I stood in a glass box. Heat lamps buzzed overhead. There were 8 people under them, including me. We stood at a half-arm’s length of each other, lined up like dominoes superglued to the wooden platform. (Please, for the sake of it, let’s just pretend that superglue successfully bonds plastic to damp wood, k?) The Chicagoan winter temperature warranted more of a crowd in that box. So, enter lady # 9. Why would that girl with the frostbitten nose and wet hair stand outside of that glorious heat radius? The man with only-a-moustache huddling at a half-arm’s length next to me probably scared her off…
Another scenario
On the Santiago Metro, I remember, regular human contact was normal. Completely. This is due to the high concentration of people in one place, unparalleled to Chicago. It was understood
Moving on…
Granted, a few people copped a feel or two at my expense while I was just minding my business among the sedated-cow crowd. I was trying to read the paper on my caffeinated-with-only-fucking-instant-coffee morning train ride to work. Eh, I don’t blame ‘em. I was a foreigner breaking up the monotony of the Chilean commuter landscape. No really. I’m taller than the lot of them, VERY white.
And maybe cute… who knows? In my experience, that last characterization doesn’t always mean very much when profane behavior is incited. Keep reading…
The “exotic”, in the history of human interaction, has always been sexually appealing to many, despite (and/or because of) what some tried to tell themselves about the proverbial “others”. In this regard,
think historical conquests of all shades,
think contemporary sex-trade,
think mail-order brides,
think sex “tourism,”
think… curiosity. IT doesn’t always kill the cat. Though on many occasions, it does. Sometimes, you’ll find a purr-factory…
But in these instances, here’s what may be considered erotic: the symbolic “space” between cultures that is incongruent with the physical closeness of intimacy. That tug-o’-war between what one should and shouldn’t pursue can be quite sexy, indeed. There is much passion found in conflict.
In Wine, Truth…
Now, here’s something fun! Consider the situation if everyone was drunk. WHEEEE!
I’ve never quite thought about that before. But I’m taking wild stab and imagining it would be an entertaining pastime if I had. I wonder if lewdness would ultimately prevail? A question like that could plague a person for life.
Who is who? The sober one or the drunken one? Well I could imagine that at least in the lives of, for example, Russians and Canadians, vodka and ale respectively could steal away the bite from the cold. Their behavior, on the other hand? Think of the potentially violent tempers they are reputed for having. I know that’s very one-dimensional of me to say, but reputations are very real, regardless of their connectivity to reality. So maybe I shouldn’t have used that as a unit of analysis.
I did.
What are you going to do about it?
Who’s even reading this anyway? Ha!
Moving on…
Space v. closeness in the realm of drunkards in the cold (and not). All of the following scenarios include groups of people, 2 or more. Understanding the dynamics between just two people and two-hundred people would differ immensely, I’m oversimplifying for fun. I find this part rather funny. Or sad. (Care to tell me which?) Bear with me…
1. It’s freezing. Instead of huddling with another person, take a drink. That’ll take the edge off.
**In my opinion, the real influence we live under is our own law.
3. “In wine, truth.” A good saying.
(…Does this apply to everyone? You know, I’ve only asked one other person seriously about the effect alcohol has on her. So we share our experiences with it. She tells me I’m crazy. Could be. I digress...)
4. Every person is a combination of his/her inner person and outer person. Basically, to define the inner and outer person, we’ll start by asking ourselves the following (relatively) dichotomous questions:
-What do you do when no one’s watching? versus What do you do in a crowd?
-What do you do when the lights go out? versus What do you do under the pressure of the lime light? Florescent lights?
If you say, “nothing differently, OF COURSE! ☺” then, Congratu-fucking-lations, shit-grin!
In the U.S. at least, under a Western cultural value system, we respect the TOTAL negotiation between the inner and outer in both private and in public. This is not the case everywhere. Keep that in mind you totally-at-peace-with-yourself Unitedstatesian. …And maybe take a closer look.
The Inner v. Outer
Sometimes those two aspects of a person work together, sometimes they work against each other. Unless a person is inhumanly in control of this, the two are never mutually exclusive. In any case, is closeness only defined by extent of the exposition, or sharing, of the soul to another?
For many, the instantaneous baring of the soul is more likely to occur while drunk.
A brief interlude during a conversation I had recently reminded me of this (paraphrased):
“Do you have any secrets?”
“Well, Yes.”
“Well?”
*awkward pause, laugh*
“I’d need a drink or two first to even know what they are, let alone tell you.”
For these purposes, the subconscious and the soul could be more or less synonymous. Depending on whether or not one is cognizant of the goings-on of the subconscious is another fucking essay all together.
Trust\
Strangers never trust each other. And why would they? I’m no exception to the rule. Gullible, sure! I used to think that gullibility was an extension of trust. I have yet to prove myself entirely wrong.
In my opinion (for now), centuries ago, closeness may have come inherently with proximity, regardless of what anyone wanted. People who lived near by each other needed one another to survive. See, trust had to be worked out. If you couldn't trust your neighbor, who could you trust? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that closeness and trust are the same concept whatsoever. What I am saying is that the two ideas eventually play each other out in practice. They are ideas that negotiate with one another.
Now that we can obtain our goods and services through the chain of command, there’s no need for any kind of proximal team efforts. Even in the workplace, where this type of reliance may be necessary to get shit done, closeness of any un-condoned sort within that glass box is frowned upon. See: company manual.
Vulnerability v. Strength
In a song by Regina Spektor, “Apres Moi”, there’s a lyric that goes:
“You can’t break that which isn’t yours.”
Self-preservation.
Oh, god, how cliché! How over-done! That topic has been charred to a crisp. What am I writing about that for? Can’t anyone get away from that topic when discussing human nature? I wish!!! But…
Is that what we’re all in it for? (Here we go, yet AGAIN.)
The extent to which one tolerates a certain amount of space or closeness to another/others might have virtually everything to do with how comfortable one is sharing. Sharing personal
space, resources, ideas, insecurities…The way I see it, people construe sharing as either a source of:
a) vulnerability
b) strength
Western cultures tend to find “a)” to be truer, whereas Eastern cultures find “b)” more truthful. This is OF COURSE another generalization, and god, am I good at that, but please, let me explain…
Compartmentalization of closeness
Closeness of all kinds has become compartmentalized. Boxed up and wrapped in color coded ribbon for all of our convenience. Everything must be labeled accordingly.
Silly humans! We amuse me.