|
25 jun 06 "Would having a steady stream of sex put a stop to all this nonsense?" paraphrases: "you have too much free time on your hands" and "you need to get laid". i appreciate the asker's use of original language, but the sentiment is still a cliche. in the movie "the 40 year old virgin", a joke was made of The Virgin's (i forget the character's name) collecting of old action figures, playing the tuba, and painting figurines. it's another cliche -- if you have hobbies, then you need to get laid. read that article (when you're done with this one). why would a "steady stream of sex" (SSS) suddenly make someone lose interest in another activity? the implication is that the only reason someone engages in a hobby-like activity is that they're not occupying their time in the way they obviously, according to mandate, should be, and want to be: pair bonding. so a couple has to spend all of their time staring at each other, eh? i'll make a note of it. let's take "couplehood" out of the variable, and make it purely sex-related. would visiting a prostitute every night curtail excessive hobbies? obviously not; why would it? so, i think "you just need to get laid" might mean "you just need to be in a relationship". the bachelor and the spinster are looked at, from afar, with suspiction. we have to make a distinction here, and decide whether or not to interpret the question as metaphoric at all. is it: "would couplehood put a stop to all hobbies?", or "would purely sexual release specifically put a stop to blogging?" i'll vaguely and chaotically explore both possibilities. i don't believe the asker objects to all hobbies -- just the nature of ones like "this nonesense" (web-writing). people tend to say "that guy needs to get laid" when they see someone engaging in a hobby of which they do not approve; as i said, the comment is analagous to "that guy has too much free time on his hands." i guess the assumption is that people need to put all of their time and energy into working, reproducing, and possibly watching "america's next top model", and having any "free time", let alone filling it in some inappropriate way, is against the rules. is one obligated to spend all of one's time at obligations? is this a moral necessity? maybe the sentiment is one of those puritanical holdovers; hester prynne didn't have any hobbies. if one spent one's "free time" exercising and attending the opera, then i don't think social critics would take issue. perhaps if one went to the opera or exercised excessively, or with undue enthusiasm, the critic would. is his a perception that i write too much? that i put what he believes to be excessive time and effort into web-writing, which indicates an existential frustration and vacuum that is more effectively and acceptably resolved with SSS? why would SSS change other behavior? maybe just because it's "what people are supposed to be doing", and if you're spending your time any other way, this is suspect. SSS follows other lifestyle changes (namely, the presence of a wife or girlfriend) that are more likely to, although certainly not guaranteed to, curtail excessive hobbies, because there's pressure to engage in non-solitary activity, or even abandon those. so, couple-hood might theoretically end "this nonsense", but not specifically sexual activity. what are couples supposed to do together, besides SSS? there must be something, even though it's probably not setting up and contributing to a co-blog. i think they tend to spend all of their time just "being a couple", as it were; staying perched on a branch like two lovebirds, looking around at the scenery. incidentally, i think that might be a key to a good marriage: a pair should seek out hobbies they can enjoy together. "sex" doesn't count unless it's incidental to a membership at a swingers' club (see: the 1970's) that also involves drinks, socializing, and mixed nut bowls. that said, sex in and of itself (independent of the presence of a partner in your life) doesn't alter lifestyle or change habits -- it isn't some kind of magic drug that makes a person less interesting. perhaps the implication is that romance is so great, and spending time with a date or girlfriend such a joyous 24 hour passtime, that nothing else will do. let's assume for a minute that we're not that strict, and that we'll allow some hobbies. hobbies must be sanctioned, like movies, dating, or certain acceptable forms of exercise (biking, running, gym). if someone likes to juggle, people shake their heads sorrowfully at him and chuckle: "that guy needs to get laid." same with collecting model railroad cars. etc. painting is acceptable. listening to music is acceptable. attending the opera is acceptable. active membership of a "three-legged race" association is not acceptable; that guy needs to get laid. there are certain things one can do with one's free time that people might talk about in admiring tones: "mike likes to go to the opera every week, and we're all impressed!" but, if we note that mike likes to maintain and add on to his ant farm, our reaction is "mike needs to get laid!" people who play dungeons and dragons every other night (and spend the other nights creating characters) "need to get laid". "nerdy" hobbies are unacceptable, and require SSS to cure. what makes a hobby a nerdy one? even something like "programming computers" isn't as nerdy as maintaining an ant farm, juggling, collecting model railroad cars, pogo-sticking,unicycling, etc. unfortunately, the asker sees my project here as a nerdy, unworthy, laughable hobby, one that indicates that i "have too much free time" and/or "need to get laid". so be it. if i were to experience SSS, why would "all this nonsense" of entertaining myself end? perhaps that's the key -- entertaining myself. solitary hobbies indicate, perhaps tautalogically, the need to "get laid". let's re-explore the "intensity/frequency of hobby" variable, taking gardening as an example. if someone casually gardens on the weekends, then that's fine. but if someone is gardening every day, investing in supplies, driving to other states to pick up experimental fertilizers, and heading to university libraries to read up on splicing, then this is not fine. the intensity of a hobby is also a partial delineator of whether or not the practitioner "just needs to get laid". here's my list of hobby-properties that imply that the practitioner needs to seek a steady stream of sex, presuming that all hobbies are not suspect (which they very well might be): solitary, intense, frequent, involves fantasy, not social sanctioned. basically, the asker is implying that due to frustration or some great fundamental emptiness in my life, i'm choosing to occupy my time the way i do; essentially, that i wouldn't have (and, more distressingly, wouldn't want to have) certain obbies or even hobbies at all if i were focused on the more important things in life, namely reproduction. but perhaps my foil is more sophisticated than i thought, and is asking "is all energy ultimately sexual energy?", something with which i might be inclined to agree. if that's the case, then a steady stream of sex does indeed preclude hobbies, because the sexual energy one would spend on hobbies is better spent on, obviously, sex (cutting to the chase). this equation agrees with my usual "reproduction is our ultimate concern, and in fact the 'purpose of life'" cynicism. is everything we do, including web writing, a substitute for sex? i don't know, but it fits nicely with my usual dark rants and general love for reducing the whole of humanity to viruses, so i'll consider the possibility. so, the answer is "yes"; email me, and we can set something up. |
ask a question