this is actually not a hypothetical: she would effortlessly destroy me in an arm wrestling match. like, i didn't have a chance.
and, i bicycled back then, even more than i do now. i didn't lift; i never did. but, i wasn't the scrawniest kid on the block, either.
she was just legitimately a strong girl.
Monday, September 2, 2019
and, just to clarify a point, for people that like imagining things. because i know you do.
sarah was not a high maintenance, prissy girl in any way. she came from a decidedly lower class family in a small town outside of ottawa, and was home schooled by christian parents up until grade 6 or grade 8. she then went to either junior high school or high school. hey, i can't actually remember that, because i wasn't there.
the stories she told me about her childhood included doing things like acting out lord of the rings in the forest. she told me stories about animals that she befriended as a child, when she had more of a farm. she had a strange, almost disney-esque kind of concept of wildlife, but she wasn't living in a princess delusion.
she would sometimes wear eyeliner in patterns on the side of her cheek, or otherwise play with makeup in unexpected ways, but she was actually morally opposed to things like cover-up and lipstick, and she'd give me shit for it if i put it on. she thought it was fake.
her hair is naturally light, but she often darkened it. she at times had extensions or dreadlocks.
she was staunchly pro-life when i met her; at the time, it wasn't very important to me, but i didn't particularly disagree with her, either. i didn't really have a defined opinion on abortion until years after we broke up. well, i never really had to think about it - to me, a part of supporting female autonomy meant i avoided taking a position on something i'd never have to deal with. i just respected the concept of complete agency, on this. but, it's also a different type of issue in canada, because it was never really up for serious debate. i guess my position was that if you don't want an abortion then you shouldn't have one, and if she said she didn't want one, i didn't push her on it.
i mentioned that she had a basketball scholarship. she had a muscular, athletic physique with minimal curves and almost no breast growth. there was a time when we had the same hair cut and dye job, and were consequently frequently mistaken for sisters; but, she was also from time-to-time mistaken as my trans girlie bf, kind of thing. i could outgirl her without a lot of effort.
in short, sarah was a tomboy that was just coming into herself during the period we were together. she got what she wanted not via vavoom voluptuousness or piles of goopy make-up, but via sheer insolence and outright aggression - she would just grab people and start fucking them, in ways that were often borderline assault.
so, don't confuse yourself, here.
a part of the problem is that she was insecure with me, because she thought - perhaps correctly - that i was a more attractive female than she was.
and, a big part of our relationship was that role reversal. she dominated me. unapologetically.
i'm sure if somebody saw us duck out here or there, they'd be imagining certain things, because that's how guys are. but, you need to have the right mental image: i was an effeminate trans girl at the very start of my transition, and she was a pretty dominant bitch.
i'm sorry if that's not what you wanted to imagine.
but, you could always find somebody else to jerk off to.
sarah was not a high maintenance, prissy girl in any way. she came from a decidedly lower class family in a small town outside of ottawa, and was home schooled by christian parents up until grade 6 or grade 8. she then went to either junior high school or high school. hey, i can't actually remember that, because i wasn't there.
the stories she told me about her childhood included doing things like acting out lord of the rings in the forest. she told me stories about animals that she befriended as a child, when she had more of a farm. she had a strange, almost disney-esque kind of concept of wildlife, but she wasn't living in a princess delusion.
she would sometimes wear eyeliner in patterns on the side of her cheek, or otherwise play with makeup in unexpected ways, but she was actually morally opposed to things like cover-up and lipstick, and she'd give me shit for it if i put it on. she thought it was fake.
her hair is naturally light, but she often darkened it. she at times had extensions or dreadlocks.
she was staunchly pro-life when i met her; at the time, it wasn't very important to me, but i didn't particularly disagree with her, either. i didn't really have a defined opinion on abortion until years after we broke up. well, i never really had to think about it - to me, a part of supporting female autonomy meant i avoided taking a position on something i'd never have to deal with. i just respected the concept of complete agency, on this. but, it's also a different type of issue in canada, because it was never really up for serious debate. i guess my position was that if you don't want an abortion then you shouldn't have one, and if she said she didn't want one, i didn't push her on it.
i mentioned that she had a basketball scholarship. she had a muscular, athletic physique with minimal curves and almost no breast growth. there was a time when we had the same hair cut and dye job, and were consequently frequently mistaken for sisters; but, she was also from time-to-time mistaken as my trans girlie bf, kind of thing. i could outgirl her without a lot of effort.
in short, sarah was a tomboy that was just coming into herself during the period we were together. she got what she wanted not via vavoom voluptuousness or piles of goopy make-up, but via sheer insolence and outright aggression - she would just grab people and start fucking them, in ways that were often borderline assault.
so, don't confuse yourself, here.
a part of the problem is that she was insecure with me, because she thought - perhaps correctly - that i was a more attractive female than she was.
and, a big part of our relationship was that role reversal. she dominated me. unapologetically.
i'm sure if somebody saw us duck out here or there, they'd be imagining certain things, because that's how guys are. but, you need to have the right mental image: i was an effeminate trans girl at the very start of my transition, and she was a pretty dominant bitch.
i'm sorry if that's not what you wanted to imagine.
but, you could always find somebody else to jerk off to.
yet again: he's gone all weekend, and the air in here is fine. he gets home this morning, and i'm coughing and wheezing within an hour.
he's obviously smoking upstairs - or somebody is, anyways. and, no, i can't knock down his door and take a picture.
but, what a fucking coward though. somebody tell the piece of shit to man up and be honest. he comes in and hides behind his curtains and pretends he's not smoking, because he's too chicken shit to deal with the consequences of it. what a loser.
i have nothing planned this week, and am probably staying in next week, too. there's actually a good chance i'll be in until the 21st. man man + luke vibert is pretty certain. before then, less so.
that means i won't be smoking this week, again. or next week, probably. and that means i don't want to smoke other people's second or third hand smoke, either.
i am, in fact, very predictable - i never smoke once i get home. and, three weeks between shows is more normal than what i did this summer, too. i needed it, but it's over.
there's an off chance i could hit the jazz fest this afternoon, but i think i'll probably want to focus more on grocery shopping. right now, i'm planning out the month and want to work it through pretty quickly. i obviously want to get back to rebuilding october so i can publish it. but, i'm also going to need to make some calls on tuesday.
he's obviously smoking upstairs - or somebody is, anyways. and, no, i can't knock down his door and take a picture.
but, what a fucking coward though. somebody tell the piece of shit to man up and be honest. he comes in and hides behind his curtains and pretends he's not smoking, because he's too chicken shit to deal with the consequences of it. what a loser.
i have nothing planned this week, and am probably staying in next week, too. there's actually a good chance i'll be in until the 21st. man man + luke vibert is pretty certain. before then, less so.
that means i won't be smoking this week, again. or next week, probably. and that means i don't want to smoke other people's second or third hand smoke, either.
i am, in fact, very predictable - i never smoke once i get home. and, three weeks between shows is more normal than what i did this summer, too. i needed it, but it's over.
there's an off chance i could hit the jazz fest this afternoon, but i think i'll probably want to focus more on grocery shopping. right now, i'm planning out the month and want to work it through pretty quickly. i obviously want to get back to rebuilding october so i can publish it. but, i'm also going to need to make some calls on tuesday.
it's not a question of what's "right" and "wrong", even. i'd have trouble defining these things, but that's not why sin needs to be ejected from humanity, as a concept.
the problem with sin is that it creates guilt, and guilt is self-defeating and toxic and destructive. the reason that we need to get rid of sin is actually because we need to get rid of guilt; nobody should find themselves in these situations where they are trapped by their own self-righteousness, and unable to act logically due to a fear of upsetting some kind of unproven force. it just turns us into wrecks, and it needs to stop.
i never, ever want to experience somebody that is lost in guilt and uncertainty over an obvious triviality ever again. we have to conquer this, and leave it behind.
but, that doesn't mean that we can be utility monsters, either, as that will also destroy us. the idea is to place logic in the transcendent position; the same faculties of reason that can help us discard sin as childish can help us understand when we need to behave socially for the benefit both of our selves and of those around us.
and, that is kind of the actual point: learning to truly think for ourselves.
the problem with sin is that it creates guilt, and guilt is self-defeating and toxic and destructive. the reason that we need to get rid of sin is actually because we need to get rid of guilt; nobody should find themselves in these situations where they are trapped by their own self-righteousness, and unable to act logically due to a fear of upsetting some kind of unproven force. it just turns us into wrecks, and it needs to stop.
i never, ever want to experience somebody that is lost in guilt and uncertainty over an obvious triviality ever again. we have to conquer this, and leave it behind.
but, that doesn't mean that we can be utility monsters, either, as that will also destroy us. the idea is to place logic in the transcendent position; the same faculties of reason that can help us discard sin as childish can help us understand when we need to behave socially for the benefit both of our selves and of those around us.
and, that is kind of the actual point: learning to truly think for ourselves.
the espresso in my coffee at about 5:30 kept me up a little
later, and i consequently slept in for much of the day saturday. i
expected to get rained out, too. it wasn't until close to 19:00 that i convinced myself i could get out on time.
so, i took a heavier than usual pre-drink and made it to phog for about 22:00, hoping i wasn't going to miss the early band, which ended up playing late.
i did no research into the headliner, and wasn't even sure i'd stay to catch it; they came on, first, around 23:00. that's one thing about phog: they don't play early there. you won't miss the set, if you're a little late. they had a stand-up bassist and a drummer with a small kit, leading me to think it would be some kind of jazz, but they were fronted by a cowboy in jeans doing jangly country music on an acoustic. they may cringe at that, but so be it. again: my first thought was "yikes. this competent rhythm section should really find a sexy, black female vocalist to front itself. send this guy back to the farm. ouch.", but it started to make a little more sense after the first couple of songs. i overheard them talking outside, and they were name-dropping jeff tweedy (of wilco), silver jews and some other stuff that i'm vaguely aware of but just don't ever listen to. so, in the sense that it was completely wrong, it sort of made sense. i'm not convinced that it was compelling, exactly, but i'll give them some space for being bloody weird.
it didn't capture me, though, and i snuck out halfway through the set, to go over to the other bar to see if i could sneak in on a joint, which did happen. we had a nice little talk about death, where i managed to clearly boggle them, as i explained to them how the acceptance of death is healthy, how sin is a childish concept that should be abolished (and that i'm actually not at all interested in replacing a collectivist concept of sin with an individualistic concept of one - no, that's not enough, sin needs to be intellectually dismantled and discarded altogether in order to prevent it from stunting our potential and limiting our progress), how religion is only universal because it's the easiest and least challenging approach and some other equally heavy shit, before abruptly ducking out.
"i don't want to miss the band i came to see."
and, i didn't.
i was expecting a drummer, and a bit of a louder presentation. they presented themselves as a kind of a shoegaze act, and very much sound that way if you check out their bandcamp site. but, i didn't check the fine print - they were using a drum machine. so, you're looking at a guitar/bass two piece act, and it kind of fell apart in the process.
it's not like you can't be a two piece with a drum machine - it's possible to do compelling music that way. but, there are certain types of genres that sort of require a live drummer, and noisey-shoegaze is really one of them, because it's so fundamental to breaking through the feedback. when you rob this kind of band of a live drum sound, it tends to rather quickly get muddy and aimless, no matter how exciting the guitarist and/or bassist is. further, you have to take control of your instruments or vocals to compensate - something neither of them seemed interested in doing.
if you're going to bother trying to perform live as a two-piece with a drum machine, it's probably a better idea to try and do something a little more ambient, something that doesn't rely so much on the dynamics of the drum parts. that means delving into the sonic possibilities of your guitar, it means focusing more on interesting bass patterns, it means slowing the temp down a little and it means relying more on the voice as an instrument. they didn't exactly fail at this - they had moments where they clicked - but there were too many moments where the sound was clearly relying on a drum machine section that didn't cut through the mix.
it's not so easy as to tell them to find a drummer - i'd rather encourage them to open up their sound, and make use of what they have rather than pretend they're something they're not.
by the end of it, i'd had six beers in four hours (after a heavy pre-drink to start), and it was best for me to just get home and make some eggs and get to sleep.
so, i took a heavier than usual pre-drink and made it to phog for about 22:00, hoping i wasn't going to miss the early band, which ended up playing late.
i did no research into the headliner, and wasn't even sure i'd stay to catch it; they came on, first, around 23:00. that's one thing about phog: they don't play early there. you won't miss the set, if you're a little late. they had a stand-up bassist and a drummer with a small kit, leading me to think it would be some kind of jazz, but they were fronted by a cowboy in jeans doing jangly country music on an acoustic. they may cringe at that, but so be it. again: my first thought was "yikes. this competent rhythm section should really find a sexy, black female vocalist to front itself. send this guy back to the farm. ouch.", but it started to make a little more sense after the first couple of songs. i overheard them talking outside, and they were name-dropping jeff tweedy (of wilco), silver jews and some other stuff that i'm vaguely aware of but just don't ever listen to. so, in the sense that it was completely wrong, it sort of made sense. i'm not convinced that it was compelling, exactly, but i'll give them some space for being bloody weird.
it didn't capture me, though, and i snuck out halfway through the set, to go over to the other bar to see if i could sneak in on a joint, which did happen. we had a nice little talk about death, where i managed to clearly boggle them, as i explained to them how the acceptance of death is healthy, how sin is a childish concept that should be abolished (and that i'm actually not at all interested in replacing a collectivist concept of sin with an individualistic concept of one - no, that's not enough, sin needs to be intellectually dismantled and discarded altogether in order to prevent it from stunting our potential and limiting our progress), how religion is only universal because it's the easiest and least challenging approach and some other equally heavy shit, before abruptly ducking out.
"i don't want to miss the band i came to see."
and, i didn't.
i was expecting a drummer, and a bit of a louder presentation. they presented themselves as a kind of a shoegaze act, and very much sound that way if you check out their bandcamp site. but, i didn't check the fine print - they were using a drum machine. so, you're looking at a guitar/bass two piece act, and it kind of fell apart in the process.
it's not like you can't be a two piece with a drum machine - it's possible to do compelling music that way. but, there are certain types of genres that sort of require a live drummer, and noisey-shoegaze is really one of them, because it's so fundamental to breaking through the feedback. when you rob this kind of band of a live drum sound, it tends to rather quickly get muddy and aimless, no matter how exciting the guitarist and/or bassist is. further, you have to take control of your instruments or vocals to compensate - something neither of them seemed interested in doing.
if you're going to bother trying to perform live as a two-piece with a drum machine, it's probably a better idea to try and do something a little more ambient, something that doesn't rely so much on the dynamics of the drum parts. that means delving into the sonic possibilities of your guitar, it means focusing more on interesting bass patterns, it means slowing the temp down a little and it means relying more on the voice as an instrument. they didn't exactly fail at this - they had moments where they clicked - but there were too many moments where the sound was clearly relying on a drum machine section that didn't cut through the mix.
it's not so easy as to tell them to find a drummer - i'd rather encourage them to open up their sound, and make use of what they have rather than pretend they're something they're not.
by the end of it, i'd had six beers in four hours (after a heavy pre-drink to start), and it was best for me to just get home and make some eggs and get to sleep.
how were the shows this weekend?
i missed the first set on friday night, and showed up right when unnatural ways were plugging in. i bumped into this show listing at the last minute, but if you go to their bandcamp site, it seems like a who's who of contemporary no new york - mixed by colin marston, produced by jason lafarge, signed to john zorn's label and featuring one of lydia lunch's bassists. where's the thurston moore guest spot? saajtak were also on the bill, so i had to take a run out to the beach for the first time, to enjoy the armageddon induced by the sound, if not by the venue.
they were a sort of a strange set, in that i'm not sure how organic the sound actually is. i just dropped a lot of stuff, and you can hear bits and pieces of it in the sound, but i actually get the impression that what they'd rather be doing is some kind of demented blues that is strictly vocal driven, and they're kind of just throwing out some flashy stuff here and there to hook people like myself. so, i kind of came to see the production flourishes on the thing, rather than the thing itself, and i'm not sure i actually like the thing itself. so, what i'm initially thinking as i'm watching them is "they'd be better if they sang less and jammed more", but by the end of the set i'm realizing that they'd actually rather be singing more and jamming less. so, there's not any point in arguing for a reversal of their agency - it won't be compelling if it's fake, either. but, then, it's not really sustainable, is it? it's a decent racket while it's broadcasting, even if it's kind of scattered and disconnected and even if it doesn't last much longer.
saajtak tend to mix their sets up, which is nice for people that see them semi-regularly. hey, they're just often the best show in town. i've learned that they sound better in small rooms, and that if they want to play in larger rooms that they'll need to get bigger amps. it was otherwise a mix of new and old material, and while i can't claim that i know their tracks inside and out, i did recognize a few bits, and did enjoy the talent as it was coming out at me.
i spent the rest of friday night at the goth club; it was fairly empty, as it usually is, but the cover was cheap, and the other spots weren't going to be late enough. it was too cold for the park, if there was anybody there. and, those 3:00 closes at marble are iffy - especially when the cover ends up being $20 after midnight. i suspect people were sent home fairly early. i would have rather found a later party, but there wasn't one. rather, the parties this weekend seem to have been all set for saturday, and that just didn't make much sense for me. i was out of there a little before 5:00, which is actually a bit on the late side for goth club, and caught the 5:55 bus back over.
i missed the first set on friday night, and showed up right when unnatural ways were plugging in. i bumped into this show listing at the last minute, but if you go to their bandcamp site, it seems like a who's who of contemporary no new york - mixed by colin marston, produced by jason lafarge, signed to john zorn's label and featuring one of lydia lunch's bassists. where's the thurston moore guest spot? saajtak were also on the bill, so i had to take a run out to the beach for the first time, to enjoy the armageddon induced by the sound, if not by the venue.
they were a sort of a strange set, in that i'm not sure how organic the sound actually is. i just dropped a lot of stuff, and you can hear bits and pieces of it in the sound, but i actually get the impression that what they'd rather be doing is some kind of demented blues that is strictly vocal driven, and they're kind of just throwing out some flashy stuff here and there to hook people like myself. so, i kind of came to see the production flourishes on the thing, rather than the thing itself, and i'm not sure i actually like the thing itself. so, what i'm initially thinking as i'm watching them is "they'd be better if they sang less and jammed more", but by the end of the set i'm realizing that they'd actually rather be singing more and jamming less. so, there's not any point in arguing for a reversal of their agency - it won't be compelling if it's fake, either. but, then, it's not really sustainable, is it? it's a decent racket while it's broadcasting, even if it's kind of scattered and disconnected and even if it doesn't last much longer.
saajtak tend to mix their sets up, which is nice for people that see them semi-regularly. hey, they're just often the best show in town. i've learned that they sound better in small rooms, and that if they want to play in larger rooms that they'll need to get bigger amps. it was otherwise a mix of new and old material, and while i can't claim that i know their tracks inside and out, i did recognize a few bits, and did enjoy the talent as it was coming out at me.
i spent the rest of friday night at the goth club; it was fairly empty, as it usually is, but the cover was cheap, and the other spots weren't going to be late enough. it was too cold for the park, if there was anybody there. and, those 3:00 closes at marble are iffy - especially when the cover ends up being $20 after midnight. i suspect people were sent home fairly early. i would have rather found a later party, but there wasn't one. rather, the parties this weekend seem to have been all set for saturday, and that just didn't make much sense for me. i was out of there a little before 5:00, which is actually a bit on the late side for goth club, and caught the 5:55 bus back over.
this article has some unfortunate nationalist undertones in it, which are anti-socialist in tendency. the antonym of socialism isn't really capitalism; socialists see capitalism as a primitive stage in a holistic development, and largely reject breaking these ideas apart. the real opposite of socialism is actually nationalism.
but, it takes the pakistanis to task, as it should. so, it's a decent history from a marxist perspective.
it's just the stuff about kashmiri "awakening" that should be expunged from the document.
http://www.socialismtoday.org/67/kashmir.html
but, it takes the pakistanis to task, as it should. so, it's a decent history from a marxist perspective.
it's just the stuff about kashmiri "awakening" that should be expunged from the document.
http://www.socialismtoday.org/67/kashmir.html
and, no - the forests in canada aren't teeming with indigenous groups. they've largely been rounded up and settled into "nature reserves", and broadly treated like animals.
the west is more populated than the east, granted. but, broadly speaking, the forests are actually uninhabited.
look up the stats on population density.
the west is more populated than the east, granted. but, broadly speaking, the forests are actually uninhabited.
look up the stats on population density.
this is more along the lines of what i'm thinking about the whole thing: let's find a way to unite workers in india, pakistan and kashmir together to overthrow the bourgeois class, and take control of their own production.
fuck religion.
fuck ethnicity.
fuck nationalism.
https://www.marxist.com/socialist-kashmir-conference.htm
fuck religion.
fuck ethnicity.
fuck nationalism.
https://www.marxist.com/socialist-kashmir-conference.htm
so, i will support the socialists and the anarchists on the ground, not the fundamentalists that want to govern from the extreme right.
and, if there aren't any, or they are too fearful to organize, then i'll have to stand with an imaginary projection of them.
i will not support an ethnic, religious or nationalist struggle merely for the sake of it, or on those terms.
and, if there aren't any, or they are too fearful to organize, then i'll have to stand with an imaginary projection of them.
i will not support an ethnic, religious or nationalist struggle merely for the sake of it, or on those terms.
i mean, do i think that the militants represent the population?
do i think the jihadists have actual popular support?
not at all.
so, it's a false narrative all around.
what you have in kashmir - as you had in syria, and in iraq and almost everywhere else where there are these kinds of wars - is a group of well-funded violent extremists that are largely acting on behalf of foreign governments and care little for the people that live there, fighting against a state that is overreaching it's bounds. both sides claim to represent the average person, and both sides are completely wrong.
self-determination would necessitate free elections, which are impossible under the conditions that the militants would set up.
do i think the jihadists have actual popular support?
not at all.
so, it's a false narrative all around.
what you have in kashmir - as you had in syria, and in iraq and almost everywhere else where there are these kinds of wars - is a group of well-funded violent extremists that are largely acting on behalf of foreign governments and care little for the people that live there, fighting against a state that is overreaching it's bounds. both sides claim to represent the average person, and both sides are completely wrong.
self-determination would necessitate free elections, which are impossible under the conditions that the militants would set up.
i told you the same thing about syria - that i had no interest in taking a side in a conflict between a failed state and a bunch of jihadists.
in the end, i felt compelled to support the bombing against isis, because it was a reflection of the actual popular will. but, it was an almost singular situation, where imperial might could step in and uphold what people actually wanted.
it's far less clear how that can happen in kashmir - but i know that supporting islamic militants isn't the right approach, never has been and never will be.
in the end, i felt compelled to support the bombing against isis, because it was a reflection of the actual popular will. but, it was an almost singular situation, where imperial might could step in and uphold what people actually wanted.
it's far less clear how that can happen in kashmir - but i know that supporting islamic militants isn't the right approach, never has been and never will be.
so, yes - it would be nice if the indian government could tone it down a bit. they don't need to kill as many people as they are killing.
but, if you're looking for support for violent nationalist insurgencies that want to set up fundamentalist governments, you're not going to get that from me.
my solidarity is going to lie with the people caught in between the struggle, the people that don't want to live in a muslim theocracy and that just want to find a way to get away from the violence and live their lives.
but, if you're looking for support for violent nationalist insurgencies that want to set up fundamentalist governments, you're not going to get that from me.
my solidarity is going to lie with the people caught in between the struggle, the people that don't want to live in a muslim theocracy and that just want to find a way to get away from the violence and live their lives.
and, yes, i'm sure you can find me some questionable article about some atrocities by the indian military.
it would take me a few minutes to find you a comparable article about similar atrocities being committed by islamic militants.
so, yes: the truth is that both sides are terrible, and have been for years. but, moralizing about it and picking sides doesn't help anything, it's unproductive.
it would take me a few minutes to find you a comparable article about similar atrocities being committed by islamic militants.
so, yes: the truth is that both sides are terrible, and have been for years. but, moralizing about it and picking sides doesn't help anything, it's unproductive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)