Monday, September 25, 2006

Drive Ins

We need to bring back drive-ins. I can't think of anything I miss more from my childhood. I went to my first drive-in when I was really young...maybe four. My babysitter took me in her car with a friend and I got to sit in my pyjammas in thebackseat window. There was popcorn and candy and I got to stay out reaaaaaaaaaally late. Best babysitter ever.

I also think that a lack of drive-ins has left a gaping hole in the teen years of everyone in my generation. I was lucky enough to live in a town that this delight of popculture still thrived (at least for a while). The lives of so many of my friends are tragically devoid of even that small wonder.

What, exactly, makes the drive in so much better than any other movie or even at large popculture experience? I can't really put my finger on it. Something about being publicly private, voyeuristic where everyone can see you, taking part in something communal without actually coming into contact with those around you. It's very surreal to be able to know that you are appart of something like that without actually being confronted by the other individuals involved.

There's also the pleasure that comes from being in cars with people. Now, I know that many of you, if you drive, probably hate it. I don't blame you...seems like it could get pretty stressful at times and there is a whole new dimension of responsibility that comes from driving that I have yet to really care to add to my already large list of things that make me an adult. But I have always loved being in cars. When I was a baby my father would drive me around to put me to sleep. Contrary to the sentiments of my other family members, the 14 hour drive from Smithers to Vancouver filled me with excitement year after year. And I don't know if I have better memories with either my last boyfriend or with my last roomate than when we were in cars together for long (and sometimes short) periods of time.

Being in stationary cars is even better. Let's count the hours between us that we have sat in someone else's car after an evening out, just talking. Or not talking. It's a magical solitary space that only the people you know best tend to be in with you. I also think it's a tragedy to north american bourgeious teenage culture that I never got to make out with someone at the drive in. And chances are, neither did you.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Concerts Con't

Also going to the Better Friends Than Lovers concert at SFU (tickets thru SFSS and OOC).
London Spy just got on the bill for that show also, so it should be good times all around.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Concerts, yes?

I have a ticket to go see the Detroit Cobras on October 16th at Richards on Richards.

I really really want someone to come with me. However, I didn't invite anyone to come with me, nor did I buy two tickets. The reason for this is because the last time I did that, it resulted in missing the best bands at Warped Tour because the person I brought made us late. I am also still owed money for that ticket.

So, this is my open invitation to anyone who is even remotely interested in a) going to a concert, b) hanging out with me, and c) is free that night.

See you there?

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

For the Audience

A Defense of Sham Marriages

Sham Marriages get a bad rap. Often viewed as immoral, these relationships more closely resemble business arrangements and can benefit both parties much more than we might be willing to acknowledge. Relationships based on love, while supposedly more fulfilling, are fickle.

We have implied in our current mantra of self importance and self indulgence that other people are dispensable. Relationships mean nothing in a world where everything is disposable once it ceases to do exactly what we want it to do. We have validated consumption of human relationships, leaving everyone looking for real connection disillusioned and depressed.

Entering into an agreement of marriage with another person is an entirely acceptable and beneficial manner of seeking companionship, stability and happiness in life, especially in the face of such a grim state as just mentioned. Finding someone who you may not feel passionately about, but can be close to and content with will provide a happier lifestyle.

A sham marriage would be an agreement between two parties, much like the traditional contract of marriage with the exception of love and in some cases sex. If infidelity is a considerable issue in society, perhaps this is not a reasonable expectation to have when entering into an obligation of commitment. For example, I propose that two parties, J. and Jay, enter into a contract of marriage under my new policy. The two come to an understanding of mutual dependency where J. becomes a homekeeper and a supportive other for social appearance and Jay in turn provides a home to be kept and the financial means for J. to keep it. This sounds remarkably close to traditional guidelines of a marriage however there are any number of services and exchanges that can be agreed upon in this contract. We are also free of gender roles if we so choose, depending on what suits the arrangement.

Noteably absent from this agreement is fidelity. In the arrangement of a sham marriage, since there is a lack of "love" or passionate attraction, there is also a lack of jealousy or feeling of entitlement over the other person. It is understood between the two parties that sexual relations will carry on as either party chooses and are not confined to or even include sex within the marriage. Each party fulfills thier part of the agreement while feeling free to pursue or not pursue passionate endeavours. As they are likely to be short lived, there proves no threat to the original arrangement.

Just as in any other contractual agreement, failure on the side of either party would result in a viable and reasonable dissolution of said agreement.

I have often been accused of being overly rational and cold-hearted when proposing this theory, but I would like to state that this system is not intended to remove all emotion from human interaction. It is merely meant to revise our traditional views of what can be expected from any one other person. As we all know, as individuals we are complicated people. We feel, provide and require a great number of different things from other people at any given time. It is absurd to think that there is any one person able to provide all of those things to us let alone for an extended period of time. It is equally egotistical to think that we can provide everything to that person that they might need for an extended period of time. It seems reasonable to say that it takes a village to raise a child; where do we stop needing a village? The answer is that there is no line where we go from being co-dependant beings to being entirely self sufficient or even dependant on just one person. I propose that we open our minds to the village. It's time to stop concentrating all of our needs on one or two people in our lives, stop putting strain on those who simply can't give us all we need and start expanding our hearts to let others bear the burden of human existence. There is nothing saying that we must be as individuals the be all and end all in another persons life, so why do we expect it of ourselves?