Archive: July 2005

(2 entries)

Saturday, July 9, 2005

A dirty shame

Let’s continue with June’s theme of filthy girls because it’s summer in New York and everyone is dressed like a slut.

(Just as, as an alcoholic, I have no truck with the amateur drunkenness rampant on St. Patrick’s Day and New Year’s Eve, it bothers me, as a lecher, when for several months everywhere you look there are tits and ass hanging out. Where is the sportsmanship? This is not how the game is played. We are meant to have to contort ourselves around lampposts for one glimpse of slender ankle.)

So, anyway, back to The Dirty. I wanted to try to take a new tactic in trying to understand the universal acclaim for dirtiness, when so few people know how to do it.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Dirty is the New Beautiful.

And like Beauty, it isn’t something everyone has, but it’s something everyone is told they have by people who want something from them.

Rather late in life, when I was in college, I came to the realization that beautiful women and sexy women were not the same thing. Even today, most people I meet don’t seem to know this. It is possible for one person to embody both ideals, but not likely or even necessary. At the time, I was mostly pursuing beautiful women, because you could tell which ones they were just by looking, and other people would be impressed when they saw them with you. Toward the end of this college career — and in the nick of time — I realized that while I liked beautiful women, I liked sexy women even better. It was a fortunate epiphany because it meant I could dump my college girlfriend and feel it was progress rather than cowardice.

Just to make it clear to the folks at home: a beautiful woman is someone who looks good. A sexy woman is someone you want to fuck. Only the unimaginative would go around exclusively wanting to fuck beautiful women. There are lots of other reasons to fuck people, which I leave as an exercise to the reader.

In this same way, you can be sexy without, I guess, being dirty. I wouldn’t want to do too much research into this, because I’m pretty set in my ways. A steady diet of barflies, as this toad has had, pretty much locks you into dirty, unless you also like clueless. But I know lots of people who don’t seem the remotest bit dirty, and they’re having squeaky clean sex all the time. Apparently they think they are dirty because they have sex. In these end times, that isn’t all it takes, friends.

I have mixed feelings on the subject. I’m glad that dirtiness has become accepted in our culture, but it’s often done so badly. Perhaps the problem is a lack of role models. If you aspire to sophistication, check out Bobby Short. If you want to be bitterly witty, ape Carrie Fisher. But where are our true dirty girls? Most of the ones in mainstream culture — and pop music, I’m looking in your direction — aren’t so much dirty as just idiots who wore whatever wardrobe left out for them. There’s no agenda behind it other than a desire for notoriety. A true slut doesn’t do it for the accolades! She does it for love of the game! I swear I felt more honest slut motivation from the average cheerleader at Racine’s Washington Park High School. The thin veneer of sluttiness that passes for professionalism today is shocking.

So, in closing: if you’re dirty, be dirty. If you’re not dirty, be careful.

by Jack, 6:02 PM | Link | Comments (4) | More from Women

Friday, July 29, 2005

First Martin Luther, now this guy

I don’t usually get in the middle of grudge matches between the Pope and Harry Potter, but I want to mention something briefly, because it disturbed me and has gone largely misunderstood.

I was in a deli a couple weeks ago where they were playing a television. On the television was one of the ubiquitous opinion-based current events programs. It was the day that the new Harry Potter book came out (about which I myself have no particular opinion). They had a woman on the show who was the representative of a large Catholic organization in America. She was there to explain the current Pope’s strong views that Harry Potter is wrong. This is how she explained them:

She said that Harry Potter books advanced the view that “sorcery was a way to solve your problems”. In sharp contrast to this, the Bible clearly states that “sorcery is wrong”.

Now, this disagreement might be reasonable except for an important detail: sorcery does not exist; it is fiction. If everyone who read Harry Potter attempted to use sorcery to solve their problems, they would fail. So where’s the threat?

Apparently, the Pope feels he needs to be against Harry Potter’s pro-sorcery stance, which is irrelevant since no sorcery exists, because the Bible’s anti-sorcery stance is equally irrelevant in our sorcery-free world.

In other words, Harry Potter is a threat to the Bible because they are both based on made-up shit.

(Disclaimer: This is not my opinion; I am merely explaining the position of the Pope of Rome.)

by Jack, 5:54 PM | Link | Comments (6) | More from The Damned Human Race

« June 2005 | Home | September 2005 »