Kissing rules

Amber at Prettier than Napoleon gets the cap tap for linking to three posts about kissing, including this one from the New York Times: Who Changes the Kissing Rules? Daniel Hamermesh writes:

A female friend who I hadn’t seen in several months and I greeted each other yesterday with the usual hug and one-cheek kiss. If I had done this in 1970 I would have been looked on as really weird, or I might even have been slapped.

The social norm on kissing has changed in the U.S.; and the norm elsewhere is different: In much of Europe the two-cheek greeting between friends of the opposite sex is standard.

On my first return trip to the Netherlands, I assumed that two-cheek kissing was the norm there. That nearly cost me a broken nose, as the norm there is now the three-cheek greeting kiss. My Dutch friend tells me that the norm changed in the 1980’s or so.

Why do norms change? Does some highly visible individual start the new custom? Do we adopt it from elsewhere (which can’t explain the Dutch three-cheek kiss), so that we Americans might soon be doing an Arab or Latin male-to-male hug/kiss?

I’m a physically affectionate person, raised at least partly in a physically affectionate family. Though my mother’s family was, in keeping with WASP tradition, less demonstrative, my father (raised by central European ethnic Jews) was always a hugger — and a kisser. I grew up taking the kisses from both my parents for granted, and was rather surprised when I realized, perhaps around first grade, that while other mothers kissed both their children and fathers kissed their daughters, mine was the only Papa who seemed to be publicly kissing his sons. Indeed, my only memories of squirming away from any adult touch in my entire childhood came as a result of my embarrassment at my father’s kisses. Dad always kissed me on the cheek or (less often) on the head, and I was very eager to discourage this behavior in public, for fear of being teased by other boys.

In time, of course, I came to appreciate my father’s demonstrativeness. Some of my cousins on my mother’s side grew up shaking hands with their fathers and no more; I know of two brothers who first hugged their fathers, awkwardly, on their wedding days. I’m more than willing to overthrow WASP convention for the sake of manifesting my adoration on my children of both sexes; from the time they are small, my kids are going to be kissed.

I’ve run, over the years, into many subcultures of male kissing. With the gay male buddies I made in college, I began to hug and kiss them much as I did my female friends; these were not sexual kisses but simply signs of affection used primarily at “hello” and “goodbye”. Even among some of my gay friends, there was a clear self-consciousness about the function of these platonic smooches — there was an awareness, sometimes remarked upon, that we were doing something counter-cultural. And for ostensibly straight men to hug and kiss gay men was, at least in my circle of friends in the Bay Area in the mid-to-late 1980s, a sign of one’s comfort level with one’s own sexuality and masculinity. To be uncomfortable with hugging and kissing gay men was as clear a marker of insecurity as trembling hands and knocking knees.

My wife and I study at the Kabbalah Centre. In the Kabbalah community, I’ve met loads of Israelis — and found myself delighted with that particular culture’s kissing protocol. Men and women kiss each other on two cheeks (but not three), and men often kiss each other on one cheek as well. Israeli men, particularly former soldiers, are not renowned for either androgyny or subtlety; it’s a delight to watch these lads of all ages demonstrate so much physical affection towards one another. I’ve hugged and kissed a lot of men since I came to the Centre, and it’s a comfortable and safe culture in which to be immersed.

In youth ministry, I often follow the “if it moves, hug it” philosophy. I say “often” rather than “always” because I recognize that while most young people are (whether they know it or not) hungry for safe and affectionate touch from adults whom they have grown to trust, I know that others (for any number of reasons ranging from abuse to autism to simply not being that sort of kid) experience most embraces as violating. I trust my instincts, and don’t foist affection on those whom I don’t know well.

But those boys and girls who do want hugs can always have them from me, and sometimes – this depends on the kid and the situation — a kiss as well. With teens I work with, the only place I generally kiss is on the forehead. It can function, in the right setting (particularly after a talk) as a kind of benediction. When I was in college, a priest who mentored me kissed me a few times on my forehead — I experienced it as nonsexual, utterly non-violating, and appropriately intimate. It was what I needed. I don’t kiss most young people with whom I work, mind you, but sometimes (again, trusting those ENFP instincts) I do.

The rules about kissing are many and varied, and as the Times piece points out, always in flux between and within cultures. I’m a happy kisser, though even I have qualms about kissing anyone other than romantic partners on the lips. I know families in which parents and children and siblings kiss on the lips; I have friends who kiss each other without the slightest sexual intent on the lips. Somehow, for me, the lips are a charged erogenous zone in the way no other part of the body above the neck can be. I’ll kiss foreheads and cheeks (and, much less often, usually by accident, noses). But I will do all that I can to avoid kissing anyone other than my wife on the mouth, though I won’t push a friend away in wrath if he or she drops a peck below my nose and above my chin. It’s an artificial and arbitrary boundary, to be sure, like all such boundaries, but it’s mine. But even in this, I am inconsistent, as I happily permit dogs and chinchillas to kiss me on the mouth, and I return the favor without, obviously, any carnal intent.

Feel free to share kissing thoughts.

Movie update

As I’ve mentioned before, my wife and I tend to see almost all our movies in the period between Christmas and Valentine’s Day, roughly corresponding to “awards season” in the entertainment industry (a business in which my wife is at least occasionally immersed). I’m not done seeing all the nominees, so I’m not ready to do a top ten list, but so far can say that “Milk”, “The Wrestler”, and “Last Chance Harvey”, three utterly different films, are my favorites of the year so far.

I was moderately disappointed in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”; moderately pleased by “Slumdog Millionaire” and “Doubt”; delighted by “Gran Torino” and, just today, absolutely appalled by “Revolutionary Road”. Other than lovely costume design (look, another green lounge shirt!), the Sam Mendes film didn’t work for me at all. (I admit to not having liked the novel when I read it years ago in a seminar.) I still need to see “The Reader”, “Frost/Nixon”, and “Rachel Getting Married.”

What have you liked? What else do I need to see? Disagree with me about the awfulness of “Revolutionary Road”? Share in the comments section at your leisure.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Gazing at Gaza and watching “the Wrestler”: some thoughts on when to look and when to turn away

I’ve avoided blogging about the Israeli incursion into Gaza for the relatively sensible reason that I have very little original to contribute. I’ve been heartsick at the violence, at the images I see online and on television. I follow my usual rule for looking at images of violence and war: I set aside a few minutes when I feel I’m in a reasonably reflective space, and I spend a short while (never more than half an hour) absorbing what I’m seeing. I know that compared to so many, I lead a life of tremendous privilege and safety; I cannot presume to understand fully what goes through the mind of a child in Gaza or a young soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces. I can imagine, however, and visual images serve as catalysts for that imagining. Because before I can do anything else that might be remotely helpful, I’ve got to do the first task of the global bystander: I’ve got to acknowledge, I’ve got to witness, I’ve got — to the best of my ability — look.

One of the reasons I find pornography so problematic (even as I grow less doctrinaire on the subject of how to deal with sex work from a feminist perspective) is because of this sense that what we gaze at matters. If there’s one thing that’s caused me to be more of a jerk than anything else in my life, it’s the failure to empathize. And for me — and I’m willing to admit this is not a universal response at all — repeatedly using pornography did impact my ability to empathize with my real, flesh-and-blood sexual partners. For me, and again, only for me, connecting my arousal to a one-dimensional image rather than an actual human being made it much harder to connect with girlfriends, wives and lovers. My anti-pornography feelings are, on a gut level, derived from my own admittedly compulsive use of sexually explicit imagery in my younger years. One of the many ways in which I honor not only my marriage but my sense of what I want sex to be is by avoiding looking at porn.

I’ve learned, however, to distinguish between “using” an image for my sexual arousal (which, in my singular experience, damages my empathy) and “witnessing” an image for the sake of creating greater empathy. That sounds like so much psychobabble, so let me offer an example. The best film I’ve seen this awards season so far is the captivating Mickey Rourke vehicle, The Wrestler. It’s a graphic film; several of the wrestling scenes are barbaric. I had to force myself to keep my eyes on the screen at times, trusting that in this context, taking in the brutality was a necessary part of understanding the life the central character lived. I can’t speak to the realism of the scenes, as I have no brief for professional wrestling, but can say that my own discomfort at the violence helped raise compassion for the protagonist. Similarly, Marisa Tomei’s character in the film portrays a stripper; in one or two scenes, she dances nude. I haven’t gone to a strip club in more than a decade; staring at a performer’s breasts is not something I do anymore. But in this film, the nudity worked perfectly — it was connected to one of the film’s larger themes, about the way in which bodies are commodified and the way in which those who make their living with their flesh hold on to sovereignty despite being brutalized, despite being ogled.

I wasn’t aroused by Tomei, but I was moved. In this case, it was good and right for me to look. (That doesn’t mean I’m positing arousal as the enemy; it’s not. The enemy is the failure of empathy, and it is true that for some of us, broken as we are, sexual arousal, like anger, makes empathy more difficult. That’s what makes insisting on one’s right to sex in a relationship so toxic — another topic that comes up ’round here a lot). The husband who demands his wife have sex against her will to satisfy his needs is offering an obvious example. Though the story in “The Wrestler” was fictional, the realism was undeniable — and at least for me and my wife, the effect of that realism was deeply moving. I’m not any more intrigued by professional wrestling and strip clubs, but I came out of the film in a reflective mood. What I had seen, what I had taken in, had touched me. And though my compassion was directed towards fictional characters (though there was admiration, too, for Rourke and Tomei), it was genuine. And anything that makes me feel more of that compassion for other people is probably a good thing. Continue reading

Friday Random Ten: in the warm midwinter edition

Amy Millan and Emily Haines are two new discoveries from the holiday break. I’ve never been a fan of the Who, but #7 is an obvious exception to that rule. Haines’ take on the Neil Young classic is marvelous, and Millan’s song is the one I’ve had in my head all week.

1. “Broken Things”, Lucy Kaplansky
2. “The Moth”, Aimee Mann
3. “Gillian”, The Waifs
4. “It’s a Shame”, Third Day
5. “World Spins Madly On”, the Weepies
6. “Losing You”, Amy Millan
7. “Love Reign O’er Me”, The Who
8. “The Maid Needs a Maid”, Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton
9. “Holiday Inn”, Elton John
10. “Tear-Stained Eye”, Son Volt

Bonus Track One: “Family”, Dar Williams
Bonus Track Two: “Nineteen Sixty-Nine”, Easterhouse

Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009

Father Richard John Neuhaus died this morning at the age of 72, following a long battle with complications from cancer.

Neuhaus was the founder, editor, and publisher of First Things, the flagship journal for Catholic neo-conservatism, and the only right-of-center magazine to which I have ever regularly subscribed. Neuhaus, a former Lutheran pastor who converted to Rome and was ordained as a priest, was an extraordinary writer. It was the quality of his prose that drew me to him many years ago, when my friend Steve gave me a copy of the wonderful Death on a Friday Afternoon. Steve was — and is — a strong evangelical conservative with latent Catholic tendencies, and he hoped to bring me “over to the dark side” by playing on my fondness for first-rate writing. “Death on a Friday Afternoon” is a book I have returned to again and again in recent Lents, and though I am too progressive in my politics to have much taste for most atonement theories, Neuhaus’ case for the efficaciousness of Christ’s suffering on the cross is as good as any I’ve read. (And I’ve read a lot on atonement theory, having worked on the subject for a year or two in graduate school.)

Neuhaus was a vigorous defender of the idea that faith was vital to how we participated in the struggle for the common good, a point he made in his earlier and very influential The Naked Public Square. His greatest wrath was reserved for those who tried to excise religious motivations from political discussions. He ridiculed the idea that any serious believer (be he or she Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or what-have-you) could so compartmentalize his or her life so that politics and faith had no influence upon each other. Our faith, Neuhaus reminded his readers again and again, shapes our world view — and we participate in public life based upon that world view. Respect and tolerance had their place (and Neuhaus proved it by having friends across the ideological and theological spectrum, including, famously, the radical Methodist Stanley Hauerwas), but respect and tolerance did not preclude the obligation to bring one’s own most deeply held convictions into the political sphere. Father Neuhaus was an influence on many important conservative Catholic voices, and was, without question, the priest closest to the upper echelons of the Bush Administration. George W. Bush called him simply “Father Richard”.

Neuhaus, partnering with Chuck Colson of Watergate fame, was a linchpin of the movement known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together. A former Protestant, Neuhaus retained deep and abiding affection and respect for those churches not in communion with Rome. A keen culture warrior, Neuhaus was eager to overcome decades of distrust and hostility between conservative Catholics and right-wing Protestants. Some of his motive was political: American conservatism needed unity rather than division in the struggle against liberalism. Some of his motive was theological: like most serious Christians, the divisions in the body of Christ wounded and saddened him. ECT, as it is known, has been an important project, and has brought in moderates and progressives as well as traditionalists. In recent years, Neuhaus took an interest in Catholic-Mormon dialogue, and published several pieces in First Things sympathetic to the LDS movement. Continue reading

Thursday Short Poem: Storace’s “Runners”

There are many fine poems about running. This one is easily my favorite, and I want it read at my funeral. But Patricia Storace is on to something here about the way in which sometimes, some of us run to conquer.

Runners

Listen: the keychains of the constellations are rattling the stars;
Morning’s coming back, morning’s coming home,
and fanned-out erstwhile landowners,
sleeping in flats like decks of cards
at the signal abandon their deepest dreams;
unraveling the ribbons of the present, they slide
onto terraces, draw blinds and open the city’s shutters
to survey its superterranean contours.
There’s no land left; just ample deeds outside,
an outlook at most minimally rural
the stripes of green unbearable as yearning
and for some, afflicted with vertigo,
a prospect of panoramic suicide.
Still, dawn drives you down seven flights of stairs
each morning to attempt a fresh translation
of the homesteader’s ancestral daylight craving
which, disinherited, you share,
to cover his land like the rising sun,
to ride out early through his fields
and wake each inch with a fertile eye.
Instead, you run;
the estate reborn beneath your feet is paved,
your muscles reclaim the concrete acres, fugitives
competing with the cars, that order of chrome celibates
who groan beneath day-glo habits, confessing
their futile wish to live.
Limbs broadcast with the seed of motion,
plowmen only of anatomy,
tending the last of inheritance,
your lungs and thighs your patrimony,
your body your plantation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Towards the “pleasure-affirming vision”: a review of the magisterial “Yes Means Yes”

In mid-December, I ordered a copy of “Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti. YMY is an anthology filled with essays by writers well-known in the feminist blogosphere, and others who aren’t; by cis- and trans-gendered men and women; by people across the sexual (and chronological) identity spectrum. But each piece in the collection offers a new and different insight into the questions of rape, consent, power and pleasure. Taken as a whole, these 27 essays constitute a visionary and immensely important contribution to the work of creating a new sexual dynamic between men and women, between men, between women, and within ourselves.

The foreword to the anthology comes from feminist comedian Margaret Cho, who in her familiar funny and painfully insightful style, sets the tone for the collection. She writes about the complexity of that simple word, “yes”, and the insidious variety of ways in which our sexist cultural rules work to extract that monosyllable from women. Though the title of the collection is “Yes Means Yes!”, Cho and the editors understand that an authentic “yes!” can only come in a dynamic where “no!” can be said safely. Just as it is infuriating and exasperating to have one’s genuine “yes!” overanalyzed, shamed, or denied, there are also huge psychic consequences to saying “yes” just to placate, to soothe, to avoid a fight. Cho writes:

I am surprised by how much sex I have had in my life that I didn’t want to have. Not exactly what’s considered “real” rape, or “date” rape, like my first time, although it is a kind of rape of the spirit — a dishonest portrayal or distortion of my own desire in order to appease another person — so it wasn’t rape at gunpoint, but rape as the alternative to having to explain my reasons for not wanting to have sex…

Often I would initiate the encounter just to get it over with, so it would be behind me, so it would be done. It is the worst feeling; it is like emotional prostitution, emotional whoring. You don’t get paid in dollars, you get paid in averted arguments…

I said yes to partners I never wanted in the first place, because to say no at any point after saying yes would make the whole relationship a lie, so I had to keep saying yes in order to keep the “no” I felt a secret. This is such a messed-up way to live, such an awful way to love.

It’s dangerous for any feminist man to claim knowledge of “how women think”, but in countless journals and in group or private discussions, I’ve heard women say almost exactly what Cho says here. And I’ve heard it from one or two of my exes from years ago, women who were honest enough (and often, angry enough) to call me on my own privilege, my own presumption, and the thousand ways in which I (who ought to have known better) helped to create a dynamic where I needed soothing. One of the most humbling experiences I’ve been through is listening to a lover recount to me, in excruciatingly candid detail, the way in which I worked (with her complicity) to silence her “No”, to “get” her “yes”. This is not to suggest that my male pro-feminism is rooted in a desire to make amends, or even worse, to reclaim some lost pride. But a great many men are oblivious to the ways in which their sense of entitlement — and women’s culturally ingrained people-pleasing behavior — work to make sex legally consensual but emotionally unwanted. For men who care about their partners, the realization that a woman has had sex to soothe, to placate, or “just get it over with”, is and ought to be devastating. And it ought to be an impetus to action, to candor, to hard work, and to conversation. Cho’s foreword sets a tone for all of that, while serving to remind us in scathingly honest fashion of the consequences of remaining silent. Continue reading

Bowflex boy, found

Back in July, I wrote a post called “Bowflex Boy” and Kristy McNichol: desire, celebrity, and the sexiness of earthy reality. It got a lot of comments, but at the time, I couldn’t find any of the 1980s-era photos of “Bowflex Boy”, who “caused” me a brief and intense period of insecurity. There were many pictures in the ad campaign, but reader Sarah has tracked down one image that closely matches my memory, and she sent me the link tonight, and here it is. The story is now complete.

Celebrated men of Monterey County: some thoughts on Leon Panetta and Clint Eastwood

Long post a’ comin’.

Leon Panetta is to be the new CIA chief, according to president-elect Obama’s transition office. Before I’d had a chance to read it on the wires or see it on CNN, my mother called me from Carmel with the news, describing herself as “overjoyed.” We’re big Panetta fans in our family; Leon Panetta represented my home district on the Monterey Peninsula from 1976 until 1993. Though my first political memory was of working for William Roth in the 1974 California Democratic gubernatorial primary, one of my earliest memories of political victory came when I “precincted” with my mother for Leon Panetta in 1976, when he upset incumbent Republican Burt Talcott to take over California’s 16th congressional district seat. I’ve only met him at fundraisers, but I went to high school with two of his sons, and the family — and the Congressman — were much liked and admired on the Peninsula.

Panetta is a fiscal moderate, a strong environmentalist, and a terrific policy wonk. Though he doesn’t have a background as a spy, he’s the ideal person to come in and restore restraint and responsibility to an agency that many believe has run amok under the Bush Administration. Panetta is the wise sort who will balance issues of national security with responsibility to the Constitution. I’ve already called Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to express my strong support for Leon Panetta, and encourage my like-minded readers to do the same, or to email her here.

I’m also thinking this morning about Clint Eastwood, having just seen his new film Gran Torino. The connection between Eastwood and Panetta is a geographic one: both are men with whom I share a home town, Carmel by-the-Sea. (Eastwood was raised, however, in Piedmont in the Bay Area — the same town in which my mother grew up. Eastwood’s father was one year ahead of my grandfather at Piedmont High.) For two years in the 1980s, both held elected office, as Clint was a surprisingly decent mayor of Carmel for two years. And while Panetta was our most prominent politician throughout most of my youth, Clint has always been, for as long as I can remember, Carmel’s most renowned celebrity.

The first time I saw Eastwood on the street was in early 1983. I was not quite sixteen, and I had a learner’s permit but not yet a driver’s license. My mother and I were out for one of our afternoon driving lessons in the family car, a 1980 Datsun 210 wagon. Driving down San Carlos Avenue, I saw a familiar looking man step out of a Mercedes sedan, glance towards the oncoming traffic (led by me) and begin to jaywalk across the street. It was Clint, and I gasped in recognition. I also didn’t slow down, and forced Eastwood to do a double take and quicken his pace. My mother said “For God’s sakes, Hugo, don’t hit him”, and I carefully applied the brakes. I don’t think Clint was more than a little unnerved, but I do remember our fleeting eye contact. How ghastly it would have been had I struck him — and how different cinematic history might have been as well. After all, Eastwood’s greatest triumphs as an actor and director have come in the last two decades, well after our very brief encounter on the roadway a quarter-century ago!

In any event, I enjoyed “Gran Torino” very much, and in particular, I was struck by the wry way in which Eastwood used the film (which he both stars in and directs) to reflect on his long career and upon American masculinity. Because there are plot spoilers ahead, the rest of the post is below the cut. Continue reading

Self-medicating versus self-soothing

Over the holidays, I met with one of my former youth group kids. Miguel is at university now, doing very well. He’s in a steady relationship with the same girl he’s been seeing since the start of his sophomore year, a year and a half ago. And while talking with Miguel, something popped into my head which I haven’t really dealt with explicitly on this blog: the vital difference in relationships between self-soothing and self-medicating.

Miguel and I — and a lot of folks — are cut from the same cloth. We are prone to bouts of anxiety in our romantic relationships. For me, one of the most difficult lessons I’ve had to learn over the years is how to manage that anxiety, particularly when my partner is distant or preoccupied, or when we are going through a quarrel. My wife loves me very much, and I don’t doubt her love. But she is also a woman with interests besides me and our marriage (thank goodness), and she is the sort of person who, like most of us, has her periods of wanting to be close and then wanting to withdraw. Miguel’s girlfriend is apparently very much the same. And in the early stages of my relationship with my wife — and with many previous relationships as well — maintaining my own calm and sense of well-being when she was more distant or simply “elsewhere” was a very great challenge. My mind would rush immediately to the worst: “She’s unhappy and wants to leave me”. Of course, the “worst” always revolved around my fears about the relationship; rather self-centeredly, I far too often assumed that my partners’ moods were usually a response to my behavior, neglecting the reality that there would always be other causes of happiness and worry in their lives.

It’s not just folks with the common “Borderline” diagnosis who have trouble managing anxiety in relationships. I’ve noticed that a great many people, particularly in the early stages of serious love affairs, have a tremendously difficult time coping with a partner’s withdrawal or distance. This has come up before on this blog, particularly in terms of disparate sexual desire (most recently and briefly, here.) Leaving aside the specific issue of whether sex can ever be obligatory, there’s little question that when it comes to that issue — as well as many others — few couples ever go through their lives in perfect harmony. Whether it’s affection or conversation, it’s very common for one person to want “it” more than the other. This can fluctuate, and roles can even be reversed, but the general rule is that some degree of uneven desire for something important will be present in almost every longterm relationship.

I’m concerned today with how the higher-desire partner manages his or her frustration and anxiety. And here’s where that distinction between self-medicating and self-soothing becomes so vital. Self-medicating is about more than turning to drugs or alcohol, though those are classic self-medicating devices. Self-medicating means dealing with anxiety by doing something that provides a temporary rush of excitement sufficiently strong to distract one from focusing on the relationship. Using pornography addictively, overeating, overexercising, compulsive shopping, disappearing into a marathon “World of Warcraft” session — all of these can be strategies for self-medicating. Flirting with others to relieve the sense of dependency on one partner, and infidelity itself are also famous self-medicating strategies. Self-anesthetizing might be a better term; while some medicines do in fact heal, the kind of self-medicating I’m talking about here involves the use of a temporary analgesic to mask the pain and anxiety. Continue reading