Pictures of July

Bishopsgate road works; excellent haul of DVDs from Fopp, Covent Garden; Flag; Garden Chair on my back patio; Signs in Covent Garden; Stansted Express on Bishopsgate.

More Editorial Models (NSFW)

I have written before about how it's all about the editorial models for me. Here's another ten from the posts of various blogs and flickrs. Mica Arganaraz and Helena Severin join Eniko Mihalik as Girls I'd Most Like To Find Myself Sitting Next To On A Plane.

Freja Beha Erichsen

Helena Severin

Jenna Klein

Larissa Hoffman

Lola McDonnell

Majorie Levesque

Melaine Smith

Mica Araganraz

Raquel Zimmerman

Sabrina Ioffreda

Thanks to fashioncopius and GoSeeMag.

Esther Perel's Secret to Desire in a Long Term Relationship

This talk has about 5 million views. I love this bit

I want you to be my best friend, and my trusted confidant, and my passionate lover to boot, and we live twice as long. So we come to one person and we basically are asking them to give us what once an entire village used to provide. Give me belonging, give me identity, give me continuity, but give me transcendence, and mystery and awe, all in one. Give me comfort, give me edge, give me novelty, give me familiarity, give me predictability, give me surprise, and we think it’s a given and toys and lingerie are going to save us with that

There’s a lot of applause at the end. What they are applauding is the mood music that she creates with her upbeat manner, ten dollar words and nifty juxtapositions. They are not applauding what she actually says about the secret to desire in a long-term relationship. It starts around 18:00 and the key quote is this:

They have demystified one big myth, which is the myth of spontaneity, which is that [desire] is just gonna fall from heaven while you’re folding the laundry like a deus ex machina, and in fact they understood that whatever is just going to happen in a long-term relationship already has. Committed sex is premeditated sex, it’s wilful, it’s intentional, it’s focussed, and it’s present. Merry Valentine.”

Read or listen to that at least three times. If you want to keep the sex going in an long-term relationship, it needs to be premeditated, wilful, intentional, focussed and present.

Sounds wonderful. All those exotic words. The nice thing about exotic words is that they drift loosely above the ground of actual actions and materials. Ms Perel wasn’t troubling anyone with the details, and the details would have spoiled the music.

Take away those fancy words and use some more mundane ones. LTR sex needs to be planned - that’s what calling “spontaneity” a myth means, and it’s what “premeditated” means. It means Nookie Nights go in the diary. You both have to show up ready to do your bit. No moods, no headaches, no bad tempers, no rows to give you an excuse to avoid it. You have to show up as agreed, and you need to put yourself in the mood, and help your partner get in the mood. That’s what “wilful, intentional” mean. It means she leaves her work-and-family yakkity-yak at the door of the “erotic space” (aka “bedroom”, usually), as well as any resentments she may have about toilet seats being left up or lawns being left uncut. That’s what “focussed and present” means. It means they are thinking about nookie, not the bullshit of their lives outside the Nookie Zone. Earlier Ms Perel says “responsibility and eroticism really butt heads”. There’s no discussing the family finances, children’s school problems, or any of that nonsense.

Who on earth is capable of this? If I had to guess, I’d say that at a deep level such a couple regard themselves as co-conspirators against a crazy world, that both of them can achieve orgasm fairly readily, and that it is a pleasant but not crazy-intense experience for either of them.

How many people does that leave out? Every couple where she settled for a good provider after a few flings with Exciting Boys. Every couple where one of them can’t trust, or for whom orgasm is difficult or over-intense. It leaves out at least eighty per cent of the population: forty percent who get divorced and therefore never were trusting co-conspirators, and another forty per cent who aren’t either but prefer the awfulness of a “settling” marriage to what they think is the awfulness of living alone.

But that’s what all those erotic exotic words are for: to tease you and hide the realities. There are some thinkers, Heidegger for one, where the language, the way its used to look at the world, is as much part of the philosophy as the insights, if not more so. There are others, J L Austin for example, who use a plain and simple language as a rhetorical trick, as if to dare us to believe that complicated metaphysics could hide behind ordinary English. And there are some who use exotic words to hide the realities that, if stated baldly, would dampen the applause, reduce the book sales and reduce the consultancy gigs by half, as people realised they had no chance from the start. For all her obvious sincerity, and for all the truth of her insights, that’s what Ms Perel is doing. She’s not going to be the one to break the news to you.

What Do I Do If I Don't Have a Vocation or a Vision?

I ran across this article about managing a career as a freelance photographer and especially staying in it for a long time. I don’t know, but assume from the subject of the article, that the turnover rate for freelancers is quite high.

The advice is along the lines of “follow your artistic instincts, develop your own style that people will pay for, and make up a proper business plan, with five-year financial projections.” There’s a lot more than that, and it is worth reading.

It turns out that the author, Doug Menuez, is a superstar. Stanford University hosts a collection of his photographs, which is superstar enough. So his advice is fine if you happen to be a superstar photographer, or indeed, a superstar anything. What about the rest of us? What does an ordinary working stiff like me do?

I’m going to riff on this quote:

"There are many [photographers] who do this exact thing [try to second-guess and follow the market, rather than their own artistic taste] and end up with a middling level of success, stuck on a financial and creative plateau, slowly starting to run out of gas. After a few years they hate their their work and life in general. They are getting divorced or leaving the business or pursuing whatever diversion eases the pain. They are not living the dream. They are not challenging themselves creatively because they did not give themselves permission to be who they are as photographers in the first place. This is the road to being a burned out, bitter hack. Boring."

That’s what everyone should want to avoid, though most don’t. But how do we do it if we don’t feel a strong sense of vocation and have an inner artistic direction? Aren’t we then condemned to go along to get along and get burned out? Before I set off on this essay, I would have said, well, that’s the assumption. Now I’m not so sure.

Most of the time I have been employed to run and improve some kind of process, to gather, process and disseminate facts, and I’ve been paid for what I do, not to put in the hours. Sometimes the office was grotty, perhaps by being stuck out in some ghastly suburb, and sometimes the people were not my speed, and sometimes there was outright crookedness going on. But I rarely felt it as “hard graft”.

Am I following any kind of “passion”? Is this work satisfying to my inner soul? Am I a reputed member of some serious professional group? Am I part of a professional or industry community? Do I get my identity from what I do? This is a string of NO’s. I call it “my day job” for a reason - it’s my day job. There are people who would answer many of these questions with a YES: they have reputations, published books and papers, consultancies, and make some kind of contribution. I am, by contrast, the quintessential lurker. I do what I do to make a living, not because I have an interest in the Great Cause of Data or any other darn thing.

But nor am I a burned-out hack. I know what those men and women look like: the building I work in and the trains I commute on are full of them. How have I dodge it?

The companies I have worked for did something that was useful to their customers, charged a sensible price for it, and were reasonable places to work. I’ve never worked in a company where they have to lie to the customer and any passing regulators (Big Pharma anyone?) about the usefulness and desirability of their products. I’ve never worked anywhere there was a sense of treating the customers with contempt. (Okay, there is one exception to this, but I never bought into the mind-set, and the organisation now thinks a lot more like I do.) I’ve never had to con myself about where I worked and what I did.

My idea of “working for a living” is doing a job where a) there is a constant stream of work coming in and my productivity is being measured, and / or b) I have to use a certain formula, method or script to handle the task, and c) it is not possible to zone out and do the thing on muscle-memory. Actually a) and / or b) will do, c) turns it from “work” to “sheer hell”. You and I may have totally different reactions to a job: my idea of hell might be your idea of a terrific challenge. I have worked for a living a couple of times. Once for about eight weeks when I was credit controlling / collecting debts for a building company. That was hard grind, and the slowest-moving clock I ever watched. The other was during teacher-training. Not one moment to take as time out. Washing-up in a staff canteen over the summer holidays? Now that’s what I call a doddle. Except when I was in the deepest throes of drinking, I pretty much arrived on time and left on time. I’ve never had to clock in.

Now this is a surprise to me. It turns out that I have been working in accordance with some basic values I have, in reasonable places, and leaving on time so I can get on with whatever passed for my life at the time. This is not the vocation / vision -driven idea that Doug Menuez talks about, but it will do for those of us who don’t really have vocations and visions.

Only work at honest companies that treat you reasonably well, arrive and leave on time, have a life outside work, and work in a manner that suits you (I’ve described mine, but your preference may differ). Hmmm. I’m not sure that isn’t as tall an order as finding and following a vocation. How many companies are like that?

If everyone decided that was where and how they were going to work, a lot of companies would lose their staff pretty much overnight. Maybe this is a more subversive message than the vocation / vision one?

This Post Rained Off

Normal People Don't Need Self-Improvement

I ran across this little rant...

My grandma is dead and she went demented before we could have these deep spiritual conversations. She grew up in the Great Depression. She held the family together. She recognized that family comes first. You sacrifice and do anything for your family. There are not many like her left. Now your family comes second to your smart phones and computers and Internet pornography and your self-indulgent lifestyle. Your Baby Boomer parents were checked out, and now the Gen X parents are checked out. My generation is not maturing. There is little spiritual evolution, little wisdom. Look look at my peers. Men my age and older still talk about their parents! They cry about shit mommy and daddy did to them. “I’m this way because of how my dad/mom treated me.” That is a sign that they have not left the childhood stage of development. People are in their 30s and 40s and still overgrown children crying about mommy and daddy.

Most of it is shaming and grandparent worship (what is with Americans and their grandparents?). The more I looked at it, the more it cames across as a cry of rage and frustration. This is a man wanting guidance and, surprise!, not finding it from his parents or their generation. The give-away is that little phrase “spiritual evolution”.

The cliche is that “religion is for people who believe in Heaven: spirituality is for people who have been to Hell”. I’ve spent some time in Limbo and Purgatory myself - maybe a short spell in the Fifth Circle - and I’m inclined to agree. Spirituality is for people who want to avoid further pain and suffering, who need to manage their inner demons and dysfunctions. It’s not for regular people.

Our author has previously said his mother is bi-polar - which is a nasty thing to do to your child, as that stuff is hereditary - and he has spoken of depression when younger. He has inner demons to fight. He needs the focus on exercise and work, the relentless self-improvement, as I do. The alternative is chaos, decay, weight gain, depression, self-pity and all sorts of other undesirables.

But, and this has taken me a good few years to understand, regular people do not need that focus. They look at the self-improvers and somewhere in their autonomic nervous system, the same one that recognises bad smells, they recognise us for the damaged goods we are. They watch us grind round the gym and see something unhealthy. Which is why they drop the gym attendance six weeks after New Years’. Regular people know they got their genes from their parents, and they spent the first third of their lives with them, so who the hell else was responsible? Regular people say they want to be happy, but above all they want drama and the noise of humanity around them. They want to feel part of the crowd, they want to “be there”, they want to part of a team, they want to belong. They want to brag on a minor success, and relish the drama of a minor failure. The men want to hang out and bullshit about sports, and the women want to hang out and play status games. This and so much more is normal life. They may run half-marathons, but for a good cause, not to prove something about themselves to themselves. They may read, but for entertainment and escape - you can escape in a history textbook. They get something hormonal from being around each other.

Regular people do need instrumental advice - about how to handle a squatter, or an industrial tribunal, or the best route to Swindon from Birmingham - but they don’t need to know how to live. Any more than a squirrel does and for much the same reason. Normal people do really dumb things and they don’t usually make sense, but there’s no point shaming them. They couldn’t change if they wanted to, and they wouldn’t want to. Normals have no advice for people with demons, no more than cats do for lions.

Behind the realisation that the Normals can’t help you is the realisation that you have demons. Rather than accept that, it’s easier to lash out at the Normals. Our author is doing that. He thinks he’s being a better man, not that he’s keeping chaos at bay. The Normals don’t need to keep chaos at bay, because they don’t see it as chaos. They see it as Life. Accidental pregnancies, decaying marriages, bi-polar relatives, bullying bosses, entitled girlfriends, thieving cousins, Type 2 diabetes, weight-gain, marital infidelity… it’s all part of Life to them. It’s what living is all about. They see the carefully managed lives that I and our author lead, and shudder.



It’s not easy being Green.

Europe Belongs To Us: Get Over the Creepy White People

This has gone viral. It has attracted some expected hoorays , and the equally expected horrified face-palms. One of which, from a Swedish newspaper, missed the point wonderfully. Its retaliation is in eight languages - Arabic, French, Spanish, Estonian, Hungarian and Czech - which they say are examples of cultures that would be turned out by the SDU. Who are talking about Europe. Let’s see: French = European, Spanish = European, Estonian = European, Hungarian = European again, Czech = European. Okay, that leaves… Which was kinda the SDU’s point. The editor of that newspaper is as dumb as a sock.

The video is anti-EU. The two issues mentioned are immigration and multiculturalism. Let’s deal with both.

Multi-culturalism is a smoke-screen. A lot of decent people have been fooled by it, because it sounds so liberal and tolerant, but that’s not how it’s being used by the State and the activists. The decent people are in bad company. It was always an excuse for the police, social services and schools to ignore the unacceptable practices of immigrant communities. Barely able to handle the problems of the native underclass, these organisations needed a doctrine that let them off the hook of dealing, for example, with families that sent thirteen year-old girls off to be married in their village-of-origin. Multi-culturalism was never a serious doctrine, though it needed to be presented as one by the useful idiots in the media, and of course, it was exploited by every harridan who wanted to shout at the Hated White Man some more.

So all the SDU is asking is for the EU and their governments to stop blowing smoke at them. Seems reasonable to me.

So now immigration. Immigrants are brought into the UK because the employers, State or private, do not want to pay the wages, or structure the jobs, so that UK citizens would be able to live independent adult lives (you know, with wives, and children, and their own roof over their head, and some savings. How dare the workers want what the middle class expect?). In the nineteenth century, they brought in the Irish to build the railways. They brought in Jamaicans on the SS Windrush to drive the trains. In the 1990’s and onwards they imported bright young men and women from the rest of the Anglosphere, and later the EU, to do the thousands of essentially short-term white-collar jobs created by modern bureaucracies, jobs with no future and no real foundation in the business, and which can be shut down more or less instantly. And they would send employment scouts over to Eastern Europe to hire skilled tradesmen, which was only needed because UK companies had abandoned apprenticeships a couple of decades ago. Heaven alone knows why European governments brought in unskilled, uneducated, non-English speaking men and women by the thousands, enough to populate entire towns. Since it was crazy, there is no point in speculating. But they did, and created strains on schools, the NHS and all the other public services that were barely adequate before adding another ten million people to the UK population. And they needed to blow huge amounts of smoke in our faces, from faked economic benefit studies to patently insincere praise of “vibrant cultures" to distract us from the obvious idiocy of the policy.

Now let’s get clear who we have a problem with. Immigrants or the people who brought them in, or failed to keep them out?

I have a problem with people who are loud, lazy, don’t pay their taxes or due bills, are rude, inconsiderate, entitled, violent, who cheat and free-ride, who are unemployable, who have personality disorders, eat crap food, don’t keep themselves in physical and intellectual shape, who want to drag others into their sexual, emotional or financial chaos, who use, abuse and mis-use… you get the point. I don’t care what race, colour, creed, gender or nationality they are: if they are a Bad Person, I want them elsewhere than around me and my quotidian world, I don’t want my taxes to subsidise them, and I don’t want my employer, or any other employer who does important things like sewage or hospitals, being forced by law to hire them. I want competent, well-mannered, organised people with some self-discipline around me, and running things that matter, like trains and law courts.

I don’t have a problem with immigrants, unless I would have the same problem with them if they were natives.

I do, however, have a huge problem with the reason most of them are here. Almost all of them have been brought here, actively recruited, to reduce wage bills and, in the long run, pension costs, or because employers have failed to train a younger generation of skilled tradesmen. The NHS regularly gets lambasted for stripping entire graduating classes of nurses from developing countries. And because successive UK governments have let the education system fail even the middle-classes, many young British people are only borderline employable. Now, if all the poor, unemployed natives vanished in real life as they vanish from the minds of the CEO's and Ministers, it would be fine. But they don’t. They are still with us, and they have children. In flat contradiction to every cod-evolution and rational free-market theory ever passed off as serious thought. At the same time, the smart, pretty people stay single or childless in increasing numbers. And in the short term, hauling in capable immigrants puts a Band-Aid over the problem.

That’s what I have a problem with. The damn lousy politicians and businessmen who won’t train their own people, who won’t fix the schools, are too cheap to pay a wage that lets a man support his wife and children and put a roof over their heads, and who can’t figure out how, nor have the conviction, to send the required messages about how a decent person lives. Immigrants are like inflation and low interest rates: the economic version of taking downs to get to sleep and ups to send you on your way.

So the SDU is asking for governments to do their freaking jobs, control their borders, make sure their young people get functionally educated and that employers consider natives first. I'm not sure the SDU would go that far, but I would.

Animal rights activists don’t like animals, but they do hate people; hunt saboteurs don’t like foxes, but they do hate people on horses. People who profess unrestricted immigration of poor, unskilled people from countries where women aren’t educated and it’s acceptable to kill your daughter because she said ‘hello’ to the wrong boy, don’t like the immigrants, but they do hate confident white people with a sense of identity and heritage. There are a lot of those haters, and right now they guarantee a lot of click-throughs, so they get air time. As soon as the media proprietors sense that the majority of their readers are tired of being berated as a racist by a privileged white girl paid £100,000 a year to produce click-bait, her job will be given to someone professing the need to help re-settle those immigrants who have not managed to integrate into our society.

"But creepy white people”. Ah yes, why tackle issues when you can have an emotion instead. Or are you saying that if Nigel Farage looked like Clive Owen and those white people in the video had a little touch of mixed blood about them, it would be all right? That’s a PR judgement I could accept.