COM TRUISE EATS YR SOUL

Com Truise - "Brokendate" from stereogum on Vimeo.

teh illest shit.

#jaaaahahahahhaijustshit

let's each get tatts of one of these bros and then when we stand together it will form the union of NATIVEAMERICANXTIANITY/OPPRESSOR&OPPRESSED/THINGSTHATRDUMB&THINGSTHATRAWESOME ETCETCETC

SLACK'D

Back in 2003, I was living at home, wearing purple eyeliner to my boring service industry job and spending most of my time collaging. I had a fresh driver's license and the thrill of rolling around in my mom's car at night listening to the Raveonettes and using her Hollywood Video rental card to check out Marlon Brando movies was unparalleled. The guy at the counter was a plump ginger with a long ponytail under his Hollywood Video-issued baseball hat who I suspected had a crush on me since I was the only teen coming in without my kid and buying the king size pack of jujufruits. I ignored his halting glances since I didn't really start talking to boys until I was about 20, even ones I had no interest in.
One day, I checked out Slacker, because the case looked weird and I had just recently discovered that I was cooler than anyone I knew, having been educated at a prep school in which my peers' interests ranged from the fall j. crew catalog to the spring j. crew catalog. I got home, popped in the VHS (earnestly) and got to work stenciling "London Calling" lyrics onto t-shirts I'd just picked up at the Gap on sale for $9.99.
Slacker was weird, I couldn't really make sense of the characters and the lack of plot line got lost in my intense stenciling session-- I later moved onto Bowie lyrics.
Eight (!!!!11) years later, my life is eerily (depressingly?) similar to that of my eighteen year old self. The only element that's different today from the scene described above is that I use my mom's Netflix account. And I know how to talk to boys now, but that's a different story entirely. Tonight as I was sitting around making record cover journals, feeling inexplicably attracted to Ted Nugent, I decided to scroll through the Netflix collection, and Slacker caught my eye once again.
The film that I watched tonight, of course, is the same as the VHS I rented a thousand beers ago, but oh how my perception of it has changed. What once seemed like dreamy esoterica has since become the soundtrack to my own life; the characters, once just that, are now people I have met over and over, comprising my own anchor to post-collegiate reality. While I was completely engrossed in the film and finding myself in conversation with these people, a thought entered into my head: Is this movie making fun of us? Is Richard Linklater looking at 20-somethings who sit around drinking beer, talking about their lives and the world, politics and their relationships, with their friends and roommates and strangers, and deeming it all a waste of time? The film is called Slacker. Is the film's thesis that we're aimless, rootless, wasting our time and our potential to fulfill that great American myth of "making something of ourselves"?

As anyone with a hundred thousand dollar degree in Why The World Sucks and a barista job to prove it knows, "Our Generation" is the topic of a thousand porch/bar/breakfast PBR 30-packs. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "slacker" as "a person regarded as one of a large group or generation of young people (especially in the early to mid 1990s) characterized by apathy, aimlessness, and lack of ambition". They may have to alter the era included in their definition. Is it not "Our Generation," the children of those hardworking model Americans, the baby boomers, that has been called out on a hilariously frequent number of occasions by the New York Times for being lazy, ego-driven, sext-crazed narcissists? Slackers, in the truest sense of the word? Intra-generational hand wringing abounds at the NYT as their op-ed columnists tell us to stay out of restaurants and save our money. In preparation for footing the bill for "Their Generation's" gross mistakes, of course.

Every conversation over porch beers at noon on a Tuesday illicits the same conclusion: we're not unmotivated, the ones pushing papers and paying their bills are. We're the ones who are looking for something more, the ones who refuse to settle for what we've been given. We're taking the path of least resistance, fighting with ourselves and everyone else for answers instead of with the TV over Dancing With the Stars.


And it turns out Linklater agrees: “Slackers might look like the left-behinds of society, but they are actually one step ahead, rejecting most of society and the social hierarchy before it rejects them. The dictionary defines slackers as people who evade duties and responsibilities. A more modern notion would be people who are ultimately being responsible to themselves and not wasting their time in a realm of activity that has nothing to do with who they are or what they might be ultimately striving for.”





Slack on, "our generation."

This guy "GETS ME!"

Srsly, this guy gets it - has women figured out. Or at least me!

call me back

what do you think?

Offend This....

I'm sure you read this article on The Awl "IN DEFENSE OF OFFENSIVE ART" pretty interesting....

Highlights include:

When we encounter art that actually challenges our liberal values, we find a way to enjoy it without actually engaging with those contradictions. We don’t really like challenging art. We like art that reinforces what we already believe in a way that makes us feel like believing these things is a heroic, rebellious act.

and

In fact the idea of the strong individual vision, the Guy Who Doesn’t Flinch From The Truth, exposing softness, crushing weakness etc. has plenty of resonance in right-wing politics and in big business.

So the model is Unflinchingness vs… what? Well, hypocrisy, weakness, complacency but also often more general ideas of softness, dialogue, compromise… a whole bunch of qualities which our social (patriarchal) set-up codes as “female”, so it doesn’t remotely surprise me that there’s a lot of misogyny underpinning some of this art.

This is a good thesis paragraph:

If we want to judge this stuff on an artistic basis rather than a moral basis, then we can’t try and prove that there is a socially redeeming value to offensive art. We should see "offensive art" as a genre, same as country, rap or anything else, one with its own conventions and reasons for being. With "offensive art," the genre conventions are about being dark and talking about unpleasant things and being performatively confrontational. This doesn’t place such art outside the realm of critique—we can still have lots of problems with the ideological constructions underpinning one genre or another. Likewise, no piece of offensive art should get off the hook just because it’s using genre conventions. However, such a categorization would force us to consider each piece on its merits and, maybe most importantly, within an artistic tradition, instead of simply dismissing it because it contains offensive content.

This one is to the point AND HI-larious:

It’s worth noting that we’re not talking about realistic violence here. We’re talking about cartoonish violence. Despite the rhetoric of this is art that throws reality in our faces, it’s not, really. A historical recreation of the Battle of the Somme would be throwing (violent, ugly) reality in our faces, while GG Allin tossing feces into the audience is just a man throwin’ dooky. It’s ridiculous, absurd, over-the-top. It may be a metaphorical representation of the darkness of the modern world, but it's also just, well, a man throwin' dooky.

I do love musicals!

So maybe it’s unfair of me to assume fandom of offensive art reflects an unearned sense of oppression, an embrace of the fantasy that saying bad things is brave and honest.... As a genre requirement it doesn't seem all that different from the same suspension of disbelief that allows fans of musicals to enjoy when people burst into song for no reason.

duh.

beer = sex

this is ridiculous and probably also true.

I'm still having 5 kids to name them after these bros

(i don't care if they're girls or boys, they'll all be chill and have cool hair).

new single here!

I'm liking it... i think it's a return to their roots as well as shows maturity. Jules' voice and Albert's guitar are in top form.

So glad we blew Dodge....

....I mean, Portland. Wait. We didn't blow Portland collectively..maybe just a few... well... since you're involved in the "us"... probably more than a few! But I digress...

Check out this NYT post... That city is deteriorating before our very eyes.. On the OTHER HAND! I'm currently making a mailout for the 'ol real estate company right now that features this little tid bit "Top 10 Best Big Cities for Jobs" Forbes, April 2010...Austin #1!... "Top 10 Least Stress Cities in US." #5 AUSTIN! followed by a Number 6 OKC!... "Top 10 Cities for the Next Decade" #1 AUSTIN! "Top 10 Cities for Young Entrepreneurs" #3 AUSTIN! ... Need I go on?

Normally (and by Normally I mean ALWAYS) I hate this shit... And I ESPECIALLY hate that I help people (PEOPLE I DONT LIKE read: rich people) move to my fair city. But I'll make an exception this time just to drop a hint to you...

KALAMAZOO IS NOT ON ANY OF THESE LISTS!!

move!

question, answer.

via the hairpin.

So I've been "seeing" (i.e. boning) this guy for a couple weeks. I haven't gone down on him yet because I wasn't sure he'd reciprocate and that pisses me off. So tonight, he said "you're not too much of a feminist to go down on a guy, are you?" to which I responded truthfully that I'm not, DUH. I actually really enjoy it (but, I do have issues with people who feel it's perfectly fine for me to go down when they find the reverse unappealing). Then he goes, "good, because I'm too masculine to go down on a girl." UM, WHAT!? was my inner response although I'd sort of expected it since he hadn't made any moves (but was still kind of hoping he'd come around; he's a bit inexperienced/very young and I thought maybe he was just afraid to botch it). I told him that some dudes love it, at which point he told me some dudes are weird and asked if I'd ever done it (negative, for the record, which seemed to weaken my point in his eyes).

So here's my question: this is what I want, but I feel weird/manipulative holding BJs hostage in return for something he clearly isn't interested in/ready for. Is it unfair to pressure him like that? Plus, it's obviously no fun for me if he's gritting his teeth (so to speak) through the whole thing. But at this point I also don't want to give him a free ride on my mouth. Should I lose this guy or is there an appropriate and effective way to approach this? Oh, also, we work together. Also, is he gay? I have never encountered this before.


WELL. First? Too much of a feminist? I like to think of myself as a "male ally" in really the most humorless of Dude-Feminist fashions. I also really like a blowjob now and again. And since I was wary of defensively mainsplaining around this particular topic, I wound up googling "feminist blowjobs" before answering this question. Thankfully, the feminist blogosphere gave up a post by the fantastic Jill Filipovic (one of the many smart feminist bloggers this Dude reads frequently).

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/06/19/feminist-politics-of-blowjobs/

Her post has to do with some kind of blowjob-related Internet blog controversy–the originating posts of which appear to no longer be online–but nevertheless is pretty independently cogent on the score of how mutually respectful partners can start a conversation about de-patriarching the oral. (If they want to! Choices for everyone!)

But back to like the advice I guess? I don't even wanna execute a search for "too masculine to get face down in a vagina." Essentially, this is because you say this guy is young. I have no idea how old you are, nor what "very young" means to you–but I think you should a) try not to take this personally and b) blame it on his age. He doesn't know the gospel of vagina worship! He has not accepted the well-pleasured clit as his personal redeemer! That's cool. It calls to different men at different times. But even an inexperienced dude is aware of the power and mystery of the whole god-shaped vagina-kissing-hole in his soul–and can be a little bit scared by that emptiness in his repertoire. For all I know, your guy may have just recently figured out how to get his dick-swerve on, and he might want to stay within the realm of the familiar and be feeling that power for a while. Presumably you're into what he's capable of doing on that level, and so there's no immediate reason to boot him.

Still, his semi-hostile narrowness on the oral front obviously has the potential to bring you down in a comprehensive way over the long haul. Ultimately you'll want him to trust you enough to bust through his comfort zone and get down. There are ways you can help him through this, instead of turning it into a blowjob-withholding fight straight from the drop–especially since it seems you're significantly older, and since you like giving blowjobs. (SIDE NOTE: pretending not to like things that you actually do like will only make things more confusing for a young guy. Or hell, for lots of older guys, too. Avoid doing this, if at all possible.)

A guy who is told that other guys like things or can do things that he doesn't do in the bedroom will often react by calling those other guys "weird." Those other boys are the ones with the problem, got it? That's natural, because he's feeling inadequate. But you know what else is natural? Being sexually proud as fuck that you're with an older chick who TEACHES YOU THINGS IN THE BEDROOM. If you can turn him into that character, psychologically, he'll sign up for all the advanced placement tests. Has he met your older friends? Maybe he should! And maybe when you're all out for drinks, one of them can casually tell your boy-not-yet-a-man how impressed she is that he can hang with you. How he's really stepping up and being a man by vaulting from his age cohort and into yours. There are other ways to do this. You get the idea. You're going to solve the problem of repertoire-fear long before you solve the problem of men being entirely too much in thrall to their egos. But one outta two ain't bad.

pixelz

you've probably seen this, but whoa.