Drift Reality

I haven’t written anything in Drift Reality for a while.  Much of my efforts have been directed towards more work-related topics recently and I have also been doing quite a bit of fictional writing that isn’t really appropriate for this Web site.

I did however watch There Will be Blood recently and hunted down this acute analytical account written by a guy named Lorenzo Wang.  If any Drift Reality readers enjoyed the film they will definitely enjoy Wang’s analysis of the film.

A few weeks back I wrote about what I perceived to be a modern crisis in relationships. I suppose the piece could be construed as fatalistic and since then I have been mulling over a framework that can be used as a tool to facilitate relationships.

The idea for a framework first entered my mind when reading a reference to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs framework in Chip and Dan Heath’s Made to Stick and thinking that perhaps Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs could be applied to needs in relationships. The basic gist of the Maslow Scale is that we have different levels of needs and as we satisfy one level we are then able to ascend to focus on the next level.

So, if we have food, shelter, etc. we are then able to focus on securing the sustainability of these resources. If we have sustainability of resources (safety), then we are able to focus on friendship and love.

Actually the whole idea of a ‘hierarchy’ falls apart when applied to relationships because the dynamism that exists between two individuals is fundamentally different than the dynamism between an individual and his environment – which is what Maslow’s scale is really about.

At any rate, I have come up with what I feel to be a holistic framework for relationships that can measure the overall stability and likelihood of success in a given relationship.

Physical Attraction

Physical attraction is the catalyst that brings people together in a relationship. There needs to be some element of physical attraction in a relationship although I have noticed that there may be a gender skew in the overall importance of this attribute.

Not only is the importance of physical attraction intuitively obvious, but it has also been reinforced by several notable psychological theories most notably the matching hypothesis (Goffman, 1952) – granted, most of the validation for these theories focuses on early interactions between individuals. In other words, physical attraction is probably disproportionately influential earlier in the relationship. As relationships progress, it probably loses a great deal of its importance between two people in isolation.

That being said I think physical attraction is multi-dimensional – it doesn’t only act in isolation between two people, it actually becomes a social dynamic as well.

Looks - not always what gets the girl… 

From a male perspective I know that it is an accomplishment to be dating a beautiful girl. You may not even be attracted to her but there is something empowering about having everyone in the room stare at your girlfriend when you walk into a place. For some individuals, it becomes almost like a material accomplishment (hence the phrase, “trophy” wife), which is a good segue into the next attribute.

Material Assets

“This guy was totally unattractive but he drove a lamborghini so I found that sexy.”

I literally heard someone say this recently and I think it is defines the importance of material assets to a T.

For many people (again there is a big gender skew here), material assets becomes the great equalizer to physical attractiveness. Or, in more simplistic terms, money makes guys sexier.

Kevin McGraw, a Professor at Arizona State University performed a notable study in 2002 to validate the importance of material assets to women by performing content analysis on the classified ads in newspapers around the US.

His findings revealed that in major US cities, material assets were disproportionately important: “females placed more emphasis on the resource-accruing ability of prospective mates in densely populated cities and cities having greater resource demands (higher cost of living).”

The Great Equalizer

So in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, material assets were far more important to women than in places like Kansas City. On a side note, Washington, DC ranked highest in terms of the importance of physical attraction, which should come as a bit of a surprise to anyone who lives in the District.

Material assets are not the most important attribute in relationships but they certainly play a fundamental role.

Family

By “family,” I am referring to a somewhat broad spectrum of characteristics including race, ethnicity and socioeconomic background. I think all of these are implied when people talk about the relative importance of “family” in relationships.

In some cultures (Persian culture for example), the importance of family is even further emphasized. For instance, when I was talking with my Aunt about a few years back about a Persian girl I had been dating, the first question she asked was, “What is her family’s name?” Thus began a background investigation so comprehensive it would put the CIA employee background process to shame that ultimately resulted in a full report on what city her family was from in Iran, what the predominant professions in the family were, and a general estimate for their socioeconomic status.

Based on these findings it was deemed acceptable for me to continue dating the girl. Phew.

Anyway, the importance of family is probably downgraded in heterogeneous countries with individualistic slants, like the US. According to a longitudinal study of American marriages (Field & Weishaus, 1984), personal characteristics were actually more significant to the success of marriages than socioeconomic factors, bringing me to the next pillar of my framework.

Personal Characteristics

It seems funny to think about the personal component to relationships as being on par with things like money, attractiveness, etc. because it seems to intuitively be the most important factor. What’s more, personal similarities actually play a pivotal role in the sustainability and overall satisfaction in long-term marriages.

That being said, there could be two people that have many things in common, enjoy one another’s company, and would probably make one another happy over the course of a lifetime if not for the fact that one person is not attracted to the other. It seems like a great human tragedy that two people could be perfectly happy with one another over the course of a lifetime if they found a way to bridge the initial gap caused by insufficient levels of attraction based on other variables.

Je ne sais quoi

Ultimately, you could take two people and they could be physically attracted to one another, have shared family values and even enjoy the same activities and for one reason or another – just not work.

Not to say that you could reverse all those things and find a situation that works. You will never meet two people that are not attracted to one another, have nothing in common and don’t share similar values who will work as a couple. Never.

That being said, there is an extra little something that seems to always enter the equation that is completely undefined. In some ways, the inexplicable components of love may prevail over what we can understand about it and in the eleventh hour it is always the je ne sais quoi that will cause us to run to another’s doorstep in a monsoon to please a case for love.

In 1999, a group from the State University of New York at Buffalo performed a study (later cited by Marcus Buckingham in The One thing You Need to Know) in which they asked a number of couples to rate their significant other on a list of qualities and then rate themselves on those same qualities). They then asked the couples to rate how rewarding they found their relationships.

The pattern that emerged was that in the happiest couples, the husband rated the wife more positively than she self-rated herself on every quality. The group concluded that, “intimates in satisfying marriages perceive more virtue in their partners than their friends or their partners themselves perceive.”

In other words, the happiest couples were those in which one partner had an almost deluded positive impression of the other. I think it is the incalculable je ne sais croi that can inhabit one person and compel them to see something in another that no one else can see, which is why in some ways this category may almost outweigh all other categories of importance in relationships.

Now that I have successfully contradicted the initial point of writing this essay I can sign-off.

I’ll be the first to admit that the giraffes and ostriches that you see on safari really are not the highlights. They are really second-fiddle when it comes to animals in Africa.

They are slightly more interesting than zebras and wildebeest but not even in the same ballpark as lions or cheetahs.

Lets put it this way - if the animals in Africa were playing kickball and they were choosing teams, giraffes and ostriches wouldn’t be the last players chosen but they wouldn’t be the first either.

That being said, I do find ostriches to make satisfying meat for burgers so with that in mind please enjoy the following clip:

We are in the midst of a social crisis - a crisis in relationships.

There are probably some that would flat-out disagree with this statement. For instance, according to the Associated Press (2007), America’s divorce rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981 and since then, has dropped to about 3.6 (although it should be noted that 34.8% of first marriages still end before their 15th anniversary).

Most would probably look at the decline in divorce rate and point to that as a clear indicator for why relationships are as strong as ever in the first part of the 21st century. Then again, that indicator is mitigated by the following facts:

• Number of couples who live together without marrying has increased tenfold since 1960;
• The marriage rate has dropped nearly 30% during that time;
• Americans are waiting nearly five years longer to marry than they did in 1970.

So in other words, just because divorce rates are in decline does not mean that break-up rates or frequency of break-ups between couples are in decline - since there have been no broad scale studies that look at break-up rates (to my knowledge).

So if we take a different perspective on the situation we can trace an unprecedented boom in divorce rates occurring in the 70s. Over the next thirty years, our collective consciousness began to look more critically at the institution of marriage and now we are in a societal state in which we tend to regard marriage with a relatively high degree of skepticism.

By age 30, most of our parents generation were entrenched in lifelong relationships and had already begun developing the ensuing generation while at age 30, most people I know are either struggling to deal with long-term relationships or still single (although I do admit to knowing a handful of happily married couples my age).

So what exactly is going on?

I’m no sociologist (although I did do my graduate studies in sociology) but here are some general thoughts I have based on anecdotal evidence as well as fragmented memories from when I did my academic studies):

Increasing Individualism (and decreasing sociability)

People are becoming increasingly individualistic. According the famous sociologist Robert Putnam, there are very clear indicators - declining rates in various types of civic and political participation, decreasing attendance at religious institutions, etc. - that all paint a picture of an American population that is becoming less interested in public life and more interested in private life.

In addition, the increasing pressures of finance and time, increasing suburbanization, and increased consumption of solitary media (like television) have contributed to a broad decline in social capital in the United States.

Anecdotally, I couldn’t agree with him more. I feel as though single people simply participate less in social activities. Increasingly, the social outlet for young(er) single professionals is nightlife - and as we all know, nightlife is never extremely successful at creating long-term satisfactory relationships because the basis for commonality is normally quantity of alcohol consumed and raw sexual attraction; whereas the basis for commonality at non-bar/club social functions is normally shared interests.

Rising Cost of Living

The assumption that two well-matched people will be able to have a utopic lifelong relationship without some hard work is a fallacy at best.

Relationships take work regardless of how well-matched two people are. In the 1950s, it was feasible (actually expected) for a middle-class man to support a family on his wages. With a traditional division of labor between genders it was therefore feasible for couples to spend their free time focused on maintaining and building their relationship.

Over the past several decades, we have seen increases in inflation, energy prices, and real estate prices - without commensurate wage growth - creating a situation where most working and middle class couples have to get by on dual-incomes. The dual-income situation has resulted in less available time for couples to spend with one another working on their relationship.

The Balancing of Infidelity in Men and Women

In the nuclear family of the 1950s, the man went to work during the day and the woman stayed at home and tended to the household. Chances are that the man probably enjoyed affairs at the workplace and when he went on business trips while the woman stayed relatively faithful at home. Then the sexual revolution occurred in the 1960s and women sort of started to realize that they actually enjoyed sex and f@%k men for thinking that they were the only sexual beings that existed. Throughout the latter part of the 20th century a number of factors including innovations in information-communication technologies and increasing rates of female employment have contributed to an increase in female infidelity.

According to a relatively heralded 2004 Newsweek feature article on the subject,

Couples therapists estimate that among their clientele, the number (of women who have had extra-marital affairs) is close to 30 to 40 percent, compared with 50 percent of men, and the gap is almost certainly closing. In 1991, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago asked married women if they’d ever had sex outside their marriage, and 10 percent said yes. When the same pollsters asked the same question in 2002, the “yes” responses rose to 15 percent, while the number of men stayed flat at about 22 percent. The best interpretation of the data: the cheating rate for women is approaching that of men, says Tom Smith, author of the NORC’s reports on sexual behavior. When Michele Weiner-Davis, a marriage counselor and founder of the Divorce Busting Center in Woodstock, Ill., started practicing 20 years ago, just 10 percent of the infidelity she knew of was committed by women. Now, she believes, it’s closer to 50 percent.

Now clearly I’m not putting this on women - that would be idiotic. What I’m saying is that there has always been a high rate of men who have cheated while their wives have stood stoically by. During the past thirty years there has been an increase in female infidelity, which has come close to rivaling that of men, and our society has simply not figured out how to deal with men and women who cheat at almost an equal rate.

Glorification of Sex

Up until now, the mainstream media has avoided sharing the blame. My opinion on the media is that they are predominantly a reflection of our society - and that although they do have an influence on our cultural norms and perceptions, it is not as fundamental as other social and economic factors - and even if it were we have unsatisfactory methods for measuring the impact of media.

That being said, I do feel that they do play a role in assisting us shape the lense through which we examine ourselves and our society on a day-to-day basis. The media could play a greater role in showing us the best and worst sides of ourselves - in helping us reflect on our shortcomings and our strengths as a society, and ultimately serve a beneficial role in helping us move forward as a society.

Our corporate American media seems mostly interested in packaging and selling sex to mass consumer audiences. I’m sure producers who work for network and cable television stations look condescendingly at cultural products like Girls Gone Wild and think to themselves, “Boy I’m glad I don’t produce crap like that.”

Guess what idiots? You do produce crap like that each and every day and it is force fed into the eyes and ears of our collective psyche until everyone we look at of the opposite gender is an object to be f#%ked and every weekend is an opportunity to go get drunk and find someone new to f$*k.

How else do you explain the popularity of Desperate Housewives, Sex in the City, every single show on MTV, Big Brother, Entourage, The Real Housewives of Orange County, The Real Housewives of New York City, etc.

With every episode we watch, we get a little bit more deluded in our perspective of how to relate to other human beings.

We lose sight of what is important as a culture and as a society.

So to wrap things up (and maybe help shift the perception you may have created by now of me as some cantankerous iconoclast) I simply think that to get out of this storm we have created for ourselves, we need to remember what is truly important and act accordingly.

It is not truly important to be the most beautiful or the most sexy, to be the most wealthy or the most well known.

What is important is that we remember who we are and what makes us as individuals happy on a daily basis, and if we follow what it is that makes us truly happy and fulfilled as individuals then hopefully we will find someone who matches our trajectory in life and we can then move forward optimistically.

I visited Nairobi, Kenya almost three years ago and during my stay shot quite a bit of footage - primarily of the Masai Mara park in Kenya. At any rate, I have finally gotten around to editing the footage so I’m going to start sharing it through Drift Reality.

The first clip is basically a composite of some footage of the streets I took while driving around in Nairobi. The track is ‘Cheroko,’ by Nyoto Ndogo.

It has been almost two months since I turned 30 and I think I have finally started to accept my age.

A funny thing happens when you are closing in on 30 - you start to feel a sense of desperation because you don’t think you have accomplished all the things you set out to accomplish by the time you are 30 and that sense of desperation crescendos until you hit the magic number and suddenly you realize that everything is okay.

You realize you are not going to write the next great American novel and that is okay.

You realize that you are not going to be a Hollywood star and that is okay.

You realize you are not going to be rich and famous and that is okay (unless you are in fact rich and famous).

You realize you are not going to be in a fulfilling marriage with a beautiful kid on the way and that is okay.

Once you have turned 30 you realize that you are basically the same person you were at 29 except one-year older and that is okay.

I have gone through a litany of failures in my life. In some ways, my life has been a string of almost-successes that dates back to my childhood.

I almost was the starting Quarterback but wasn’t.

I almost went to Harvard but didn’t.

I almost got into UCLA film school but didn’t.

I almost became a diplomat but didn’t.

I actually could go on but I don’t want to waver off-course by taking inventory of my failures in life. I could probably go on for a while but the point of me writing all of these down is that from the time I learned how to say “I want,” I simultaneously learned to understand that “It isn’t going to happen the way I want.”

That same question-and-answer repeats itself throughout your entire life and starts to amplify when you graduate from College. Most people manage to drown it out through a combination of alcohol, sex and other forms of miscellaneous escapism (I played a lot of video games for instance) right after university or high school, but it builds inexorably.

Silently in the background, those failures keep stacking up throughout your twenties and add to an underlying sense of urgent desperation that no one is exempt from - or rather almost no one.

See, I have talked with attorneys, bankers and doctors who were miserable throughout their twenties just like I have talked with construction workers, local government employees and service industry professionals who were miserable throughout their twenties. People are just miserable about different things and it all comes back to the same question-and-answer.

Can I have this?

No, you can’t have that OR yes, you can have it but you are going to get that and a whole lot more than you bargained for and what you will end up with will be nothing like what you expected.

Then, when you turn 30 suddenly you cease to ask that question (or maybe it goes silent again - waiting to strike). At least, I think that question has ceased in my mind.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not married. I have come to grips with the fact that I am not going to be an astronaut or a professional athlete. What I have not come to grips with is the notion that I won’t be successful at something - it will just not be something that I expected originally.

So to all the thirty-year-olds out there, it is a pleasure to join you in our collective state of acceptance. For those of you who have accomplished everything you set out to accomplish, congratulations. To all the twenty-year-olds that are freaking out about becoming thirty-year-olds, quit your whining because things will get better.

Admittedly, I am not a huge fan of The Tudors nor am I a fan of Jonathan Rhys Meyers who perpetually looks like he is auditioning for a Right Said Fred video. I have been roped into the show and during the last episode began thinking about how the royal court is such a great representation of societal archetypes.

The timing couldn’t have been better as a close friend of mine who is Greek recently visited and we got into a debate about whose community has had more of an impact on society - Greeks or Persian Americans.

Admittedly this is a little pathetic, sort of the cultural equivalent of a Cubs fan arguing with an Indians fan about which team has a better tradition of winning the World Series but I digress.

The timing of my forced watching of the Tudors and debate over Persian vs. Greek American icons has compelled me to use a royal court archetype framework and compare the two communities.

The Royal Jester - Maz Jobrani vs. Andy Milonakis

The Royal Jester is the clown of the kingdom. His primary role in life is to make people laugh (either with him or at him). Maz Jobrani’s intelligent, witty stand-up routine has made him a hit on tour as well as on YouTube. Milonakis’ appeal to the lowest common denominator has resulted in numerous appearances on Jimmy Kimmel’s show as well as his own show on MTV2. He has a hormone condition that gives him the appearance of a pre-adolescent boy despite his age (mid-thirties).

Edge: Persians. Milonakis is more annoying than funny.

The Royal Minstrel - Deep Dish vs. Kelly Clarkson

The Royal Minstrel is the official court musician. I found it a little difficult to find examples of well known Persian-American musicians. I went with Deep Dish simply because I had actually heard of them. I guess part of the issue here is that the Persian-American culture isn’t as integrated at this point so many of the musicians are really only well-known in Persian-American circles. At any rate, Deep Dish is a production duo based in Washington, DC. Kelly Clarkson won the first season of American Idol and has been an international sell.

Edge: Greeks. Clarkson isn’t really my cup of tea but it is hard to argue with her success.

The Chancellor - Pierre Omidyar vs. Nicholas Negroponte

The Chancellor is the King’s primary counselor. He is the ‘brains’ of the kingdom, helping guide its domestic and royal affairs. Omidyar is the founder and chairman of eBay and later, the charitable Omidyar Network. Negroponte is the founder of MIT’s Media Lab and One Laptop per Child association (OLPC).

Edge: Even They have both accomplished pretty amazing things. Omidyar may have fundamentally changed the way we buy and sell things while Negroponte may be having a revolutionary impact on the developing world. The verdict is still out on this one.

First Knight - Andre Agassi vs. Pete Sampras

The First Knight is the Royal family’s answer to the high school quarterback. He is known for his acts of valor and chivalry. Clearly, Sampras is one of the greatest tennis players to have every played. His accomplishments trump Agassi’s on paper but anyone who told you they would rather have lunch with Sampras is lying. During their respective careers, Agassi’s charisma and personality always made him a fan favorite.

Edge: Persians. Even though won a record 14 Grand Slam singles titles to Agassi’s 8, Sampras was just too boring to be the First Knight.

The Duke - Jimmy Delshad vs. Bob Costas

The Duke is the nobleman of highest rank outside the royal family. Delshad is the Mayor of Beverley Hills while Costas is a famous American sportscaster. I struggled a bit with this one however because I couldn’t think of many dominant Persian-American figures who were on the forefront of the American consciousness.

Edge: Greeks. For someone who nobody seems to really like, Costas has accomplished quite a bit and is really one of the dominant figures in American sports media.

The Princess - Sarah Shahi vs. Jennifer Aniston

The Princess is known throughout the land for her beauty and grace. Everyone knows who Jennifer Aniston is. Clearly, she is a Hollywood A-list celebrity (maybe the B+ list) and her trials and tribulations with Brad Pitt have made her an American media constant. Shahi is a relatively unknown actress who would probably love to have Aniston’s fame and success. At the same time, my opinion is that on sheer looks, Shahi trumps Aniston by a considerable amount.

Edge: Greeks. You can’t argue with Anniston’s success. Shahi has the looks but probably not the talent to really shoot up the ranks in Hollywood.

The Queen - Christiane Amanpour vs. Olympia Dukakis

As first lady of the kingdom, the queen is a model of temperance and class. Based out of CNN’s London bureau, Amanpour is one of the most recognized international correspondents on American television. Dukakis is an esteemed Academy Award-winning American actress.

Edge: Persians. Dukakis is a dignified and accomplished actress but if the shit goes down I would want Amanpour to be the leading lady who steps in and takes control of the situation - she has ice in her veins. She has gone toe-to-toe with Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s chief nuclear negotiator Kim Kye Gwan without batting an eyelash.

The King - Faryar Shirzad vs. Michael Dukakis

The alpha male of the kingdom, the King runs the show from top to bottom. His vision dictates the path that the kingdom will take. I had a bloody hell of a time figuring out who was the most prominent male political or business figure from the Persian-American community. Then I realized that the most fitting individual for King is probably Goli Ameri, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs. She has also served as the U.S. delegate to the UN Commission on Human Rights, and served as a U.S. public delegate to the UN General Assembly. Most people know Dukakis because he was the Democratic presidential nominee in 1988 but before that he was the longest serving governor in Massachusetts’ history.

Edge: Greeks. Ameri has an impressive background but winning the Democratic presidential nominee is the closest either ethnic group has gotten to sitting on the real throne.

I will be the first to admit that I am not tracking the presidential campaign on a daily basis but some of the story lines in this campaign have been so prominent that they seem to just jump out and bite at you - and I think the most recent issue with Obama’s pastor is a little bit like that.

My first thought was, “I wonder who is behind this story…” I honestly found myself wondering whether this was simply one of the cards that the Clinton campaign has been waiting for the right time to play.

Throughout the campaign, Obama has done a great job treading the line between appealing to a black constituency in this country while presenting himself to the non-black majority of his constituency as a candidate who transcends race and represents the future of America.

The media coverage of his pastor’s remarks is a swift and strong reminder that Obama is a black candidate - and as much as we don’t like to believe or say it - there are certainly people out there who probably fear having a non-white president and this story plays on those fears.

Clearly, the people who benefit most from the story are the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

The people who are hurt the most are the American people, not necessarily because Obama is the best candidate to be our next president but because if the issue continues to gain momentum, we will start thinking about the presidential race in terms of race instead of looking at it in terms of who we think will be the best leader for this country over the next four years.

Additionally, I am probably going to catch some heat here - but I disagree with the claims that Wright’s documented comments are anti-American.

That’s just stupid.

Unless someone comes out and blatantly condemns another group - or condones hatred and violence, then I think it is quite pro-American to speak your mind.

When it comes down to it what this pastor is saying is simply that racism still exists in this country on various levels and I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue with that underlying message.

In fact, I was just on an airline a few weeks ago (I can’t remember which one unfortunately) and was sitting in the exit row. The airline attendant, a middle-aged caucasian woman came by and looked over everyone seated in the exit row and before beginning her primer asked me, “Excuse me - do you speak English?”

I glanced down at the copy of the Economist that I was reading and then looked over into the other aisle, where a younger black lady was giving me a look that I swear was sympathetic in nature. Eschewing the barrage of smart-ass comments that were running through my mind I simply answered, “Yes.” (Note - I later called the airline attendant over and reprimanded her for her comment in private)

At any rate, the reason I relay this story is simply because I believe it is a microcosm for the implicit beliefs held by certain people in this country - that if someone has darker skin and slanted eyes they might not speak English.

I guess for people of ethnicity it is not so shocking to hear public figures come out and say that there is still latent racism in the US - which at its core, is what I think Wright is really getting at (albeit a little more colorfully for my liking).

I just hope that people don’t become preoccupied with this and refocus on the other characteristics of the political candidates in this race.

It was over five years ago that a close friend from University visited me in DC. Like some other homosexuals I knew, this particular friend had come out of the closet in University and was telling me about her new life, fully immersed in the lesbian community.

I eagerly listened with the predictable and tacky excitement of a heterosexual male in their twenties to an amorous story my friend was recounting and when the retelling was complete managed a very profound response:

“Boy, lesbians are hot.”

My friend eyed me broodingly for several moments, as if deciding whether to lambaste me or ignore me, before finally deciding to be patient with an idiot and help me understand that,

“The heterosexual male sexual fantasy of two women together is sort of annoying to most lesbians.”

“Oh,” I responded eloquently.

That was probably one of my first lessons in lesbian culture and has stuck with me throughout the years.

In the past few weeks it has certainly popped up in my head as I have been recently introduced to the Showtime series, the L Word and I am not ashamed to admit that I have more or less become a fan of the show. The reason it has popped up in my head is because I would argue that the L Word supports my initial, naïve notion that lesbians are hot. At the same time, to reduce the value of a tremendously well written and produced series to a sophomoric male observation would be completely unjust.

So in honor of my new favorite show, I would like to present the following list of 5 things I think about the L Word:

1. The production crew behind the L Word is terrific – Cast aside, I think the L Word has a great production crew. Up until the current season, I feel like the writing has been top-notch. Additionally, I feel like the photography work is of a pretty high caliber for television and the direction is pretty solid as well. This season I sort of feel like the characters are falling into predictable patterns and I have sort of a feeling of déjà vu while experiencing some of the sub-plots but I don’t want to dwell on the negative. Over the six or seven seasons that the show has been running, I think the production work has been excellent.

2. The L Word is a cultural centerpiece - There are times when a television show develops such socio-cultural gravity that I would consider it to be a centerpiece. You can tell this has happened when people start:

A) Planning social events around the show - I know as a fact that there are L Word parties that happen and I have heard that you can hear a pin drop during these parties while the show is actually on.

B) Start defining themselves according to characters on the show – Have you ever heard someone say “Yeah, I’m sort of like Joey from Friends?” I have, and I instantly decided I did not like the person who said that to me – not only because they just said they bear all the traits of an individual who for all intents and purposes is mentally handicapped, but because they just used a character from the show Friends to define themselves. At any rate, my sense is that this phenomenon has already taken place with the L Word in the lesbian community.

C) Discussing and recounting the show uncontrollably – When I was in High School, I remember the day after Seinfeld, everyone would be re-enacting scenes from the show and laughing hilariously. Well, I am sure that in the aftermath of a new L Word Episode, there is a notable percentage of content in the collective conversations that occur between lesbians that is exclusively devoted to what just happened on the L Word.

3. The L Word suffers from CFS (Chronic Mainstream Fiction Syndrome) – Back in the 90s, Friends was criticized for unrealistically portraying what it would be like for a group of friends living in the City – they were too attractive, too happy and had too much disposable time and income. The same goes for other popular television series (Seinfeld is exempt however). Well, the exact same criticisms could be applied to the L Word. The cast is unrealistically attractive, successful and seem to have too much time on their hands. Although this makes for great, entertaining television it also can detract from the empathy that is possible – evident in my compulsive fast-forwarding of any scene involving Bette and her Father from season 2, a sub-plot I am sorry to say I simply found boring in its attempt to conjure gravity.

Not your typical lesbians

4. The L word manages to balance the real with the utopic in a tasteful manner – Yes I realize I just said I couldn’t empathize with the show because I did not believe that it presented a realistic texture to life and this point seems rather contradictory in nature. Then again, being truly entertained by a show and being truly moved by a show are very different things. For instance, I would love to spend a week (or a month) in the utopic image portrayed by the HBO series Entourage but have not really thought about the show (nor any of its characters) for one second when it isn’t on. There is something to be said for embellishing life on-screen and offering utopia to the world. At the same time, you are walking a fine line because the more you embellish and adorn, the less substance is left. I would offer this final point as a recognition that the L Word has managed to walk the tightrope between style and substance for several years now – and I hope they continue to do so for several more.

5. The L Word is not just for lesbians - I don’t feel embarassed saying I enjoy the show because the fact of the matter is that it is good dramatic television and I know as a fact that other heterosexual guys watch the show. I can assure you if the L Word didn’t have broad appeal, Showtime would have never slotted it at 9PM on a Sunday evening. The fact that they slot it at that time means that their research indicates that a large population of people watch and enjoy the show. The fact that the only people I hear who are vocal about the show are lesbians and women simply means that there is a large population of people in different demographics - including heterosexual males - who enjoy the show.

Let me preface this by saying I have never really been inside Josephine’s. It might be a good place - but unfortunately I wouldn’t really know.

Last night I decided to check out this new club down at the intersection of K and Vermont, accompanied by two beautiful women: my sister and my girlfriend.

I walked up to the door after valeting my sister’s car and was confronted by a smallish fellow.

“So we are here as part of a friend’s group,” I mentioned.

After mulling over his list he looked up and with an inflated sense of self-importance responded, “Oh, she already came with several of her friends. There are too many of you and we are already at maximum capacity.”

As my companion began texting wildly in an effort to contact one of the club’s managers I asked, “Can I talk with your manager, please?” I asked.

“Well, the owner is over there,” he responded, pointing to some big guy with a goatee who took the clipboard and responded in a matter-of-fact tone, “If you’re not on the list you’re not getting in.”

At that point I simply shook my head in amazement and decided it was time to go.

Now, it is not necessarily the fact that I didn’t get in which made me so irritated, it was the false sense of importance that the people working the door at Josephine’s had, which bothered me.

I love the DC nightlife but exclusivity should be something that is attained over time - not something imposed from the outset.

Sure, there are places with lines that may be difficult to get in - but normally that is because a brand has been built up over time and has a core of loyal patrons who keep coming back.

It just seemed sort of strange that a club had suddenly popped up on Vermont and become ‘exclusive.’

At any rate, we decided to head up to the Ritz-Carlton in Georgetown and sat on the couches by the fire place while enjoying a glass of wine and laughed about the experience.