Fragments of Evolving Manhood: Do You Like Your Body 1

What first attracted me to Maria was the way she had no reser­va­tions about say­ing she didn’t like Walt Whitman’s poetry, even though our freshman-year pro­fes­sor in Intro­duc­tion to Amer­i­can Lit­er­a­ture had made Whitman’s work cen­tral to the course. When I told her one day as we were walk­ing out of class that I admired her hon­esty, she smiled, said some­thing about how most lit­er­a­ture pro­fes­sors had more hot air in them than sub­stance, and walked off to wher­ever she had to go next. A few days later, when I saw her sit­ting alone in front of the library, the hello I stopped to say grew into an hour-long chat, and after that, for the next month or so, we met every few days at a table in the back cor­ner of the Rainy Night House Café, where we sat for hours drink­ing tea, eat­ing bagels, and talk­ing. One after­noon, just as we were get­ting up to leave, Maria said she’d been given a bot­tle of good wine as a gift, and she asked if I would come to her room that evening to help her drink it.

She was already sev­eral glasses ahead of me when I arrived, and while I played catch-up with the wine, our talk turned to a sub­ject we’d never before dis­cussed, love and rela­tion­ships. We cir­cled the ques­tion of our own bud­ding involve­ment war­ily, let­ting it drop in and out of the con­ver­sa­tion, each of us wait­ing for the other to risk say­ing, or doing, some­thing first. Then Maria asked me, “Richard, do you like your body?”

“Yes,” I answered, “why?”

She got down from her chair and sat cross-legged on the floor in front of me, “No, I mean do you really like your body?”

“Yes,” I said again, but before I could ask if she liked hers as well, she leaned for­ward and asked her ques­tion even more emphat­i­cally, “Are you truly sat­is­fied with every part of your body?”

Con­fused, and begin­ning to feel a lit­tle threat­ened, I allowed a small edge of anger to sharpen my voice, “What are you talk­ing about?”

Maria smiled to her­self, put her hand warmly on my knee, and said, “You know, do you think you mea­sure up physically?”

Finally I under­stood, but what I under­stood only con­fused me more since the chal­lenge implicit in Maria’s words – or at least the chal­lenge I felt to be implicit in Maria’s words (she might not have meant them as a chal­lenge at all) – seemed to shift the basis of what was hap­pen­ing between us from the mutu­al­ity of friend­ship to the adver­sar­ial stance of per­former and critic. I knew that big­ger penises were sup­posed to be bet­ter when it came to hav­ing sex, but I was inex­pe­ri­enced enough that I didn’t really under­stand how “bet­ter” was sup­posed to work. How big did “big” have to be to make a dif­fer­ence, I won­dered, and what pre­cisely was the nature of “bet­ter?” More plea­sure? For whom? These were ques­tions I’d asked myself and been unable to answer every time the sub­ject of penis size and sex came up, and now that Maria had asked me the ques­tion directly, I was speech­less, caught in what felt to me like a damned-if-I-did-damned-if-I-didn’t sit­u­a­tion. Any­thing I said — yes, no, maybe, let’s find out — seemed to me a pick­ing up of the gaunt­let I thought Maria had thrown down, and since I didn’t think I knew enough to com­pete, my first impulse was to remain silent. On the other hand, to say noth­ing was prob­a­bly to lose my chance to be with her, and I really wanted to be with her. So I decided to turn the tables. “I don’t know. Do you mea­sure up?” I asked her.

Maria’s face changed imme­di­ately. The gen­tly mock­ing antic­i­pa­tion with which she’d been wait­ing for my response van­ished, and she searched my face with eyes that were sud­denly sad and deeply sus­pi­cious. She kept her hand on my knee until she found, or didn’t find, what she was look­ing for and then, so softly that I almost couldn’t hear her, she said, “Some­times,” and for a moment I thought she was going to cry.

Maria got up and went back to her chair. We talked a while longer, try­ing to recap­ture the easy ban­ter from ear­lier in the evening, but she was sud­denly unable to look me in the face, and when I finally stood up to leave, all Maria did was wave a silent good-bye from where she was sit­ting. We saw each other on cam­pus a few times after that but never said more than hello, and Maria only had once to turn and walk the other way as I approached for me to under­stand that she didn’t want to talk to me again.

When I went home at the end of the semes­ter, I told this story to my mother, ask­ing her what Maria’s rea­sons might have been for try­ing to seduce me in the way that she did. My mother’s answer only added to my con­fu­sion. The size of a man’s ego, she explained, could be mea­sured by the size of his penis. To illus­trate her point, she told me a story about a man who tried to pick her up in a bar she’d gone to with her friends. At first, she refused him politely, but as he grew more and more insis­tent, she grew more and more annoyed until, hav­ing had enough, loudly, so that the peo­ple around them could hear, she told him that unless he had a “base­ball bat” between his legs, she wouldn’t have any­thing to do with him. He, of course, protested that he’d “never had any com­plaints,” but my mother slapped her palm on the bar and told him that if he had what it would take to have her, she wanted to see it right then and there. If he didn’t, well, he knew what to do.

Need­less to say, the man walked away.

It was hard to know how this story answered my ques­tion, so I asked my mother if she thought Maria’s chal­lenge about whether or not I “mea­sured up” had been intended to put me in the same posi­tion as she had put the man in the bar. My mother’s response con­fused me even fur­ther. “Only small men,” she said, “say size doesn’t matter.”

///

“Next time,” my mother is laugh­ing — but the smile on her face is a thin line of con­tempt, and when she leans for­ward to tap the pol­ished nail of her right index fin­ger in rhyth­mic empha­sis on the wooden sur­face of the din­ing room table, her eyes smol­der — “Next time, tell your father you don’t have such prob­lems. Tell him you wear a steel jock­strap.” I am six­teen, four or five years younger than I was in the story I told you above, just home from a visit to my father in Man­hat­tan, and I have just shared with my mother his first and only attempt at a father-son talk with me about women and sex. Walk­ing from the restau­rant where he’d taken me for lunch to the sub­way where I would catch the train home, he’d put his arm inti­mately around my shoul­der, leaned his head in towards mine, and asked, “Do you have a girl friend?” I told him no, which was a lie. “Well,” he responded, “you will soon, and once you start dat­ing, you’re going to run into sit­u­a­tions you won’t know how to han­dle.” He moved a few steps ahead and turned to face me, search­ing my eyes to make sure I knew what he was talk­ing about. “I just want you to know you can call me.”

“I know,” I said, and the look of relief on his face as he quickly changed the sub­ject to how I was doing in school made me want to laugh out loud. There was no way he could’ve known that I’d already lost my vir­gin­ity, but know­ing that he didn’t know and real­iz­ing how easy it had been to deceive him made me feel supe­rior, and it was this feel­ing of supe­ri­or­ity that I brought to the table when I told my mother the story. “What does he think he’s going to teach you, any­way?” she asks, let­ting her smile loosen into a softer, more con­spir­a­to­r­ial grin. “You prob­a­bly know more than he does already.” She laughs again, but some­thing in her tone makes me uneasy, and so, when I laugh with her this time, it’s more because I think she expects it than because I think what she’s just said is really funny.

What We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) When We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) antisemitism and Israel — 4

To me, the point was obvi­ous. Bas­ing the Jew­ish claim to the land of Israel on the Jews’ own read­ing of the Hebrew Bible was ask­ing the over­whelm­ingly non-Jewish world to accept as objec­tive and incon­tro­vert­ible the truth that Judaism claimed as its own, never mind the impli­ca­tion that the dis­en­fran­chise­ment of the Pales­tini­ans was some­how the will of the monothe­is­tic god. To assert that line of rea­son­ing as an argu­ment for Israel’s right to exist, I sug­gested, was self-defeating at the very least – even if, as a believ­ing Jew, it was a cor­ner­stone of your faith.

“I never took you for an SHJ,” said one the col­leagues with whom I was talking.

“An SHJ?”

“A self-hating Jew.”

The other agreed. “My hus­band,” she said, “would say you were an anti­se­mitic Jew.”

I stared at my col­leagues across a sud­den gap of estrange­ment I did not know how to bridge. I had never been called self-hating before, but I under­stood it meant that, in their eyes, I’d revealed myself as a Jew who accepted an anti­se­mitic def­i­n­i­tion of Jew­ish­ness. It was a logic I had heard often when I was in yeshiva, though my teach­ers always used it to explain the anti­semitism of non-Jews who were crit­i­cal of Israel: To sug­gest that there might be a per­spec­tive from which Israel’s exis­tence as a Jew­ish state was not self-evidently valid, my rebbes would say, in many dif­fer­ent ways, over and over again, was to sug­gest that the Jews had no right to claim such a state in the first place, which was also to imply that the Jews as a peo­ple ought not even to be.

Con­tinue read­ing

Reader, I Married Her

Tony Judt, a well-known his­to­rian, has writ­ten an engag­ing essay called “Girls! Girls! Girls!” for NYR­Blog, The New York Review of Books blog, about how our stance towards sex­ual behav­ior on (and, by impli­ca­tion, off) cam­pus has changed over the years. I don’t agree with every­thing he says – and he would prob­a­bly say it’s because I am a prod­uct of my (and his) times – but what he says is thought-provoking. Here are some snip­pets, which, taken out of con­text, may lose some of the irony that informs them in the original:

Shortly after I took office [in 1992 as chair of NYU’s His­tory Depart­ment], a second-year grad­u­ate stu­dent came by. A for­mer pro­fes­sional bal­le­rina inter­ested in East­ern Europe, she had been encour­aged to work with me. I was not teach­ing that semes­ter, so could have advised her to return another time. Instead, I invited her in. After a closed-door dis­cus­sion of Hun­gar­ian eco­nomic reforms, I sug­gested a course of inde­pen­dent study — begin­ning the fol­low­ing evening at a local restau­rant. A few ses­sions later, in a fit of bravado, I invited her to the pre­mière of Oleanna—David Mamet’s lame drama­ti­za­tion of sex­ual harass­ment on a col­lege campus.

How to explain such self-destructive behav­ior? What delu­sional uni­verse was mine, to sup­pose that I alone could pass untouched by the puni­tive prud­ery of the hour — that the bell of sex­ual cor­rect­ness would not toll for me? I knew my Fou­cault as well as any­one and was famil­iar with Fire­stone, Mil­lett, Brown­miller, Faludi, e tutte quante. To say that the girl had irre­sistible eyes and that my inten­tions were…unclear would avail me noth­ing. My excuse? Please Sir, I’m from the ’60s.

***

[T]he anx­i­eties of con­tem­po­rary sex­ual rela­tions offer occa­sional comic relief. When I was Human­i­ties dean at NYU, a promis­ing young pro­fes­sor was accused of improper advances by a grad­u­ate stu­dent in his depart­ment. He had appar­ently fol­lowed her into a sup­ply closet and declared his feel­ings. Con­fronted, the pro­fes­sor con­fessed all, beg­ging me not to tell his wife. My sym­pa­thies were divided: the young man had behaved fool­ishly, but there was no ques­tion of intim­i­da­tion nor had he offered to trade grades for favors. All the same, he was cen­sured. Indeed, his career was ruined — the depart­ment later denied him tenure because no women would take his courses. Mean­while, his “vic­tim” was offered the usual counseling.

Some years later, I was called to the Office of the Uni­ver­sity Lawyer. Would I serve as a wit­ness for the defense in a case against NYU being brought by that same young woman? Note, the lawyer warned me: “she” is really a “he” and is suing the uni­ver­sity for fail­ing to take seri­ously “her” needs as a trans­ves­tite. We shall fight the case but must not be thought insensitive.

So I appeared in Man­hat­tan Supreme Court to explain the com­plex­i­ties of aca­d­e­mic harass­ment to a bemused jury of plumbers and house­wives. The student’s lawyer pressed hard: “Were you not prej­u­diced against my client because of her trans­gen­dered iden­tity pref­er­ence?” “I don’t see how I could have been,” I replied. “I thought she was a woman — isn’t that what she wanted me to think?” The uni­ver­sity won the case.

***

Here as in so many other are­nas, we have taken the ’60s alto­gether too seri­ously. Sex­u­al­ity (or gen­der) is just as dis­tort­ing when we fix­ate upon it as when we deny it. Sub­sti­tut­ing gen­der (or “race” or “eth­nic­ity” or “me”) for social class or income cat­e­gory could only have occurred to peo­ple for whom pol­i­tics was a recre­ational avo­ca­tion, a pro­jec­tion of self onto the world at large.

Why should every­thing be about “me”? Are my fix­a­tions of sig­nif­i­cance to the Repub­lic? Do my par­tic­u­lar needs by def­i­n­i­tion speak to broader con­cerns? What on earth does it mean to say that “the per­sonal is polit­i­cal”? If every­thing is “polit­i­cal,” then noth­ing is. I am reminded of Gertrude Stein’s Oxford lec­ture on con­tem­po­rary lit­er­a­ture. “What about the woman ques­tion?” some­one asked. Stein’s reply should be embla­zoned on every col­lege notice board from Boston to Berke­ley: “Not every­thing can be about everything.”

Full dis­clo­sure: One rea­son this piece engages me as much as it does, is that I have the same response as Judt to the ques­tion he poses at the end of his post:

So how did I elude the harass­ment police, who surely were on my tail as I sur­rep­ti­tiously dated my bright-eyed ballerina?

Except in my case she was a dark-haired and com­pellingly dark-eyed woman from Iran. And I have made the answer my title.

Evangelical Christians Are Shocked – Shocked, I Tell You! – To Find Out Their Anti-Gay Rhetoric Might Encourage Uganda’s Push To Make Homosexuality A Capital Offense

Jef­frey Get­tle­man, in this New York Times arti­cle, writes about how three Evan­gel­i­cal Chris­tians from the United States–Scott Lively (click here to read quotes from his talk in Uganda), Caleb Lee Brun­didge and Exo­dus Inter­na­tional board mem­ber Don Schmierer – are now try­ing to dis­tance them­selves from an event in Uganda at which they spoke about “how to make gay peo­ple straight, how gay men often sodom­ized teenage boys and how ‘the gay move­ment is an evil insti­tu­tion’ whose goal is ‘to defeat the marriage-based soci­ety and replace it with a cul­ture of sex­ual promis­cu­ity.’ The rea­son for their backpedal­ing is that the event con­tributed to the cli­mate that led to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which would make homo­sex­u­al­ity a cap­i­tal crime. In a rhetor­i­cal move that is remark­ably sim­i­lar to the ways in which the reli­gious right tries to dis­tance itself from peo­ple who mur­der doc­tors that per­form abor­tions, each of these men or their orga­ni­za­tions has issued state­ments about how their mes­sage is one of love and com­pas­sion, not hatred and vio­lence. Read the arti­cle and fol­low some of the links. Their hypocrisy speaks for itself.

I do have to share, though, my favorite quote from Gettleman’s arti­cle. Refer­ring to the Ugan­dan Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Schmierer says, “That’s hor­ri­ble, absolutely hor­ri­ble. Some of the nicest peo­ple I have ever met are gay peo­ple.” (Makes me won­der if any of them are Black.)

Translating Classical Persian Poetry: Farid al-Din Attar’s “Ilahi-Nama”

One of eight major works that can reli­ably be ascribed to Attar, Ilahi-Nama (Book of God or, some­times, Divine Book) has, accord­ing to Ency­clo­pe­dia Iran­ica, been trans­lated once into Eng­lish, by John A. Boyle in 1976, and once into French, by F. Rouhani in 1961. Four of Attar’s eight works—Ilahi-Nama is part of this sub­set — are mys­ti­cal nar­ra­tives, each one deal­ing with a dif­fer­ent aspect of Sufi thought and expe­ri­ence. Ilahi-Nama’s sub­ject is zuhd, or asceti­cism, which Sufis under­stand to mean a dis­ci­plined stance of detach­ment and indif­fer­ence towards one’s desires so that one will not be ruled by them. This focus on the inte­rior world of human emo­tion dif­fer­en­ti­ates Ilahi-Nama from the other of Attar’s poems with which it is often com­pared, Man­teq al-tayr (Con­fer­ence of the Birds), his best known work in Eng­lish. The two poems are sim­i­lar in form (they are each frame sto­ries) and mes­sage (the key to enlight­en­ment exists within each human being, not in the exter­nal world), but the fram­ing nar­ra­tive of Man­teq al-tayr, an alle­gory about a group of birds in search of a king, is essen­tially a cri­tique of people’s need to find a mas­ter who will lead them on the path to true under­stand­ing. Ilahi-Nama, on the other hand, is about learn­ing to mas­ter oneself.

The fram­ing nar­ra­tive of Ilahi-Nama is about a caliph who asks his six sons what they desire most. The first son says he wants the daugh­ter of the king of the peris (faeries); the sec­ond wants to learn the art of magic; the third son desires Jamshid’s cup because it will reveal to him the secrets of the world; the fourth seeks the water of life; the fifth son cov­ets the ring Solomon used to con­trol demons; and the sixth son wants to mas­ter alchemy. As each son gives his answer, the father tells sto­ries to illus­trate, first, how shal­low and mate­ri­al­is­tic the son is for want­ing what he wants and, sec­ond, how the son should under­stand his desire so he can use it on the path to enlight­en­ment. None of the sons, how­ever, accept their father’s lessons at face value, argu­ing that he has mis­un­der­stood their desires and that the lessons he wants them to learn, there­fore, are mis­guided. When the father tells his first son what has come to be known as “The Tale of Mar­juma,” for exam­ple — about a beau­ti­ful and right­eous woman who, after her hus­band leaves on pil­grim­age to Mecca, must fend off a series of men who are so over­come with lust when they glimpse her beauty that they will stop at noth­ing to have her — the son accuses his father of want­ing to elim­i­nate sex. “God for­bid[!]” the father replies, explain­ing that “The Tale of Mar­juma” illus­trates how sex, prop­erly com­pre­hended and entered into, is a first step on the path to enlightenment:

But when your desire achieves apoth­e­o­sis,
sex gives birth to a love with­out lim­its;
and when this love is pushed by pas­sion to the edge
of its strength, spir­i­tual love emerges; and when
spir­i­tual love can grow no fur­ther, your soul
will van­ish into the Beloved’s end­less­ness. (My translation)

Given that the sur­face of the nar­ra­tive in “The Tale of Mar­juma” feels more like a Perils-of-Pauline-type story in which the depraved and debauched men get their come­up­pance than one about the spir­i­tual nature of sex­u­al­ity, the son’s mis­read­ing of the tale is an easy one to fall into. Such a read­ing, how­ever, fails to account for, among other things, the fact that not all the men who try to pos­sess the woman give in to their desires with­out a strug­gle. They are, in other words, nei­ther evil nor merely slaves to their desires; they are human and flawed and, more to the point, they are, in the end, able and will­ing to repent. Indeed, they must repent, for God has pun­ished them with a paral­y­sis from which — in an irony that is at the core of the story’s mean­ing — they can be healed only by con­fess­ing to the woman every­thing they did to her. Con­tinue read­ing

Richard Jeffrey Newman on The Power of Poetry

This past Sat­ur­day, my col­league and friend Mar­cia McNair inter­viewed me about my book of poems, The Silence Of Men, on her BlogTalk Radio show, The Power of Poetry. I hope you’ll give a listen.

Mar­cia is a per­cep­tive reader and won­der­ful inter­viewer and her ques­tions led me to see things in my poetry that I hadn’t seen before. My favorite part of the con­ver­sa­tion was about the poem called “Work­ing The Dot­ted Line,” which tells the story of the first time an old girl­friend and I had sex, and she was a vir­gin. What I liked best about Marcia’s read­ing of this piece was her notic­ing my mother’s pres­ence in the poem and how that started me talk­ing about some­thing I often encounter but have never given much seri­ous thought. Most of the men I know, even as adults, are deeply uncom­fort­able with their mother’s sex­u­al­ity, and I don’t under­stand it. Or, to be more accu­rate, while I under­stand intel­lec­tu­ally, I don’t get it emo­tion­ally. As well, they often it pro­foundly dis­turb­ing that I am not made uncom­fort­able not just by the idea of my mother as a sex­ual being, but by the fact that, when I was grow­ing up, I knew – that she made no effort to hide the fact (though she cer­tainly did not rub it in my face either) – that she had sex­ual rela­tion­ships with at least some of the men she dated. I even knew that my mother would occa­sion­ally go to bars, or danc­ing, where men would try to pick her up, or where she might try to pick some­one up her­self, and it didn’t bother me. Indeed, it seemed to me per­fectly nat­ural. Why wouldn’t my mother, who was in her 30s at the time, go out and have a good time, and do things that other sin­gle 30-year-old women did when they social­ized? My mother has been a sin­gle woman since I was around 12 years old, and I have always known that she had a sex life. More to the point, I have never expected her not to have one or to keep it hid­den from me. I met all, or at least most (as far as I know), of the men she dated when I was grow­ing up, and it never seemed strange to me or wrong or awk­ward that she should have men in her life or that I should know she was hav­ing sex with them. (Though it was often, I think, awk­ward for them.) I don’t really have much else to say about this for now, but it is some­thing I want to write about, some­thing I had never really thought to write about until Mar­cia brought it up. Here is the poem:

Work­ing The Dot­ted Line

I don’t remem­ber what vaca­tion
I was home for, or how Beth
man­aged to be in New York
on the one day we’d have
the apart­ment to our­selves,
but I think I recall
my mother’s hang­ing crys­tals
scat­ter­ing the after­noon sun­light
in small rain­bows that shim­mied
on the walls and on our skin,
and I can still see Beth stretch­ing
ner­vous along the length
of the daybed’s mat­tress,
and my fin­gers trac­ing
the ridges of her ribs
as she tugged at my erec­tion.
I’m ready. Let’s do it!

It was her first time, not mine,
but it was my first con­dom,
and I’d for­got­ten to read the direc­tions,
so I stood there grow­ing soft,
squint­ing at the print on the box
telling me the step-by-step
I needed to learn
was on the inside.
I ripped the card­board open
and sat read­ing on the bed’s edge,
thumb­ing the foil-packed
lubri­cated cir­cle,
try­ing to visu­al­ize
what I had to do.
Beth reached into my lap
to ready me again,
but when I tore along the dot­ted line,
our pro­tec­tion, like a gold­fish
taken by hand from its bowl,
slipped from my grasp
and landed under the desk
my mother sat at
when she paid the bills.
When I picked it up,
it was cov­ered with the dust
and small par­ti­cles of dirt
that set­tle daily into all our lives,
so I didn’t put the next one on
till I was kneel­ing hard
between Beth’s open legs.
She raised her­self on her elbows,
smil­ing that the sec­ond skin
we needed to keep us safe
should make me so clumsy,
but once I let go
of what the instruc­tions called
the reser­voir tip — I thought
of the dams hold­ing water back
in the moun­tains near where she lived
and what would hap­pen if they broke—
her smile dis­ap­peared
and bunch­ing the sheet beneath her
into her fists, she lifted
her butt onto the pil­low
we’d heard would make things easier.

I bent for a quick look
at where I had to go
and climbed up onto her,
try­ing with one hand
to be grace­ful and accu­rate
and with the other
to bal­ance over her
with­out falling.
At her first gri­mace
I pulled back. No!
She shook her head, eyes
clamped shut and then
star­ing wide, her voice
a whis­per through clenched teeth,
Just do it! Get it over with!

So I entered her again, try­ing
from the tight­ness in her face
to gauge how hard not to push,
but when she cried out any­way,
I left her body one more time
and crouched over her,
my latex-covered penis
nos­ing down­ward
towards her navel,
and I placed my palms
against her cheeks,
I can­not hurt you like this!

Look, it’s going to hurt, she said.
There’s no other way.
And I’ve cho­sen you!

And since I wanted so much to be her choice,
I kissed her eye­lids and her mouth,
and with my eyes buried
in the hol­low of her neck
moved slowly in
till I felt her flesh
stop giv­ing way. Then,
with one arm around her rib cage
and the other around her head,
hold­ing her tight against my chest,
I pulled down and thrust up
in a sin­gle motion I breathed through
like I was lift­ing heavy boxes.
She screamed into the mus­cle
just above my col­lar bone,
bit deep into my flesh,
and, as she bled onto me,
I bled.

We said noth­ing after­wards.
We didn’t cud­dle
or smile at each other as we dressed
or walk hand in hand
to the train that took her home;
and I did not ask her
what her silence meant,
nor she mine, but if she had,
I would’ve told her this:
My word­less­ness was shame.
I’d no idea how not to hurt her;
and I would’ve told her
I wanted it to do over,
which is what I’d tell her even now.

I Know I’ve Had Orgasms That Changed Me

A friend of mine who does not like jazz – espe­cially any­thing that has a sax­o­phone in it – told me once about a con­ver­sa­tion she and her ex-husband, a seri­ous jazz-lover, had over din­ner with a cou­ple, the male half of which also loved jazz, while the female half felt sim­i­larly to my friend. This sec­ond woman defined her dis­like by say­ing some­thing along the lines of, “I don’t need to sit and lis­ten to a bunch of men mas­tur­bat­ing,” a ref­er­ence both to the empha­sis in jazz on the impro­vised solo and to the fact that most jazz musi­cians – or maybe most well-known jazz musi­cians – seem to be men. My friend said she felt an imme­di­ate click of right­ness when her din­ner guest made this state­ment, which led to a long dis­cus­sion about the com­par­i­son between music and sex, between impro­vi­sa­tion and solo sex – though, of course, jazz impro­vi­sa­tion is not usu­ally done in soli­tude. I have writ­ten else­where about the con­nec­tion I made early on in my own sex­ual awak­en­ing between the orches­trat­ing of sex­ual plea­sure dur­ing love­mak­ing and music, but what my friend’s story made me think about was how, say, a cer­tain kind of jazz solo, where the musi­cian explores sub­tle nuances of melody and har­mony, or the var­i­ous ways in which you can slice up a beat to cre­ate dif­fer­ent rhyth­mic tex­tures, cor­re­sponds to the kind of mas­tur­ba­tion in which you use the plea­sure you are giv­ing your­self to explore your­self, either through the fan­tasies that arise while you mas­tur­bate or through the dif­fer­ent kinds of aware­ness your solo love­mak­ing gives you of your own body; and then I thought about how rock solos or blues solos or the large solo con­certs that Keith Jar­rett once gave all have an ana­log in mas­tur­ba­tion, from the kind that is just a release of sex­ual ten­sion to the kind that is an affir­ma­tion in deep sad­ness and/or joy – and/or the entire range of emo­tions it is pos­si­ble to feel dur­ing sex, which means pretty much all the emo­tions of which human beings are capa­ble – of the fact that you are alive, which for me is what defines the sound of the blues, to the kind that is large and com­plexly moti­vated and that you may never fully understand.

Mas­tur­ba­tion is, as all sex is, a work­ing through of who we are and how we feel about our­selves, of what we wish for, of what we wish to avoid, of the his­tory of our bod­ies, of every­thing that makes us human in the capac­ity of our bod­ies to expe­ri­ence that human­ity; and there is a way in which sex is the cre­ation of a sym­bol of that human­ity: in the plea­sures we move through on our way to orgasm, not because orgasm is the only and nec­es­sary goal of sex – though in mas­tur­ba­tion orgasm usu­ally is the point – but because each orgasm, whether we are con­scious of it or not, is some­thing to which we have to give mean­ing, and mean­ing requires his­tory, not only the spe­cific his­tory of the sen­sa­tions that brought you to this par­tic­u­lar orgasm, but the larger per­sonal and cul­tural his­tory that each of those sen­sa­tions taps into. I know I’ve had orgasms that changed me. Some were soli­tary and some were shared, but all of them cap­tured a truth about myself that I needed to face if I was going to grow, sex­u­ally and otherwise.

This sym­bolic aspect of sex – which may or may not be an accu­rate way of talk­ing about these things, but which makes sense to me – reminds me as well of some­thing I read a long time ago in Suzanne Langer’s book, Feel­ing and Form about how music is the sym­bolic rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the process of human emo­tion and that it is this sym­bol which the com­poser cre­ates on the page and that the per­former plays into exis­tence when he or she per­forms; and so it occurs to me that sex, solo or oth­er­wise, is the play­ing into exis­tence of that part of our­selves that is wait­ing to become, and some­times we will under­stand what we are becom­ing in and through sex, and some­times sex is what opens us up to the fact that this under­stand­ing is what we need to find.

So I am won­der­ing: What have peo­ple out there under­stood? What have they found? Which are the orgasms that have changed you?

Cross posted on Alas.

Thinking About Condoms for the First Time in a Long Time — 2

Where I lived in the early 1970s, sixth grade was when boys got to see the movie – or maybe it was a nar­rated film strip with line draw­ings – about erec­tions, noc­tur­nal emis­sions, men­strual peri­ods and such (girls got to see it in fifth grade).[1. I have moved this post over from my other blog. (Click for Part One.) This way, when I finally get around to writ­ing Parts 3 and 4, they will all be in the same place. I see each post in this series as one sec­tion of a sin­gle piece of writ­ing, not as a dis­crete essay unto itself. As a result, while each sec­tion may con­tain its own argu­ment, it is not really pos­si­ble to know whether an issue that you feel is impor­tant will or will not be left out of the argu­ment made by the entire piece if you’ve only read a part of the series. I cer­tainly do not mean this caveat to be, in any way, an inoc­u­la­tion against cri­tique, but given the mod­u­lar nature of post­ing to blogs and of how blogs are read, it is a caveat I’d like you to keep in mind if you find your­self won­der­ing, and com­ment­ing on, why I have not addressed some­thing you feel needs to be addressed. Thanks. Also, to pro­tect the pri­vacy of the indi­vid­u­als involved, some names have been changed and some iden­ti­fy­ing details have been fic­tion­al­ized.] Sev­enth grade, if I remem­ber cor­rectly, was when they started teach­ing about sex itself, which I assume would have included a dis­cus­sion of birth con­trol, though I am not sure, since a paper­work mix-up placed me in the health class that did not include sex edu­ca­tion. So I know I did not learn about birth con­trol there; nor, I am equally sure, did I learn about it in the yeshiva I started attend­ing when I was in eighth grade, where the only classroom-based “sex edu­ca­tion” I remem­ber receiv­ing was in Rabbi W’s all-boy gemara class. He would preach at us week after week about the evils of co-ed danc­ing – it was the sea­son of sweet 16 par­ties for the girls – and explain how it inevitably lead to unwanted teenage preg­nancy. (The boys and girls watch each other danc­ing, you see, and then they want to slow dance, and so they are touch­ing each other, and then one thing leads to another and, sooner or later they find some­place dark, and before you know it, her belly is big and both their lives are ruined.) My class­mates and I talked about sex, of course, but since none of us were even think­ing about actu­ally hav­ing it, what we talked about tended to be the­o­ret­i­cal and had lit­tle do with prac­ti­cal­i­ties like pre­vent­ing an unwanted preg­nancy. Three inci­dents of such talk­ing stand out in my mem­ory, from 8th, 9th and 10th grades respectively.

I first learned about the baseball-diamond-as-metaphor-for-sex in 8th grade, because the big ques­tion was whether or not, at someone’s bar mitz­vah to which I had not been invited, Robert “got to sec­ond” with Sharon over or under the shirt. “Over or under,” of course, was a huge ques­tion, one that my class­mates pon­dered at great length, won­der­ing why she would let him get that far, how cool it was that he could get her to let him get that far; or maybe he didn’t have to do all that much per­suad­ing, maybe under­neath the “good girl” image that Sharon so care­fully cul­ti­vated was a whole other per­son that those of us who knew her only in school had never met; and did this make her a “slut,” and how, pre­cisely, did get­ting that far, did her let­ting him get that far, oblig­ate him to her in terms of com­mit­ment; and what the hell – some peo­ple were smart enough to ask – did com­mit­ment mean in ninth grade anyway?

I could not imag­ine why what Robert and Sharon did or did not do with each other was any­one else’s busi­ness, nor did I think that the ques­tion of when a girl stepped over the line and became a “slut” was any­thing other than stu­pid, but I was new to the school, though, which meant no one thought my opin­ion mat­tered very much, and so I was almost never included in these con­ver­sa­tions. Still, I do remem­ber one time that I spoke up, ask­ing – in response to I don’t remem­ber what – some far-less-articulate ver­sion of the fol­low­ing ques­tions: The whole point of touch­ing a girl’s breasts is to bring her plea­sure, right? What is wrong with Sharon want­ing that plea­sure or with Robert want­ing to give it to her? And why are we talk­ing about it like Robert was run­ning bases and Sharon was play­ing (inef­fec­tive) defense? You make it sound like sex is a com­pe­ti­tion that the girl has to pre­tend to lose, just a lit­tle bit at a time, in order for both peo­ple to get what they want.

I was not naïve. I knew that boys did in fact put “notches on their bed­posts” depend­ing on how far they got with any par­tic­u­lar girl, and I under­stood that girls who went too far put that hard-to-pin-down thing called their rep­u­ta­tion at great risk. I knew these things, how­ever, as facts, and while I accepted them as infor­ma­tion I needed to know about how the world worked, I did not really under­stand them, and, more to the point, I did not like them. Any­way, no one said any­thing when I was fin­ished talk­ing. All I have is a pic­ture of my class­mates’ faces turned towards me in a momen­tary, non-comprehending stare, and then they turned back towards each other and con­tin­ued talk­ing in the terms that were rel­e­vant to them. Con­tinue read­ing

Thinking About Condoms for the First Time in a Long Time — 1

Recent events in my life[1. I have moved this post over from my other blog, and I will even­tu­ally move Part 2 here as well. This way, when I finally get around to writ­ing Parts 3 and 4, they will all be in the same place. I see each post in this series as one sec­tion of a sin­gle piece of writ­ing, not as a dis­crete essay unto itself. As a result, while each sec­tion may con­tain its own argu­ment, it is not really pos­si­ble to know whether an issue that you feel is impor­tant will or will not be left out of the argu­ment made by the entire piece if you’ve only read a part of the series. I cer­tainly do not mean this caveat to be, in any way, an inoc­u­la­tion against cri­tique, but given the mod­u­lar nature of post­ing to blogs and of how blogs are read, it is a caveat I’d like you to keep in mind if you find your­self won­der­ing, and com­ment­ing on, why I have not addressed some­thing you feel needs to be addressed. Thanks. Also, to pro­tect the pri­vacy of the indi­vid­u­als involved, some names have been changed and some iden­ti­fy­ing details have been fic­tion­al­ized.] have started me think­ing deeply, for the first time in many years, about con­doms and what it means to use them. Not that I have failed to take con­doms seri­ously. I have worn them when I needed to, refused to have inter­course when they were not avail­able, and I have a ten-year-old son who knows what con­doms are and why, all else being equal, every­one who has sex should use them. I am, though, also old enough to remem­ber (and boy does it feel strange to use that expres­sion) when safe sex was pretty much exclu­sively about birth con­trol. I might have learned that using con­doms would help keep me from catch­ing or trans­mit­ting gon­or­rhea or syphilis, the only two STDs I knew about at the time, but I’m not sure. Instead, the focus in my sex­ual edu­ca­tion when I reached puberty was on the need for a young cou­ple plan­ning to have non-procreational sex to do every­thing they could to pre­vent the woman from becom­ing preg­nant, and that meant, for men, being will­ing to wear a con­dom unless the woman was on the pill, using a diaphragm or had an IUD.

It did not occur to me that there might be more to pre-AIDS male het­ero­sex­ual respon­si­bil­ity than sim­ply keep­ing a bar­rier between my semen and the body of the woman in whom I would oth­er­wise have left it until I was hav­ing sex reg­u­larly with a woman I thought I was falling in love with – we were each in our early 20s and using only con­doms – and I real­ized I did not know what she would do, or even what she thought she would do, if she became preg­nant. Con­doms, after all, do fail. I was as cer­tain as I could be that I did not want to become a father, but I was also cer­tain that the ulti­mate choice of what to do if she did become preg­nant was hers. So, if a con­dom did fail, it sud­denly occurred to me, and she decided not to have an abor­tion, I would be a father whether I wanted to or not. I knew I’d do my best to live up to the respon­si­bil­i­ties that father­hood would bring with it, but I did not think my rela­tion­ship with that woman would sur­vive. Not only would I have resented her for hav­ing made the deci­sion that made me a father, but I did not yet know if the love I was begin­ning to feel for her was, as they say, a love that would last, and hav­ing to be par­ents to a child – for­get whether or not we would have, or could have, got­ten mar­ried – was not the cir­cum­stance under which I wanted to find out.

I will not retell here the story of what hap­pened when I tried to talk to my girl­friend about my con­cerns, except to say that I was com­pletely unpre­pared for her to tell me she had no idea what she would do if she got preg­nant. It wasn’t that I expected her to know with 100% cer­tainty what action she would take, or that I was look­ing for some kind of con­trac­tual agree­ment that would insu­late me if she at first said she would have an abor­tion and then changed her mind; nor was I think­ing that the only answer accept­able to me was the one I hoped she would give, i.e., that she would have an abor­tion. What I wanted, first and fore­most, was that we should talk, openly and hon­estly, and then, once each of us knew where the other stood, we could make a deci­sion about what we should do in response. It had never entered my mind, though, that the per­son who would be preg­nant if preg­nancy hap­pened would even think about start­ing to have sex with­out some sense of what she would do.

Given that my girl­friend had not thought about this, or at the very least was unwill­ing to tell me what she thought about this, I did not see how we could con­tinue hav­ing sex, or, to be more pre­cise, how I could con­tinue hav­ing sex, know­ing first that our fuck­ing put me at risk of becom­ing an unwill­ing father and, sec­ond, that if I did become an unwill­ing father, it would prob­a­bly mean the end of our rela­tion­ship. I’d been very happy with the sex we were hav­ing before we started fuck­ing; I assumed my girl­friend felt the same way; and I saw noth­ing wrong with rolling things back to our pre-intercourse days until we were able to talk about this. I wanted to be with her, plain and sim­ple, and that desire far out­weighed for me the plea­sures of putting my latex-covered penis in her vagina. So, more or less – at my insis­tence, not hers – we stopped fuck­ing. Con­tinue read­ing