a week in which they have everybody's children at their place. The whole evening, plus a sleepover - this will cement your children's relating to the other kids as siblings, and to the other adults as parental figures.
One night a week is rotationally-hosted gonzo communal night (or a day trip). All the kids and parents together for food, frivolity, and foofery. Sleepovers optional.
The math wizards among you are already aware that with four blended families, couples or single parents will have three whole evenings (and nights) to themselves! Add some eager grandparents to the mix, and you might even have some weeks with more free nights than not. And freedom is something few parents taste these days.
Things like financial burdens and benefits can be shared, or not. Each child will naturally gravitate to the siblings and adults with whom they feel most comfortable. Non-communal days will probably be a swirl of "Can i visit so-and-so? Can such-and-such come over?" Once you've explained to your little moppets the difference between "can" and "may", they'll be on their happy way. Before long, you won't be able to wrap your mind around the thought that couples were once expected to do all that raising by themselves.
I think i smell that poop now. Get back in there, trooper.
WHITHER MARRIAGE 2/TWO/TOO/TO?
(Or, Raising the Kids)
Some of you are nodding your heads. I hear you thinking, "Okay wrob, that almost makes sense...and frankly most of those things do sound better than the crap life i'm currently up to my nose hairs in. But i'm not ready. Or even if i am, i'm damn sure my schmoopie/spouse AIN'T. So...is there anything i can do to take some, y'know, baby steps in the right direction?"
Of course there are. "Baby steps" - aren't you cute?
I direct the following tips to soon-to-be parents, or parents of children. For marriage is ultimately about children - the way we choose to bring them into the world, and the kind of nurturing we want to provide. Some may pretend that marriage is about being in love, but anyone who's been married over a year knows differently. Without children, marriage is about self-interest (or self-abuse) only. If you're a parent, however...
First, breathe. I'll keep this short, in case your respites from poopy diapers are measured in minutes or seconds.
You're nowhere near ready for polyamorous collectivism, but don't want your babies to become the neurotic mess you turned out to be? Here's whatcha do - find other parents with children (or fetuses) around the same age. Pick some you really like! One other family will work. Two or three will be better. This first step will be easy for those of you still attending birthing class.
Found 'em? Good. Now everybody move within easy walking distance.
Once the babies are birthed, every couple or single parent will be responsible for one night a week in which they have everybody's children at their place. The whole evening, plus a sleepover - this will cement your children's relating to the other kids as siblings, and to the other adults as parental figures.
One night a week is rotationally-hosted gonzo communal night (or a day trip). All the kids and parents together for food, frivolity, and foofery. Sleepovers optional.
The math wizards among you are already aware that with four blended families, couples or single parents will have three whole evenings (and nights) to themselves! Add some eager grandparents to the mix, and you might even have some weeks with more free nights than not. And freedom is something few parents taste these days.
Things like financial burdens and benefits can be shared, or not. Each child will naturally gravitate to the siblings and adults with whom they feel most comfortable. Non-communal days will probably be a swirl of "Can i visit so-and-so? Can such-and-such come over?" Once you've explained to your little moppets the difference between "can" and "may", they'll be on their happy way. Before long, you won't be able to wrap your mind around the thought that couples were once expected to do all that raising by themselves.
I think i smell that poop now. Get back in there, trooper.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
human march
Legs open, dick in
Legs open, baby out
Legs open, dick in
Legs open, baby out
Do we know what we're about
Seems to be a little doubt
Mouth open, food in
Ass open, poop out
Mouth open, food in
Ass open, poop out
On these nuclear kegs of powder
Desperation getting louder
Mouth open, mind shut
Legs wide, eyes closed
Mouth open, mind shut
Legs wide, eyes closed
Fearing, killing, making wars
Making daughters into whores
Eyes shut, fists closed
Heads dead, hearts froze
Eyes shut, fists closed
Heads dead, hearts froze
Enslaving other animals, raping the land
Exploiting and raping our own gay band
Turning jungle into sand
Our specieal suicide well-planned
Legs open, baby out
Legs open, dick in
Legs open, baby out
Do we know what we're about
Seems to be a little doubt
Mouth open, food in
Ass open, poop out
Mouth open, food in
Ass open, poop out
On these nuclear kegs of powder
Desperation getting louder
Mouth open, mind shut
Legs wide, eyes closed
Mouth open, mind shut
Legs wide, eyes closed
Fearing, killing, making wars
Making daughters into whores
Eyes shut, fists closed
Heads dead, hearts froze
Eyes shut, fists closed
Heads dead, hearts froze
Enslaving other animals, raping the land
Exploiting and raping our own gay band
Turning jungle into sand
Our specieal suicide well-planned
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
"Boston Legal"
2004*-2008
I'd avoided this one as i understandably avoid most cop, doctor, and lawyer shows. Moreover, i'd seen some of producer david kelley's work (L.A. LAW, ALLY MCBEAL), and hadn't been particularly moved.
Surprise, surprise.
This spinoff of THE PRACTICE, from which james spader, william shatner, rhona mitra, and lake bell land in the Boston firm of Crane, Poole, and Schmidt, finds kelley tweaking the format, injecting loosey goosey silliness while keeping the serious side, and upping the ante by putting issues of profoundest social import on trial. Progressive values come shining through, mostly through the mouthpiece of spader's alan shore. The show crackles with sharp writing and quirky performances. It's also unique in this reviewer's experience, in that a four-star rating system is insufficient. The installation of a fifth star located between "good" and
"great" is essential for this show, which was only unqualifiedly great once, but hit the ground running and never looked back. Not once in five seasons did it descend to bad or even okay (a distinction i'm hard-pressed to make for any other show), and hardly EVER was it only merely "good". The core cast of spader, shatner, and candice bergen (but mostly spader and shatner) carry the doings delightfully. The theme song is perky and poppy, with a surprise jolt of funk. The producers seemed a bit blase with the revolving dressing room doors that gave us the rest of the cast...perhaps a gamble that worked, but one can't help wonder how a little more devotion might have played out, both in giving them more to do and retaining their services (they had nineteen cast regulars come and go-go-go, which has to be some sort of instability record). They also tinkered with having the actors break the fourth wall occasionally, which never quite popped. But i quibble. The show is a delight, from start to finish and everything in between.
*I ought mention that it should be considered as running six seasons, not five, as the final season of THE PRACTICE is season 1 of BOSTON LEGAL, in all but name. Although the writing isn't quite as sharp, that final season is an indispensable, delightful appetizer, giving depth and resonance to shore's relationships with tara, sally, and denny. It's all good, but absolutely indispensable are "Concealing Evidence" (which gives both the A and B plots to a courtroom-hopping shore at his shady best), and "The Firm" (a veritable lost treasure of the Sierra Madre for shore/crane lovers).
FIVE-STAR EPISODES [season]
-Head Cases [1]
A pilot episode that bursts with brilliance, as one of the name partners shows up at work without pants, and an old friend hires the legendary denny crane to find out who is sleeping with his wife...only to discover it's the legend himself.
PERFORMERS (# of episodes)
JAMES SPADER - alan shore (101)
Spader (SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE, STARGATE) walks the line between idealist and hedonistic nihilist beautifully. There could have, should have been more of a resolve to his emotional intimacy issues.
SUMPTUOUS SHORE SUMMATIONS [season]
-Angel of Death [3]
Alan defends a doctor who mercy-killed terminal patients stranded after Hurricane Katrina.
-The Chicken and the Leg [4]
Alan sues an abstinence-only school district on behalf of a teen who had unprotected sex and contracted HIV.
-The Court Supreme [4]
Alan takes a capital punishment case before the Supreme Court, and gives them a verbal spanking for their constitutional and moral failings during the bush years. Ah, if only. The writing is a shade less than tight, but shore is at his iconoclastic best.
WILLIAM SHATNER - denny crane (101)
Crane is a conservative, gun-totin', lecherous, senile blowhard. Shatner (STAR TREK, INVASION IOWA!) is shatner...and that's a beautiful thing.
CANDICE BERGEN - shirley schmidt (91)
Candice (CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, MURPHY BROWN) is a steadying presence...who never gets the storylines she deserves.
RENE AUBERJONOIS - paul lewiston (71)
The brilliant rene (M*A*S*H, STAR TREK: DS9) almost never gets the chance to shine.
MARK VALLEY - brad chase (70)
Mark (HUMAN TARGET) is a perfect ken-doll foil for alan. His late-season absence was felt.
JULIE BOWEN - denise bauer (52)
Julie (HAPPY GILMORE, MODERN FAMILY) went from being a post-potter disappointment to someone you hoped they'd give more. Her character arc never quite recovered from the abandoned romance with justin mentell, though.
CHRISTIAN CLEMENSON - jerry espenson (50)
Christian (BAD INFLUENCE, THE FISHER KING) plays jerry's asberger quirks beautifully, no mean feat. They should have gone deeper into his character's obstacles, to make his failings more human and his happy ending with katy more earned.
JOHN LARROQUETTE - carl sack (33)
It's easy to imagine that john (STRIPES, STAR TREK III) had a "non-steamrolled by shatnerspader" clause in his signing contract. And they actually honored that clause a bit...
TARA SUMMERS - katy lloyd (33)
Tara (FACTORY GIRL, HITCHCOCK) is thoroughly charming...all's the more shame they didn't go more than puddle deep with her character.
HENRY GIBSON - Judge brown (24)
Henry (THE NUTTY PROFESSOR, LAUGH-IN) is part 1 of the three-headed judge that comprised the third-most effective character of the show.
MONICA POTTER - lori colson (21)
Why??? Why did she leave??? Monica (PATCH ADAMS, PARENTHOOD) created a character every bit as resonant as the Big Two, centered and capable of grounding the wackiness around her. Then, after one season...gone.
RHONA MITRA - tara wilson (20)
Sigh. The disappearance of rhona (HOLLOW MAN, THE NUMBER 23) after season 1 left another hole they never quite filled. As smart as she was sexy.
SAFFRON BURROWS - lorraine weller (20)
Just when we were becoming fascinated by the possibilities saffron (DEEP BLUE SEA, FRIDA) tapped into with alan...poof. Gone.
MEREDITH EATON - bethany horowitz (18)
Shatner and a dwarf? Yes, please.
BETTY WHITE - catherine piper (16)
What crime did she commit now? Fool-proof casting. She debuted (and shone) in THE PRACTICE.
LAKE BELL - sally heep (14)
After a scintillating debut in THE PRACTICE, did she receive love from the producers during her one aborted season? She...did not. Shame.
CRAIG BIERKO - jeffrey coho (14)
A wonderful performance of an ill-conceived character, a brad/alan hybrid.
MARISA COUGHLAN - melissa hughes (12)
Another character bursting with potential who disappears...into witness protection, perhaps? Is there anyone who thinks a deeper relationship with alan couldn't have been fascinating, enriching, and surprising? Kerry washington, jeri ryan, and nia long also fell into this crack.
SHELLEY BERMAN - Judge sanders (11)
Wait...shelley berman? Not THAT shelley berman, of course. Well, actually...yes. That very one. I don't know how many episodes it took for me to realize that this hysterically addled judge (#2 of 3) is the very same standup icon from the 60s. Or was it the 50s? Amazing. Wonderful.
GAIL O'GRADY - Judge weldon (7)
Tantalizing. Gail (NYPD BLUE, DEUCE BIGALOW) epitomizes the line this show walked, in trying to have depth while not straying too far from comedy. Her relationship with alan sizzled with possibilities for emotional growth and self-realization. As often happened, the producers leave you wishing they'd plumbed deeper, but...tantalizing.
LARRY MILLER - edwin poole (4)
The scrumptiously skewed miller (BEST IN SHOW), and pantless named partner poole, could have been so much more. A size regular? Sure.
HOWARD HESSEMAN - Judge thompson (3)
Offbeat judge #3 of 3, WKRP's booger-spouter is bravura.
I'd avoided this one as i understandably avoid most cop, doctor, and lawyer shows. Moreover, i'd seen some of producer david kelley's work (L.A. LAW, ALLY MCBEAL), and hadn't been particularly moved.
Surprise, surprise.
This spinoff of THE PRACTICE, from which james spader, william shatner, rhona mitra, and lake bell land in the Boston firm of Crane, Poole, and Schmidt, finds kelley tweaking the format, injecting loosey goosey silliness while keeping the serious side, and upping the ante by putting issues of profoundest social import on trial. Progressive values come shining through, mostly through the mouthpiece of spader's alan shore. The show crackles with sharp writing and quirky performances. It's also unique in this reviewer's experience, in that a four-star rating system is insufficient. The installation of a fifth star located between "good" and
"great" is essential for this show, which was only unqualifiedly great once, but hit the ground running and never looked back. Not once in five seasons did it descend to bad or even okay (a distinction i'm hard-pressed to make for any other show), and hardly EVER was it only merely "good". The core cast of spader, shatner, and candice bergen (but mostly spader and shatner) carry the doings delightfully. The theme song is perky and poppy, with a surprise jolt of funk. The producers seemed a bit blase with the revolving dressing room doors that gave us the rest of the cast...perhaps a gamble that worked, but one can't help wonder how a little more devotion might have played out, both in giving them more to do and retaining their services (they had nineteen cast regulars come and go-go-go, which has to be some sort of instability record). They also tinkered with having the actors break the fourth wall occasionally, which never quite popped. But i quibble. The show is a delight, from start to finish and everything in between.
*I ought mention that it should be considered as running six seasons, not five, as the final season of THE PRACTICE is season 1 of BOSTON LEGAL, in all but name. Although the writing isn't quite as sharp, that final season is an indispensable, delightful appetizer, giving depth and resonance to shore's relationships with tara, sally, and denny. It's all good, but absolutely indispensable are "Concealing Evidence" (which gives both the A and B plots to a courtroom-hopping shore at his shady best), and "The Firm" (a veritable lost treasure of the Sierra Madre for shore/crane lovers).
FIVE-STAR EPISODES [season]
-Head Cases [1]
A pilot episode that bursts with brilliance, as one of the name partners shows up at work without pants, and an old friend hires the legendary denny crane to find out who is sleeping with his wife...only to discover it's the legend himself.
PERFORMERS (# of episodes)
JAMES SPADER - alan shore (101)
Spader (SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE, STARGATE) walks the line between idealist and hedonistic nihilist beautifully. There could have, should have been more of a resolve to his emotional intimacy issues.
SUMPTUOUS SHORE SUMMATIONS [season]
-Angel of Death [3]
Alan defends a doctor who mercy-killed terminal patients stranded after Hurricane Katrina.
-The Chicken and the Leg [4]
Alan sues an abstinence-only school district on behalf of a teen who had unprotected sex and contracted HIV.
-The Court Supreme [4]
Alan takes a capital punishment case before the Supreme Court, and gives them a verbal spanking for their constitutional and moral failings during the bush years. Ah, if only. The writing is a shade less than tight, but shore is at his iconoclastic best.
WILLIAM SHATNER - denny crane (101)
Crane is a conservative, gun-totin', lecherous, senile blowhard. Shatner (STAR TREK, INVASION IOWA!) is shatner...and that's a beautiful thing.
CANDICE BERGEN - shirley schmidt (91)
Candice (CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, MURPHY BROWN) is a steadying presence...who never gets the storylines she deserves.
RENE AUBERJONOIS - paul lewiston (71)
The brilliant rene (M*A*S*H, STAR TREK: DS9) almost never gets the chance to shine.
MARK VALLEY - brad chase (70)
Mark (HUMAN TARGET) is a perfect ken-doll foil for alan. His late-season absence was felt.
JULIE BOWEN - denise bauer (52)
Julie (HAPPY GILMORE, MODERN FAMILY) went from being a post-potter disappointment to someone you hoped they'd give more. Her character arc never quite recovered from the abandoned romance with justin mentell, though.
CHRISTIAN CLEMENSON - jerry espenson (50)
Christian (BAD INFLUENCE, THE FISHER KING) plays jerry's asberger quirks beautifully, no mean feat. They should have gone deeper into his character's obstacles, to make his failings more human and his happy ending with katy more earned.
JOHN LARROQUETTE - carl sack (33)
It's easy to imagine that john (STRIPES, STAR TREK III) had a "non-steamrolled by shatnerspader" clause in his signing contract. And they actually honored that clause a bit...
TARA SUMMERS - katy lloyd (33)
Tara (FACTORY GIRL, HITCHCOCK) is thoroughly charming...all's the more shame they didn't go more than puddle deep with her character.
HENRY GIBSON - Judge brown (24)
Henry (THE NUTTY PROFESSOR, LAUGH-IN) is part 1 of the three-headed judge that comprised the third-most effective character of the show.
MONICA POTTER - lori colson (21)
Why??? Why did she leave??? Monica (PATCH ADAMS, PARENTHOOD) created a character every bit as resonant as the Big Two, centered and capable of grounding the wackiness around her. Then, after one season...gone.
RHONA MITRA - tara wilson (20)
Sigh. The disappearance of rhona (HOLLOW MAN, THE NUMBER 23) after season 1 left another hole they never quite filled. As smart as she was sexy.
SAFFRON BURROWS - lorraine weller (20)
Just when we were becoming fascinated by the possibilities saffron (DEEP BLUE SEA, FRIDA) tapped into with alan...poof. Gone.
MEREDITH EATON - bethany horowitz (18)
Shatner and a dwarf? Yes, please.
BETTY WHITE - catherine piper (16)
What crime did she commit now? Fool-proof casting. She debuted (and shone) in THE PRACTICE.
LAKE BELL - sally heep (14)
After a scintillating debut in THE PRACTICE, did she receive love from the producers during her one aborted season? She...did not. Shame.
CRAIG BIERKO - jeffrey coho (14)
A wonderful performance of an ill-conceived character, a brad/alan hybrid.
MARISA COUGHLAN - melissa hughes (12)
Another character bursting with potential who disappears...into witness protection, perhaps? Is there anyone who thinks a deeper relationship with alan couldn't have been fascinating, enriching, and surprising? Kerry washington, jeri ryan, and nia long also fell into this crack.
SHELLEY BERMAN - Judge sanders (11)
Wait...shelley berman? Not THAT shelley berman, of course. Well, actually...yes. That very one. I don't know how many episodes it took for me to realize that this hysterically addled judge (#2 of 3) is the very same standup icon from the 60s. Or was it the 50s? Amazing. Wonderful.
GAIL O'GRADY - Judge weldon (7)
Tantalizing. Gail (NYPD BLUE, DEUCE BIGALOW) epitomizes the line this show walked, in trying to have depth while not straying too far from comedy. Her relationship with alan sizzled with possibilities for emotional growth and self-realization. As often happened, the producers leave you wishing they'd plumbed deeper, but...tantalizing.
LARRY MILLER - edwin poole (4)
The scrumptiously skewed miller (BEST IN SHOW), and pantless named partner poole, could have been so much more. A size regular? Sure.
HOWARD HESSEMAN - Judge thompson (3)
Offbeat judge #3 of 3, WKRP's booger-spouter is bravura.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Antagony
-summer 2005
My first year in New York, i spent more time writing than acting, which was kind of cool. But my old buddy Chris Capp came calling, wanting to stage an original play he’d written. It was fascinating, a semi-autobiographical one-man show about a homeless heroin junkie who speaks directly to the audience. The junkie, Mac, relates tales of his life, from Vietnam to Wall Street to the street. He talks of his wife and kids, whom he hasn’t seen in years. He talks of his dead dog Blackie, his only friend. Extremely edgy, it begins and ends with a shooting; heroin at the start, and shot dead by an audience member at the end. He yells and cries at them, berating and abusing. It was indistinct in terms of dramatic structure, but that appealed to me. Very much like Chris himself, you either loved it or hated it. He had been such a supporter of my work at the Orpheus and Red Curtain, the only community member who had ever spontaneously slid money into my hand. I had rented an apartment in the house he shared with his mother Irene, and the low rate they charged allowed me to more easily continue creating. Chris had been the publisher of Fort Myers Beach’s only independent newspaper. He lived a life calculated to shock and provoke, but beneath the contentiousness was deep caring. His mother was just as wonderful in a more reserved and classy way, and the year i spent with them was beautiful. I had reservations about the piece, though. It would be tough, in terms of vocal control. And as a play, i wasn’t sure whether it were more striking than brilliant. And with Mac being 55, i wasn’t convinced i was old enough. I’d always felt that Chris himself was the perfect choice, but he maintained that he was no actor. I knew it would absorb a big chunk of my life, time that might be spent pursuing more personal projects. But i knew it would also be very rewarding, and in world where mediocrity is often venerated, it was a piece that needed doing. So i said yes. It ran about an hour, with two short intermissions. Chris handled the producing – it was nice to just act and direct. He did a lovely job, as we prepared for an open-ended run at the LBI Beach Haven fire hall. I arrived a few days before we opened. Chris ran lights and sound, and we called on our old Red Curtain buddy Paul to help too. It was a sweet reunion. For the audience plant who speaks a few lines as i badger and insult him, then shoots me, i enlisted my brother John, whom i was living with in Jersey City. It would be the first time we’d shared a stage since M.P.C.Y.C.’s JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR a decade or so before. We used a starter pistol for the shooting, and Johnny was all too happy to murder me. He took great delight in developing a Jersey goombah character, too. The script was tough to memorize, because it was non-sequential (indeed, during the second performance i was ALL over the place…a tight-rope act that few actors ever experience). I used my writing skills to hone the piece, even adding a few ideas and lines. Opening night was…well, amazing. We had a wonderful house of 100 or so. Despite technical glitches, the energy was crackling and the audience was with me from start to finish. Many of my family were there (the LBI location was nice, as that was where John’s grandmother lived). Chris had asked about him giving a pre-show speech. I thought not, especially not some B.S. about my dedication as an artist. I felt that drawing attention to the fact that i was an ACTOR would only make my job (making the audience feel off-balance) harder. He agreed, then went ahead and did it anyway. I couldn’t be too mad, as his gratitude was so sincere. At the end, the plan had been for me to not move from my death position, leaving the audience unsure as they leave the building. But Chris was so happy that he jumped up and asked me to take a bow. After a few moments, i complied. After months of preparation, the come-down was so peaceful and beautiful. The next day, my throat was raw, so when Chris came to me with reservations about a lack of reservations, i was content to postpone that night’s show. We were both wiped out. That day we relaxed on the beach, which i hadn’t had time for in the days leading up to the show. Several reviews came out, one of which was very, very gratifying. We had one more performance a few weeks later. Chris found a louder gun which i thought was maybe too much, but he and Johnny really wanted it. With only twenty-five audience members, the energy got sucked into some hole from which i couldn’t pull it out. It was perhaps the most “high school”-ish feeling acting i’d done since, well, maybe ever. On the plus side, the earlier technical glitches went BEAUTIFULLY (in the opening night "penis rap", the accompanying music was so soft that i’d lost the beat…but that and the synching of the heroin injection music was just perfect the second night). And the show did end with a bang, as the extra-loud shot tore through the hall. This time, i stayed down. It felt nice lying there. Despite the off night, i wasn’t too unhappy. A bad night in the theater still feels better than most other good nights. And sometimes there’s a certain beauty in a crappy show, if your humor is perverse enough. Mine is. The fire hall was next to a police station, and all along John had been worried about the shots attracting the wrong attention from the boys in blue, as he shoots me, then runs out and around the building. Sure enough, as he tore around the building that night, an officer came investigating. John had the gun re-holstered, and kept his hands well visible. We talked of doing the show again, perhaps on a college tour or in Florida. While not giving a definite no, i told Chris that i hadn’t been able to gain total control vocally, so it might be time for someone else to take over. An amazing piece.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
whither marriage?
The institution of marriage is reeling, boys and girls.
And rightly so.
Will it disappear altogether, like other relics of patriarchy (the Miss America Pageant, the Tea Party, cosmetic surgery), or will it morph into something vaguely recognizable?
Probably more the former than the latter.
For any society's most fundamental institution, change takes place slowly. Relatively speaking, however, the speed with which marriage is dissolving has been positively breakneck. Our divorce rate is currently over 50% (up from 5% at the turn of the previous century - we don't lead the world though, that honor goes to Belgium's 71%). Unmarried households are now a majority in almost half the states. Singles don't outnumber married folk yet, but the gap is closing (92 million to 121 million). For those who divorce but try, try again, the numbers get worse, with 65% of all second marriages failing, and 73% of all third marriages.
If you're having trouble wrapping your mind around the thought that marriage is a fundamentally flawed institution, let's take a history lesson. Marriage started out as a transfer of property - a father selling a daughter to a male who could afford her. The "sanctity of marriage" (i.e. monogamy) didn't arise until males realized they needed some way to insure that their hoarded wealth went to people who shared their values after they died (i.e. male offspring). Over the past couple thousand years, in the furtherance of property protection, society has required more and more that men be as faithful as women...but only on paper - there have always been backdoors to relieve men of monogamy's burden. Social and legal penalties for adultery (up to and including death) have always been much more severe for women, the world over. Through mistresses and prostitutes, our mores and institutions have always reflected a "wink wink" attitude toward straying males. But all humans, male and female alike, were happily promiscuous before the invention of private property. Our growing knowledge of sexual biology makes this conclusion absolutely inescapable.
Has marriage been a good deal for women? Traditionally, the woman has been expected to do all the housework - the repercussions of this thrive to the present day, when the average woman still walks almost twice as far in a lifetime as the average male. Wives have always been expected to be sexually available at any moment, under any circumstance - as late as the 1970s, it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. Drag her to the town square and sodomize her! You'd have faced a misdemeanor for public indecency, at most (and probably some free rounds at the bar that night). It's only within the past few generations that husbands have been disallowed from beating wives and children at will.
Yet ironically, women today defend marriage more ardently than men! If you find this utterly flabbergasting, you have to consider that a woman's sexuality is the only property she has had (for the short time historically that women have been allowed to have property at all). The selling of her womb (and labor and loyalty) into a lifetime of servitude has been most women's only bargaining chip in life. And as horrific as marriage has been, the few alternatives have been worse. So it cannot be surprising that women defend the institution. This is classic Stockholm syndrome, of course. The only thing i can think of that's nearly as perverse in american history, is the embrace of christianity by african-americans. Mind-bogglingly, they're often more devout in the religion of their former slave masters, than the caucasians sitting next to them in the pew (assuming that their neighborhood has a desegregated church, of course).
Monogamous marriage enjoyed a long run of stability, because it was founded on inequality in fidelity, burden-sharing, and dominance. In this era, when little girls are starting to learn that they're as deserving and capable as any man, marriage is tearing itself asunder. Many bemoan this, and point to one of the most immediate effects - how shattered unions and financial hardships affect the children. To be sure, that lack of stability has produced an epidemic of dysfunctions, neuroses, and social ills.
But was marriage ever a healthy way to raise children?
Not even a little.
It produced its own epidemics of neuroses and dysfunctions, but because they were within a framework of greater social stability (and the concomitant pressures to conform), these afflictions were more internalized. Consider...
When you restrict a child's support base to essentially just two adults, any personality conflicts become amplified a thousand times (including conflicts between the parents, which is the main reason why marriages of equality fail). If you're one of those rare adults who genuinely like both your parents, try to imagine what your life would have been like if one (or both) of them were someone you've never felt comfortable around. Most don't have to imagine it. Many spend their entire lives in therapy, for no other reason.
On top of that, monogamous marriage is brutally hard on the parents. Anyone who has any idea what they're talking about will tell you that parenting is the hardest job in the world. By far. The fact that it doesn't HAVE to be that way, simply doesn't occur to most people. With only two parents, you can pretty much wipe out any together time in which they might rediscover the reasons why they loved each other in the first place. Their alone time is pretty well gone, too. If Mark Twain could have children AND be prolifically creative, why can't i? Because i refuse to enter any personal union founded on inequity. And four hands just ain't enough to healthily manage the 24-hour need machine that is a child (never mind the two hands that we force our single parents [read: mothers] to cope with). Also, isn't it fun how we contort parents with guilt over the fact that they might like one of their children just a little more than another? Beelzebub forbid we allow parents to be, what's that word...human?
So where will all this social seismology end up? "Open" marriage?
Not really, no. Oh, for a while, sure...many will try to reconcile the old with the new, and incorporate a more evolved understanding of sex into something their parents (and government dispensers of financial benefits) will recognize a little. If it's good enough for Will and Jada, Shirley MacLaine, Larry King, and Newt, it's good enough for as many as six million american marital unions, currently.
But in terms of creating a functional family unit, open marriage is a band-aid on a decapitation.
No, the ultimate return to health in family life will be the rediscovery of what community meant for human beings over the vast majority of our species' history. No humans were ever meant to isolate their domestic hardships and happinesses into two-parent dwellings. In terms of practicality, there are a number of ways a burden-sharing renewal might manifest.
Couples living and recreating and procreating together, for instance. Four, six, eight hands pitching in to love, nurture, protect...and babysit. Undamaged by any artificial pretense to monogamy, these people might even be vaguely recognizable to our barbarian eyes. Perhaps some will still have one special significant other. There is evidence that a certain amount of "social monogamy" (cleaving more closely to one particular mate) may be natural to us. But however the sex and romance work themselves out, in a household of at least three parents, all would be free to pursue some semblance of an individual life. Every child would have access to a wider pool of parents, and be free to follow natural personality affinities in choosing the adult or adults they bond with most closely.
Is all this just fanciful folderol? A dilettante's daydream?
Not even a little. There are currently around 500,000 polyamorous families in the U.S. Half a million families with at least three parents who are happily consenting partners in much more than poopy diapers.
Nor do sexually non-possessive societies exist only in the murky depths of pre-recorded history. Some still exist! For an insight into humanity that might blow your little homo sapiens skull, check out the mosuo of southwest China. Their society is based upon sexual autonomy for all, the encouragement to take as many lovers as you wish, and a disregard for biological paternity in matters of parenting.
So perhaps our future will be even more far out than what i've painted. Maybe every woman will have two or three men...which is actually the only kind of system that's ever made any sense to me. Mr. Twain too, for that matter.
Did i mention that the mosuo have no words for murder, rape, or war?
Happy humping.
(see http://nakedmeadow.blogspot.com/2013/11/whither-marriage-2.html for part 2, a parenting guide for those not quite ready for polyamorous collectivism)
And rightly so.
Will it disappear altogether, like other relics of patriarchy (the Miss America Pageant, the Tea Party, cosmetic surgery), or will it morph into something vaguely recognizable?
Probably more the former than the latter.
For any society's most fundamental institution, change takes place slowly. Relatively speaking, however, the speed with which marriage is dissolving has been positively breakneck. Our divorce rate is currently over 50% (up from 5% at the turn of the previous century - we don't lead the world though, that honor goes to Belgium's 71%). Unmarried households are now a majority in almost half the states. Singles don't outnumber married folk yet, but the gap is closing (92 million to 121 million). For those who divorce but try, try again, the numbers get worse, with 65% of all second marriages failing, and 73% of all third marriages.
If you're having trouble wrapping your mind around the thought that marriage is a fundamentally flawed institution, let's take a history lesson. Marriage started out as a transfer of property - a father selling a daughter to a male who could afford her. The "sanctity of marriage" (i.e. monogamy) didn't arise until males realized they needed some way to insure that their hoarded wealth went to people who shared their values after they died (i.e. male offspring). Over the past couple thousand years, in the furtherance of property protection, society has required more and more that men be as faithful as women...but only on paper - there have always been backdoors to relieve men of monogamy's burden. Social and legal penalties for adultery (up to and including death) have always been much more severe for women, the world over. Through mistresses and prostitutes, our mores and institutions have always reflected a "wink wink" attitude toward straying males. But all humans, male and female alike, were happily promiscuous before the invention of private property. Our growing knowledge of sexual biology makes this conclusion absolutely inescapable.
Has marriage been a good deal for women? Traditionally, the woman has been expected to do all the housework - the repercussions of this thrive to the present day, when the average woman still walks almost twice as far in a lifetime as the average male. Wives have always been expected to be sexually available at any moment, under any circumstance - as late as the 1970s, it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. Drag her to the town square and sodomize her! You'd have faced a misdemeanor for public indecency, at most (and probably some free rounds at the bar that night). It's only within the past few generations that husbands have been disallowed from beating wives and children at will.
Yet ironically, women today defend marriage more ardently than men! If you find this utterly flabbergasting, you have to consider that a woman's sexuality is the only property she has had (for the short time historically that women have been allowed to have property at all). The selling of her womb (and labor and loyalty) into a lifetime of servitude has been most women's only bargaining chip in life. And as horrific as marriage has been, the few alternatives have been worse. So it cannot be surprising that women defend the institution. This is classic Stockholm syndrome, of course. The only thing i can think of that's nearly as perverse in american history, is the embrace of christianity by african-americans. Mind-bogglingly, they're often more devout in the religion of their former slave masters, than the caucasians sitting next to them in the pew (assuming that their neighborhood has a desegregated church, of course).
Monogamous marriage enjoyed a long run of stability, because it was founded on inequality in fidelity, burden-sharing, and dominance. In this era, when little girls are starting to learn that they're as deserving and capable as any man, marriage is tearing itself asunder. Many bemoan this, and point to one of the most immediate effects - how shattered unions and financial hardships affect the children. To be sure, that lack of stability has produced an epidemic of dysfunctions, neuroses, and social ills.
But was marriage ever a healthy way to raise children?
Not even a little.
It produced its own epidemics of neuroses and dysfunctions, but because they were within a framework of greater social stability (and the concomitant pressures to conform), these afflictions were more internalized. Consider...
When you restrict a child's support base to essentially just two adults, any personality conflicts become amplified a thousand times (including conflicts between the parents, which is the main reason why marriages of equality fail). If you're one of those rare adults who genuinely like both your parents, try to imagine what your life would have been like if one (or both) of them were someone you've never felt comfortable around. Most don't have to imagine it. Many spend their entire lives in therapy, for no other reason.
On top of that, monogamous marriage is brutally hard on the parents. Anyone who has any idea what they're talking about will tell you that parenting is the hardest job in the world. By far. The fact that it doesn't HAVE to be that way, simply doesn't occur to most people. With only two parents, you can pretty much wipe out any together time in which they might rediscover the reasons why they loved each other in the first place. Their alone time is pretty well gone, too. If Mark Twain could have children AND be prolifically creative, why can't i? Because i refuse to enter any personal union founded on inequity. And four hands just ain't enough to healthily manage the 24-hour need machine that is a child (never mind the two hands that we force our single parents [read: mothers] to cope with). Also, isn't it fun how we contort parents with guilt over the fact that they might like one of their children just a little more than another? Beelzebub forbid we allow parents to be, what's that word...human?
So where will all this social seismology end up? "Open" marriage?
Not really, no. Oh, for a while, sure...many will try to reconcile the old with the new, and incorporate a more evolved understanding of sex into something their parents (and government dispensers of financial benefits) will recognize a little. If it's good enough for Will and Jada, Shirley MacLaine, Larry King, and Newt, it's good enough for as many as six million american marital unions, currently.
But in terms of creating a functional family unit, open marriage is a band-aid on a decapitation.
No, the ultimate return to health in family life will be the rediscovery of what community meant for human beings over the vast majority of our species' history. No humans were ever meant to isolate their domestic hardships and happinesses into two-parent dwellings. In terms of practicality, there are a number of ways a burden-sharing renewal might manifest.
Couples living and recreating and procreating together, for instance. Four, six, eight hands pitching in to love, nurture, protect...and babysit. Undamaged by any artificial pretense to monogamy, these people might even be vaguely recognizable to our barbarian eyes. Perhaps some will still have one special significant other. There is evidence that a certain amount of "social monogamy" (cleaving more closely to one particular mate) may be natural to us. But however the sex and romance work themselves out, in a household of at least three parents, all would be free to pursue some semblance of an individual life. Every child would have access to a wider pool of parents, and be free to follow natural personality affinities in choosing the adult or adults they bond with most closely.
Is all this just fanciful folderol? A dilettante's daydream?
Not even a little. There are currently around 500,000 polyamorous families in the U.S. Half a million families with at least three parents who are happily consenting partners in much more than poopy diapers.
Nor do sexually non-possessive societies exist only in the murky depths of pre-recorded history. Some still exist! For an insight into humanity that might blow your little homo sapiens skull, check out the mosuo of southwest China. Their society is based upon sexual autonomy for all, the encouragement to take as many lovers as you wish, and a disregard for biological paternity in matters of parenting.
So perhaps our future will be even more far out than what i've painted. Maybe every woman will have two or three men...which is actually the only kind of system that's ever made any sense to me. Mr. Twain too, for that matter.
Did i mention that the mosuo have no words for murder, rape, or war?
Happy humping.
(see http://nakedmeadow.blogspot.com/2013/11/whither-marriage-2.html for part 2, a parenting guide for those not quite ready for polyamorous collectivism)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)