posted
Allegra: Do you like the show Queer as Folk?
Not particularly. It's probably no worse than any other "prime time soap opera" but I find most of the characters to be so shallow and selfish that I can't relate to them.
Do you believe it reinforces bad stereotypes?
That's a good question. I think it does, but primarily because it has been touted as this groundbreaking show that finally puts gay themes on mainstream TV. If there were more gay themed shows, especially shows that were about real characters instead of gay cardboard cutouts, then I don't think it would be any more than significant than Melrose Place, and have just about as much influence.
Another problem part of the problem of the show is that every single character's entire life revolves around their sexuality. I don't know any humans as obsessed with their gayness as the characters in that show. Most of us have gay sex, but most of us don't have only gay friends, wear only gay clothes, take gay showers, walk gay dogs, eat gay food, or sleep with every UPS guy or mailroom clerk that raises an eyebrow.
It's really too bad, though. There have been a couple of interesting plotlines and important issues addressed on a couple of episodes. I think it could have been an important and interesting show, but they sold out for shock value and shallow drama.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Choobak: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood ?
All the wood that a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Explain your answer.
Well, a woodchuck cannot be expected to chuck more than it is able. Even the most agressive and able-bodied woodchuck has his limitations. Those limitations, by definition, describe the amount of wood a given woodchuck will be able to chuck in a given time period. Furthermore, the question doesn't specify if we are talking about North American woodchucks or South American woodchuck and thus is left sufficiently vague as to cover any instance of woodchuck or similar chucker of wood-like substances who may . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I believe there is some possibility of an afterlife. I hope there is, but whether there is or isn't is largely moot for me. Knowing one way or the other probably wouldn't change much for me. I think focusing too much on either possibility tends to distract us from the one life we know we have.
My concept of an after-life is simply continued conciousness after the death of my physical body. What sort of plane that consciousness might exist in or what mechanism might maintain that consciousness is so beyond my ability to theorize I couldn't begin to tell you what it might be. But if it doesn't involve the continuing of my consciousness, what I consider "me", with my memories and my personality, then it is no more "afterlife" than having the molecules of my body absorbed into a tree would be "afterlife".
As for heaven, I know more about what I believe it isn't. I believe it isn't a place of eternal leisure. I believe it doesn't involve clouds and harps and halos. I believe if it exists at all it is because of the people who are there more than where or what "there" is.
Again, if this doesn't make sense to you or is an inadequate answer, I invite any follow-up questions. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a personal question. What happened to that franchise opportunity you were looking into? Did it work out, or what made you shy away from it?
posted
BannaOj: What happened to that franchise opportunity you were looking into? Did it work out, or what made you shy away from it?
I'm still looking into it. If I do it, it will tax my equity to the absolute limit. I'm still trying to crunch some numbers to find out if it is really feasible for me in this area.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Karl -- What's the best tool to remove dandalions from my garden? I don't want to use chemicals, so I need something that'll help get out the whole root. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: What's the best tool to remove dandalions from my garden? I don't want to use chemicals, so I need something that'll help get out the whole root.
There is a tool you can usually find in the garden section of most major hardware chains (and can probably find at many nurseries) in the same section as the trowels and cultivators, etc. It is basically a handle with an angled rod than ends in a flattened piece that looks like a snake's tongue or reversed arrow-head. To use this tool, you gather up the dandelion leaves in one hand, place the end of the tool next to the taproot and push it down as far as you can. Wiggle the tool as you are pulling up on the plant and if you are careful you can pull the whole plant out, taproot and all. This tool works well on most weeds that have a taproot.
If you are really concerned about dandelions, though, you need to get in the habit of pulling off the yellow flowers anytime you see them anywhere near your property, even if you don't have time to pull the whole plant.
I, personally don't mind dandelions unless they are crowding out something I like better. If I'm digging a new bed or see one cropping up among my daisies or something like that, I'll pull it. I don't really bother too much with the ones in the yard.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, exactly, does something being "aesthetically pleasing" actually mean? When defining a painting of someone nude as being art (as opposed to porn), is the phrase "aesthetically pleasing" (or another variant of the phrase) an accepted excuse for liking the picture because it is based on something other than lust? What is this mysterious something? Is the issue of whether something has some inherent quality of aesthetically pleasing-ness important only to those who ideologically object, in theory, to the idea of lusting over someone's picture, and was the term invented to give them some justification for oogling nekkid people? Do people who have no qualms about oogling the aforementioned nekkid people really have any use for the phrase "aesthetically pleasing" beyond euphemism?
(Sorry. Been having art school flashbacks all day. *grin*)
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks! That's kinda what I was thinking, but wanted confirmation it worked.
I don't mind the ones in the yard, but I've got some in my veggie garden this year.... which I know if I don't mind the ones in the yard will happen, but eh. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto!: What, exactly, does something being "aesthetically pleasing" actually mean?
"Aesthetically pleasing" means "appealing to the observer's sense of beauty."
When defining a painting of someone nude as being art (as opposed to porn), is the phrase "aesthetically pleasing" (or another variant of the phrase) an accepted excuse for liking the picture because it is based on something other than lust? What is this mysterious something?
The "mysterious something" is beauty. "Beauty" and "Lust" define specific sets that are not congruent, but do intersect. Your confusion likely arises from the intersecting nature of the sets "porn" and "art". "Aesthetically pleasing" is not in itself a euphemism, though it might be used as such by someone ashamed of revealing their lusts.
Is the issue of whether something has some inherent quality of aesthetically pleasing-ness important only to those who ideologically object, in theory, to the idea of lusting over someone's picture, and was the term invented to give them some justification for oogling nekkid people?
Again, while some few people might use the phrase as such, it was not "invented" for them. The phrase is very useful in ways that don't involve lust, porn, nudity, or graphic representations of humans at all.
Do people who have no qualms about oogling the aforementioned nekkid people really have any use for the phrase "aesthetically pleasing" beyond euphemism?
Yes. I use the phrase relatively frequently and never as a euphemism. I also have no qualms about "oogling [consenting] nekkid people".
One reason I find the phrase useful is because too often we equate "beautiful" with "pretty". Much art is beautiful, but not remotely pretty. (This can be said of things outside of "art", too, and there the phrase might be useful as well, but I digress.) In art, there is also the term "erotic art" which is also often used as a euphemism for "porn" or "sex toy", but taken at face value describes the intersection of the sets "Beautiful" and "Lust Arousing" (including intent as well as result). What specific objects fall into these categories - and once categorized, which fall into the intersection - is different for each person. You might find a photo of a naked woman erotic and beautiful; at least one gay male friend of mine would look away in disgust, finding the photo neither erotic nor beautiful; I, myself, find a well-proportioned (subjective), tastefully done (subjective), rendition of the female form "aesthetically pleasing" but not in the least erotic.
Now, one might secretly suspect that elements of lust creep in on some level in everyone's appreciation of erotic art (as the phrasing of your questions seem to imply - but here I could be misreading you). I would disagree and add that making that assumption is unfair and rather arrogant. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have expressed pleasure in naked gardening. What other sensual experiences do you recommend?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny Gardener: You have expressed pleasure in naked gardening. What other sensual experiences do you recommend?
Er, that was semi-naked gardening. I wouldn't inflict the full Monty on anyone except Chris.
But other sensual experiences I'd recommend: Walking barefoot on the beach. Sipping chilled Liqueur de Frigolet on a warm evening. Soaking in a hottub. Eating fresh ripe strawberries on a cool spring morning while sitting outside with your legs dangling off the porch. Giving your sweetie a long strong hug. Driving far enough away from town on a clear night to find a dark place and gazing at the stars (even better if you see a meteor). Taking time to really admire a perfect blossom of just about any flower, (even dandelions work for this). Putting on underwear, a T-shirt, or socks fresh out of the dryer. Getting an alcohol rub-down on a hot summer day. Making a cat purr. Making your boyfriend purr. And sitting outside for 5 minutes with your eyes closed noticing all the sounds and smells you miss when you aren't paying attention.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alas, I fear I was hopelessly unclear in my last post. I blame the mind-fog that affected my typing on my perpetual insomnia combined with sunburn from the day's activities, and I thank you for replying intelligently to my babble. *grin*
I was specifically talking about the line that divides tastefully done "aesthetically pleasing" nude art and "porn"; I am aware that the phrase is used to describe other things, such as the layout of a room or the placement of flowers or whatever.
But...how can this "beauty" be defined, in regards to figures? Is a concrete definition even possible between people with wildly different backgrounds and mindsets? I don't like things being subjective; I prefer to think that we just don't have the language yet to describe the things that we think of as being subjective. Of course, I could be wrong *laugh*.
If a painting of a nude and a Playboy are sitting next to each other, what is it that defines the "artistic-ness" of the former and the "pornographic-ness" of the latter?
You are correct in that I did frame my questions from the point of view of someone who believes that lusting over a picture of someone is wrong, cuz that's my position. (You're also correct that I'm arrogant and unfair at times, but we shan't go into that. )
The questions were asked because I have noticed that I *do* make a distinction between porn and erotic art when I'm painting, and I don't understand the distinction I'm making. I was aware of people who do *not* have a problem with "oogling people" and I was wondering where *they* draw the lines between porn and art. Am *I*, in fact, using the phrase "aesthetically pleasing" to cover up the fact that secretly I find the pictures arousing so that I do not have to face the fact that I am doing something I object to ideologically? I don't *think* I am, but then...I can't define WHY, and I don't like it *grin*.
I also apologize for the word "invented". Twas a typo; or rather, a word-substitution. Should have been "implemented", as in: when people who have no problem with lusting over a picture use the phrase "aesthetically pleasing", are they saying that as a euphemism, or are they seeing the picture as both arousing AND aesthetically pleasing in a non-arousing way? If so, what is it that is aesthetically pleasing to them that does NOT involve lust in some way? Are they in fact separating the two? Where?
I meant no offense, if there was any taken (my offense-o-meter is showing a slight reading, but maybe it's low on batteries). I am really just trying to understand.
(Honestly, I butchered the way I asked these questions...I was in the mindset of a particular class I had when I was in art school, and the fact that, uh, you weren't even THERE conveniently slipped my mind. I was using definitions in ways specific to that class and referring to specific objections raised IN that class, so it's no wonder there was confusion. My fault. Sigh. *kicks brain*)
quote:One reason I find the phrase useful is because too often we equate "beautiful" with "pretty". Much art is beautiful, but not remotely pretty.
*nods* I really like that, dude. Puts into words some of my thoughts on the matter.
Sigh. Perhaps I should ask questions that might have answers. *grin*
Edit: Holy crap, I've sure been writing essays lately. These posts don't look nearly as long when I'm *typing* them. O_O
'Nother edit: forgot to mention, those are suuuure some nice sensual pleasures up there. *grin* *takes notes*
posted
Zotto!: But...how can this "beauty" be defined, in regards to figures? Is a concrete definition even possible between people with wildly different backgrounds and mindsets?
It may sound trite, but there is wisdom in the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I think a concrete definition of beauty is impossible, precisely because (as you point out) people have "wildly different backgrounds and mindsets". Now I believe it is possible that civil dialog can assist in teaching others to see your own point of view. Before I were to try to convince someone of my view, however, I'd ask myself if I was trying to teach them to see beauty, or trying to steal the beauty they see and replace it with lasciviousness.
If a painting of a nude and a Playboy are sitting next to each other, what is it that defines the "artistic-ness" of the former and the "pornographic-ness" of the latter?
You presume too much in your question. I'd argue that being painted or drawn does not preclude a nude figure from being pornographic, nor does appearing in a nudie magazine automatically make a photo of a nude figure void of artistic merit.
In the 60's and 70's gay pornography was tightly regulated. Publishers got around some of the regualations by publishing "art study" magazines of the male form. These magazines, from that era, are filled with photos of nude men in non-specifically sexual poses. Some posed like Greek or Roman statues, others in more modern settings. Something like this illustrates the difficulty of defining what is art and what is pornography. It seems clear to me that these were meant to be pornography marketed to gay men of that era. However, I find many of these photos to be artistic as well. Just because any artistic qualities of these photos was created specifically to allow them to squeak past the porno-police does not, in my opinion, invalidate them as art. Erotic art, yes, but art nonetheless. Today things have taken a slight turn. Graphic and sometimes extreme gay porn is relatively easy to find. However, most gay bookstores also have a pretty good selection of nude male "art" photo collections. These are usually hardbound, often coffee-table sized books filled with photo studies of male nudes. Some of these are quite artistic. Most are not explicitly pornographic. I have no doubt, though, that many people would look at the whole genre and stamp it with PORN in bright red letters without a second thought. Such is the subjective nature of the label.
You are correct in that I did frame my questions from the point of view of someone who believes that lusting over a picture of someone is wrong, cuz that's my position. (You're also correct that I'm arrogant and unfair at times, but we shan't go into that.
I do not think it is arrogant and unfair to believe as you do. What I believe is arrogant and unfair is to assign ulterior motives to others without just cause. It is fine for you to think a photo is pornographic. It is arrogant and unfair to assume that despite the fact I say I like the photo for its aesthetic value and do not find it pornographic that secretly I'm really lusting over it and just don't want to admit it. See the difference?
when people who have no problem with lusting over a picture use the phrase "aesthetically pleasing", are they saying that as a euphemism, or are they seeing the picture as both arousing AND aesthetically pleasing in a non-arousing way?
Could be either. Could also be that they do not see the picture as arousing at all.
If so, what is it that is aesthetically pleasing to them that does NOT involve lust in some way? Are they in fact separating the two? Where?
Many people find beauty in a form, shape, arc, curve, proportion, or even ideal that is apart from specific subject matter. Others appreciate subject matter over craft in their art. That is why two people will look at the same still life and one will find it artistic and the other will find it boring. That also explains to some degree why some people will collect cat art regardless of its quality. They want it as long as it has a cat on it or in it.
More specific to the human form, I saw a sculpture of a nude female in a gallery in Monterrey, CA. I believe it was bronze, but silver plated over the entire sculpture. She had a cloth over her waist. The cloth and the hair were polished to a high gloss, but everywhere her skin showed, the silver was burnished into a silky matte finish. The effect made her flesh look warm and alive. She was beautiful and beautifully proportioned. I would have bought that sculpture on the spot if I'd had the thousands of dollars they were asking. It really was a captivating statue. I found it extremely aesthetically pleasing, but not in the least arousing. I thought at the time that it was too bad it wasn't a statue of a male nude. If it were, I probably would have found it both aesthetically pleasing and arousing. Because I found it beautiful in a non-sexual way, I could not doubt a straigh man who also claimed to recognize a non-sexual beauty in it. However, because I would love to have seen a male form rendered the same way and recognize that such a statue might very well trigger a more viceral response in me, I have to recognize the possibility that a straight man might find the female statue arousing. But also, because people are attracted to different body types and features in terms of sexual attraction, I also would believe a straight man who thought the statue exquisitely beautiful, but also claimed to not find it arousing in the least.
If you still don't understand the difference, ask yourself this (assuming you are straight): Can you recognize an aesthetic difference between a nude photo of a male athlete and a nude photo of, say, Danny DeVito?
I meant no offense, if there was any taken
None taken. And I really wasn't trying to call you arrogant and unfair, specifically. I was trying to point out that assigning motives to others based only on one's own reactions to a given image is arrogant and unfair.
Sigh. Perhaps I should ask questions that might have answers. *grin*
I hope that I have provided some answers to your general questions. I believe it is possible for some people (myself for instance) to recognize aesthetic appeal apart from lustful appeal in renditions of nudes. However, as to the personal questions about the ability within yourself, only you can answer those. If you believe you can, even if you don't specifically know why you can, does it matter if you can justify that to an outside observer?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I wish you could come to my May Revel. Dancing barefoot around the maypole, children laughing and blowing bubbles, sitting on blankets in the grass eating fruit and cheese...
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto!, thank you for keeping my interest in ArtSpeak piqued.
You would probably be interested in the writings of Clement Greenberg, a very famous art critic who I would call a formalist critic - he often talks about very very basic stuff like form and balance and contrast and why things like shapes can be aesthetically pleasing in an objective way. I don't subscribe totally to his conclusions, but he does talk an awful lot about things that are hard to put into words.
This site, though it appears to have been written by the National Coalition of Clement Greenberg's Very Best Buddies, has links to a lot of his writing.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question will require a bit of setup, so I hope you will bear with me.
I had to go back and check in the Landmark Archive to make sure I had my facts straight, and it appears I do. Some of your background is remarkably similar to that of one of my best friends through most of my youth. He grew up in an active LDS family. His immediate family didn't appear to have any particular turmoil, but I later found out about some unpleasant family issues that weren't knowable at the time. He put in his mission papers after I was already on my mission, and he was called to Japan, but he went home from the MTC and never went back.
When I got home from my own mission I didn't see him around. He was living on his own in another city. After a few months, I found out that he was gay. All the years we had been best friends I never had a clue. I was surprised, but not overly much, and it didn't affect the way I though of him. When I went away to college, in the same city where he lived, I finally got to see him a couple of times. We went to lunch once, and another time he brought me over to his apartment to play computer games.
The subject of his sexuality never came up. There wasn't a reason for it to come up. But while I was at his apartment he had to leave to do something else, and left me there with his roommate. Some other friends came over, and it was quite evident that almost all of them were gay. Their conversation, if nothing else, made it clear. They knew of no reason not to be open in front of me, and it didn't bother me. Finally, I got a ride back to the dorms.
I didn't hear back from my friend. I found out later that he had had a fit when he returned and learned that his friends had been so open around me. He thought I didn't know he was gay, and he hadn't intended for me to find out that night, that way. The whole thing put a stop to any efforts to reconnect, or get to know each other again. He soon moved away to San Francisco, and I got into a serious relationship and then got married. I have seen him maybe once since then, and exchanged e-mails one other time.
The problem as I see it: he and I have very different lives now, with no points of intersection. We live in different places, know different people, spend our time differently, etc. He knows I know he's gay, and he also knows my religious faith, and the position the Church takes on homosexuality. He does not know my own feelings or opinions on the subject, or on the matter of his own particular situation, because we have never discussed it.
I think of him often, and want to get in touch with him, but I have doubts. He may not want to hear from me. He may assume that I "disapprove" of him, or he may simply feel bitterness or resentment toward the Church he grew up in and those feelings may color how he sees me. He may simply not have the time.
Finally, here's the question. Are there former friends, people you knew before your mission, or companions from the mission itself, etc., whom you would be interested in reconnecting with? Under what circumstances would the answer be yes, and how do you think it could best be accomplished? Do you feel that there is enough of a break between the two periods of your life that it would be better not to make the attempt?
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivetta: Why don't we do the Terse Movie Slams anymore?
Probably because everyone has forgotten about them, except you and now me and anyone else who is reading this thread still. That may change if someone starts a new thread for them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ketchupqueen: why does my shoulder hurt so much?
Because you have injured it and have not properly rested it enough to fully heal. If the pain is severe and lasts much longer, I'd suggest seeing a doctor. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
UofUlawguy: Are there former friends, people you knew before your mission, or companions from the mission itself, etc., whom you would be interested in reconnecting with?
Yes, definitely. There are many people I met in Brazil who were wonderful friends to me while I was there. There are a few former missionary companions I'd like to catch up with and see how they are doing now. There aren't all that many people I remember much from before my mission. I was very much a loner until I went on my mission. I've been contacted by a couple of highschool acquaintances who found me on the internet and wanted to know if I was that Karl Jennings, but we didn't have much in common except the fact of attending the same highschool so nothing much came of the re-connection.
Under what circumstances would the answer be yes, and how do you think it could best be accomplished?
For most of the people I'd like to reconnect with, the best way would probably be through a letter or email. As for the circumstances, ideally for my ego they would contact me , but I can hardly blame them for not doing so if I, for my part haven't done so either.
Do you feel that there is enough of a break between the two periods of your life that it would be better not to make the attempt?
Better? No. There is enough of a break that my nostalgia isn't likley to override my laziness unless chance puts me closer in contact so I wouldn't have to do so much detective work. But I don't think it would be better not to make the attempt. I initially lost contact with several people when I came out (a complicated, multi-stage process). This was probably for a variety of reasons. I wasn't ready to explain myself, if the need arose. I was still feeling a little embarassment at rejecting something I'd spent so much of my life trying to justify. (I spent a lot of time feeling like a large part of my life had been wasted.) But for the most part, I felt that I no longer had the primary connection with my LDS acquaintances, namely the LDS church. I felt that I had lost that connection and didn't yet feel like I had anything of value to take its place. Maybe at that time I might have thought it was better not to make the attempt.
At this point in my life, though, I don't have those qualms so much. I am happy in my life, for the most part, and I can be happy for others who have found fulfillment in theirs, even if it is through religion.
But more to the point of your question, I don't know your friend, but maybe his point of view is similar to mine: I would be thrilled if anyone from my past contacted me because they were thinking about me and wondered how I was doing. It wouldn't bother me if they knew about my sexuality or how I might have changed in their eyes or not. I have progressed beyond feeling awkward letting people know that I am gay if they didn't know already. I don't think I'd be thrilled to be proselytized or have a friend try to "save" me or something, but I don't think I'd be offended even by that, depending on how close I once felt to them.
I think you should contact your friend. The lack of contact has clearly left some sort of void in your life. Don't be reluctant to share yourself to someone you once cared about. You might find out that he doesn't want to talk to you, in which case you can put it out of your mind. But you might find that he misses you too. You might find out that you still have some things in common, or some new things in common. At any rate, you can feel good that you made the effort.
Maybe I'll take my own advice. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be copacetic if I idolized your equanimity, intelligence, articulation,... and all around coolness? You don't really need to answer, I just wanted to express my admiration of you.
posted
punwit: Would it be copacetic if I idolized your equanimity, intelligence, articulation,... and all around coolness? You don't really need to answer, I just wanted to express my admiration of you.
Thank you. - wait! er, you're not making fun of my vocabulary, are you? Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-yum- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-tasty-hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-yikes! time to close- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-ok, open slowly-hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-yum- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-yum- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-ack!-bleh!-who put all this crap in the water? I'm trying to eat here!
quote: Thank you. - wait! er, you're not making fun of my vocabulary, are you?
No KarlEd, I really do think you are a top-notch person. NO making fun in that particular post, although I can see, given my history, why you might question a serious post from me. Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea: KarlED, you broke the frame with your last post....but you know that, right?
Hmm, actually, I didn't. The frame isn't broken for me. Maybe it's different for different browsers. I'll go add some spaces and maybe it'll work ok.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megan: How can I avoid turning thoroughly misanthropic?
Short answer, keep posting and reading at Hatrack. You can hardly hate "humankind" when there are all these wonderful people here.
Additionally, surround yourself with people you respect. Take time to nurture good relationships. Be careful, though, to not put individuals on a pedestal. Allow them to be human, just like you are.
Lastly, learn to love yourself and strive to be the kind of person you can love. You can't be thoroughly misathropic if you like yourself.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my mother's best friends died yesterday in a car accident. They have (had?) six children, the oldest around my age. I've known them all my life, and the family lives here in Dallas now. I called their house and no one answered. My question has two parts: 1. How do I find out when/where the funeral is? We are not in constant touch, but are of the old friend variety. I don't want to leave a message, but I don't know how else to get information. 2. How do I get my dad to come to Texas for the funeral? He avoids anything that's inconvenient or painful, but they came up for my mother's funeral and I think he should come to Texas for hers. He said he'd go if it was in Idaho where she's from, but it didn't sound like he would if it was in Dallas. Of course, if it is in Idaho, then I don't need to worry about the second question.
posted
katharina: How do I find out when/where the funeral is?
Try looking here. Let me know if this site works for you. Alternatively, you might call the newspaper in the hometown. They often have obituary information including funeral times, etc. (This is all assuming you've though of the obvious, like calling mutual friends or their church or place of employment, etc.)
How do I get my dad to come to Texas for the funeral?
The only thing you really can do is to appeal to him using the same logic you used above. If he feels strongly enough against it that "returning the respect" isn't a good enough motivator it is unlikely that you will be able to persuade him without some sort of bribery or coersion, which I don't recommend. And certainly don't make him feel guilty. I didn't attend my grandmother's funeral largely because when I expressed reticence (mainly because it would be full of relatives I had not seen since before I came out) my sister laid a huge guilt trip on me, reinforcing all my negative feelings about the event in the first place. And I didn't speak to her for over a year after that.
However, "Come on, dad. We'll pay our respects then I'll take you out for a nice dinner and we can catch up on things" is a pleasant form of bribery that would work for me. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for the first information. It's not in there, but she only died yesterday. Maybe it is not scheduled yet. I have to say I disagree with what you did in the second, but thank you for answering.
posted
I supplied that information only as insight into the reaction of some people to guilt trips. I don't know your father, but I do know that they have the opposite effect on me than is usually intended.
As for my own situation, there were many factors that led to my decision. I gave a shorthand version because the rest is irrelevant to your question and I didn't want to go off on too much of a tangent. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. My dad reacts slightly better to guilt trips, I think. Rather, if it's up to him he won't do it, but if he realizes it's important to someone that he's tied to, then he's much more inclined. Maybe he doesn't understand that it's important that he comes. More specifically, if it's in Texas I am definitely going, and I'd like my dad to be there without me having to beg him.
I'll go to Idaho if my friend - the daughter that is my age - wants me to. I need to talk to her. *worried and restless* Holy freak, I wish there was something I could do. I hate that there's nothing I can do.
posted
I agree that you should let him know it is important to you. I certainly wasn't implying that would be a guilt trip.
I'm sorry you are going through this at all. Grief is such a personal thing that there really is nothing one can do but be there for the people who are suffering through it. But I know from Hatrack that you can be very kind to those in need. I'm sure your presence will be a comfort to them. (((kat)))
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Whether that is an example to emulate or avoid is very much open to debate. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I wouldn't inflict the full Monty on anyone except Chris.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
