Sad Little Doll
It seems that Paris Hilton's PDA (some upscale little techno-item called a Sidekick) has been hacked, and her private little world revealed for all to see. So if you want to get Ashlee Simpson or Christina Aguilera or Gael Garcia Bernal's phone number (and who doesn't?), now's your chance. I actually considered calling Christina from the church line to express my congratulations on her recent engagement but I lost interest. It would have been funny, though. "Christina Aguilera? Hello dear, this is Reverend Peacebang. We want to extend our most sincere wishes here at HomeTown Unitarian Church for a most beautiful wedding and blessed marriage, and we affirm your right to be beautiful in oh so many ways, no matter what they say."
The extreme fame of this little Hilton creature fascinates me. She is so gorgeous and plastic and profoundly moronic it's actually kind of endearing; I cannot imagine inhabiting her life for even one minute. At least, unlike another pathologically famous blonde with the initials MM, Ms. Hilton seems to have a sense of humor and fun and irony about her, and so far she hasn't expressed any desire to be, gods forbid, "taken seriously." The world is consuming her and she's consuming right back. As despicable a spectacle as it can be, I'd rather that than watch her die of self-loathing and barbituates. Mark my words -- we're going to be seeing that mocking sneer for many years to come.
But I finally watched about 20 seconds of Paris Hilton's famous porn tape this evening and wanted to bang my head against my desk for despair. The girl has such a body and she doesn't know how to use it! She doesn't inhabit it! I thought about that wonderful scene in the movie "Antonia's Line," when all manner of real, extremely unplastic men and women are making love through a long Scandinavian night, and how much more spirit and delight and authenticity they shared, even as actors portraying real people having sex.
And I thought, Paris dear Paris... when they said that there are some things money can't buy, they must have had you in mind.
The extreme fame of this little Hilton creature fascinates me. She is so gorgeous and plastic and profoundly moronic it's actually kind of endearing; I cannot imagine inhabiting her life for even one minute. At least, unlike another pathologically famous blonde with the initials MM, Ms. Hilton seems to have a sense of humor and fun and irony about her, and so far she hasn't expressed any desire to be, gods forbid, "taken seriously." The world is consuming her and she's consuming right back. As despicable a spectacle as it can be, I'd rather that than watch her die of self-loathing and barbituates. Mark my words -- we're going to be seeing that mocking sneer for many years to come.
But I finally watched about 20 seconds of Paris Hilton's famous porn tape this evening and wanted to bang my head against my desk for despair. The girl has such a body and she doesn't know how to use it! She doesn't inhabit it! I thought about that wonderful scene in the movie "Antonia's Line," when all manner of real, extremely unplastic men and women are making love through a long Scandinavian night, and how much more spirit and delight and authenticity they shared, even as actors portraying real people having sex.
And I thought, Paris dear Paris... when they said that there are some things money can't buy, they must have had you in mind.
posted by PeaceBang at 12:08 AM
10 Comments:
OK not about Paris, but have you seen the cover for the new UUWorld? It is a not too subtle image promoting polyamory! Look at it, it screams SIX PEOPLE SHARE MY VAGINA! I can’t believe that our denomination would try to brain wash us with an image like this.
Hank
"Without a Trace" did an episode where a clearly Paris-based heiress partygirl was kidnapped. It dealt with the uselessness of her life.
I would totally call Christina Aguilera and tell her she rocks, especially acapella. (I am so serious. She did an amazing "You really got a hold on me" when she was the musical guest on SNL one time.)
CC
who had something of substance to say, but simply can't recall what it was. Ah Paris Hilton threads.
What Hank means to say, of course, is "I can't believe that our COVENANTED ASSOCIATION OF CONGREGATIONS would try to brainwash us with an image like this."
PeaceBang's characteristically frank movie review didn't send me frantically browsing for a Peris Hilton website, but Hank's review of the latest World cover did send me digging through the mail! Alas, I did not perceive the polyamory overtones that Hank did. (The bad fruit of not enought time spent in college watching foreign art films with subtitles, I suspect.)
I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the difference between polyamory and marriage, whether of the monogamous or polygamous (or even far rarer polyandrous) variety, is that essential ingredient mentioned by PeaceBang: "covenant". My understanding is that one of the characteristics of the typical polyamorous arrangement is a certain need for fluidity that discourages emotional stability among even the willing participants -- to say nothing of the unwilling participants, such as dependent children.
I must confess, I don't get the UUA's willingness to have its name so closely associated with "polyamory" in certain circles. Despite any other latitude we might allow or even encourage, given our history, polity, and theological heritage, I would have expected our threshhold moral position on the question of meaningful adult relationships to be, "It ain't worth a thing, if it ain't got that... covenant."
I looked at the cover some more. I see it now. It's the canoe. Duh. (But contrary to Hank's "not too subtle" accusation, I think it's obscure and subtle enough to form the premise of the next Dan Brown novel.)
A shirt for Peacebang
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
fausto wrote:
-snip-
I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the difference between polyamory and marriage, whether of the monogamous or polygamous (or even far rarer polyandrous) variety, is that essential ingredient mentioned by PeaceBang: "covenant".From what I've heard from listening to polyamorous folks talk about their lives (online listservs and at UU/UCC sexuality educator workshop), this generalization isn't accurate for all poly families. There are some monogamous families that are not covenental at all and some polyamorous families that are extremely covenental in their relationships.
then fausto wrote:
My understanding is that one of the characteristics of the typical polyamorous arrangement is a certain need for fluidity that discourages emotional stability among even the willing participants -- to say nothing of the unwilling participants, such as dependent children.Children are "unwilling participants" when parents divorce or parents remarry. Children are "unwilling participants" when a parent "comes out" as bi, gay, lesbian, or transgender. Heck ... my kids are often "unwilling participants" when they go to school or church.
How would we approach a child living with polyamorous adults as a family ministry issue?
At the Our Whole Lives Grades K-1 and 4-6 Training of Traners last summer, we were invited to provide some sample questions that we might hear from parents and sample questions we might hear from children in our programs. These sample questions were for us to practice answering tough sexuality questions.
One of the sample questions from another participant was "What are you going to tell my child about his/her polyamorous family?"
We had some discussion about what the UUA has said "officially" about polyamory (which is very little ... see the UUA link below).
But the best answer for this question came from one of our OWL K-1/4-6 master trainers ... any family where a child is loved and cared for is a good family for that child.
That seemed like a reasonable answer that respected the child, the adults in the child's life, and acknowledged that the child's parents are the primary sexuality educators in the child's life.
This answer is also neutral towards the subject of polyamory ... reflecting that we have no official UUA position on this topic.
The "UUA Official Non-Position" on polyamory can be found here.
Steve said:
Children are "unwilling participants" when parents divorce or parents remarry.
You bet they are, and some of them carry emotional scars for life because of it. It's one of the main reasons why divorce used to carry such a stigma. It's why couples counseling is such a good idea before marriage, and why many ministers of many denominations insist on it before agreeing to perform a marriage. What are you saying, that because some children get emotionally hurt even in conventional marriages, that it's okay to overlook the increased potential for such hurt in unconventional, less committed arrangements?
Look, I'm not saying that the UUA should categorically oppose polyamory. I think it should remain silent on the subject, and it does. It should give ministry and support to its members who choose to live in such arrangements, but I also think it should advocate for mutually committed adult sexual relationships rather than transient ones wherever practical, whether such arrangements are conventional or unconventional, and especially where there is the potential to inflict emotional harm on chidren who are not in a position to understand what is going on or to protect themselves.
Moreover, the UUA should not allow itself to be identified with groups that expressly advocate casual, uncommitted sexuality. I do regret that the UUA allows a poyamory advocacy group to operate under the UU name for that reason. I think the issue of polyamory, whether committed or uncommitted, has no bearing on our mission as a religious institution, and that allowing them to publicly identify themselves with UUism erodes the UUA's ability to be taken seriously by mainstream society on other matters of significantly more compelling moral and social gravity.
I'm pretty much with Fausto in that what other people do in bed doesn't interest me, but polyamory is not the hill I want the UUA to die on.
CC
Post a Comment
<< Home