Personal rant; on a woman’s body

Girls who Instagram pics of their bodies in skin tight outfits… I’m torn. There’s nothing wrong with your body. You can shape it and do with it as you please.

At the same time, you’re maintaining the status quo. What are you doing? You’re imitating the kind of body society deems acceptable and then showing how much of your self-worth comes from that.

What ever happened to digging deep down and asking yourself, “Am I truly seeking to make myself happy? Am I doing this for me?”

Cover your bodies up. Dress them down. It’s so stupidly confusing. It’s a crazy world to be a girl. If girls seem crazy confused, it’s for a good reason.

My tentative conclusion: to the girls who have already learned the multiple contexts and societal circumstances which surround the actions and discussions of their bodies… break the status quo. Break it in any way you can. And do it with utter confidence. Do it for yourself. Do it for the girls around you who can’t dress like they’re models. Do it for feminism.

And then I see guys express like for these photos, and there’s nothing quite wrong with that either… But, men, you’re also maintaining the status quo. Girls do so much to get those bodies. They’re slaving away at matching a societal standard to achieve self-worth, and you’re encouraging them. Where is your duty as a man to the feminist cause? Do you even know what that duty is?

If I could tell men what their feminist duty consists of, it would be this: stop focusing on women’s bodies so much. Your thoughts are fair game and free to wander, but the way you represent yourself to others… In your speech, your gestures, you have the power to break the status quo of gender relations.

Fuck gender relation probz. I’m staying single forever. Will make life so much easier. If I ever partner up with someone, you gonna bet they’re fucking worth my heart and time.

And this quote right here says it all.

“I suspect it’s difficult for men to imagine a world in which their bodies have long been inextricably linked to their value as an individual, and that no matter how encouraging your parents were or how many positive female role models you had or how self-confident you feel, there is an ever-present pressure that creeps in from all sides, whispering in your ear that you are your body and your body defines you. A world where, from the time of pubescence on, you can feel the constant and palpable weight of the male gaze, and not just from your male peers but from teachers and sports coaches and the fathers of the children you baby-sit, people you’re supposed to respect and trust and look up to, and that first realization that you are being looked at in that way is the beginning of a self-consciousness that you will be unable to shake for the rest of your life. Even if they are never verbalized, the rules of bodily conduct for females become clear early on: when school administrators reprimand you for the inch of midriff that shows when you lift your hands straight in the air or youth group leaders tell you that the sight of your unintentional cleavage is what causes godly young men to fall, you learn that your body is dangerous and shameful and that it’s your responsibility to cloister it in a way that is acceptable to everyone else. You learn that your body is a topic of public debate that everyone is entitled to weigh in on, from a male classmate telling you that those jeans make your ass look huge to the male-dominated United States Congress dictating the parameters that rape must fall within to be considered legitimate. To be a woman, and to live life in a woman’s body, is to be held to a set of comically paradoxical standards that make you constantly second-guess yourself and jump through a million hoops in pursuit of an impossible perfection.”

Image

Crystal Castles third album comes out Nov. 12! I cannot wait. There are things I want to say about this album cover, but I think I’ll hold off till the album is released and then attempt a full review… we’ll see. Considering the lyrics of the two singles that have already been released, I’d say the theme, or one of the themes, of this upcoming album is urgently relevant. CC is gettin’ political. There are artists who try to get political, and kinda fall flat because they push their concept too hard. But III looks promising.

Story time of my life~

 

The other day, as I was listening to the classical music station on the radio, I couldn’t help but laugh because the recording that was being played had coughing going on the background (note to self: don’t ever attend a classical music concert if you’re sick).  Incidentally, I became surprised at how much I began to enjoy this piece.  I mean, yes, I generally enjoy classical music, but I’m not an avid listener.  I suppose my relationship with classical music is one that happens in random spurts (I listened to Vivaldi’s Seasons a bunch back when I was… 16?)  Anyway, I’m writing this post to make two points: 1. Edward Elgar is awesome, 2. the youtube comments for “A Complete version of Edward Elgar’s Enigma Variations” (and probably most classical music videos) are adorable.

Here is one comment: “Here is the essence of England. It is a true Anthem. I am colonialised, but on listening I positively yearn. In the coming 2012 strife,England will need a rallying cry, here it is.”

Hahah, so cute.  Despite this person’s lofty love for England, he or she has made a kind remark about the video.  Everyone else’s comments were generally thank-you’s and words of praise.  If only the rest of youtube could be this kind.

And if you’re interested, here is the first eight Variations.  Cheers!

Current Reads update

I’ve finally updated my “current reads” page.  I haven’t really been on a tumblr lately.  A lot of people here are spiteful, despite having some kind of informed perspective on things.  I might need to unfollow one or two people soon, or else my good vibes will be forever tainted.  Plus, I’ve got more important things to do than tumble about the internet, hyperlink after hyperlink (wait, I do?)

Anyway, here are the two things I’ve started reading a little bit ago.

— 100 Years of Solitude, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

— Nausea, by Jean-Paul Sartre

I borrowed 100 Years of Solitude from the library, and I really need to get on my reading game more or else I won’t finish it in time for the book discussion.  Yeah, I miss book discussions (not college culture though, hah), so that’s why I looked up a few book clubs in the Baltimore area to figure out who’s reading what, and what’s worth reading.  100 Years of Solitude has been categorized under the magical realism label.  So far, I’m a little confused by the book.  It breaks the normal conventions one is taught in a creative writing class.  Lots of exposition.  All the characters’ behaviors are explained with a simple sentence or two.  Nothing solidly poetic, at least from my worldview of literature (which is, of course, still growing).

I’ve never really read anything “magical realism” before, and yet I’m skeptical of this book.  I’m generally enjoying it, despite my obvious Western literature sensibilities.  (Although, I have come up with some interesting ideas of why it was written the way it had been, so we’ll see.  After all, this book did win a Nobel Prize.)  I refuse to be critical of this book until I’ve offered up every possible generous interpretation of this piece.  I say this also because of something Gore Vidal said in that recent interview that was posthumously published:

“Especially since the Americans only like things they can label, even if it kills them. I mean, think of those poor Latin American writers. Some of them are very good. But the ‘magical realism’ label has absolutely ruined them. The critics are like tourists who return from a trip saying they’ve ‘done’ Machu Picchu: ‘Okay, we’ve done magical realism,’ so now we can throw it out.”

As such, I’m doing my best to approach this book from an unadulterated mind (suspending a lot of my lit sensibilities, as I said).  I know Marquez, the book’s author, was from Colombia; yet, I know nothing of Colombian writing, culture, or history, all things which could help inform my perspective on this book.  In any case, hopefully I will get this done before the book discussion, and hopefully someone there will have an informed perspective on this!

Nausea, on the other hand, I am highly enjoying.  Despite the French words which have been sprinkled throughout the book (I can’t pronounce French at all), it’s been a great read thus far.  If anyone has been wanting to read a book that digs into the complexities of the inner human experience, I would definitely recommend Nausea, especially if you have some background or budding interest in existentialism.

On Spin’s article on Lupe Fiasco’s “Bitch Bad”

Between Lupe Fiasco and the Spin writer, I can’t say I ultimately side with either of them.  Fiasco is at artistic liberty to do what he wants with his flow.  Spin Writer makes a few fair aesthetic points.  I wouldn’t name the article “Mansplaining,” but then again who knows if the writer chose the title.  Fiasco accusing writer of “bad journalism” and saying “Fuck you” (via twitter) honestly does nothing constructive, only excites his fanbase.  Spin isn’t journalism in a strict sense; it’s reviews and stuff, just opinion.  Dude has a right to his artistic opinion.  As much I appreciate Fiasco trying to break down the vague, and perhaps wrongful, use of hip hop terms, I still couldn’t get completely into it.  Fiasco may be hella smart, but using nothing but polysyllabic words doesn’t make it gold.

Here is the recent article on Fiasco’s newly released music video for “Bitch Bad,” which sparked yesterday’s clash over twitter.

Here is the initial article, written by the same writer, which talks only of the song itself.

Misguided Representation of Subcultures

We don’t live in a grounded reality of meaningful truths.  We live in a hyper-reality.  We make judgments of society through mainstream media sources.  The best example of this is the current popularity surrounding the hipster stereotype.  Most people don’t actually know many, or any, “hipsters”; they just found a bunch of new hype of it on the internet, hype which was highly dismissive, and then took this to be true of reality.  Now, everyone walks around thinking hipsters, or punks or hippies, are some kind of silly fad, some passing trend that will eventually realize itself as stupid and die.

Is that actually the case?

A couple friends of mine have expressed the kind of attitudes they encounter from within their families.  Those of older generations, usually not always, dismiss progressive thought as a temporary fad.  If you think about it… isn’t that what we implicitly learned through television shows and other media outlets?  Hippies are represented as a trendy youthful sub-culture that innocently came and went.  Kids from the 90s were frequently found sporting peace sign t-shirts or stickers, in the same way that kids today shop vintage because it’s apparently the new trend.  Sub-cultures are generally viewed as some necessary part of life, that youths are experiencing a certain phase of their life that has no bearing on “real” life.

Mainstream media sources, ones which operate on a corporate level, represent society in a way which fits their worldview.  However, these people have narrow worldviews.  To them, anarchists, hippies, punks, and hipsters are misguided, silly groups.  To them, masses of poverty are simply an unfortunate consequence of the good and wonderful capitalist market, which is the pinnacle of “human advancement.”  The people who control most of the media you watch, or people who continue to spread corporate media ideas without realizing it, have given you a hyper-reality to live in.  You make judgments off of their worldviews.  You dismiss hipsters as a passing fad.  Anarchists as stupid.  Poor minorities as a stupid, unfortunate mass.  Trends(which I elaborated on a previous blog post) are nothing more than the disingenuous result of corporate and capitalist culture, of mainstream, conservative, white-washed media.

I actually was motivated to write this post because of an Alice Glass interview I found.  Here is the interview’s answers (because for some reason the site didn’t post the questions alongside the responses):

My look is more grandmother’s leftovers than heroin chic. Besides, I don’t talk about drugs. This skirt was my grandma’s. It’s kind of too big on me. She didn’t leave me any of her cool clothes from the Forties, just her cheap polyester stuff.

I bought this jacket at By the Pound in Toronto. It’s one of those places where you look through a heap of stuff and sometimes you score. Everything’s priced based on its weight. This was about $8 (about £4). People would look better if they didn’t spend money on clothes. If they took what they found and just made the most of it, that’d be good.

I’m feminine: I’m wearing a skirt, I own a bra. I think that whole big blonde look has been taken over by transsexuals now. I’m a natural blonde, but that blonde hair, big tits idea of what men want, it’s now really unfeminine.

I’ve had my hair like this since I was 13.Before that, it was much shorter. I had a Chelsea, which is bangs [a fringe] and then the rest is shaved off.

My tights are always ripped. I don’t think it’s possible to be on tour and own a pair of tights that aren’t ripped. If I threw them out, I would just be buying a new pair of tights every day.

My top is from a sports store in Dalston. It’s a sweater for little boys; I bought loads of them. Usually I wouldn’t go shopping in London. I’ve been to a couple of vintage stores here and they’re pretty pricey. Toronto is probably the best place for vintage clothes.

I must have come out of the womb wearing Converse.I just wear them until they rip and become sandals. I like the white ones when they get that awesome brown shade. I can’t take anything valuable on tour; kids jump on stage and steal my stuff.

My make-up routine involves putting a bunch of black stuff on my eyes. I’ve worn lipstick before, but I’m not big into it. I don’t really care or think about how I look. I wouldn’t wear something I didn’t like, but I’ve never had a real job so no one’s ever told me how to dress.

It’s obvious that most of the questions are about Alice Glass’ image and style.  Everyone is really taken with Alice Glass’ image, so naturally people will want to ask those questions, which is fine.  What should be noted here, however, are the implicit presuppositions of the (absent) questions.  You don’t even need to know what the questions are; it’s clear that, whatever the questions were, they were asked from a standpoint that accepts mainstream fashion and trends as a valid part of a society.  They want to know what kind of deliberate image Alice Glass must have painstakingly made for herself.  Her answers are raw and honest.  She isn’t concerned with whether people are describing her image as “heroin chic.”  Everyone seems to think she deliberately ripped her tights, too.  No, she just wears what she wears.  She doesn’t buy up frilly trends, nor is she trying to be the next trend icon.  She simply buys things cheap because she’s relatively poor (well, probably not anymore).  It’s very possible that she holds a higher purpose in her choice of buying vintage (which, as I also discussed in my previous blog post, originally came to be in order to recycle material which would otherwise go to a landfill while not giving your money to unethical corporations whose job it is to make trends in the first place to get your money), though I don’t know that for certain.

The philosophy of hippies is more than just frivolous “tree-hugging”; the fashion of punks is more than just “trying to be different”; and, the vintage fashion of hipsters is more than just “being retro.”  Anyone who doesn’t see this still lives in the unauthentic world of corporate ideas.  If you shop at Urban Outfitters, you might want to do some research on this subject and discover for yourself what your actions really mean.

From Grass Roots to High Fashion: the Consumption of Meaningless Trends

“Trend” is broad concept that is difficult for many of us to approach definitively.  Some are localized to a group of friends, some are localized to a city, and some exist purely through electronic media and, as a result, find a presence on the international stage.  Many people say that trends and conformity are bad, yet this critique alone is not enough.  What specific kind of conformity is bad?  What is a “trend”?

These are the questions with which I’m about to apply to fashion, at least as it exists in America.  When you walk into a store, do you think about how those designs were conceived?  Or where that material came from?  Maybe some of fashion’s biggest tropes meant something different before sold on the corporate level.  An obvious example is the native iconography you see in a lot of places these days (e.g. Urban Outfitters).  Those designs meant something completely different to a marginalized and colonized group of people.  They may seem quaint and cute to the everyday consumer who is trying to “keep up” with what is trending, but before the commercialized attention these designs were intimate symbols of meaning.  Perhaps, then, does this how mainstream, commercialized fashion works all the time?  Stealing designs from a much more localized landscape of meaning and turning them into the middle-class American closet-filler?  Yes, that is my theory.  Mainstream and high fashion “gets inspired” by taking concentrated localized trends and turning them into a wide-scale national trend, and in the process warps the original meaning of the trend.

Now, one may immediately wonder what the difference is between a localized trend and a national/international trend which relies on media to survive.  (Warning: sociological/philosophical ideas up ahead).  I’m going to start at the smallest level.  Say there are two young girls who are friends, each of them with their own set of personal mannerisms.  One twiddles her thumbs when she’s bored and the other eats a peppermint before tests.  As they spend more time together, each start to take the mannerisms of the other without realizing it.  Psychologically, this may be perceived as a way for human beings to connect with one another subconsciously.  It’s like they’re putting themselves in the other’s shoes in a very small way.  They’re not copying each other; in a sense, they’re bonding.  Another example may be the notion of inside jokes.  Only a small number of people find special meaning in a particular game or activity, and it is this special meaning which connects them.  I’m using very relatable examples to the everyday American, but it’s not hard to take this idea and apply to certain cultural behaviors.  Even though those behaviors are embedded in a completely different culture and place, they are shared amongst those people.  Loosely speaking, these can all be categorized as localized trends.

American society is widespread, and has put in place certain systems which hold together the country on such a large scale.  We have TVs, radios, cell phones, etc.  We have corporations which provide the exact same product to three hundred million people.  On a superficial level, this doesn’t seem so bad.  Everyone’s needs are being met, right?  The only problem is that, as an American citizen and consumer of corporate product, you don’t actually know anything about the products you’re consuming.  You didn’t accrue the materials to make them, you didn’t put the creative thought into designing them… you didn’t do anything for them except fork over some magical pieces of paper so you can have them.  They don’t have any special value that connects you to others or even to yourself.  It’s value is $19.99, and that’s it.

Before you get ahead of me, reader, I’d like to say a couple things.  We live in this society, whether we like it or not.  We didn’t choose to be born into this physical landscape people around us call “America.”  And because of this, many people simply do not have access to the right information in order to become informed, nor do they have the financial security to reject living off of certain corporate product.  I understand some people cannot afford to live any other way (that’s a whole another bag of problems I don’t want to get into right now).

So, back to the original topic, where do fashion trends come from?  I’m asking this question both to myself and to others because, I’ll admit, stores which make big bank off of selling “progressive” styles really gets under my skin.  I really do not like places like Urban Outfitters and Free People.  Seriously… the name of the store is “Free People.”  How can someone not see how the corporation is manipulating people’s sense of values?  Let me be clear: you do not need to dress in a certain way to be progressive and liberal.

Excuse my ill-tempered words — back to the point.  I’m about to deconstruct specific fashion trends right here.

Boho/Hippie 

I’ve noticed the increasing popularity of “boho” or “boho-chic.”  These harken back to the original term “bohemian,” which was a kind of sub-culture popularized in Greenwich Village in the 1920s and known for consisting of, usually, artistic types.*  The long flowing, but perhaps tattered, skirts, the earthy colors, and the mix of hippie style influences.  You know what I’m talking about.  Companies which largely sport this style are Urban Outfitters and Free People.  Their clothing supposedly makes a customer look free-spirited, artistic, and that he or she belongs to a lower tax bracket (very deceptive, since those stores are pretty pricey).*  One of the trends of the 1960s hippies was to borrow styles from more “primitive” peoples.*  This is obviously being done today.  I walked into an Old Navy the other day and saw earrings meant to imitate Chinese currency (the coins with the holes, you know).  I don’t claim to know what that trend was like back in the 1960s (I don’t have the age to support such a claim), but I can voice my opinion in saying that I think these kinds of trends are heavily misguided.  How would you like it if the next big thing was to wear Star of David earrings?  How is that any different from wearing imitation Chinese coins?  Or Native American designs?  Why would you wear these things?  These things are meaning to other groups of people or cultures, and just because a corporation decides to make bank on the current exoticism sensation (or whatever you’d like to call it), does it mean it’s ethically okay.  Being half Filipina, if I saw a store selling shirts with Tagalog phrases on them, I would so disheartened.  Me, the half-white, half-Filipina girl who has always struggled to come to terms with her lack of language, with her racially, politically, and socially confusing existence, would see white people buying up this hypothetical new trend… I would be pretty upset.  My family’s culture is not for sale.  And yet, people get tattoos of Chinese characters because it seems “exotic” and “full of mystery.”

However, people aren’t at complete fault for this.  Many are at ignorance at where some of this merchandise comes from, and that’s simply by virtue of the merchandise being a part of the larger capitalist picture.  Corporations don’t care what’s right and wrong to people; they care about what sells.  From their merchandise, to their commercials, they’re trying to get money out of you.  They’re going to sell whatever they feel will sell, which means they’re going to take notice of mainstream trends that have been blown out of proportion to mean nothing what it meant before.  In the end, each person’s moral responsibility is to become aware of what was the process and consequences involved in the making of corporate product, or any business product honestly.  

Punk

A couple years ago, I remember stumbling upon the Jimmy Choo website and saw some of their merchandise decked out with punk-esque studs.  I knew studs were affiliated with punk and goth trends (i.e. Hot Topic), but that’s about it.  Though I’m less familiar with punk, it took only one google search to confirm my suspicions.  Punk fashion styles were generally a result of an anti-fashion movement in the 1970s, which consisted of people buying clothing from thrift stores and re-appropriating the material in new but rugged ways.*  Due to the  aggressive statement-styles of the punk movement, such things as studs and piercings were utilized to shock conventional society.

If someone were to dress punk today, no one would be shocked, assume you have purpose, nor assume you were poor or low-class.  It takes a decent budget to buy some of the things that would constitute being a “punk” today.

Vintage

Shopping at vintage and thrift shops is very in-vogue these days, so much that it’s gotten to the point where certain stores (again, e.g. Urban Outfitters) will design their merchandise in imitation of retro or vintage styles.  Now, people have the commercial luxury of buying vintage without actually buying vintage.  Why has vintage and second-hand become a modern trend?  I’m not googling it this time because I feel relatively confident in my educated guess.  Buying second-hand isn’t something new.  As mentioned above, the original hippie and punk movements largely included obtaining second-hand clothing.  As I understand it, shopping at thrift and vintage stores has a greater ethical cause behind it for many people.  By doing this, you’re recycling used clothes that were locally obtained as opposed to being dumped into landfills; plus, you’re not giving your money to large corporations which thrive off of selling shady ideas, and all-around other shady practices as well.  Inadvertently, I suppose it might be a good thing that vintage is a trend since more people will, though unaware of themselves, stumble into ethical practices (kinda like with the organic hype, kinda).

Considering the overwhelming amount of things people ought to be educated about or aware of, I wouldn’t fault people for ignorance alone.  We live in a crazy society in which so many things, especially via media, are thrown in our faces, and it’s up to us to make sense of it all.  It’s difficult to sort through the muck, I know.  There’s only so much some people can do.  I , too, still have much more to educate myself about.  If there’s a lesson to take away from this, I suppose it’s to question the everyday things in your life that you didn’t make for yourself.  You didn’t grow the carrots on your dinner plate (well, maybe you did), you didn’t make your new summer dresses (if you did, that’s pretty impressive), and you certainly didn’t make your cell phone nor accrued the material to make it (and that one is definitely true for everyone).  If you’re genuinely open-minded about such questions, you’ll be ready to act accordingly when you discover the answer.

————————————-

Sources (listed in the order as used)

*http://www.nbol-19.org/view_doc.php?index=74

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_style

*http://www.fashion-era.com/punks_fashion_history1.htm

On the concept of Lana del Rey’s Born to Die

The album “Born to Die” tries so hard in its all hip charm and allure.  It’s got beats you’ll return to and even a weirdly attractive concept, too.  However, I can’t help but take issue with this album’s meta-narrative and overall concept.  The only reason I take issue is because my liberal sensibilities are a tad inflamed.  Yet, I can’t help but return to some of her songs because of their delicious sounds.  It’s like eating an entire chocolate cake by yourself; you love it even though you know it’s bad for you and you’ll feel sick later.  Yes, I feel a bit sick.  To simplify, this album is like… helpless middle class girl problems.  The persona created in this album by Lana’s lethargic yet yearning voice defines her worth as a human being by her attraction to a smokin hot but abusive man.  This girl passively takes the crap that life throws at her, especially by her careless gangster of a boyfriend.  She loves his drug habits, she loves his drinking habits.  Oh so reckless and charmingly self-destructive.  I guess you should just live with the bitingly arbitrary existence you’ve been dealt?  Noooo, screw that.  Here’s the chorus of “This is what makes us girls”:

This is what makes us girls
We don’t look for heaven and we put our love first
Don’t you know we’d die for it? It’s a curse
Don’t cry about it, don’t cry about it
This is what makes us girls
We don’t stick together ’cause we put our love first
Don’t cry about him, don’t cry about him
It’s all gonna happen

Are you… serious?  What a defeated tone.  No room for a strong human will, for transcendence.  “This is how we exist, we can’t and won’t do anything about it.” The entire song is devoted to how constricted a girl’s identity is.  A sort of “I’m sorry we’re petty beauty queens who claw at each other, but this is who we are.”  No, human beings are fluid and don’t have to be trapped in the oppressiveness of society’s tangled social patterns.

Now, I understand I don’t need to take this whole album seriously.  Actually, after having first heard “Video Games” I thought the song was a kind of ironic social commentary (I’ve heard this from others as well).  And then I listened to the rest of the album… This is the last thing I would want young girls to be listening to.  I don’t care whether or not the album is making a sophisticated point.  Many girls out there won’t get that at first, if at all.  Which is horrible.  The album’s message is still questionable, at least for me.  No girls, your be all, end all is not to hopelessly love a hot boy who may not treat you like a dignified human being.  Do not continue on in your tortured state of existence, get high, and then go drive on the interstate so you can get into a car crash (which happens in the music video of “Born to die”).  Couldn’t they have just smoked up after they arrived at their destination?  I know, I sound like some kind of mom.  (Danks after homework, kay deary?)

And then there’s “Lolita.”  Of course, this is evocative of the novel Lolita, which is about a psychologically messed up man who desires a young, supposedly perfect girl.  Just like one expects of the album Born to Die, the novel Lolita isn’t meant to be read quite so literally.  (Incidentally, I actually do like the fact that there’s a parallel being drawn with this song.  It sorta helps the album reach toward that ironic tonality).  It’s scary yet alluring because the average person gets to enter into a mind which is so socially forbidden.  It’s wrong, it’s heinous, yet strikes hard at the curiosity of the reader.  But, It’s important to keep in mind that the protagonist is a human being.  Wholesome and horribly human.

However, some readers may miss the point of Lolita; and just as Lolita has a concept that may not the most accessible, so too is Born to Die working with a slippery concept.  This isn’t about how high you can go on the glorified girl scale.  Don’t get me wrong, sexualized attention isn’t a bad thing.  Objectified attention, however, is not cool.  I’m a sexual being, I love sex (I’m even avid about having the sex talk with anyone who is willing to open up to me about the grittiest of details).  Sexual liberation is a good thing.  But fine lines must be drawn in our cultural understanding of certain behaviors.  I’m not saying going to the club and getting your freak on is bad.  It’d probably be bad if you went dressed like a hooker, though.  Of course, objective lines don’t exist for these things, so draw that line for yourself with your own critical understanding of the world.

At the end of all this rambling, my conclusion is basically that Born to Die is a delicious chocolate cake — Be careful how you enjoy it.

Small but Sweet Tidings

Beach House’s new album Bloom came out. I know I could have downloaded sooner, but I decided to wait until it was available on rdio.com to listen to the whole thing.  Ugh, love love love.

The Asian American Writers’ Workshop also emailed me today saying they’ve reviewed my internship application and would like to do an interview.  Ahh exciting!  If they accept me, then I may be spending my summer in NYC and its lit scene!  On the downside, I’d have to find a place to live for three months…  So we’ll see how that goes.

Oh right, and I’m graduating from college.  That’s good news, too, I suppose.  I’m more excited to just move back home and start my post-undergrad life.  Reading, writing, other creative endeavors, finding a job, and getting organized!  I won’t do this anytime soon, but sometime in the next few years I think I may go WWOOFing, too.  Perhaps more than once! Maybe even with a friend!  I’m considering the Philippines, Spain, Ireland, or England.  If I went to the Philippines, I’d visit family, too.

Combo Post! – music, film, and then some crazy ideas.

The more I listen to Beach House, the more I know this is love.  It’s not often that I “fall in love” with bands, though I’m sure it would help if I kept up the music game (no time for that at the moment!).  Their new album, Bloom, is about to drop come May 15.  In the meantime, I’ve been listening to their new singles on repeat as well as their previous album, Teen Dream.  If you’re into dreamy, shoegazey pop, then I definitely recommend them.

New Singles–

Myth

Lazuli

In other news, I watched a movie last night called Submarine.  It’s sobering, awkward, funny, quirky, witty, and intelligent.  The tone of the movie is not-so-grand, mundane, in the same vein as many other indie films.  It’s about an awkward and intelligent boy who is trying to get laid, fix his parents’ marriage, and figure out his identity.  Basically, an indie coming-of-age story.  The protagonist, Oliver Tate, makes it easy to keep watching since his inner dialogue is so alluring, especially when you see the contrast of him interacting with others.  This contrast, between the inner and outer self of Oliver, is one that I personally find touching, especially at a key moment toward the end of the movie (which I will obviously not describe here) in which it becomes evident that he’s full of emotions even though he can’t express them properly in his everyday interactions (something I can relate to at times).  He’s a precious boy.  For some reason, I really liked his father.  His father further drives home the metaphor of “being under water” as he is a marine biologist.  Studying that which is under water, that which is submersed in your world of depression, is a lovely image.  Anyways, I was able to check this out simply because I bumped into it on Netflix, so feel free to check it out.

Lastly, one of the many thoughts that has been on my mind concerns the ways in which we live in a society of domination and hegemony.  I’ll probably go into this in more detail later, though I don’t have much to say to begin with.  I feel like I’m starting to become more aware of the ways in which hierarchies are created.  There are straightforwardly hierarchical things as “high fashion” and “high art,” but what are the less obvious hierarchies which exist in our culture?  School grades, GPAs, awards and honors… Some of these things we can interpret as simply ways which one human being recognizes with admiration and appreciation the work of another human being.  But when does this become distorted and inhuman?  The answer, just as in things like stereotypes, sexism, etc., is not one that is defined by an objectively clear cut line.

Jean-Paul Sartre, the famous 20th century French existentialist philosopher, rejected the Nobel Prize in Literature.  According to Wikipedia, he stated that, “a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution.”  And you know… he has a point.  It makes me think of this book (which I cannot remember because a friend told me about it, so I’ll probably post about it sometime in a forth-coming post) which discusses the fact that colleges and universities are not in the business of education, but rather in the business of giving out degrees.  When I graduate in three weeks, I know that many of my peers will go on to make immoral decisions in their lives, to live lives that they’ll hardly critically reflect upon, and to continue to spread the many inhumane values that so grossly pervade our society; yet, we’ll all have a “Bachelors Degree.”

My passion for poetry will lead me to, hopefully, publish my own collection.  What if I won the Pulitzer Prize?  What would I do?  Do I take it?  Do I reject it?  I can’t deny that it would feel good to be recognized by the literary community as having written worthwhile art, and recognition isn’t a bad thing…  Maybe the Pulitzer is too institutional?  I don’t have an answer to that.  I don’t think anyone really has a proper answer, even if that person does have an intricately thought-out philosophy on what it means to be “free” (Sartre).  Hopefully, one day I’ll develop my own well thought-out personal philosophy on these topics.