Archive for the ‘Personals’ Category

High fives all around?

Thursday, May 2nd, 2013

Earlier this week, journeyman basketball player Jason Collins revealed he was gay, the first active male player in a major American team sport to do so. In a first-person piece in Sports Illustrated, he wrote: “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.”

That’s applause-worthy. And Collins was greeted almost universally with kudos. It was striking to me, idly flipping channels, how positive and receptive the coverage was: Anderson Cooper and Andrew Sullivan – to whom Cooper  came out of the closet earlier this year – spent half their time effusively praising his writing. Collins’ high-school coach made the cable rounds.  Over on resolutely flyover-state Good Morning America – whose weatherman casually dropped the news not long ago that he was getting married and to a man – the anchors took time for a round of cheers.

The mainstream media’s collective high-five is evidence, if the polling isn’t proof enough, of the seisimic shift in public opinion on homosexuality. Indeed, in this environment, those not in full-throated support seemed out-of-touch. Howard Kurtz, for one, ran a wanna-be gotcha column that chided Collins for not revealing that he’d been engaged (in fact, he had in his SI piece) that was as egregious for its errors as for Kurtz’s dark-ages assumption that someone who is gay couldn’t have once had – or tried to have – feelings for a woman. Kurtz tried to rewrite his way through the controversy, but eventually the Daily Beast retracted the whole damn thing (and, it seems, Kurtz, too.)

For all of this, there’s something that makes me a bit uneasy about the response, especially when put into context. Female sports luminaries like Martina Navratilova have been out for years, and when a bona fide star of women’s basketball revealed she was gay a few weeks ago, it was greeted with a collective shrug. (I hope I won’t seem uncharitable by noting Collins’ pro ball career as benchsitter.) Why is that? Is it because, as The Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta argues, female athletes are seen as tomboys and from tomboy, it’s not a far stretch to lesbian? Maybe, although I have trouble with Franke-Ruta’s notion that to be a woman and an athlete is to be “nonconformist” – little girls are behind America’s soccer craze and women throng distance races. I’ve got firmer biceps than most guys I know. To be a layabout and female almost seems the exception.

But if you buy that double standard – that it’s less acceptable to come out as a man – then I find the flipside uncomfortable, too: Is it possible we see Collins’ behaviour as heroic because we’re used to viewing male athletes through that lens? Men who play professional sports are stars; women who do are, with few exceptions, hardly household names.

None of this is to diminish Collins’ bravery in laying himself bare. Quite the contrary. I just think that maybe Brittney Griner ought to have gotten some high fives, too.

Bad boys, bad boys

Saturday, April 27th, 2013

Whaddya know — in addition to all its other accolades, Washington also is a primo place for cheaters.

Actually, I’d believe that.

The death knell of the sex tape

Wednesday, April 10th, 2013

Friends, we are gathered here today to bid farewell to…the celebrity sex tape?!

According to Vulture, the era of candid videos of C-listers getting it on is over. It’s dead. Done, as done as Ray J (right, who?) singing about how he “hit” Kim Kardashian first.

Wait, is he claiming Kim Kardashian was a virgin when he made a sex tape with her?

I suppose if we’re lucky this is a death that wasn’t exaggerated.

Measuring up

Tuesday, April 9th, 2013

It turns out size matters.

Shoulder size that is, gentleman.

The problems with leaning in and having it all

Thursday, April 4th, 2013

Between “leaning in,” Princeton marriages (which sounds kind of like a euphemism for nuptials of convenience), and Anne-Marie Slaughter, I think I’ve had it up to here with discourse about women’s roles and 21st-century feminism. So, of course, there’s now a debate about the costs-benefits for women of marrying young.

Both sides trot out beaucoup data…much of which you can interpret as you will. And of course both sides do: Women who marry younger make less money over time that their later-marrying counterparts, one side argues. Now, is that because marriage itself reduces your wages, or is it a reflection of the socioeconomic profile of younger-marrieds? Women who wait to marry are less happy, says the other. Well, what was the question, how was happiness defined, and what was the context? I mean, if you ask me a dozen questions about why the hell I’m single then conclude with a query about my happiness, does my answer reflect my general state of wellbeing, or have you primed the Misery Pump?

Causation-correlation, people. Why is this such a difficult concept?

And while we’re on our “whys,” I wonder if someone could explain to me why women seem to need to devote so much time second-guessing other women’s life choices and lecturing them about the path they ought to have taken. Maybe Anne-Marie Slaughter’s not-enough is plenty for others, maybe castigating a generation of women for not getting far enough ahead is sort of blaming-the-victim, maybe some, er, spinsters are happily single, maybe some child brides have lucrative careers, maybe — maybe we’re all individuals, with our own ambitions and enthusiasms.

Maybe we could stop analysing for just a minute!

A map of the heart

Monday, March 25th, 2013

I’m not a New Yorker, but I’ve spent enough time there over the years to have developed a personal geography of the city, of Little Italy dinners, Village bar crawls, West Side starter apartments, lazy Sundays with the Times in the park. I’m also a secret sentimentalist, so the notion of charting one’s personal history over Manhattan’s grid is to me a lovely conceit. And these private cartographies are moving, heart-rending even.

Contemplating change

Sunday, March 24th, 2013

I’m late, by decades, to this party, but I’ve recently been watching installments of the Up series, the British documentary, directed mostly by Michael Apted, that has chronicled the lives of a dozen or so seven-year-olds, of varying classes and backgrounds. The conceit of the films, which check in with the subjects at seven-year intervals, is “Give me a child until he is 7, and I will show you the man.”

But is that so?

I’m only partway through the films, so perhaps life will zig rather than zag for some of the participants. At the point where my viewing left off, that isn’t the case. Going to Oxford instead of Cambridge can’t count as a life truly veering from the plan, can it?

Yet, science suggests we do change (and also that we are better at perceiving it in hindsight than we are predicting it, according to one study). I suppose one argument is that change is easier had in America than in class-bound Britain. But I also wonder if it hinges on what we mean by change. After all, that study I mentioned measured change by asking how much people would pay to see one of their current bands 10 years hence and how much they’d spend on tickets today for a show by one in heavy rotation a decade earlier. That, on average, they’d pay more for the former is taken by the researchers as evidence of our inability to realise our tastes will alter; I think it might just be accounting for inflation.

My broader point, though, is that seems to me superficial change, not deep-seated. Similarly, when I went to my high-school reunion this summer, people commented on how different I was. But, given that, in the main, I had nothing but casual conversations, I think they meant “you’ve changed your hair colour and put on makeup,” not “you’re a fundamentally altered person.” Although many, and many meaningful, things have happened to me in that time, I’m not sure that they’ve shaken the bedrock of who I am.

Is that good or bad? On one hand, it’s depressing, because it suggests that we’re imprinted in a certain way, long before we can really have a say-so. On the other, should one’s core principles be as mutable as one’s taste in music?

For the record, I still like Depeche Mode.

Relationships, in bits and bytes

Monday, March 11th, 2013

Now, for the latest in Products and Services You Never Knew You Needed news, fake Facebook girlfriends. Yup, there’s a service that sells you a fictious Facebook account that will declare its “in a relationship” with you. Presumably so that you feel like less of a loser by pulling one over on all your Facebook “friends.”

I guess fake Canadian girlfriends are passé now?

Swingers in Tomorrowland

Saturday, February 23rd, 2013

Who the hell propositions people at Disney World?! Also, I kind of assumed the strongest stuff you could have in the Happiest Place on Earth was too much sugar.

Snooze of a suitor

Friday, February 15th, 2013

This is, um, interesting advice, but probably not something to actually tell the gentleman in question:

Do you save yourself wear and tear by not troubling to entertain men bores?

A grave mistake. Bores have their uses since a clever girl can practice her conversation on them, with nothing much to lose. Besides, they often have attractive friends.