R.I.P., Michael
(My inner child is really distraught over this.)
He was amazing, and inspired and inspiring and the first global iconoclast and the man who made me love bandleader jackets and inspired me to dance and so many other things, personal and cultural and generational and on and on-books and books could be filled, no?
I hope he’s at peace.
Random-Or: This is why the internet is evil.
With only an armful of books-the only way I can study, actually-there is an imposed limit on your research. If I used the internet for studies, I would never get anything done. One topic of interest leads into another and into another and christ: I should really make use of de.lici.ous.
So, too distracted to write a proper post; lack of focus and constant searching for Thierry Mugler’s designs for Beyoncé’s tour(this will be the most stunning tour since Blonde Ambition), and a late glance at the trailer for 2081, and subsequent ideas for a post(think Bergeron & this terribly drab but deeply poetic piece), and tweakish insomnia, and my brain is too wired to do anything but spastically search and sketch/outline.
Searching for Vonnegut on Vonnegut(ha), the clicking of links that gets one off track led me to Prejudicial Appearances: The Logic of American Antidiscrimination Law. In summary:
In Prejudicial Appearances noted legal scholar Robert C. Post argues that the true spirit behind antidiscrimination laws should be acknowledged: they exist not to protect the transcendental dignity of persons but to transform the social practices that constitute race, gender, and other potentially oppressed groups…
Each of the four distinguished commentators who responds to Post’s provocative essay brings a distinctive perspective to this reconception. K. Anthony Appiah investigates the logic of stereo-typing. Questioning whether the law ought to endorse any concept of a social practice that defines persons, Judith Butler explores the tension between sociological and postmodern approaches to antidiscrimination law. Thomas C. Grey examines whether Post’s proposal can be reconciled with the values of the rule of law. And Reva B. Siegel applies critical race theory to query whether antidiscrimination law’s reshaping of race and gender should best be understood in terms of practices of subordination and stratification.
By illuminating the consequential rhetorical maneuvers at the heart of contemporary U.S. antidiscrimination law, Prejudical Appearances forces readers to reappraise the relationship between courts of law and social behavior. As such, it will enrich scholars interested in the relationships between law, rhetoric, postmodernism, race, and gender.
And what won me over? In its opening:
Anti-lookism cuts deeply into the social fabric. Social relationships characteristically transpire through the medium of appearances; an ability to interpret the many meanings conveyed by appearances is required for fluency in the language of social life. Balzac, for example, once observed that the “mind of a man can be ascertained by the manner in which he holds his cane.” Because such judgments are the stuff of ordinary life, Oscar Wilde famously quipped that “it is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.”
Really: that’s one of the most delightful offerings in any opening of any scholarly legal work I’ve ever encountered. (If you know of one better, well: share the wealth.) As an added bonus, it will be entirely relatable back to fashion.
To balance the nerdiness of excitement over legal scholasticism, enjoy Mugler & George Michael, c. 1992:
Style/Fashion Notes, Introductory
Ten rules geared towards women:
1. Always consider the backdrop-setting, city, atmosphere. What looks acceptable and trendy and fun in L. A. may be painfully hipster, in the most abusive sense, in Manhattan. Don’t dress like a street-whore for church. You’re not groundbreaking, and the only statement it sends is that you’re unthinking and inelegant. No casualwear in court(judges should be free to find one guilty based on that crime alone), no ballgowns for errands(unless you’ve been certified insane), and casual is not a free pass for slobbery.
2. Style may be intimate and personal and inspired, but fashion is loud and social and inspiring. Decide your style:fashion ratio, and venture forth fearlessly.
3. Never buy anything that looks like what you wore when you were 13. Avoid the cliche of tribalism-if someone can tell right away what you’re trying to look like, you’ve failed.
4. Occasionally, think “accessories” and build from there. Actually, go that route often: it’s a great way to break out of a style rut and expand your creativity.
5. Vintage is overrated. If it’s a stellar piece you MUST have: If it smells, toss it or have a seamstress recreate it. If it doesn’t fit well, get it tailored. Be mindful of the difference between a timeless piece you can update, and something truly dated.
6. There’s no shame in hiring an image/fashion consultant; there is only shame in who you hire. Avoid anyone who emphasizes trendiness, or relies on celebrities to build their examples or ideas.
7. What you surround yourself with not only defines you immediately, it shapes and influences you deeply and continuously. Edit, edit, edit.
8. Embrace androgyny. Steal from menswear!
9. Always have pieces to incorporate that please your various inner children.
10. Develop your spine. There’s nothing stylish, fashionable, or sexy about an invertebrate.
Take me Thrill me Kiss me Fuck me – But always leave me wanting more
A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? -Oscar Wilde
Thoughts of pleasure in regards to satisfaction have been on my mind for some time now. Specifically in the vein of passion; as what is better for keeping passion alive? Someone who completely satisfies you, provides you with an ultimate release/fulfillment? Or the person who consistently leaves you wanting more, never quite reaching the freedom&agony of complete fulfillment/release, thereby leaving you consistently desirous? I am uncertain, and can see many arguments for both. If someone does completely satisfy you, is the complacency or comfort that this foreshadows a necessary indicator for the death of intimacy? Is it truly possible to be both *comfortable* and constantly desirous of someone who can completely fulfill you? Then again, is the one who you kiss the sky with but never quite reach heaven the one who will keep you on your toes, and allow the passion to grow and explode?
(This is where someone should say “SHUT UP EVA”.)
22 Questions
name: eva age: 30 occupation: student, dilettante, professional fucktoy
current location: my bed
1. Are you male or female?
Female
2. What is your sexual orientation?
Straight, with bi tendencies whenever I’m working through misogyny issues.
3. Do you own any sex toys? Describe them.
In my arsenal: blindfolds(lace, satin, some purchased, some d.i.y.), genial restraints(ditto), nipple clamps(about six pairs), nipple/clit clamps, beaded thongs, remote control vibrators, a B.V. petting ring, JimmyJane vibrators(chroma, Form 6), Hitachi Magic Wand, Couple’s vibrators, skin-respecting candles. Hardly comprehensive and I really need to edit the collection.
4. What is you first memory of sexual arousal?
11, in a physical fight with a boy (ha!)
5. Have you ever been in love?
Yes
6. Are you in love now?
Deeply
7. How often do you masturbate?
Sometimes too much, sometimes not enough.
8. Have you acted on your darkest fantasy?
No, because it isn’t possible.
9. Name three of your biggest turn ons.
A wicked sense of humour, certain kinds of eyes, and brushing against strangers(goddamn elevators)
10. Have you ever had your heart broken?
Yes
11. Have you ever broken a lover’s heart?
Yes
12. Do you consider yourself kinky?
No. Comparatively, I’m pretty fucking vanilla.
13. What is your favourite position?
Slammed against a wall. Limb positions may vary.
14. Who gave you your first “birds and the bees” talk?
Don’t remember. My family never freaked out about sex, so I collected bits & pieces of info here & there. Never had an actual sit-down discussion, though.
15. What is your personal record for longest sexual abstinence?
Two years, self-imposed.
16. Describe the perfect date.
Just one date? Impossible to think of just one, but anything that involves him.
17. How often do you need to have sex?
Need? At least every other day.
18. What are your personal grooming rituals for a hot date?
long bath, layered & mixed scents, ensuring hairs are in place where needed and nonexistent where applicable, deodorant or antiperspirant depending on climate, sheenified body lotion, (usually very light) makeup, polish touchups
19. Have you ever made a sex tape?
A few
20. What is the sexiest thing you love about yourself?
Eyes. I seem to please those who love the legs, and mine are a nifty pair to own.
21. How long should one session of sex last?
Depends on the circumstance
22. Sex soundtrack?
Hmmm…that’s terribly situational, isn’t it?
Love is a spoiled bitch.
From LibertineLust:
perhaps this is the problem with love: love is a spoiled bitch. she’s not divine, she’s mundane and boring. her life expires. she has know idea where she’s coming and going. she’s a wishy washy, little teenager trying to prove herself to be something that she’s not. she’s just boring.
Neglected No More! Well…Maybe.
Terribly neglectful, on many levels lately. Transitioning from complete freedom-which I am ill-equipped to manage-to my old structured schedule has been advantageous, and slightly overwhelming.
General dissatisfaction is great, but saturn returns do that. I wish I could hit fast-forward. Patience, grasshopper. You can’t rush perfection ^_^
Amuse yourself with the following:
Correspondence is a delightful indulgence, especially the handwritten variety, and love letters has 400 pieces written as a project to “train the heart to really feel”. Over ten years on the interwebs, and no website has ever commanded my enjoyment like this. Follow suit and enjoy(and break your heart open a bit more).
Embrace!
Found via InventorSpot:
Winner of the red dot design concept award in 2007, the idea of the Love Mattress is simple: A solid unit makes up the middle portion of the bed, with several adjoining strips of foam connected at either end. Between these slats one can drop their shoulder or arm, allowing for a much more comfortable sleeping position while remaining all snuggled up.
“Grecian good looks”?!
From Dealbreaker:
And the chatter going around Englewood Cliffs is that Stewart– and we deserve a prize for getting through this without pissing our pants in laughter, crying our eyes out in tears of sadness for those who actually believe this– “is smitten with Santelli’s Grecian good looks and is secretly in love with him…hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
Wow. How did Stewart avoid the temptation to run with this? It must have been painful.
