Inspiration in unexpected places
This is one of the best J-blog entries I've ever read, for so many reasons and on so many levels. I'm not telling you what it says. Go see for yourself. (But after my hyperbolic introduction, don't expect the moon.)
(hat tip: Allison)
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
Best Line about Portmangate
Last night I attended the (wonderful) wedding of Chava Boylan and Marc Neustadter, and overheard the following conversation:
A: [blah blah blah] . . . what happened to Natalie Portman at the kotel.
B: What happened to Natalie Portman at the Kotel?
A: [Explains that Portman filmed a kiss scene in the parking lot and some worshippers eh, behaved badly in response, it made international headlines, etc.]
[pause while B thinks that over]
B: May all of Israel's problems be like that in the future.
Last night I attended the (wonderful) wedding of Chava Boylan and Marc Neustadter, and overheard the following conversation:
A: [blah blah blah] . . . what happened to Natalie Portman at the kotel.
B: What happened to Natalie Portman at the Kotel?
A: [Explains that Portman filmed a kiss scene in the parking lot and some worshippers eh, behaved badly in response, it made international headlines, etc.]
[pause while B thinks that over]
B: May all of Israel's problems be like that in the future.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Batman vs. Spiderman
I wonder what would happen if you took some of the "heretic" bloggers and locked them in a room for 24 hours with some of the "ba'al teshuva" bloggers and some of the more earnest, passionate FFB bloggers?
It would be, like, a clash between 2 implacable, intractable, irresistable forces!
In this corner: Shaigetz! Mis-nagid! The Hedyot! Chassid/Heretic! Gadol Hador!
And in this corner: Frum Actress! Ba'al Teshuva! Passionate Life! Aidel Maidel! Simple Jew!
Would the Believers convince the Heretics that Orthodox Judaism is beautiful, meaningful, and perhaps even - gasp!- possibly true? Or would the Heretics convince the Believers that Orthodoxy and its adherents are so rife with illogic and hypocrisy that they should run away and never look back? When we opened the doors, would they all be having a kumsitz led by Lazer Brody? Or would we have to send in Renegade Rebbetzin and Treppenwitz to clean up the mess?
Things that make you go "hm."
I wonder what would happen if you took some of the "heretic" bloggers and locked them in a room for 24 hours with some of the "ba'al teshuva" bloggers and some of the more earnest, passionate FFB bloggers?
It would be, like, a clash between 2 implacable, intractable, irresistable forces!
In this corner: Shaigetz! Mis-nagid! The Hedyot! Chassid/Heretic! Gadol Hador!
And in this corner: Frum Actress! Ba'al Teshuva! Passionate Life! Aidel Maidel! Simple Jew!
Would the Believers convince the Heretics that Orthodox Judaism is beautiful, meaningful, and perhaps even - gasp!- possibly true? Or would the Heretics convince the Believers that Orthodoxy and its adherents are so rife with illogic and hypocrisy that they should run away and never look back? When we opened the doors, would they all be having a kumsitz led by Lazer Brody? Or would we have to send in Renegade Rebbetzin and Treppenwitz to clean up the mess?
Things that make you go "hm."
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Self-hating Asians or Panderers to the Western public?
Have you noticed that the people in Japan who draw anime always give the characters the biggest, roundest eyes you have ever seen? Is this only for anime that they plan to export to the West, or do Japanese children sit around all afternoon watching cartoons full of characters whose eyes look nothing like their eyes? If the latter, doesn't that suck for Japanese youth, the way that youth in the West are being all messed up by media who badger them to be ever, ever thinner? Why not draw anime that shows powerful superheroes who look identifiably Japanese? Is this a matter of self-hating Asians, or just a matter of them catering to their Western importers? If the latter, why not draw characters who look more Japanese to make the statement that "Asian is beautiful"? It seems so wrong, somehow, for Japanese anime not to have more Japanese-looking people in it.
A few examples (not even the best ones) for your convenience: Characters from Spirited Away, Battle of the Planets, DragonBall Z
Things that make you go "hm."
Have you noticed that the people in Japan who draw anime always give the characters the biggest, roundest eyes you have ever seen? Is this only for anime that they plan to export to the West, or do Japanese children sit around all afternoon watching cartoons full of characters whose eyes look nothing like their eyes? If the latter, doesn't that suck for Japanese youth, the way that youth in the West are being all messed up by media who badger them to be ever, ever thinner? Why not draw anime that shows powerful superheroes who look identifiably Japanese? Is this a matter of self-hating Asians, or just a matter of them catering to their Western importers? If the latter, why not draw characters who look more Japanese to make the statement that "Asian is beautiful"? It seems so wrong, somehow, for Japanese anime not to have more Japanese-looking people in it.
A few examples (not even the best ones) for your convenience: Characters from Spirited Away, Battle of the Planets, DragonBall Z
Things that make you go "hm."
Thoughts on Disengagement
I'm fascinated that there hasn't been more discussion in the blogosphere about the historic decision by the Israeli cabinet to disengage from Gaza. I would have thought that it would be the ONLY topic of discussion.
Well, here's my two cents:
One thing I've noticed about the whole question of giving land to the PA, disengagement, etc is that while in the whole people are working with the same set of facts, their interpretations of those facts -- or, more specifically, their (our) judgements of which facts have more weight -- depends much more on one's overall world outlook or priorities, rather than on actual security concerns.
So, for example, regarding uprooting Jewish communities from the Gaza strip, we have all sorts of considerations:
the desire not to harm one's fellow Jew by forcing him to leave a community he has spent 30 years building; the ancient yearning for a "greater Israel"; the fact that Gaza was not part of Biblical-era Israel; the fact that having Jewish communities in the territories is a boon to soldiers serving there; the fact that many Israelis resent that their children have to be serving there in the first place; assertions by many security experts that Israel will be able to defend itself from terrorists in Gaza even after the disengagement, and perhaps better; assertions by other security experts that that is not true; the antipathy by Israelis to "reward" terror by dismantling settlements; the fact that now we are dealing with Abbas, not Arafat; the perception that the Palestinian public does not see disengagement as a reward, and does see the intifada as having failed; lingering memories in the Jewish community of anti-Semites who uprooted us from our homes, usually as a prelude to killing us; the fact that every home-owner in the territories signed a contract acknowledging that they will leave if politics forces them to do so; the question of how much the government is compensating the settlers for their loss, and where they will move to now; worries over what will happen to Jewish graves, holy sites, etc in the abandoned areas; and haunting questions about what all those Jewish residents of Gaza were living and dying there for in the first place, if we are simply going to pick up and leave.
Each of these factors is nuanced and, in most cases, each one, itself, relies on judgement calls rather than a black-and-white answer. For example, the army itself had to make judgement calls about how, and to what extent, Israel can defend herself against terrorism if we disengage. People on both sides of the issue can find army people who will support them. And then, each factor creates a domino effect for the others, while simultaneously being affected by the others. Which factors are most important?
Religiously, too, there are judgement calls. For some, the vision of Greater Israel is so important that nothing else matters. But I can tell you that for me, as a religious person, the question of whether it's OK to force Jews to leave homes on land that is politically and militarily under the auspices of a Jewish State is ALSO related to the question of their safety, my safety, and the fact that Gaza is not part of Biblical Israel. And I do believe that there is a big difference between the Holocaust-era German idea of a place being Judenrein, versus one group of Jews asking another to come within the geographic lines of the Jewish State, in order to (in their judgement) more effectively protect the entire group (which, presumably, is an important consideration for almost everyone in the debate).
Therein lies another issue: The perception of both sides that those on the other are fanatics who do NOT care about security. Everyone says that they know what's best for Israel's safety, but there is a perception in Tel Aviv that "those crazy settlers" are messianic wild cards who care more about some crazy Biblical vision than about the safety of soldiers or even their own children. And there is a perception among settlers and those who support them that those on "the Left" are atheist radical-secularist intellectual-snob AshkeNazis who care more about their cocktail parties and their children's prom dresses than they do about their fellow Jew or the holiness of the land. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion when each side is saying "I'm the one who cares about security! All you care about is your idiotic way of life, and hating me!"
So, the conclusion I've come to myself is that while, all things considered, I think disengaging is the appropriate and necessary thing to do right now, I want to be crystal clear that the whole thought of it also breaks my heart. The Jewish communities in Gaza are beautiful in so many ways, and I feel so, so sorry for all the people who are about to be forced to move. And, yes, the "Judenrein" images are strong for me as well. I simply believe that we cannot allow our emotions and historical baggage to get in the way of our assessment of security issues. Ultimately, I believe (and hope) that disengaging will save Jewish lives and strengthen the State of Israel. That belief is based on a host of wispy, interconnected judgement calls, a cobweb of differently-weighted factors, one which apparently shares some characteristics with that of the Israeli cabinet.
I only hope that the intricate lace of my beliefs and hopes is strong enough to hold the suffering it will inevitably cause to my fellow Jews. To those who are following Israeli law and now peacefully leaving Gaza I want to say: Thank you for all you have done to protect Israel. Thank you for caring so much about the Jewish State. I'm so sorry for your pain and your loss. I hope what Israel is losing geographically it will eventually more than gain in emotional, material, and spiritual security for us all.
***UPDATE***
A friend of mine who recently bought a home in the West Bank tells me that as far as her Hebrew-speaking lawyer told her, none of the documents she signed included a statement that she'd be willing to leave if politics forces her to do so. I apologize for the error. I had been told by a resident of another settlment that he had signed something to that effect and that all homeowners in "the shtachim" must do similarly. Perhaps I misunderstood him, or perhaps such a contract used to be required but is no longer, or perhaps it is only required in certain areas. I'll try to find out. Again, I apologize for the inaccuracy.
I'm fascinated that there hasn't been more discussion in the blogosphere about the historic decision by the Israeli cabinet to disengage from Gaza. I would have thought that it would be the ONLY topic of discussion.
Well, here's my two cents:
One thing I've noticed about the whole question of giving land to the PA, disengagement, etc is that while in the whole people are working with the same set of facts, their interpretations of those facts -- or, more specifically, their (our) judgements of which facts have more weight -- depends much more on one's overall world outlook or priorities, rather than on actual security concerns.
So, for example, regarding uprooting Jewish communities from the Gaza strip, we have all sorts of considerations:
the desire not to harm one's fellow Jew by forcing him to leave a community he has spent 30 years building; the ancient yearning for a "greater Israel"; the fact that Gaza was not part of Biblical-era Israel; the fact that having Jewish communities in the territories is a boon to soldiers serving there; the fact that many Israelis resent that their children have to be serving there in the first place; assertions by many security experts that Israel will be able to defend itself from terrorists in Gaza even after the disengagement, and perhaps better; assertions by other security experts that that is not true; the antipathy by Israelis to "reward" terror by dismantling settlements; the fact that now we are dealing with Abbas, not Arafat; the perception that the Palestinian public does not see disengagement as a reward, and does see the intifada as having failed; lingering memories in the Jewish community of anti-Semites who uprooted us from our homes, usually as a prelude to killing us; the fact that every home-owner in the territories signed a contract acknowledging that they will leave if politics forces them to do so; the question of how much the government is compensating the settlers for their loss, and where they will move to now; worries over what will happen to Jewish graves, holy sites, etc in the abandoned areas; and haunting questions about what all those Jewish residents of Gaza were living and dying there for in the first place, if we are simply going to pick up and leave.
Each of these factors is nuanced and, in most cases, each one, itself, relies on judgement calls rather than a black-and-white answer. For example, the army itself had to make judgement calls about how, and to what extent, Israel can defend herself against terrorism if we disengage. People on both sides of the issue can find army people who will support them. And then, each factor creates a domino effect for the others, while simultaneously being affected by the others. Which factors are most important?
Religiously, too, there are judgement calls. For some, the vision of Greater Israel is so important that nothing else matters. But I can tell you that for me, as a religious person, the question of whether it's OK to force Jews to leave homes on land that is politically and militarily under the auspices of a Jewish State is ALSO related to the question of their safety, my safety, and the fact that Gaza is not part of Biblical Israel. And I do believe that there is a big difference between the Holocaust-era German idea of a place being Judenrein, versus one group of Jews asking another to come within the geographic lines of the Jewish State, in order to (in their judgement) more effectively protect the entire group (which, presumably, is an important consideration for almost everyone in the debate).
Therein lies another issue: The perception of both sides that those on the other are fanatics who do NOT care about security. Everyone says that they know what's best for Israel's safety, but there is a perception in Tel Aviv that "those crazy settlers" are messianic wild cards who care more about some crazy Biblical vision than about the safety of soldiers or even their own children. And there is a perception among settlers and those who support them that those on "the Left" are atheist radical-secularist intellectual-snob AshkeNazis who care more about their cocktail parties and their children's prom dresses than they do about their fellow Jew or the holiness of the land. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion when each side is saying "I'm the one who cares about security! All you care about is your idiotic way of life, and hating me!"
So, the conclusion I've come to myself is that while, all things considered, I think disengaging is the appropriate and necessary thing to do right now, I want to be crystal clear that the whole thought of it also breaks my heart. The Jewish communities in Gaza are beautiful in so many ways, and I feel so, so sorry for all the people who are about to be forced to move. And, yes, the "Judenrein" images are strong for me as well. I simply believe that we cannot allow our emotions and historical baggage to get in the way of our assessment of security issues. Ultimately, I believe (and hope) that disengaging will save Jewish lives and strengthen the State of Israel. That belief is based on a host of wispy, interconnected judgement calls, a cobweb of differently-weighted factors, one which apparently shares some characteristics with that of the Israeli cabinet.
I only hope that the intricate lace of my beliefs and hopes is strong enough to hold the suffering it will inevitably cause to my fellow Jews. To those who are following Israeli law and now peacefully leaving Gaza I want to say: Thank you for all you have done to protect Israel. Thank you for caring so much about the Jewish State. I'm so sorry for your pain and your loss. I hope what Israel is losing geographically it will eventually more than gain in emotional, material, and spiritual security for us all.
***UPDATE***
A friend of mine who recently bought a home in the West Bank tells me that as far as her Hebrew-speaking lawyer told her, none of the documents she signed included a statement that she'd be willing to leave if politics forces her to do so. I apologize for the error. I had been told by a resident of another settlment that he had signed something to that effect and that all homeowners in "the shtachim" must do similarly. Perhaps I misunderstood him, or perhaps such a contract used to be required but is no longer, or perhaps it is only required in certain areas. I'll try to find out. Again, I apologize for the inaccuracy.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Ingenius Solution to my Dating Dilemnas (non-PC alert)
I just watched "50 First Dates" starring Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, and am thinking "My God! That's it! Why didn't I ever think of this before?!?"
All I have to do is be in a horrible car accident that ruins my ability to move new knowledge into long-term memory, and erases, each night while I'm sleeping, any memory of what I did that day. Then I'll meet a guy who thinks I'm sweet and funny and pretty, and after a while he'll make a video for me to watch each morning, explaining that it's not, actually, February of 2005, but actually much later and look! We're in a relationship! In fact we're married and have kids! We have a great life!
And then, every day, it will be, like "Wow! Presto! I'm in a relationship with a great guy and we have kids and are vacationing on this boat and life is great!" What a way to start the day! And I won't have any memory of any more set-ups or clueless married men, because every day will be a new day that I'm suddenly, magically, married!
Brain damage! It's ingenius. So much easier than what I'm doing now.
God, I love Hollywood.
I just watched "50 First Dates" starring Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, and am thinking "My God! That's it! Why didn't I ever think of this before?!?"
All I have to do is be in a horrible car accident that ruins my ability to move new knowledge into long-term memory, and erases, each night while I'm sleeping, any memory of what I did that day. Then I'll meet a guy who thinks I'm sweet and funny and pretty, and after a while he'll make a video for me to watch each morning, explaining that it's not, actually, February of 2005, but actually much later and look! We're in a relationship! In fact we're married and have kids! We have a great life!
And then, every day, it will be, like "Wow! Presto! I'm in a relationship with a great guy and we have kids and are vacationing on this boat and life is great!" What a way to start the day! And I won't have any memory of any more set-ups or clueless married men, because every day will be a new day that I'm suddenly, magically, married!
Brain damage! It's ingenius. So much easier than what I'm doing now.
God, I love Hollywood.
"And who knows if for a time such as this, God created the Region 2 DVD?"
I've mentioned a few times my friendly local video/DVD rental store, Ozen Hashlishit ("The Third Ear"). This store contains a treasure trove of the most eclectic mix of movies you could ever want. In one place: American, Israeli, French, Russian, Japanese, and British films and TV series. Maybe Spanish, too. They've got everything from "The Parent Trap" and the entire first season of "Little House on the Prairie" to blockbusters like "The Matrix Reloaded" and Israeli standards like "Sallah Shabbati." They've got every episode of Friends, about 10 DVDs of The Simpsons, Faulty Towers, Who's the Boss, and every episode of Babylon 5. It's paradise.
Today, in the shelves next to "Murder on the Orient Express" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," and not so far from "50 First Dates" and "Kadosh," I found . . .
All 85 episodes of "Battle of the Planets"!!!!!
Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh . . . do you remember "Battle of the Planets"? This is the first show I remember watching religiously. Even before I first saw Star Wars, even before I discovered the Monkees, I was slavishly devoted to Mark, Jason, Princess, Tiny, and Keyop. The G-Force. 7-Zark-7. God, it's no wonder I'm not married yet . . . what real guy could possibly live up to the animated teenage godly hunkiness of Mark and Jason? This show premiered when I was 6 years old, and spoiled me for good. I remember dreaming many years later of joining the G-Force and being able to fly and swoop around just like them. I mean, real dreams, at night. I still remember them. Aaaaaaahhhhhhh . . . . the G-Force . . . .
So, with happy tears in my eyes, I brought the first DVD to the desk. And guess what? It is a Region 2 DVD. And guess what? I bought my computer, with the DVD player in it, back when DVDs were new technology, and there is no option for switching the region. It is all Region 1, all the time. Believe me, I tried to switch it, back when I wanted to watch the last 2 DVDs of "Sex and the City" and discovered that while Ozen Hashlishit had gotten the first gazillion episodes in Region 1 version, the last 16 were out of my reach. Maybe I can have someone hack into the software and change it, but right now I'm stuck.
But, it's OK, because you know what? The DVDs are there, just a 15 minute walk from my house. Battle of the Planets. Battle of the Planets!!!! The G-Force. Princess. Mark and Jason. Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh.
(Yes, I know. I'm very weird. And I like it.)
I've mentioned a few times my friendly local video/DVD rental store, Ozen Hashlishit ("The Third Ear"). This store contains a treasure trove of the most eclectic mix of movies you could ever want. In one place: American, Israeli, French, Russian, Japanese, and British films and TV series. Maybe Spanish, too. They've got everything from "The Parent Trap" and the entire first season of "Little House on the Prairie" to blockbusters like "The Matrix Reloaded" and Israeli standards like "Sallah Shabbati." They've got every episode of Friends, about 10 DVDs of The Simpsons, Faulty Towers, Who's the Boss, and every episode of Babylon 5. It's paradise.
Today, in the shelves next to "Murder on the Orient Express" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," and not so far from "50 First Dates" and "Kadosh," I found . . .
All 85 episodes of "Battle of the Planets"!!!!!
Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh . . . do you remember "Battle of the Planets"? This is the first show I remember watching religiously. Even before I first saw Star Wars, even before I discovered the Monkees, I was slavishly devoted to Mark, Jason, Princess, Tiny, and Keyop. The G-Force. 7-Zark-7. God, it's no wonder I'm not married yet . . . what real guy could possibly live up to the animated teenage godly hunkiness of Mark and Jason? This show premiered when I was 6 years old, and spoiled me for good. I remember dreaming many years later of joining the G-Force and being able to fly and swoop around just like them. I mean, real dreams, at night. I still remember them. Aaaaaaahhhhhhh . . . . the G-Force . . . .
So, with happy tears in my eyes, I brought the first DVD to the desk. And guess what? It is a Region 2 DVD. And guess what? I bought my computer, with the DVD player in it, back when DVDs were new technology, and there is no option for switching the region. It is all Region 1, all the time. Believe me, I tried to switch it, back when I wanted to watch the last 2 DVDs of "Sex and the City" and discovered that while Ozen Hashlishit had gotten the first gazillion episodes in Region 1 version, the last 16 were out of my reach. Maybe I can have someone hack into the software and change it, but right now I'm stuck.
But, it's OK, because you know what? The DVDs are there, just a 15 minute walk from my house. Battle of the Planets. Battle of the Planets!!!! The G-Force. Princess. Mark and Jason. Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh.
(Yes, I know. I'm very weird. And I like it.)
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Chayyei Sarah: The Audio Version
Did you see the article in today's NY Times about Podcasting? Oh, my God, that looks like the funnest thing EVER. I must find out how to get started. What will I Podcast about? Probably, Podcasting my dates would not be a good idea . . . Oo, oo, I must podcast from the theater when I see the next Star Wars film! Or I could interview Israelis about fun stuff!
The possibilities are endless! Oooooooo I'm so excited!
Did you see the article in today's NY Times about Podcasting? Oh, my God, that looks like the funnest thing EVER. I must find out how to get started. What will I Podcast about? Probably, Podcasting my dates would not be a good idea . . . Oo, oo, I must podcast from the theater when I see the next Star Wars film! Or I could interview Israelis about fun stuff!
The possibilities are endless! Oooooooo I'm so excited!
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Week in Review
What Chayyei Sarah is . . .
Reading
Writing about
Singing (most singable song on the Garden State soundtrack!)
Dancing to
Attending
Avoiding (to her detriment)
Still thinking about
What Chayyei Sarah is . . .
Reading
Writing about
Singing (most singable song on the Garden State soundtrack!)
Dancing to
Attending
Avoiding (to her detriment)
Still thinking about
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
An Open Letter to Men Who are Married, Engaged, or Seeing Someone
Dear Gentlemen Who Are Taken,
Since I wish to believe that you, my dear male readers, are sensitive people who do not wish to hurt others, I’m offering a bit of unsolicited but often much-needed advice.
You can file this under “How Not To Humiliate Yourself, Your Wife/Girlfriend, or Some Poor, Unsuspecting Single Woman."
We will study my suggestions along with two examples, out of many many, that I've just now made up . . . . off the top of my head. I have never been in any of the following situations! No, of course not. They are hypothetical. Really. No really.
Suggestion #1: DO avoid protracted conversations with a single woman other than your wife/girlfriend, particularly conversations that involve a lot of eye-contact, laughing, or emotional soul-baring. (Exceptions exist, such as: If one of your wife’s single friends, who obviously knows that you are married because you are married to her friend, comes to you for dating advice, that’s fine.)
Suggestion #2: If you must speak with a single woman at length, DO say something – at the beginning of the conversation – to indicate that you are taken. For example, DO say “that’s a nice sweater. My girlfriend has the same one” (even if she doesn’t) or “You have a good point. I was just talking with my girlfriend about that the other day” (even if you weren’t). DO NOT wait until the end of the conversation to say such a thing.
Suggestion #3: If you have been dating your girlfriend for only a short while and aren’t sure you want to proclaim that you are taken, see suggestion #1.
Example A: If you are, say, a new graduate student at Columbia University, and you are practically engaged . . . and if, during your first Shabbat on campus you meet, say, a senior at Barnard College (ie, not your girlfriend) . . . DO NOT stand around talking with her for an entire seudat shlishit, giving her no indication that you are very very taken.
DO NOT sit with her on the side of the room while everyone else pulls their chairs into the middle of the room to sing. DO NOT continue talking to her, looking her in the eye and laughing together, until it’s time for ma’ariv.
If you have failed to communicate to the Barnard student that you are going to get engaged to someone else within a few weeks . . . DO NOT - I repeat, DO NOT- when you see her 2 days later at davening, wait for her to finish davening, approach her when she exits the shule, and tell her that you’d like to walk her home, even though there is absolutely no danger to her and you live in the opposite direction. DO NOT then stand with her outside her dorm building for 30 minutes, looking her in the eye and laughing and talking.
If you do these things, first, the Barnard senior will find out from one of her friends that you are practically engaged, and she will feel confused and disappointed. And then, when she bumps into you on the street a week later, she will take you to task, because she is an angry Barnard woman and has not yet reached the zen state of her thirties. She will ask you whether it’s occured to you how your girlfriend would feel if she knew that you, her almost-fiancee, had chatted up another girl for hours and walked her home. The Barnard senior will tell you that it’s just as well you aren’t available, because she wouldn’t want to date someone who would flirt with another girl like that when you are practically engaged. And you will mumble that the Barnard senior is right, and that you shouldn’t have led her on. And you will slink away.
And then you will get engaged to your girlfriend, and never see the Barnard senior again. You’ll forget all about it. But she will not.
I'm just saying.
Suggestion #4: If you are married, for God’s sake, man, DO wear a wedding ring!
Suggestion #5: If you are married and for whatever reason do not wear a wedding ring, DO refer to suggestions #1 and #2.
Example B: If you are married and you don’t wear a wedding ring . . . if you, say, are in your mid-30’s and have been married for about 8 years and have 3 children . . . and if your wife goes away to visit her parents for a week and takes the kids with her . . . and if you are invited by a family for Shabbat lunch so you won’t be alone . . . and at the meal are three single women in their mid or late 20’s . . . then, when people are going around introducing themselves, at the beginning of the meal, DO say “it’s nice to meet you. Normally I’d be here with my wife, but she’s in Florida visiting my in-laws.”
DO NOT wait until after bentching to mention that you have a wife and three children. If you wait until the end of the meal, then on their way home the three single women will talk about how humiliated they all feel, because all three had been thinking that they’d like to date you. And they will feel like fools.
TO SUMMARIZE:
If you are taken, and if you are talking to a single woman without your wife/girlfriend around, DO assume that the single woman is looking for a date, and DO communicate in clear, simple words that you are not available. DO it early in the conversation. DO mention your wife/girlfriend, often. Absolutely DO NOT flirt with other women. DO NOT lead them on. DO NOT pretend to be clueless; Chayyei Sarah has just given you a clue.
Not that I’m a victim of such a thing.
I’m just saying.
Sincerely NOT Yours,
Sarah
P.S. Readers of both genders are welcome to add their own suggestions or examples regarding their "taken" counterparts . . . but please keep everything clean, at least minimally respectful, and devoid of any identifying information of guilty parties.
Dear Gentlemen Who Are Taken,
Since I wish to believe that you, my dear male readers, are sensitive people who do not wish to hurt others, I’m offering a bit of unsolicited but often much-needed advice.
You can file this under “How Not To Humiliate Yourself, Your Wife/Girlfriend, or Some Poor, Unsuspecting Single Woman."
We will study my suggestions along with two examples, out of many many, that I've just now made up . . . . off the top of my head. I have never been in any of the following situations! No, of course not. They are hypothetical. Really. No really.
Suggestion #1: DO avoid protracted conversations with a single woman other than your wife/girlfriend, particularly conversations that involve a lot of eye-contact, laughing, or emotional soul-baring. (Exceptions exist, such as: If one of your wife’s single friends, who obviously knows that you are married because you are married to her friend, comes to you for dating advice, that’s fine.)
Suggestion #2: If you must speak with a single woman at length, DO say something – at the beginning of the conversation – to indicate that you are taken. For example, DO say “that’s a nice sweater. My girlfriend has the same one” (even if she doesn’t) or “You have a good point. I was just talking with my girlfriend about that the other day” (even if you weren’t). DO NOT wait until the end of the conversation to say such a thing.
Suggestion #3: If you have been dating your girlfriend for only a short while and aren’t sure you want to proclaim that you are taken, see suggestion #1.
Example A: If you are, say, a new graduate student at Columbia University, and you are practically engaged . . . and if, during your first Shabbat on campus you meet, say, a senior at Barnard College (ie, not your girlfriend) . . . DO NOT stand around talking with her for an entire seudat shlishit, giving her no indication that you are very very taken.
DO NOT sit with her on the side of the room while everyone else pulls their chairs into the middle of the room to sing. DO NOT continue talking to her, looking her in the eye and laughing together, until it’s time for ma’ariv.
If you have failed to communicate to the Barnard student that you are going to get engaged to someone else within a few weeks . . . DO NOT - I repeat, DO NOT- when you see her 2 days later at davening, wait for her to finish davening, approach her when she exits the shule, and tell her that you’d like to walk her home, even though there is absolutely no danger to her and you live in the opposite direction. DO NOT then stand with her outside her dorm building for 30 minutes, looking her in the eye and laughing and talking.
If you do these things, first, the Barnard senior will find out from one of her friends that you are practically engaged, and she will feel confused and disappointed. And then, when she bumps into you on the street a week later, she will take you to task, because she is an angry Barnard woman and has not yet reached the zen state of her thirties. She will ask you whether it’s occured to you how your girlfriend would feel if she knew that you, her almost-fiancee, had chatted up another girl for hours and walked her home. The Barnard senior will tell you that it’s just as well you aren’t available, because she wouldn’t want to date someone who would flirt with another girl like that when you are practically engaged. And you will mumble that the Barnard senior is right, and that you shouldn’t have led her on. And you will slink away.
And then you will get engaged to your girlfriend, and never see the Barnard senior again. You’ll forget all about it. But she will not.
I'm just saying.
Suggestion #4: If you are married, for God’s sake, man, DO wear a wedding ring!
Suggestion #5: If you are married and for whatever reason do not wear a wedding ring, DO refer to suggestions #1 and #2.
Example B: If you are married and you don’t wear a wedding ring . . . if you, say, are in your mid-30’s and have been married for about 8 years and have 3 children . . . and if your wife goes away to visit her parents for a week and takes the kids with her . . . and if you are invited by a family for Shabbat lunch so you won’t be alone . . . and at the meal are three single women in their mid or late 20’s . . . then, when people are going around introducing themselves, at the beginning of the meal, DO say “it’s nice to meet you. Normally I’d be here with my wife, but she’s in Florida visiting my in-laws.”
DO NOT wait until after bentching to mention that you have a wife and three children. If you wait until the end of the meal, then on their way home the three single women will talk about how humiliated they all feel, because all three had been thinking that they’d like to date you. And they will feel like fools.
TO SUMMARIZE:
If you are taken, and if you are talking to a single woman without your wife/girlfriend around, DO assume that the single woman is looking for a date, and DO communicate in clear, simple words that you are not available. DO it early in the conversation. DO mention your wife/girlfriend, often. Absolutely DO NOT flirt with other women. DO NOT lead them on. DO NOT pretend to be clueless; Chayyei Sarah has just given you a clue.
Not that I’m a victim of such a thing.
I’m just saying.
Sincerely NOT Yours,
Sarah
P.S. Readers of both genders are welcome to add their own suggestions or examples regarding their "taken" counterparts . . . but please keep everything clean, at least minimally respectful, and devoid of any identifying information of guilty parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)