Live fast...die young

[nomadologist]

but just so you know, I'm far from "straight edge". my first "summer job" in highschool was selling heroin - and not the tar bullshit by the way, top of the line China-White FYI. and also acid and weed on the side.

I have had many experiences with heroin, opium, cocaine, crack cocaine, chystal methane, ecstasy, marijuana, mescaline, LSD, mushrooms, GHB, quaaludes, etc., etc. and still occasionally smoke weed or eat some mushrooms. also am looking forward to trying DMT.

Zhao: DMT was kind of a let down in my experience. other people i know thought it was great, so maybe it was just me. one of my friends described it like this: "it's like being shot out of a cannon into the far reaches of nowhere." i thought it was kind of harsh like mescaline, very short in the peak, and not quite as dissociative as it had been described to me and altogether lasted maybe 3 hours including the comedown. i don't like smoking anything much, either, so that could be why it sucked. in general i think LSD is 10x > DMT or any of the designer hallucinogens like AMT, 2ct7, blah blah.

P.S. do you live on the west coast, Zhao? in brooklyn, there are tons of 10- and 12-year-old street dealers who get bundles from their dads and rebag them into twice as many dimes cut with sand, which the dads don't mind as long as they use their own stamp so the poor quality stuff doesn't effect their own branding. failing math, but they're handy with the digital scale, then in jail by 18. you're an incredibly strong person for finding your way out of that. (have you read the sasha frere-jones article about this crazy "new" music he calls "cocaine rap"--he hilariously seems to think that hip-hop wasn't always full of lyrics about selling coke and crack, and heroin [the references to that are lost on most white people, tho] and that it is somehow an exaggeration of the truth when hip-hop artists talk about their formative years as dealers...)

 

[nomadologist]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/h...l=1&adxnnlx=1167480950-2NkDEfZyoH1edUGQLse5Fg

Guybrush, did you catch this article above in the times? It's about a study that proved that negative stereotypes regarding the elderly have immediate and statistically significant (in the sense of serious and tangible) effects on the memory, mood, coordination, mobility, etc. of elderly subjects in the study. It's a pretty amazing finding, especially if they're able to prove the same about negative reinforcement and other physical conditions or behaviors.

Ageism is ridiculous and maybe the last "ism" in America that isn't the center of a billion frivolous lawsuits. I wish it were, though. The way Americans worship youth in and of itself disgusts me. As soon as they hit 25, Americans stop taking care of themselves entirely, stop dressing well, gain 50 lbs + then complain about how their metabolisms "slowed down" when they were old (which must mean older than 20). American men then complain that their wives never want sex, then they have another beer with the guys and watch a 7-hour commercial, i mean, football game, and crack jokes about the Pussycat Dolls being their dreamwomen.

OK, I wonder if this is just American ageism: lately, I've been disgusted by how often men who are at least 40 (and apparently deep into a midlife crisis) leer at girls who are unarguably not even 15 yet (and nowhere near as attractive as the grown women) on the subway/street. I've noticed that this must be acceptable in some cultures, because Latino men do it openly and shout obscenities after the girls quite proudly. What annoys me more are the white men who think no one notices they're being slick and try to sneak very long, intent peeks at the 13-year-old girl standing in front of their seats, of course ignoring the disgusting old granny of a 30-year-old pregnant woman who needs a seat. I usually stare them down by glaring straight at their eyes till they startle and blush bright red. I can't decide whether it's because men are really such pathetic losers, or if it's our culture telling them Lindsay Lohan is ideal and basically anyone is hot if they're younger than 20 and "barely legal" (or whatever it is their favorite subscription netporn tells them those 35-year-old pros with pigtails and schoolgirl costumes are.) I find it supremely tacky and revolting. And I have a relatively high threshold for tacky/campy/kinky sexuality, hardly a prude. This is just too much, and it seems to get worse by the week.

 

[nomadologist]

PS Living a hedonistic and decadent lifestyle, hoping to go out in a blaze of glory, is hardly unique to rock and roll. It has quite a history in literature and a lot of literary "merit". Nietzsche's whole Dionysian idea was a huge inspiration to Iggy Pop and David Bowie, among others.

 

[swears]

The bigger problem with getting old in my mind is less the literal physical problems (which are bad and I plan to avoid them at all costs) than the fact that in our cultures you may as well be a leper if you're older than 60. If you're a woman, you might as well be a leper if you're older than 35 and have had the nerve to bear children and don't look good in a bikini anymore. Then after 60 if you dare to continue living you're like a stomach-turningly gross harpie monster who exists only to be fodder for gross-out jokes in PG-13 films. So you have not only the physical and mental decay to look forward to, but also total ostracisization and the feeling one gets from knowing how repulsive your presence is wherever you go.

Exaggerating a bit, no?

 

[nomadologist]

hmm I wish I were exaggerating more. I work on the Upper East Side which is crawling with elderly women who are all desperately chasing after some version of their 20-year-old selves just to avoid feeling unwanted and revolting. of course, i think plastic surgery and anorexia make people look more repulsive, but men apparently don't. i just feel sad for these old women because it's too late, anyway. no one wants you anymore when you're female and older than--i'll stop exaggerating--45. they have everything money can buy and it still can't buy any convincing approximation of youth.

 

[tht]

Actually, in terms of long-term, irreversible damage, the worst drugs are ecstasy and methamphetamine. Both kill really key dopamine channels, fry seratonin reuptake and release mechanisms, and in general reconfigure things about your brain chemistry that can't be reversed. Ecstasy at any dose is a neurotoxin, which means even a tenth of a "dose" is poisonous. Because it isn't usually a "drug of abuse" with a high risk of psychological dependency most people don't use it enough to incapacitate themselves.

sure but it will be a long time before the effects of it can be assessed in old age....maybe complete neurological anhedonia or perhaps low level symptoms for which there will be a new generation of seratonin system drugs, then it will be the kids and ssris repeating itself

Sadly, I think drug use is the closest thing people have under capitalism to forging experiences outside of the "entertainment" modes clean and sober people use. Which is not to say that it absolves you from capitalism, but it's the only way I can think of to intellectually resist, say, the things TV tells me to want and like and do in any literal experiential way. It's a distraction, too, but at least its content is directed by me rather than advertisers who want to appeal to Texans who like Fox News.

this all seems archaic, under god becomes under capitalism and the tv just feeding shit and all you can do is be seen to resist the cleanliness and sobriety of fox news........seems entrenched in sixites fear of suburbia and
affinity for gestures and aktionism, depravity as purity etc

that said i haven't done lsd dmt or any of that stuff, but is there anything in time of the hallucination that is discrete from the other temporary psychoses you can be sold or sent into?

 

[swears]

I work on the Upper East Side which is crawling with elderly women who are all desperately chasing after some version of their 20-year-old selves just to avoid feeling unwanted and revolting.

Hmmm...well that just sounds like the enviroment you're in. I don't think it's so bad out in the 'burbs. To be honest, I don't generally find women over 35 sexually attractive, but that doesn't mean I think that they're "revolting"!

 

[Guybrush]

What I found particulary interesting about that New York Times article was that the seventy-nine year old doctor said that depreciatory opinions about geriatrics was current even back when he was in medical school (which I assume means in the early 50s sometime). I have always had a (whimsical) idea that ageism is a product of the 60s and modern cutthroat individualism, but this seems to prove me wrong.

There are many interesting topics to discuss here, but I would like to separate elders obsession with looking ‘young’ from them being discriminated on the labour market and elsewhere (even if they may be distantly related—I imagine good youthful looks improve one's chances of getting hired for a job, for example). I also think olden men's (seeming) preference for adolescent looks is a slightly different topic.

Nomadologist's description of Upper East Side women makes me think of that scene in Godard's Breathless where Patricia is interviewing an author (I think) and he says something about the Paris women dressing ‘ridiculous’ in comparison with their American counterparts, an observation I interpret as meaning overly prudent and conservative. While this may have had some foundation at the time, it seems almost comical today: French women, along with their Latino counterparts, are the most dignified agers imaginable, their appearance masterfully complementing their age. Catherine Keener in Capote is a good example of a woman dressing befitting while remaining uppermostly sensual, I think:

...as I am sure Swears would agree.

In contemporary pornography actresses are for the most part given one of two labels: they are either ‘teens’ (18–25[-ish]) or ‘MILFs’ (25+). I believe this says something disturbing about our time.

 

[nomadologist]

"In contemporary pornography actresses are for the most part given one of two labels: they are either ‘teens’ (18–25[-ish]) or ‘MILFs’ (25+). I believe this says something disturbing about our time."

Doesn't this prove that those things I was talking about ARE all related to ageism, Guybrush?

I mean, I'm not attracted to much older people of any kind, I understand only being attracted to people in your general age range. But there's something disturbing about male expectations for females w/r/t aging--like it shouldn't happen to women, when it does they are disposable, but it's perfectly natural for men. Watch TV for 15 minutes, women with kids being too old to want is the punchline to 90% of the jokes.

 

[nomadologist]

Hmmm...well that just sounds like the enviroment you're in. I don't think it's so bad out in the 'burbs. To be honest, I don't generally find women over 35 sexually attractive, but that doesn't mean I think that they're "revolting"!

It's worse out in the burbs I've been in. I suppose the UK has nothing like America's obsession with plastic surgery and breast implants, etc. Just wait till you do.

 

[nomadologist]

sure but it will be a long time before the effects of it can be assessed in old age....maybe complete neurological anhedonia or perhaps low level symptoms for which there will be a new generation of seratonin system drugs, then it will be the kids and ssris repeating itself



this all seems archaic, under god becomes under capitalism and the tv just feeding shit and all you can do is be seen to resist the cleanliness and sobriety of fox news........seems entrenched in sixites fear of suburbia and
affinity for gestures and aktionism, depravity as purity etc

that said i haven't done lsd dmt or any of that stuff, but is there anything in time of the hallucination that is discrete from the other temporary psychoses you can be sold or sent into?

Yeah I don't really think drug use gets you anywhere you couldn't necessarily go without drugs, but I'd also rather do drugs and sit and stare at a wall than watch TV. Any day.

 

[Guybrush]

Doesn't this prove that those things I was talking about ARE all related to ageism, Guybrush?

I mean, I'm not attracted to much older people of any kind, I understand only being attracted to people in your general age range. But there's something disturbing about male expectations for females w/r/t aging--like it shouldn't happen to women, when it does they are disposable, but it's perfectly natural for men. Watch TV for 15 minutes, women with kids being too old to want is the punchline to 90% of the jokes.

They sure are, but I think other factors are more instrumental in creating conditions for discrimination of elders. To discuss them together would be to focus on the wrong things. Ephebophilia and men’s sexual preferences are such huge subjects in themselves.

The common attitude among my male friends (all of which are in their mid-20s) is that they always will have a preference for girls in, say, the 18–22 bracket. For them, meeting lecherous women in their early 30s is a jolting experience, these women being mere decayed versions of their nineteen year old selves (cf. your description of elderly Manhattanites), puerile and vacuous, yet lacking the vigour and winsome naïveté of their younger sisthrens. This is a harsh judgement, and one that is unfair and awfully sweeping, but I do think their concerns are honest. More crucially: I think they are common with older men too, Dissensus fave Žižek being a prime example.

In other words, I think middle-aged women's own behaviour is a contributing factor. However, I think you are right in that attitudes fostered by the entertainment industry are exacerbating the problems, maybe even creating them to an extent (Sex and the City being a convenient culprit in this respect―infantilism as dogma).

 

[the undisputed truth]

FWIW I've met a few GILFs...

...G-moms

 

[nomadologist]

They sure are, but I think other factors are more instrumental in creating conditions for discrimination of elders. To discuss them together would be to focus on the wrong things. Ephebophilia and men’s sexual preferences are such huge subjects in themselves.

The common attitude among my male friends (all of which are in their mid-20s) is that they always will have a preference for girls in, say, the 18–22 bracket. For them, meeting lecherous women in their early 30s is a jolting experience, these women being mere decayed versions of their nineteen year old selves (cf. your description of elderly Manhattanites), puerile and vacuous, yet lacking the vigour and winsome naïveté of their younger sisthrens. This is a harsh judgement, and one that is unfair and awfully sweeping, but I do think their concerns are honest. More crucially: I think they are common with older men too, Dissensus fave Žižek being a prime example.

In other words, I think middle-aged women's own behaviour is a contributing factor. However, I think you are right in that attitudes fostered by the entertainment industry are exacerbating the problems, maybe even creating them to an extent (Sex and the City being a convenient culprit in this respect?infantilism as dogma).

I think that since women are always socially valued or devalued according to their sexual utility, in any situation, ageism for women is a function of their perceived sexual attractiveness and how well they are able to preserve themselves in their former glory as sexually attractive young women (because that is their only social significance). Thre's that, and let's not forget, their importance when it comes to pushing out kids and doing laundry.

What are you talking about, "lecherous" women? What does that mean? Are women lecherous as soon as they stop playing "winsome" and "naive"? Oh wait, I forget--women are naturally pure and chaste, and they are supposed to act naive because men think that men are naturally "dirtier" and must teach women about dirty things like sex. Yeah right. The average male (of any age, from what i can tell) couldn't find a clitoris with a compass and a map and trust me, 20-year-olds are no more naive or less lecherous than women in their 30s or 60s, they just know how to play dumb around men to get attention or things. (Because if I'm going have to play like I'm a blowup doll and rarely orgasm from sex I might as well get something out of the bargain, like gifts or money or something, right?)

I think what's sad about the elderly women on the UES is not that they're "decayed", it's that society is such that they have to go to such extreme ends to feel valued when they should not feel ashamed of being naturally 60-years-old and looking it. Many of these are extremely accomplished and intelligent women. But in the end, all that matters about women in the eyes of society is whether you are "fuckable" or at least how desperately you strive to portray yourself as some shadow of your formerly fuckable self as you have the nerve to get older and age. Otherwise you're an affront to the gaze and the symbolic order and all of that.

Maybe for males sexual attractiveness and ageism have little to do with one another, but for women those things are completely intertwine. And I thnk nothing could be further from the truth. Men freak out when they realize they're getting too old to attract these naive, winsome 18-25 year olds (silly because they probably NEVER did) and buy expensive cars and cheat on their wives with secretaries trying to get a corner office. Ageism and sexism and sexuality are all tangled up in one hideous knot, I would think.

 

[nomadologist]

I don't like "Sex and the City" all that much, but that has nothing to do with "infantilism" and everything to do with the fact that in the end it is feeding you the same bullshit about women that everything else on TV is--that women are completely dependent on men and do everything just dreaming of the day they'll finally get married and be officially dependent on a man. What exactly do you find infantile about that show, or dogmatic? Don't quite get it.

I know it makes older men really uncomfortable to watch women talk openly about their sexual partners as "conquests" in the same way men might. But that part is the realistic part of the show. Women have one nights stands, casual sex, and talk about it in detail. The ones I know, anyway. The unrealistic/insultingly stupid part is where they try to make you believe ALL women think about in the end is some romantic ideal of prince charming whom they can marry and live with happily ever after. That women are unhappy when they have casual sex, that it feels bad or wrong to them, or isn't fulfilling because that's not how women are, "naturally" monogamous, rather than monogamous because they have only ever been conferred social and economic advantages insofar as they have agreed to live monogamously and as property that, much like cattle or land, is passed down patrilinealy from father to son-in-law. This is, of course, total bullshit. Some women want to get married, some women love nothing more than completely unencumbered sexual freedom. Nature and heteronorms are not the same phenomena.

 

[swears]

OK, question: Do we find younger people attractive because a) we're conditioned to by society for some obscure reason, or b) because it's evolutionary trait...eg younger=more fertile/virile?

Our whole sex drive is geared towards procreation isn't it?

 

[swears]

This brings up the whole politics of attraction.
I can't help who turns me on, I only find conventionally attractive 18-28 year old women sexually alluring. I know this is wrong but what can I do? I can't FORCE myself to want the intelligent but dumpy type can I?

 

[nomadologist]

Some of both. There are legitimate reasons why youth would be more attractive across the board--because it signifies health, fertility, virility, etc. But procreation is a much more complex game than that. Part of evolution is not just reproducing, not just "surviving", but thriving. In some situations, it would make more evolutionary sense to procreate with a slightly older person who has more resources and who, therefore, is more likely to produce a child with you who has a higher likelihood of surviving longer and thriving. Or an older person who is healthier. There are all sorts of factors that are weighed in attractiveness when sex is performed in service of procreation. But that's never the only reason why it's performed.

Humans are literally "sex machines" as far as species go. We mate even when females aren't fertile. We expend tremendous energy and use insane amounts of resources seeking out sexual encounters that in all likelihood will not end in successful reproduction. Our secondary sex characteristics are very exaggerated compared to other primates/mammals: male humans have a much larger penis than even the most well-endowed of our close relatives in other species, female humans have breasts much larger than are functional. Humans are hairless and our offspring require extremely close attention and psychological nurturing far beyond what other species' offspring require. We have this brains and bodies that work together in a way that is hard to predict or pin down, especialyl with regard to sexuality. Our psyches are an insanely complex secondary sexual characteristic that is not easily accounted for by reductionist evolutionary "sociobiology."

 

[nomadologist]

It's one thing for a 24-year-old male to be attracted to 18-25 year olds. It's another for a 40-year-old to prefer the fantasy of sleeping with 18-25 year olds to a real sexual relationship with a psychological peer. Being unhealthy in your sexuality is just as bad for your offspring as being physically unhealthy is, I'm sure. We just can't measure how bad, yet.

 

[nomadologist]

I can't FORCE myself to want the intelligent but dumpy type can I?

You can't, but evolutionarily, it would make more sense to be attracted to someone who looks good AND is intelligent.

Personally I think men who can't deal with intelligent women are revolting. Men who think some completely busted girl is hot because she has an expensive manicure and lots of makeup and presents herself like a pornstar with the intelligence of a snail whose lobotomy was botched are a hoot. They're the types who are terrified of being challenged and think women should be ego-props. The best are the ones who are themselves dumb but rich and give women a lot of money to play this role for them. It would be one thing if the girls they were after were actually pretty but they're just heavily mascara-ed.