RSS

Monthly Archives: October 2012

And You Too, Can Be A Star

review of the new film Sessions refers to one character as a ‘sex therapist.’ The therapist’s job, as described in the review, is to have sex with a client. Sex can be therapeutic, but a ‘sex therapist’ is an actual therapist. Psychiatrists and psychologists specialize in sex therapy (the study and treatment of sexual dysfunction.) Treatment involves talk therapy and homework assignments (homework not tutorials!) Are there sex therapists (or scout leaders, coaches, pediatricians, dentists) who have engaged in unethical and criminal behavior while on the job? Sure. But a sex therapist does not by definition engage in sex for pay. The review goes on to describe this character as a sex surrogate (how did such a straightforward career end up with so many titles?)

What ever happened to good old-fashioned prostitutes? When is the last time you even heard that word? Everyone’s and escort or a call girl, or I suppose a sex surrogate. I’m not sure the working conditions change much with a new title. Director of correspondence control is still a mailroom clerk. But everyone likes a fancy title. Personally, I find the title; “stripper” far more attractive than that of dancer. Stripper conjures up an act or at least a gimmick. Dancer is a bored practically nude women swinging from a pole. And if that girl leaves the stage to squirm on a drunken businessman in a back room, she’s not just a dancer she’s a surrogate. And what of all men and women in the corps de ballet? Does every introduction now have to be followed with; “no, really, an actual dancer”?

Who doesn’t enjoy a little spin? We like to put the best face on things. Our children are all doing incredibly well and everyone that’s remotely related to us is gifted. But when did we decide that being a prostitute is somehow undesirable but being an escort was understandable? Do we really think that all those dancers are making their way through law school, but strippers are simply down on their luck? (And for the record these professions and terms are not gender-specific.) For some reason the sex professions enjoy more than their fair share of spin (there’s a burlesque joke in there somewhere.) Nobody acts in pornographic movies; they are porn STARS. Nobody poses naked for pornographic magazines; they are CENTERFOLDS. There must be bold-faced terminology for internet pornography as well (feel free to leave me in the dark.)

In the end a rose is a rose is a rose I suppose. But it’s not a help to the therapeutic community to call a person who has sex with clients for money a “sex therapist.” It’s strangely apt, but not all that helpful to that other profession.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 19, 2012 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

College Cost Crusade

Private education is expensive. It always has been and probably always will be. What is less static is our nation’s relationship and reliance on credit. A couple of generations ago, earning a private college acceptance letter was not necessarily a golden ticket. Resources were gathered and if loans were taken they were most likely to cover gaps not to foot the bill. Those who could not gather the funds chose public universities instead.

Our national orientation towards credit and consumption has changed dramatically over the decades. “Affordability” has more to do with credit limits then bank accounts. It is easy to see how this philosophy migrates into the higher education arena. There is no other large purchase we make that maintains its value. Cars depreciate the moment you drive off the lot. Houses, well we’ve seen what can happen with housing. Perhaps impressionist (or Andy Warhol) pieces increase in value, but the insurance will kill you. Even diamonds and gold can fluctuate in value. But education is permanent. Add to that how sentimental people get around college (Hail to thee my alma mater) and about their children; and you’ve got yourself a low-sugar shopping experience.

There are people walking around with far more student debt than they can manage. No one will dispute that. Looking to private colleges to lower their costs, makes for great headlines but misses the point. The issue is actually not the cost of the private education; it’s the affordability. If the college chooses to charge a gazillion dollars a credit and there are people who can pay that amount, there’s no problem. The problem is with debt not cost. It’s time to take a good long hard look at the creditors and set limits. Grown people (with jobs!) have limits on how much they can borrow, children should as well.

We need to force the issue of educated consumerism. Community colleges and public colleges and universities are still quite reasonably priced (in the grand scheme of things.) Forgiving debt is not sustainable and ignores the real issue. Higher education is no different than any other purchase. The key is to find the most suitable choice within one’s budget.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on October 18, 2012 in Education

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Fundamental Things To Fly

When Rick tells Ilsa that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world and that she must get on that plane the audience holds its collective breath. Will she stay in Casablanca or join her husband to fight the good fight? It’s a suspenseful few moments; this romantic struggle. To this day, my stomach clenches with anxiety; will she really get on that tiny prop plane during such a thick fog? For me any follow-up film wouldn’t answer romantic questions but instead whether Victor, Ilsa and the pilot got there in one piece.

Ordinarily travel in film was depicted (and often actually was) kind of glamorous. There was a (relatively) brief period of time during which air travel was regularly available and pricey. People dressed, not to teach yoga, but to travel. There was such a thing as ‘travel outfits’ that did not include a u-shaped pillow (presumably for the neck but identical to a hemorrhoid pillow.) We can all agree those days are over. But what has taken its place? Slowly but surely you can (or will be able to) buy or finagle your way into civility. There are ways to avoid the TSA hall of mirrors screening. Cavity searches and arbitrary confiscations can be bypassed with elite registration. You needn’t wait at the gate/Ellis Island Great Hall if you pay for V.I.P. status with an airline. You can eat cubed cheese behind closed doors, for a price. Passengers can pre-board as V.I.P.s as well. Pre-board? Why would anyone care to sit in a can longer than necessary? Well, claiming space in an overhead bins is a sweet (and at times elusive) victory. Airlines now charge passengers for the opportunity to have one’s luggage damaged, stolen or lost. Those bins fill up fast and with items you wouldn’t think could fit through the aircraft door let alone a bin.

So if you’ve paid your additional memberships and registered accordingly, you have gotten onto the airplane in a civilized manner. You’ve still carried your bag like a sherpa and purchased your own magazines, newspapers and meals. But you haven’t stood on endless lines or worse, in large unwieldy clusters. You’ve not been checked for scurvy or glaucoma or had your name changed. No, you and your burlap sack of boiled potatoes and sausage are seated comfortably with your worldly possessions within eyeshot. You are seated comfortably, aren’t you? Okay forget about your legs for a moment; you’re okay right? What’s that? You’ve no sensation in your shins? No, I’m sorry those seats (with extra legroom) in the emergency row cost extra. That’s right you get to pay for the privilege of agreeing to assist 150 people out of a crashed airplane. Now just sit back and try to relax. Here, have some recycled air. Your air blower doesn’t work? Let me see if I can flag an attendant to help you. Hmm, all I seem to see is people wearing jeans and bright pink tops. There seems to be a woman in an electric pink housedress maybe she can help. It would appear that this Delta flight is not only cross-listed with Alaska Air, KLM, Bob’s Plane, but with Barbie Air as well. (*Note-flights are now cross-listed like college courses. Don’t ask why; don’t even think too much about it, just check and re-check which terminal has your plane.) Wait it seems it’s not Barbie Air. No, it’s a charity campaign. Yep! If you act now not only do you enjoy the posh pleasures of flying in a can, providing your own meals, entertainment, and blankie, you have the opportunity to donate to the charity of your airline’s choice!

No doubt the airline is looking for some good will. You know what might create some good will? Have the attendants wear uniforms. Don’t have the pilot stand in his shirt sleeves (and white plastic sunglasses) showing the attendants photos of his wild antics last night as passengers are boarding. Be on time and be nice. Stop making the seats smaller and closer together. In fact; stop making the seats. There should be two classes; first class (for which a ticket is never less than $5,000 each way) and upright. Yes, upright. Just straps us in like parachuters. You could fit a lot more people in that way and eliminate the need for any bathrooms! Flying is already like riding the subway in so many other ways; I say take that last brave step for mankind. Nothing will create goodwill faster than just getting me there in one piece after such a harrowing experience. I’m willing to wager that Ilsa and the pilot of that prop plane are probably the ones that lived happily ever after.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 17, 2012 in Travel

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Flying Solo

 

 

 

If you’ve been out in public during the past ten years you may have noticed that there are few “adult” domains dotting our landscape. I don’t refer to the “Live” “Nude” Times Square of decades past. I refer instead to any and everywhere. The stroller set has infiltrated your local coffee shop and bar (hey after a long day playing in a sanitized million dollar soft-edged heat-proof playground, you’d need a stiff drink too.) Restaurants whose white tablecloths and staggering bills once signaled and adult oasis, now have nuggets of processed foods on the menu (because after all small children do enjoy fine dining they just don’t enjoy actual food.) No doubt much of the free-range high pitched squealing you experience (in restaurants, bars or Holocaust memorial museums) is mostly due to a parent not wanting to deny themselves anything of their pre-parenting life. It would seem that some people skipped the “What to EXPECT when you’re expecting” chapter. Life should continue unaltered save for many more accessories.

But what of the scenario in which the presence of one’s own child ruins the experience of the parent. Clearly ruining other people’s experience is a great motivator, but what if your own child negates your pleasure. No, we’re not venturing into “family bed” territory. Instead we’re looking at high-end travel. Not private plane, private island, private ecosystem travel. Just ordinary 5-star travel. Why would a person choose to fly first-class with a child younger than school age? If we assume both are healthy and that the child(ren) are not actual owners of the airline; what in the world would compel an adult to fly first-class with a small, squealing, squirming child? It can’t be the free food, children don’t seem to eat real food. (Oh for the love of all decency, don’t tell me they now serve nuggets in first-class!) It’s almost certainly not the free booze, although it could be that warm wet towel. The parent’s experience could not be improved by being in first class. Unless the flight attendants actually relieve the parent of the child, how is the parent enjoying the benefits of first-class? Is it merely the mustache twirling delight in having ruined everyone else’s first-class experience? Doubtful.

Once the aircraft has taxied to the gate and the fasten seat belt sign has been turned off, where are the little tykes staying? Are they off to visit relatives or perhaps moving into their new home? No, they’re off to the 5-star hotel/resort with zero child-centric amenities. Their parents will play running, screaming games of hide and seek in the plush penthouse level hallway at 10:30 PM. These adults will encourage the practicing of door slamming (“good boy!”) throughout the early morning hours. And we are left wondering why. Why would anyone choose to spend so much money to not enjoy the quiet, the plushness, the afternoon tea, the romance and the restorative nature of a very posh hotel? Why in an area dotted with chain hotels and motels catering to children and their nugget ways would anyone think that children should be in a place created for the pleasure of adults? Is it merely an extension of the ‘not being denied’ anything of one’s pre-parenting days? Does it matter not a whit that you spent the money and didn’t actually have the experience for which you paid? Is it an insistence of not lowering one’s standards just because one has decided to parent? (Note: Entitlement isn’t really a standard; it’s more of a pervasive and toxic behavior.) Could it be something even slightly more disturbing? Could it be that the child/infant is an adult security blanket? The world and/or social gatherings are far less daunting when you can dress up a little person and spend the day deflecting. That motivation would certainly explain the appearance of children/babies at funerals and weddings. “Pay no attention to the adult behind the baby!” It’s enough to make a person miss the security blankets that were smoking and sedatives.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on October 15, 2012 in Childhood, Travel

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A Really Big Show

Even if you’d never watched the Ed Sullivan show, you probably know what it was. The variety show brought the Beatles to television. Ed and his show played a central part in the Broadway musical (and film) Bye Bye Birdie. Any1950s-1960s period film or television series will make mention of or reference to Ed Sullivan. Ed and his really big show, liked to discover talent. He was an American popular culture tastemaker for decades. He wasn’t a performer in any traditional sense; he was a host.

That would be where Barbra Streisand’s new show and Mr. Sullivan’s old show part company. Barbra is a performer and (just in case you missed it) is performing in Brooklyn for the first time. Her show, at the spanking new Barclays Center, entitled Back To Brooklyn, opened last night. It was a long show featuring several performers and videos. She sang some too.

The concert (with a start time of 8:00 PM) started some time after 8:30 PM. It was fun to picture the ghost of Judy Garland whispering in Barbra’s ear; “not yet, you can’t go out yet.” A slideshow of Barbra’s childhood to Funny Girl played on the scrim while the ravishing orchestra treated the audience to beautiful arrangements of bits of her best. The scrim dropped (in a rather quaint old-fashioned stage-handy manner) and the stage was revealed. The stage was designed in and around the orchestra, allowing the audience full view of the wonderful musicians. Barbra appeared and bantered her way into “As If We Never Said Good-bye” from Sunset Boulevard. Whether the song benefited from altering the lyrics to include words such as “lox, knish, and Flatbush” is a matter of personal taste. Shortly after the song, and after many unsuccessful attempts, the audience was able to communicate that the spotlights aimed at the audience’s eyes (for the past hour) must be turned off. Blessedly she got it and took care of her audience. We were then able to see her ravishing self. In the first of three outfits (not including a sequined James Brown cape) she was spectacular.

After a few songs the first of her guests were presented. A young Italian singing trio; Il Volo took the stage; engaged in some rehearsed banter, and sang one song with Barbra. Barbra then left the stage for Il Volo to perform on their own. They have strong, if not particularly interesting voices, but it felt odd to sit through an opening act during a concert already in progress. Barbra returned and sang a bit more and answered (prescreened) question, at times quite humorously. More acts were introduced throughout the night; a trumpeter, a violinist, a drummer, and a children’s choir. If your musical taste is the same as Ms. Streisand this may have been a welcome treat. There was one guest who added tremendously to the evening. The audience was introduced to the guest via a film (one of three shown about Barbra.) This was a film Barbra’s son Jason had made for her birthday. It was a lovely montage of mother and son photos throughout the years (with ages 8-24 somewhat missing in action.) The audio was a stirring rendition of Nature Boy (Nat King Cole) sung by none other than Jason. He joined his mother on stage for what was without question the best 15 minutes of the concert. Jason appeared slightly nervous, and extremely handsome. Barbra simply melted in his pressence. She was a maternal puddle and a swooning fan. Mr. Gould does have a beautiful, pure and strong voice. He seems to have found a sound that is all his own, yet not surprisingly he blended perfectly with his mother in duet.

Barbra’s solo numbers included a brief tribute to her recently departed friend and colleague Marvin Hamlisch and a nice shout-out to the late Donna Summer. The bells and whistles number was most certainly the show-tune medley (2 parts Gypsy and 1 part Funny Girl.) Other audience favorites included; Evergreen, People, and Happy Days. All songs had been newly arranged to accommodate her range. It created an interesting effect, similar to seeing a new interpretation of a classic play. Her voice has changed rather noticeably. It was a bit stressful for the audience to worry about notes being hit. She is a seasoned (to put it mildly) performer and knew just how to recover each and every time.

Audiences will not be disappointed if they are prepared for a variety show. No doubt when the show hits the road it will no longer be called; “Back To Brooklyn.” A more apt title might be; “Barbra and Friends.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 12, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,