rm | (no subject)

Now that you're a target marketing demographic, it's okay...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/fashion/22METR.html?8hpist

As ever, the above is offered with a pointed lack of commentary.

_and_ I have a billion thoughts on the new HP, but I'm trying not to write a big essay about it until I've actually finished the book. It is, though, exceptionally weird reading something about childhood that is so punching my buttons, while rehearsing a play in which I play a third grader, and rehearsing said play through a seemingly endless series of improvs in which it turns out that my kid does math the fastest and never gets invited to birthday parties.

Actually, I should add that one of the challenges of this play for me is that we're assuming certain common kid experiences that I haven't had -- such as that we're set in a suburban school where kids take the school bus. Additionally the environment is coed. I haven't the faintest idea what any of those things are like for a child, and aside from it being an acting challenge, it brings home for me how a lot of the most mundane things in the world, have made me so incredibly fundamentally different from other people.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

*smirk*

NO pair of jeans should go for $135.00 unless they're radioactive. And a $14 martini better be the best thing I've had to drink. Ever.

I'm kind of reminded of American Psycho all over again. :)

The price points of living in NYC are different. Neither of these things are at all unusual.

That article....wow. I'm not sure what to think. I think I'm appalled.

Not so much that some men are using hair product. Whatever. I'm not exactly sure why this should be a big deal, actually. Then again I have strange ideas about masculinity and femininity, like that it's not about what you seem like on the outside, but who you are on the inside. And that everyone has both qualities in them and that people shouldn't be polarized on the basis of gender. *sigh*

I think I'm also appalled at the idea of paying $135 for a pair of jeans, even in New York. Then again, I haven't bought a new pair of jeans in years (by new, I mean actually new and not from a thrift store).

Well like normal jeans are like $40 - $60, but everything here can and is a fashion item, so there's nothing really shocking about the $135.

I'm deeply amused by the article, especially by the comments about being a "metrosexual" could help a guy attract women. Perhaps times are changing, but in my experience being too femme turns off almost everyone - far too many gay men are looking for bears, blonde gym clones, or straight-acting-and-appearing guys and far too many women seek only traditionally masculine men, there are naturally exceptions, but quite few.

And of course, I'm still too bi and too femme to belong to an up and coming fashion niche. I'm surprised at how bitter reading this made me feel.

Ah, you should have seen the bizarre Craigslist flamewar about "is eyeliner on guys hot?", which basically devolved into a bunch of chicks freaking out that their boyfriends might be cheating on them with men, a lot of incoherent rambling about Ewan McGregor and a bunch of guys calling each other fags while proclaiming they'll do anything to get laid by trendy chicks.

Made my head hurt it did.