It seems objectifying is flat wrong but then, objectifying comes from something. I think there is a useful purpose in the basic ability to objectify someone but I don’t think that purpose is generally applicable in the sense that you can’t just use it all the time, it’s a specific case kind of skill. Objectifying a soldier might be done by commanders so that they can move soldiers as pawns on the battlefield. Thinking too much about the individual agency of each soldier might be counterproductive when the focus needs to be on a strategic level.

Treating players in sports as objects to manipulate without their agency is also acceptable. By entering the field, the players’ consent to being viewed by their position on the team to an extent. Similarly, actors and actresses are objects for a movie which is being produced. They are simply one of many pieces of a given film. They consent to this in advance. And to an extent treating criminals as objects of the state makes sense because crime is viewed as willful. This is a weaker statement because what constitutes a crime makes a big difference when we consider how big of a crime allows us to overlook the needs of the criminal (he or she needs something don’t you think?) in order to better serve the needs of the state.

I think it’s even fair in a specific context to sexualize another human being. I think it’s fair to do that during the broad range of activities that constitute sex. But here I want to make things clear. Viewing another person as an object within the act of having the sex doesn’t throw all rules out of the window. I mean that after the moment of consent and before consent is withdrawn, there is a level at which you are expected to pander with regard to sexual type pleasure. You no longer have to ask if your partner wants you to soak them up visually or physically. The present company knows why they are there or they withdraw their consent and reestablish their personhood.

Being an object in these senses where a person has consented to being objectified in these ways still does not remove the rights of a human being, what happens is that the human beings involved have reason to believe certain actions are likely and welcome and more assumptions can be made.

On the street and in public, I’m going to say people have not consented to be objects in very many contexts. To an extent, we can say they can be objectified as citizens meaning they are expected to act in a law abiding manner. Waiters and waitresses are objects of the restaurant and should be treated as such for restaurant related issues. Strippers are objects for your viewing pleasure while on the clock. Everybody else is no such thing beyond the citizen or patron of an establishment which might further constrain their expected behavior.

So, I’m going to risk saying that objectifying people happens on a variety of levels in a useful way. Having said that, I think we need to be careful to stop objectifying people. We should not expect people on the street to be objects for or against Christian values for example. We shouldn’t expect them to behave by our favorite set of common sense values. Outside of a very specific context, people can’t be sexual objects. Folks in magazines need to be viewed carefully. Their in-magazine image is a visual object, their actual person is not an object at all. And their in-magazine value should be higher the more explicit consent is used in gathering the photo and lower for voyeuristic photos. Privacy matters to people that have not granted explicit consent. Celebrities off the clock are real people as are politicians and everybody else. I think we should be careful to remember when people are acting as objects, what that means, and when it ends so we can show each other the proper respect.

Basically, the movie is super campy with lots of pieces that don’t make sense a la Shaolin Soccer. Scott faces the seven evil exes in order to date the young woman that he is interested in dating. What constitutes a fight is heavily warped with “what would be funnier?” kinds of twists. I’m a particular fan of Jason Schwartzman’s comic acting style and his involvement was the clue that brought me to the movie in the first place.

Oh, and spoiler alert.

The downgraded special effects make the visuals look like something homemade and saved for MTV after hours, in other words, perfect for the comic banter and style that carried the movie. There were several sound effects from popular NES favorites and even a bass guitar homage to Final Fantasy battle music rounding out the clear message that gamer boys have now grown up and are an audience block to be catered to.

In addition to being aging gamer friendly, the movie is potentially subversive in it’s take on ordinary. To be fair, I believe the creator of Scott Pilgrim is Canadian and these elements may or may not be subversive there. The buddy of Scott Pilgrim with whom Scott shares his bed is gay and happily non-monogamously gay. He’s a worldly metrosexual with a sort of ordinary guy feel. Sometimes, Scott wakes up to find his gay roommate and his gay roommate’s bedmate. And at no time, is Scott really upset by this. It’s what buddies who are gay are like.

Scott dates a seventeen year old Catholic schoolgirl named Knives. What’s remarkable is that Scott doesn’t really make out with her or anything like that. He’s twenty-two. And they go out to the arcade frequently to play some Dance Dance Ninja game. It’s almost as if Scott likes Knives and has failed to notice that she’s too young to date or that dating implied sexual earnest. Knives hasn’t seemed to notice either. And that’s perfect.

Scott goes for Ramona, the romantic focus of the movie, beginning with an unhealthy attraction because she was actually a girl from his dreams. His stalking is called out by other characters as creepy and this is with Scott being Scott. He doesn’t try to check out her panties or suggest lecherous things. He watches what she’s doing and attempts a conversation. The focus, his potentially male gaze, is on her face. So far, this isn’t subversive. But when he gets into her bed, she gets down to her undies, and things are about to get hot… then she changes her mind about the sex. Here, Scott says and seems to mean it that he’s happy with the female attention he’s getting so sleeping next to her is completely fine.

So, in case you aren’t following me, Scott is dating a 17 year old Chinese Catholic Schoolgirl, sleeping with a gay man, and pursuing another woman his age who he gets into her undies while she’s kissing on him. The amount of sex in the film is zero. It’s almost as if the characters are valued as real people. With the exception of the seven exes that are required as the basis of the movie and are fairly shallow, the fact that Scott ends up with Knives fighting Ramona for a minute for his affections, and the fact that Scott campily confuses the L-word “love” for “lesbian” doesn’t really change that the characters were keeping it real and not deeper nor shallower than Scott himself. None of the gay or lesbian or virgin or non-virgin statuses of any of the characters played any bearing.

Even the fact that Scott is fighting for Ramona is called into question within the movie as Scott comes to terms with the fact that he is actually fighting for himself. I had to disagree with my potential sister-in-law that the movie would have sucked if Scott did not walk off with Ramona. I think at the point that Scott learned he was fighting for himself, he won. What happened immediately after with Ramona doesn’t guarantee him any future or even that Ramona would let him complete the sex that is suggested in the final scene. And that’s okay. Ramona gets to keep being in charge of herself and Scott gets to keep remembering that he’s doing what he wants to do on his end of the decisions and ethically just hoping for the best.

You know how you have pretty women? They exist as opposites, right. Everybody else is ugly or we can get modern and be like “normal” is the opposite of pretty. This kind of makes normal the new ugly.

Well, I was thinking my religious deconversion might provide a parallel for dealing with women, the ones I identify as pretty or not. Lack of belief is not a belief. At least that’s my stance. It’s the absence of belief, a void if you will.

Maybe, I should perpetuate a lack of interest in things that make pretty. I like porn, right. Maybe I should take some time and come up with criteria such as how engaged the actors are, how much fun they are having, how they hold up in their positions and maybe I should monitor good form and consideration and what not. And then I can replace some aesthetics which make all the other women ugly by contrast with criteria which can be objectively observed as elements of performance similar in a way to ballet. Good form is good form distinct from prettiness. And I should rate men too. And then a video is a team sport with a combined or average score or something.

If I rank people by beauty, maybe I’m training myself to continue to do so. I don’t mean to suggest anything lookist, but the reason my girlfriend is my girlfriend isn’t due to her looks. I didn’t rank my potential candidates at that point in my life (there were others I was dating) by looks.

If she wants to know what I think of her looks, I’ll tell her. But I’m going to stop telling you, my audience. Her worth is not based on her looks. But if she wants to take some time to perform for me as people can choose to do, then my opinion can be granted that small moment of legitimacy. But even then, I’m not for a moment ranking her with anybody else. There’s no point. I’m going to balance what I like to see her in with what she likes to wear because what I want is her comfortably being her as sexy as she wants to be.

I’m an a-lookist. I won’t tell you how hot my lady is anymore even though I had an opinion as recently as this morning.

I’m a portion of many different types of people. I’m part white South-Eastern American male. I’m part atheist. I’m part penis. I’m part philosophical. I’m contrarian. I’m a writer. I’m a software engineer. I could potentially be polyamorous or at least an ally. I think racism, sexism and more are still alive and will take active work to make the experience of my fellow women and minority citizens better. I’m not even selfless. I don’t care about other people as a whole. I like some individuals for all sorts of reasons and I just want their experience to be as pleasant as possible. I want a utopia.

Let’s pick on feminism so I can show you a bit about my utopia and why it can’t exist. To some people, feminism is the movement which brings light to the systemic forces that are making ladies’ experience in life harder than it needs to be. Who wouldn’t like happy ladies? I don’t understand why the most authoritarian, man-is-better person wouldn’t want a happy woman or eighteen happy women. I don’t get it because I feel like anything you want that woman to do or want to do with that woman just gets better when she’s living well. To other people, feminism is another change of the rules. How is pro-female more right than pro-male? There are differences between women, they clearly have a hole where I have a hole-stick. They average smaller and get pregnant inconveniently (or conveniently for breeders). Also, their brains work somewhat differently because the chemistry is different. Of course we don’t fucking understand them. That’s my characterization of those people.

When feminism isn’t an issue or they are in their houses and bedrooms or whatever safe space they are in, all of those people are living lives that can be described without referring to feminism. They are playing video games and such for their own interests and pleasures, advancements and responsibilities. They are being people much broader than their take on feminism. (Please remember feminism is an example topic).

I like porn and pretty women. I like pretty people somewhere lower down my list of preferences. I like hand drawings and such. I have not been convinced that finding women attractive or fantasizing about them is wrong in a way that can’t be described as wrong some other way. Rape is a form of assault. Acting on my fantasy is a form of harassment. Suggesting people are actually objects is wrong. Manipulating my image of them in my mind or watching videos they consented to produce is entirely up to me.

I can’t seem to forget that some women, many of my peers, get knocked into outsider status though. And somehow things like porn and pretty women are involved in this effect. Somehow, lot’s of them are getting unmeetable expectations. Sometimes, I’m being insensitive no matter how much I’m saying I don’t mean to be. I wonder why they can’t just fix their own problems and then I’m yet another place no one can turn to. No, it’s not my fault women have all these problems. But if I want happy women, and I do, I’m certainly doing myself no favors. (side note: happy trannies, men, lezzies, and gays are all good too… feminism goes with women. Those other types of people have their own topics with which to specifically address their common experiences).

Affirmative action is another interesting topic because of the competing philosophies. On one hand, benefiting a minority person in favor of a competing majority type person is not ethical. The person (note the lack of modifier) should compete on merit for a position. That’s the most fair state in general. That’s morally pure. On the other hand, minority people have systemic disadvantages some of which are due to the disingenuous assistance of the majority. Also on this hand, who doesn’t benefit from the additional perspective of a different type of person? You know what’s better than an immigrant? A happy immigrant, that’s what. I don’t care how white supremacist you might be, I fail to see how you gain more from an unhappy minority. This sounds a little inappropriate, but I want happy black people along with happy Hmongs, Jews, et cetera. I’m not going to know how happy they are if they aren’t working side by side with me.

I’m cool with religious differences like I’m cool with ethical differences. You be you and expect me to be different. I have trouble with this because I see the perpetuation of religious differences to be more voluntary but in a way you can be born into a religion which muddies the ethics. But in this sense a religion is more about behavior whereas women are women and deserve respect regardless of their behavior. So do blacks. So does any type of person. They are better if they are happy. I’m tempted to say “balanced against the happiness of others” because I’ve seen the problems of religous folks and how it adversely affects other people. But I’m not advocating behavior in any of these paragraphs. I’m saying the people exist, deserve dignity and I’d rather see them happy.

I am the white supremacist if beliefs are races. I do think lack of belief is superior to all forms of belief. But I fail to see how I benefit from those members not being happy members all things being equal. And I fail to see how I can write off all the benefits I might get from working with believers because they aren’t just “believers”. Plus, if a belief minded person stumbles on one useful to me thing even on accident, I can be living a better personal life.

So in my utopia, these people have safe spaces to talk. When people disagree, they use formal debates so we can break things down by the issue. Also, when people investigate each other’s differences they do so like an NPR correspondent instead of someone looking for holes to drive their dispute through. And then, I can meet people who surprise me by my affection for their style of whatever. And they’ll be happier. And then whatever happens next can only be the highest quality of participation. Right?

Clint Eastwood played Walter Kowalski, an aging Vietnam Korean War vet who’s wife’s funeral begins the movie. He’s gruff and difficult and his kids don’t like him any better than he likes them. The first sense of entitlement displayed was his kids and grandkids and how they felt like he should love them or behave differently because they deserved it, even though the audience probably didn’t see a whole lot of endearing qualities from Walter’s kids.

Walter wasn’t the best dad. We know this through very sparse pieces of dialog but also in the distance between him and all of his kids. To a certain point, parents owe their children nurture and such as is reasonable and modified by the best of the parent’s ability. But after a certain point, parents do not owe their children. My parents do not owe me inheritance or anything. They did their job to whatever quality and now they are done.

Walter speaks his mind and I was prepared to see him as a racist before I even saw the movie. But having seen the movie, I think he’s just an ornery old cuss. Walter believes people should be entitled to say what they really think. But he makes it clear that he still thinks people should behave with respect in other ways. If you go to a funeral, you should dress right. If you cross your heart in church, you shouldn’t say “spectacles, testacles, wallet, watch.” If an old lady drops her groceries, he expects young people to help or at least not make humping gestures at her when she’s not looking. He can handle being called out for being a Pollock, and he doesn’t mind cursing at other races in a xenophobic tone, but he still respected when people badgered him back.

Additionally on the point of respect and expression, he expected people to speak back. If you didn’t, you were a pussy. While he only called boys “pussies”, the girls in the movie were back talkers (“badgers”) and didn’t need the advice except for his granddaughter and he didn’t call her anything. He cussed his Hmong neighbors and expected to be cussed back. He thought that fair.

He clearly expected everyone to work for a living. But the audience became aware through Walter that the Hmong neighbors were not asking for any entitlements and were fighting an uphill battle to get common American respect. They kept quiet when gangbangers shot up their house and even when one of their own was beaten up and raped. They didn’t ask for favors when Toad got assaulted and lost his tools. They didn’t even register Walter’s level of disrespect to them mostly because it was the least of their worries. Their lack of entitlement mentality endeared them to Walter.

The gangbangers on the other hand did feel entitled to their territory and authority. They thought they were invincible. They could kidnap Toad into their gang. They could drive off rival gangs. They could rape a woman to send a message. And since Hmong don’t tell, nothing would ever change.

The pastor of the church thought Walter was entitled to lay down his war guilt and move on not realizing how significant it was to Walter to have shot a Vietnamese Korean boy in the war. But Walter didn’t think you were ever entitled to forget such a heinous act for any reason. As a veteran of Iraq but without having been in direct combat like rushing the enemy or being ambushed, I wonder if the guilt and the post traumatic stress were the reasons he became ornery, a hard worker, and an emotionally absent dad.

Basically, Walter thought he could rule his own roost and say his mind. And he could. His children thought they could do whatever and deserve love. They did not receive love. His children waited for inheritance upon his death. They did not receive it. The gang felt they could get away with violence as intimidation. They couldn’t. And the kid who gets the Gran Torino didn’t really expect it. And in the process of this clash of younger gimme gimmes with the old cuss, two young men emerge with a better sense of how life really works. Toad can navigate American male expectations. And the pastor saw first hand the values that allowed Walter to get up in the morning. And we were not entitled to write off his character for being segregationist or worse.

I’ll be friends with anybody in a sense. Intellectually, I’ll hang out with anybody. I’ll help anybody. I’ll sit next to anybody. I’d have sex with anybody. All things are possible if the chemistry is right. And one thing being not possible doesn’t drag the rest of the possibilities away. That’s my standard. I may or may not meet that standard. I prefer certain activities with certain types of people. I like my sports with more energetic people. I like my sex with women. I prefer to help those I trust. But I don’t reserve any of those activities (in the conceptual world) to any of those groups. I firmly believe we have to transcend expectations and one way to do that is to reduce the limits by which I will investigate a potential friend for a potential type of bond. In this case, the bonds identified are helping out, sitting near, having sex, and sports.

I’ve got old friends. I seem to be better at keeping up with women in my life, but not exclusively. I’ve got friends that disappeared and resurfaced. And I’ve got exgirlfriends. Pretty much I wish I knew all my exgirlfriends but I’m a really big reason that I won’t hold my breath for that. So I value friendships in an experienced way and I don’t like to cut the cord prematurely. I never rule people out of my life.

On the flip side, I’ve got baggage. I have trouble reconciling what I don’t like about my ex wife with what I loved about her. And by loved, we’re spanning decades here. I’ve known people for long spans of time and from many angles. But overtime, in certain ways, differences get magnified and cut sharper and quicker and I become more wary and so relationships lose that looseness they need. And I can’t seem to spin a new web of connection that has that looseness. So over time, people who ask a lot of me fall on a spectrum between those who reciprocate enough where we can continue to count on each other at a certain pace and those who pulled too much out of me. I’m not blaming them. It can be my fault I burn too much energy, but it doesn’t happen with all my friends. Just some of them. And so there is an apparently individual component.

I’ve got other important people, too. My ex wife now has to play her position and develop whatever new relationship we can form together as two parents. She has to remember, I have a girlfriend. I have other friends and local surrogate family and real family not too far off. I’m using her as an example, but we can’t just reunite in a new friendship without regard to the changing network of people who are important to me and people who are important to her. To disregard my network is to disregard me.

I think a friendship is actually not so much defined by its importance as by its flexibility. A real friendship can go with minimal maintenance and nobody asks if they are being used. Asking is important when dealing with victim making issues and pathology, but if you have to ask, then drop the importance value. Real friendships can’t be said to be real in the beginning. They shine with time and only after lots of it. You can’t say someone isn’t important or is until ten years later or more.

Never get between a person and their lover. You can’t win. Just wait. And if a person says life is complicated, believe them. You can’t debug their perception while they are overwhelmed. But if you can be yourself and be patient, if you can be lightweight and get support, you might have something with that person supporting you. That might just be real. And when it is, it’s awesome.

So if you think you’re a friend, be a friend. Don’t make it a part time job though. When you think of me, call or write. If we’re together and we’re having a good time, awesome. If we’re apart, handle your business. Shit happens. Life has tangles. I won’t always be what’s important to you. And don’t expect any different. I totally care, but I’m busy being present and I have other friends and a girlfriend, here.

The burg was nice except for Liberty University. I disrespect faith based education at any level. If any LU students want to take a stab at real life and reinvent themselves to let their inner individual out regardless of the freakishness, you should give me a call, I’d love to blog about that. But that’s never gonna happen. The only bible school folks allowed to be freaks are the pastors. And this is not my central point.

The point is, some people thought I was gone for good, but I never planned to leave. Like the Jedi, I only fled to regroup and come back better. And I will. In two weeks.

And you know relationships bake like a cake I whip
up a batch of batter like the hatter with ingredients
as I mix up the shit you said couldn’t ever meet in it
Like a pound cake full of beef fuck your meatloaf till you’ve eaten it.

I’m not single got my mingle with the blogger girl and we steamroll
our plans till we see ‘em on the same road then we go
Don’t mind at all if every rabbits not in the same hole
‘Cause it’s not a stumble if you wanna do things what make you whole

And a pleasure’s not a tragedy if it’s a treasure
A lot of things can feel well when you’re not hostage in a jail cell
and a lot of things are not talked about do I really self censor
Yes I do ’cause I think it’s good to consider the sharing of details

[chorus undefined].

I jump from all cliffs free fall with what appears to be suicide wishes
But I’ve got a wish left and I use it to fly as if my dick’s a broomstick
I got room for one more at a time then it’s just digits
For you to sit and spin take a number and call ahead before you visit.

Don’t worry bout my dress and notice that I’m always indecent
But I got the decency to blockoff my fecalphiliac weekends
How I run around is all about how I go down
Not a bit of your business if you find you live out of town

But there’s a separate message for the folks that’re progressive
That can walk the line so we can take the time not committing like lesbians
Not a problem just an idea that is getting ahead of me
Don’t make sex a complex drink it when it’s hot like tea

I do what I talk about turning my friends and my own self out
Taking tonic that tastes honestly like I’m crazy for trying this out.
But while I’m nervous my nerve endings tell me I’m ending up beginning
to be more than my nurturing. Those relaxed are not hurting.

[chorus undefined].

So if a few of you still do want to see what I’m in or up to
Then some news might be illuminating and keep you tuned and cued up to
What I’m going through as I appear like a ghost coasting out of view
Leaving you wondering if you saw what you thought you caught before I was gone anew

I’m still paving some new ways digging graves making sewage
I make manure when I’m full of shit but you all know you’re use to it
Got to explore ’cause I’m down for doing things I never done before
’cause I’m useless following all hallowed stuff most folks live for.

And I love it when you stand by me making plays and the plans by me
When we struggle cause we’re trying to get close without tying each
of us motherfuckers down ’cause we need flexibility know you’re feeling me
But ability and sincerity flee the scene when comes anxiety

So I engineer. Listen here. Here’s a beer don’t you tear.
Yes I love you and you’re dear. And we’re all fairly filled with fears.
It’s not a red herring it’s a ball bearing rocket fairing to grease these wheels
I’ll never make you bear that cross again, no one should know how Jesus feels.

[chorus undefined].

Here’s a link to the song I was inspired by.

So what’s a Seth to do in a world so divided among like minds? I’m already convinced there is nothing supernatural, that religion is at best entertainment and at worst the same kind of crap teams of nasty people are made of.  Should I be nice about it or what?

Me?  I take it on a case by case basis.  The louder and more sensational an announcement the quicker I am to ridicule.  Billboards, bumper stickers, and TV ads piss me off because they promote religion without a conversation, without human to human interaction.   I have been a believer and I have friends of a diversity of types.  Since most of the time religion isn’t the purpose of hanging out, in those cases, their beliefs become benign.  Disputing evolution is idiotic, but if the peer is a computer scientist, then the opinion is irrelevant.

And besides, I’ve got my own favorite fish to fry.  Let’s talk about sex, baby.  Let’s talk about something that is typically fun for everyone that got turned into a morality choice, a vulnerability, a social statement and more.  Some people think chastity is a virtue.  Also, there is homophobia.  Women have to worry about predators (we all do, but this is a common concern). Then there are diseases.   Monogamy is the right relationship pattern especially for those of us who want votes.  And all of this stuff gets in the way of our ability to take situations a case at a time and to mix our safety features with living in the moment.  The best sex happens when we feel like it after all.  And blah blah blah fucking.

So you have people preparing for the return of god.  You have suicide bombers and some of the hottest women around dressed the most discretely (muslim ladies).  I don’t have time to focus on religion and change the world because I’m on a perv mission.  Quit trying to distract me.

K?
Thanks.