Skip to content

The Sexual Evolution.

07-Dec-08

            My 1989 copy of Samuel Hynes’ Flights of Passage has a quotation on its front cover from Paul Fussell, a man not known to this writer but sufficiently respected in 1989 to need no further identification, which describes the book as “A war memoir which will become a classic.”  I believe we may conclude that this will not be the case.  The book was crafted and published to satisfy the aging veteran market of its time and lacks any further engagement with deeper values.  This is true even though Hynes went from being a military aviator to a long career as a professor of English at Princeton University – an unusual pairing of credentials which one might think would produce some intriguing depth.  If it existed in the man, it is not in the book.

            But I did get one thing from a few hours’ engagement with this straightforward narrative of the functionary-life of a bomber pilot worth passing on to others.  And that is to note that, contrary to American mythology, sexuality was not invented in the 1960s.

            1940s America turns out to be a period of rampant sexual abandon, if we are to trust Hynes on this topic.  The life of the military man, as he depicts it, is mechanical devotion to tasks when on-duty and uninterrupted pursuit of sex at all other times.  Here is one of the less poetic young cavaliers in action:

 

                        I watched Puta moving from one girl to another at the other end of the

                        room.  He would approach one, speak low for a moment, watch her face,

                        and pass on with a shrug.  Some of the faces looked startled, some angry,

                        one or two laughed.  In a few minutes he left with a BAM [Broad-Assed

                        Marine, their term for female marines]….

                           The next day, on the way back to Santa Barbara, I asked Puta what he

                        had said to those girls in the officers’ club.  “Me, I got a very straight-

                        forward approach,” he said.  “I go up to a girl, an’ I say, ‘Hey, honey, do

                        you fuck?’  Mostly they say ‘No,’ but the thing is, see, I don’t waste no

                        time.”

                           “And what did the BAM say, the one you went out with?”

                           Puta laughed.  “She said, ‘I sure do, you smooth devil!’” (116-7)

 

Puta’s approach is unusually direct, but Hynes makes it clear that this was the basic activity of most of the young soldiers.  And there is some remarkably rowdy behavior.

 

                        We met in bars and sang drunkenly with bands, or by ourselves if the

                        band wasn’t playing.  Joe sang, with great feeling, a ballad about a girl

                        who married a man who had no testicles, and we all roared out the

                        chorus:

                                                No balls at all,

                                                No balls at all,

                                                A very short peter

                                                And no balls at all. (151)

 

                        On another occasion Puta and Rock and friend called Mac went

                        hustling at the Biltmore, but could only manage to pick up one girl.

                        “Never mind,” Puta said.  “I got a system.  You guys go back to the

                        hotel and hide in the john.  I’ll take her in and screw her, and then I’ll

                        say, ‘Honey, I got to go to the toilet,’ and one of you come back and

                        have a piece, and do the same thing.”  And that’s what they did.  It

                        worked all right the first time: Rock was about Puta’s size, and had a crew

                        cut like Puta’s, but Mac was heavier, and had long curly hair, and when

                        he climbed aboard the girl sensed something had changed.  She turned

                        the light on, and found the stranger sprawled in her lap, and she began

                        to cry, more and more hysterically.  Puta and Rock had to come out of

                        the bathroom and try to calm her before the house detective heard her.

                        Finally her sobs subsided, and she got up and began to dress.  As she

                        opened the door to leave she turned to the three still naked culprits sitting

                        on the edge of the bed: “That’s the trouble with you fucking Marines,”

                        she said, “you don’t know how to treat a lady.” (117)

 

This is not good behavior.  And if it happened today in our military (the above would probably be a rape case), we would think it was due to the collapse of Western society and its code of social behavior (especially sexual behavior) which according to the myth came undone in 1968.  But we find wild sex here in the 1940s (and a variant of the particular trick described above occurs in several of Shakespeare’s plays).

            The book really is quite full of sex, but I’ll quote one more passage and be done with the whole thing.  This is one of the very few real encounters with human depth described in the book:

 

                        The steaming summer air seemed to create an atmosphere of feverish

                        sexuality.  There was a Wave [a term for a female cadet] from the Air

                        Station who took a leave and spent the whole time in a hotel room in

                        Daytona, taking on all comers, or so the story went.  Taylor and his pal

                        Puta had found her, and told us about her.  “Shit, man,” Taylor said,

                        “she ain’t very good-lookin’, not what you’d call a beauty.  In fact” –

                        he began to laugh his high-pitched, wildman laugh – “she’s downright

                        ugly.  But who cares?”  Puta said nothing, but made an obscene

                        Portuguese gesture, winked, and laid an index finger alongside his nose –

                        a movement that apparently expressed satisfaction.

                           We went to see her, as you might go in a party to the zoo to look at a

                        rare new species; five or six of us trooped into the room in a cheap

                        tourist hotel, and had a drink, and just looked at her.  There she was, in

                        bed all right.  She was a big, husky girl, and Taylor was right – she wasn’t

                        very good looking.  She might have been a farm girl or a singer in a

                        church choir, except for the look that never left her face – a despairing,

                        defiant look, the look of someone who had got to a place too far to come

                        back from.  She lay in the bed, her big body covered by a sheet, and stared

                        back at us.  Nobody touched her or suggested any sexual act.  Partly we

                        were shy in front of each other, I suppose, but there was something else,

                        too.  I remember what the atmosphere was like, now; it wasn’t like a zoo –

                        it was like a sick room in a hospital.  We were visiting a patient, she was

                        sick and we were all well, and we drew back from her sickness.  It

                        wasn’t a matter of VD, but of the look on her face.  When we had finished

                        our drinks and clowned around self-consciously a little, we left.  I looked

                        back from the door and she was just lying there, watching us go, not

                        saying anything. (94-5)

 

I may as well note the largest problem with the book, as the above passage indicates: there is no real action, no deep engagement with the problems that are implied by the narrative.  There she is, in her bed – look at her.  Then leave.  Similarly there is no sense of the larger conflict or the horrible moral compromise of war – it is all a “tour of duty,” without any action.  No one will be comparing material like this to the Iliad any time soon.  As is often the case, its value is more as a document of an era than as literature.  But at least we now know that the Rolling Stones didn’t invent casual sex.

           

The view from my window.

07-Dec-08

Iterum in silvis.

05-Dec-08

      I returned to the cabin to find it 35 degrees inside (and this in mid-afternoon during the warm spell before the arctic front arrives).  It had obviously been quite a bit colder most of the time I was gone.  The cold damaged my Norfolk Island Pine, killed my basil plant (at left), and apparently destroyed a half-gallon of fine Lebanese olive oil (from Paterson, NJ): the frost gave it the clarity and texture of guacamole.  I’ll wait a few days to see if it recovers.  The toilet was frozen solid.  Some of my home-cleaning liquids also changed their appearance quite drastically, and may be ruined.  I also have some other home-improvement items like stains, varnishes, and the like which may not have liked so hard a frost.

       But it feels great to be back.  In a few moments the fire was roaring, and I was in silvis again.

       “Return to the uncarved block.”

The End of Books II: The Greenwich Expedition.

04-Dec-08

            After my previous book expedition, I still had seven boxes of books which had been purged from the Richmond Hill collection.  These were the dregs of the dregs – the kind of books that are required in college courses, cost a great deal of money, are turned into new editions in a few years, and immediately lose all value.  Some of them were Catholic books which had been required of my father in seminary, many others were physics textbooks or criminal justice textbooks and the like.

            Some of them had some use but not for me: paperback English dictionaries or English grammar workbooks or Readers’ Digest condensed books (who reads those, I wonder?).  I figured I would let someone who knows bad books do the final sorting.

            So I found a charity that ships books to people who need them, mostly in the Third World.  Their website indicated both caring and competence, but the nearest collection box was in Greenwich, Connecticut. 

Even at this stage I realized that I was going to recapitulate the story of my encounter with wealth (Princeton, Saint David’s, Delbarton, etc.): wealthy society has certain virtues but you always have to make the journey to it.  It will not come to you.

But Greenwich is not that far, and since I was going to my sister’s place in Putnam County anyway, I drove to Greenwich.  I arrived at the Town Dump in the evening (where the book collection was located).  It was closed and very locked.  I thought about leaving the books at the gate, but I figured I might get arrested for dumping (you’re always on your guard in these fancy places) and what the heck, I’d come this far for these books’ sake, it wasn’t that hard to get there, I’d come back in the morning.

This I did.  I got to see the Greenwich dump, and it was impressive.  The place was humming with activity, despite it being a Wednesday midmorning.  The road led through several enfenced areas for different forms of trash disposal, like a cow’s seven-chambered heart: recyclables, electronics, scrap, cellphones, Goodwill donations, “swapshop,” the works.  It was all the intelligent stupidity that makes the wealthy in this country so repulsive and attractive: look at all the marvellous recycling they were doing!  Look at how orderly and efficient they are!  Even their dump is clean!  And yet the main question is, why are they consuming all this junk in the first place?  Recycling is like giving to charity: a virtuous cover for the terrible truth that some people have far too much while so many have nothing.

There was a little red shed with a small table outside it.  The table had books stacked on it.  I pulled the truck up there.  A fine-looking older gentleman who looked like he had lived a life of comfort was there moving books around.  I grabbed the first box of books and brought it to the table.

“You’ve got a nice little operation here,” I said.  “I’ve just come up from New York City.  I’ve been looking for a place where I can donate books, and I checked on the internet and found there was a collection spot here in Greenwich.  And here you are.”

“I’m sorry this is for Greenwich residents only,” he said.  How lovely to see that the residents of Greenwich had kept their ancestral charm.

“I can’t donate unless I’m a Greenwich resident?” 

“Didn’t you see the sign?”  He pointed to the gate of the dump complex, which had a sign warning off all non-Greenwich residents.

            “I just want to donate books.  I heard that there’s a charity operating here that sends books to places where they’re needed.  Surely the people who receive them don’t insist the books come from Greenwich.”

“I’m sorry I can’t help you.”

I’ll confess that I crumple into a ball when I meet resistance, especially resistance in the form of stupid, impersonal rules which don’t seem to serve any good purpose.

“So you don’t want books.”

“Look, I’m not going to stand here dealing with this.”

Conversation was fruitless, so I walked back to my truck, pondering the situation.  I saw the Goodwill station, which was separate from the book operation.  A man was standing outside it talking on a cellphone.  A mere glance showed he was nice.  I walked up to him.

“Do you guys take books?” I asked.

“You see that red shed over there?” was the reply.  His voice indicated that he might be slightly retarded.  “That’s where books go.”

“Yeah, but that guy won’t take mine.”

“Okay, fine,” was the response.  “We’ll take them.”

So I thanked him profusely, and gave him seven boxes of books.

So what threatened to end in frustration and waste was resolved happily, and the goal was achieved, but in a slightly different form.  He who has ears to ear, let him ear. 

The pickup truck, doing what it does best.

04-Dec-08

The End of Books.

29-Nov-08

      “How much, thought I, has each of these volumes, now thrust aside with such indifference, cost some aching head – how many weary days!  how many sleepless nights!  How have their authors buried themselves in the solitude of cells and cloisters; shut themselves up from the face of man, and the still more blessed face of nature; and devoted themselves to painful research and intense reflection!  And all for what?  to occupy an inch of dusty shelf – to have the titles of their works read now and then in a future age, by some drowsy churchman, or casual straggler like myself; and in another age to be lost even to remembrance.  Such is the amount of this boasted immortality.  A mere temporary rumor, a local sound; like the tone of that bell which has just tolled among these towers, filling the ear for a moment – lingering transiently in echo – and then passing away, like a thing that was not!” – Washington Irving, from “The Mutability of Literature.”

        One of my occupations during these days has been to purge the Richmond Hill house of excess books, those dusty denizens of the shelf that no one in my acquaintance will read again.  I gathered fifteen boxes of such books over several days, enough to completely fill the bed of my pickup truck, and I set off for the Strand so that they could have the honor of the first cull.

        The bookbuying business at the Strand is rather brutal and efficient, the bookshop’s equivalent of a slaughterhouse.  You enter through a special door, and are herded into a special line.  When your turn comes a young man who can still stoop and lift grabs your books and places them on a table.  Another man, an older one (and deeply unhappy I may add), rifles through the books, rejecting some by sight, and others with the use of a supermarket scanner.  If the scanner does not like the book, out it does.  If it does, it will give a price (which you cannot see).  When all is done, the man barks out a sum.  It’s take it or leave it, and I imagine almost everyone takes it.  A box of books takes less than a minute.  One couple brought in several boxes of brand-new books, uncracked, mostly art books, several thousand dollars’ worth, and left with $175.  You could tell they were stunned the number was so low, but they took it.

      Only new books had any real chance.  Imperfection meant rejection.  Out of my pickup-load, I sold two books (perfection is not a specialty of mine), for $25, both of which were brand-new art books in their wrappers with a total cover price of $125.  I then walked down the block to Alabaster Books and sold twelve more books, all good-title hardbacks (Nabokov, Fitzgerald, etc.) and in very good condition at 25 cents each, for a grand total of $28.00.  The rest of the books, again, were rejected.

       Of course I might have gotten better prices someplace else, where overhead is less of a concern, but it was an interesting experience.  It amazes me that things like virtually new paperbacks which still sell at Barnes and Noble for $16.95, like the novel “Wicked” or a Joyce Carol Oates novel, can have no resell value at all – not even 25 cents.  It’s like trying to sell last week’s newspaper.

       But I did end up having some fun with the remainders.  I went off for lunch uptown (paid for by the aforementioned art books) and selected some of my more marketable stock and set them on the corner of 84th and Lexington.  When I emerged from lunch, all but two were gone (no one wanted The Perfect Storm, I guess).  I filled the box again and set off to meet a friend.  I returned three hours later to find an empty box – a 100% success rate (who, I wonder, took Celibacy: The Necessary Option?).  So I filled the box again, and then deposited similar boxes on 92nd & 3rd and 95th & Lexington.  The box on 92nd got some immediate nibbles, but as far as I could tell when I came back twenty minutes later the box was only rearranged, and no real hits.  I am impressed at how much fun I found the whole enterprise.  It was the kind of pleasure you get from setting out food for animals and finding, in the morning, that there is much more activity outside your house at night than you ever dreamed.  But at that stage I had to return to Queens.

       So the business of books made no good impression on me, but New Yorkers’ endless appetite for free things sent me home with a smile.

Resolving some contradictions.

26-Nov-08

 

            Many of the oppositions that appear to occur in the universe are resolved by the simple inclusion of time in the reckoning.  Day and night, for instance: they appear to be opposites, and yet the simple lapse of time leads from one to the other and back again.

            In speech, these opposites are called contradictions.  And yet many things that appear contradictory may, again, be resolved by time.  This is applicable to all things, but to religion especially.  As I have said before, the old metaphor of life being a “journey” or religion being a “path” or “way” indicates more than anything else that time is a necessary part of the equation, that some things do not emerge as true until others have been felt and then surpassed. 

Amtrak – Small But Meaningful Progress on Energy Policy

21-Nov-08

Recently I spent a little while visiting politicians’ web sites. All of them mention energy, and they all have energy policies of some sort. The Republicans promise more drilling for oil. The democrats promise a commitment to renewable energies. Most of them promise things to take place long after they leave office. “20% renewable energy by 2020” one says. No matter what happens, he won’t be in office by then. What if someone else comes in with different ideas? Then of course, the bulk of his plan will never be put into practice.

Then there are the other things – research on the hydrogen economy, etc. I’m not impressed by any of these things. In politics as in anything else, a man who promises the moon but does not achieve what he actually can do is not worth much of anything. So here’s at least one thing a politician can do: reduce gasoline consumption by creating a meaningful train culture in the United States.

In other words, make an Amtrak that works. Here’s how to do it.

First of all, identify your market. Who are they and where are they? That’s easy. First of all, they are people who do not have cars. Where do they live? In cities with mass transport systems. New York is the most obvious example: a stunning 70% of New Yorkers do not have cars. Boston is the second-best market.

So here’s the plan: turn 50% of the New York-Boston car traffic into train traffic. In political rhetoric: “I want I-95 to look like a ghost town by the end of my first term in office.”

How do you do this? With good, old-fashioned American business determination fortified by government power. First of all, take over the tracks using eminent domain (Amtrak rents most of its track!), and set a commission to work on improving the track. Using the power of eminent domain, the track needs to be straightened (“this is for our national security.”). But while that rerouting is going on, keep working to dominate the transport market in this corridor: run trains every five minutes, lower prices repeatedly, hire non-union labor. Eliminate stops. Do you know how many stops there are on the Amtrak line between New York and Boston? Almost all of them can be eliminated, because the people who live in these towns have cars. Consequently, they are not likely to use Amtrak much anyway. I propose one stop in New Haven, because this links into the commuter rail going to New York, and one stop in Providence, which links to the commuter rail to Boston. And in between, plan on going two hundred miles an hour at least.

That’s one term’s worth of work, I think. The next term, you can concentrate on heading south, to Washington. You do the same thing, stopping (again to connect the commuter rails) in Trenton, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

After this, the top priority has to be the West Coast, which has the next largest concentration of people without cars. San Francisco, of course, has to be the focus. And the most important link would be San Francisco to Los Angeles. Here, by taking the Central Valley, it should be possible to shatter all kinds of land-speed records. Three hundred miles an hour should be possible.

From this point, it would be possible to extend the system into a real national rail: first from Washington down to Richmond, and then further. From San Francisco to Portland, and so forth.

Trains seem like a terribly 19th-century kind of solution; everyone seems to prefer some grand technological gesture. But those grand technological transformations are fundamentally uncertain, and are not really specifically governmental: if anyone can find a way to make a “hydrogen economy” work, it is likely to be a private company (Honda has begun commercial production of hydrogen cars already). But infrastructure is something the government can do: no private company is going to be able to run 200 mph tracks across fifteen states without serious government assistance anyway. And infrastructure has the ability to transform entire modes of living: making a car-free lifestyle possible in America would make a far greater difference than keeping cars and changing the source of their hydrocarbon.

A working Amtrak is an actual improvement to America’s energy situation. It will also have its economic benefits, making travel for foreign tourists and Americans without cars much easier. And someday, no doubt, probably in a time of even greater need than today, this work will be done. What we need is a real leader to start it now.

Abortion III – The Character of Abortion

20-Nov-08

       In my two previous essays on abortion, I discussed abortion and the vote, and abortion and the Catholic hierarchy.  In both of them I took for granted that abortion is a sin and that it should not occur.  I will not backtrack from that position.  But many people feel much less certain about the moral wrong of abortion, and I wanted to transcribe my thoughts on why this is so.
       Abortion opponents note that there have been forty-seven million abortions in the United States, which by sheer mathematical reckoning would mean that the United States is the most murderous country in human history (even without adding the millions that have died in U.S. wars).  Instead of Hitler being the image of human evil, that image should be replaced, by this reasoning, by Ronald Reagan – the man who presided over more cold-blooded murders of his own people than any other leader in world history.
       And yet most people are not willing to accept this picture.  Very few Catholics would be willing to call the United States the most evil and murderous society in human history.  In fact, many Catholic Churches even have American flags in them.
       In order to explain this discrepancy, there must be something different about abortion – something morally different.  It simply does not feel like murdering, let’s say, a four-year-old child.
       Let us start with the formula most often used against abortion.  The formula is, “Life begins at conception.”  Consequently, any action leading to the death of an embyro or fetus is murder.
       The most obvious thing to say about the phrase “life begins at conception” is that it is not true.  Both the sperm and the egg, to any impartial observer, are, before conception, alive.  Sperm are obviously alive – they even move.  If you looked at a microscope slide which contained various unicellular organisms, bits of dust, and sperm, you would have no trouble categorizing the sperm with the amoebas and not the dust.  On the biological level, I see no way that an intelligent thinker can after reflection say that life begins at conception. 
       The next level would be to say that individual life begins at conception – that the qualities we associate with an individual, such as a soul, and rights, begin at conception.  Egg and sperm are alive, but they have a kind of sub-human existence, and God does not put a soul in them.
       The difficulty with this argument is that for a while after conception the zygote is divisible, i.e. in theological terms man can make it have one soul, or two souls, or four souls, or more.  You may get around this problem by saying, “Well, yes, God ensouled this zygote with four souls, and he merely made me do the three divisions in order to give expression to these four souls,” – which would destroy the free will of man – or you may say, “Every time I divide the zygote I can make God create a new soul, precisely as a man and woman do via the marital act.”  This makes the lab scientist something like the equivalent of parent to the new children created.
       Let me also note that the role of God in ensoulling is very peculiar.  God’s appearance to ensoul – and let me note again that this event cannot be considered the same as “life,” because life predates conception – is a curious instance of God subjecting his own will to man’s.  And furthermore, God’s choices in this regard are, as we know, bizarre to the point of horror.  Why he would withhold conception from good, loving couples but bestow it on the encounter of rapist and victim is utterly incomprehensible.  This does not appear to be God’s special act in the universe – instead, this appears to operate according to scientific rules, those horrible rules that are both gift and curse.
       And in fact, we should call into question, right here and now, whether the normal operative conception of soul that we have is at all accurate.  We won’t find any evidence of “soul” scientifically – making conception the visible sign of ensoulment, as I have indicated, simply won’t work – and we won’t find it Biblically either.
       The Greek word for “soul” would have to be psyche, whence we get psyche and psychology, but it clearly does not mean what we think of as soul, i.e. the portion of a human being which is personal and unique but also eternal.  It is usually translated “life” in the Bible, but not always.  Jesus says that it would be better for a man to gain the whole world than lose his psyche, but he also says that no man has a greater love than laying down his psyche for his friends.  Paul explicitly attacks the psyche-driven man (usually translated “natural man,” but sometimes “psychic man”) as not having pneuma or spirit.  And there is no doubt that the early Christians felt a strong distinction between “soul” and “spirit” (psyche and pneuma), even within an individual, which simply jars with the dominant mythology of today.
       I believe in all this is the underlying reason why abortion, birth control, cloning, and the scientific study and manipulation of fertility pose such immense difficulties to traditional Catholic morality.  This morality had been predicated on the idea of a simultaneously highly individuated and eternal soul.  But human life may simply be much more fluid than that.  Aquinas thought ensoulment took place at five months (which, ironically, is a Catholic saint’s opinion which probably represents the moral intuition of most people but is rejected by the hierarchy), but admittedly that seems arbitrary – fetuses make movements long before they can be felt by the mother around five months.  But the boundaries may all be arbitrary.  The creation of new life seems to be more like a recombination of the old.  It’s somewhat like naming rivers.  It seems legitimate to bestow a new name on the meeting of two great rivers, like the Alleghany and the  Monongahela becoming the Ohio.  And that’s the way it normally works.  But when the river divides again, and can be divided further, the name appears in a truer light, as a convenient collective noun placed on a very large and complicated set of phenomena.
       Because in the end, it’s all one river – the Alleghany, Monongahela, Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri – and all human life all shares one origin and one destiny.  Paul harps on this unity again and again – it is the body of Christ.  We are all “in Christ,” like water molecules in a river.  And life simply flows out of our genitals continually, looking to recombine and become new life.  Most of it never occurs – if a billionth of a man’s sperm becomes children, he will be a father many times over.  And even when that recombination does occur, the conceived child must cleave to others in order to grow at all.  And often that does not occur.
       These are the conditions of life, of psyche.  And that is why most people are simply unwilling to equate abortion and murder.  Given a fluid reality and a somewhat arbitrary set of boundaries, people will tend to draw them on the side of their convenience.  There are reasons for this, not least of which is that this increases the role of reason in reproduction and makes family planning easier.  These are both worthy goals, as there are many instances when reason is simply overpowered by the forces of human sexuality.  Sexuality as a whole requires reconsideration in itself, which I will attempt to sketch out later.  But I think the best answer for all of these problems is to look forward to the day when the hierarchy will accept chemical and scientific forms of birth control – which it is said ninety-five percent of Catholics (at least in America) use – to strengthen the role of reason in family planning.  Let us remember that for centuries the same hierarchy forbade the printing, translation, or investigation of the Bible – all three of which things we would now say strengthen reason’s role in our religious lives.  Let us remember that for centuries the same hierarchy forbade a free press, which has helped to bring reason to many many areas of human life where it had little sway before.  And now the hierarchy has no problems with chemical treatments such as medicines which alter our bodies in other ways, though they are not natural.  There are precedents in these things and reason to hope.

Back in the Big Apple.

20-Nov-08