Can you tell me how to get to married land?
I have this impression -maybe some of you have it too -that the "directions to married land" are now very different than it used to be.
Back in the ol' days, a man would see a woman (usually at some event like a carnival, dance, fair, hangout spot, you know...), find her attractive, pluck up the courage and ask her out. Then the dating begins. What you find out, you find out over time, from being in a relationship. And when you find it out, you make it work because, well, you like her.
But nowadays, in the new age of online dating, cell phones, facebook and google... man hears a woman's name, checks out her SYAS profile, asks a bunch of questions, Googles her, facebook stalks, texts a few (mutual) friends with a list of questions...
Listen, people... We don't need to do a whole background check to figure out if she'll become the "first lady," over here! You're not the president; the secret service, FBI and CIA don't need to get involved to figure out the minutiae of her life!
Seriously, I think all this intelligence work gets in the way of people getting together.
Here's how I see it. When two people get time to interact, to see each other in a relaxed setting (as in, not hyper-aware of being watched or hounded for dating and marriage purposes) they can find a spark of connection. That spark grows into a relationship. Over time, more parts of each person are opened up, brought into and integrated into that relationship. The process builds a symbiotic connection that grows over time, which gives two people the strength to handle whatever comes up.
But when all the intelligence comes first, there is no connection. By the time two people are actually out on a date, they have already undergone a serious, heavy-duty pre-screening process. And then we put ourselves on a date with them before knowing or having any connection. Or expecting to have it because of all the intel.
Seriously? This is supposed to work? I think, in this particular way, we're going in the wrong direction.
Dec 20, 2011
Dec 11, 2011
"Creative Writing" - Sex With Purpose?
Disclaimer: This article may address issues and use language that may seem inappropriate or otherwise offensive to some. Read on only if you are comfortable and willing to take responsibility for yourself.
I begin with a single paragraph summary, for context:
After a controversial article had been posted in creative writing portion of the Beacon, some backlash and controversy resulted in temporarily taking down the article (meanwhile, it was posted at NewVoices.org as a placeholder and parodies cropped up on FrumSatire and TheLevineMachine). Subsequently, a meeting with Yeshiva University administrators resulted in a mutual agreement and parting ways of YU and Beacon as affiliates. As a note, YU didn't directly fund The Beacon, it was funded as a club by a student government at Stern College for Women (the female campus of Yeshiva University). Meanwhile, a whole slew of newspapers, blogs and other media has picked up on the issue (of which a thoroughly incomplete list is posted below) and Toviah Moldwin, one of the co-editors in chief posted a letter of resignation.
What I am most interested in, though, is the discussions that came out through some of the comments and media reports that followed (feel free to read the comments on the original article). The core of the issue(s) throughout and the following controversy has surrounded two major topics:
1) The purpose of the article, it's intended and communicated message
2) The propriety of the article's words and approach to the topic at hand
Amid accusations of impropriety and irresponsibility, frustrations over censorship, polarized eruption over the tensions between "Yeshiva" and "University" of the issue, sarcastic mocking on both sides, and diplomatic posturing (for reference, see comments on the original article and following blog posts linked below), the general engagement over issues much larger than words and the topic of sex has me perplexed, fascinated, frustrated, torn with understanding and -somewhat guiltily -amused by the many different angles on the issue(s) at hand.
I often like to sit back and absorb as much information and as many perspectives as possible before making up my own mind; I believe that being informed about the many angles on the issue(s) and -most importantly -more information about what occurred and the thought processes behind the actions taken grants a holistic understanding, which is important to me as someone who strives to first figure out what's going on before settling on my own thoughts.
Often enough I find that I cannot get all the little pieces, and I am left with a woefully incomplete puzzle of the picture, as I am here. And it's the same feeling I got from the original creative writing piece -lacking a sense of the author's feelings and motivations. In fact, in the entire article I found less than a handful of feeling words on a topic that so often is so emotionally charged (just see the passionate responsiveness of the community following the issue for evidence) that I finished the article with a blank impression bordering on shock. It seemed to me like such a numb experience, written either by someone suppressing great emotion due to pain, or as though the entire experience were surreal and not really lived. Alternatively, it's just a bad piece of writing (though I'm going to set aside that possibility for the purpose of my own thoughts).
So what is the purpose?
Confused, I found myself wondering if the author didn't have a full grasp of those feelings herself. My best guesses included her having never experienced what she'd written or was afraid to put her feelings on paper, to force herself to process them, making them truly tangible and available for everyone to read, understand and possibly even judge (or perhaps that the author is actually male). Perhaps that may speak more to the anonymity -a concern for being judged. I can imagine that myself, what would be said of the author if a name had been attached to the article?
In a very typical fashion, many of own thoughts have since been focused on that gaping hole in the article, and wondering whether it mirrors a gaping hole in the author's own heart (and if so, how that experience is for her). Without answers, that is the impression I have. Resolved not to be resolved, I find myself in a nebulous state of confusion and loss for answers, wondering if perhaps that impression is precisely its purpose.
And a little bell chimes in my own mind, ringing with the words, "isn't that -by some definition -the purpose of creative writing?" Sounds so post-modern, which tickles me because I strongly dislike that aspect of post-modern art.
Not having answers is often so much more difficult to manage than resolving on one way of thinking.
Of course, the content seems also of vital importance, especially given the way our community draws associations and represents itself through all things connected to us. Which leads to the second major topic (noted above, see #2), and the latter half of this post: propriety (and issues of what the post is perpetuating, with or without explicit intent). The basic tension I've seen is one of propriety versus self expression.
One side takes a position of religious propriety, noting that any content bordering on (or having) explicit sexual content (however tame by comparison) should not be publicly aired, least of all in a newspaper or other publication intended for mass viewership and particularly when associated with organizations such a Yeshiva University, which is a religious establishment with Torah values at it's core. (Perhaps we can call this side simply "Yeshiva.")
The other side touts one's (legal) rights for self expression, some noting the article's place in the creative writing section of the paper, pointing out its potentially fictitious nature or noting how little explicit content is actually described, or comparing it to Tanach, which has its own explicit descriptions of sexual encounters. (Perhaps this side can be labeled "University.")
Of course there is another view, perhaps best described as centrist, that searches for and questions the value in such a piece, with the position that having substance qualitatively in the form of thick description or quantitatively, grounded empirical/Halachic data, would lend legitimacy and purpose to the article (see the two posts, here and here for Chana's exquisite articulation of this perspective). The idea would be to engage an important issue within a framework, and the framework is one of Torah values with the purpose of struggling with the issues. (Perhaps understood as a rigorously academic form of "Torah U'Maddah")
These three viewpoints are not simply camps of thought, but form a spectrum. In many ways, though, these arguments have left the community quite polarized. I acknowledge that I have no clear answers, and I'm still wondering if that gaping hole -the feeling of unrest that I've been left with since reading the original article -stoked the fires of controversy more than the actual content.
But in my own mind and through my exploration of what's been going on, I have seen the community engaged on so many levels, from different perspectives, on both major topics of this issue. Perhaps I would rather it were more respectfully done, given all the criticisms and name calling I waded through in my exploration of the issue. I also see the entire issue presented in such a fragmented ways through the multitude of different, unconnected sources that the entire process seems to me extremely messy and overly-complicated. More than that, a holistic understanding of what has been going on has been so much more difficult for me to construct (albeit a thrilling endeavor).
While I have many thoughts and probably a few rants on the topic and issue, consistent with my own style, I'd like to gather more impressions and information before launching into my own diatribe (or have I done that already? :P). To that end, I put up a new poll, and I welcome comments and discussion (though, I admit, some may see further discussion as beating a dead horse).
~~
Blog Sources:
http://blog.newvoices.org/?p=10070
http://blog.newvoices.org/?p=10077
http://blog.newvoices.org/?p=10102
http://www.frumsatire.net/2011/12/06/tefillin-date-with-a-stern-girl/
http://thelevinemachine.tumblr.com/post/13816824462/one-night-in-washington-heights-a-seminary-story
http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2011/12/yu-beacon-piece-on-sexuality.html
http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-feelings-take-precedence-over-your.html
http://blogs.jta.org/
http://blogs.forward.com/
Online News:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/
http://jezebel.com/yeshiva-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.nydailynews.com/
http://www.usatoday.com/
http://online.wsj.com/article/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-
http://gothamist.com/2011/12/
Parodies:
http://www.frumsatire.net/2011/12/06/tefillin-date-with-a-stern-girl/
http://thelevinemachine.tumblr.com/post/13816824462/one-night-in-washington-heights-a-seminary-story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knGKkfr-mdg
I begin with a single paragraph summary, for context:
After a controversial article had been posted in creative writing portion of the Beacon, some backlash and controversy resulted in temporarily taking down the article (meanwhile, it was posted at NewVoices.org as a placeholder and parodies cropped up on FrumSatire and TheLevineMachine). Subsequently, a meeting with Yeshiva University administrators resulted in a mutual agreement and parting ways of YU and Beacon as affiliates. As a note, YU didn't directly fund The Beacon, it was funded as a club by a student government at Stern College for Women (the female campus of Yeshiva University). Meanwhile, a whole slew of newspapers, blogs and other media has picked up on the issue (of which a thoroughly incomplete list is posted below) and Toviah Moldwin, one of the co-editors in chief posted a letter of resignation.
What I am most interested in, though, is the discussions that came out through some of the comments and media reports that followed (feel free to read the comments on the original article). The core of the issue(s) throughout and the following controversy has surrounded two major topics:
1) The purpose of the article, it's intended and communicated message
2) The propriety of the article's words and approach to the topic at hand
Amid accusations of impropriety and irresponsibility, frustrations over censorship, polarized eruption over the tensions between "Yeshiva" and "University" of the issue, sarcastic mocking on both sides, and diplomatic posturing (for reference, see comments on the original article and following blog posts linked below), the general engagement over issues much larger than words and the topic of sex has me perplexed, fascinated, frustrated, torn with understanding and -somewhat guiltily -amused by the many different angles on the issue(s) at hand.
I often like to sit back and absorb as much information and as many perspectives as possible before making up my own mind; I believe that being informed about the many angles on the issue(s) and -most importantly -more information about what occurred and the thought processes behind the actions taken grants a holistic understanding, which is important to me as someone who strives to first figure out what's going on before settling on my own thoughts.
Often enough I find that I cannot get all the little pieces, and I am left with a woefully incomplete puzzle of the picture, as I am here. And it's the same feeling I got from the original creative writing piece -lacking a sense of the author's feelings and motivations. In fact, in the entire article I found less than a handful of feeling words on a topic that so often is so emotionally charged (just see the passionate responsiveness of the community following the issue for evidence) that I finished the article with a blank impression bordering on shock. It seemed to me like such a numb experience, written either by someone suppressing great emotion due to pain, or as though the entire experience were surreal and not really lived. Alternatively, it's just a bad piece of writing (though I'm going to set aside that possibility for the purpose of my own thoughts).
So what is the purpose?
Confused, I found myself wondering if the author didn't have a full grasp of those feelings herself. My best guesses included her having never experienced what she'd written or was afraid to put her feelings on paper, to force herself to process them, making them truly tangible and available for everyone to read, understand and possibly even judge (or perhaps that the author is actually male). Perhaps that may speak more to the anonymity -a concern for being judged. I can imagine that myself, what would be said of the author if a name had been attached to the article?
In a very typical fashion, many of own thoughts have since been focused on that gaping hole in the article, and wondering whether it mirrors a gaping hole in the author's own heart (and if so, how that experience is for her). Without answers, that is the impression I have. Resolved not to be resolved, I find myself in a nebulous state of confusion and loss for answers, wondering if perhaps that impression is precisely its purpose.
And a little bell chimes in my own mind, ringing with the words, "isn't that -by some definition -the purpose of creative writing?" Sounds so post-modern, which tickles me because I strongly dislike that aspect of post-modern art.
Not having answers is often so much more difficult to manage than resolving on one way of thinking.
Of course, the content seems also of vital importance, especially given the way our community draws associations and represents itself through all things connected to us. Which leads to the second major topic (noted above, see #2), and the latter half of this post: propriety (and issues of what the post is perpetuating, with or without explicit intent). The basic tension I've seen is one of propriety versus self expression.
One side takes a position of religious propriety, noting that any content bordering on (or having) explicit sexual content (however tame by comparison) should not be publicly aired, least of all in a newspaper or other publication intended for mass viewership and particularly when associated with organizations such a Yeshiva University, which is a religious establishment with Torah values at it's core. (Perhaps we can call this side simply "Yeshiva.")
The other side touts one's (legal) rights for self expression, some noting the article's place in the creative writing section of the paper, pointing out its potentially fictitious nature or noting how little explicit content is actually described, or comparing it to Tanach, which has its own explicit descriptions of sexual encounters. (Perhaps this side can be labeled "University.")
Of course there is another view, perhaps best described as centrist, that searches for and questions the value in such a piece, with the position that having substance qualitatively in the form of thick description or quantitatively, grounded empirical/Halachic data, would lend legitimacy and purpose to the article (see the two posts, here and here for Chana's exquisite articulation of this perspective). The idea would be to engage an important issue within a framework, and the framework is one of Torah values with the purpose of struggling with the issues. (Perhaps understood as a rigorously academic form of "Torah U'Maddah")
These three viewpoints are not simply camps of thought, but form a spectrum. In many ways, though, these arguments have left the community quite polarized. I acknowledge that I have no clear answers, and I'm still wondering if that gaping hole -the feeling of unrest that I've been left with since reading the original article -stoked the fires of controversy more than the actual content.
But in my own mind and through my exploration of what's been going on, I have seen the community engaged on so many levels, from different perspectives, on both major topics of this issue. Perhaps I would rather it were more respectfully done, given all the criticisms and name calling I waded through in my exploration of the issue. I also see the entire issue presented in such a fragmented ways through the multitude of different, unconnected sources that the entire process seems to me extremely messy and overly-complicated. More than that, a holistic understanding of what has been going on has been so much more difficult for me to construct (albeit a thrilling endeavor).
While I have many thoughts and probably a few rants on the topic and issue, consistent with my own style, I'd like to gather more impressions and information before launching into my own diatribe (or have I done that already? :P). To that end, I put up a new poll, and I welcome comments and discussion (though, I admit, some may see further discussion as beating a dead horse).
~~
Blog Sources:
http://blog.newvoices.org/?p=10070
http://blog.newvoices.org/?p=10077
http://blog.newvoices.org/?p=10102
http://www.frumsatire.net/2011/12/06/tefillin-date-with-a-stern-girl/
http://thelevinemachine.tumblr.com/post/13816824462/one-night-in-washington-heights-a-seminary-story
http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2011/12/yu-beacon-piece-on-sexuality.html
http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-feelings-take-precedence-over-your.html
http://blogs.jta.org/
http://blogs.forward.com/
Online News:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/
http://jezebel.com/yeshiva-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.nydailynews.com/
http://www.usatoday.com/
http://online.wsj.com/article/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-
http://gothamist.com/2011/12/
Parodies:
http://www.frumsatire.net/2011/12/06/tefillin-date-with-a-stern-girl/
http://thelevinemachine.tumblr.com/post/13816824462/one-night-in-washington-heights-a-seminary-story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knGKkfr-mdg
Dec 7, 2011
Men 101: Looks
Men care about physicality. We shouldn't have to apologize for that. It doesn't make us shallow.
It's also not the be-all-end-all.
The way we men work is very different than a woman; whereas my experience is that a woman's attraction to a man is intertwined with how she feels about him and his personality; for men they are two completely different things. There's a box for "physical attractiveness" and a completely separate, unrelated box labeled "personality and character." Just because one is checked off, it has absolutely nothing to do with the other (and vice versa).
In fact, much of what we like is based on experience and what we are exposed to (from others and feedback). This is how society encourages or determines what is sexy and attractive. Sure, some of it stems from what our tastes are, but a good chunk of our likes and dislikes has to do with early experiences and exposure.
For example, I really like redheads. Not because they're all more beautiful than the rest of the population, but one of the first women I saw and truly admired -aside from my own mother -happened to be a redhead; I've been transferring that feeling, that association, to other women. It's funny how many things we do/don't like, or avoid/seek out because of a critical or initial impression. It's just the way early experience works.
If someone was teased with a nickname, using it will often be perceived as teasing, regardless of the intent. It's how they've learned to respond to it -and it's an automatic response. The same holds true in many ways for men and attraction. Much of it is socially trained into us and the responses are pretty automatic.
Personally, I find it worthwhile to work on -and perhaps change -some of those automatic responses. Some of those preferences don't have to become necessary criteria. It would be ridiculous for me to decide that I could only date red-heads for this reason. Because me thinking a woman is attractive, and having an automatic physical response can be different things.
Still, there are things that I will not find attractive (or have a particular affinity to). I can't change every bit of learning or experience, nor would I want to. But some things are worth working on.
Quote of the Day #8
Every so often, I work out a little phrase or thought. Often it seems
like I've heard it before, but I'll admit I don't read libraries of
literature and I'm not well versed in the world's quotes. In any case,
here's one from the other day:
"What we learn from our own experience, we hold as the virtual certainties of life. But we each have such different experiences that what we see as a certainty, to another, may seem equally uncertain."
As always, thoughts or feedback are appreciated.
"What we learn from our own experience, we hold as the virtual certainties of life. But we each have such different experiences that what we see as a certainty, to another, may seem equally uncertain."
As always, thoughts or feedback are appreciated.
Dec 3, 2011
Minimum Dating Requirements
Have you ever thought about how every program for computers has "minimum system requirements" in order to load and run it? Requirements without which the program just won't run...
Sometimes I feel like dating works the same way. In this particular metaphor, "the program" would be dating, having a relationship, marriage and a life together. But each person has their "minimum dating requirements" before they allow "the program" to load up and run.
I had an interesting thought about this metaphor. The idea of having "minimum system requirements" is so that "the program" can run for most people, but I sometimes wonder if our own "minimum dating requirements" are set too high, which may begin to explain why so many of us have so much difficulty.
Some people try and explain that it's a good thing. That we need what we need, that it's important to have standards, that the things we have in our "requirements" are absolutely necessary. Some people talk about really only needing one.
Today, I'm not going down that path. Because today, I'm doubting how true that is. Today, I'm starting to think that if we assume a whole bunch of things we want is what we really need, if we are not being open to building a relationship, trying to see how "the program" runs, if we don't give it a chance -a real chance -we're the ones creating the problem.
Because we're the ones who are pushing away opportunities, telling ourselves and others that it's just not a good fit when we've already decided for ourselves precisely what a "good fit" must be. We're the ones preventing "the program" from running. Because what we have isn't "minimum system requirements," it's just a lack of tolerance for anything outside our own individual set of goals, expectations or dreams.
Expectations like how many hours the guy has to learn to have Torah learning as a value, how thin a woman has to be in order to be attractive. Goals like making Aliyah within a certain number of years. Dreams like having a Shabbat table set with a white table cloth for a specific number and type of guest(s), having plates cleared one at a time. Or having a spouse who will work to make a contribution to family finances and cook and do dishes and take a strong role as a parent and caregiver. And sometimes we reject anyone who doesn't have or conform to all those things under the guise of "that's just not for me" as though it's so different, foreign, unacceptable to have in our own lives. Why? What is so unacceptable? What makes minor or even major differences unbridgeable?
Occasionally I think we look to far down the line, building an image in our minds of a life we want to cram someone else into. Expectations we form that serve as our "minimum dating requirements." Maybe it should really be titled "requirements to cram you into my life." Perhaps that's a better title for this post.
I admit to being guilty of that, in my own way(s). On both sides -I've been frustrated, feeling that the person I went out with didn't given me a chance; and I've pushed off suggestions, not giving the other person a chance because of my own "minimum dating requirements."
So now, I question myself and everyone, asking:
Because that seems both selfishly narrow minded and really arrogant to me. And maybe I'm a bit of both. Maybe you are too. Maybe it's something to work on and change.
~~
**There is a subtle assumption underlying the entire post, which I will articulate here. Relationships, marriage and building a life/home/family together is a joint endeavor, requiring two people to put in constant, consistent work. These "minimum dating requirements" are far more self-oriented than partner-oriented. They lead to the question: "Is this someone I want for me?" rather than "Can I make it work with this person?" Having a self-oriented view gets in the way of being partner-oriented.)
Sometimes I feel like dating works the same way. In this particular metaphor, "the program" would be dating, having a relationship, marriage and a life together. But each person has their "minimum dating requirements" before they allow "the program" to load up and run.
I had an interesting thought about this metaphor. The idea of having "minimum system requirements" is so that "the program" can run for most people, but I sometimes wonder if our own "minimum dating requirements" are set too high, which may begin to explain why so many of us have so much difficulty.
Some people try and explain that it's a good thing. That we need what we need, that it's important to have standards, that the things we have in our "requirements" are absolutely necessary. Some people talk about really only needing one.
Today, I'm not going down that path. Because today, I'm doubting how true that is. Today, I'm starting to think that if we assume a whole bunch of things we want is what we really need, if we are not being open to building a relationship, trying to see how "the program" runs, if we don't give it a chance -a real chance -we're the ones creating the problem.
Because we're the ones who are pushing away opportunities, telling ourselves and others that it's just not a good fit when we've already decided for ourselves precisely what a "good fit" must be. We're the ones preventing "the program" from running. Because what we have isn't "minimum system requirements," it's just a lack of tolerance for anything outside our own individual set of goals, expectations or dreams.
Expectations like how many hours the guy has to learn to have Torah learning as a value, how thin a woman has to be in order to be attractive. Goals like making Aliyah within a certain number of years. Dreams like having a Shabbat table set with a white table cloth for a specific number and type of guest(s), having plates cleared one at a time. Or having a spouse who will work to make a contribution to family finances and cook and do dishes and take a strong role as a parent and caregiver. And sometimes we reject anyone who doesn't have or conform to all those things under the guise of "that's just not for me" as though it's so different, foreign, unacceptable to have in our own lives. Why? What is so unacceptable? What makes minor or even major differences unbridgeable?
Occasionally I think we look to far down the line, building an image in our minds of a life we want to cram someone else into. Expectations we form that serve as our "minimum dating requirements." Maybe it should really be titled "requirements to cram you into my life." Perhaps that's a better title for this post.
I admit to being guilty of that, in my own way(s). On both sides -I've been frustrated, feeling that the person I went out with didn't given me a chance; and I've pushed off suggestions, not giving the other person a chance because of my own "minimum dating requirements."
So now, I question myself and everyone, asking:
"Does bashert mean someone who fits into my own narrow vision of what must constitute my life partner?"
Because that seems both selfishly narrow minded and really arrogant to me. And maybe I'm a bit of both. Maybe you are too. Maybe it's something to work on and change.
~~
**There is a subtle assumption underlying the entire post, which I will articulate here. Relationships, marriage and building a life/home/family together is a joint endeavor, requiring two people to put in constant, consistent work. These "minimum dating requirements" are far more self-oriented than partner-oriented. They lead to the question: "Is this someone I want for me?" rather than "Can I make it work with this person?" Having a self-oriented view gets in the way of being partner-oriented.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)