http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/19/men-who-e-maintain-women-the-art-of-texting-whats-up/#more-387

This is a response to this article. Go read this article first. It's not great but the writer does a good job of introducing two important topics which I often revisit; online relationships and the personal politics of being a woman. 

This idea of 'e-maintaining' (a very clever and concise way of describing this phenom) is completely repugnant to me. Granted I am married, have 2 children and have been with the same guy for 7 years but I have always been on the fringe of the 'e' revolution. I can guarantee you that if I were single today I would not be engaging in text relationships or otherwise simulated relations outside of a racy text or a 'here's a link to...' email.

I remember a time when using the phone for important life decisions was considered cowardly and impersonal. Now, according to this article, the phone is a much more personal means of communicating and bonding in relationships. Fair enough, compared to alternative cyber communication, I will take the phone anytime.

And don't get me wrong. On more than one occasion I have gladly taken advantage of 'easier,' non-confrontational email to address difficult personal and professional situations as opposed to face time or over the phone. By taking the 'easy' way out, I neither resolved the situations or grew personally. There is always an element of detachment or lack of personal responsibility (vulnerability?) that accompanies any online interaction but I did it anyway because sometimes I am a pansy and I hate frontal conflict.

Unlike the author I do believe e-communication has it's usefulness but never when it comes to establishing romantic intimacy. I love the convenience and ease of having quick check-ins with my husband, best friend, acquaintances and old friends. I am now more inclined to tell someone how much I value their presence in my life and that I am thinking of them by feeling less vulnerable, but no less sincere. This convenience does not demean or decrease my intentions and in fact offers me a safer avenue to express my warm fuzzies. 

The meat of this article really concerns the 'e' maintenance of romantic relationship. The real issues exposed are the malfunctioning dynamics of male/female relationships and the sorry state of mediated intimacy abundant in America's excessive personality and addiction to the 'spectacle.'*

What I am trying to say is that Americans are impatient. They have a short attention span. They often consume too much and give back very little. Of course not every single American is shallow and restless; I realize I am making grand generalizations.

Love on first sight, rapid weight loss, hundreds of cable channels, tvs in every room of the house, quick fix, quick money, quick to move on when a situation becomes frustrating...

If I am going to be honest, my criticism is directed to the women who allow these men to placate them with such pitiful offerings and to the men who think this is the best women deserve. Some will argue that it's a symptom of the patriarchal matrix at work keeping woman down and preventing her from being empowered and being in control of her own life.

I don't buy into that ideology. I go into my thoughts on current feminist discourse here. Let's just say that I don't believe that men are the only culprits in stalling women's liberation. What disgusts me is this 'consumer society' around dating and life partnering.

The women are to blame as much as these men and I have to think that they want it this way for some obscure reason. Look at the trend of movies right now just to name a few:


He's not that into you
Something Borrowed
What's your number?

There's a trend that is reaching feverish heights- finding true love amidst a sea of disfunction and casual sex masking as 'dating.'  Harsh I know, and I really don't mean it to sound so catty. My point is simply this- if women did not accept this behavior in men, then men would have ot find a different way to behave.

wow. ancient history. and I am a only a little sad.

About 10 years ago I had a friend in college who was the most. He was so cool and prettier than me and we had the most fun concocting these totally absurd a crazy what-if fantasies that would last for days. I remember one had us ultimately married for the sake of something I can't remember now and I would wear only my black lace-up boots and an apron and have dinner ready when he came home from a day at the office. It was something that kept us laughing for hours.


I was super sad when for reasons too personal and not all bad we weren't close the way we we used to be. But for a couple years, it was the best fun I may have ever had.

We spent a semester working on a 'collaborative' project photographing the nightlife in some local gay clubs. He had a few 'ins' and sometimes we'd set up illegally, which was really a challenge because many people lead double lives and the sight of a camera causes extreme anxiety and anger. Of course, sometimes it inspires intense hamming.

Who Knew?

So I was just watching a short documentary about different genres of porn. Interspersed were snippets of old films (meaning dating all the way back to silent) that show examples of gay pornography. It was no great surprise to see the two women together while a man peeked at the key hole watching them.

The big surprise was the examples of gay male porn. There were no (accurate?) scenes of kissing, penetration or obvious acts of sexual engagement. Rather, there would be scenes of men flexing their muscles in unison (I assume to create a psychological rhythm of being in sync) or naked men doing acrobatics, sit ups and so forth.

Is it odd that I found the repressed male gay porn to be vastly more erotic and suggestive than seeing the literal actions as shown by the women? Or 'normal' as a heterosexual female? This is not to say that I think gay male culture should be repressed, or was better in the 'old ways.' But I think it speaks to something more subtle about image, voyeurism and imagination.

Sometimes less is more, and sometimes real women like to LOOK and not touch. I am reminded of a conversation I had with a colleague for months about creating tension in work. Tension can be sexual, horrific or anxious. It can add so much to work by implying meaning without showing the 'money shot.' The viewer is left to fill in the blanks and see the total action in a way that completes their experience, but the artist has directed the motion.

This completion of an inferred action or idea by the viewer from the artist is a heady relationship and activates the work in a way that is paramount to sparking dialogue and giving the work deeper 'meaning.'

Otherwise, the artist can make a lovely surface that may please a viewer in a voyeuristic way (maybe like much of the overly spelled out pornucopia of mediated culture) but which leaves the viewer free to move on to the next. In and out. Wham bam thank you m'am.