A-List is social blackmail. There, I said it.
My profile is a tad long so I don't actually expect anybody to read it all. I just kept adding bits and pieces here and there so it's more a kind of conglomeration of the stuff I like. I didn't really focus on explaining myself. Just figured I might as well try to have some fun with it. But peruse at your pleasure =). Oh, I also have a ton written down under my questions so that might help explain me a bit better. But ya, just looking for somebody I really look forward to talking to. I guess eventually somebody who makes me want something of everything around me. After all, what's a spark or chemistry if not the science of a universal connection? Not the science of a connection between two things but the desire between all things.
Basically, my ideal man is a communist cum slut, 10/10 would people's war with.
My sexual identity could be best described to people who have never met me as: a random arrangement of Soft Cell lyrics.
"What does it matter how many lovers you have if none of them gives you the universe." -Jacques Lacan
"If you say, I love you, then you have already fallen in love with language, which is already a form of break up and infidelity." -Jean Baudrillard
"Seduction is always more singular and sublime than sex and it commands the higher price." -Jean Baudrillard
"To love someone is to isolate him from the world, wipe out every trace of him, dispossess him of his shadow, drag him into a murderous future. It is to circle around the other like a dead star and absorb him into a black light." -Jean Baudrillard
“Someone tells me: this kind of love is not viable. But how can you evaluate viability? Why is the viable a Good Thing? Why is it better to last than to burn?” -Roland Barthes; A Lover's Discourse
“If I acknowledge my dependency, I do so because for me it is a means of signifying my demand: in the realm of love, futility is not a "weakness" or an "absurdity": it is a strong sign: the more futile, the more it signifies and the more it asserts itself as strength." -Barthes
Please tell me I'm not the only one that ends up feeling extremely turned on reading quotes like those.
Most personal thing I'm willing to admit: I have an unhealthy addiction to Tapatio. I don't care if it hurts I WILL keep eating. Sometimes I will enter a state called 'Tapatio overdose' where I start sweating profusely and panting. Then, I'll desperately fan my tongue with my hands and drink all the water I can find. This is a serious medical condition.
Developing teleportation technology to expand my dating capabilities to a wider radius.
Accidentally clicking 'pass' on cute/interesting guys when I'm using OKCupid on my phone then desperately trying to think of ways to bring the errant profile back until I give up and freak out a little wondering if I had just carelessly passed a possible good friend or partner.
Most of my nonfiction interest is reserved for critical theory, deconstruction, and any other continental philosophers with a linguistic leaning. My favorite philosopher is Jean Baudrillard (here's a small quote to give you a bit of an idea just why Baudrillard was dope as fuk "There is nothing funny about Halloween. This sarcastic festival reflects, rather, an infernal demand for revenge by children on the adult world.") with Michel Foucault in a close second. Roland Barthes is a fav too, but I can't make up my mind and stick with it about where he fits into my philosophical hierarchy so he's just in a corner or wandering about doing his own thing, mostly looking seductive, smoking cigars, and getting run over by a laundry truck. I think he would've preferred things this way anyways. I've read and enjoyed bits and pieces of most major postmodern or neomarxist philosophers: Derrida (a true labor of love), Zizek, Lacan (not really postmodern, but whatever, Lacan is timeless.), Althusser (a structural Marxist, but whatever), Spivek, etc. Not huge into feminist/queer theory, but I've read some Judith Butler, Irigaray, and Sedgwick. And I do have to say, the homoerotic triangle ranks up there as one of the most easily applicable and generally fun theories to use on media. Nietzsche also deserves a mention because I think he was postmodern before it was cool and I think some of his more mainstream ideas are experiencing a bit of a resurgence. As for his, well, more out there ideas, I think they help us better understand how it is we construct meaning and the importance of doing so even if it is divorced from reality. We should all strive to go insane the way Nietzsche did: having exhausted the different modalities to iterate truth, left thus with the artless form, a meaning ungarbed of aesthetics and deprived of wit, it's lack of substance purely sardonic, it's emptiness self-evident. My goals for reading in philosophy for the near future involve reading Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein (Lord only knows if I can manage to read the whole thing) and a work or two by Deleuze and Guattari. Don't worry if philosophy isn't your cup of tea, I'm not a snob about it, and the whole esoteric lexicon is pretty easily distilled for the most part if it ever comes up.
As for movies, nothing really stands out at the moment. Of recent, Nightcrawler and Gone Girl are the only names that come to mind (I'll watch anything with Jake Gyllenhaal in it). In the past, some of my favorites have been The Cremator, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy (preferably extended edition watched back to back with the proper breaks for breakfast, second breakfast, elevenses, lunch, tea time, dinner, and supper). Somehow, I almost forgot PT Anderson. I love anything by him. Except for Magnolia that is, but we can all forgive that.
Haven't been listening to much music of late. The album The Cave of Forgotten Dreams by Ernst Reijseger and The Rite of Spring by Stravinsky stand out. Not a huge fan of rap or techno, but if it's good, it's good. I listen to a lot of different bands so attempting to expound upon what exactly it is that makes me click with a song or group would be an exercise in futility.
Regarding food, I enjoy my gustatory delights as much as the next guy, but I'm not really of discerning taste. It's always fun to try something new, but I am by no means a "foodie". Yes, I do cook from time to time, and yes, I will make you dinner as an early date if I really like you. And good cheese will always win me over. Old Quebec is my favorite. You could pull up to the curb where I'm walking, tires screeching, in a windowless van wearing a ski mask at night, and if you offer me Old Quebec, I will come with you.
Why no favorite painters? Well, I go back and forth between Klimt, Nicholas Roerich, David Caspar Friedrich, and Matisse for anybody curious.
AMENDMENT to nonfiction reading: I'm reading a bit more history now and a bit less philosophy. I love Eric Hobsbawm's series on the 19th and early 20th centuries. His Marxist tendencies are wonderfully well suited to the study of the era from which Marxism arose and was designed to critique. I also really like military history, particularly Roman military history (if you can list off the emperors from Augustus to Romulus Augustus (I'll understand missing a couple from the periods of crisis) I'll happily be your Agrippa with a little Antoninus on the side;) ). But ya, I'm planning on cautiously wading my way into some Max Boot starting with Invisible Armies. We'll see how that goes. Not sure the whole might makes right thing will sit well.
Update on this stupid question: I've decided to think of six things I really can do without.
1.) People with an unhealthy obsession with Disneyland. Not that I despise Disneyland or anything, but once a year is the most I can handle without running out of things to think about while I stand in line. Gay days would naturally be my Disneyland day of choice. It's always nice to get together for some Pride and have a bunch of bears yell at me to flash them my "titties" on It's a Small World.
2.) People who read fanfic and write when they can't sleep, but take their writing way too seriously. This is a weird pet peeve of mine, and their stories always make me feel uncomfortable like I'm being forced to think about something sleazy against my will. Not that I have it out for all fanfic. If the writer has a good sense for the kind of whimsical comedy that somehow borders the grotesque and lewd at times which is a hallmark of the medium and a good imagination that lends itself to plot-driven storytelling then fanfic can be excellent reading.
3.) Atheists who think they're special. What a world they must live in, wondering why nobody seems to understand them and how well reasoned they are. A world where Richard Dawkins never seems to change a theist's mind in a debate no matter how right he is (!). Poor special atheists, martyrs for the cause. A frustrated sigh of solidarity for the special atheists out there. The world will recognize you were right all along one of these days and that they really must be stupid in comparison and you can make all the smug faces at them you want. Just have faith special atheist
4.) People who fail to place commas where required then use several misplaced commas a few words later. I mean I'm not a huge prescriptivist in any way. It's all about style and flow and all that jazz. Lord only knows I love my conjunctions more than I ought to (If you haven't already noticed). But really, solecisms that serve no stylistic purpose whatsoever but instead make the content difficult or confusing to read are way too common here. You're supposed to tend to your sentences, not chop them into pieces with commas like you've taken some kind of grammatical meat cleaver to your writing. I'm sure I make this mistake from time to time as well so I know it's really a snooty thing to nitpick about, but I'm not really THAT much of an asshole about it. I'm just sitting here and silently judging you. =)
5.) Soul patches. The world would be a better place without soul patches. More like soulless patches, ammirite? I instantly distrust anybody with a soul patch. "Why," you may ask. Because people with soul patches clearly think they're some kind of vaudevillian or carnie. Are you trying to grow a goatee? Did you miss a large patch while shaving? Too much uncertainty. It's the intent of the soul patch to sow confusion this way. Educate yourself, don't fall for it.
6.) The sound Facebook makes when you have a new update. I call the tone they use "Pavlov's Bell".
And sex. I think about that a lot too.
Lol who am I kidding. I'm probably having a Netflix and chill session with Alejandro, my body-sized pillow/cuddle surrogate.
You want to talk. I have no singular goal in being here. Just to meet interesting people and see which way the wind blows. By all means, visit me. And by all means, message me. I can be a shy partner in the game of mirrors that always seems to be going on here, but I figure we all essentially want the same thing: to reach out for some kind of connection. It could go nowhere more than a few replies back and forth or maybe we find nobody waiting at the other end, but its better to always imagine yourself close to something. Really, the only other choice is to become more and more an aspect of watching, the constant scopophilia this site indulges so well. We accommodate our voyeurism because, as a defensive mechanism, it is a successful if unsatisfying means of mediating between fantasy and reality. The ego, as moderator, is consigned to the role of reality, and fulfillment of its function is increasingly dependent on evermore convincing methods of conflating fantasy and the mediation that denies it. Thus, the voyeur is thrice excited. First, by the clear division his sexual fantasy establishes between subject and object. His object, framed by the Gaze, is exposed, naked and vulnerable to the imposition of the voyeurs desires. Second, by the ever present need his projection of fantasy at distance inspires to dissolve its spatial distinctions. His stage is set, but the act's inspiration is its suicidal imagination. The corollary to the voyeur's first desire, that the audience allows fantasy to be imagined throught the manipulation and sublimation the objectifying gaze makes possible, is that the audience also prevents the fulfillment of fantasy. The theater of scripts, roles, and props, betrays the imitation of reality. The illusion may be maintained in part, by the excitement of an unwitting object, but inevitably, the only scenario in which the narrative's actors transcend imitation is the one where they've killed the audience and dissolved the distinction between performance and the thing itself occurring as agency without identity. This death wish is akin to murder of the father and other symbolic murders of the superego. Third, the voyeur's greatest excitement is the impossibility of reconciling his first two desires. His gestalt is that his fantasy always forces him to pleasure himself. In sex, his fantasy gives him nothing and he continues to be ruled by the compulsion of his desire. He can watch, in secret, but he can never touch. He can only indulge fantasy and never effect reality. We can translate the voyeuristic impulse a number of ways. For example, nostalgia is politically voyeuristic, a fantasy of cultural hegemony. In our larger romantic lives the desire to view profiles and casually engage people in ways that never really go anywhere, gleaming glimpses of people and flirting with the possibility of one's capacity for feelings of a consuming longing for them, is metaphorically pornographic. [NOTE: I just added that weird analysis of voyeurism in on a hyperfocused whim, and it feels like a really weird thing to have on an okc profile, but I like it enough that I don't want to delete it and now I feel too lazy to revise a suitable transition between it and what I had already written before]. But to watch is to become a thing farther and farther away and detached from the things you desire I dunno, for me, really coming out for the first time to myself was about allowing myself to really want something, and I bet it felt that way on some level to a large number of the people here. It feels like a shame to spend time on this site once more unsure and self-censored and scared to pursue the things that might make you happy as you watch them from a distance. We're all just trying to avoid that feeling.
Oh, and if you actually bothered to read all this. If you message me after that and I don't answer, it's my own damn fault.
Postscript: you guys have to stop contradicing yourselves in your summaries. This is directed at all you 'introverted extroverts', 'shy but outgoing', and 'intensely laidback' people out there. If 'a or b' is true then 'a and b' is obviously false so no matter how you slice it, without clarifying statements, you're saying something false about yourself. That or you have multiple personalities. So, pick a descriptor and stick with it. If it doesn't adequately describe you then tack on a couple qualifiers.