"I'm the voice of Yacht Rock you bitch!"

| | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

meYes, it's true, that was me you saw in the Goo-ardian this weekend (er, if the photo* and the name didn't tip you off), you may now stop texting me (although I must say I'm impressed by how many of you read your weekend Guardian, well done).

If you missed it, I'm reposting the entire article below (which was oddly laid-out so you may experience temporary confusion as to what section you're in- it may be easier just to read it on the Guardian site), since I'm sure all of history will want to benefit from my wisdom. If it sounds like my wisdom is an odd series of non-sequiturs that is because they were cherry-picked or even paraphrased from an hour-long interview which I actually thought was a pretty interesting conversation. I've asked Craig (who interviewed me) for the recording and I may post it here later if it comes through (if, y'know, you just can't get enough of my views on sex).

I thought I'd also take this opportunity to clarify a few things which may sound odd without context:

  • The interviews were undertaken to provide a counterpoint to the main article- they wanted to see if Decca's theories mapped out in reality. I hadn't read the article before we did the interview and it was quite freeform (it ranged all over), so I was somewhat suprised to see that the two primary theories behind the article (the pornographization of the mainstream and the internet's role in the availability of casual sex) were echoed almost directly by my own thoughts. I think the main difference is that Decca took a largely negative stance on current views on sex and sexuality, whereas I think it's part of an evolutionary process (in which feminism has played an enormous, powerful role) that will unfold largely as it should- with both positive and negative sides. That doesn't mean I think people shouldn't pick sides- that's part of the process. My side? Well, we can't go backwards -and I wouldn't want us to- but we do need to make our way forward with care and circumspection.
  • Many people have taken the opening line as some kind of condemnation of porn on my part. It really isn't. Like all men I've consumed porn and probably will again at some stage or another. I think there's definitely nasty aspects to it but I wouldn't make a blanket condemnation of it as a media form, or indeed anyone who consumes it. My comment was specifically about how porn has (quite recently, really) set up station in the mainstream of popular culture and I think there may be some creepy aspects to that. I saw my first pornographic magazine when I was thirteen and it was almost an artifact in terms of how hard it was for a group of teenagers to get a hold of. Yet I would have to stab my eyes out to avoid similar levels of exposure to porn in my regular day-to-day apperception of television and advertising today- it'd be downright odd if I saw a dance (or R&B) video that didn't feature a lot of nekkid ladies gyrating about. That was my main point. Not that porn is bad per se, just that it's everywhere.
  • I haven't been through four relationships in the past six months: I've dated four people, by which I mean, you know, you hang out with someone, go on dates, see if you get along enough to get into an 'actual' (?) relationship- admittedly the line gets blurry as you start to phase from one to the other. I get the impression this is a largely American concept, but it's definitely gaining currency over here- I'm certainly a big fan of it. Presumably the word relationship was subbed in because a lot of people don't know what I mean when I say 'dating'. Hmm. Anyway, my primary point was that while its easier to find people and get dates, it's changed the value of sex...and really, how could it not?
  • "Sex has gone from being this important relationship to being a recreational activity." I'm pretty sure what I said (or at least meant to say) was: "Sex has gone from being this important part of a relationship to almost a recreational activity." I didn't mean to say the former had overwritten the latter. Sex is, of course, a very important part of a relationship- I didn't mean to preclude that option. I was just saying that that there has been a large explosion in casual sex- now people can use the internet to dial up a casual sex partner just as something to do, not as part of a relationship- I'd say this is dangerous to a person's idea as to the value of sex.
  • These are all opinions based on experience (although I should say I have never used the internet to dial up a casual sex partner- although I do know people who have), not declarations of fact based on inferential reasoning. I'm not saying I'm right, nor that anyone else is wrong- but feel free to jump in if you think I am, heh.
  • It's a minefield out there, people! Take care of yourselves, and each other. [wink]

*with my teenty-tiny beady eyes (God how I hate them!) and ludicrous 17-inch neck (do you know how hard it is to lose weight in your neck?). And for the record, I didn't get intentionally dressed up, I didn't even know I was being photographed until an hour before I was. That's just what I normally wear to work, for real. I'm fancy.








0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "I'm the voice of Yacht Rock you bitch!".

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://mt4.sevitz.net/mt-tb.cgi/4775

6 Comments

Gosh that IS a big neck... ;-)

I don't buy newspapers at the weekend so missed this completely so thanks for reproducing it here. Any particular reason they got in touch with you?

Do you feel misrepresented by that at all? I know you've only given a couple of examples, but they could be seen as pretty hefty reinterpretations.

I'm intrigued by the 'relationship' thing. As far as I'm concerned there are relationships between just about everything, and to have to avoid using the word to talk about the 'situation' between two people seems odd. But then my English is traditionally a bit unconventional.

No, I've nothing but respect for Craig and thought he did a pretty good job summarizing a lot of content into a very tiny space. I suppose I was misrepresented, since the excerpts make me out to be some kind of lothario which, God knows, I'm really, really not- but that's not really anyone's fault.

Well, "relationship" has many, many definitions, but the fact that it's used three times in one paragraph, each time using an entirely different definition, which is naturally confusing.

i get the guardian EVERY saturday.. and which section do i read first... the magazine... and which section did i skip over thinking "pah, i don't want to read about sex, i'm not getting any".

and now i can't even go back and read it and show it to my friends saying "i know this guy because i threw it out with the sport and the work section once i had finished with it.

damn it!!

kudos to getting in print dan, shame i didn't "actually" see it.

Dan,

Sometimes the only voice you have is the one the media gives you. Don't blame reporters for having to cut - they never get the space they deserve. I thought that the edited version of the article was good. It made a brother proud & the suit is makes you look hot.

Are you going home in November?

Ben

"the only voice you have is the one the media gives you"

Now THERE'S a double-edged sword if ever I heard one! (And yes, I've been on the sharp pointy side)

Leave a comment

Daily Links

Twitter

    Follow me at twitter

    Flickr

    Blogroll

    Pages

    Geek Engine

    sevitzdotcom logoThis is a sevitzdotnet production ©. Template slicing, pain, suffering, and development by Adrian Sevitz. Tech. support and maintance done with love and for some change found down the back of the sofa.
    Powered by Movable Type 4.21-en

    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Danzor published on April 18, 2006 9:26 AM.

    my fellow questerians was the previous entry in this blog.

    a quick note on podcasting is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.