Update from Wales

Erin! (And the rest.)

I'm in Neath, currently, staying with my father and the rest of my family. The Dad is awaiting the Mum's retirement from the States.

I have, however, been in Fishguard, Western-coastal-upper, lower bit of Wales for the past week - a week of an ungodly amount of rain, cold, and cloud.

And yet I still come away with a sun/wind burn!

Only me...I sigh.

From Fishguard, my Dad and I traveled up through to Aberystwyth where my father earned his economics degree and then to Aberaeron to look at some property along the coast.

I'm sorry that it seems like I just skirted into the country without much warning! Everything was a bit sudden and hectic and, for some reason, I assumed you would be in the States by now - which is ridiculous, since Uni for my family over here doesn't even finish until about July or so.

Well, think of this. Parents are moving back to Wales and I'll likely be here for Christmas. Shan't be just a pop over to bide for the next decade or so, this.

...I can't wait to come back home and stop speaking my family's particular brand of Welsh. heh...perhaps.

Cheers everyone!

And, yeah!, I did see Eurovision. Never heard of it before and, my God, it was an eye opener. I loved that Finland one and that chick who used to be from MTV on VH1 was a cohost. Pretty lass, if skinny. I sadly had no idea it was on, so just caught only the tail end of the performances when said goodnight to my Da' and flicked around for something interesting. Really...blew my socks away. (As did seeing Spiderman in Welsh!)

Yeah...I'm in Wales

...so...

Cheers!

(Until the 30th of May)

"Welsh by the Grace of God"

So, I'm Graduated

I am now 6 days removed from Winthrop's undergraduate graduation ceremonies. Up in Pennsylvania, I have a degree in Mathematics from a small South Carolina liberal arts university. The Chapel Hill Admissions office has my full transcript yet the Economic office is woefully lagging and has yet, supposedly, to lay claim to the fullness of my transcript. Wait still I must.

Graduation was fun. It seems I managed to fanagle my way into various good graces and graduate Summa Cum Lade. I was quite pleased with that - even though there was no distinguishing between all the other honours graduates. I suppose we must learn to live with the little grievances in life.

The girl, Jon and his fiance came down to join in the celebrations. Unfortunately their car broke down just outside of Chapel Hill, fortuitous maybe?, at about 2 am. 2 hours to get them and 2 hours back. With pizza, mind, so my weary friends were rescued with car and food. The next day, 2 hours back to the car to deliver keys and then 2 hours back. The next day graduation and a lovely wine brunch at the Dean and Deluca winery. The fiance was too sick to join, and became even more sick the Sunday. Yet the lovely girl resuscitated by the next day. The plan was to leave on sunday yet with their car on the kicks we waited patiently - with many movies and much alcohol. It's the little things in life that make it worth the living.

We finally left on Tuesday - 2 hours to and 2 hours back to deliver my car to the mother and then....tadaa! 6 hours to Pennsylvania along the glorious route of 77 and 81. Much lateness but, hey, shit does happen. And we had a ton of champagne, beer, and wine to make the time all that more enjoyable.

I shall e-mail various people and send off lots of pictures and words.

I'm graduated.

Weird.

Exciting New Trailers!

As I am a movie whore, I also proudly lay claim to the title of trailer whore. No, I'm not that much of a redneck. I'm just glad to say that a good trailer can often be as artistic as the movies themselves. Sadly, of late, we've been going through a miserable time where trailers just seem haphazardly thrown together.

However, friends, I have two glorious bits of trailer to share with you.

The first is the Casino Royale Trailer. Another Bond movie? Eh, I don't know. Without Pierce Bronsan? Ok, I'm listening. With Daniel Craig? Holy hell! Yes, holy hell.

If we can go by the trailer, Casino Royale looks amazing. A true Bond film, I think. I always want my heroes with a bit of an edge. And with Craig and this new direction for Bond, I think we may just get the whole damn sword.

And here is the Superman Returns Trailer. Superman's back and is brought to us by the man responsible for two fantastic comic book movies, Bryan Singer.

Though Kevin Spacey worries me for not being Gene Hackman and trying to be and Kate Bosworth worries me because she is, in fact, Kate Bosworth, I am pumped for this movie. Singer has, at the very least, filled this trailer with iconic shots and beautiful scoring. Much excitement.

While those are both great trailers, the most exciting for me is the X-Men: The Last Stand Trailer. Bryan Singer is gone? That sucks. Matthew Vaughn is now directing? Awesome! Aw, Vaughn had to leave? Damn. Brett Ratner is helming? Holy shit, X-Men is dead.

All that and still the trailer is powerful enough to make my heart beat quickly and tears to threaten? Awesome trailer.

I'm Proud

That's a rather obvious statement. I can be very proud at times. A good thing, a bad thing - delightfully relative at times.

However, my pride at this moment can in no way be relative and can only be thought of as good. I'm very proud of the girl, you see. For all our ups and downs, I'm always proud of her. Sometimes less, sometimes more - but such is the taste of life.

Why am I so very proud of the girl at this moment?

You see, she just got accepted into Berkeley for Italian studies. Brilliant, no?

I had no doubts the girl could get into Berkeley, yet I was quite convinced that she simply didn't have the background that Berkeley would readily accept. I believe this girl is quite brilliant, I am in love with the girl - so she would logically have to be. I suppose I could fall for someone whose bats were not all accounted for in the belfry. But it seems highly unlikely. The girl has a wonderful intellect and a sparkling imagination. I'm not shocked that Berkeley recognized this and rewarded her for it. I am shocked that they looked beyond other things, such as being homeschooled.

It just highlights the fact that she is just that damn awesome.

I realise this might be overly sacchrine and horribly warm and fuzzy. While I deny until my death that I am sacchrine (truly), I can definitely find myself approaching warmth and fuzziness. To quote Phil or Lil from "Rugrats" - "I feel all warm and fuzzy. Uh-oh, diaper needs a changin'."

I'm very proud of the girl. I've told her that many times, but rather like telling her I love her - I doubt there is enough time in this life to tell her to the extent that it would define the breadth of my love and pride.

So, this is but another way and avenue to express my pride in my girl.

Cheers.

What is Lust?

Sex is never dormant. Yet as the days get hotter and more clothes are either shed or even denied access to tantalizing flesh, sex becomes more of a focus. Admittedly, a string bikini can be sighted on any day of the year in any media, but from April onwards the sight becomes a hell of a lot more realistic. (Watching, say, "Bikini Island" in the dead of winter may be fun and dream-inspiring, but watching it in the summer adds a dimension of reality to those dreams.) And, hot damn, our culture does love women in string bikinis, or any other derivative. Or, rather, it just loves the women who willingly objectify themselves in order to perpetuate the notion that the female is sex and nothing else. A jump? Maybe, but bear with me.

Our culture has two basic assumptions that are yet again laid bare by the oncoming season of bare flesh. The first is, as mentioned above, women are sex. The second is the startling (perhaps even defendable) belief that men are uncontrollable sex fiends.

Needless to say, these two assumptions are the source of the incredible lack of right and true communication about sex in our society and in the Church.

Women are sex. While how this assumption is incorrect is completely obvious, let's just state the obvious. We are sexual creatures. Women are sexual creatures. As are men. Yet we are not exclusively sexual. Sex defines us, yet it does not equate us. So, disproving that was pretty easy. High-fives all around. But why does our world view women as sexual objects and why, in an unbelievable correlation, does society then refuse women their sexuality?

I'm only retreading new ground here, so this is all assuredly mundane. These are complex questions which have been explored ad infinitum. However, there is one simple way to answer both questions. Women are objectified sexually because they are denied their sexuality, and conversely are denied their sexuality because they are so sexually objectified. Make sense? (If a person's sexuality is not given to them, they more easily fulfill and satisfy the sexual demands of others. When sexuality and the inherent individuality therein are denied, the sexual identity of those we objectify becomes that of the collective and not the individual.) Our world, but for very few instances, has been ruled by men. And men? Well, they do stupid shit. Especially without the influence of the supposed counter balance, women, and with the absurd encouragement of the supposedly penis loving Bible. Yet even that statement leans upon that men are creatures made dumb by sex. How we can separate and more further explore these assumptions I do not know. However, there can be no doubt these assumptions are inherently intertwined.

Men are sex fiends. Why are men seen as the sex starved animals that use women as objects for their lust, all the while denying women sexual equality? Are men...such? Can a man not look at a woman without lusting over her, taking her in his mind? Have we not based our entire culture on this premise, that man both needs woman for his pleasure and his dominance? I think the answer to that question is an obvious affirmative that finds source in two facets of our society. One, our culture. Who cannot see this affirmation in every billboard, movie, music video, and magazine? I doubt very much that every consumer in the world is either a lesbian or a straight man, either with a raging libido. Yet our media presents itself with the underlying assumption that every target is a 30 year old straight man. Look at the demographics which executives all over the world dream about - it's all about men. The young female demagraphic is a mysterious, hollowed ground. I've heard and read countless stories citing the excitement of capturing the fabled female market. No one knows what women want (except Mel Gibson, of course). Yet all those executives certainly seem to think they know what young men want and need: tits and explosions, with some comedy thrown in. It isn't just the media (and politicians) who haven't a clue about the woman and completely understand the man. The second "Yes" that I see, and in part my influence to write this, emanates from the Church. The Church demands modesty for a variety of reasons. The first, but not chief (we hope), among them is that by dressing modestly, women would not cause men to stumble, or lust. Implicitly, the greatest religious institution on earth acknowledges: "Men are dogs, insatiable whores - and women need to make sure that they curb their inner slut so men can rule the roost without a knobbly thing leading them." I'm paraphrasing of course.

So our world seems to be defined by the fact that men cannot control themselves around women who own their sexuality. Is it right? Does this make sense? Is our entire culture defined by a premise and assumptions that are false?

Every cliche has at its core a truth that has lasted through time. 'tis why there cliches. There is undoubtedly truth to the assumption that men cannot control themselves sexually. Yet what that truth is I don't know. My mind, for the moment or forever, is coloured by too many years of tacitly accepting assumptions. Even now when I have denied those assumptions as truth, I cannot escape what seems to be the truth behind such assumptions. It seems too easy to say, "Of course the assumptions about men are true, we have an entire history of the earth to justify them and damn men." Way too easy to declare the truth behind those assumptions as reason enough for them. But I have even used some of those assumptions in my writing today. As for the truths that may lay behind those assumptions, certainly there are some that pop into my head. Men are more visual than women - the defense for men watching pornography. That's one. But even that is wrapped around and between the assumptions of who and what men and women are in today's culture.

What is lust? That's the question I first wanted to ask and Lust is the driving force of capitalism and the horror of churches. We should be damn well sure of what it is. Both for us as individuals and as a collective.

We all certainly know what lust is, objectively, right? The greedy, proud thing some of us are easily capable of.

Yet, I ask the question about lust because the word has another connotation. Sex has become lust, or lust sex, in the world at large. To the world, sex is lust and it is good! To the Church, sex is lust and it is bad!

We have no idea what sex is. At least, they *he makes a grand gesture of waving his arm in a large semi-circle* don't.

So the world derives most of its business from sex

The church is running scared from sex.

And they don't have a clue as to what sex really is.

There is such an incredible miscommunication about sex and sexuality. We objectify and condone thrusting upon an individual the presumed sexuality of a society, all in one neat little bundle. The only way we can stop this and verify the truth of sexuality is by understanding the truth of ourselves and who we are. Now, personally I would argue that for anyone to truly understand themselves, they must seek God first. Not the most popular sentiment, I'm sure.

However, we still must seek that truth of self. But truth of self will never suffer the indignity of our culture unless acceptance preceedes it. If we can't accept the other, how can we possibly accept the self? (And with such a question follows, how can we find comfort in our own sexuality if another's sexuality, which in large part is a projection of our own, weirds us the hell out?)

There are strictly accepted definitions of femininity and masculinity. The female is motherly, quiet, soft, and placating. The male is courageous, hard, action-orientated, and passionate. Generalities are fine, and even accurate for most men and women as they may fall into those general and ambiguous definitions. Yet a problem arises for two reasons. The first, these gender definitions are strict. The second proceeds from the first. Because such definitions are given no chance to breathe, society at large does not accept anyone who exists outside those definitions. The butch female, the feminine man. These are unacceptable visions of manhood and womanhood in the eyes of the world. Yet these visions inherently deny the complexity of humanity. Men are strong but weak. Women are weak but strong. Men are passionate yet rational. Women are placating yet passionate. We are defined, I would argue, by the hypocrisies of our nature that defy definitions.

The girl will know this well - I call myself a hypocrite by nature. I pray to God I am not the hypocrite Christ damned. Yet I will proudly lay claim to the title of hypocrite if, by the title, all of my complexities, absurdities, and twisting speech are understood not as false things because of inherent (assumed) contradictions, but rather incredibly true things that are inherently human; contradictions and hypocricies that make me more of a real man than I ever could be by "straightening" myself out to common standards.

(I'm not quite sure how to end this, so I just will. I'm also not exactly sure what this is, beyond a simple experiment in thought. So...here it is.)