(no subject)

[rm]

I just wrote the following to someone in an email about a variety of subjects, and thought it was worth noting here for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its pomposity or that its presentation is peculiarly just a hair outside my current self, for now.

In our youth, which is to say, not our childhood, but that moment between when we realize we have power and when we actually figure out what the hell to do with it, we spend most of our time in acts of clumsy seduction, unconsciously, our minds and our bodies and smiles and gestures -- all that which you would hope would be calculated and remarkably aren't.

It is not a fun time, wishing to be rewarded for who we are, for being clever or young. There are not worlds to conquer in this life, only worlds to build -- it's really just a matter of metaphor. When we realize we have tools, that are inherently personal things, not weapons and defenses, which are inherently public things, it all works out so much the better.

Comments

[rm.livejournal.com]

The funny thing about pompous diction is that it tends to work really well if you don't know the speaker. And if you do, it's like, "what the fuck brought that on?" and/or "Oh, she's on another one of those... things."

Re:

[ex-mijra932.livejournal.com]

Ha; yes, in a way. It gives you preordained authority, if you will: you've put yourself in a superior position by tone, and thus the less wise and less experienced reader ought just to take you on your word.

As it was, it made me do a double-take, and then it made me laugh, and reread. It's another of what I keep calling your universal sweeping declarations. "She sees something bigger than herself[, and therefore it must be true?]," I might have said, which at some point boils down to "what the fuck brought that on?" because I still have little idea what it is, exactly that suddenly struck you, besides how young and silly we are.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Well, "My mother never loved me" is always a more effective statement than "sometimes it seemed my mother never loved me." And I don't really have many occasions in my life for the ineffective statement. It's almost a bad habit, except it _works_. I tend to presume the people in my life I actually want to be friends with are smart and confident enough to overlook that crap, or at least not believe it while they hold it against me. Some people always drink too much at your Christmas party or allow their children to run rampant at holidays. I make sweeping statements. (I've also just watched Priscilla Queen of the Desert for the first time, which is to say I'm entirely out of hand at the moment).

And you didn't strike me as young and silly, so much as you struck me as different and made me revisit what I was actually like at 16 - 20, which is to say, a very nervous and naive wannabe tart who was anything but a beacon of sophistication. Which is to say, you're definitely faring better. What did strike me is that you want better for yourself than your reflexes and I don't think enough people feel that way.

A lot of my current friends are people I've known since they were of similar age, and the stuff in this post just sort of came to me in thinking aloud in that email, mainly because of a good friend who had all sorts of motives ascribed to her by an older man who found her desireable, and it wasn't really like that. She was just trying to figure out how to be, and he thought it was about him. All of us are looking for approval somewhere and most of us are idiots if we think that's about other people.

Re:

[ex-mijra932.livejournal.com]

Ah, no--there's no problem with sweeping statements. The hesitation on my part comes in large part from the fact that I have a current obsession with truth, accuracy, and reality. Which makes me want to assume that everyone else does also, which I know is not remotely the case. Which is amusing, on several levels. I should hope your friends are honest enough to overlook the crap and bother to hear what you're saying instead of only how you're saying it.

What did strike me is that you want better for yourself than your reflexes and I don't think enough people feel that way.
An immense compliment that I hardly know what to do with. Biologically, said reflexes belong to hunter-gatherers or some such. Since they're so outdated, how can I trust them? Might as well update. (You think you're out of hand? I'm so tired that...)

That makes so much more sense now. I was wondering where clumsy seduction, among other things, came into it. I'm more inclined to agree with more of what you've said, given that.

[rm.livejournal.com]

One of my biggest problems with clarity is that I define words in ways that are _extremely_ specific and often aren't shared by other people.

Which is to say, I'll explicate on it and the origin of the thought in email. But a lot of has to do with the ways we try to win people over to our side subconsciously and the sexual connotation of the word "seduction" had little to do with it.

Re:

[ex-mijra932.livejournal.com]

I realize that.