Local Madness, Attitude

Not sure where to start here! Here I sit in the living room I share with Russ. His music is too loud and I can't do anything about it except hope that he will relent soon and turn it down.

Meanwhile, I persist in writing because I have a lot to express tonight. [Text edited out at future date for fear that someone might misunderstand. For the record, I think that profiling of any kind in the context of employment is wrong. You get a whole spectrum of attributes in any sizable group, modal characteristics and "risk factors" notwithstanding.]

[More edits follow.] Have you ever encountered foreigners who came to the United States with the attitude that Western culture is so shallow and foolish that they can familiarize themselves with it in a minute and completely debunk it in the next ten? In actual fact they're ill equipped to understand our culture, about as ill equipped as we are to understand theirs. Just realizing that would win an Eastern man points with me. (I have been fortunate to date and socialize with Eastern men who approach our culture with a more respectful attitude, and I apologize for having forgotten about them a few days ago when I wrote in the original post, "Why have I never known an Eastern male to approach our culture with that level of humility? After all, every group has its spread, its modal and non-modal attitudes. I want to hear from the Eastern male who can admit that he's at a loss when it comes to Western culture and has no pretensions of being able to tell us how to "fix" it. -- You're out there, aren't you?")

Let me interrupt myself at this point, while I try to get a mental grasp on the ignorant, all-over-the-map filibuster I endured today. Let me just interrupt myself for twenty seconds to say that this loud music is a real bother. I know Russ needs it, but it's still hard to take.

This fellow I worked with today tried to put over that -- ah, where do I *start* ??? That Western so-called chastity is insincere, that kissing is more sexually intimate than coitus (as evidenced by the fact that harlots refuse to kiss,) that any contact between the sexes (courtship, anyone?) might as well be coitus, and that Catholic Churchgoers are the same kind of blind followers that enable people like Hitler, Hussein, Bush and Sharon (some of his actual examples) to promulgate their abuses. Where oh where do I start?

You know, when someone rants some fallacious card house "argument" to the effect of all of the above without allowing any discussion, it's a lot like an assault. And just like the (sexual) assailant in the movie who adds insult to injury ("How was I?") this guy had his parting blow: "The truth is better even if it's bitter." Was he intoning it patronizingly? Probably. But it's patronizing either way. Not only was his logic terrible; his whole argument betrayed ignorance straight from the foundation. Those who can see through his ignorance and illogic are accused of an unwillingness to accept an unwelcome conclusion. "The truth is better even if it's bitter." I wouldn't let him kid himself that he was being Socratic. Socrates, I pointed out, used the dialectic, exposing his arguments to outside examination. By contrast this guy's onslaught was -- what? -- a mon-electic? I told him straight out that I wasn't impressed. But I'm getting ahead of myself. (Can you blame me? I'm overwhelmed with this. WHERE do I START ????????) By the way, I might as well tell you that Mr. Filibuster is none other than my editorial client, John.

Well, the thing about religious believers being blind followers is just equivocation, or at least a very bad assumption. To his mind, people believe because they were "forced" to believe, not because they made an informed decision. He said as much. He said that if I had been born in a certain place I would have a certain religion. He said that my parents forced me to be Catholic. Now, the first assertion is arguable. I mean, if I come from a place where everybody believes a certain thing, that will have a certain influence on me. But that's far from a certainty. After all, I did go through the typical religious questioning mode of youth. Most people I know did. As for the second assertion, Catholicism doesn't want people who are forced into the Church. They want people who make a sincere profession of faith. It might also surprise him to learn that many ethnic Jews forsake the Jewish faith, which I think is unfortunate, but it shows that people are making their own decisions. This was only one of a number of very bad assumptions John made as he ripped inconsiderately through his rant, wise in his own conceit.

Now let me tackle his notions of traditional Western sexual mores. By this I do mean traditional. I mean the Catholic tradition whereby my grandparents wed in their virginity after an innocent, loving courtship. (I never asked them, but let's assume that's what they did. In any event, this is the tradition whereof John spoke.) Having no cultural foundation for the concept of romance in his own upbringing, he doesn't understand the function of courtship. To him it is just sexual intimacy that pretends that it is not sexual intimacy. A man and a woman in the same room, a man and a woman sharing what we would consider an innocent kiss -- as far as he's concerned, they might as well go all the way. He makes two very silly points about this: First, how can a man know for sure that his intended is a virgin if she has shared a room or a kiss with a man? Second, if a kiss is not more sexually intimate than coitus, why then do harlots refuse a kiss?

My turn! Catholicism regards fornication as a sin, not an eternal blemish of dishonor. If a Catholic fornicates, he or she goes to confession and does penance. And that's the end of it. If for whatever reason one's fiancee deems it of utmost importance to ascertain that his intended is a virgin, he can always ask. What reassurance does he have of her truthfulness? Hopefully the romance and courtship were enough to enable two people to trust one another. If not, the couple has big problems. But John wouldn't know this, because he doesn't know the concepts of romance and courtship. Fair enough if he acknowledges his ignorance, but he doesn't.

Moving along, kissing is perhaps more intimate than coitus (I wouldn't know firsthand, being a virgin myself.) But it's not more *sexually* intimate; it's more *romantically* intimate. The harlot who refuses a kiss is saying, "This isn't love; it's only sex." It sails right over John's head. Love may be in his vocabulary, but romance is apparently foreign to him.

Interestingly, when it comes to marriage, John believes in temporary contracts of matrimony (practiced in Islam, he says.) He also believes the old line about "try before you buy" when it comes to permanent matrimony (a la Catholicism.) It's just another instance of equivocating sex with love. Holy matrimony is to be based on love, not sex. Of secondary concern, sexual "compatibility" or mechanics can be worked out later, with love and patience.

What's really disappointing here is how many Westerners of all ages likewise value sex and forget love, insisting that sexual intimacy needs to be investigated firsthand prior to any agreements being signed. I may not know sex, but at least I know love. I know what that feels like. I know what motivates romance. People who think it's all about sex think I'm missing out, but the irony is that they're the real losers; because they have never known a love in whose light their physical pleasures pale by comparison.

By the way, Russ has turned down the volume on the stereo, and has fallen asleep. He read some of the epistle from which John read aloud today, and advised me not to keep company with him. He also said that John was no longer welcomed in the apartment. This is not because Russ agrees or disagrees, but because he finds the whole diatribe to be unacceptably sexually aggressive. He feels that my addressing it on an academic level misses the mark in a way. What can I say? I think John came to America to put us to rights in a number of ways. That is why he is writing a book on our economy, and that is why I work for him. Should I abandon the project? I've decided to simply get the (editing) job done, promoting cultural understanding on an interpersonal level.