While preparing a post on friends vs. frenemies during the rising-harmony vs. rising-strife phases of Turchin's 50-year cycle in civic cohesion vs. breakdown, I came across one of the fondest memories that late Gen X-ers have of the peak of social harmony circa the mid-'90s -- friends entering each other's rooms through the bedroom window, rather than going through the usual doors on the ground floor.
To clarify, this rarely happened in real life and is mainly a trope from pop culture. And yet, even as a pop culture trope, it didn't exist long before the '90s, and ceased afterwards. Pop culture is dynamic, not static, and it reflects the broader zeitgeist -- not only within the cultural domains, but in the IRL social domains like families, friends, communities, and so on.
In order to pay proper homage to this cultural phenomenon, and to understand it properly, and to trace its origins or spiritual ancestors, I'm putting together this standalone post instead of relegating it to the comment thread.
First, as a summary for those who remember or as a whirlwind tour for those poor unfortunate souls who weren't part of that world, here is a compilation video of the trope from Slate's YouTube channel. It's not meant to be exhaustive, and I will add more examples below and in the comments as I come across them.
We have to clearly delineate what the trope is -- it's not the very broad definition from TV Tropes or IMDB, where it's merely entering the home through a window. That covers criminals breaking & entering, or spies and snoops, frenemies trying to sabotage each other, etc.
But more importantly, this *does not* cover an existing romantic couple, or between two people where there's already romantic tension or sexual intent -- that trope is already fairly well established. For example, Romeo observing Juliet on her balcony, serenades in the same spatial position, princes scaling the walls of a tower to reach the princess' window a la Rapunzel, and many other fairly old and pre-American examples.
The distinctly all-American 20th-century trope covers friends, acquaintances, peers, and similar relationships. They might escalate into romantic relationships, or they might not, that's not crucial. And since it's about friendship and camaraderie, it is not restricted to an opposite-sex pair -- it could be two guy friends, or two girl friends, or a mixed-sex pair.
A few further examples:
Here is a short compilation just from Clarissa Explains It All (1991-'94), to emphasize how frequently this trope appeared in that show -- just about every episode, often multiple times per episode. Whenever Sam meets up with Clarissa at her home, there's a thud of the ladder against the window, Clarissa says "Hi Sam," a leitmotif guitar chord strums, and he enters.
Here is an example from a '95 episode of Boy Meets World, where friends Cory and Topanga start to declare their romantic feelings for each other. At other times in the show, guy friends Cory and Shawn enter through the window. It's not just for mixed-sex or potentially romantic partners.
Here is an example from a '94 episode of Married with Children, where Bud is paid a visit by an acquaintance, the niece of his next-door neighbor, and things escalate from there. (In the same clip, one of Kelly's bf du jour guys accidentally climbs up the same ladder, thinking it's her room, before being told it's the next window over.)
Here is a pic from Doogie Howser (unknown year, but '89 or the early '90s) showing Doogie's best friend Vinnie entering through the window. Another guy friend example.
Unfortunately, the show that probably started, but at the very least was the first popularizer of this trope -- Saved by the Bell -- doesn't have any video clips or images of the many times that friends entered through the bedroom window. But it was common, for both same-sex friends like Zack and Screech, and mixed-sex friends like Zack and Jessie.
Doogie Howser is the other contender for first example, since it and Saved by the Bell both began airing in the fall of '89, a couple years ahead of Clarissa and Boy Meets World. I'd have to start watching my Saved by the Bell DVDs to see when the first instance was, but there's a 1st season clip of Screech being pushed out the open window by Zack in a panic. So I'm guessing the trope began in its 1st season. IDK about Doogie Howser, and won't watch episodes just to see.
In any case, Saved by the Bell was by far the more popular and influential of the two, not just among teen shows of the time, but their legacy ever since. So for the time being, I'm going to declare it the originator of this trope. Earlier examples of "entering through the window" from the '80s involved romantic couples, like A Nightmare on Elm Street and Heathers. Maybe those could be considered proto-examples.
Saved by the Bell, in fact, might be the originator of so-called postmodern TV comedy shows, with frequent and lengthy addresses to the audience (breaking the 4th wall), cut-away imagination sequences, cut-away homages / pastiches of classic and contempo pop culture, and other self-aware / meta-commentary techniques that would come to define comedy shows of the '90s and even the 21st century.
How long did the trope last? Not really beyond the '90s, except as a target for send-up and pastiche as in Kickass (2010), or as a callback to the original show during a sequel show (like Girl Meets World from the mid-2010s). The last major show to do it was Dawson's Creek from the late '90s -- the examples were frequent, involving various friends, not necessarily romantic in tone, and still participating in the trend itself, without being a self-aware reference or allusion. And that was a popular / influential teen show.
The most notable later example is not a TV show or movie at all, but the iconic music video for "You Belong with Me" by Taylor Swift from 2008. Admittedly, the two mixed-sex neighbors don't enter each other's rooms, but they do socially interact, emotionally connect, and play supportive roles in each other's lives, across the narrow gap between their homes. They start out not romantically involved, "just friends," although it does eventually escalate to romance, after the girl-next-door gets rid of her mean-girl rival (his current, then ex-gf).
I appreciate the honesty of this video for acknowledging that the peak of social harmony was over by the 2000s, so it would've been inauthentic to LARP as teens from 1993 and directly enter each other's rooms through the window. The interaction across the gap while still in their separate rooms conveys the same spirit, albeit at a lower intensity since friends, and the sexes, are no longer as close as they used to be back in the '90s. And it is still their personal rooms where they're connecting -- not their living rooms, kitchens, rec rooms, etc., so the intimacy and just-the-two-of-us-ness is preserved.
Cute. ^_^
Also worth noting that she takes the initiative in their relationship: she's the first to start communicating through notes between their windows, at the dance she tracks him down, and most importantly she is the first one to show him her note that says "I love you", and he only shows his note saying the same thing after she has already done so. Very '90s vibe -- the song could easily make a good soundtrack for a "Pete and Ellen" compilation video using scenes from The Adventures of Pete and Pete.
* * *
This is a very '90s trope, and it's no coincidence that appeared and spread around the peak of social harmony. How did it channel the harmonious social mood?
It's mainly about the directness of the friends' interactions -- they don't have to knock at the front door, then wait in the living room, then hang out for a snack in the kitchen, and then ultimately wind up in the privacy of the person's personal room. It's not as though those various checkpoints along the way always led toward a hanging-out session in the personal room -- they're all various places where the guest can be turned away.
Knocking on the front door? Maybe they'll be ignored by someone pretending not to be home, or they'll be greeted at the door, but not invited in -- "I'm kinda busy right now..." Or maybe defused by hanging out on the front porch / patio for a bit, and once the convo is over, time to head on back home, without even stepping foot inside.
Hanging out in the living room, perhaps while watching some TV? Well, that's a great big time-suck and energy-exhauster right there. You can while away hours vegging out on the living room couch in front of the TV. After getting your fill of that activity, it's time to head on back home, without going to the personal room.
Sitting down at the kitchen table for a little snack or maybe doing some homework together? Well, you can have a brief little chat there, and after the homework is done, and the meal is starting to fill your belly, might as well head on home, without going to the personal room.
Ditto for a trip to the basement rec room, gamer station, or dad's den / man cave. It diverts the social energy into an activity like playing games, and after you've spent an hour or so doing that, you're feeling a little exhausted, might as well head on home.
There's just something about hanging out in the personal room that you can't get from those other spaces -- especially those that don't even let you inside, like chatting on the front porch, shooting hoops in the driveway, and so on.
It's more intimate, more private, the door is closed and it's just the best buds in their own little world, whereas the rest of the household may show up in the other non-personal spaces in the home, like the living room, kitchen, or basement rec room. Hell, if it's an outside space, the general public might show up unannounced!
Nothing is cozier, socially and spatially defended against outside forces and surveillance, than hanging out in the personal room. There's not even a distinct and dedicated material thing there to define your activity, like the couch or TV in the living room, or the fridge and table in the kitchen, or the video game console or pool table in the rec room. It's just the person's bed -- which as friends you won't be sharing -- and their closet and clothing-related furniture, and various personal thingies strewn about.
And that's just it -- it lacks any other material purpose that could divert your attention away from just hanging out, having a convo, sharing secrets, giving advice, venting frustrations, coming up with plans, and in general opening up to and supporting each other. No distractions.
The material things that are present, heighten the sense of intimacy and personal closeness -- that's the bed the person sleeps in, that's the closet where their clothes are stored, that's their book collection they browse while bored-in-their-room-alone, and so on. The person is opening themselves up just by letting you be around these personal things, more so than by merely inviting you inside their home while remaining in a non-private room with distractions that could divert the interaction away from interpersonal bonding.
So, by entering the personal room directly via the window to the outside, all these other non-private spaces are avoided, and none of the social energy is dissipated by the room-specific material focal objects. And there is virtually no chance of just being sent away, unlike at the other checkpoints -- the visitor is taking a literal physical risk of falling and injuring themselves or dying, by appearing at the second-story window -- you can't send such a vulnerable person away!
Oh, forgot to mention -- the window is always above the ground floor! That introduces the physical risk, and what makes it a costly and therefore honest signal, of the visitor's need to come in, preventing any chance of rejection. A visitor who isn't a close friend isn't going to take those physical risks, only to appear rude and presumptuous to the resident -- so the only person who ever makes these trips is a close and trusted friend.
Aside from saving all the social energy for the close bonding space, it also clears away any sense of the two friends playing petty and pointless games with each other, to assert dominance or put the other in their place, etc. The entrance to the personal room is direct, immediate, and unquestioned. No need to jump through any hoops (other than climbing up there, of course), pass inspections, receive permission slips, or other manner of checking off boxes on an application form, as though you were being hired for a job rather than invited to hang out by a friend.
I deny the claim that it's related to doing an end-run around parental supervision -- often enough, the parents aren't even home at the time, nor are any other siblings or household members. But if you're just watching TV in the living room, supposedly all alone, those parents or siblings could show up at any moment and spoil the intimacy, given how close the living room is to the doors, and given its expectation as a non-private space, so whoever shows up won't think anything about going right to the living room where you're already hanging out on the couch. Ditto for doing homework or having a snack at the kitchen table.
If you entered an otherwise empty home through those rooms, your privacy could be interrupted before you get to the personal room. By heading straight to the personal room, you're not bypassing an existing third party in the home -- you're removing even the potential future interruption, by not slow-rolling your presence through various non-private rooms in the home, even when no one else is home for the time being.
In these various ways, it's intensifying or elevating the guest-host relationship, where guests are never turned away, but hosts are never put upon or betrayed by those guests. But it's a small number involved -- just those two, not multiple guests coming over for dinner or having a place to sleep. It's the two friends, with the rest of the world kept outside (even if they're inside the same home -- outside of the personal room, at any rate).
It's camaraderie, but also intimacy, not the bonds among a large team of people (which may be shown in other ways in the TV show).
The roles are complimentary rather than identical -- a guest, and a host. And although seemingly setting up a dominance hierarchy with a requester at the mercy of the space-controller, the unquestioned and unconditional access levels this potential hierarchy, and emphasizes the egalitarian nature of social relations when harmony rather than strife and competition is the norm. Roles are complimentary, but egalitarian.
* * *
So far, so good -- but remember, there's a cycle at work here. It's not enough to show how the social mood and pop culture were related during the most recent peak of social harmony -- ideally, we'd observe a similar match from the peak before that one (roughly the second half of the '20s through the mid-'40s). And even more ideally, a similar decline in the trope during the previous rising-strife phase (roughly the late '40s through the early '70s, tied together by the strands of second-wave feminism, African-American civil rights, and students vs. the school authorities).
Well, there's no 100% match to the Radio Days environment -- no pop culture trope of friends entering each other's personal rooms through the window. But there was a closely related one, so closely related, in fact, that the '90s trope incorporated a key element of it that was not needed for the purposes of "friends entering a 2nd-story window" -- but *was* necessary to signal its spiritual origins in the earlier trope born in the '30s and '40s.
I tried to think of what other scenarios and architectural forms the "friends entering through the window" trope resembled, so I could check their origins and cyclic popularity. At first I was misled by the "scaling the castle / tower walls" scenario -- again, that's mainly in the context of a princess and her suitor, not friends. And it also relies on the external walls being a defensive obstruction, and bypassing parental supervision, and the personal room being a prison cell rather than a sanctuary, and so on.
Then it hit me -- the rooms from the '90s were like treehouses! Then it all fell into place. But before analyzing the similarities, let's note one similarity that is not necessary structurally, and only serves as a reference to the earlier example.
Quite often, including the most iconic examples like Clarissa Explains It All and Saved by the Bell, outside the window is a huge tree, visible through the window, lying no more than 10 feet away. In the '90s trope, the tree is not typically used as the means of ascending the walls -- usually it's a ladder, as in Clarissa. Why is this huge tree trunk and large branches and abundant foliage taking up most of the view through the window to the outside?
They could have left the space blank -- blue skies, sunsets, warm sunlight, etc. could be pouring in. They could have put some remote natural landscape, like rolling hills and mountains, as is typical for California where these shows tend to be filmed. They could have made the view of the neighboring house (a la the Taylor Swift video).
Even if there was a tree in view, they don't have to make it so massive and place it so close to the window -- why, it's like the room practically sits within the tree itself. But that's just it! They're making the room look like a treehouse, and none of the other choices for "what's outside the window" would have given it a treehouse vibe.
The ladder that the visitor climbs up to the window is not a scheming mechanism used to counteract a defensive obstacle in warfare or imprisonment -- it's just this trope's version of an entry staircase that leads to a door on the ground floor, or an even grander exterior staircase that leads to a 2nd-story door. Or more to the point, like the ladder used to enter a treehouse -- and it usually was a ladder, not a climbing rope or a spiral staircase around the tree trunk or whatever else.
Climbing a ladder, 5 feet away from a massive tree trunk, to enter a residential sanctuary among close friends -- that's a treehouse. The only twist in the '90s version is that the treehouse is not attached to the outdoor tree, but belongs to the indoor section of the house. It's an internal treehouse, or a home within the home. After all, this room has its own entrance to the outside world, its own staircase of sorts connecting the ground to the entrance -- it's a smaller home, nested within a larger home.
The personal mini-home may not have a stove, sink, shower, TV set, laundry machines, and other things that are necessary to consider it a full home. Then again, neither does a treehouse. But this room is also a home of its own in its spatial and social relation to the outside world and to people who live outside the household.
Also, both a treehouse and the '90s teen room hit on the theme of social harmony in assuming a lack of paranoia by the dwellers, regarding the general public. Couldn't some random stranger, perhaps one with malicious motives, just plop the ladder against the wall, and barge through the unlocked / open window? There's no security guard or other checkpoint to ensure that this doesn't happen.
So the tropes are clearly saying that the dwellers do not expect such anti-social behavior to be common or even existent at all. Once the trope starts to fade from popularity, that is therefore a signal of the fraying trust among strangers or community members or neighbors. Suddenly, the mood becomes, "You never know who might climb that ladder into your window".
That is not connected to the crime rate, BTW, since the late '80s and early '90s were the peak of the homicide rate in America, right when this trope was born and spread like crazy. Also right around the origin of helicopter parenting. The previous trope, of treehouses, was born during a falling-crime period (the mid-to-late '30s, as discussed below). So there's no similarity between the two trope's relation to the crime rate.
And just as in the '90s teen room, the treehouse has a primary dweller or owner, and everyone else is a visitor -- potentially setting up a hierarchy, but entry into the treehouse is unquestioned, and the owner does not lord it over the requester. It's physically risky to climb up the ladder, lest you fall and injure yourself, so there's the same honest signal of need to enter.
There's a similar level of seclusion and intimacy, at least for treehouses that have a roof / ceiling and walls enclosing all the space between the floor and the ceiling. A few examples, mainly from circa 1960, are *not* houses in that sense, but more like a perch with only a floor and some low guard-rails (more on that later).
In addition to their physical / architectural seclusion, there's the presumption of social seclusion in that parents and other members of the household or the general public don't have an open invitation to just barge on in and interrupt the hanging-out session. At most, they can knock on the door, give a quick message like "dinner's in 15 minutes," and then leave them alone again.
Last but not least, the relationship among those who frequent the space is friends, peers, acquaintances, etc., perhaps same-sex and perhaps mixed-sex, not the obligatory mixed-sex pair for a "scaling the castle walls to the princess' room" trope. Even if there's a mixed-sex pair in the treehouse, it implies nothing about their romantic or sexual interaction -- only that they're close friends, acquaintances, etc., which may -- or may not -- lead to something more. It's a sanctuary for friends, not a makeshift motel for lovers -- exactly like the '90s teen room.
* * *
Having established not only the analogy between the '90s teen room and the treehouse, but the additional and unnecessary element of the massive tree right outside the window, which clearly makes the '90s teen room a revival of the treehouse concept, let's explore the origins and changing popularity of the treehouse trope.
As hard as it may be to believe about an architectural form, there is almost no history of treehouses, at least not easily available over the internet. Not even online references to books that are relevant.
In true midwit fashion, most "histories" of the treehouse lie that the treehouse has been a constant presence in human dwellings from ancient, even prehistoric times, up to the present, and universally present in every culture around the world.
That's obvious BS -- otherwise they would fill in all the gaps between "21st century America" and "Ancient Egypt" or whatever other remote example they point to. Did America have treehouses in the 19th C, 18th, 17th, 16th? Nobody will say.
Well, I will say it -- there don't seem to be treehouses in America until the early 20th C, right as we're undergoing our ethnogenesis into a new and distinct culture from our Euro forefathers, after wrapping up our integrative civil war (as always).
As for IRL structures, I can't find any references to when it began, although presumably there are off-hand mentions of them in newspapers from the 1910s or '20s or so. Unlike detached houses or apartment buildings or schools or churches, backyard treehouses were not pre-fab and did not involve architectural firms and contracted construction crews. So they were not big business, and left less of a money trail and paper trail. They were a labor of love by the father, maybe some other male relatives or neighbors.
That leaves us with pop culture portrayals of treehouses. I had a hunch that these would go back to the Midcentury or earlier, so I didn't bother with TV Tropes, which has poor coverage of that period. Instead, I went to IMDb and searched for TV shows and movies that have been tagged with "treehouse", which gives this list.
This relies on someone tagging the entry with this particular tag, so there are false negatives -- examples with a treehouse that have not been tagged with that term on their IMDb entry. But these taggers are pretty obsessive, and their range is pretty broad across time. So this'll have to be the best overview of the history of the trope in pop culture.
There are no examples whatsoever before the '30s. The first one, Our Blushing Brides, has a very elaborate full home in the treetops, for an adult bachelor courting an adult woman -- not this trope. The next one, So This Is Africa, is set on safari -- treehouse as the primitive residence of jungle-dwellers, not a modern American sanctuary for friends.
But then we hit the jackpot -- a short film in the "Our Gang" series (later known as Little Rascals), called "Hi, Neighbor!" from 1934. You can watch the full episode here. Around 1:40, several friends are rounding up their peers, and pay a visit to one who is inside his treehouse. And this has 99% of the elements that the later mature form would have.
It has a roof and walls, not just a floor and guard rails, it has a clear entrance opening to separate interior from exterior, not to mention some other openings with shades of a sort (animal hides). It's mostly made from wood planks, but animal hides as well. It's located up in a tree, with a means of getting up and down (a rope, not a ladder), and this tree is located in the yard of his house in a typical suburban residential neighborhood.
The only minor differences are the use of the rope instead of ladder to climb up, and the wooden planks of the walls being stacked vertically instead of laid horizontally. The mature form would take the "horizontal wooden slabs" inspiration from log cabins, another distinctive American building type, and equally rugged and home-made and down-to-earth (and yet up in the air), rather than pre-fab or urban or sophisticated.
The social relations are the same as in later examples -- there's a primary dweller or owner of the treehouse, but anyone is free to visit him at any time, if they're a friend. This example doesn't show the other friends climbing up there with the owner, but given their ongoing bonds of friendship, and the others' familiarity with this spot to call on their friend, it is implied that they sometimes hang out in his treehouse, without having to show it on camera.
And it fits the theme of the series overall, which follows a group of friends or peers or neighborhood kids, who feel part of a single collective social unit that is not related to each other -- "Our Gang".
Moreover, there are early hints at what other aspects of American identity the treehouse was channeling -- the owner has a pet monkey hanging out with him in the treehouse, there are animal hides as window coverings and doors / curtains, and he lets out a primitive nonsense call to announce his descent...
Much like Tarzan! That's right, the treehouse stems directly from Tarzan and the grandfather of American mythology, Edgar Rice Burroughs. American identity is that we are part caveman, and part spaceman -- perhaps cavemen traveling to outer space, or perhaps cavemen who were visited and guided by an outer space civilization. But cavemen, at any rate, and Tarzan is one of the earliest avatars of this facet of our identity.
Interestingly, though, early film portrayals of Tarzan do not show him living in what we now consider a prototypical treehouse. See this review of the changing nature of his treehouse in film portrayals. The first novel in the Tarzan series came out in 1912, but as late as the first two movies where he's played by Johnny Weismuller, from '32 and '34, his tree "house" is more of a perch or platform in the treetops, without a clear roof or walls or door. It's not until Tarzan Escapes from '36 that it becomes a proper house in the treetops.
Also, Tarzan's treehouse is not shown as the gathering-place or social sanctuary for a group of friends, peers, and acquaintances -- but his domestic space with his mate, Jane. So it's in the romantic vein rather than friendship vein. And if anything, it post-dates the "treehouse for friends," which debuted in the 1934 short from Our Gang.
Nevertheless, the parallels are clear -- the neighborhood friends, whether male or female, are a bunch of little Tarzans and Janes, so their living space must also be in the trees, and requires a roof and walls and entrances just like any house. So the makers of Our Gang were not directly imitating a treehouse from Tarzan-related pop culture, since that came a few years later in Tarzan-world. But they were channeling the Tarzan lifestyle and identity, then applying it to contemporary suburban America -- with the primitive roots being only half-obscured by modernity, and the other half proudly displayed in full view!
Wow, it all traces back to Our Gang -- why didn't I think of that to begin with?! I'm just not that immersed in pre-WWII culture, I guess. At least it clicked once I saw it, but I should've suspected it would trace back to them.
After a questionable example in the Disney animated short "Orphans' Picnic," where the house is more the tree trunk itself, with a hole bored into it and a little wooden plank platform outside, the next major example of a proper house built in the treetops -- and set in contempo America -- is also an animated short. In the Mighty Mouse series, "Wolf! Wolf!" from 1944 shows Mighty Mouse's main home being a treehouse, although we don't know if it's the focus of a peer group.
I can't find a video clip or still image, but in the live-action movie The Yearling from 1946, there's a treehouse that the protag sleeps in overnight. IDK if it's the focus for a peer group, though.
In the final major example from the '40s, and rounding out the maturation of the trope, is the Disney animated short "Donald's Happy Birthday" from 1949, with all the elements of what we now consider a treehouse. The only wrinkle is that its owners are three brothers (Huey, Dewey, and Louie), and it's shown as their own sanctuary, not necessarily one for a broader friend circle. But given that these brothers are also each others' closest friends, it doubles as a friend-based building too.
From there, the trope begins to fade in prominence, until the next major example of the TV show Dennis the Menace, which ran from '59 to '63. I used to watch that all the time on Nickelodeon in the '80s, when they still showed classic Midcentury shows. And I do remember him having a treehouse, or at least that fitting in with his world.
But it's not exactly a house anymore -- see this pic. It does have a floor, and low walls that only go up to waist height on children, but not walls that go over the kids' heads, and no ceiling or roof. It's a fairly open structure, more like a stand or perch or nest. And so, the door is more of a part of the low wall that swings open, like the gate of a residential fence, not an opening in a wall that separates an enclosed space from the outside world. It is built in a treetop and does use a ladder for climbing up. And it does involve friends (same-sex) -- that's his pal Tommy up there with him.
Still, you can see how less of a secluded sanctuary it is compared to the examples from the '30s and '40s. But then, that's only to be expected, giving the rising levels of social strife during the '50s and '60s, even somewhat beginning in the late '40s. Just cuz 1960 wasn't at the explosive peak of chaos of 10 years later, doesn't mean it was a harmonious stress-free kumbayah circle. I'll be revisiting this fact for other domains of society later. Suffice it to say that it was less socially harmonious than the '30s and '40s.
There's even an entire episode from 1960 about his tree house ("Dennis' Tree House"), which makes it into a social obstacle instead of a source of harmony. The treehouse is built right on the boundary with the yard of his neighbor, Mr. Wilson, who is upset that it might scare the birds away and he won't be able to enjoy his hobby of bird-watching. Things work out in the end, but it's part of a trend of the rising-strife phase that portrayed treehouses as sources of problems rather than unalloyed wholesomeness.
In a 1956 episode of Lassie ("The Tree House"), two friends Jeff and Porky get excited about building a treehouse and becoming blood-brothers -- seemingly off to a good start on the whole "treehouse as sanctuary for friends" theme. It's built in Jeff's yard with the help of his family. Unlike in Dennis the Menace, this is a proper treehouse with a roof, walls, doors, ladder, etc.
But then when they both spend the night in it, they bring their dogs along, and Porky's dog won't stop howling, keeping Jeff awake all night and making him so angry that he kicks out both the dog and his supposed blood-brother and guest Porky. When Jeff goes to apologize the next day for being a poor host / blood-brother, he finds the interior of the treehouse has been trashed, and assumes Porky did it as revenge -- more anti-social paranoia and suspiciousness and bad faith.
Later, there's a loud noise coming from the treehouse, and when Jeff goes to investigate -- there's a bear inside trashing the place even more. So that's what trashed the place before, not Porky -- but still, setting up the treehouse as a space that's vulnerable to roaming nomadic outsiders, including animals. Jeff's mom says no more treehouse. But it turns out the bear was escaped from the circus, not a wild one, so the mom says it's OK again. That makes no sense, there could still be wild bears or other troublesome animals roaming around that could climb up the ladder -- but the paranoid point has already been made. Beware! Caution! Risk!
The last of these problematizing examples is from 1970, from The Brady Bunch ("What Goes Up..."). In it, there's another proper treehouse, but it is still portrayed as a source of danger -- Bobby tries to climb up into it, but falls and sprains his ankle, leading him to develop a fear of heights on top of it.
What happened to treehouses just being wholesome sanctuaries for friends? Well, '56, '60, and '70 were all part of the rising-strife phase of the cycle. It wasn't the harmonious '30s and '40s anymore. So anything that might bring people together socially, like a treehouse sanctuary, had to be cast in a more negative and threatening light, as though it might introduce more strife than it would relieve. Not just physically, like scaring away the birds or posing a risk of falling injuries, but sowing the seeds of suspicion and resentment despite the promise of bringing camaraderie and appreciation, like driving a wedge between supposed blood-brothers.
* * *
It wasn't until after the peak of social chaos circa 1970 that that wary attitude began to wane, and treehouses regained their wholesome innocent pro-social connotations. Only a few years after the Brady Bunch episode, there was a renaissance of rural-themed TV shows, epitomized by The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie.
In a first-season episode of The Waltons (from '73), their treehouse makes its debut and would become a familiar fixture in their environment for years. It's a proper treehouse, not problematized, and since the show is set in the Depression, it revives the original wave of treehouse-mania from the '30s and '40s.
Our Gang was renamed Little Rascals, and given an animated format in 1982, which not only included a treehouse as a gathering spot for the friend circle, it was emphasized by being included in the intro sequence, to set the premise and sense of place and tone.
And from there, treehouses began to explode in popularity, although more so in movies that were set in the past, like Stand by Me and The Sandlot. Both of those are set in the early '60s, and so a proper treehouse and thriving friend circle would've been anachronistic for that time -- it would've been more appropriate for a movie set in the '30s or '40s. But still, by that time they were starting to swirl together all sorts of "pre-1968" periods of 20th-century America. A little bit of the '30s, a little bit of the late '50s or early '60s, always an unintended dash of the year in which it was made, it's all good.
Dennis the Menace was made into a movie in 1993, and it upgraded the treehouse to a proper one, again unlike the era in which the original TV show was made. Little Rascals was made into a movie the next year, although without a prominent treehouse.
The Simpsons had a treehouse in their backyard as a gathering spot for friends, and although I don't know when its first appearance was, the "Treehouse of Horror" series for Halloween began in 1990. The only episode from '89 was the very first one, so unless it's in that episode, it first appeared sometime in '90.
The revival of the wholesome and non-threatening treehouse trope during the '80s and '90s reflected the rising-harmony phase of the cycle, before merging with or enhancing the new trope of "teen's room as treehouse within the home itself".
After the '90s, the treehouse trope begins to fade once again, not to mention picking up the connotation of danger and threats, right back to Lassie and Dennis the Menace and The Brady Bunch. But that's only natural, as the social mood swung away from harmony and toward strife once again, and anything that would cement social bonds among friends would have to come under suspicion and then get eliminated altogether.
However, now that the pendulum is finally swinging back toward harmony, as of the past couple years, maybe treehouses, teen's room as a treehouse within the home, or some new variation on this perennial American theme will emerge -- assuming we still had a thriving pop culture production sector, which we do not at all. American culture -- meaning, all-American, appealing to and paid attention to by all -- has been extinct since 2020.
But in whatever fragmented niche-demo remains of American-ish culture that remain going forward, we're likely to see a gradual revival of this theme, likely peaking in the early 2040s.
Maybe in video games? Minecraft is still thriving, despite coming out in 2010, so perhaps treehouses will become the hot new thing to build. Mumei made a cozy little one for herself a couple years ago, Fauna made the huge sun-obscuring World Tree during that time (which was not just a tree, but had home-like architecture at the top), so... maybe it's the start of a new trend?
It'll probably be more visible in new games, where there's a prominent treehouse built into it, but it'll be some niche indie thing that not the whole world knows about, or something. But the urge to hang out with friends in treehouses -- or their present-day descendants, perhaps in a form not yet invented -- will become overpowering in the next two decades. Plenty of time for it to find some kind of realization in the cultural realm.
Look forward to seeing what it is, while still knowing in advance it won't top, as it were, the examples from the '30s and '40s or the '80s and '90s. ^_^
I searched Ngram -- Google's digitized book archive -- for "treehouse" and "tree house," and they're basically non-existent during the 19th C. They start to make occasional blips starting around the turn of the 20th C. But they don't start a rocket-like ascent until the 1930s, confirming the IMDb list of movies / TV tagged with "treehouse".
ReplyDeleteWhat these examples in Google's archives are referring to, we don't know. Are they about cavemen, or shipwrecked people on a deserted tropical island, Europeans going on safari in Africa, etc.? Or building treehouses in the contemporary Western world, in someone's suburban backyard? It doesn't say how they're used, only when they show up, go up, or go down in frequency.
However, even if those earliest references from the early 20th C are about cavemen or jungle dwellers, that shows that the concept of those people living in treehouses is not an old trope, but only back to roughly 1900 at the earliest.
And like I said, there are only occasional blips that early. The sustained growth in the trope for cavemen or jungle dwellers or primitives only goes back to around 1930, including safari movies and Tarzan movies.
Wait, that's crucial -- Ngram's books are not only fiction, they include non-fiction too. So that gives us at least some view into the building of IRL treehouses. If that went back into the 19th C or earlier, it would show up as a common term in Ngram -- but it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteNgram and IMDb show basically the same timing of its upward trajectory. Meaning there was some new fascination with treehouses, and that led to culture-makers including examples in their works, and to some people building them IRL.
Like I said from the other evidence, treehouses were not built in America before roughly 1900 (maybe 1890, but around the time when American identity started becoming its own thing -- ragtime music, Chicago School architecture, and the whole rest of it).
Sadly, Adventures of Pete and Pete was not tagged with "treehouse" in IMDB... hopefully just an oversight, but I just finished the first season, as well as the dozens of shorts from before it was its own show, and no treehouse so far.
ReplyDeletePlenty of communication between someone down on the ground, and someone at a 2nd-story window in their personal room.
Crossing my fingers...
Maybe later I'll look into the "lounging around on the rooftop" trope. Preferably in the domestic setting, not skipping school to go to the roof of the school building or whatever. And especially doing so at night.
ReplyDeleteJust speaking from my personal experience -- I used to do that somewhat regularly in the mid-'90s, so it must have been channeling the same spirit, somehow.
On a weekend night when you didn't already have plans, climb out the room of your personal window, in my case first onto the roof of the carport, then another 2-3 feet up onto the roof of the house.
And right behind the brick chimney, too! Such a cozy spot to get all nestled in between the chimney and the sloping roof. Made it feel somewhat safer, like you weren't going to slide all the way down the roof and fall onto the ground -- not with a brick chimney in your way.
You can stargaze, you can let your mind wander, meditate (was not my thing, but would be a good place), read a book by flashlight (did that a few times), I even brought a nice warm mug of tea out there sometimes (no flat surface to rest it on, so I held it with my hands, or rested it on my leg, until I was done drinking it).
Social harmony is always framed by the bitter haters as a miserable straitjacket of conformity. But really it's liberating, and we never felt so carefree -- unlike the psych-med-addled minds of rising-strife times.
In 1995, though? Sure, just crawl out onto the roof, make sure it's in a place where you won't plummet to your death (duh), and just chill out and elevate your consciousness and replenish your spiritual energy or whatever. ^_^
I jumped off the carport roof once, too, in high school, during an unbelievably windy day -- like, Wizard of Oz windy. Carried an open umbrella to help slow my descent, put on some elbow and knee pads just in case, had extra layers of clothing, and laid down a layer or two of couch cushions / pillows over the concrete.
ReplyDeleteIt was about a 10-foot drop -- and I survived! Didn't even get hurt. It wasn't like Mary Poppins, I did land hard and had to tumble to avoid absorbing all the impact like a pancake. But no harm, no foul, Mr. Weather.
I knew I'd never get a chance like that any time soon, maybe ever again. I had to jump off the roof while holding an open umbrella!
Such wholesome times, I really can't believe where we've gotten to by now... though hopefully as of the past couple years it's swinging back in the right direction.
BTW, how to measure the final year of the recent peak of social strife? I think it was 2022. That was the year of Will Smith slapping Chris Rock live, and on-stage, at the Oscars, after already shouting from the floor. Talk about being a thin-skinned hyper-competitive weirdo...
ReplyDeleteThe libtards also kept up the masking mandates through the spring of 2022. Although these mandates were widely ignored by people who didn't want to wear the pointless masks, the laws did enable social strife to explode if some libtard wanted an excuse to express their anti-social strife desire -- look at that guy without a mask! Let's start a conflict over it, entirely interpersonal, no higher authorities are even aware of this altercation, we just need to keep beefing forever IRL.
After the mandates were over, so was the libtard conflict-provocation toward unmasked people.
Although when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the summer, libs didn't protest at all, let alone burn down cities, assassinate randos on live TV and get immediately set free by lib DA's.
So it wasn't as bad as 2020, but there were still enough salient markers, like the Oscars blow-up, that made it still part of the recent peak.
In 2023 and 2024, and so far in 2025, there hasn't been anything that crazy and widespread. Only the assassination attempt on Trump in 2024, but it was a LOT crazier than that throughout 2020 and early 2021. And that example was strictly political, there wasn't the broader craziness and strife like one black actor blowing up at another black actor during the Oscars.
Cancellations are less common, less powerful, and targeting less visible people. I can't say who the last major example was, though, to fine-tune the sense of when the last year of the 2020 peak was.
Family drama, whether overtly political or not, also exploded from 2015 to the early 2020s. I haven't noticed it much in the past year or so, though.
But at any rate, we're certainly past it by now, and during 2024, and I don't remember the peak-explosion vibe in 2023 either, but maybe it bled into '23 somewhat.
Watched the first episode of Dawson's Creek tonight. I never bothered with it during its original run, thinking it was a sappy or sentimental kind of show, but it's not at all -- it's much like Buffy the Vampire Slayer of the same time, and I *do* remember the exact same kids in my school being obsessed with both of those shows.
ReplyDeleteHyper-self-aware dialog, anti-naturalistic dialog, high schoolers talking with adult vocab and syntax, high schoolers using adult convo mannerisms (no awkward pauses, "like", and other things teens do while talking)...
Not quite to mumblecore just yet, but the abstract and self-commenting dialog is delivered in fairly deadpan speech, compared to early-mid '90s teen shows. I haven't watched it yet, but I believe Buffy was heavier on the proto-mumblecore delivery, given how signature the emotionally uninvested monotone was for Sarah Michelle Gellar in whatever role she played, e.g. in Cruel Intentions of the same time. Her raspiness is verging on vocal fry as well -- again the late '90s being the proto-2000s rather than the final echo of the early or mid '90s. But back to Dawson's --
Obsessive pop culture references for their own sake -- not to suggest that some scene in the episode is like some iconic movie, which is how Saved by the Bell, Clarissa Explains It All, and others played their pop culture references, as homages and tie-ins to the episode, not as an obsession that one or more of the characters have, not necessarily related to the events unfolding around them...
Very obviously gay screenwriter (show creator and producer Kevin Williamson), insane number of references to penises, penis size, male masturbation, and other 5 year-old boy attempts at humor. Won't bother watching any of season 2 and after, when an openly gay character shows up, and there's the first gay male kiss in a primetime show. Not surprisingly, one of the actresses, Michelle Williams, starred in a later and also defining fujo-bait movie, Brokeback Mountain from 2006. But even without the openly gay characters, this first episode comes off very gay.
The lead actor, James Van Der Beek, is also gay, though semi-closeted. Blind Gossip spilled the beans awhile ago, possibly having deleted those posts from the good ol' days (early 2010s). And it shows -- he has zero chemistry with either the childhood friend or the new girl at school.
The childhood friend is played by Tom Cruise's future beard, Katie Holmes, who is forced to mouth all sorts of gay-brained dialog throughout the episode. Being of normal sexuality, she's better able to convey the tension of having been childhood friends with someone of the opposite sex, including regular co-ed sleepovers, and now potentially having romantic or sexual feelings for each other.
But Dawson's actor being gay, and the openly gay screenwriter making Dawson semi-autobiographical, keeps Dawson from realistically feeling the same tension. Sam from Clarissa does not come off as gay, nor does his dialog, or his screenwriter. He's normal, likes girls, just not Clarissa in that way (and vice versa). Dawson, though, immediately gives off the gay BFF / gay eunuch vibe during the sleepover and visits-through-the-window with childhood girl friend Joey. There's no potential attraction he's pulling back from.
At least in this episode, Joey doesn't come off as a fag hag, deliberately choosing a gay BFF in order to separate herself from the entire gender that she despises. More like the normal hormonal girl whose guy friend is, unknown to her, gay. IDK how their relationship evolves yet, though.
On the plus side, the cinematography is great for a teen show. It's getting toward the end of the neo-Impressionist style of the '90s, most evident in outdoor nature scenes during the daylight. Nice motivated chiaroscuro lighting in Dawson's room while Joey is sleeping over. Great seaside small town locations (Wilmington, NC). Nice set dressing, especially Dawson's room.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course the iconic use of the ladder to enter a friend's personal room through the window. This trope is almost as common as it is in Clarissa, but with the sexes reversed -- Joey is the one who's always climbing up into Dawson's window.
I just would have DIED if my girl best friend had shown up unannounced entering my personal room window, in high school. I totally would've left it open for her, too. And my room was located on the 2nd floor. Alas, it was only a pop culture trope...
The music selection is good, although a little too intrusive -- another aspect of the creator being obsessed with pop culture per se, not just as a way to set the mood within the episode. The choices all work, they're just too frequent.
Saved by the Bell and Clarissa and Pete and Pete avoided contempo pop music soundtracks, to their credit. My So-Called Life used popular rock of the time (and earlier songs that were still popular, like "Blister in the Sun"), but not as intrusively and overly eagerly.
The best use in this episode was "As I Lay Me Down" by Sophie B. Hawkins, while Dawson and the new girl Jen are lounging on a dock or bridge, legs dangling over the side, watching the water flow, and getting over the anxiety of getting to know each other by doing so in such a relaxing setting.
Also, they make the childhood friend into a mean girl / frenemy with the new girl. I never liked that character type, and now that I'm reliving the culture of the peak of social harmony, from only a few years earlier, it leaves an even worse taste in my mouth.
ReplyDeleteJoey is not even a clique gatekeeper like a senior member of the cheerleader squad (a la Bring It On), she's not the Queen Bee (a la Mean Girls), or anything like that. She's pretty low on the totem pole in school, and in the neighborhood. Yet even she is leading the way away from the peak of social harmony, and toward cattiness and bitchiness and competitiveness -- another facet of it being a gay script.
And to reiterate, not just bitchiness across cliques, like tribalism -- but toward those within the same clique, AKA frenemies. After the most recent peak of social chaos that we just lived through, I think we've had enough of frenemy behavior for the rest of our lives -- IRL or in culture.
Overall, didn't love it, didn't hate it. There are much better '90s teen shows to watch, and this is more of a proto-2000s show anyway. I'll probably watch a few more episodes of the 1st season, before it starts getting really bad.
ReplyDeleteI really wanted to like this, and went into it having discovered that it made such extensive use of the "friends visiting rooms via ladder at the window" trope. And expecting it, as I did in high school, to be a sentimental show like Party of Five or My So-Called Life or others that got their start several years earlier.
But it's really more like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, except not supernatural, and set in a vintage-y small town, rather than suburban L.A.
I think Buffy also erred on the side of yuri-bait rather than fujo-bait like Dawson's is setting up to be. So maybe I'd like Buffy more, or hate it less, than Dawson's Creek. Also it debuted a year earlier, in '97, so it may have a lesser degree of "proto-2000s-ness" that I dislike about Dawson's.
I'll probably watch that show's first episode next, and decide which to investigate further.
Still enjoying Pete and Pete, and Clarissa Explains It All, more than the late '90s stuff. I've already gotten absorbed into My So-Called Life so many times from the original run onward. Maybe Party of Five, for another mid-'90s show? I wonder if they had a friend entering the personal room window in that show? I never watched that when it was originally on, and it is definitely a sincere and sentimental show, not hyper-self-aware. We'll see.
Also, Jen is a confrontational atheist type, from the get-go. She's staying with her grandparents, the grandfather becoming an invalid, and the grandmother being a caring and concerned surrogate mother -- but who is socially conservative and church-going, although not in a fiery Bible-thumping way. Just your typical conservative normie grandma.
ReplyDeleteThe grandma wants Jen to join her in church every Sunday, again not in a threatening authoritarian way -- just like, "This is how we live around here, so you'll be harmonious and join us in the church-going lifestyle every Sunday, like a good acquiescent guest."
Oh no, Jen is having NONE of that -- she snarkily dismisses the possibility, using the term "atheist" to describe her individual identity, which is more important than social harmony. Any atheist can humor their well-meaning and caring grandma, whose husband is slipping away from life in the next room, by going to church once a week.
But no, Jen has to make it all about herself, introduce conflict where none should exist, act in bad faith, assume the worst, and be as anti-charitable to the other side as possible. As with the frenemy phenomenon, this isn't even toward some out-group rival -- it's her own loving grandma!
It could be a tiny little wrinkle that they smooth over through compromise on both sides, like "I'll go to church, but won't pray -- okay, I'll sing the hymns, but I won't really mean it internally" or something. Instead, Jen makes a mountain out of a molehill -- and that's a common and pervasive behavior during the rising-strife phase.
Taking a small conflict and amplifying it and blowing it up, deliberately, enjoying the drama and strife and competition and one-upsmanship. Rather than trying to dampen it, smooth it over, either compromising or just agreeing to disagree and letting bygones be bygones.
I noticed that like crazy while browsing clips from Married with Children -- it's a typical dysfunctional family atmosphere, and yet the parents don't get divorced, kick their kids out of the house, or even blow up yelling and screaming and belittling their kids, or the kids doing so in the other direction.
They just accept the fact that they have their differences with each other, and "Whaddaya gonna do about it, y'know?" Just let the matter drop, bury the hatchet, and ignore conflict or let bygones be bygones. "Family -- can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em".
And sure enough, there are several episodes where the otherwise dysfunctional family bands together as a team, like when some girl at school humiliates Bud, and Kelly gets revenge against her on her little brother's behalf, despite normally not wanting to be associated with him cuz he's annoying and lower on the totem pole (at home and in school, where she's hot and popular).
By the second half of the '90s, writing off interpersonal differences, in the interest of smoothing over contradictions, gets abandoned in favor of amplifying those differences so that the social fabric will be torn to pieces -- just collateral damage in the more important war of every man for himself, and having to gain the upper hand and notch a W / hand someone an L.
Jen is not a rationalist skeptic fedora proto-Redditor kind of atheist. It's more about bristling at a social imposition and having to bend to social pressure. Given the gay background of the writer and producer, it comes off more as a rebellion against being told that who you are is wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut she's not portrayed as a lesbian or some other identity that Christianity says is unnatural, wrong, etc. So her rebelliousness and bristling is not motivated in the characterization. She's not a metalhead, biker slut, wiccan, or anything else like that.
Just the typical pretty popular new girl that all the boys are noticing. Too big of a clash between her character's background and the kneejerk "fuck church" attitude, especially as it's splitting up her family rather than an innocuous thing like doodling an upside-down cross on her school binder or something.
Even worse, in a derisive fake attempt at compromising with her grandma, Jen agrees to go to church -- if the grandma will say the word "penis". Again with the gay-brained attitude. The grandma is shocked, and obviously won't say it (against her attitude, plus she'd be ceding authority to an anti-social brat newcomer). Jen uses her grandma's unwillingness as a sign of lack of compromise on the other side, so why should Jen herself compromise?
It's completely insane anti-social corrosion -- obviously it's harmless for you to just go to church, but scandalous and authority-mocking for the grandma to say the word "penis" just cuz you commanded her to.
Jen sadistically enjoys making her grandma uncomfortable and trying to humiliate and disrespect her. Typical mean-girl behavior, and again within a social unit that's supposed to be guarded against that -- her own grandma, not some wicked stepmother who doesn't share her blood and is shutting her out from her father. A perfectly harmless and caring grandma -- that's who must be disrespected, humiliated, and cast out from her social circle.
Typical gay-brained severing of family connections for those who don't accept you taking loads up the butt or chopping off your dick / tits, as though deviance were sacrosanct. Insane. And totally unmotivated by her character's background, so even worse in the context of the narrative.
Needless to say, there are no main characters like this in the good ol' early and mid-'90s teen shows. Not even Jessie, the one who's the most liberal and activist-inclined from Saved by the Bell. Nor would Rayanne Graff, who's quite the wild-child. And certainly Clarissa would never. And Ellen from Pete and Pete would never. It's mind-blowing how anti-social and mean-spirited and hyper-competitive (socially) people became by the late '90s.
If there's a fedora Reddit atheist from the late '90s, it's probably on Buffy, since that was written by the bitter male nerd type (Joss Whedon), rather than the "how dare you tell me not to take loads up the butt?!" angsty gay type like Kevin Williamson.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, there were no fedora Reddit atheists in the early or mid-'90s teen shows. Screech could've been one if he'd debuted closer to 2000. Or Brian Krakow -- he fits the profile even better, but did not actually become a fedora skeptic atheist.
He's also the profile for a bitter girl-hating incel, but did not actually behave that way -- he did fumble the ball by disrespecting the only girl who made a move on him, by selfishly trying to chase after his long-time delusional crush instead, but he still wasn't a bitter incel in his behavior.
Oddly enough, it looks like the actor who played Bud on Married with Children is gay. Image search David Faustino -- he's sporting a flaming severe sideways undercut, the distinctive gay whoosh hairdo of the 2010s. Nobody but homos had that haircut.
ReplyDeleteHe also has gay rictus smile -- sideways corners of the mouth, revealing the lower teeth, like a small child who's still psychologically -- and in this case, physically -- stuck in the "ewww, girls are yucky!" stage of development.
He has no chemistry with his "wife", and is more like the gay BFF or kid brother.
Bizarre to see -- he didn't come off that gay on Married with Children, although they frequently roasted him about making it with a girl instead of a guy. Perhaps during the rising-harmony phase, gays were better able to rein in their gayness and put on more convincing straight-face performances.
Beginning with the Village People in the late '70s, whose whole novelty was adopting normie masculine stage personas to appeal to normie all-Americans, rather than the weird, gross, taboo-violating, shock-the-squares personas of homos from the '60s and early '70s (most notably in Andy Warhol and John Waters movies of that time, but also the Stonewall bar types).
Tim Allen is also gay, and he was an icon of early to mid-'90s man's man characters from TV (Tim the Toolman Taylor, from Home Improvement). That peak of social harmony made them better able to straight-face their behavior. Nobody suspected he was gay at the time, not until the 2010s when they dropped all attempts to disguise themselves, as the social mood became strife-riven rather than harmonious.
Since Bud was portrayed as unlucky in love, and not having a steady gf throughout the series, the actor being gay didn't impede the performance -- just the type of guy who *would* be fairly unnoticed and untouched by the girls.
With Dawson, the actor being gay makes it unbelievable cuz the character is supposed to be popular with girls and experiencing sexual tension with his girl best friend, yet he comes off more like the gay BFF.
I think a major sign of post-wokeness and the return to rising-harmony intead of strife, will be when the American president's leadership circle doesn't have any gays, whether out or closeted.
ReplyDeleteClinton was notoriously heterosexual, with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary being a lesbian mitigates that somewhat -- but she wasn't in an official leadership position, just the First Lady. Al Gore is likely gay, but could straight-face it pretty well in the mid-'90s (maybe not by the later '90s and early 2000s when he tried to get a leadership of his own).
Bush Jr. and Cheney were not gay, despite the 2000s climate allowing for it. But the 2008 nominee was -- McCain. So even in the 2000s, albeit toward the end of the decade, there was a flamer as the top contestant from the Republican team.
Of course, the other choice in 2008 was gay, Obama, who's all but come out of the closet since leaving office.
Trump seemed to be a return to normal Republicans -- but he promoted his closeted gay son-in-law Jared Kushner to leadership positions in a variety of areas, especially Mid-East foreign policy. Ivanka is his beard.
Biden was not gay, although a sex pest type, neither was Harris, although a good share of their cabinet probably was.
Now with Trump back, Kushner has returned to influence, and J.D. Vance is the next closeted-gay-in-waiting for leadership, similar to McCain.
By 2025, the vast majority of Republican influencers and media figures are gay, whether mainstream or edgelord. And unlike the '90s or 2000s, that now includes a handful of trannies on top of it.
The Reagan era's dominant party has been the GOP, so realignment will swing that to the Democrats (or other left party that succeeds them). That won't happen unless they clear the leadership free of fags and trannies, signaling a post-woke -- perhaps anti-woke, but at least post-woke -- commitment to the electorate.
That should've happened with Bernie, the post-woke left realigner from 2016 who was first thwarted in 2016, then shut out of the voting in 2020. He's a straight white man, and not a notorious sex pest either like Biden.
Obviously it's too late for him specifically to play realigner, but his successor will also be a straight white man (non-sex-pest variety).
Enough of the AIDS-ridden Republican party of the 21st century.
Returning to shows from the peak of social harmony, they often had episodes overtly criticizing hyper-competitiveness -- usually in the most obvious narrative context, sports.
ReplyDeleteLadybugs from '92 has this theme, which the coach makes explicit at the end, admonishing the "win at all costs" sponsor who wants his own daughter kicked off the field just cuz she's not a good player. "What's the point of being the best, if it brings out the worst in you?" Damn... And all sides eventually agree to pull the boy-in-a-wig off of the field, so that the girls soccer team wins on their merits.
The Pete and Pete episode I watched last night, "Field of Pete" ('94), is the same, where a protoypically sinister yuppie Boomer (as in Ladybugs), who has "JUST WIN" tattooed across his knuckles, stoops to whatever low he can in order for his teen baseball team to win.
Although some of the boys enjoy winning at any cost, eventually they decide that it's only worth winning if they play fair, and drop the hyper-competitiveness. They lose the championship game, but feel like they're still winners for having transcended the hyper-competitive yuppie Boomer grindset.
At the opening of the decade, the 1990 episode of The Simpsons, "Dead Putting Society", pits Bart and the neighbor kid Todd against each other in a mini-golf competition. The hyper-competitive Boomer parents, Homer and Ned, decide to raise the stakes by wagering on it -- the losing side has to mow the lawn of the winning side while wearing their wife's dress. Ned doesn't like the term "loser," and they change it to "the boy who doesn't win".
Although getting into the competitive spirit for awhile, eventually both Bart and Todd decide to dial down the temperature and bad blood, opting for an outright truce and forfeit the game, on both sides. Since neither side wins, both the fathers have to undergo the punishment of mowing the other's lawn in a dress. A send-up of the "win at all costs" attitude.
I'm sure there are a zillion other examples, these are just a handful I came across recently. The social mood being near the peak of social harmony was not only pro-harmony, it was overtly anti-competitive.
I'll add more examples if I remember them or stumble upon them.
I've mentioned it before, but trash-talking among video game players used to be non-existent, even in direct player-vs-player contest kind of games like Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the occasional razzing or chuckle, but the arcade mood was so pro-social and anti-anti-social, you Millennials and Zoomers from the "screaming NIGGER / FAGGOT at some rando in an Xbox Live lobby in 2006" era, would not believe it. It was such a laid-back, good sportsmanship, too cool to get worked up like some hyper-active spazz, kind of environment.
Not to say we didn't get invested in the competition, didn't try our best -- but not losing our cool, not being a sore loser or a poor winner. You would've gotten ostracized by the other kids in the arcade, or not invited back over to someone's house if it were on a home console (or if you were invited back over, he'd never want to play video games with you again).
The whole "toxic gamer" type is just standard Millennial hyper-competitive, me-first bullshit. There were no toxic gamers from the late '70s through the mid-'90s. It's just a male-coded version of the mean-girl, another prototypically Millennial character.
The attempt by woketards to ban toxic gamers from lobbies, on a woketard basis -- you can't say the gamer-word cuz that'll bring back chattel slavery for black Americans -- was insane, stupid, and ineffective. It was just a different form of hyper-competitiveness and winning at all costs, stooping to any low -- just hijack the moderator-and-above levels of the hierarchy, and shut out your ideological enemies.
We'll know that the pendulum is swinging away from strife for real when the typical cool kids playing video games start to ostracize the tryhards, malders, and other toxic types. Not in a power-tripping, "I must win, you must lose" way, which is what hijacking the moderator role was. But in an egalitarian, peer-enforced way, where you just don't get invited to lobbies, or if there's no social credit score to warn them, the normie players just leave the lobby when you start acting like a spazz, and you never find anyone to play with.
Game players have to start overtly making fun of the tryhard hyper-competitive types, too, to really enforce the new norms. And when they sense the temperature getting too hot, making efforts to dial it down, declare a truce, etc.
I think that might have happened in the arcades in the good ol' days -- like a little handshake or "slap me some skin" gesture, to say "it's cool, let's move past it" if there was a friendly-fire incident in a co-op game, or if you accidentally violated some shared rule in a PvP game. Trying to put a lid on it, not crank up the gas.
Now I remember -- we went out of our WAY to apologize if, in a co-op game, we accidentally picked up a health recovery item, when the other player had a lower life bar and needed it more.
ReplyDeleteWell, we also tried to avoid that by always checking the life bars and deciding who needed it more. As in, we spoke up verbally, not leaving it to an unspoken understanding. It was like calling a play -- "you need it more, you take it".
But if we goofed and forgot to call it, or if it couldn't be avoided cuz an enemy hit us and we landed on top of the health item, or if the "pick up" and "attack" actions were the same button, and we accidentally picked up the health item while spamming attack nearby -- then we had to verbally apologize, say it was an accident or a brain fart, it won't happen again, etc. Maybe even a promise that "you can get the next two health items to make up for it".
And with that, we moved on from the accident. The aggrieved party didn't stew in resentment, and the accidental offender didn't stew in "don't judge me" paranoia. We quickly made amends, and continued the joint task at hand -- killing the bad guys.
I'm sure that in co-op games these days -- which are rarely played, due to hyper-competitiveness, but to the extent they are played -- gamers have a system of apologizing and making amends for such accidents against their teammates.
However, I'm equally certain that the attitude is more anti-social, where the aggrieved party stews in resentment more after the supposed bury-the-hatchet moment, or gets angry or explodes at the offender when it first happens, or is the first to angrily demand that "you let me get the next two health items" -- whereas it would've been the offender to make that offer in the good ol' days, like begging forgiveness rather than having some demand barked out against them.
And I'm sure the offender is more defensive and paranoid when they make a mistake -- "Goddamnit, now they're gonna think it was on purpose and hate me or punish me! Why can't they not be so judgemental, why can't they treat me nicely and assume the best instead of the worst???!!!" Or is more callous in agreeing to let the aggrieved party get the next two health items -- "yeah yeah yeah, obviously you'll get the next two items, I'm not an idiot, so just shut up about it already".
Such a toxic attitude, even among supposed teammates -- let alone between members of rival teams. Just like with frenemies on the girl side, on the guy side there are gamers so toxic that they act that way toward supposed in-group members as well.
Sad, pathetic, and by 2025 -- over it! The multiplayer setting will gradually return to the good-spirited camaraderie of the '80s and early '90s, and toxic gamers will become as reviled and ostracized as the freakshows of the late '60s and early '70s, by the '80s and early '90s.
To sum up the change in behavior when there's an accidental wrong, in the '80s and early '90s, the offender was first to speak up, and they made an offer of generosity -- "I'll let you get the next two health items," or "Let me pay you back for what I cost you". The aggrieved party accepted it. Generosity and acceptance. Everybody comes out a winner somehow.
ReplyDeleteThese days, well maybe changing now but as of the 2010s and early 2020s, the first to speak up was the aggrieved party, and they made a me-first demand or ultimatum -- "Let me get the next two health items, or else," "You better pay me back what you cost me". The offender acceded to this ultimatum. Demanding and folding. Scores must be settled, you dealt me an L so I must deal you an L as well. Everybody comes out a loser.
Final vignette of pre-toxic gamer culture. In the accidental friendly fire context, sometimes the offender would offer the aggrieved party to "hit me back" in order to equalize the harm, but in a spirit of generosity rather than vindictiveness -- as if the aggrieved party didn't wait for that offer, but chased after the offender and dealt them as much friendly fire damage as they'd been dealt, to settle the score.
ReplyDeleteNote that this lowers their ability to take on their common enemy, the bad guys. One person has lower health due to friendly fire -- why try to take on the enemy with even less healthy characters, by letting the aggrieved player deal some friendly fire damage to the offender?
If the main goal were to defeat the enemies, this strategy was not usually taken -- both sides can see that settling personal scores weakens their collective team vs. the enemy, so they just make do with apologies and promises not to do it again and letting them get the next two health items, etc.
But if they weren't that invested in beating the game, or if it were only a matter of time and quarters before they beat the game, then having the optimal health status of the team wasn't so important. You were going to beat the game no matter what, why try to minmax your collective health by preventing the "hit me back" strategy. So in that case, they might decide that defusing a potential interpsonal beef was worth it, and go for the "I accidentally hit you, I'll let you hit me back" approach.
It's a quick way to equalize the situation, bury the hatchet, and leave no cause for resentment, moving past it and letting bygones be bygones. Maybe an occasion to chuckle about it, equally, since both sides had to take a little hit from the other player.
But not continuing the cycle in a vindictive feud. That was pretty rare, and only happened if one of the players was an annoying immature little brother, playing on a home console. Oh God, Double Dragon II in friendly-fire mode, with a bratty immature little brother -- that could've easily descended into the two heroes beating each other up and getting a game over, well before the bad guys could have wiped them out.
But in general, that was not the climate of co-op gaming where friendly fire was possible. And like I said, it would've meant ostracizing the poor sport -- "No, I'm not playing Double Dragon II with you anymore, cuz you always get vindictive and we just end up killing each other off faster than the enemies can!"
Ah, the good ol' days...
Agent Dana Scully -- Manic Pixie Dream Girl? Just watched the pilot of The X-Files, and couldn't help but wonder if Gillian Anderson was born during the manic phase of the 15-year cultural excitement cycle. Sure enough, she was -- late '60s. The X-Files debuted during the restless phase, early '90s.
ReplyDeleteThis sets up the possibility of an MPDG role for her, and I got the hint of it during this one episode. We'll see how it progresses, or does not.
I was struck by how different she is from Jodie Foster's portrayal of Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs, from 1991, who the Scully character is clearly inspired by.
And yet, Scully is a lot more spontaneously smiley and giggly than Starling. She really picks up Mulder's spirits here and there.
OK, so it's not in the context of his love life. It's more about his career and crusade -- he starts out down in the dumps, persecuted / wrangled / dismissed by his superiors. She's initially sent to further debunk his wild-eyed beliefs and claims -- and yet she starts to semi-believe his views herself.
She has to write down these confirmations, pieces of evidence, and so on, in her official field reports. That confirming 2nd opinion is just what Mulder needs to feel vindicated, taken seriously, and appreciated as a true investigator who she encourages -- or at least, doesn't discourage -- and not as some crank who needs to be shut down.
You can really see his smile light up when she appears to give him the benefit of the doubt, or humor him during some crazy chain of speculation. He's beaming because *finally* someone is taking his worldview seriously, indeed someone who's supposed to be inclined against those views -- making her humoring of him all the more validating and encouraging.
As in many MPDG movies or TV show episodes, the man is full of boyish wonder deep down, but gets beaten down by the grown-up sensible world. She seems to be part of that conspiracy to crush his boyish wonder -- the cold clinical schoolmarm. When she begins going along with his views, even just for the sake of argument, that's like the schoolteacher humoring the fantastical views of one of her elementary school students.
Wow, she seemed like she was gonna be just another wet blanket martinet kind of teacher, but she's really letting me use my imagination and pursue my own interests!
The MPDG role fits better with their age difference, too. If she's the supervisor / tard wrangler, why is she 8 years younger than him? They should've sent somebody who could project more authority and seniority.
But if her role -- as determined by the screenwriters, not by her bosses' wishes within the show itself -- is to be an MPDG, then her being 8 years younger, good-looking, and at least occasionally smiley and giggly, makes total sense.
I can sense where their relationship is going to go -- she's no longer a tard wrangler, but more of a guide or nurse or encourager, an earthly guardian angel, boosting his confidence and strengthening his resilience, to keep him from wallowing in the depths that she found him in.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't -- although regardless of that, the sad sack and the MPDG rarely stay together through the end of the movie.
Lots of other things to say about this episode, but much of it's probably already been said about a hit show that's had 30 years of commentary.
But I'll bet no one's ever noticed how much of an MPDG Agent Scully is before -- that's why you've made the trek up the Cliffs of Wisdom in the ruins of the blogosphere. ^_^
To reiterate a crucial part about the MPDG (you can browse through my whole series on the topic, starting in 2019, IIRC, and going through 2020, with various later comments):
ReplyDeleteIt's not about her personality, personal style, etc. It's not an individual trait, like eccentric personality or off-the-wall fashion sense.
It's about her relationship to the protag, and how they interact, or what role she plays in his life to advance the plot.
There are MPDG's who aren't eccentric off-the-wall types -- like Kirsten Dunst's character in Elizabethtown. Or, going back to iconic sci-fi TV of the early '90s, Famke Janssen's character in "The Perfect Mate" episode of Star Trek: TNG.
So, no, it doesn't matter that Scully doesn't have a quirky bohemian fashion sense, or that she isn't a perpetually bubbly free spirit, or that she doesn't spell her name with alternating upper and lower case letters with a great big heart drawn around it.
It's the role she plays in the sad sack's life, and how that advances the plot and drives his character development, going from sad sack to confident achiever, after her caring and thoughtful and sincere encouragement.
And at least so far -- could change, we'll see -- she is totally set up to serve as an MPDG for Mulder, whatever her other roles in the show may be.
So many wonderful MPDG's from the 1990-'94 restless phase -- Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, Sarah Jessica Parker in L.A. Story, Famke Janssen in TNG, and perhaps after the right commentator notices her, Agent Scully from X-Files! ^_^
How does the harmony V chaos cycle relate to the outgoing V cocooning and dangerous V safe cycle you articulated earlier? I think those posts are absolutely brilliant, so I’d like to know how this fits with that.
ReplyDeleteWell for one thing they're separate cycles, and they have different periods. The harmony cycle is 50 years long, while the crime / cocooning cycle is 60 years (30 years in each direction).
ReplyDeleteSo they don't always sync up with each other. When they do sync up, you can't tell which one is causing the pro-social or anti-social behavior. They both led in the same direction, maybe even reinforce / add / multiply / compound each other.
Like the '80s -- it was both an outgoing phase of the crime / cocooning cycle, and a harmonious phase of the harmony cycle. One of the most carefree times ever.
Or in the other direction, the 2010s -- it was both a cocooning phase of the crime / cocooning cycle, and a chaotic phase of the harmony cycle. One of the most neurotic times ever.
Some periods are pulled in opposite directions, like the first half of the '90s -- cocooning had already set in, yet it was rising toward the peak of social harmony.
Or in the other direction, the first half of the '70s -- outgoing (beginning in the '60s), but plunging into the depths of social chaos.
Which cycle is more influential than the other? IDK, you'd have to look domain by domain and see if there's a consistent answer. Maybe in some domains, the harmony cycle's phase matters more, in other domains, the cocooning cycle's phase matters more.
But it is important to keep in mind that there are multiple forces at work in social and cultural outcomes. The first half of the '90s was cocooning, yet it was a socially harmonious form of cocooning -- the 2010s were a strife-riven form of cocooning. The first half of the '70s and the '80s were both outgoing, but the former was a strife-riven form of outgoing-ness, while the '80s was a socially harmonious form of outgoing-ness.
As for specific domains, trust-based high-energy dances seem to reflect mostly / only the harmony cycle. It really is shocking to see such acrobatic and frenetic dance styles coming out of the '30s and '40s, since that was mostly a cocooning phase. But it was a rising-harmony phase for the other cycle.
ReplyDeleteAnd then, boom, declines like crazy during the '50s, and is all but gone during the '60s. The '60s had tons of dance fads, but they weren't trust games, and not very high-energy like the swing-related dances of the '30s and '40s. Not even necessarily partner dances -- solo dances became popular, too.
The trend toward acrobatic, trust game, high-energy dancing didn't really erupt again until disco in the late '70s, and the seminal Xanadu, whose music and choreography revived pre-rock / pre-'50s styles. What a heady reminder of how things used to be!
That continued throughout the '80s and a good part of the '90s, although mainly in new styles that were still increasingly acrobatic and trust-game-like, but sometimes reviving the good ol' days of swing.
Then by the late '90s, and certainly during the 2000s and 2010s, those crazy dances just went up in a puff of smoke. Dancing retreated to being low-trust couples dances (like grinding -- no chance of anyone falling off their balance), or solo dances (twerking, akin to '60s go-go dancing). No more group dances like the conga -- or the "freak line" from the '90s.
I still can't find any documentation about the freak line dance, but it was real. Maybe that was just from the single middle school that I went to, during that one exact year. Would've been... fall of '92, 6th grade, in suburban DC. But I doubt it was that narrow in time and place.
ReplyDeleteHow was it done? It was like two conga lines that faced each other, so that the two people in the center were face-to-face instead of facing the same direction, and both sides were stationary rather than walking / dancing around the floor.
It started with a guy and girl facing each other, with their hands on each others hips, keeping their feet mostly planted, maybe swaying back-and-forth with their upper legs or hips. More movement than a slow-dance embrace, less movement than a conga.
Then when someone else wanted to join, they just got in behind someone who was already there, with the sexes alternating. As with the conga, maybe there could've been two girls adjacent -- they don't mind that, but two dudes being adjacent -- no way. Same movement as the original two -- hands on the hips of the person in front, feet mostly planted, just kinda swaying to the rhythm while standing in the line, waiting until someone gets in behind you.
We didn't get close enough to actually be grinding on each other, but we didn't have our arms fully extended as though we were our own chaperones. That's the other benefit of the hands going on the hips -- since they're lower than the shoulders, even fully extending your arms means they don't go as far away horizontally, when they're on the hips.
And our arms were bent at the elbow, knees were a little bent and bouncy too. Just relaxing kind of posture. So that ended up placing us within 1 foot of the people in front and behind us, roughly.
I don't know who made this dance up, or if we borrowed it from an older sibling, or the older students modeled it for us, or what. All I know is that it's clearly modeled on the conga, as part of the society-wide conga craze of that time. It's just making two lines meet face-to-face, and keeping both lines fairly still -- since they're facing opposite directions and can't follow the same lead anyway.
This was all the rage, the thing we were most fascinated by, the most anxious to jump into, and the biggest rush we felt once we swallowed our pride and took the plunge!
The fuh-REAK line... ^_^
We also did trust game dances like "stage" diving at middle school dances in the early '90s. This would've been fall '92 through spring of '95, sometime in there.
ReplyDeleteWell, sometimes we would even do it when there was *no* school dance at all, just for the fun of it, heheh. But it was REQUIRED at a school dance -- how could we not?
Since the dance was held in the cafeteria, there were some cafeteria tables along the perimeter of the room. The stage diver climbed up onto the table top, probably just 3 feet off the ground. Then a group of at least 4, ideally 6 or 8, form two side-lines, facing a partner, whose hands or arms they reach out and hold tightly, creating a safety net of arms for the diver to jump onto.
Then, blammo! Dive off the table and get caught by your friends' safety net of arms. ^_^ Naturally they would get dragged down somewhat, we weren't Olympic athletes in upper body strength. But nobody ever got hurt. And there were girls among the catchers, too, and even occasionally among the divers -- the baddie type, the same type that would later go crowd-surfing at concerts.
Actually, girls being among the catchers -- don't they do that at those gymnastic types of cheerleading these days? Well, you didn't have to be a cheerleader back then, you could've been any ol' girl who wanted to break the fall of a daredevil friend.
Those were always the highlights of the dance for me -- stage-diving (in either role), and the freak line. Couple dances were nice, but not as nice as the freak line. And then there were solo dances like headbanging to the hard rock / grunge songs. We could never get a mosh pit going there, though -- that would've been a social trust game kind of group dance. That was more for concerts.
What if we took turns catching each other's fall while stage-diving inside the middle school dance...? haha... jk... unless...? ^_^
OK, I'm gonna cheat and give you guys a sneak-peek at one of the iconic examples I'm going to highlight of crowd-surfing from the early '90s, before the full post goes up.
ReplyDeleteFans of actual rap will remember this, it was in constant rotation on MTV, as was the song on the radio. I had the tape of that album!
"Slam" by Onyx (1993):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADgCeYJMN4
Every member of the group is shown crowd-surfing during the entirety of their verse, staring up at the bird's-eye camera. And there's plenty of stage-diving shown as well.
Other rap songs showed stage-diving or crowd-surfing, but I think this was the first, and the other were following its lead. As Onyx themselves mention, they were taking their cue from the music video for "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana. Something badass, while still maintaining that camaraderie among the fans, which crowd-surfing embodied.
There's nothing rock or metal or alt or grunge about the music, beat, or lyrics -- it's a straight-up rap song. And yet due to the video, it crossed over like crazy to the headbanging audience (metal band Biohazard makes a cameo in the video, not just fellow rappers). Also, sub-cultures were not segregated back then, everyone was familiar with everything, even if they had a favorite scene.
Whenever that song came on during a school dance, it was us headbanger types who got riled up the most, jumping around, headbanging, trying to get a mosh pit started, never getting taken up on that offer, so making a bee-line for the tables to indulge in some stage-diving!
Rap used to be pretty badass, and favoring group trust games for their "choreo". But then, it was only natural in the good ol' days...
Millennials, yes you *did* upload gay cringe dance / lip sync videos to social media, trying to grab international attention through what the algo likes.
ReplyDeleteJust saw a typically projecting Millennial post on the Red Scare reddit, about how, for all their other faults, Millennials would *never* upload gay cringe dance videos for the world to see, like those gosh darned ZOOMERS, amirite?
No you're not -- you're just projecting, as always, cope-wad.
TikTok is literally just early YouTube reborn on a different platform, once YouTube matured into a place for mainly licensed music / music videos, and medium-to-long form reviews, video essays, etc., during the 2010s.
To correct the record, a few quick reminders of what early YouTube content was like, by typical Millennial types. From the same account that uploaded that frenemy video I posted in the last comment thread, here's their first video, which went viral. In the 100's of thousands of views, from the 2000s = in the millions of views today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Jm4R2uDRU
Exactly what Millennials blame Zoomers for, but with even crappier video and audio quality, and crappier camerawork / shaky cam. And more in-yer-face, hyper-sexualized. And in the comments, the typical Millennial deflection after hyper-sexualizing themselves -- "How DARE you sexualize my tight wet teen pussy?!" in the catch phrase of Dasha. Scolding and attacking the audience for reacting the way that the content-creators programmed them to react.
That is another facet of the conflict-amplifying behavior of Millennials and others from the late '90s through the early 2020s -- clearly and deliberately provoking a certain reaction, which is not criminal or whatever, then blowing up in accusatory moralistic how-dare-you denunciations when the intended reaction is elicited.
If you don't want to be sexualized, don't upload a video of you making open-mouthed panting faces while "Do I look like a slut" lyrics play in the background. The song itself is an example of the "sexualizing, then denouncing sexualized reactions" trend.
Proto-Slutwalk content and discourse, already playing out on early YouTube from the mid-2000s.
I could post a zillion other examples of what Millennials were doing on early YouTube -- suffice it to say, it's whatever they're currently projecting onto Zoomers in their sad pathetic attempt to cleanse their own soul by making Zoomers the scapegoats.
Millennials started it! Always blame Millennials! Never believe Millennial accusations against Zoomers!
Early YouTube had fads that trended, too, taking over the algo, everybody hopping on the trend, etc. And the same category of content as on TikTok today, like doing gay cringe dances while lip-syncing to some song, often while the uploader self-sexualized.
ReplyDeleteI remember looking for the 2 Live Crew song "Me So Horny" back in the late 2000s, and that had become the subject of a trend that everybody was hopping on. Dozens or hundreds of those videos are still up. Just a quick sample of 3 out of zillions, for ThE rEcEIpTs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLWWgROQbCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNw-r90jl-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fgyNT2aT4Y
Always blame Millennials for whatever they're projectingly accusing Zoomers of!
Another thing Millennials ruined -- intergeneration strife. They can't even focus on true things about Zoomers, or things that distinguish Zoomers from Millennials. They always project their own bullshit, sometimes it's even distinctly Millennial bullshit that Zoomers don't even do!
ReplyDeleteThe only correct things they gripe about are totally irrelevant ones like skinny vs. baggy pants, or ironed-flat hair vs. curly / permed hair.
Those are pure shibboleths of no greater significance, unlike "hyper-sexualizing yourself and then denouncing the audience for viewing / treating you as a sexualized creature".
No one cares that Millennials and Zoomers have different meaningless shibboleths!
Tying this back to the main investigation of the civil harmony vs. strife cycle, though, intergenerational strife is one facet of that cycle.
ReplyDeleteDuring the most recent rising-strife phase (late '90s - early 2020s), the emergence of a new generation, Millennials, was treated as a source of conflict, beefing, accusations, counter-accusations, and intergenerational reputational warfare and arms races.
I admit to being *somewhat* on the anti-Millennial side of that war, although I was primarily sympathetic toward them, and ragged on Gen X, to play devil's advocate (on this very blog, in fact). But really, to minimize intergernational strife. Now I'm doing the same, ragging on Millennials and defending Zoomers.
I didn't flip-flop on Millennials -- I remained consistent on the theme of "minimizing intergenerational strife". That requires ragging on the accuser, and standing up for the accused. In the late 2000s, that meant ragging on Gen X and standing up for Millennials, given which generation was playing which role. In the 2020s, that means ragging on Millennials and standing up for Zoomers, since by now the Millennials have switched roles -- from accused to accuser.
Anyway, the point is that Millennials were savaged, antagonized, blamed, and instigated, from the 2000s onward, mainly by Gen X-ers although also by Boomers (literal sense). And as of the late 2010s and still up through now, Zoomers are being savaged, antagonized, blamed, and instigated, mainly by Millennials and a few Gen X-ers.
This did not happen when Gen X was the emerging new generation, during the '80s and most of the '90s. It was just the baseline stuff -- noticing that they were distinct from the previous agreed-upon generation (Boomers, in that case), paying more attention to their negatives than their positives (since the noticers and writers and publishers were all from the older generations, and practicing tribalism), and maybe razzing or roasting them a little bit.
But there was no pervasive, endless, ever-escalating blood feud between Boomers and X-ers during the '80s and '90s (late '90s, maybe? I don't remember there being bad blood, but it could've turned then).
Gen X was the MTV generation, the latchkey kid generation, the slacker generation, but they were not blamed for society's problems, and their distinctive cultural novelties were not moralized as anything more serious than a change in shibboleths -- goth rock, college rock, grunge rock, alternative rock, etc. were not repeatedly denounced as the fall of the rock genre, Gen X ruins rock, American culture is over thanks to Gen X and their alt-rock, etc.
By a handful of obsessed purists? Maybe, but they were mostly sympathetic to these new genres, and toward the next generation.
And that's just one example, but emblematic. Gen X was not blamed for ruining X, Y, and Z, year after year, bullied or belittled or humiliated, etc. for their generational distinctiveness. Like I said, we enjoyed the most carefree upbringing since those who grew up in the '30s and '40s!
Which generations were savaged and belittled before Millennials and Zoomers? Why, the Silents and Boomers, of course -- during the previous phase of rising-strife (late '40s - early '70s).
ReplyDeleteNow, that previous phase occurred during our national / imperial peak, the New Deal, so Americans weren't as nasty to each other as they would become during the next phase of rising-strife (late '90s - early 2020s), when our asabiya had already begun to plummet.
But compared to the treatment of the generation that became a distinctive gen during the late '20s, '30s, and '40s -- the Greatest Generation -- the Silents were giving a much harsher treatment during the '50s and somewhat into the '60s. The first seminal article on the Silents, and somewhat *against* the Silents, was in 1951 in Time magazine ("The Younger Generation").
And that was just the early '50s! But that *was* in the rising-strife phase, just not at the peak of strife circa 1970.
By that time, it was the Boomers who were being blamed for everything, their cultural shibboleths represented the downfall of Western civilization (not just America), and on and on and on. They really got savaged, belittled, and humiliated by the older generations.
Again, whether true or false, rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter -- the point is, generational distinctiveness transformed from an innocuous basis for some good-natured roasting, to pervasive and ceaseless warfare and arms races between the generations.
Just as Millennials felt provoked into becoming anti-X or anti-Boomer haters, in response to first being savaged by those gens, Boomers felt provoked into becoming anti-Greatest haters. "Don't trust anyone over 30" was the Boomer credo of the late '60s and early '70s. It wasn't referring to age differences per se, but generational differences.
And it quickly escalated to "kill everyone over 30". Similar to the viral term for Covid -- "Boomer remover" -- that Zoomers and maybe Millennials used during the Covid hysteria of the early 2020s.
If some disease was common among Boomers or Silents in the '80s and most of the '90s, Gen X-ers would never have referred to it in such an intergenerational hate-fest way. They might've cared, might not have cared. But they wouldn't have used it as an occasion to get in a volley of fire in their gen vs. gen war.
As already mentioned, the Greatest Gen did not get savaged, belittled, told repeatedly that their shibboleths were the downfall of society and culture, etc.
ReplyDeleteNobody gave a shit if some Greatest Gen girl wore bobby sox and swooned over Frank Sinatra's new style of music. Or if her male gen-mate wore a zoot suit. No one said swing was the corruption of the noble ragtime tradition, oh boy the Greatest Gen ruins jazz YET AGAIN, etc.
They were given the baseline treatment -- cuz their distinctiveness emerged during a rising-harmony phase of the cycle, the late '20s - mid-'40s.
Before them, though, was a generation whose name says it all about being targeted, looked down upon, blamed, made fun of for fleeing to enjoy le expat lifestyle in Paris, etc. -- the Lost Generation, who became distinct during the 1910s and early '20s, near the peak of social chaos circa 1920.
Later they were also referred to, derisively, as the F. Scott Fitzgerald generation. Some variant of that term is used for an aging man who's flirting with young girls in The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, at least in the movie version from 1956, IDK about the book ('55) that it's derived from. Notable also cuz by '56, the social mood had returned to rising-strife, so old feuds between generations were re-launched all over again.
Who came before them? IDK that they even had their own label, but the 1890s were the previous peak of social harmony -- affecionately named "the Gay Nineties" afterward, especially in contrast to the strife-riven 1910s and early '20s. Whoever became a distinct gen back then, was at the least treated fairly and with the baseline stuff, even if they weren't given their own label. They weren't savaged and blamed and dismissed and condescended to, as the Lost Gen would become.
Back in the Gay Nineties, that kind of intergenerational warfare would have been totally unthinkable. And so, nobody thought it!
So, prediction: Gen Alpha won't be subjected to the same intensity of intergen warfare by Zoomers, Millennials, or whoever else, including whoever comes *after* Alpha, compared to the intensity heaped upon Millennials and Zoomers during the 2000s, 2010s, and even still into this decade.
ReplyDeleteThe social mood pendulum is swinging back toward harmony, however slowly and gradually. But during the 2030s and 2040s, there will be no such insane scorched-earth feuding involving Gen Alpha or the one who comes after them (assuming the latter is even a culturally distinct gen at that time).
Some of them are already in middle school, and by the time you'd expect them to get persecuted, blamed, and moralized against for their meaningless shibboleths, as they hit their 20s, that attempt at intergen warfare is just going to fall flat -- flatter than the attempted "protests" when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022 and libtards barely lifted a finger, compared to burning down the country for nearly a decade straight by that point.
Babies born in the early 2020s will grow up like those born in the early '70s, at least in the ways that are most driven by the harmony vs. strife cycle. They're born a full cycle apart from each other.
They were born at / in the wake of the absolute peak of civil chaos and breakdown, so they will grow up in the opposite direction, during a phase of carefree harmony...
Again, in those domains where this cycle is the main force. Obviously they'll be growing up during imperial collapse, plummeting asabiya, heritage-hating iconoclasm, de-industrialization, and all sorts of other things that are driven by the many-centuries-long cycle of imperial expansion and contraction.
But on the level of generations as sub-cultures, they'll enjoy a fairly carefree upbringing, much like Gen X and the Greatest Gen and the Gay Nineties gen before them.
Promising. ^_^
(all for now on this topic)
Bury the intergenerational hatchet by telling a Zoomer how cute she is, that you like her glasses, or even highlighting one of their shibboleths like her flared pant legs -- also a sly, but tasteful allusion to her leggy-wegs. ^_^
ReplyDeleteJust the other day, I spontaneously told a Zoomer girl overseeing the self-checkout line that "I like your glasses!" Not as a come-on, just being pleasant and friendly and harmonious, and giving her a validation boost since it's coming from a hot guy.
Fellow hot guys out there really need to start letting loose with the spontaneous friendly compliments, not as come-ons. We shoulder a heavier burden in moving the social mood pendulum back in the opposite direction, since our behavior is more attended to and taken as a role model. Especially by the babes, but also by guys aspiring to have warmer relations with those babes.
Time to start spreading the love all around!
Don't think I'll actually bother with Friends, too much gay-brained material in this highlight reel from the 1st season (and you know it's only get worse over the course of the late '90s).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmiKKd1mhlo
Penises, penis size, male masturbation, all discussed very flippantly, as per yoozh -- but even more disturbing, one of the first fujo fantasies in world history.
In "The One with the Ick Factor" (1995), Rachel tells the gang about an erotic dream she had -- Chandler was there! And Joey was there, too! Oooh, kinky, Rachel dreaming about being taken by two guys at the same time...
But wait, that's not all -- she says sometimes the activity was between her and Chandler, and sometimes it was between her and Joey, but sometimes... it was between Chandler and Joey!
She literally sexually fantasized about two male close friends getting it on with each other. Not a suggestion that they do it, or joking about how hot it would be -- confessing to having an actual erotic dream about it, as though that's the kind of thing an attractive young woman would fantasize about. It's not an off-hand remark, her erotic dream is the whole point of this episode.
I think this must be the first example of fujo fantasies in a major pop culture work. It has the gay kiss episode of Dawson's Creek beat by 5 years (2000), and even more so for the gay make-out finale of Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001), the gay kissing in the music video for "Beautiful" by Christina Aguilera (2002), Brokeback Mountain (2006), and whatever other example followed on the heels of these pioneering ones.
I knew there'd be some kind of twisted fujo example from the 2nd half of the '90s, since that's the origin of the "weird rather than cool," battle / segregation of the sexes, masturbation / porn over flirting / sex, and so on and so forth. It maps onto the harmony vs. strife cycle, the rising-strife phase in this case.
However, I didn't think it would turn up in FRIENDS of all places! Wasn't that just another harmless yuppie sit-com like Seinfeld? Oh God, there's probably a fujo example in a later season of Seinfeld, I just don't remember the whole show off the top of my head.
But seeing how gay-brained the *typical* episode of Friends was, already during the 1st season, it doesn't surprise me that it introduced fujo-ism into the pop culture mainstream.
Supposedly, Friends also pioneered the term and concept of "friend zone," speaking of the segregation of the sexes. But I'll get to that later. The point being, a lot of the current rot -- well, peaking close to 2020, and now thankfully on the wane -- was introduced through that single mega-popular TV show.
And waaayyyy early on, too -- like I said, easily beating the more famous fujo examples by 5+ years.
Brokeback Mountain was from 2005, not 2006.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify and emphasize how fujo-rrendous that episode is, it's not just providing material for fujos, like the other examples are -- i.e., portraying two guys getting it on, aimed at a female audience.
ReplyDeleteIt's portraying the fujo herself, and the fujo fantasy itself -- a young woman who has an erotic fantasy that involves two guys getting it on with each other, without her participating as a female third party.
That's an insane level of self-awareness, and proves definitively who these fantasies are aimed at -- a female audience, not guys. It's not aimed at gay guys, and it's not aimed at straight guys as though to desensitive them and trick or manipulate or brainwash them into being gay or bi-curious. It's for a strictly female audience (fujos), who are represented by Rachel.
With the other straightforward, non-meta examples, there's plausible deniability -- it's aimed at a gay male audience, it's meant to educate or shock or whatever a straight male audience, it's aimed at both sexes as an example of male beauty, bla bla bla. Bullshit -- it's shower-nozzle masturbation material for fujos.
Likewise for yuri examples -- not for a female audience, whether lesbian bi or straight, not for a general audience as examples of female beauty, bla bla bla. Nope -- just for crypto-tranny guys to fantasize and masturbate to, while imagining themselves as one of the hot chicks in a steam hot chick on hot chick makeout sesh.
Given how far ahead of its time Friends was for fujo-ism, perhaps it was also the first and way earliest to introduce yuri-ism into the pop culture mainstream.
The earliest example I know of is the girl-girl kiss in Cruel Intentions (1999), right around the time of the Dawson's Creek gay kiss episode.
But I wouldn't be surprised if Friends has a much earlier example than that -- and, like the fujo example, it might even portray the male fantasizer himself. Does Ross sheepishly ask Joey if he ever had a sex dream involving just two girls getting it on, with him / any male not even being present? That would be self-aware, and an even stronger example than the mere yuri material being provided, a la Cruel Intentions.
Aha! Friends also blazed the trail for yuri as well. There's a 1998 episode ("The One with All the Haste") in which Rachel and Monica are trying to persuade Chandler and Joey to let them have their old apartment back. The guys are initially dead-set against it, so what can the two young attractive women do to sweeten the deal...?
ReplyDeleteWell, before the late '90s, the obvious answer would've been, "We'll go on a date with you, we'll make out with you, we'll -- God help us -- sleep with you for one night only," etc.
But by '98, the answer switched from actual activity between a guy and a girl, to future masturbation material involving two girls. Rachel and Monica offer to kiss each other for a full minute, while Chandler and Joey get to watch.
The guys' eyes shoot out of their faces, they immediately drop their resistance, and agree to the deal. The yuri make-out is *not* shown or heard on camera -- it hard cuts to after that minute is over, the girls aren't even shown in a post-kiss reaction shot. The guys go back to their own apartment, make a bee-line for their separate bedrooms, slamming their bedroom doors shut in a hurry, implying that they're eager to start whacking off while the image and sound of the hot chick on hot chick action is still fresh in their minds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mos-tz1I-Q
This is exactly as self-aware as Rachel's fujo dream. Two girls kissing for the purpose of titillating a straight male audience, who use it for masturbation purposes, where they're imagining themselves as one of the two girls, not as a male third party involved with the two girls.
If the guys' fantasy had involved a physical act between one man and two women, then *that* would have been the offer that the girls would have had to make. E.g., "The two of us girls will lean in and simultaneously kiss Joey for a minute, and then we'll do the same for Chandler."
Same goes for the porno habits of yuri types -- their yuri scenes involve only girls, not one guy getting it on with two girls at the same time. So they are clearly identifying with, and vicariously getting aroused at the thought of acting as one of the girls in a girl-girl scenario.
Also like fujos, the yuri-consumers would rather have a fantasy for masturbation instead of an actual physical act involving them. And more than that, a fantasy where they are choosing to identify as the opposite sex, for the purposes of sneaking their way into the single-sex camp (belonging to the opposite sex), in a world where the two sexes are totally segregated.
Later, in 2001, there's an episode ("The One with Rachel's Big Kiss") that presents yuri material, but without the self-aware commentary part that would have shown a guy fantasizing about two girls for masturbatory purposes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ6Do50Eel0
Rachel kisses a former roommate who's lesbian, and afterwards Phoebe goes in for a kiss with Rachel just to see what the fuss is about and says she's had better.
This is notable for being early yuri material in the vein of Cruel Intentions, but the more notable example is the previous one -- it's a self-aware example, making clear that girl-girl kissing scenes are for straight guys to fantasize about (where they're one of the girls), and it's years earlier.
That episode has Cruel Intentions beat by a year! But I am not, and never was at the time, a voracious consumer of late '90s culture, so there could be an even earlier example, perhaps involving Buffy or Seinfeld or something.
European snacks trying out European snacks. ^_^
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oDpzkGN-TE
Trump admin lying like crazy about falling egg prices -- not unexpected, now that they own the shithole status of the collapsing American Empire again (also in the late 2010s and 2020).
ReplyDeleteAll these data scientist wiz kid types being brought in by the tech-right, and they can't even lie with statistics convincingly.
First of all, eggs have never been above $6 a dozen -- don't know where they started that lie from.
But more importantly, the trendline has been steadily up after Trump's election and inauguration -- in fact, they just plowed through another clip, hitting $5.50 in the past week, up 10% from the previous $5 mark that had held for a few weeks (itself a 10% jump from the $4.50 price that had held for a few weeks before).
These are prices from Kroger in suburban central Ohio. They are real, and whatever charts and tables are being quoted by the White House and their GOP slop-slurpers in the media are literally fake news, pure fabrications -- both the level, and the trendline.
If you're going to lie, lie that they've dropped down to $3 or $2 or $1. Everyone can immediately spot that the WH claim of falling egg prices is fake according to their own personal experience.
If the purpose is to score a purely propaganda W, then make it a big one. The lie that egg prices dropped from $6.13 to $6.09, or whatever it is, is a pathetic random non-event to parade around as a W.
Might as well go full Soviet collapse and say they're actually $1 a dozen, and anyone who says otherwise is a disloyal citizen whose claims should not be trusted.
Since the Trump admin gave up on their propaganda push for "mass deportations," the fact that those 10s of millions of illegals, not to mention the legal immigrants, are still here is reflected in the rising price of eggs -- and everything else.
ReplyDeleteMass deportations would be a gut-punch to demand, which all else equal lowers the price. If 10s of millions of illegals were deported, housing would be a lot cheaper. So would eggs.
But they're all still here, minus a fig-leaf amount removed for propaganda purposes, which both the GOP slop-slurpers parrot, as well as the libtard hysterics who must construct their own myth of an all-powerful immigrant-removing Trump admin, just with the opposite emotional tone as the MAGA-tards.
And since egg production has not ramped up in the meantime, prices are rising.
Then there's the monetary side, which is the main source of our current inflation, including the trillions printed under Trump: Season One, and Trump's neutering of Powell's minuscule fleeting attempt to withdraw *some* of the phony money printed under Obama, in late 2018, which sent the stock market cratering and pissed off Trump.
All those fake trillions from Obama, in addition to the fake trillions printed by Trump, are still sloshing around the economy, and prices will not go down until a serious chunk of that fake money is retired from circulation. Which Trump says will never happen -- he won't allow Powell to withdraw the fake trillions, and is demanding lower interest rates in order to slosh the fake trillions throughout the economy with even less resistance.
But at least we're digging in further into our failed wars in Ukraine and Israel, notwithstanding Trump's attempt to replace Zelensky with a more pliant puppet.
ReplyDeleteIsrael has been cockblocked and now invaded by Lebanon (i.e. Hezbollah) for decades now, and lately Yemen has successfully cockblocked Israel by controlling the Red Sea shipping routes and conditioning access to them on not-supporting Israel.
Iran has been aiding both for awhile, but not directly involved that much. Still not backing away, though.
And now Trump is digging in after yet another power -- a major regional one, akin to Iran or Egypt -- is on a collision course with Israel. That would be Turkey, who was previously neutral or favorable to Israel, materially (only cheap lip service supporting Palestinians).
With the power vacuum left by the coup against Assad, Turkey is amplifying the small foothold it had in the north, around Idlib, to expand its influence throughout the country, as far as they can take it. Turkey has already annexed part of NW / Coastal Syria since 1939, the major city / region of Antioch (Antakya). They lost it during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire circa WWI, then fought a small war in the '30s to regain it, without the rest of their former Levantine conquests.
Antioch was never Anatolian, it's Saharo-Arabian / Levantine.
Damascus lies in the Southwest of Syria, so if Turkey wants to control the capital region, they will have to head towards the Syrian border with Israel, who is also using the power vacuum in Syria to further invade the country (beyond the Golan Heights), mainly in the South, near their own border.
Turkey has no reason to cede the important capital region in the South to Israel, even if the two sides are not already totally hostile to each other. And Turkey is a far more powerful military force than Israel -- who got stalemated by Egypt in the early '70s, and has only enjoyed peace by the US buying off Israel, Egypt, and Jordan to not fight each other.
Turkey is under no such bribe by the US a la the Camp David Accords, and as proven by their recent takeover of Idlib, and their only somewhat "old" annexation of Antioch, Turkey is far more capable of expanding militarily into Syria.
Israel has only occupied the non-important Golan Heights pocket since the late '60s, with no new invasions or annexations since. And their military might stalled out back in the '70s. Now they're in a far weaker state, and they'd be fighting a far stronger army in Turkey than they did in Egypt in the '70s.
But since Israel has entered terminal decline, it will -- and has already begun to -- start lashing out blindly and desperately. They've assassinated Iranian figures, despite getting pummeled with missiles afterward. They're trying to bear-hug America into being dragged down with them. They've assassinated the leader of Hezbollah, and not turned the tide on that front either.
Why wouldn't their desperate end-of-life flailing include standing off against Turkey in Syria?
Since the late 2010s when I started posting about the situation, I always said there are 3 long-term regional powers in the Middle East -- Anatolia / Turkey, Persia / Iran, and Egypt.
ReplyDeleteEspecially regarding the Levant, which has never produced an empire of its own, and has always been under foreign influence or outright occupation, in its thousands of years of history.
However, that doesn't mean that there are no other regional expanding powers for this current brief moment. The main one is the one spawned by the meta-ethnic nemesis represented by Israel -- namely, its frontier with Southern Lebanon, which has sent Southern Lebanese asabiya through the roof over a short time, and will only continue to strengthen it.
Given that Israel has already entered terminal decline, that force will not last much longer, let alone keep getting stronger. So I don't think Hezbollah or Lebanon will evolve into a full-fledged empire. But they're already a regional expanding power, invading and controlling Northern Israel de facto, after expanding to control all of Lebanon during their civil war (the North is Christian, and they lost).
Hezbollah is still in no position to take on the full brunt of a war against Turkey, if the two were to try to control Southern Syria / Damascus. I also don't see Iran escalating into a full war against Turkey for influence in Syria -- Iran is too far away to be so heavily invested there, either directly or through their Hezbollah allies (not "proxies" -- Hezbollah achieved unification of Lebanon on their own).
So the smart play would be for Iran, Turkey, and Hezbollah -- and I suppose Yemen / Houthis, as well, from a distance -- to unite against Israel in Syria, removing Israel not just from their recent invasion of Southern Syria, but to definitively clear them out of the Golan Heights as well. Don't leave them a foothold to launch future desperate invasions.
Well, then, you might think there'd be "no honor among thieves," and the anti-Israeli camps would turn against each other. I don't see that either, though. Iran doesn't care that much about Syria -- too far away, they're more concerned with America on a global scale, and Iraq and Afghanistan on the local scale, through which America tried to beef up its threatening presence toward Iran.
But Syria? Who cares, in Iran?
That would then leave potential friction between Sunni Turkey and Shia Hezbollah, but Turkey is not vehemently anti-Shia like the Saudi Empire is. Turkish Sunnis are from the Hanafi school, a moderate form of Sunnis. Saudi Sunnis are from the Hanbali school -- the puritanical, fundamentalist form that produced modern Salafism ("radical Islamic terrorism"), including the people who blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11. They were Arabians, not Turks.
Only the Hanbali Sunnis are fanatically anti-Shia. The Sunnis in Lebanon itself are Hanafi, and aren't fanatic crusaders against their Shia countrymen. Turkish Sunnis (most of the country) aren't fanatic crusaders against the Shia either.
Turkey's main beef is ethnic, not religious -- against the Kurds, who are also Sunni, but from a different school, Shafi'i. That is a Sunni vs. Sunni feud, and a Hanafi vs. Shafi'i feud -- not Sunni vs. Shia.
So I don't see Turkey expending major war capital on conquering or subduing Hezbollah. They could come to an agreement to let Turkey expand throughout Syria, with guarantees for the safety of the Shia in Syria, and to not invade Lebanon, where Hezbollah could get Turkey bogged down in a quagmire (albeit not able to itself invade Turkey or anything like that).
The current headchopper rulers in Damascus are Salafist, from Al-Qaeda or ISIS type backgrounds, representing the interests of the Arabians in the region.
ReplyDeleteTheir grip on power depends upon Arabian support, American support (who have always supported these groups, from the '80s through today), or American-via-Saudi support.
America is collapsing, and can't even supply enough weapons and funds to its Israeli client to finish off Hamas in Gaza, let alone Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon -- and now even Northern Israel.
The Saudi Empire has also peaked and entered decline, and they are more realistic and seeking rapprochement with their former regional enemies, Iran. The Arabians did manage to get one of their guys into power in Syria, following the coup against Assad -- but they are not strong enough to *keep* Salafists in control over Syria.
And that's where Turkey and Hezbollah come in (and Iran, to a lesser extent, and the Shia Houthis of Yemen, to a lesser extent). Neither regional power has an interest in a Hanbali Sunni being in top-level control over Syria. A Hanafi Sunni would please Turkey, a Shia would please Hezbollah.
The Alawites used to serve as neutral third parties, including the Assad dynasty, but they have been removed. And the Alawite base is in the NW of Syria, far from any meta-ethnic frontier, so they're not as cohesive and gung-ho as Hezbollah is. Alawites have recently launched counter-attacks against the Salafist nutjobs, but they're not as cohesive as Hezbollah, and won't be able to reconquer and unite Syria behind them.
The Alawite base in NW Syria lies between Northern Lebanon, which is mostly Christian, and Turkish-occupied Antioch, which is still 40% Christian or Alawite (Alawites being a former Christian group that adopted some elements of Islam -- they still celebrate the uniquely Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter, and they drink alcohol).
Turkey would presumably control NW Syria, as an extension of its occupation of Antioch -- they've proven for nearly 100 years that they aren't going to massacre the Christians or Alawites, unlike the Salafist Arabians and other Hanbali foreigners.
But Hezbollah would keep control over the Christian North of Lebanon, which they already won during their civil war.
Hezbollah has no interest in Northern Syria, where most of the country lives and where the major industrial city lies (Aleppo). No conflict there.
Maybe Turkey and Hezbollah will form some kind of cooperative administration over the South, where Damascus is the only major city, but where Hezbollah has a major interest due to it lying so close to the Israeli border.
Turkey's other major interest is against the Kurds, but they live in Northeastern Syria, also far from Israel / Southern Lebanon, so a place that Hezbollah would not care about.
Just some informed speculation. But anyone who thought the Salafists representing the declining Arabian Empire would last long-term in Syria is crazy. Turkey, Hezbollah, or a joint venture between them, will control Syria.
Country clubs, urban clubs, and American imperiogenesis and ethnogenesis. Saw a curious-minded tweet asking what happened to country clubs, which seem to have vanished over the past couple decades. Aside from a few curious general-minded insights, the replies are the standard morass of overly narrow complex explanations -- trying to explain the least with the most, rather than vice versa.
ReplyDeleteThe insightful replies placed this example within a broader coherent pattern of examples, an entire phenomenon that requires explaining, not just country clubs or golf courses. Jesus, nobody even linked it to the rise and fall of mini-golf courses, that's an easy enough of a connection to make -- and the EPA etc have nothing to do with mini-golf, so any explanation relying on the EPA, dumbocrap, rethuglicans, etc. can be eliminated as not-explaining the rise and fall of mini-golf courses over the same time and across the same spatial range, as the golf course / country club example.
One wrong-headed reply pointed to a residential shift among elites from suburbs to cities over the past few decades, but that also doesn't explain the phenomenon -- it only pushes it onto the urban environment. So a curious insightful mind would naturally follow up on their own with, "Have urban environments seen a growth in country club type organizations, albeit adapted to cities, during this time?"
They have NOT. Country clubs were born with, grew up with, and are now dying beside, their twin -- the urban club, whether explicitly an athletic / racquet club, or an all-purpose elite social club.
The wiki article on country clubs says they began in America around 1880, and were expanding until about 1930, when they reached maturity. They've been fading, closing, losing relevance, etc. since the 21st century or even a bit earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_club
Now compare that timeline and spatial scope with wiki's list of gentleman's clubs, which is not a euphemism for strip club, but the urban elite social club:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gentlemen%27s_clubs_in_the_United_States
Whaddaya know, the timing is exactly the same. Basically no examples before the Civil War, damn few during the Civil War & Reconstruction, the vast majority of them from the 1880s through the 1920s. But starting around 1980, the closures begin, accelerating over the '90s, 2000s, and 2010s (and still going on in the 2020s).
Anything that doesn't explain all of this, can be eliminated from the clever-silly parlor convos, which nobody takes seriously (not the participants themselves either, it's just a parlor game for wordcels).
Their birth and expansion after the integrative civil war means they're related to the "unified and expanding" phase of imperiogenesis, not the initial stage where we're expanding but not really unified yet. America was not unified after independence, not until after the Civil War & Reconstruction were over.
ReplyDeleteThis is also the birth of American ethnogenesis, becoming a new people, culture, and society, distinct and separate from our Olde Worlde Euro ancestors and contempo cousins. The country club and urban club were *not* inherited from Euro predecessors, and carried on within the New World -- else they would've been around as a fixture since the 1700s. They didn't exist before roughly 1880.
Even today, I think most Europeans you told about the urban athletic club would scratch their heads about finding analogous organizations in their country. A single building with racquet courts, a swimming pool, gymnasium, dining room, library, maybe some bedrooms, and the point is for the elites around that city (within the city or living in the suburbs) to meet up there and socialize over athletic activity, to strengthen the bonds among the local elite, so they can run the metro area with a greater level of cohesion and unified purpose, than if they couldn't ever be bothered to meet up for a game of racquetball downtown.
Every 2nd and 3rd-tier city in America used to have these, and some are still lumbering onward, but as a nationwide institution they have been declining since at least the '90s, and a few since 1980. That places their decline in the broader imperial lifespan -- stagnation and decline, not cohesion and expansion.
It coincides with the neoliberal era, which is usually summarized as "profits over people", implying the common people -- but it has hollowed out the elite class as well, and melted down their social bonds too. Why keep funding these private social clubs with my personal dues and fees, when I could be competing against my fellow elite members in conspicuous consumption instead? Buying a bigger house, in a more elite zip code, taking more vacations, more elaborate vacations, dumping more into the stock market to beef up my financial portfolio, and so on and so forth.
Anything but sacrifice some of my personal wealth for a higher-scale social unit -- even an elite members-only unit! It's not even funding Social Security, it's private, elite, and not a provider of welfare as its main function (only occasionally for charity).
As our meta-ethnic nemeses have long receded into the hazy forgotten past, our asabiya has lost its raison d'etre, and our cohesion is coming unglued -- at all scales, from the national down to the local and even the nuclear familial levels.
We are slowly, and now quickly, devolving into a typical shithole country, where even the elites of a single city can't meet up for athletic activity in a social club that they fund themselves, in order to rule the city more smoothly and effectively.
Contrast peak America with collapsing Syria -- do you think there were country clubs or urban athletic clubs bonding the local elites of Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs? No, that's something only a highly cohesive empire like America during most of the 20th century, and back into the late 19th, can achieve.
ReplyDeleteNot that they have no relationships or dealing with each other, but not in the generous, sacrificing, public-spirited / civic-minded way that ours did during the 20th C.
And yet, because public-spiritedness and civic-mindedness are not genetically determined individual traits inherited from ancestors, but historically contingent collective traits caused by a surge in asabiya in response to the pressures of a meta-ethnic nemesis -- these organizations are already crumbling into ruins in America, as the cultural conditions have shifted massively since the origins of these orgs. Namely, no more meta-ethnic nemesis to unite around.
Some Americans will continue to pass on their genes to their offspring, but American culture will not go along for the ride, since it is transmitted socially and culturally, not genetically. And the ungluing of our asabiya means less and less of our culture will get transmitted -- indeed, as we succumb to the heritage-hating iconoclasm stage of the imperial lifespan, our cultural cornucopia may be deliberately destroyed before it can be transmitted to the future American society.
Another way to summarize neoliberal vs. New Deal values is "What's in it for me?" The neolib Boomer yuppie looks at the downtown athletic club and asks, "Is it really worth the dues and fees, when I could just join a gym, or buy some basic gym supplies for my home, or pay for the wife to take an aerobics / yoga class?"
ReplyDeleteInitially, the neoliberal had to be sold on the social club as conferring a return on investment to the dues-payer -- sure, the athletic value is not worth the price, but you'll get to hobnob with other local elites, and they could give you business, hook you up with a potential employer, etc. So if you're a climber or striver, only motivated by individual ambition and advancement, the social club is still worth paying your dues for.
But that's not really what the social club was for -- it was for sacrificing your personal wealth on behalf of a higher-scale social unit, at least the club itself, maybe the larger city and its population.
It did not act as a networking opportunity for strivers, it was for those who were content with their station, whether lower-elite or upper-elite, and bonding and cohering was to increase the effectiveness of the collective that they all belonged to. To boost team spirit, camaraderie, esprit de corps, etc.
They all have a collective endeavor -- running the city / suburbs -- and it's in the interest of that collective unit if each individiual will restrain some of their personal ambition and wealth, to smooth over intra-elite competition. Otherwise, if it's climber vs. climber, what's in it for me, etc., the local elite gets torn apart from the inside, and they can't run the city for shit, or the suburbs eitehr.
There are only so many slots for the elite, and far too many more aspirants and climbers and strivers who would like to occupy them. Converting the social club into a networking hub blows up the collectivist model, and makes it individualist -- but that means all the newcomers will not uphold its collective strength, since they're only using it for purposes of personal advancement within the elite stratum, therefore exacerbating intra-elite competition, and gradually destroying the collective unit from within.
Our glory days were when the elites were altruistic and collectivist, and we have been plunged into the depths of hell only when their successor elites became greedy and individualist.
Again, that shift not only destroyed the well-being and thriving culture of the common people, who suddenly no longer had the elites underwriting commoner organizations like the malls and multiplex movie theaters. It hollowed out elite culture as well, as greedy individualist elites won't underwrite the local opera, ballet, theatre, country club, or urban club.
The neoliberal elites have not only atomized the lives of the commoners, but the lives of the elites themselves.
Final thought on this topic: why sports as the bonding activity? Well, sports are often a ritualized form of combat or warfare. But "sublimated" is a better term than "ritualized" -- the point is to redirect the psychological and physical energy that might otherwise go into real competition within the elite stratum, into a safety release valve that harms no one within the elite.
ReplyDeleteYou play some squash, or see who can swim the most laps around the pool in 10 minutes, or takes the fewest strokes to sink the golfball in the hole -- and after a few hours of this activity, regularly over the week, month, and year, you're literally too exhausted psychologically and physically to participate in a duel, feud, or war with your fellow elite members.
And rather than sublimating that energy away from combat altogether, you've channeled it into a pseudo-war or a mock battle, namely sports. So you do actually get a little bit of satsifaction from participating in some intra-elite competition, meaning you don't need as much of the real thing once you leave the club premises.
Sports also have more of a rule-bound structure to them -- explicit rules, no cheating, codes or norms of sportsmanship, relatively brief time limits after which the competition must be dropped, etc. They make the mock battles less unpredictable, less anxiety-inducing, and less never-ending / autocatalytic, than real social or economic or martial competition within the elite stratum.
Evvvverybody's happy, at least until the greedy individualists show up and take it over, melting it down from the inside.
...and not to run off with the melted-down stuff, as though to sell it off and profit personally. That's a minor facet of imperial collapse -- "stripping the copper wire from the house". Greedy indivdiualists will blow up a collective unit even if there's nothing left for them to salvage and sell / profit from individually in the aftermath. They just can't help competing against everyone else, and that destroys collective units for no material gain whatsoever.
Strivers funded the gym instead of the athletic club, and gyms by now are notorious for their levels of hyper-competitiveness, individualism, and outright hostile social climate, especially between the sexes. At best, it's an alienated void where everyone is just minding their own business. But it never reaches the pro-social camaraderie that every 3rd-tier city's athletic club used to produce in the good ol' days.
ReplyDeleteNot being a striver, I've literally never even set foot inside a gym in my life. I do stay physically active, but certainly not as a member of an elite social athletic club -- not part of the elite.
And yet, I actually have set foot inside one and done some pro-social bonding with peers over athletics. OK, so it was a birthday pool party for my best friend in elementary school, whose dad was a member and was allowed to use the whole pool for his kid's party after-hours. It was awesome!
That would've been circa 1990, and miraculously the building and the club is still standing. Not with the same purpose or cohesion as during its glory days, I'm sure, but at least not iconoclastically razed to the ground. And in 2025 America, that's actually something to be proud of.
You can tell who really runs America cuz the urban social & athletic clubs have never, to my knowledge, been portrayed in pop culture, let alone parodied or savaged or downright witch-hunted, in the way that suburban / rural country clubs and golf courses have been. There's no Caddyshack counterpart that's set in a send-up of the New York Athletic Club.
ReplyDeleteThey were all-male until roughly the '80s. They excluded blacks and Jews just as much as the country clubs did, and reversed course when the country clubs did.
They're a gathering spot for local elites to conspire about how to run things.
Membership is usually by invitation only, elitist.
They cater to jocks over nerds.
And so on and so forth. The only major difference is urban vs. suburban / rural. It's not an ethnic thing either -- they have them in non-WASP regions like the Deep South and out West.
Usually the savaging of country clubs and golf is analyzed as an attack on WASPs, preppies, or trads. But it's not that -- otherwise there would be equal savaging of their urban twin, the downtown social / athletic club.
ReplyDeleteThe fodder for satire or witch-hunting is identical -- they didn't let women join until the '80s, they used to exclude blacks or Jews, you can't just buy your way in with nouveau riche money, etc.
And the target audience of the urban clubs was also WASPs, preppies, or trads -- or those who began outside that culture, but aspired to join it. There's a scene in Manhattan where Woody Allen's character is enjoying a game of squash in an urban athletic club (the recently defunct Uptown Racquet Club).
After taking in the broadest possible view, we can now rule out the take that anti-golf or anti-country club discourse and cultural portrayals was motivated by anti-WASP or anti-preppy resentment. That would've put a target on the urban twin as well, but it did not.
So, the real reason that golf and country clubs have been so viciously targeted is that they're icons of suburbia, and are being targeted by urbanites who define themselves in opposition to the 'burbs, as well as insecure suburbanites who want to status-strive by moving into da big city.
The racial, ethnic, or other cultural make-up of the country club membership is irrelevant -- they could be entirely recent Latino immigrants who want a nice comfy home in the suburbs, and a country club with a golf course to proudly serve as a community anchor. They would still be savaged as symbols of suburban sprawl, by urbanites who resent the lack of such a pastoral Edenic landscape within their street grid.
The sense of place in The Adventures of Pete and Pete is the mystery, charm, and romance of the suburbs (it's filmed in the northern NJ suburbs of NYC). And sure enough their dad makes a living by owning and operating a golf driving range, where the older Pete works for one summer.
ReplyDeleteIn 2010s woketard dIsCouRsE, this would've been the proverbial "boat dealership".
Back in the first half of the '90s, though, the small-time owner of a golf driving range was shown in a well-meaning, good-natured, humanizing light. Not glorified or propagandized, but not dismissed or degraded as a typical suburban sprawl chud getting in the way of urban progress by running a business that requires so much un-built-upon green space.
This was made in pre-polarized times, so politics doesn't play into the show at all, thankfully.
Agent Scully is the literal pixie type of Manic Pixie Dream Girl -- Gillian Anderson is 5'2. MPDG's tend to be either 5'2 or 5'8, depending on which facet of the role is being emphasized -- the flighty pixie swooping in like a hummingbird at your windowsill, so much energy bundled up into such a tiny frame, ready to burst. Or the confident, initiative-taking side, since she's an emotional-health nurse who encourages the sad sack until he can walk on his own again.
ReplyDeleteThey usually give Scully high heels to wear, but in some episodes they're in special gear that has flat shoes, and her shortie-ness really comes off. Cutie. ^_^
I can't tell whether she fits the body shape profile of the MPDG, who are almost always butt women rather than boob women. In the pilot episode she's shown in her underwear, and she does have a decent butt, and although not small-chested I still don't think she's a boob woman. The show does tend to emphasize her chest rather than butt, though, with the wardrobe.
I thought she might be only redhead MPDG, but that's not her natural color. Neither is Zoe Kazan's natural hair red -- only for her (post-)MPDG role in Ruby Sparks.
Like I said, she's not an MPDG in the romantic domain, but in the career or really vocation domain of the sad sack character, who works literally down in the dumps, in a windowless basement office.
She's not giving him career advancement tips, like a management counselor -- her focus is less his career, and more about his vocation or calling or quest toward discovering and explaining the paranormal. She wants to tolerate and humor that, and encourage it as far as it goes, without going into wacko territory.
But even if it does veer off into unbelievable land, she's just going to state her case for disbelief -- for the time being -- not try to shut him down, belittle him, or rat him out to his superiors.
Within the context of FBI investigators, she has quite an open mind and free spirit. Not as much as he does, but that's why I keep saying that the MPDG isn't so much about her individual personality, but how she relates to the protag. Supportive, encouraging, inspiring, motivating, believing in him when others will not.
It's a very understated kind of MPDG role that she plays, even more so since it's vocation-related rather than romance-related. But still, a pleasant surprise.
Checking on the babe guest actress in tonight's X-Files episode ("Space"), I was led to another very early example of yuri-baiting on mainstream TV.
ReplyDeleteShe played another guest babe role, but on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, where in 1995 ("Rejoined") she has a quasi-lesbian kiss with Dax.
"Quasi" cuz the species that both of them belong to, Trills, are made up of a symbiont and a host, and the former maintains the memories and personality and so on, while cycling through various hosts. In this episode, one of Dax's former hosts was the husband of the guest babe, so it's a marital reunion of sorts, albeit the former husband's body is gone and that symbiont is now in the body of a woman.
They both look past the superficial difference in host bodies, and feel a rekindled romance, eventually engaging in some passionate kissing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbtqmbDqtuY
This example is not as explicit about who the audience is, and why they want to see it, as that one from Friends. But still quite heavy and physical, not just a brief throwaway kiss for yuks. It's not so sexualized or salacious, and is intended to be romantic and passionate, between two people who have loved each other and been committed for a long time.
It's not as overtly sexualized, pornographic, or masturbatory, as the one from Cruel Intentions, or that '95 episode of Friends (where the kiss isn't even shown). But it's still clearly meant to titillate a straight male audience, who will fantasize about it later, imagining themselves as one or both of the hot babes making out with each other.
Regardless of its less salacious nature, and being a straightforward example rather than a meta-commentary example, it's still a pretty early one, from the same year as the meta- one from Friends -- 1995.
Looking over wiki's list of lesbian kiss episodes, the Deep Space Nine one seems to be the earliest one. The list neglects the Friends one from '95 since the kiss isn't shown on camera, but it's not only yuri-baiting, it's a meta-commentary on the genre.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_kiss_episode#Examples
There are 3 apparent counter-examples from before '95 -- an episode of L.A. Law from '91, Picket Fences from '93, and Roseanne from '94.
However, their episode summaries make it clear that it's not yuri-baiting aimed at a straight male audience screaming "make out with each other!" How can we tell?
In yuri-baiting, there's a target girl who the male viewer is interested in, and a vicarious girl who he's projecting himself in the place of, to get close to that target girl. It's a kind of mind-body dualism -- his own personality, mind, soul, spirit, etc., in the body of the girl -- at least, the external appearance of the girl. Yuri consumers never think about having a womb, eggs, etc. -- just tits, fingers, a tongue, pussy lips, etc.
In the canonical examples of yuri-baiting, NEITHER of the two girls is a lesbian, probably not even bisexual. It's portrayed as an episode of experimentation, exploration, etc. between two otherwise straight girls.
Why must neither be lesbian? Because that would prevent the bridge from fantasy land back to reality.
In reality, the male viewer is not interested in pursuing a lesbian -- but a straight girl. If the target girl in his fantasy is lesbian, that frustrates his desire to ground the fantasy in reality, to make it seem plausible and tantalizing rather than hopeless pointless imagination.
As for the vicarious girl, she can't be lesbian either. Remember, there's a mind-body dualism going on, and homosexuality or sexual orientation is an inner quality, part of your mind, spirit, soul, personality, etc. And it's treated as gender-neutral, like all personality traits -- happiness, shyness, conscientiousness, etc. can be found in either sex.
If the homo personality finds itself in a girl's body, she's a lesbian. If the homo personality finds itself in a guy's body, he's a fag.
So if the vicarious girl were lesbian, that would imply she has the homo personality trait. But since the male viewer is imagining his own soul or mind inside of the vicarious girl's body (in order to sneak into the opposite sex's camp, in a totally sex-segregated world), that would imply that he brought the homo personality into her body during fantasy transport -- meaning that in reality, he has the homo personality, i.e. he's a fag.
But he's not a fag, he's a straight guy fantasizing about getting a straight girl, just via the body of another girl. And since he's not a fag, he won't be bringing the homo personality with him while transporting bodies in fantasy land.
So, the genre I'm talking about, and the one everyone's become familiar with since the late '90s and 21st century, does not involve lesbian characters -- either the target one or the vicarious one.
ReplyDeleteThe target could be bisexual, since that would still make them a plausible conquest in reality. But the vicarious one cannot be bisexual, since the viewer is not himself bisexual.
Cruel Intentions remains a classic example under this clarification. So does the not-shown-on-camera example from the '95 episode of Friends with Rachel and Monica.
But the supposed early '90s examples don't hold up as yuri-baiting fantasies for a straight male fantasizer audience -- they involve lesbians or at least women who fall in love with women.
That doesn't mean they're not "lesbian kiss episodes," just that "lesbian kiss episode" is too broad of a term to refer only to yuri-baiting fantasies for a straight male audience.
They may have some kind of edgy, controversial value still -- but not for their pornographic appeal to straight male audiences / the male gaze. It's purely for treating the topic of homosexuality itself -- it hasn't been shown before, why don't we show it?
A woman might be romantically and physically pursued by another woman, to the point of being kissed by her -- how's *that* for an au courant storyline? OK, but that's not yuri-baiting fantasy for a straight male audience imagining some way to break through the sex segregation barrier in order to get close to a hot babe.
The woman pursuing is a lesbian? Well, then she can't be the one I'm vicariously identifying with, cuz she has the homo personality, and I don't. And she can't be the one I'm targeting in my fantasy, cuz that breaks the plausible link back to reality -- I'm not gonna fantasize about getting with a woman who loves women, that'd be impossible since I'm a guy.
And so, the early '90s examples are part of the "very special episode" category, where socially or culturally controversial topics were explored -- suicide, divorce, drugs, homelessness, and in this new addition from the early '90s, homosexuality.
None of those other topics were meant to titillate the audience in a pornographic way, and neither were the homosexual episodes, from the early '90s.
Seemingly out of the blue in 1995, that all got flipped upside down, and yuri-baiting and fujo-ism begin to rear their heads.
Final thought: needless to say, the exact same analysis applies to fujo fantasies.
ReplyDeleteThey're fantasizing about targeting a straight guy (baseball captain, cowboy, whoever), and they're imagining themselves in the place of another straight guy (the fujo is not a lesbian, so she doesn't bring the homo personality with her during fantasy transport, meaning the vicarious male character isn't a fag).
It's just that, as the story progresses, the two straight guys find a homoerotic tension developing, and maybe will even indulge in a little experimentation or exploration physically and emotionally.
Fujos are not actually fantasizing about two fags getting it on with each other. They're fantasizing about a straight guy who any girl would desire (good-looking, high-status, etc.), but only being able to get close to him by disguising herself as a guy -- on the *outside*, while retaining her same personality inside, including her non-homosexual orientation, therefore imagining herself in place of another straight guy.
Researching the history of babes cat-fighting in pop culture... for science. Another obvious-in-retrospect example that tracks the 50-year cycle of social harmony vs. social chaos.
ReplyDeleteIt's not only the eroticization of interpersonal beefing, but also the yuri-baiting phenomenon erupting due to the segregation of the sexes / battle of the sexes, and men fantasizing about getting close and even bodily entangled with a hot babe by means of transporting their personality into the body of another hot babe.
Everyone remembers -- well, if they've seen old movies at all -- the cat fight scene between two hot Gypsy babes in From Russia with Love (1963), aimed at titillating the straight male audience of James Bond movies. But it was a lot more common than just that movie, and stretched back throughout the '50s.
The absolute yuri-ness of 1950s and '60s American pop culture... it's crazy.
It's really the late '20s, the '30s, and most of the '40s that was Americana at its most wholesome. That was the rising-harmony phase. By the late '40s, certainly during the '50s and '60s, the strife-riven phase took over, and all sorts of symptoms of weirdness started showing. Well in advance of the peak eruption circa 1970.
Just like how lots of the symptoms of peak social chaos circa 2020 are easily traceable throughout not only the obvious period of the 2010s, but the 2000s, and even the late '90s -- but not before then.
Then there was the juvenile delinquent phenomenon, also from the late '40s through the early '70s, but that's a separate though related topic. Dovetails with cat-fighting -- bad girls. The '50s zeitgeist was a lot more against social norms, and more strife-riven, especially among young people, than we remember... unless you saw more than one movie like Rebel without a Cause, which if you saw in isolation you might think was a one-off hallucination.
Housewives everywhere getting hooked on Valium to calm their social-strife-induced anxiety -- Mother's Little Helper, Dr. Feelgood in the Camelot White House, and even a meta-commentary in the form of the Rolling Stones song "Mother's Little Helper" (1966).
The Rolling Stones also had another hit in the battle of the sexes genre -- "Under My Thumb" (from the same '66 album as "Mother's Little Helper"). Not long after "He Hit Me (And It Felt Like a Kiss)" by the Crystals ('62).
Quite a long way from "(I've Got a Gal in) Kalamazoo" on the one side, or "Let's Hear It for the Boy" on the other side.
Just some sketches from what's in the posting pipeline...
And to give credit where it's due for Friends, which otherwise was a proto-2000s kind of show, here's a very John Hughes scene from a 1996 episode ("The One with the Prom Video"), appropriately enough featuring camcorder footage from the '80s.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjsQ78t_0_M
Non-ironically, non-problematically portraying the white knight or nice-guy character, and getting rewarded for his role by the princess, however belatedly. But as I understand, this was just the beginning of their eventual dating and marriage.
This would have to be problematized and irony-fortified six ways from Sunday as the rising-strife phase wore on. But '96 was just the initial part of that phase, so a handful of truly sincere and romantic moments could still be made, just fewer and fewer over time.
I never watched chick flicks, but there's an irresistible controlled experiment / compare-and-contrast for the 1st half and 2nd half of the '90s -- Sleepless in Seattle from '93, vs. You've Got Mail from '98.
ReplyDeleteBoth by Nora Ephron, both starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan as the couple. Only 5 years apart, but early '90s vs. late '90s is across the inflection point in the social harmony cycle.
Too bad Meg Ryan is not a manic-phase birth (restless phase birth, 1st half of the '60s), or she could've played a Manic Pixie Dream Girl role in Sleepless in Seattle (restless phase, which produced Pretty Woman and L.A. Story, among all sorts of others).
Might have to settle for just reading the plot summaries, but the emotional tone doesn't come across in those. I'll bet the first one comes across as more sincere, romantic, and non-problematized, while the second one will start injecting all sorts of cursed elements, frustrations, obstacles, and deflations, with a more glib tone. It was the late '90s -- how could it not?
Just looking over the image results for the two movies, and the actors' facial expressions and body language, as well as the lighting, I can tell Sleepless in Seattle is more heartfelt and vulnerable, and emphasizing the romance side of rom-com, while You've Got Mail is more emotionally guarded and emphasizing the comic side of rom-com.
ReplyDeleteSleepless in Seattle looks like a spin-off or spiritual sequel to Big from 1988 (also directed by a woman -- Penny Marshall), once Hanks' character truly grows up and loses his constant reliance on boy-like humor.
Anyway, will have to watch to confirm, but some things are plain to see even before you see them.
It's OK to be sincere, open, and romantic now... the peak of social chaos is finally starting to recede, and however gradually, we're going to be getting more open, trusting, and romantic -- unapologetically, non-ironically, nothing problematic about it.
ReplyDeleteAnd not necessarily in a performative, PDA, over-sharing way -- just doing it, and not feeling like there's anything problematic about it, nothing to worry about, nothing to spike our cortisol. No more need for psychiatric meds -- you can start thinning out your dosage of your latter-day Mother's Little Helper.
You've already thrown out your hormonal birth control, might as well...
It's going to be the funniest thing in the world to see all these geriatric Millennials who are lifelong "fluent in sarcasm" types, just absolutely blow their brains out as the culture returns toward ooey-gooey sincerity and romance, instead of their preferred irony and conflict.
But impersonal societal-scale cycles don't care about your feelings toward them, they will sweep you away like dust bunnies during spring cleaning, so that everyone else can finally breathe some fresh air.
No more allergens polluting the social environment anymore... it'll take some time to reach peak purity, but it's coming, and the strifecels won't be able to do a damn thing about it.
^_^
I did watch Sleepless in Seattle last night, and I was right. Not a hard call to make. I don't think I'll watch You've Got Mail just to confirm for sure, though. You / I can just tell it's not as good.
ReplyDeleteTurns out the cinematographer for Sleepless in Seattle, Sven Nykvist, was Bergman's main DP, and had recently shot Crimes and Misdemeanors by Woody Allen. They didn't need someone that good for a rom-com -- but then, it's not much of a rom-com after all. Rom-dram with comic relief and family ties themes.
It's not a parody of the rom-com genre, or any genre. To the extent that it's self-aware or meta, it's commenting on the viewers of movies, not the movies themselves. What it's like to live in the shadows of influential movies -- or really, what it's like to live in a thriving culture with well known narratives, tropes, and so on, setting you up to measure your experience against them.
But there have been narratives, tropes, and characters since forever. Nothing new about that just cuz they're movies. When Rosie O'Donnell's character tells Meg Ryan's character, "You don't want to be in love, you want to be in love in a movie," that's just another way of saying she wants a "fairytale ending" where "they all lived happily ever after".
The soundtrack was surprisingly mostly pre-'50s jazz, even though nothing about the movie suggests a connection to that era. It's set in the present, nobody is a music buff or a musician. The only movie that recurs throughout the movie is An Affair to Remember, from 1957 -- not the same period as most of the music. However, An Affair to Remember was itself a remake of an earlier movie, Love Affair, from '39 -- which is more apropos for the soundtrack.
But there was just something in the air in the '80s and first half of the '90s -- that same harmonious phase of the civil mood cycle, just like the late '20s through the mid-'40s. The soundtrack also features "As Time Goes By," written in the '30s and immortalized in Casablanca from 1942.
The Art Deco monumental skyscraper, the Empire State Building, plays a central role throughout the movie, another link back to that interwar period (built in 1931).
This was not an early '90s revival of an interwar cultural work, like Dick Tracy or The Rocketeer or The Phantom or The Shadow (or much of The Mask). It's a contempo rom-com, but the climate called for a channeling of the interwar zeitgeist. Similar to the recurring Django Reinhardt songs in L.A. Story, another early '90s rom-com that didn't require pre-'50s jazz, but decided to channel that period anyway cuz the social mood fit the early '90s so well. Harmonious rather than discordant.
Neat.
That prom video episode of Friends should have dissolved into the end credits with "No One Is To Blame" playing over them, to fit the mid-'80s prom theme. They don't write 'em or sing 'em like that anymore...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvO3X_mbMNs
Such an awesomely carefree and uplifting jangle-rock song from the Pete and Pete soundtrack, most of which is by Polaris. "Waiting for October":
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRrSTBJDFYk
It strikes a similar chord as Shadowy Men on a Shadowy Planet in the surf-rock genre (they did the theme song for Kids in the Hall, but their full albums are must-listens).
The original jangle-rock and surf-rock, from the '60s, were a little more hard-edged or pining or anxious, reflecting the strife-riven climate which produced them.
But by the '80s and early '90s, the social mood was so chill and stress-free, more lounge-y and slacker-y. And both of these bands managed to adapt genres that most would think are so uniquely '60s, into the '80s and early '90s, seamlessly.
The times, they long ago have a-changed. Time to just kick back, relax, and... dim the lights, chill the ham.
Very cool stuff -- and very chill stuff. ^_^
Shadowy Men on a Shadowy Planet did a swing cover! "I Know a Guy Named Larry" is mainly quoting the frenetic '30s big band swing standard "Sing, Sing, Sing" by Benny Goodman.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQy_1J4ZYts
This album came out in 1991, much earlier than the broader swing revival of the '90s -- two years before the Swing Kids movie and its soundtrack. One year after Dick Tracy, same year as The Rocketeer. Not that this album, or this song specifically, was a blockbuster or anything -- but something was clearly in the air already.
The band's instrumentation and tone may be derived from '60s surf rock, but the structure of their songs, and their emotion / attitude isn't really like that at all. It does have some of the original aggressiveness and hard edge -- pretty much any form of rock does, unless it's soft rock ballads. But mainly it's chill, mellow, somewhat introspective college rock / indie rock / alt rock of its time. And it has that same extraverted jangle that The Smiths or Polaris had at that time.
TV audiences don't cheer on a couple kissing anymore, speaking of that Rachel + Ross scene again. See this old post of mine from 2013, when the phenomenon was already extinct.
ReplyDeletehttps://akinokure.blogspot.com/2013/10/when-tv-characters-kiss-do-girls-in.html
Seems like it was part of the rising-harmony trend? Not being a selfish jealous hater, not trying to dampen the mood with snark, irony, and problematizing -- encouraging and supporting it, feeling lifted up by others being lifted up, just like how the other members of the group on Friends are looking on happily and appreciating the Rachel + Ross kiss.
Much later than '96, they'd have to cripple it, curse it, or otherwise make it seem weird and aWkWaAaAaRRRdddd...
The closest this scene gets is Phoebe's "lol so randumb" giddy comment about "she's his lobster!" Overall, though, no major attempt to block or divert the flow of emotion into security blanket irony.
I don't think it has to do with the outgoing vs. cocooning cycle, cuz I don't recall the whole "woooOOOOOoooo!!!" thing in '60s or early '70s shows where someone kissed. That was an outgoing phase of the cycle, along with the '80s and early '90s.
If not recorded before a studio audience, at least the other characters in the show could have chimed in -- like the rest of the gang in Friends (not the loud "wooo!" but reacting as though they're an audience of a spontaneous and sincere performance of a couple kissing).
What would the counterpart be from the late '20s through most of the '40s? Well, there wasn't TV back then, and movies did not include a studio audience reaction or laugh track or anything like that. Maybe a radio show that was performed before a studio audience, and their responses were broadcast to the home listeners?
IDK, it seems like the main example is the "awooooga!" reactions from cartoons of that time. Not really a standard from '50s or '60s or early '70s cartoons. More of a '30s or '40s thing, IIRC.
That is somewhat different, in that the reactor is reacting to a single person, some babe, rather than to a couple kissing. But still in the role of an audience member, or spectator, treating the babe as though she's a stage performer putting on a hachi-machi show for a crowd. And the "awooooga!" reaction is like clapping, cheering, etc., from a crowd member toward a stage performer.
I think it works!
And the social-emotional attitude is the same -- not withholding compliments, not trying to neg, not trying to dampen the emotional rise and attachment by making it awkward or problematic (for prudish or woketard reasons). Not being a hater, letting loose with the compliments. Being encouraging and supportive, trying to sustain and escalate the performance, the crowd nourishing the performer with their positive energy, and the performer thriving on that. One great big participatory performer-spectator symbiosis. ^_^
Y'know, this may be re-emerging in the streamer format, in the form of reactions from the chat. The streamer says or does something cute, chat gets flooded with "awwww!" or "kawaiiiiii!!!"
ReplyDeleteThe streamer says or does something sexy, chat gets flooded with blushing emotes, "awooooga!" messages, etc. That includes if two girls are yuri-baiting and touch, hug, tickle, or kiss each other.
Just like on '80s and early '90s sit-coms, only now it's two girls instead of guy + girl, cuz only gay guys are allowed into the entertainment sector these days, so they won't be indulging in a performative kiss with a girl -- fags would puke their guts out. So instead, it's two girls, one or both of whom the straight male viewer is imagining himself as, in order to vicariously experience a kiss with the other girl.
Often these chat reactions are overlayed onto the livestream video window, so even if you have the chat window closed (as I always do), you're still aware of these major chat-wide reactions as they scroll on up the main content window.
Random disconnected messages, you don't notice those. But when they're all in unison, it's like when the entire studio audience at a TV show recording went "woooOOOOoooo!!!" or audibly gasped with shock and concern, or whatever else.
And even if the streamer does not have the chat overlayed onto the main window, she will frequently respond to the chat if they're in unison about something, so you can still be made aware of the "studio audience" reactions even if you always keep the chat window closed.
This change is not due to any tech changes whatsoever -- the tech of the 2000s and 2010s perfectly allowed for studio audience reactions in unison, and were already well established during the '80s and most of the '90s. But the social mood changed, so the studio audience stopped reacting the way they used to.
The fact that chat reactions to a livestream are now included, and can react in unison, so that the viewer is aware of them -- is not a tech change inherit to the livestreaming medium. TV allowed that too. Rather, the social mood has changed, so "studio audiences" are suddenly more willing to react in unison to the main performer.
Maybe another aspect of the harmony vs. strife cycle -- the audience members acting in unison requires them to submit their individual will to a group or crowd or collective. If there's more and more strife in the social mood, then they won't be willing to groupify their behavior.
The return of the mob! We've had just about enough of disconnected individuals who think they're too superior to join an uncontrollable mob and just go with the superorganism's flow. Good ol' mobs... ^_^
The medium is never the message.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your idea that the Western US is less decadent and may form the foundation of a future "Byzantine" US, I thought you might like this map which shows that state pride is strongest in states in the Western half like Texas, Minnesota, Alaska, Utah, and so forth:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mentalfloss.com/article/56447/which-state-has-most-state-pride
There are a couple of outliers in New England as Vermont and New Hampshire also rank quite high (is it a co-incidence that this is the core of Sanders support).
Gonna explore the origins of yuri in pop music, in the context of the 50-year civil strife cycle. But first a necessary reminder of whose fault it is that there are fujos and yuri-consumers, rather than boy-girl fantasies among both sexes.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the fault of guys for indulging in yuri fantasies, that there are fujos among girls. Or vice versa -- it's not just girls being fujos that caused guys to turn to yuri.
Both patterns trace back to the segregation of the sexes, and the hostility that one sex feels toward the other, in virtue of belonging to the opposite sex.
If you ever spread the message of "bros before hoes" -- you are to blame for fujos, Brokeback Mountain, fag hags, gay BFFs / gay eunuchs, etc.
Girls never behaved that way when guys treated girls as human beings, back in the '80s and early '90s.
Only in response to the dehumanizing and degrading message of "bros before hoes" did girls start to respond with "OK, guess guys hate our guts just for being girls -- if we ever want to fantsize about being with a guy, he'd hate our guts for being a girl, so we'll have to disguise ourselves as a fellow guy, albeit with our own individual female mind / personality transported into his male body."
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Likewise, guys never fantasized about two hot chicks making out -- with no male third party participating -- until girls started conveying the message of "chicks before dicks". That caused guys to respond with the same reaction above, with the sexes reversed.
If you're a girl who is grossed out, upset, or look down your nose at male fantasies involving two girls (with no male), blame yourselves for spreading the message of "chicks before dicks".
I don't know if Millennials can work themselves out of their rut, for either sex, given how old they are now (in their 30s). Zoomers may be able to, especially the later ones. Probably have to wait for Gen Alpha and their successors to clear all of this opposite-sex-hating and pseudo-homo-opposite-sex-fantasizing out of the culture.
It's important to keep in mind that both sexes are to blame for this, and that hating the opposite sex is the root of the problem, so enjoying the opposite sex is the solution.
"Enjoying" the opposite sex may be too much for some, but respecting, supporting, connecting with / attaching to, relying on and being relied upon by the opposite sex.
ReplyDeleteThe origins of yuri in pop music trace back to 1995, with "I Kissed a Girl" by Jill Sobule:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUi11Cz4ZUg
I checked every song on wiki's list of "bisexuality-related songs", and that's the earliest one about girl-girl experimentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bisexuality-related_songs
"Girls & Boys" by Blur, from '94, is more about a swirling kaleidoscope of sexual debauchery in a party / resort town, some of which is hetero and some of which is homo and some of which is anything in between. That's not yuri, which is girl-girl action aimed at a straight male audience.
Just to be sure, I also checked the songs on wiki's list of "lesbian-related songs", and nothing else came up as an earlier example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lesbian-related_songs
However, they did misclassify t.A.T.u's "All the Things She Said" (2002) as a lesbian song, when it's canonical yuri-baiting -- the song itself (electro-dance club banger, not soulful acoustic ballad), the music video (sexy Catholic schoolgirl costumes), and the iconic live performances (like the 2003 MTV Movie Awards) featuring a huge crowd of hot young babes scantily clad dancing suggestively and culminating in them kissing each other.
At any rate, back to the Jill Sobule song. It was in decent rotation on MTV, anyone who was tuning in at that time will remember it, and it charted on both the Hot 100 and Modern Rock Billboard charts.
It's from the second half of the '90s, as the social mood pendulum swung away from harmonious and toward conflict and strife. One symptom of that mood shift was the re-segregation of the sexes, and the renewal of the battle of the sexes.
Without missing a beat, yuri emerged in all sorts of cultural domains -- as early as '95 for pop music. But not earlier -- the social mood was too harmonious to ignite a war between the sexes.
And it was not an isolated example, it was part of a broader phenomenon, including those TV episodes covered earlier, movies like Cruel Intentions, adult entertainment like the Girls Gone Wild series (often featuring hot chicks kissing each other, not just flashing the camera), and so on.
In music, it led to "All the Things She Said," the identically named song by Katy Perry from 2008, "Cool for the Summer" by Demi Lovato in 2015, and seemingly a zillion examples mainstream and obscure during the peak year of 2018 (which will come to symbolize that entire woketard era, in the same way that "1968" refers to that entire period as well, a perfect 50-year cycle apart from each other).
Jenny-Come-Latelies like Chappell Roan are still trying to keep yuri relevant into the mid-2020s, but interest and tolerance is fading, compared to the peak of woke culture during the late 2010s and early 2020s.
The mood is shifting back toward social harmony, meaning socially antagonistic songs like hers are going to go the way of the dodo... until the next shift circa 2045, when these or related themes will rear their ugly heads all over again.
Confirming the late '90s date of this trend, there was even a song commenting on the trendiness of bisexuality, namely "Nancy Boy" by Placebo from '97 (not necessarily about yuri, but bisexuality in general). That song would not have made any sense if it had been released in '87 or '93 -- nothing to comment on. But by '97, absolutely there was.
ReplyDeleteAs I noted several months ago, there was a fujo anthem from 1985 -- "Boy" by Book of Love -- but it was very outside of its zeitgeist in lyrical content. It didn't lead to any other examples, or spark a fujo craze. It was treated as a one-off novelty, lyrics-wise -- but as a synth-y danceclub song, the lyrics weren't that important anyway. It was a solid mid-'80s synth dance song, and that's all that was needed for its popularity.
Finally, a close reading of the Jill Sobule lyrics, to understand what's really going on with yuri and performative bisexuality -- crucially, how it ties into the civil strife cycle.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't heard this song since it was on MTV 30 years ago, and was really shocked by how proto-2000s it was, how self-centered and dehumanizing and glib. Musically, it's definitely part of the mid-'90s, alt rock with folk influences, nothing very proto-2000s about that. But the lyrics are insane, and deserve a close reading.
First of all, just like the later Katy Perry song of the same name, the singer is already involved in an exclusive relationship with a man -- a "boyfriend" in the Katy Perry song, but in this song, one who's already proposed marriage to her. The girl she's experimenting with is also involved in a relationship with a man.
This has nothing to do with hypocrisy or being your true self or whatever -- it has to do with CHEATING. She's not single and ready to mingle, or lesbian until graduation. Both women are already exclusively dating others. And it's not a fleeting encounter, but an ongoing series of encounters. So it's a full-on physical affair, and cheating, not merely exploring your sexuality.
The flagrantly anti-social nature of this act is treated with nothing more than a glib derisive remark about the singer thinks that she can do better -- either meaning a better man than her current man, or the other girl being better than her current man. Either way, not ending the relationship, and justifying her cheating on him just cuz she thinks she can do better.
The same callous, glib, dismissive tone -- even delighting in deceiving and cheating -- comes across in the lines where the other girl calls her boyfriend / husband to say she's going to be late coming home, and he responds like it's no big deal since she's only with her girl friend, that's safe and nothing to be worried about. You can hear the snickering tone from the singer in this ironic statement -- "if only that clueless moron knew the truth, he'd be worried, but since he's too stupid to figure out our affair, he deserves to stay ignorant and get cheated on". Insane.
Earlier in the song the other girl complains about her man being "dumb as a box of hammers," again rationalizing her anti-social mistreatment of him. She also refers to him as a "hairy behemoth" -- like, "Ugh, why do men have to be so hairy and smelly and gross?" Immature, and also used to rationalize her mistreatment of him -- he's not even fully human, he's some subhuman animal with the body hair to prove it, lumbering around like he's not even sentient, just taking up lots of space. Dehumanization rationalizes her cheating on him.
What's his only positive quality? "Such a handsome guy" -- purely physical and superficial.
But in fact, the entire song is about strictly physical and superficial qualities and acts, there is nothing about emotion or social bonds or romance or love whatsoever. That's not only how the other girl views her man, it's how the two girls view each other.
ReplyDeleteDoes the singer ever say she's falling in love, wants to spend her time only with the other girl, wants to move in or get married or raise a family, that she's found her soulmate, her one and only, etc.? No way! There's not a word about love, romance, bonding, connection, or commitment and the end of loneliness.
Nothing intimate whatsoever.
What *does* she say about the other girl? They're both partners in crime, emphasizing the anti-social / anti-norms / society can't tell us what to do theme.
They drink and smoke together (given the pseudo-'60s setting of the music video, and the cutesy innocent tone of the song, this is meant to be rebellious and defiant toward social norms).
Obviously they cheat on their boyfriends together.
They laugh at the world together, meaning they enjoy flouting societal norms about sexual behavior.
They take off articles of clothing together.
They feel temporary guilt and then quickly get over it together, again thumbing their nose at the idea that society can tell them what to do.
And they make out together -- kissing lips, hand on knee. Strictly a dopamine rush from physical contact, not a physical expression of a deeper emotional or social connection.
That's it!
Not forming a closer bond, not finding their soulmate, not merging their individual identities into a single fused whole, not depending on each other or being there for each other or supporting each other through tough times or inspiring and encouraging each other.
They only want to engage in anti-social flouting of norms regarding sexual behavior, and they do so by indulging in purely physiological experimentation like kissing and petting.
In other words, they are not each other's lovers, let alone soulmates -- they are each other's side pieces. Wow, what a special and elevated role to play!
It's not just dehumanizing and reductionist toward the cheated-on men in their lives, they're lowering the standards for themselves and for each other. That's what every little girl dreams of becoming one day, isn't it? -- not walking down the aisle, but being a side piece. Crazy.
Although "All the Things She Said" does mix in some lyrics about feelings and emotions and longer-term connections, it's more about being in a state of confusion about their relationship, since they're just sexual experimenters -- not soulmates, lovers, etc. Part of the dizzying, heady, topsy-turvy, confusing atmosphere they want to convey -- cuz they're totally confused about what their relationship is, not cuz their physical acts are *that* dizzying, intoxicating, etc.
ReplyDeleteOverall, though, from Jill Sobule to Katy Perry to Demi Lovato and beyond, these yuri songs are never about a woman falling in love with another woman. They're about a strictly physical side-piece experimentation.
Sometimes that is conveyed through omitting language about love, romance, etc., as in the Jill Sobule song. Other times, like the Katy Perry and Demi Lovato songs, the lyrics explicitly state that the other girl is nothing more than a brief physical experiment, explicitly *not* falling in love.
So, yuri anthems are not only anti-social toward men, who are too hairy, smelly, dumb, or whatever else, to be sought out as relationship partners or even just one-night stands. They're also anti-social toward their "fellow" sisters, including the very woman that she's experimenting with! "Just don't forget your place, bitch -- I'm not in love, you're just a hot willing flesh-bag that I feel like squeezing every once in awhile for my dopamine fix".
Verrrryyy much like the frenemy phenomenon -- supposed lovers, but dehumanizing each other overtly from the outset. They can't even just enjoy a purely physical affair, both enjoying it, being grateful toward the other, feeling positive vibes only, and treating each other warmly. Nope, it has to be an antagonistic competition -- who can dehumanize the other first, who will establish their dominance over the other, who can emotionally terrorize the other into side-piece submission, etc.
Frenemies... hater-lovers? I think that'll do.
And these yuri anthems always have a "fuck society's norms" message as well, tying it even more clearly into the mood of social strife instead of social harmony.
It's really a me-first anthem -- to hell with society, to hell with my boyfriend, and to hell with my female side piece. None of them can tell me what to do (the biggest red flag phrase for anti-social / strife-escalating behavior). I'll get from each of them whatever I want, and they'll be grateful for my interaction with them, or else I'll cut them loose and laugh at them afterward for good measure.
Glad that this anti-social attitude is starting to subside finally, and can't wait to hear more songs like "Let's Hear It for the Boy" and "Baby, Baby". ^_^
As for the male audience listening to these songs, they identify with them in dehumanizing women, treating them as only good for being fuck-toys, and explicitly not wanting to / not capable of falling in love with them.
ReplyDeleteThe male listener is identifying with either the aggressive female singer, or the female side piece, transporing their male personality into a female body, since they believe that girls are too man-hating to allow them to get close, without first disguising themselves as a girl.
Very clueless and dehumanizing commentators might suggest that these yuri anthems are an example of "male psychology", as though dehumanizing women and belittling others is just an invariant aspect of the male mind. And that the female singer is just there to be the "male mind in a hot babe body" that is found in yuri porno scenes.
But, shocking as it may seem to people who aren't trapped in the late '90s to early 2020s zeitgeist, men don't think that way. Sometimes they do -- when the social mood is toward strife, competition, and discord.
But the other half of the time, it's swinging the other direction, and men get romantic and want a fulfilling emotional and social relationship with a woman, which recieves a special physical expression afterward. Girls aren't just a series of sluts to run through, but the source population of your eventual soulmate, if you just look hard enough. And they don't project their male mind into a hot young babe's body, like the consumers of cat fight culture in the '50s and '60s, or girl-on-girl culture from the 21st century.
Glad we're heading back in the right direction finally!
As a final palate-cleansing antidote, contrast the yuri anthems with a lone lesbian song, "Damn, I Wish I Was Your Lover" by Sophie B. Hawkins -- from just a few years earlier than the Jill Sobule song, in 1992. What a difference the early vs. late '90s makes!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt6r-k9Bk6o
Unlike the yuri anthems, there are references to physical acts, but they're not very focused and specific like kissing lips, hands landing above the knee, etc. They're more holistic like "making love" or allusive like "open up, come inside, fill you up" and so on. Not so on-the-nose physically.
And there's a lot more than just the physical going on, including emotional and social bonding. Being her "hero", being her "mother", easing her pain / making her feel better, making sure she's smiling and warm (contrast a smile vs. kissable lips, even though it's the same body part), and other tender and caring and thoughtful and affecionate other-oriented behavior.
Crucially, there are multiple references to wanting to be an exclusive pair-bond, not side pieces or flings -- "there is no other," "you're the only shoe that fits," "I can't imagine I'll grow out of it", "no one [else] near," "chained and bound to you," etc.
The singer is not in a relationship of any kind, and although the other girl is, it's an abusive one. That actually does merit breaking her up with her current man -- or her current abusive woman? There's nothing to distinguish the sex of the other girl's partner. So not only is it not distinctly man-hating (like "hairy behemoth" is), it's only breaking up a relationship that is already abusive. Not anti-social or norm-flouting or man-hating.
Musically, it's not an electro danceclub banger like most of the yuri anthems. The Jill Sobule song is not a dance tune either, it's folk-ternative rock -- but sung with an almost snarky, snickering, glib, ironic tone. Sophie B. Hawkins is singing with nothing but pure sincerity -- good ol' early '90s being the best '90s.
Over the course of the rising-strife period, lesbians have been eliminated from just about all pop culture and IRL spaces (lesbian bars and clubs don't exist anymore). Meanwhile, fags and trannies have exploded -- as have the larger and more influential group, fag hags. But so have yuri-baiters, performative bisexual girls, and other types that fit into this phenomenon.
Now that the pendulum is finally swinging the other way, maybe we'll see the return of the *other* other-way-swingers, good ol' lesbians. Sincere, romantic, soulful, other-oriented -- all the traits that had up until recently been purged from the culture.
Maybe they'll write new lesbian songs like "Damn, I Wish I Was Your Lover," maybe they'll write sincere romantic ballads for everyone, like "Come To My Window" by Melissa Etheridge (1993, right after coming out as a Sapphian), which was featured in that compilation video of '90s teens entering each other's rooms through the window. ^_^
Forgot to mention the highly egocentric and self-regarding line from the Jill Sobule song, "She was just like kissing me!" Talk about self-aggrandizing -- making yourself a high standard to match -- and self-satisfying -- the other girl is like the singer, so she's hardly relying on anyone else anyway.
ReplyDeleteSuch an airheaded song, and delivered in such a Lisa Simpson know-it-all superior-ass way. It sucks so bad.
Lilith Fair, the origin of sex-segregating live music festivals, was spawned in 1997, ran again in '98, and again in '99. Not an early '90s thing.
ReplyDeleteThere were still traditional music festivals in the late '90s -- Woodstock '99, the HFStival, the KROQ Weenie Roast, Lollapalooza (although '97 was the final year of its original '90s touring run), Warped Tour, and on and on.
But Lilith Fair was about the performers being women, or women-fronted bands. It was branded after the Jewish mythological female figure, supposedly Adam's first wife who was banished from the Garden of Eden for not obeying him. Very defiant toward men as a whole, already sex-segregating the performers, and so de facto sex-segregating the audience.
From a prehistoric website that is still miraculously standing, here are some contempo pictures and reporting, showing the audience to be majority female, possibly 70% or so.
https://dropd.com/issue/70/LilithFair/
That was not *at all* what the audience of a concert looked like at the time. At outdoor day-long festivals like the HFStival, you might get close to 30 or 40% female, with the majority being "guys who dig music".
If it was a show for a hard-sounding band where there would be a mosh pit, probably 90% male.
Ditto if it was male autist music -- I remember two guy friends inviting me to see one of their favorite indie / experimental / geek performers, Jad Fair (from Half Japanese, but doing a solo show). Mid-'90s, at the Black Cat in DC IIRC, and I don't remember there being any girls, probably some, just hardly any.
There was no concert or festival that was majority female in the audience, let alone heavily lop-sided toward female. Lilith Fair was the first, and it could not have pulled off the segregation of the sexes at music festivals before the late '90s, as the social mood shifted toward strife instead of harmony.
In the typical festival of the '90s, which was majority male in the audience, there was no hostility toward women, overt or implicit policing of women's behavior, or anything like that. But if you were a dude at Lilith Fair in the late '90s, you would've come under a cloud of suspicion -- as a typical man, even as a typical sensitive guy trying to score with chicks by going to Lilith Fair, or as whatever else. You're male, you're at Lilith Fair = you're under a spotlight, and under probation. Never know who could be a date rapist.
So this sex-segregation of music festival audiences was entirely new. Although the norm outside of Lilith Fair was heavily male audience, it wasn't due to segregation -- just due to varying interest levels in music, standing around in a crowd, maybe engaging in some moshing or crowdsurfing, tolerating loud noises all night, and so on.
ReplyDeleteAt Lilith Fair, the heavily lop-sided sex ratio was by design, for feminazi purposes. Not just, let's play sensitive-guy music on the stage -- then the audience would still be 70% male, just sensitive guys from the surrounding states, instead of 70% male and moshers, or 70% male autists. Lilith Fair was using ideological branding to steer the composition of the crowd away from majority male, and therefore was trying to split up or segregate the sexes of music festivals.
And far from its influence vanishing after its 1999 finale, this deliberate use of marketing, branding, choice of performers, etc. to steer the audience toward heavily female, in order to keep problematic or toxic masculinity out of the audience, became totally mainstream.
In fact, Lilith Fair didn't die out -- it became Coachella. The early 2000s days of Coachella were like that of any other music festival, and largely male of course. But by the 2010s, and remaining so up through the present, these outdoor summer music festivals are estimated to be about 60-70% female in the audience, depending on the year.
Just image search "coachella" and see for yourself. It's insanely female-dominated in the audience, although not in the performers, the only difference from Lilith Fair. Coachella decided that driving a wedge between men and women in society would be better accomplished by segregating the massive audience (numbering in the 100s of thousands), rather than the few dozen performers.
Also judging from the image search results, and the common description of Coachella as "the influencer Olympics," you can bet that about half of those males are gay, whether they're going as a gay group, as gay BFFs / gay eunuchs for fag hags, or as the only demo of male who are allowed into the media and entertainment sectors these days, where they're influencers.
So, the "straight guy who digs music" demo is more like just 20% of Coachella's audience, a total inversion from what it was at the turn of the millennium.
It may have more crass corporate branding, yuppie-oriented VIP packages, and no more occult Jewish mythological symbols -- but Coachella really is just Lilith Fair for the 21st century. It's not the next incarnation of the HFStival or Lollapalooza or Live Aid or Woodstock, which were majority male or balanced.
As the pendulum gradually swings back toward harmony, anti-male policing of the audience of music festivals will lighten up, guys will feel more welcome, girls won't be so paranoid, God willing the gay BFFs will find a place of their own, and the audience will be in more of an egalitarian superorganic mob mood -- not a hyper-competitive gladiatorial arena of influencer vs. influencer.
Perhaps that should be spelled out as well, for the young 'uns -- music festivals in the '90s were not an egocentric contest of one attendee vs. the rest. You jumped into the crowd, and suddenly you're no longer an individual. And nobody wore attention-whoring costumes, tried to mug for cameras, or out-do the other attendees in any way whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteIt was so fucking awesome, just milling around, going from one mob to another, all day and night long, just making sure to keep your initial friend group together. Total camaraderie, not turning it into a competition, which is what they're getting at by applying the term "Olympics" to Coachella. Insane.
Cons were not like they are now either, but that's for another time. I did actually attend a few cons in the mid-'90s -- a combined Star Wars / Star Trek one, probably '96 or '97, very low-key but with some of the biggest stars, where almost no one was dressed up in cosplay in the audience. And the Mystery Science Theater 3000 ConventioCon ExpoFest-A-Rama 2: Electric Boogaloo, in '96, where again the entire audience wore their normal clothes, not a cosplay contest.
The current sort of hyper-competitive me-against-all cons are from the 2000s onward, although maybe there were some like that in the late '90s that I missed. I only went to a few of them, but if they'd been so cosplay contest-oriented, you'd think a combined Star Wars / Star Trek one would've brought out the legions of Slave Leia babes and other fixtures of the scene these days.
Looks like that Jad Fair show was at the 9:30 Club, not Black Cat, and was with his new project Phono-Comb, not strictly a solo show. And it was '96. With a little help from the prehistoric internet...
ReplyDeletehttps://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/288666/the-swirlies/
Couldn't figure out the Star Wars / Star Trek con, unfortch, but somebody else remembers it as well, even adding that it was held at a humble Ramada Inn -- very unglam by 21st-century standards for a con that featured the guys who played Darth Vader and Chewbacca (whose autograph I got on a Star Wars poster!). Things were just so unpretentious and chill back then, not a cosplayer Olympics.
https://www.reddit.com/r/comiccon/comments/1gsg5e0/star_trek_star_wars_convention_in_the_spring_of/
More on the audiences at Lilith Fair. Some pictures of the opening show in Washington state, 1997, and a VH1 special reporting on the Camden NJ show of the same year, with crowd shots and performer interviews.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/lilith-fair-1997.html?sortBy=relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBhUjdHv7-I
Had to laugh when the reporter, chosen for her looks, ends up getting mogged by a performer -- mega-babe Susanna Hoffs -- without even trying. *sigh*...
Fiona Apple didn't look like such a super-hottie IRL as she did in the music videos -- from the thumbnail, I thought they were interviewing some cute teen attendee, but it was little miss "Criminal" herself. A sign of the unpretentiousness of the times, at any rate.
It's clear that the audience was very heavily female. But something else comes across on closer inspection -- the guys who are there, are not single guys or groups of guys. They're almost all the bf / husband of a female attendee, or the dad who had to drive his daughter (and / or her girl friends) to the venue.
That's another sign of the anti-sexual norm that music festivals came to enforce, and a complete reversal of the rest of the '90s music festivals. Like, if you were a guy who wanted to show up to Lilith Fair, you had to have a female there to personally vouch for you, and you had to be romantically attached already.
Otherwise you might be a horny single guy looking to flirt and chat up one of the many, many, MANY females in attendance. Jeez, you might even try to get your toxic masculine hands on a female crowdsurfer's body -- only one step away from date-raping her! Not that there were any crowdsurfers, judging from the pics -- far too tame of an energy level.
Also the average age is much older than the other festivals, hardly any teens, lots of 30 and 40-somethings, and the largely female crowd doesn't have the upper body strength to support crowdsurfers.
I was shocked to see even one example of a trust game -- toward the end of the VH1 report, there's a young babe sitting on a young guy's shoulders as he walks around the grounds. It's not clear that they're bf + gf either, could be good friends. They're the only two that look like they were plucked out of the HFStival or Lollapalooza or the other ones from the '90s. More risk-taking, but therefore also more trusting, more corporeal tension between good friends of the opposite sex, higher energy level, younger, dressed more in alt style, carefree. Awww... ^_^
By the time of Coachella going mainstream in the 2010s, the straight guy share of the audience had dropped to about 20%. But there are some pics of single guys or small groups of guys -- they just know to keep their distance from the largely female audience. Anti-sexuality was understood by that point.
ReplyDeleteA further 20% of the audience were gay, either a group of gays on a gaycation, or gay BFFs / gay eunuchs for fag-hag attendees. That also makes it clear what the norm is, regarding single guys thinking about flirting or chatting up or physically interacting with the largely female audience.
However, there aren't so many bfs / husbands / fathers of the female attendees. Mainly cuz girls by the 2010s stopped having regular sex or committing to steady relationships, so what guys in their life could they bring along, other than a gay eunuch?
While that looks like a major change compared to Lilith Fair, it's simply the logical end-point of the anti-sexual norm that Lilith Fair originated in the music festival phenomenon.
I will give some credit to Lilith Fair, though, for not being any kind of gladiatorial Olympics competition among the crowd members. No war of all against all arms race of costumes, fashion, dancing, behavior, or anything else that became a staple at the "influencer Olympics" AKA Coachella.
That may have started, however, in the rave scene of the same period -- late '90s and early 2000s. And raves were far more gay-friendly, featuring electric danceclub music rather than soulful acoustic ballads, and being younger rather than nearly-middle aged, and catering to a druggie crowd rather than a fairly sober one (no signs at Lilith Fair of otherwise ubiquitous pot usage from the '90s music festivals).
So, gradually Coachella merged Lilith Fair with raves, both from the late '90s anti-sexual, sex-segregating, hypercompetitive phase of the cycle.
Why incorporate raves into Lilith Fair? To bring along the gays -- a crucial part of the anti-sexual norm for the female attendees. Seeing a girl with a gay eunuch is more off-putting to a straight guy than seeing her with an adult familial chaperon like her dad. Not just any ol' cockblocker, but a creepy and off-putting one, who might also try to turn the tables and start hitting on *you*, with the anti-sexual fag-hags thinking, "Yeah, doesn't feel so great when you get unwanted sexual advances, does it, chud?" Such a crazy atmosphere, glad I stopped going to music festivals after the '90s.
There were unusual costumes and fashion and accessories among attendees at some of the standard '90s festivals -- mainly Lollapalooza, not so much the others. Just generic hippie / psychedelic symbols, not a hyper-competitive arms race where the costume construction took more and more man-hours every year, with them taking pictures and getting featured (or not) in the media. There was nothing like that -- just a bunch of people with a Cat in the Hat hat, or a mushroom pendant necklace, simple unpretentious stuff like that.
It was ravers from the late '90s onward who took costume-maxxing, well, to the max, and kicked off an arms race of complexity -- how many wristbands, of how many colors, how many chains, how wide of a pant leg, how many pacifier necklaces, etc. It really took off in a Fisherian runaway selection. *Not* unpretentious, *not* just trying to blend in with everyone else, *not* reining it in for the sake of social harmony.
To clearly see how far ravers were taking their costume arms race, compare them to their closest counterparts of the socially harmonious phase of the cycle -- synth-y / new wave-y danceclub kids from the '80s. A two-part compilation of IRL footage from Stratus, a synth / new wave / goth danceclub in San Diego, '86-'87:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3cDi9dgJ6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhZaOHFPGGI
And then, contempo photo of rave kids getting their costumes ready, from the late '90s:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/1gqcltj/90s_rave_fashion/
It's mainly the accessories that they used for their arms race. Their top is simple -- one layer -- and same with their pants (or sometimes a skirt), just one layer of fabric, not multiple pieces or layers.
But just try to count how many bracelets the dredlocks girl is wearing, on just one of her arms! I estimate 20 bracelets per arm, in multiple styles, multiple colors, multiple patterns, and multiple sizes.
Ditto for her necklaces, which are about 10 in number, but with a crazy amount of variety and complexity among them.
You can't see their pants too well, but those kids used to have multiple chain-like items around their waist (not just a single belt), or linked from their belt to their pants pockets. Would have had complex attention-getting shoes or boots, too.
Garish eyewear, sometimes used as a hair accessory (like the dredlocks girl wearing her steampunk goggles as a headband), multiple other hair accessories (girl on the right has barettes, headband / comb, and some kind of ribbon to boot), earrings, garish hats if the weather permitted (not shown in this photo, though), as well as handheld items carried around even on the dancefloor -- like the Elmo plushie that the guy is holding.
The new wavers from the '80s don't even have HALF that level of complexity and ornamentation! At most, a mousse-heavy hairdo (and most of them do *not* have an elaborate hairdo), a simple hat, a single basic necklace or bracelet, basic make-up, typical "going out dancing" shirt and pants / skirt, standard boots or shoes for dancing, and so on.
Again, that's at most -- the typical new waver was only doing a few of those things, some not at all. They look like they just walked in off the street after work or school, not like they just spent hours costume-maxxing for this special occasion. No arms race is evident, no sense of it being an Olympics arena, etc.
That was the '80s -- harmonious, not strife-riven. And to reiterate a crucial pervasive point about this cycle -- those raver kids, and the Coachella attendees, and the cosplayers at the cons, are gladiatorially competing against *their own friends* and scene members. It's not tribal warfare of jocks vs. nerds or goths vs. preps. This is a strictly within-tribe civil war, dressed up in the costume (as it were) of "just giving each other makeovers before having a fun night out together!"
The '80s harmonious vibe continued right through the early and mid-'90s -- see any scene from a house-music dance club from the early '90s, MTV's The Grind, a TV show or movie set in such a location, etc. No arms race in fashion accessories. No such thing at the music festivals either. It really did begin with ravers in the late '90s and early 2000s, and merged with the similar anti-sexual vibe of Lilith Fair to produce the influencer Olympics of modern Coachella.
Last comparison for now, goths vs. emo / scene kids. Goths were from the '80s and early-to-mid '90s, then replaced by emos and scene kids during the 2000s and 2010s and early 2020s. The bridge sub-culture was, again, the ravers of the late '90s / early 2000s. This is where all the alt girls and e-girls of the 2020s come from, not goths or new wavers.
ReplyDeleteFirst, contempo IRL photos of goths from the late '80s and early '90s:
https://www.reddit.com/r/80s/comments/1g5rsw1/goths_in_the_late_80s_and_early_90s/
Note the lack of complexity in the hair -- their hair is big, but it's not complex. There are no smaller elements that join up into a larger unit, which join up into larger and larger units. No accessories, various sections of hair, various colors or color patterns in the hair, etc.
They may have a necklace or two, may have some bracelets or 5, up to 5 chain-like things around the waist, maybe a pair of earrings, but never all of these things at once. Often enough, a single hoop per ear and a single plain necklace (minimal complexity in the chain or pendant elements). Not encrusted in ornamentation.
Clothing is likewise simple -- at most, two layers on top (shirt / blouse and a jacket, no more complex than an everyday outfit), perhaps leggings under a skirt or just pants on bottom, no crazy colors or color combos within each item of clothing.
Make-up is a little on the heavy side, but it's not like juggalos from the late '90s and 21st century. Not complex or elaborate either, involving multiple elements nesting up into more complex patterns a la tropical primitive face-paint (more popular among the Burning Man crowd of the 21st C).
Fairly unpretentious -- and that was *the maximum* of complexity for its time.
Now have a look at scene kids from the 2000s (geriatric Millenials feel even older when they see scene kids needing an explanation on the internet, hehe):
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/scene/comments/1bvjxkr/im_sorry_but_i_grew_up_when_scene_was_first/
Shit-tons of complexity in the hair. Could be hair accessories like flowers, ribbons, bows, headbands, etc. But even the hair itself has clearly defined sections that nest up into a complex whole, rather than a single unruly mane from the '80s. Now introducing multiple colors, sometimes in a high-contrast pattern like alternating bands, and maybe a similar thing like a racoon tail clipped on for good measure.
A fair amount of necklaces or bracelets, though not as obligatory as they were on the ravers.
Leggings, perhaps with a pattern or color combo of their own, now become more obligatory, worn under a skirt or shorts.
And although the top is usually a single piece of fabric like a t-shirt, it has garish colors in complex nested patterns or graphics, unlike the solid black color block of the former goth uniform. The skirt / pants may also have multiple colors and patterns.
Not so much ornamentation in the belt / waist area, possibly due to all the ornamentation going on in the t-shirt department, whereas ravers (who wore multiple belt pieces) tended to have simple shirts.
This is the Hot Topic look of the 2000s and 2010s, whose '90s counterparts -- the Spencers Gifts shoppers -- did not wear so much complexity or ornamentation.
Going back to that very early YouTube account, here's yet another iconic video of hers, where she and her friend were dressed up for "Scene day" during school spirit week (which they begin mocking):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LyPiDmb-40
It's very much a late '90s raver look, with children's toys employed as fashion accessories (necklace pendants, adorning a bandana on the head, etc.), as well as a plushie being carried around in the hands. And tons of necklaces, bracelets, multiple layers of tops, all in various colors and patterns, and so on.
But aside from the testimony to Scene kid styles, note also the frenemy / gladiator social dynamic, where the two of them start competing over who has the most scene outfit, and competing over who self-harms the most (cutting was a hyper-competitive arms race thing as well -- who can make the most cuts, in the most conspicuous area, heal the best, and so on).
Also notice the spontaneous yuri-baiting -- "...wanna make out...?" followed by thinking "ewww, no way" and chuckling to themselves about it. Obviously not lesbians, not capable of falling in love with another girl -- just baiting a straight male audience about two chicks making out in front of them.
So many signals of the increasing levels of discord in the culture, compared to the peak of social harmony in the first half of the '90s. All in one random middle schooler's YouTube account.
Men's media, another brief outline for what should / may become a separate post. Take another look at this 1959 magazine cover, shown in the Wiki entry on "catfight" -- the main yuri trope of the '50s and '60s.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Real_Men_magazine_August_1959.jpg
It's not just a piece of yuri media -- it's in a magazine called "Real Men". Yep, nothing more really manly than fantasizing about transporting your mind into a hot chick's body so you can get close to, maybe even go toe to toe with another hot chick, in a highly sex-segregated environment where you otherwise can't just go right up to a girl and get that physically involved.
There's no Wiki entry on "Real Men Magazine", so it must have been one of zillions of such magazines in its genre.
In fact, it reminds me of the "lad mags" of the second half of the '90s and early 2000s, like Maxim and FHM and Stuff and so on. Not the yuri per se, just the fact that there was a flourishing genre of media aimed at men, branded for its masculine appeal, and serving as a mass-mediated "boys-only clubhouse -- no girls allowed".
Those lad mags did not exist in the first half of the '90s, when the most you could find like that was the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue -- not even a regular magazine, just that one issue. And all it was was eye candy, not Masculinity (TM) across various domains of lifestyle and culture.
Playboy was a product of the '50s as well -- '53, for that matter, not even the post-Brown v. Board of Education, or post-rock & roll part of the '50s. And at the outset it was more than just a purveyor of eye candy -- very much like a lad mag or masculine lifestyle magazine. It was about living the life of a playboy, which is why they had all those articles in it, aside from the centerfold photos.
Playboy by the '80s and early '90s was no longer a "sophisticated man's lifestyle" magazine -- it was just a nudie mag. It always did have the nudie pics, but before it also aimed to be a broader man's media outlet. It's not that "they dropped the pretense" by the '80s -- it's that that whole genre of media had gone out the window by that time, along with Real Men magazine I'm sure.
The segregation of the sexes was rapidly mixing up, so that by the early '90s there was no need for magazines relying on there being a cold or hot war between the sexes.
Only when the social mood swung back toward strife, during the late '90s, did these Masculinity (TM) media start to flood the market all over again. Not just magazines, but movies as well -- Fight Club from 1999. And then the whole online media that evolved into the man-o-sphere during the 2000s, first in blogs, and then forums, and then social media of various sorts during the 2010s.
By now, that's played out. On both sides -- the increasingly rabid feminazi crap, as well as the increasingly rabid man-o-sphere crap. Yes, even the more innocuous ones like Art of Manliness, where it's mainly teaching guys how to shave with an old-school razor. It's over for all of that stuff.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Cuz the peak of social chaos has already been reached, circa 2020, and now the pendulum is swinging back toward harmony. Right now is analogous to the late '70s, as the pendulum was just swinging away from the peak of chaos in the early '70s.
But it'll keep moving in the harmonious direction, the sexes won't be so segregated, and they won't be so hostile toward each other. So the need for a man's-only space is going to evaporate, whether online or in their own home (a man-child's man cave in the 2000s and 2010s, or dad's den in the '50s and '60s).
Dads in the '80s and early '90s did not have a dudes-only sanctuary room in the home, not IRL and not in TV or movie portrayals. Everyone got along too well with each other for there to be such hostile segregation even within the nuclear household.
Dad, or the man of the house, retreating to a man cave or gamer battle station or gooner dungeon, did not happen until the 21st century -- perhaps as early as the late '90s.
For that matter, there was no women's-only sanctuary rooms in the home during the '80s and early '90s. That would only emerge with the trend toward the woman of the house taking over the master bathroom as an in-home salon / spa / sanctuary. When exactly, IDK, but those Herbal Essences commercials with the woman orgasming from treating herself to a salon-level shampoo-ing in her own home, began in the late '90s, not early '90s.
Before then, shampoo-ing your hair was just a quotidian hygiene & grooming thing, maybe involved some time and effort -- but it was not a retreat from society into her own private salon-spa sanctuary. It was simply making herself presentable and exciting to other people, whose respect and validation she wanted. An orgasm from Herbal Essences shampoo was not something she shared with the public, but a private indulgence in her domestic sanctuary.
Very sex-segregated -- like a one-woman harem, who only needed to find her gay eunuch for sexless companionship. Enter Will & Grace, Sex & the City, and other pioneering parasocial gay BFFs from the late '90s, before finding them for real in the 2000s and especially the woketard 2010s.
For comparison, the early '90s portrayed "spa treatment at home" as the man of the house, or maybe her even her paramour du jour, giving her a massage. Not just one of those after-work quickies -- a few karate chops across the shoulder blades, and that's that.
ReplyDeleteOh hell no, he's going to break out a bottle of oil, lavish her skin all over with it, really work some pressure into those sore aching muscles, and by the time he's done with her, she won't be able to move at all.
Similar to a vignette from a love affair in Star Trek: The Next Generation between Troi and Devinoni Ral in the 1989 episode "The Price".
Women stopped fantasizing about a handsome man giving them a next-level massage in the privacy of the home, and began buying body butters to apply to themselves, by themselves. Nothing romantic about that -- but romance is a two-way social bond, and when the mood is toward conflict and antagonism, anything romantic is going to bite the dust.
One of my fondest pair of memories from the very early '90s is hanging out at my best friend's house, and giving massages to his foxy, bubbly, baddie babysitter (who drove us around in her IROC-Z), as well as his mom one time, too, lol.
I asked / offered to give a shoulder massage to his babysitter, and she happily indulged me. While we were all watching WWF Summer Slam or something like that, not the most romantic setting, but it was a pay-per-view event in the evening, so I guess it still counted as a date! ^_^
She was in her late teens, I was only 10 or 11, no way it could've gone anywhere serious. And therefore, safe and secure, while still practicing the moves on the girls. I always loved when hot older girls used to encourage us like that -- not uncommon at all, in the good ol' days, anyway. Can't imagine it happening now.
The babysitter must've told my friend's mom about that, giggling about what a good masseuse I was for a young boy or something to that effect -- cuz at some random point after that, his mom got home from work, threw her belongings on the table or counter, and told me, "Agnostic, I hear you're good at giving massages -- let's go, my shoulders are killing me, it's been a long day," etc.
She led me back into one of the bedrooms, plopped face-down onto the bed, and told me to climb onto her lower back and start massaging her shoulders and back... and that there was nothing wrong with it, we knew each other, "I'm your friend's mom" or something like that, like "don't think this is weird"...
And she really liked it! She was pretty tense, I must've been highly motivated, and really worked those knots out. She was very pretty, too, although I didn't have an ongoing crush on her or anything like that, since she was so familiar to me -- I practically lived at their house during the summer, just calling back home each night to ask to stay over for one more night.
They were my second family, back when social harmony was at its peak and every home was a potential second home to everyone else, you just had to ask -- and somtimes, they'd invite you *before* you could ask!
Sigh... all these memories that Millennials and Zoomers never got to experience, since by the time they were 10, the cute older babes were no longer interested in getting massages or physical therapy from skilled male hands, but from their own hands, slathering body butter on themselves while alone in their bathroom-converted-into-a-spa. Sad.
I love hearing about trips to the onsen in Glorious Nippon, no matter who is involved. It's a testament to their higher level of social cohesion, that they go to outdoor spas, and in groups -- not convert their private bathroom into a spa-at-home.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese *do* enjoy a good soak in the tub, after a shower first. But the highest goal they have is soaking in an onsen with a group of people they're close to.
That used to be the rule in America -- the jacuzzi / hot tub craze of the late '70s through the early '90s, during the most recent harmonious phase of the 50-year cycle. It was usually outdoors, although sometimes indoors. But the goal was there being a group of people soaking in the same tub, enjoying each other's company. The jacuzzi was not a "spa for one".
The cope was that jacuzzis were too flashy, too '80s, too swinger's-club, too... whatever. But really, the backlash against jacuzzis was that they were too social, when the new norm was to be in conflict with everyone else -- therefore, relaxation required solitude instead of company.
That's what killed off the jacuzzi, the social mood pendulum swinging away from harmony and toward strife.
But now that it's started to swing back toward harmony, who knows? Jacuzzis could become popular all over again. ^_^
Final brief image, a private one-person whirlpool bathtub, by the Jacuzzi company, from 1969 -- identical to the "one-person spa at home" concept of the late '90s through the 2010s and early 2020s. The plants, flowers, landscaping, etc. -- all it's missing is an assortment of candles (or is that what's in some of those jars at the far end of the tub?).
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HISTORIC_picture_of_whirlpool_bath.jpg
By the '80s, Jacuzzi would become focused instead on outdoor, or sometimes indoor, hot tubs for a social setting like having friends over.
But then, 1969 was right near the peak of social chaos, so joining a crowd for a soak was less appealing than it would be during the harmonious phase of the cycle that followed.
A further look into the Herbal Essences commercials as a bridge between the two phases of the cycle. For those who forgot, or don't remember every detail, or never saw them in the first place, here's a short compilation, and you can search YouTube for "Herbal Essences commercials" to see more examples.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jac476BdeCQ
Key points from this transition stage:
- Masturbation is better than sex.
- You may very well have a bf / husband, but sex with him would be worse than a shampoo-aided masturbatory orgasm.
- The bf / husband will be aware of the masturbatory orgasm -- how could he not? -- and will be humiliated and put in his place by it, with an exasperated or defeated look on his face. Sometimes with her voiceover narration emphasizing that point -- "I never knew satisfaction like this could be possible!" or whatever.
- Masturbation is usually in a private sanctuary kind of space, although there are some examples from the UK only where they're set in a tropical rainforest, and one American example that takes place in a corporate office.
- Although a man could be the one applying the shampoo and participating in the sensual act, generally no men are present. One exception -- the corporate office one -- shows three dudes in hairdresser uniforms lathering up a woman's hair as she sits in a salon chair. In another one, a woman fantasizes about three male hairdressers lathering her hair up, but this is just her fantasy while she's in a library -- not the actual act itself, which will be in her shower all alone.
And for a perfect contrast, the same brand and same product portrayed in the same medium, but from 1976 and '77:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k-ruiRPkuI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o1u894vmyE
The ones from the late '70s do not hit on the theme of "masturbation is better than sex," they don't show a man being adversarially condescendingly or glibly and dismissively being put in his place by the superior marital aid, in fact there's no hint of her relationship status cuz it's irrelevant to a hygiene product, and they're both set in a public open space like a tropical rainforest with a poor or river and a waterfall.
They're more about RETVRN-ing to nature, being all-natural, natural things improving your health and beauty and youth, etc. Returning to innocence, to Edenic bliss, nothing sexual or masturbatory implied one way or the other.
At first glance, the hyper-sexualized nature of these commercials makes them seem contrary to the direction the society and culture would be heading during the 21st century, culminating in the anti-sexual antagonism of the #MeToo era.
ReplyDeleteBut they were an early transition stage, and contain all the key points that would be intensified over the rest of the discordant phase of the 50-year cycle. The self as superior to others, battle of the sexes, humiliating men and specifically in the sexual domain of life, retreating to private sex-segregated sanctuaries instead of having fun in public mixed-sex spaces.
The only difference is the hyper-sexual tone, and many naive comments on the YouTube clips say things like, "Wow, you could never get away with this today!"
However, this hyper-sexual tone is merely a trick, manipulation, and bait-and-switch about the reversal of the social mood that is already under way, and where things are leading toward.
Nobody wants to swallow the bitter pill of re-segregating the sexes, hostile battle of the sexes, individuals competing against instead of supporting each other, turning intimate social-emotional bonds into a zero-sum contest of one-upsmanship and ritual humiliation, etc.
Therefore, there must be a heavy sugar coating to the bitter pill, to keep it from instantly getting rejected and spit out. Once the sugar coating wears off, it's too late, and the bitter pill spreads its poison throughout the body from inside.
Why is it hyper-sexual, instead of some other intense positive emotion? In order to draw attention to which domain of society / culture is undergoing a massive change. In this case, the birds and the bees, the dating and mating domain, romantic or sexual relationships between guys and gals.
"Hey! SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX!!! Now that we got your attention..." That doesn't work when the follow-up is not sexual, the bait-and-switch is too obvious. It only works when it focuses the audience's mind on what domain of society they're about to comment on, which must also be sexual.
So the hyper-sexual tone is like a great big loud announcement or siren blaring, like it demands your attention, as though you're going to hear an emergency weather alert, only of a sexual nature. Then the substance of the alert can be introduced -- re-segregation of the sexes is coming up, so is belittling men (and in the sex-reversed examples like lad mags, dehumanizing women), and social relationships are going to transform into zero-sum competitions. But at least we're giving you a heavy dose of sugar at the outset of this transition, to make it go down easier -- silver lining!
The fact that the Herbal Essences commercials, yuri examples from TV / movies / Girls Gone Wild videos, and the rest of that bridge stage are going to lead toward #MeToo and Female Dating Strategy femcel man-haters (and their male counterparts in the man-o-sphere), was entirely predictable at the time, if only we could ignore the heavy dose of sexualized sugar slathered onto the whole project in the early stage.
OK, so there must be a mirror-image of this pattern during the other phase-transition in the cycle -- when the social mood is changing from discordant to harmonious. The last time this transition happened was the second half of the '70s and early '80s, before it entered a seemingly stable state for most of the '80s and first half of the '90s (only seemingly stable, since cycles involve recurring reversals).
ReplyDeleteWhat was that transition like, and what examples embodied it? It would have to relate to sex, romance, etc. And it would have to have a hyper-sexual tone, to act as an impossible-to-ignore warning siren that was announcing a massive shift in the dating-and-mating climate.
Eureka!, I thought -- the raunchy sex comedies of the late '70s and early '80s!
For those who don't remember, or never watched them to begin with. These are The Kentucky Fried Movie ('77), Animal House ('78), Porky's ('81), Stripes ('81), in some ways Fast Times at Ridgemont High ('82), and the final late example of Revenge of the Nerds ('84). There may be minor examples throughout that period, but those are the iconic ones.
The Slumber Party Massacre ('82) blended this genre with the slasher horror genre, showing how popular both genres were at the time -- why not fuse them together?! Crucially, though, the slasher is *not* from either side of the mixed-sex group of horny youngsters, but a grown-up serial killer who intrudes on what would otherwise have been a standard raunchy sex comedy narrative.
What distinguishes these sex comedies from those that would follow during most of the '80s and early '90s, like this list of "sex romp / boob comedies"?
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls000546489/
Those from the mid-'80s onward are more lighthearted, uninhibited, more of a romp. They start from an assumption that the sexes are desegregated, there's no battle between the sexes, guys and girls like each other, want to be with each other, will enjoy giving and taking with each other, no crippling fear of rejection, no vindictiveness, and so on.
Only on top of that foundation can they build a carefree sex romp narrative, which would not have been possible during the height of second wave feminism in the early '70s, which would have not been carefree and would have problematized the concept somehow.
The ones I listed above, mainly from '77 to '82, have one foot in each of the phases, and act as a bridge or transition, to ease the audience from one phase into a whole new different phase.
ReplyDeleteThe key aspect of the earlier phase, the discordant one, was segregation of the sexes, usually in a spatial way, like separate housing or locker rooms or whatever else. To introduce the new phase of harmonious relations, these sex-segregating spatial barriers will be pierced or torn down or traveled across in some way.
These examples also erode the notion of a private sanctuary, portraying such spaces as de facto open public spaces -- due to voyeurism, or even outright invasion, from the outside into the sanctuary.
And far from portraying such barrier-eroding behavior as problematic, criminal, morally bad, rape-y, degrading, etc., they portray it as a good-natured, fun-loving, practical joke / prank war. There's nothing mean-spirited or belittling about it -- "Smile! You're on Candid Camera!" Oh you, tee hee, very funny, very funny, you got me there, touche...
Yes, even an unannounced and obviously un-consented-upon panty raid to invade an all-girls space like a sorority house, for the sole purpose of stealing some panties from their dresser drawers, and running out before their prizes get stolen back, is treated like a sexualized game of "capture the flag" among friends or peers. That's from Revenge of the Nerds.
The raiders are not mean-spirited, and the targets -- while objecting, chasing after them to get their prizes back, and even giving them a light slap -- do not react as though something criminal happened, not a violation of their rights. Something to be upset about, of course -- no one likes being on the receiving end of a practical joke, or losing a game of capture the flag. But not a fundamentally big deal.
In fact, the panty raid was only carried out in response to an earlier prank that the jock / sorority kids had pulled during the nerds' party (releasing a bunch of pigs throughout the house). So the targets of the panty raid had no basis to retaliate or escalate -- just the give-and-take of a practical joke / prank war.
From "sex-segregated spaces as necessary sanctuaries" to "just accept that these spaces are open, public, and vulnerable to interactions of various kinds through their barriers, and adapt to it or even enjoy it". Quite the reversal of norms.
Turning to the other examples, The Kentucky Fried Movie has a sex scene with a news broadcast running on the TV set in the background. However, somehow this TV set is a two-way mirror, and the anchorman as well as the various male crew members become aware of the sex scene unfolding in what was thought to be the privacy of their own home, they get distracted and draw momentary attention to their unusual behavior from the sex-having audience members, but then it's over and the couple thinks nothing further of it.
ReplyDeleteSo the people in the TV are watching our every move, including the most intimate interaction a man and woman could have -- what's the big deal? Maybe it's not desirable, but that's just the cost that goes along with the benefit of having sex. So someone might see -- is that going to stop us from getting it on?
This movie also has a brief but memorable scene of standing-up sex in the shower, a subversion of the trope of "shower / bathtub as sex-segregated sanctuary".
Animal House has a voyeur scene where the peeper is witnessing a pillow fight among sorority sisters in their underwear, in the supposedly private sanctuary of their sorority house.
Note that this also has one foot in the earlier phase's trope about yuri-baiting and erotic catfights, where no man is participating. However, the trope is subverted in two ways, to herald the changing of the social mood.
First, the pillow fight is clearly shown as playful and giggly, not an antagonistic catfight with serious blows, deadly weapons, attempts to choke or strangle, etc. Dialing down the level of competitiveness.
And second, the peeper decides against this somewhat '50s and '60s-coded spectacle, and moves his ladder over to peep on a single woman in her underwear as she undresses. There's still no man present, but there's no yuri-baiting or catfight angle to it -- no eroticized combat, just a hot babe with little on. It's saying it's better to fantasize about a single woman who you want to possess, rather than about being one of many girls in an eroticized battle.
Porky's has an iconic and lengthy "boys peeping on the girls' shower room" scene. This would seem to be an invitation to yuri-baiting, if you were coming from a '50s or '60s or early '70s assumption. But the girls are not kissing each other, touching each other's bodies, helping each other lather up their hair with shampoo, etc. So the guys are not fantasizing about being one of the girls in a yuri interaction.
ReplyDeleteAnd after their peeping is discovered by the girls, they actually try to initiate a little boy-girl interaction, with one peeper sticking his tongue through the peephole -- only to have it covered with soap by one of the girls. He sticks his dick through afterward, right as the bull-dyke gym coach walks in, and she violently grabs it in order to apprehend the criminal, although he manages to get free.
Crucially, the girls themselves do not act like it was a crime, only the out-of-touch old fuddy-duddy coach does. Some of the girls scamper off when the boys are discovered, but they're more embarrassed rather than feeling criminally victimized.
And a half-dozen of the other girls remain, intrigued, smiling / grinning, finding it funny, exactly like the "practical joke / prank war" tone of Revenge of the Nerds. So they try to dish a little bit of their own good-natured, fun-loving practical jokes back to the boys, like the one who puts soap onto the guy's tongue when he sticks it into the opening in the wall. It's reciprocal, egalitarian, and good-natured, not a mean-spirited asymmetric humiliation.
Stripes has a brief voyeur scene where an army officer is using a spyglass to, well, spy on the women's showers at the mixed-sex army base. As with the others, this sets up a yuri-bait, but it doesn't happen -- just gals showering in what they thought was a sanctuary, but not interacting physically with each other.
The real subversion of the '50s / '60s yuri-baiting eroticized catfight trope is the mud wrestling scene. A straightforward yuri catfight would show an all-girl mud-wrestling match, where they're competing against each other, and the straight male audience (within the movie, and in the movie's own audience) would imagine their male mind in one of the hot-chick bodies in order to break his way into the sex-segregated space of a women's-only wrestling ring.
But that's not what happens at all -- the announcer invites / dares someone in the audience to step on up and wrestle against the girls in the mud. John Candy's character decides to step up to the plate, to mix metaphors. Suddenly, it's not girls fighting each other, but a group of girls fighting a guy. He goes from voyeuristic audience member, to active participant -- and we in the movie's audience now have a male character through whom we can vicariously experience a "touching hot babes" event.
Oh nyo, pwease don't pile onto me, you 3, 4, 5 hot young fit babes... anything but THAT... ^_^
Eventually he comes out on top, despite being out-womaned, and has managed to grab their bikini tops off of them as a capture the flag / panty raid prize.
There is a slight battle of the sexes tone, in that a group of girls are fighting a guy, but it's in a sports context where it's all in good fun, not a street fight or assassination attempt or anything serious like that. They get a few hits in, but he winds up with their bikini tops -- everybody's a winner, nobody gets seriously humiliated, it's a wild-and-crazy event but not a true battle.
The uncensored music video for "Girls on Film" by Duran Duran ('81) fits into this transition pattern as well. It begins with two girls engaging in an eroticized pillow fight inside a sports ring, seemingly setting a tone of yuri-baiting and catfighting, as they pour champaign onto each other's bodies afterward.
ReplyDeleteBut most of the other matches are between one man and one woman, and are semi-competitive like the mud wrestling scene in Stripes. In this video, though, the women win over the men, more of a femme fatale / erotic thriller trope.
And as we saw before, femme fatales belong to harmonious phases of the cycle, like the '30s and '40s, or the neo-noir '80s and '90s. The link is women taking the initiative, knowing what they want and going to get it, etc., during harmonious times, which is not allowed in the sex-segregated discordant phase.
There is a mud wrestling scene at the end, with two girls facing each other and no man present. Seemingly another yuri-baiting catfight to bookend the video with. But it's not really a wrestling match, they just kind of roll around in the mud together, one of them opens the other's swimsuit to pour a handful of mud down her lower back, etc. It's really more of a practical joke / prank war vibe, maybe like if both were sitting atop a dunk tank and taking aim at each other, or throwing pies in each other's faces. Bordering on slapstick comedy rather than combat sports.
Lastly, there's a voyeur scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, but he's fantasizing about being with that one girl -- not about being part of an all-girl catfight or slumber party. She's in an already public space, an outdoor pool, while he's watching voyeuristically from inside the house. In his fantasy, they approach each other outside next to the pool, she takes off her bikini top, and they start making out. This gives it an exhibitionistic tone, where the ideal fantasy takes place in open public view, rather than behind closed doors or even supposedly-closed doors.
It's not as tone-shifting as the other examples, but it does have some hints of the pattern, and it was iconic in its own right as a teen movie, so that's why I include it with the others.
As mentioned, Slumber Party Massacre is just the iconic examples of this genre fused with the iconic examples of the slasher horror genre. Nothing further to say about it.
If the American culture-making industries were healthy and active, we would be witnessing another phase-transition pattern in the next 5-to-10 years, similar to that of the late '70s and early '80s, to clear away the dead weight of the previous phase, while making the shift gradual and seamless, with one foot in the past and one foot pointing toward the future.
ReplyDeleteNo more yuri-baiting, no more eroticized conflict (except maybe femme fatales -- the sincere examples of women initiating and knowing what they want and getting it, not hammed-up revenge-porn torture-porn examples from the sex-segregated climate). No more conflict in general between the sexes, or segregation of spaces, or preferring sanctuaries to public spaces. No more gay BFFs or gay eunuchs guarding those harems either.
But, as of 2020 or so, not only have we reached the peak of social chaos, we've reached peak American Empire -- or rather, transitioned from imperial stagnation (going back to the post-WWII era) to imperial collapse. And plunged into the heritage-hating iconoclasm hangover in the cultural reflex of political, military, and economic collapse.
So there will be no such widespread, society-wide, all-American phenomenon like the raunchy sex comedies of the late '70s and early '80s to announce and ease the transition into a desegregation of the sexes and an opening-up of their spaces and a return to carefree / practical-joking relations with each other.
Maybe within the ever-narrowing sub-sub-sub-mediums that remain after imperial collapse has begun, but nothing culture-wide this time around, sadly.
Still, something to keep your eyes peeled for -- and they will have to be laser-focused to pick up on the goings-on at the micro-micro-micro scale, since our shared culture has been shattered and can never be made whole again.
Final addendum, I forgot to mention Kim Cattrall's sex scene in Porky's. Boy did her roles change from Porky's and Mannequin to Sex and the City...
ReplyDeleteShe's a female gym coach, and has a crush on a male gym coach. She treats the laundry room next to the gym as her private sanctuary, preferring all the smells from the unwashed clothes. Yes, she's a smellfag.
There are several ways in which the private sanctuary trope is undone in this scene.
First, she invites the male gym coach into the room, so it's no longer her own personal sanctuary.
Then she jumps on him, they make out, and have sex right there rather than taking it somewhere else. So it's no longer a place for her individual fantasies and laundry-smelling, but a place for having sex with another person.
Lastly, she moans, howls, and screams so loudly during sex that everyone in the neighboring gymnasium hear the event unfolding -- the other gym coaches, the students, everyone. So much for the activity taking place in this secluded space with the door closed being a secret from the public.
She's not portrayed as an exhibitionist, purposefully trying to make those in the gym realize what's happening. But it is an act of public sex, as far as hearing goes (if not seeing). In not being sleazy and provocative, her howling and screaming fits into the tone of "don't worry if other people become aware of you having sex, either before during or after, it's nothing to be ashamed of, and you'll deal with it and recover somehow".
Not to say, deliberately cause others to become aware of it -- just, if they do become aware, it's no big deal, and view it as the cost that comes with the benefit of getting to make howl-inducing love with a hot young horned-up babe like Kim Cattrall.
Going against the whole individual vs. others paranoia and suspiciousness and antagonism. So other people know, so what? Sometimes you will become aware of others, so what? We all interact with each other, have effects on each other's daily lives, and most of those should be treated as no big deal, so we can all get along with each other, have a nice laugh, and move on without turning everything into a cause for conflict or resentment.
Final-final quick addendum: several of these movies are explicitly set in the '50s and '60s, to emphasize having one foot in that phase, while serving as a contempory-made bridge into the future, and eroding or subverting some of the key tropes of the earlier phase as part of that transition.
ReplyDeletePorky's, Animal House, and a lesser example Screwballs ('83), are set in '54, '62, and '65.
Watched Screwballs last night, since I never did watch that one in the old days when the genre was required viewing, long after they'd left theaters. Right through the '90s, you had to see at least some of them.
ReplyDeleteI only fast-forwarded through a small amount of the 1:19 runtime, surprised that the boob-free plot was not just tedious filler. Standard raunchy comedy narrative and characters, but decent acting for an also-ran in a B-movie genre. Did not overstay its welcome.
As with the others of the '77 - '82 transition, this one portrays attempts to see scantily clad or nude female bodies as "boys being boys". And even when their attempts escalate to peeping, bra-stealing, etc., it's portrayed as a practical joke or prank war among equals. Girls have ways of getting back at the boys -- slapping him, snapping their towels at him, shoving him in the pool / dunking him underwater, and so on.
Neither side is treated as perpetrating crimes, violating consent, or anything retarded and hyper-suspicious / low-trust like that. It's just an ongoing prank war or practical joke war, not overt hostilities, and never appealing to any kind of higher authority to punish the other side.
Girls are shown as having a mischievous pranking side as well -- even the stuck-up prude virgin decides on the spot to mislead the new boy into the girls' locker room, where he is promptly chased out with all sorts of articles thrown after him. A little inversion of the "invasion of the girls' locker room" trope -- a girl deliberately misleading a boy into it, and the invader being naive and unaware.
But again, it's just a practical joke she's played on him -- not mean-spirited, not a crime, not requiring a vindictive crusade in retaliation.
She does land multiple boys in detention for the practical jokes she's played on them, which gives them the idea to get back at her by finding some way to see her topless. Their various schemes and antics are the main plot, which does culminate in a successful shirt removal during a public event. And once more, it's just the finale of their counter-prank in an ongoing prank war, akin to pantsing someone -- another practice that woketards undoubtedly decried during the 2010s, but used to be common.
Same with mooning -- used to be common, during the 2010s would've been equated with criminal indecent exposure, as though it were some creepy raincoat flasher from 1970s Noo Yawk. Get a grip. Mooning is just a prank, like giving the middle finger -- actually less offensive than the finger.
The side plots also involve attempts to see or get it on with the babes. And tellingly, they do not involve schemes, antics, cheat codes, or pranks in order to get close to the girl to begin with, or to go further physically with her once they're together.
ReplyDeleteThere's a very clear delineation between mishievous yet wholesome practicle jokes / pranks, and sincere if horny mating dances / standard courtship behavior, which are not adversarial or even mock-adversarial / adversarial-lite. They're purely cooperative, eager, enthusiastic, let's combine our two sides to make a great thing we can both share and enjoy. Totally different from prank and counter-prank in order to see boobs.
Often enough, it's the girl who initiates the interaction -- like the Sadie Hawkins dances of the '40s, during the previous harmonious phase of the cycle. In the case of one couple, the girl gives the initial flirtatious signal, invites him to the drive-in, gives him the first kiss while they're in the van at the movie, and is the first to directly proposition him for sex in the back of the van.
When girls feel comfortable initiating, knowing what they want and going for it, there's no need for a cheat code, scheme, trick, aphrodisiac, etc. -- just by waiting, one of them will approach you out of the blue and encourage you further or directly tell you to keep going further.
Girls were not more horny in the harmonious phase -- they were plenty horny in the 2010s. They were merely more inclined to go after what they wanted, rather than withhold it due to viewing satisfaction as a negative-sum game instead of a positive sum cooperative mutual enjoyment kind of experience. By the late '90s and lasting through the early 2020s, satisfying a man meant the man won, and therefore you the woman lost, cuz every interaction is a negative-sum contest.
When people view interactions as mutualist, positive-sum games, they have no reason to hold back on participating and cooperating -- unless they get a clear sign of betrayal or defection, but there's no reason to assume that at the outset. The guy's cute, he seems nice, his friends are there encouraging him to go for the date, how could he be a bad partner? Just go for it -- and so she did!
This is a major source of confusion about the puritanical behavior of both sexes from the late '90s through the early 2020s -- they aren't necessarily withdrawing from mixed-sex experiences due to conservative religious moralizing, fear of God, etc.
They just view interactions, whether same-sex or mixed-sex, as negative-sum games. If the other side feels good afterward, that must mean that I somehow lost, goddamnit! So, withhold, blue-ball, deny / delay, neg / take cooperators down a peg, humiliate those who enjoy your company, and so on and so forth. That's the only way to gain the upper hand, have the last word, and win the contest.
That also explains the emergence of "cheat code" mating strategies, a la the PUA scene in the 2000s and 2010s, or its female counterpart during the same time period and mainly in the same mediums.
ReplyDeleteIf both sides view interactions as positive-sum, then there's no reason to cheat or trick or manipulate or scheme -- both sides will eagerly and sincerely cooperate toward their common, mutually satisfying goal, which neither could accomplish on their own.
But when both sides switch to viewing interactions as negative-sum contests, then you must assume everyone is going to be adversarial, reluctant, withholding, ready to take you down a peg, and just obstructing and obstinate in general. Only when there are so many difficult and pervasive obstacles to navigate, do cheating / tricking / manipulating strategies start to sound appealing.
Tricks and schemes are "doing an end-run" around some obstacle -- if there are no obstacles, there's nothing to do an end-run around, and no need to trick or scheme your way close to a person or into their bed.
This applies in general to all interactions, not just boy-girl dating + mating interactions. I only highlight the general pattern with this one case cuz it's very easy to see and everyone already knows about it.
And so here we see another key facet of this transition stage, where the movies brightly contrast two separate strategies for "seeing boobies" -- the tricking and scheming way, and the sincere and cooperative way.
ReplyDeleteThey don't moralize against the tricking way -- it's an innocuous ongoing war of practical jokes, pranking and counter-pranking. But it is still on the adversarial side, however much of a diet / lite flavor.
And yet they still portray that as inferior to getting the real thing, the real way. Why waste all that time plotting, hatching schemes, evading detection, being on alert for counter-pranks, and so on? You can just honestly and sincere approach someone you like, whether it's the boy or the girl initiating. If both of you want it, both sides agree to it, they take it as far as they want, and voila, mutual satisfaction without scheming or adversarial strategies of any kind.
It could be so simple! If only you'd treat interactions as positive-sum games, rather than negative-sum contests...
Adversarial-lite strategies would've been the only hope to see boobs in the previous, socially discordant, sex-segregated phase of the cycle. But good news, folks -- the times they are a-changin'! People are now eager to cooperate and get along with each other, to mix it up with the opposite sex (positively, not negatively), and are therefore open to sincere pursuits of shared interests, like two horny people having sex together rather than masturbating.
Sidebar: Screwballs casts masturbation in a negative light, not glorifying it as in the late '90s - early 2020s phase, by showing the stuck-up prude virgin to fantasize about her over-sized teddy bear, which she humps herself against in bed at night. Masturbatory, invovling an inanimate "marital aid" -- hardly different from a guy with a blow-up doll. Bad stuff, and pathetic. Why doesn't she just find someone she likes and do the real thing?
As the transition between phases becomes complete, there's no more need to portray the pranking / scheming strategy for seeing boobs or getting laid. We've already crossed that bridge, both sexes (and people in general) are open to positive-sum behavior, so scheming and tricking no longer offers any advantage.
That's where the John Hughes part of the '80s comes in, and his spiritual successors into the first half of the '90s. Don't hold back, both sides are willing to cooperate, just go for it.
Worst case scenario is that one side doesn't want it to begin with, in which case there's plenty more fish in the sea, or maybe you can keep at the earnest and sincere attempts to win them over -- not by hatching clever cheat-code tricks, but by honestly signaling how much you're willing to sacrifice in order to win them over, like blasting "In Your Eyes" from a boom box held over your head, while her bedroom window is open, and you could be making a total fool out of yourself.
Finally, a few detailed notes on Screwballs in particular, aside from how it fits into the broader pattern. First, there are no cliques at war with each other in the school, and not even a dominant bully figure / mean-girl queen bee figure. Clique wars really belonged to the previous discordant phase of the cycle -- Jets vs. Sharks, the Pink Ladies (Grease being set in the '50s), and so on.
ReplyDeleteCooperativeness eroded some of the clique-ishness of groups, not just the conflict between individuals. The members of the male social circle come from various stock character backgrounds -- the new kid, the nerd, the fat guy, the prep, and the other prep / ladies' man. Much like the erosion of clique barriers in The Breakfast Club.
Being set in the '60s, it could've used some clique vs. clique tribalism, like Animal House or Revenge of the Nerds (which is set in the present, however). But Screwballs is really just an early '80s social landscape, with very superficial '60s LARP-ing -- only the clothing, cars, and soundtrack.
There is a semi-yuri example, whereby one guy schemes his way into the girls'-only sewing class, by locking the normal teacher away in a closet and dressing in drag (with a five o' clock shadow) as the substitute teacher. He gets the girls to take off their tops so he can measure their chests -- to make sure their sewing projects are properly fitted, of course. He does get to touch a few boobs, but in the context of the rest of the movie, this is portrayed as a pointless scheme when he could be getting the real thing without having to dress up like a woman.
This vignette also involves the peeping trope, meant to erode the notion that sex-segregated spaces are actually impervious to public view by the opposite sex. The rest of the guy gang is peeping in on his antics, so they get to see some boobs as well.
One of the foxy teachers overhears the preppy student bragging to his friends about how she wants him, so after class she decides to call him on it and seduce him -- with his eager cooperation, naturally. They slink away to a supposedly secluded storage room for science materials, but just as in Porky's, their private romp becomes publicly known when they accidentally start a chemical explosion among the materials in storage, and both come bolting out half-dressed as everyone else looks on.
The new kid and the horny waitress get it on in the back of a van at the drive-in, but it gets interrupted -- reinforcing the message of "sex is always public, don't worry about spectators, but only interruptors". The girl is topless, with her skirt caught in the door, and does the trope from Kentucky Fried Movie of repeatedly pressing her big ol' titties against the glass pane of the window, in full public view, however unintentionally. Again, the message is that going for what you want could make you an unintentional exhibitionist, but that's not the end of the world, and not a sufficient reason to stop pursuing mutually satisfying interactions.
Although there are shots of scantily clad bods every other minute throughout the movie, the most nudie-packed scene is actually the most wholesome and humorous, and not involving the pranking / counter-pranking strategies. It's a game of strip bowling at the local bowling alley, played in a girls vs. boys way.
ReplyDeleteIt being one sex vs. the other gives it somewhat of an adversarial tone, but they really dial it down, no tricks or cheats are used, neither side tries to humiliate the other, both sides are happy and eager to take part, it's as good-natured and warm-and-fuzzy as a battle between the sexes could be.
And it emphasizes that both sides are equals -- it's not just scheming boys finding ways to trick the girls out of their clothing, the boys have to strip as well. And stripping is not embarrassing, it's just getting used to each other's sexuality and corporeality. It doesn't lead to them doing it in an orgy right there in the bowling alley, or even taking it back home either.
It's more like a skinny-dipping excursion.
Being held in a bowling alley adds to the "public sexuality" theme as well, not a game of strip poker within the privacy of a house party.
The nerd accidentally gets a bowling ball stuck on his dick -- not by trying to use it as a sex toy, but after one of the girls loses control of her swing and it flies backward onto his exposed member. Nothing seems to work to pry it loose, so four of the girls decide to call his name in a sultry voice, kiss him, touch him, etc., until he climaxes and sends the ball flying off.
Talk about a positive, rather than negative way to solve that problem! Before, one of the girls humorously lights a welding torch, but obviously they don't actually go there. That would be too negative, humiliating, and bordering on torture-porn -- only from the late '90s through early 2020s would she have tried out that solution.
Overall, that scene shows how some lighthearted mutualism can make everything better for everyone, even in what would otherwise seem to be tailor-made as an adversarial battle of the sexes, and preventing the social climate from staying mired in an ongoing feud of pranking and counter-pranking.
It could be so simple! ^_^
Saw Zapped! tonight, and it's not so much of a raunchy sex comedy -- the plot doesn't involve attempts to see boobs or get laid by a crew of horny guys. It was filmed in May '81, but after the success of Porky's in the same year, it had a bunch of gratuitous boob scenes added in. But they're really not part of the central plot or side plots. And you can tell.
ReplyDeleteBut it is still part of the transition stage (came out in '82), teen comedy with gratuitous boob scenes here and there, so it still should be seen as part of that whole '77 - '82 transition period.
Not much voyeurism, exhibitionism (accidental or intentional), or invasion of sex-segregated spaces, cuz the sexual themes are not really central to the main plot. Namely, through an accidental science experiment, the protag gains telekinetic powers. How will he use them, and for whose benefit? Will anyone else discover his secret? Will he give them up? And so on.
Just about all of the boob shots involve him using his powers to embarrass someone who is bothering him, or part of a mixed-sex group whose males are trying to bully him. Not a bitter revenge fantasy thing, a la Carrie, more of a practical joke or prank to send them scurrying away instead of them continuing to annoy random strangers who did nothing wrong.
During the finale at the prom, he uses his powers to cause a whirlwind that strips off all sorts of clothing articles, not just from the girls but from the boys too. Not a pervy thing or a rape-y thing or an attempt to see what he otherwise could not have seen.
It's just adding some mischievous rambunctious chaotic fun to the dance, as everyone runs around the gymnasium semi-nude. None of them take it as a violation, a crime, "um, ackshually you need positive consent before causing a whirlwind in the gym that strips off everyone's clothes!" STFU, it's just good-natured, humorous public semi-nudity.
When the social mood is harmonious rather than adversarial, this public prank is felt like a public good -- someone getting the ball rolling, providing a spark to set the whole night on fire, etc. They welcome it, and are grateful for how much topsy-turvy carnivalesque excitement it's added to the dance.
He could've used his powers to embarrass and shoo away his botherers, or whipped up a telekinetic storm to shake up the prom dance, *without* it being sexual in nature. That's how you can tell these were mostly tacked on or re-written after Porky's. Telekinesis doesn't have anything inherently to do with sex or nudity or whatever.
So if you're curious about cleavage kino, this one is not so important to the genre. However, it does fit into the transition stage's overall logic of shifting out of the old discordant phase and into the new harmonious phase.
ReplyDeleteIt *does* hit on the theme of using cheat codes, tricks, manipulations, schemes, plots, and in this case magical powers, to do an end-run around social obstacles. Some chick won't show her cans? Howzabout I stare intently and cause her shirt and bra to fly open? That'll show the girls for not showing the girls!
That would be portrayed as a "boys will be boys" kind of prank or practical joke, not a crime. And yet, still as a strategy that is better suited to the bygone phase of the cycle, where the sexes are segregated, the social mood is adversarial, and therefore where there are all sorts of obstacles to do an end-run around.
The transition out of that phase involves demonstrating how those tricking strategies have nothing to offer in the new harmonious phase, where people are not socially adversarial anymore -- not only are there no more obstacles everywhere, like landmines, people will eagerly offer to cooperate with you toward a mutually satisfying interaction.
Who needs telekinetic powers for bra removal, when girls are suddenly only too happy to remove their bra -- for the right guy who they like and sense some chemistry with? If one girl doesn't like you and won't show you her body, don't worry, another girl will -- just move on to someone who you do click with, and there'll be plenty for you to see, without having to hatch a plot or execute a scheme or stare intently to move objects at a distance.
In fact, if you just want to see their boobs, girls are willing to do so even without liking you or wanting to have sex with you -- they're up for a game of strip bowling, after all. If both sides cooperate and have a fun-loving mutualist mindset, you'll see more boobs than you can focus on -- without tricks, schemes, or magical powers.
Sadly, in Zapped! he never gives up these powers altogether. He does decide to refrain from using them for material gain, which he's already done by rigging a roulette table at a frat to favor his friend's bets. But he doesn't give them up entirely, and continues using them with his new girlfriend right to the end, whisking her off into the night sky after the prom is over.
ReplyDeleteGiving up the powers would be the ultimate fulfillment of the moral code of this transition stage -- just be yourself, and be cooperative and pro-social, and someone out there will like you and want to be close to you.
If she really likes you for who you are, and the experiences you've shared, and the social-emotional bond you've formed, she won't care if you ditch your schemes, tricks, and magical powers. It's not the sex-segregated '50s anymore (not in 1982, anyway) -- you don't need to launch a panty raid to see or feel panties.
The best way for the narrative of Zapped! to go would be him using his powers to initially attract and win over his crush, who is at first shocked and fascinated by what's happening. Then she becomes aware of his powers, in a Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane way. They begin bonding, sharing experiences, telling each other secrets, making out, all that bond-building stuff -- and fall in love with each other.
Then, ultimately, he decides to surrender his powers, either upon his own reflection or at her earnest urging, or his best friend's urging. Like the crush / gf says, "I like you for who you are, and what we've become, you don't need to razzle-dazzle me anymore. That was just what caught my attention at first, but we've become so much closer since then!"
He responds cautiously with, "So, you don't mind if your boyfriend no longer has awesome magical powers?"
And she gives him a playful slap on the shoulder, like, "No, silly -- you didn't need magical powers to make me fall in love with you. That happened all on its own, as we started spending more time together. That magic trick was just your foot getting in the door..."
So he decides to abandon the entire strategy of schemes, tricks, cheat codes, and magical powers.
Wielding magical powers is too tied to the socially discordant phase, where everyone's trying to one-up each other or gain the upper hand or get the last word in. Or withhold, deny / delay, etc., throwing up obstacles everywhere. Magical powers are your ace in the hole for this negative-sum contest.
If the climate is positive-sum, cooperative, harmonious, trusting, etc. -- wielding magical powers risks upsetting that balance, like you're trying to drag the atmosphere back to adversarial, antagonistic, one-upping, and so on.
So you have to either not pursue such powers, or voluntarily surrender such powers if you happen to get them. Otherwise, you're being hyper-competitive, the self being more important than others, winning at all costs even if it ruins everything, etc.
Two other, better '80s classics are also in the fantasy, comedy, romance genres, involving protags who get special powers, use them for awesome purposes for awhile, but then ultimately give them up, as they form bonds with people who like them for who they are -- with or without magical powers.
ReplyDeleteNamely, Teen Wolf and Weird Science (both '85). I won't review their plots, since you've probably seen them a million times like I have -- and if not, there's your "exercise for the reader" homework assignment. This is probably why they're better regarded than Zapped!
Scotty eventually stops changing into The Wolf, and chooses his childhood friend Boof as his new love interest, who had been urging him to give up the Wolf persona and Just Be Himself instead. The side plot involves his basketball team, which went from last-place to favorites after The Wolf began dominating the court. However, he also chooses to stop being The Wolf on the court, yet their team wins anyway.
That's very similar to Ladybugs from '92, which I reviewed earlier. Someone from a different gender or even animal species, invading a team where they don't belong (boy on a girl's team, wolf on a human team), using their different nature to crush not just the rival team but sideline everyone on his own team too, then deciding against using this secret power for the final championship, giving the team a pep talk about how we don't need the secret power to win, rallying them to win honestly and fairly, without the schemes, tricks, or magical powers.
Weird Science is the same way. At first, Gary and Wyatt rely on their computer-programmed-made-flesh girlfriend, Lisa, to satisfy them sexually. And she has magical powers of her own that she can wield on their behalf, so it's like the two of them having a magic genie at their command. Ultimately, though, they win over two of the pretty popular girls at school on their own merits, after Lisa providing some encouragement and practice / training relationship with a girl. Having achieved their main goal, they no longer need her magical powers or encouragement or practice-relationship status, and they decide to give up their magic sex genie.
The transition stage of '77 - '82 presented two alternative strategies -- schemes vs. cooperation -- and showed both in a positive light, just portraying the scheming strategy as outmoded and having no advantage over the cooperative strategy.
By the mid-'80s, the transition was over. We're in full-on John Hughes territory now. It's not enough to portray both strategies as offering something great, with one slightly better than the other, and not moralizing too much. They really have to hammer home that you have to surrender your magical powers if you ever get them.
And it does take on a more moralistic tone -- if you kept the powers and relied on them, you're not merely settling into a sub-optimal solution. You're doing the wrong thing, being a bad person / friend / boyfriend, and should feel bad for disappointing those who care about you, as well as those who are your potential rivals who now feel unfairly beaten due to your magical powers, threatening to open up the anti-social rift all over again, when the climate had become so harmonious.
Not to launch onto a whole different tangent, but it seems like the late '90s shift in the social mood was reflected in the "capeshit" type of superhero movies, where getting magical powers are suddenly an unalloyed good, and you would never give them up. They allow you to gain the upper hand, get the last witty rejoinder in, and so on.
ReplyDeleteTechnically these seem to have started in the early 2000s, not late '90s, but I never watched superhero movies much, so I may be missing a very obvious example from the late '90s, which I'll investigate later.
But the original X-Men and Spiderman movies came out in 2000 and 2002. Suddenly having magical powers became glorified, making you special, something you should never give up -- rather than problematized as they were in Teen Wolf, Weird Science, and even Superman II ('80), where Superman gives up his powers in order to be with his love interest Lois Lane -- although that is doubly problematized when he still has all these violent threats to beat back as an ordinary person, so he decides to regain his magical powers in order to beat back the threats, at the expense of settling down with Lois Lane.
I'll have to start watching the Lois & Clark TV series from the good part of the '90s, to see how they dealt with these themes about keeping or giving up powers.
But in any case, Superman in Superman II didn't use his powers to woo Lois Lane, and he only regains them to use on the enemies of humanity -- not to woo or impress or satisfy Lois.
Last brief note, I'll probably move on next to Secret Admirer, from '85 like Teen Wolf and Weird Science. Not about magical powers, but skills you don't possess yourself, yet pass yourself off as possessing -- like a silver-tongued writing ability.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Cyrano de Bergerac -- written during the Gay Nineties, BTW (1897), another famously harmonious phase of the cycle. There was also a modern update of that story in '87, Roxanne (starring Steve Martin).
Speaking of which! Lt. Barclay had to give up his new magical superhuman powers in a 1991 episode of Star Trek: TNG ("The Nth Degree"). He acts in the Cyrano de Bergerac play in this episode, to reinforce the theme of Just Being Yourself.
Boy, they really hammered against the idea of ubermensch fantasies during the harmonious phase of the cycle, didn't they? Not until the late '90s through the early 2020s did such LARPs become appealing and popular again.
It was OVER for you if you were a power-tripper between 1975 and 1994!
ReplyDeleteOh my God, '60s America had dakimakuras! Knee deep in Midcentury practical joke novelties, which I remember from thumbing through the comic books that belonged to my cousin, whenever I visited my aunt's house as a kid. Those ads always fascinated me more than the comic panels themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm totally starting a whole new post on this topic, but it ties directly into the scheming / tricking / cheating strategy vs. the Just Be Yourself and cooperate strategy.
Some I already knew of -- X-ray specs -- but I didn't remember them selling Racquel Welch pillows! xD
Needless to say, there was no counterpart of this during the late '70s through the first half of the '90s -- no Farrah Fawcett or Cindy Crawford pillow. That would've been the most pathetic thing in the world, and the remnants of that Midcentury perv culture -- like Bud Bundy keeping a blow-up doll under his bed -- were roundly and thoroughly mocked at the time.
ReplyDeleteNot until American Pie (1999) and RealDolls and fleshlights and all that crap would masturbatory aids for lonely guys become normalized and even fashionable again. There's a reason why they couldn't make Lars and the Real Girl in 1987 but only in 2007.
Instead, there were posters -- like the iconic Farrah Fawcett red swimsuit one, anything involving Cindy Crawford, Budweiser bikini babes, and so on. Very much a return to the WWII era of pin-up / cheesecake pictures.
This is less dehumanizing toward the woman -- you're not trying to recreate her full 3D bodily likeness, just a 2D representation more like a photographic memory of having seen her without touching and rolling around with her in bed.
And it's less dehumanizing toward the man owning them -- the babe pillow is a more desperate cry for help, a more realistic simulation instead of the real thing, cuz you think it's hopeless to go after the real thing cuz of all the anti-social obstacles in the way. The 2D pin-up picture is just to occasionally take a glance at, not to simulate a girlfriend or literal / figurative fuck-doll.
Which can you openly display in your workplace or residence -- cheesecake pin-up picture, or babe pillow? There's a reason for that difference. One is more anti-social, signaling the retreat from social interactions and looking down on the real thing / elevating a passive simulation.
The other isn't very pro-social, it's just neutral -- not signaling a retreat from social interactions, compatible with reaching out to connect and bond with others and even having a steady gf or wife. Wives didn't care that their husbands had a cheesecake pin-up picture in the garage or workplace, as long as it didn't interfere with their primary attention going to her.
We remember the '50s and most of the '60s -- before 1968 -- as being pleasant and utopian, due to the material state of American society then. It would never get more wealthy, abundant, and egalitarian. But on the social-cultural scale, there were pervasive anti-social tendencies during that Postwar time, that were largely absent during the Great Depression and WWII.
It was still the New Deal / Great Compression, so they didn't have neoliberal competitiveness superimposed on top of it all, therefore it wasn't as anti-social as the next discordant phase of the late '90s - early 2020s, but still... far more warped and discordant than we remember that period being, based on material facets alone.
We only remember the social mood blowing up into chaos when the shit really hit the fan in the late '60s and early '70s -- and in fact, most people don't remember the early '70s being part of that explosion, compartmentalizing the explosion to '67-'69 only.
That's why we need to regularly re-visit history with clear open eyes, to see what it was really like. Sometimes our current wisdom is mostly correct but off in the degree, but other times it's completely ass-backwards.
Babes vs. badasses on nose art of airplanes, an example of the 50-year cycle in civil breakdown.
ReplyDeleteLooking further into the pin-up phenomenon, I confirmed that it *was* mainly a product of the harmonious phase of the cycle, peaking during the first half of the '40s, and exemplified by a picture in Life magazine of Rita Hayworth in '41, followed by the iconic Betty Grable photo in '43.
Betty Page during the '50s represented the waning of this phenomenon during the discordant phase -- not as iconic in her time as Hayworth or Grable were in theirs, relying somewhat on mainstream exposure but also the more niche medium of men's magazines, similar to the niche lad mags of the late '90s and early 2000s. Not Life magazine, where Hayworth started on the inside pages and later in the '40s landed on the front cover several times.
Also, Page's role was less wholesome or all-American girl-next-door, and more explicitly fetishistic and pornographic -- sporting dominatrix costumes and engaging in sado-masochistic acts, mainly girl-girl / yuri depictions, and overtly sexualized rather than glamorized.
Well, after that quick confirmation, I was pointed to another example of WWII-era pin-up babes -- painted onto the noses of airplanes. I knew that, but what I didn't know was that the medium has a long history with cycles of what subjects are popular. See this overview from Wiki:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_art
Nose art was already a thriving medium during WWI, at the peak of social chaos. And yet, there's nary a babe to be seen -- it's wild stallions rearing, mules kicking, and other symbols of violent badass behavior.
The ferocious animal motif did exist during the WWII era, like shark's heads with teeth exposed, but the most distinctive and ubiquitous motif was the pin-up babe. Like Rita Hayworth in Life magazine, she's not pornographic, not depicted in any kind of sexual act (or even making out), there's no yuri baiting, no S&M theme, covering her breasts and nether regions while still exposing the skin of her curvaceous figure, glamorous hair and make-up (not to attract guys per se, but to set the tone of glamour rather than porn), posing sensually, and smiling invitingly.
It's a very cooperative kind of sensuality, meant to initiate an interaction, or to keep it going. Not adversarial like S&M / dominatrix, not vampy or whorish, not dehumanizing and only meant for oogling. Uplifting, inspiring even. Part of the team effort to keep everyone's cooperative spirit going -- much like a cheerleader on the sports field of ritualized combat.
Crucially, an image that can and *was* proudly displayed in public for both male and female spectators. Not that women were drawn to it as audience members, but they did see them. It was not an embarrassing or shameful thing, to be hidden inside a normal object, under the bed, buried in the closet, etc. Not confined to a seedy red light district like stripteases, burlesque shows, or brothels.
If it were dehumanizing or disrespectful or condescending toward women, women in the general public would not tolerate its presence in public, and it would have to be confined to some seedy hidden male-only space. But a glamorous depiction of a sexy young woman, with her shame covered, and looking with a welcoming smile as though she's cooperating eagerly in the interaction, not just a hired gun -- what is there to hide in shame about that? Hang those pictures up in the garage, slap them on the nose of an airplane, no big deal.
Already during the Korean War, babes vanished from the noses of planes -- Wiki says due to changing attitudes toward the representation of women.
Remember, this is the late '40s and early '50s, waaayyy before Betty Friedan's 1963 book The Feminine Mystique, let alone the bra-burners of the late '60s and early '70s. But circa 1950 *was* already in the discordant phase, so the sexes were re-segregating and becoming antagonistic rather than cooperative. And although Friedan's Second Wave feminist classic had yet to appear, Simone de Beauvoir's already had in 1949 (The Second Sex).
Even the staid part of the '60s, in the early part of the decade, I don't think June Cleaver would have tolerated Ward hanging up a pin-up girl poster in a public space like the garage. She would've interpreted it as an antagonistic challenge from him to her, an attempt to demean her. Rather than cooperatively waving it away as "boys will be boys", as long as it's just glamorized rather than pornographic, like housewives did during WWII.
Sidenote: the WWII era also saw kawaii motifs like the cat Figaro from Pinocchio, the opposite form of the animal motif compared to the violent beasts of WWI.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wing_Commander_Ian_%22Widge%22_Gleed,_leader_of_No._244_Wing,_in_his_Supermarine_Spitfire_Mk_VB_at_an_airfield_in_Tunisia,_April_1943._Days_later_he_was_shot_down_and_killed_by_Messerschmitt_Bf_109s_over_Cape_Bon._CM5005.jpg
Strife-riven eras produce ferocious motifs, harmonious eras produce cutesy motifs.
By the Vietnam era, during the peak of social chaos in the late '60s and early '70s, the ferocious badass motifs returned, in a perfect 50-year echo of the WWI motifs.
ReplyDelete' During the Vietnam War, Lockheed AC-130 gunships of the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Squadrons were often given names with accompanying nose art – for example, "Thor", "Azrael – Angel of Death", "Ghost Rider", "War Lord" and "The Arbitrator." The unofficial gunship badge of a flying skeleton with a Minigun was also applied to many aircraft until the end of the war and was later adopted officially. '
Those ferocious badass motifs didn't help them win the war, anymore than those of WWI did. Both periods of warfare were at the time and retrospectively perceived as pointless, unhinged bloodletting with no greater moral purpose, something to be forgotten or be ashamed of if remembered.
Possibly the social mood against which they unfolded made this difference -- when the warriors are coming to the battlefield with a mindset of antagonism and me-first / me-vs.-the-world, it will be more of a chaotic and unhinged jumble, rather than a well-oiled cooperative team effort where "may the best man win" is still the norm, not poor sportsmanship or no-holds-barred as is the norm during civic breakdown.
Babes on nose art returned by the Gulf War of the early '90s, and Wiki says that the standards against pin-up girls had already been de facto relaxed sometime before -- probably during the '80s, as society entered the harmonious phase of the cycle.
However, this was ended in the '90s -- and a couple years earlier than it did in the broader culture, strangely enough. In 1993, the military required depictions on nose art to be "gender netural", so bye-bye babes (unless you also felt like painting hunks and homos on the noses as well -- no thanks).
This feminazi attitude would not spread throughout the broader culture until the second half of the '90s, and yet here the military is, of all institutions, leading the feminist charge in 1993.
And babes have been banished ever since -- no way in hell you could have imagined them during the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, as the sexes re-segregated and men turned toward demeaning fetishistic pornography to be consumed in private shame, rather than glamorizing wholesome pin-up cuties to be displayed in public with pride. Let alone during the peak of social chaos during the #MeToo era!
ReplyDeleteThe social mood of both WWII and the Gulf War was near the peak of social harmony, and both wars were perceived at the time and retrospectively to be worth fighting rather than pointless, just rather than immoral or unjustified, quickly executed operations rather than protracted quagmires, and uniting rather than fragmenting the population, with uniformly positive media coverage.
Again, perhaps there was something to it -- warriors from a harmonious phase are bringing that mindset onto the battlefield, and making war as harmonious and limited and justified as war can possibly be.
And just as there could be no babes on nose art in the late 2010s and early 2020s, that era will go down in infamy for military quagmires, shame, lack of justification, pointless bloodletting, and so on -- our disastrous receiving of the coup de grace by the Taliban in Afghanistan, losing the Red Sea to the Houthis, Hezbollah and Iran and Hamas cucking our Israeli ally, Russia making mincemeat of our Ukrainian proxy, multiple failed coups in Venezuela alone, North Korea shutting Trump's mouth by proving it could shove a nuclear bomb right up his ass (comically enough, after his "fire and fury" bluster), and so on and so forth.
American warriors must be bringing that chaotic and antagonistic and one-upsmanship mindset onto the battlefield, or spreading it throughout their proxy's army by association. Public tolerance of military adventures has never been this low since Vietnam or WWI.
And that began in embryonic form by the late '90s, as the cycle entered its discordant phase. Years before 9/11 and the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, Clinton was ridiculed for cynically bombing random targets -- a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in '98, Yugoslavia in '99 -- as though to distract public attention from his Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Just before those bombings happened, the movie Wag the Dog came out which portrayed highly similar events, with a newly cynical tone toward military adventurism, which would only snowball during the 2000s and 2010s and early 2020s.
But now that the peak of social chaos has been reached, perhaps our participation in wars will become less chaotic, unjustified, embarrassing, losing, and perceived as pointless bloodletting. Not necessarily overnight -- the Trump admin, including Vance and Musk, are still dead set on pushing the "pointless failure" pedal to the Tesla-contracted metal in the short term.
I mean by the 2030s and early 2040s, the desperate me-first antagonism that only produces losing results and lasting shame, will be on the wane or gone. And maybe there will be another circumscribed battle like the early '90s Gulf War that doesn't inflame and fragment the population.
Only under those social conditions will babes be allowed to appear again on nose art. That's actually something that the Trump admin *could* deliver on easily right now, since it doesn't threaten anyone's interests, and would signal society's departure from the discordant phase of the cycle, and into the harmonious getting-along phase.
Come to think of it, cooperative and winning Russia has displayed both kawaii and tastefully sexy motifs on their artillery during their reclaiming of the Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteI've seen a zillion examples retweeted by the Russians With Attitudes twitter account, sometimes being done by commission -- "send me X dollars, and I'll paint your choice of motif onto this yuke-decimating bomb".
Pretty anime girls are a common choice, but so are cute cats, much like Figaro from WWII.
Not so much from the genre of ferocious, violent, badass, Nietzschean ubermensch, angel of death, school-shooter revenge fantasies. In fact, those motifs are favored by the internally antagonistic, low-trust, losing side -- Ukraine, with their cringe Nazi symbols and other dark / Satanic symbols.
Imagine getting decimated and annexed by an army of Hatsune Mikus and Pikachus -- harmonious societies enjoy cute and domesticated things, not ugly or ferocious things.
Cooperative well-behaved teams win wars, not unhinged ferocious school-shooter individuals.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Trump admin could allow or promote babes on nose art in the coming years, I don't know whether the execution could be relied upon. There has to be a massive change in social attitudes -- which *is* under way, but perhaps not enough right now -- in order to render a tastefully sexy babe in a public place like nose art.
ReplyDeleteI think if given free rein today, they'd probably render something too slutty or porn-brained, or fetishistic / niche like Betty Page being an S&M bad-girl. She really was the dark emo e-girl of her discordant phase of the cycle, and we're moving beyond that right now.
Something wholesome, normie-friendly, girl-approved or at least not scaring the hoes -- Sydney Sweeney?
To aid the model and artist in striking the right tone, maybe they could do an explicit recreation of a WWII-era nose art babe, or pin-up photo of that time. That would get the model into the right pose, with the right facial expression, and with the right costume / make-up / hair. And it would get the artist's rendering in the right stylistic direction.
Maybe a pilot trial, as it were, could be carried out in the coming years, and then free rein given once the social mood becomes more cooperative and less adversarial, and the sexes begin to de-segregate themselves and enjoy each other's company again.
It could work!
Sydney Sweeney would be a big natural choice for a separate reason of changing phases, namely we're entering the outgoing / rising-crime phase of the 60-year crime-and-cocooning cycle, which is separate from the 50-year civic harmony cycle.
ReplyDeleteRising-crime times are dominated by a boob-centric aesthetic, while falling-crime times are dominated by a butt-centric aesthetic. So many Midcentury PAWGs, it would blow your mind to see candid photos or movies from the '50s -- never would there be so many thicc / bootylicious bods until the next falling-crime period, from the '90s through the decade of the PAWG, the 2010s (one of the decade's few redeeming qualities).
But that era which began with "Baby Got Back", right as the crime rate peaked and started plummeting, is reversing, and going forward for the next 25-30 years, giant jugs are going to gradually take over the culture.
Sad to see for an assman like your humble cliff-dwelling sage, but everyone always adapts to changing climates, and I'm sure I'll be no different. Always an assman, but just starting to notice and somewhat appreciate boobs, while still being largely blind to them and curious more than horny for them.
Sydney Sweeney does have quite the buns, too, though, so she'd make a fitting bridge figure between the two phases.
Sydney Sweeney, a one-woman changing of the guard from the booty era to the boobie era. A one-woman unity ticket to appease both factions of voters, as partisan polarization begins to finally subside...
ReplyDeleteAlso a manic-phase birth (late '90s), carrying some Manic Pixie Dream Girl potential.
More extensive galleries of nose art, mainly from the WWII era. It wasn't just Figaro from Pinocchio -- there was Donald Duck, Dumbo, and even Thumper from Bambi. Many of the human figures are in a cartoon-y style as well.
ReplyDelete"Anime is just for kids" -- tell that to the victors of WWII! Or the victors of the take-back-Ukraine war.
Some of the female figures do have bare breasts, it seems, although they're rarely nude. And it doesn't seem porny, again more like glamour photography or semi-nude portraits from before the 20th C. They're less salacious or sultry than Modigliani nudes.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/best-wwii-nose-art/
https://www.messynessychic.com/2015/08/28/flying-girls-a-compendium-of-ww2-airplane-pin-ups/
Going further back before WWI to see if the civic mood matched the tone of warfare, the Gay Nineties -- i.e. the 1890s -- were one of the most peaceful decades in American history.
ReplyDeleteThe frontier wars out West had mostly wrapped up, and the bloodiest fighting there seems to have coincided with the Civil War and Reconstruction, as well as the couple decades leading up to it. So, the same breakdown in civic cohesion that led to the Civil War, and to its highly antagonistic Reconstruction epilogue / phase II, may have also led to a chaotic unhinged macho badass approach against the Indians out on the frontier.
By the 1890s, that had calmed down to a whisper, comparatively speaking. Very much like the whisper-level warfare of the 1990s, overall, and compared to the Cold War, WWII, Iraq / Afghanistan, and so on. That's a perfect 100-year echo, 2 full cycles apart.
The Civil War & Reconstruction was seen at the time, and since then, as a regrettable or pointless bloodletting, very chaotic, a brother war, something that ought to have been avoided, a lamentable hurdle to clear on the way toward industrialization, intercontinental railroads, etc., not a well-oiled machine leading a righteous crusade.
It seems like there, too, the broader social mood was brought onto the battlefield, and we got a WWI and Vietnam and Afghanistan kind of result.
Meme warfare was always a dumb fake explanation for how Trump skyrocketed into the White House in 2017. But just cuz it didn't cause Trump to win against all odds, it was correlated with that victory.
ReplyDeleteAnd what did those memes look like? Mainly cartoon frogs, shown in a humble or cutesy way. The frogs are not handsome or painstakingly drawn, but they're not ugly or deliberately crappy in execution. More like homely and homespun. Something that could appeal to children, as well as adults. Much like classic American cartoons or anime.
What was the libtard aesthetic that was correlated with their humiliating rug-pull loss? Cursed, deliberately ugly, off-putting, creepy, weird, grotesque, and unhinged (bug eyes and both rows of teeth showing, much like the gay-face and soy-face that they adopted for their IRL selfies).
Comparing this to the Russia-Ukraine War, the 2015-'16 MAGA memes were like the Russians', and the libtard memes were like the Ukrainians.
There *was* a strain of 2016 MAGA memes that were in the macho badass Nietzschean ubermensch wannabe LARP-er direction, like the Trump lion, the title and depiction of Trump as the God-Emperor, and later the Punisher skull with a Trump hairdo on top.
Those were more appropriate for the broader state of society -- unhinged, me-first / me-against-the-world, adversarial rather than cooperative, and so on. The Trump Punisher skull is a classic example of what a failed warrior in Afghanistan would put on his car, or a weapons contractor or some other war-loser from the 2010s.
Too obsessed with individual reputation as a badass, to cooperate effectively within an imperial-scale machine to win a war on the other side of the world.
The cooperative, spontaneous, organic nature of the 2016 MAGA movement meant their cadre was better equipped to win. And a side-effect of that mindset was waging meme warfare with cute domesticated animal cartoon figures doing wholesome activities.
Well by 2025, that's all flown out the window. Very few non-ironically frogpost anymore, and no new versions of "kawaii animal being wholesome" have taken their place.
ReplyDeleteNow it's timeline-to-timeline AI slop that is deliberately cursed, ugly, off-putting, weird or uncanny, with disturbing humans rather than cute animal subjects. Namely all this Vance AI slopaganda.
Aside from being as ugly and cursed on purpose as libtard memes from 2018, it has the medium all wrong -- it's too photorealistic (in reality, uncanny valley), not a hand-drawn cartoon or anime or illustration. AI sucks at the illustrated approach, and always veers hard into photorealistic territory. As I discussed at length before, it can't do coherent styles either -- even when you order it to make a cartoon, there are several glaring giveaways that it's also photorealist in style.
But by now, the lamewad meme "veterans" -- has-beens -- don't even bother aiming for the cartoon look anymore.
And it doesn't have that homespun and hand-drawn feel anymore -- cuz it's not, it's all coming from Silicon Valley AI programs. You didn't make that image, you just poked and prodded some tech-tard program until it delivered something that gave you the right dopamine hit.
Worse still, the AI slop is not generating images of cute animals -- but of a single person, Vance. This is akin to the cringe God-Emperor memes that focused on Trump himself, not the frogs and other critters in that same cartoon style. No one really cared that much about Trump, and WAY LESS care about Vance that way.
I don't know which right-wing moron billionaire is funding this slopaganda, but for the love of God, just deposit the check in their bank account with no visual meme production strings attached. Don't condition it on generating all this aesthetic pollution that spills all over the online ecosystem. Just tell them to use text for their propaganda, this slop is embarrassing and annoying and polluting -- and correlated with losers in a war!
Comments won't make it through the queue if you're trying to run your own blog inside my comments section (start your own blog), or if you're shilling a media outlet or paid writer of any sort (buy an ad).
ReplyDeleteThe conga line saw a spin-off, the Bunny Hop, which was invented in 1952 and popularized by a 1953 performance, leading to its semi-popularity during the '50s.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_hop_(dance)
It was set to big band music, but dialed down from the "Sing, Sing, Sing" era. And although the '53 broadcast performance did involve kicking toward the side, it lost this energetic similarity to the conga over time, and it became all about the forward chain / train motion with the hopping interspersed. Some of the re-recordings in the '50s were set to Latin / Caribbean music.
So this was the waning of Latin swing group dances, during the '50s -- dialing them down in intensity, slowing their tempo, and simplifying their motions so they didn't involve extending the limbs away from the body (making it more wallflower-friendly). The conga didn't die overnight, it just got watered down during the '50s, but even the bunny hop fell into disuse over time.
That is, until the swing revival of the late '70s through the mid-'90s. A 1993 episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air ("Fresh Prince After Dark") is set at the Playboy Mansion, and there's a long train of Playboy bunnies and others doing the bunny hop dance. That's where I remember this dance from, it was a very memorable episode.
While browsing through Married With Children clips, I came across this one from a 1996 episode ("Turning Japanese," featuring Pat Morita as an ojisan in a strip club), which features a bunny hop train with the patrons and strip-dancers at The Jiggly Room:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_Ni-57Eew
After that, examples of the bunny hop seem to vanish, along with its conga-line parent.
Between the conga revival, the bunny hop revival, and the freak-line invention, the early-to-mid '90s was fascinated with human chain dances. Time to lose your suspicions of strangers, put your hands on their hips or shoulders, let them put their hands on yours, and mill around the dance space with no particular direction! The absence of a prescribed direction of motion made it even more trust-based and uninhibited. ^_^
And just as the conga was watered down to the bunny hop, so was the freak-line / conga / bunny hop watered down into the train dance accompanying the hit rap-techno-dance song "C'mon N' Ride It (The Train)" by Quad City DJ's, already in 1996:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMZzQY7JTyc
Notice that none of the members of the line are touching each other, although they are in a single file moving in the same direction, and there being no particular direction, just wandering around. The cars of the train have already begun to detach themselves from their neighbors -- sad.
They do try to keep the energy level going, by doing a forward and backward pumping of the arms held at the sides, like the chugga-chugga motion of the rods of a train, alternating with a vertical fist-pumping to imitate the choo-choo whistle.
There is a place to do a side kick, but I don't see it used for that purpose in the video. The lyrics "C'mon ride the train" have an instrumental guitar riffing on all 4 beats of the measure, then there's a rest for both the lyrics and guitar on the following main 1-beat, then it resumes with the lyrics and guitar riffing for the 2-3-4 beats ("...and ride it").
On that rest beat, you're invited to fill it up with a kick to the side or something big like that, rather than using your legs to advance forward. You should be standing still in the forward direction, and using that beat to do something while stationary, like kicking off to the side. But again, no signs of the dancers actually making use of that in the video.
Still, it is more intense than the bunny hop -- but at least the bunny hop involved strangers holding onto each other's bodies, whereas this one requires them being distance from each other. Lame!
I'm sure there were some groups of people who, when this song came on at a party, naturally went for a conga-line kind of dance. But the intention was to break up the neighbors.
Just to fill in the details of how that side-kick would work, to tangent onto dancing and music per se, not just historical cycles, hehe...
ReplyDeleteThe tempo of the song is a little too fast to kick your leg to the side, retract it back under your body, and then use it to push off of to get your other foot moving forward again after that rest beat.
Let's say you're leading with your left foot, L-R-L-R. Just try doing a side kick on the second 1-beat, where the rest is. You're simply stepping or marching forward for the first 4 beats, then the side kick, then back to stepping forward for the 2-3-4 beats.
The only way to do a side kick on the 1-beat, and use that foot to push off of for the next step forward, and have that step land on the following 2-beat, is to do a kick-and-plant motion. I never took choreography, so IDK what the technical term is.
But instead of the sideways kick being an extension and a retraction, with your foot becoming planted back under your body, you extend the leg sideways and at the end of the extension, the foot lands and plants on the ground -- not a high kick, not a horizontal kick, but kicking low and toward the floor, so that the end of the kick is also a planting of the foot.
That allows you enough time to left your next foot up, while pushing off of the kicked-and-planted foot, and have it land on the following 2-beat, and the stepping forward movements resume.
Try it!
Not only does the side kick mix things up by extending a limb away from the body, and temporarily throwing you off-balance, when you push off that sideways-planted foot, your upper body will naturally veer off toward that side, so that it's almost over that planted foot at the height of the push-off. Then when you're coming back down onto the next foot, your upper body will veer back to the original line of advancement.
So it's not just that one leg moving to the side, but bringing your whole body along with it, since you don't have time to reposition it under your torso. An extra little twist of throwing you temporarily off-balance, and mixing up your body movement -- so it's not strictly stepping forward with nary a disturbance to your balance.
Neat! But again, doesn't look like anyone made use of the potential in the video, or probably IRL either.
Spy / secret agent culture rises with the adversarial phase of the 50-year civil cohesion cycle, while conspiracy / whistleblower culture rises with the harmonious phase of the cycle.
ReplyDeleteCan't do a survey of examples right now, just planting the flag in this part of newly discovered territory.
The logic is straightforward: during the adversarial phase, there's an arms race between individuals (and between groups), putting up obstacles and carrying out espionage or other counter-measures to do an end-run around those obstacles.
In cultural works, this selects for the theme of espionage and acting as a secret agent (one who doesn't dress in a standard uniform or open interactions with "I'm from XYZ Agency, here's my credentials", which would be a surrendering in the arms race). Espionage and counter-obstructionism is either outright glamorized, as in the James Bond series, or portrayed as difficult on the individual spies, but not calling into question the sprawling system of espionage and secret agent operations. With some exceptions, of course.
During the harmonious phase, this arms race is ended on both sides, in the interest of harmony among individuals (and among groups) who would otherwise be escalating for no greater purpose. Cut the dead-weight losses, and cooperate.
Openness, transparency, good faith, cooperation, reciprocity, mutually beneficial goals, etc. become core themes -- and any institutions that run contrary to those norms, become the new nemesis. The nemesis is *not* the fellow participants in an arms race (that's over), but the organizations trying to stamp out open transparent cooperation, and waging a rearguard crusade to reconquer the society into a culture of secrecy.
Thus, the focus becomes conspiracies, always viewed in a bad light, where the heroes are working against the conspiracy plotters. Usually framed as within a single society, not across societies. The point of ending the arms race is to make our own society more harmonious rather than fragmenting itself from the inside.
To briefly sketch the survey, spy fiction took off during the early 20th C and peaked around WWI, with the peak of social chaos, then fell into a relative lull during the late '20s and most of the '30s and early '40s (harmonious phase).
ReplyDeleteThe next explosion of glamorizing / grudgingly accepting espionage and secret agent ops was after WWII, as the cycle shifted back into the adversarial phase. Most notably with the James Bond novels of the 1950s, which then turned into blockbuster movies during the '60s and early '70s. The '60s and early '70s were the peak of this new secret agent phenomenon, with James Bond, The Pink Panther, Danger Man, Eurospy / spaghetti spy movies, Mission: Impossible, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., and even comedic parodies like Get Smart.
This was matched by an obsession with spy-like gadgets IRL, returning to the comic book ads. These were inspired by the James Bond gadgets -- pen-sized spy telescopes, "see-behind" glasses, X-ray specs, mini-cameras, and the like. They were mass manufactured, and had enough demand among the young male audience that they were heavily advertized in their medium of choice, the comic book.
After the peak of social chaos in the early '70s, this glamor melted away, and the conspiracy / whistleblower approach rapidly took over the genre. Not all of them of a political / military nature -- the medical industry could engage in conspiracies (Coma), the energy industry (The China Syndrome), even the non-militaristic parts of the government like the space exploration program (Capricorn One). Along with the overtly political / intel agency examples like Three Days of the Condor, The Parallax View, All the President's Men, and all those other iconic conspiracy / whistleblower movies from the mid-'70s onward.
During the '80s, anti-government conspiracies merged with the anti-anti-Vietnam War climate, to suggest there were legions of American POW's left behind in Vietnam, with our government knowing full well, and just letting them languish there -- perhaps going so far as to obstruct any willing Americans who wanted to go back and rescue them. That was the whole POW-MIA movement / culture of the '80s and early '90s, whose most notable movie rendition was Rambo II. But that was an IRL movement, with the iconic black flag with the downcast POW's head in white line art. They were ubiquitous, not only as flags flown alongside the American flag on any ol' flagpole, but as decals and bumper stickers for cars.
This conspiracy / whistleblower culture peaked in the early-to-mid '90s, with the JFK movie, and the X-Files TV series, not to mention talk radio shows like Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM, the Unsolved Mysteries TV series, and conspiracy discussion groups (whether meeting up IRL, issuing magazines, or communicating over the prehistoric internet, like the alt.conspiracy usenet newsgroup).
Without missing a beat, the late '90s saw a revival of the glamorized spy / secret agent genre, right as the cycle shifted back into the adversarial phase. Movies like Mission: Impossible (with many sequels), Harriet the Spy / Spy Kids / Secret Agent Cody Banks / Kim Possible for kids, the Austin Powers franchise as the comedic parody version, the Bourne franchise, the rebirth of the dormant James Bond franchise (beginning with 1995's GoldenEye), TV series like Alias and 24 and Homeland and The Americans and etc., video games like Metal Gear Solid and Syphon Filter and Splinter Cell and Deus Ex and etc., and the broad interest in hackers, concealed mini-cameras, lurking anonymously and diggig through archives and screenshotting like an online secret intel agent, and so on and so forth.
The phrase for online spies used to be that they're "cops" -- it's more like spies and secret agents working for an intel agency, either a literal arm of the government or an informal one for doxxing etc.
ReplyDeleteNow that the peak of social chaos has been reached, circa the early 2020s, all this glamorization of spies and secret agents is going to melt away, and the conspiracy / whistleblower culture will come back, as we shift into the harmonious phase of the cycle.
As I keep saying, American cultural production is dead since around 2020, as we enter imperial collapse. So there won't be thriving society-wide cultural works to exemplify this change in mood, a la Three Days of the Condor or X-Files. But in the fragmented remnants of our culture industries, spying will be shamed, and transparency praised, by making a nemesis out of conspiratorial organizations.
To briefly cap that survey off, there's a nice counterpart to the spy gadget obsession of the '50s / '60s (and later, the 2000s and 2010s), in the iconic kids movie The Goonies from 1985. Namely, the various gadgets invented by Data, who is portrayed as a nerd rather than a spy:
ReplyDeletehttps://goonies.fandom.com/wiki/Data/Inventions
In the '60s or 2010s, these would have all had an espionage, surveillance, intel purpose. But they're just self-defense (oil slick from the shoes to slow down pursuers), life-savers for a dangerous physical environment (chattering teeth at the end of a spring, to catch onto the wall and keep him from plummeting to the bottom of a pit), etc.
In fact, there *was* a spy-like gadget, a pair of binoculars, but this was cut from the final movie -- too spy-like.
Even the camera that his father uses (like father, like son) is not a miniature one to be hidden and take pictures surreptiously -- it springs out in front of his chest, and is used to take a candid photo of a group of people he's already friendly with, with their full awareness and participation. A total inversion of the spy gadget trope.
Good ol' wholesome harmonious '80s movies. ^_^
The spy theme played out domestically as well, not just internationally. Part of the scheming / tricking / cheat-coding strategy vs. the cooperating strategy discussed earlier, during the discordant vs. harmonious phases of the cycle.
ReplyDeleteThe years leading up to WWI saw the original Red Scare, using the force of the state to suppress anti-war, Communist, and other anti-Establishment types, or anyone thought to be pro- some foreign enemy of the US military. That was the peak of social chaos.
Then -- despite the Bolsheviks winning the Russian Revolution, the consolidation of power by Stalin over Trotsky, the Great Purges, etc. during the late '20s, '30s, and early '40s -- the Red Scare vanished into thin air. Nowhere to be seen. That was the shifting of phases into the harmonious phase.
So, fear of Communism, Russia, etc. had nothing to do with the real geopolitical dynamics of Russia, Eastern Europe, and so on. It was purely a reflex of the 50-year civil cohesion cycle in America.
And so, right on cue, the second Red Scare -- AKA McCarthyism, although perhaps more fittingly Hooverism -- erupted in the late '40s, just as the social mood shifted phases from harmonious to discordant. As before, nothing to do with geopolitics in Russia or Asia. The time to freak out was the late '20s, '30s, and early '40s -- but nobody freaked out in America, cuz they were in a harmonious phase.
McCarthyism lasted from the late '40s throughout the '50s, and although this variety of domestic spying and secret agent ops against the domestic population had dwindled by the '60s, the '60s saw an even larger eruption of domestic spying, counter-intelligence ops, assassinations (rather than mere blacklisting), and so on. Namely in response to the Civil Rights movement, anti-Vietnam War movement, and student / campus movement of the '60s and early '70s.
Still carried out by the FBI, which was still under the control of Hoover, the COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) ran from 1956 to '71, a seamless continuation of McCarthyism, but peaking -- when else? -- the early '70s, along with the peak of social chaos.
After that, and also motivated by other spy / surveillance / secret agent tricks and schemes and cheat codes, like Watergate, the mood had shifted away from discord and toward harmony, and as a result, domestic spying and secret agent ops were largely discontinued. "Existed" doesn't mean anything in a cycle, we're talking about swings up and down, and they swung way down after the early '70s.
ReplyDeleteDespite Reagan, the GOP, a new alignment of the parties, and still pursuing the Cold War throughout the '80s, boycotting the 1980 Winter Olymics in Moscow, etc etc etc. -- there was no domestic spying, blacklisting, assassination, or counter-intel ops related to anything whatsoever. Not Russia, not communism, not civil rights or racial / ethnic separatism, not students vs. the administration, literally no state-led sprawling spy program against domestic American citizens.
Not due to geopolitics, but to the social mood in America -- harmonious.
That lasted through Bush Sr.'s term, as well as Clinton's 1st term and perhaps his 2nd as well. His 2nd term was the late '90s, when the phases shifted, so I may be forgetting an early signal of the next domestic spying / counter-intel crusade. Taking on the local militia movements, maybe? Like the Michigan militia? IDK exactly what.
But certainly after 9/11, the Bush Jr. terms saw the rebirth of the surveillance state, domestic spying, putting citizens under a microscope if they didn't worship the White House's goals or had sympathies for its enemies, and so on.
The Soviet Union was over by that point, Communism was long dead, and Russia was barely crawling back onto its feet during the 2000s. But again, it had nothing to do with geopolitics, rather the domestic social mood. So now that the mood called for another Red Scare, yet there were no Reds to threaten America, we went with whoever made the best threats -- radical Islamic terrorism, primarily, or Middle Easterners in general, whether they were secular leaders like Saddam Hussein or religious leaders like the Taliban.
This lasted throughout both Obama terms, and really exploded into a new Red Scare under Trump: Season One, since he famously campaigned on "getting along with Russia", and so did his voters. I shouldn't have to remind readers how unrelentingly insane the libtards and a decent chunk of conservatards went over Russiagate during Trump's 1st term, relying yet again on the leader of the FBI -- well, actual leader under Bush Jr., now a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller. The reincarnation of J. Edgar Hoover.
Mostly on the right, but also in a minority on the left, domestic spying and counter-intel and crackdowns against dissidents has begun relating to US policy in Israel. Being against Israel and in favor of Hezbollah or Hamas or Iran would always have gotten you put on an enemy's list in America. But using state powers to suppress anti-Israeli actions is new,
And like McCarthyism, actually begun by a Democrat president before the whole thing exploded. Namely the final year of Biden's term, and all the libtard universities going after pro-Palestine / anti-Israeli activists. Trump's term has injected that with steroids, as McCarthyism was during the '50s.
But the peak of social chaos has already been reached, during the late 2010s and early 2020s, when all that Russiagate bullshit crippled America. And all sorts of other domestic spying, counter-intel, arresting dissidents, and so on, like the January 6th protesters from 2021.
ReplyDeleteNow that we're finally moving beyond that, out of the discordant phase and into the harmonious phase, gradually this domestic spying and secret agent ops on the domestic population will start to wane. Not 100% overnight, but it'll start waning just as it did over the course of the late '70s, '80s, and early '90s. Thank God.
To end on a summary observation, this highlights the importance of the domestic citizen demand-side forces in the growth of the spying and secret agent ops state. Americans really were in a more advesarial social mood from the late '40s through the early '70s, compared to the late '20s through the early '40s.
ReplyDeleteWhen it's you vs. everyone else, why not recruit the state to spy on your adversaries? Maybe even take some action against them -- blacklist them from getting work, perhaps assassinate them outright. Hey, it's a dog-eat-dog world out there -- nothing personal, adversaries of mine.
When the mood shifts into the harmonious phase, this demand-side forces gets flipped upside-down -- how dare the government spy on its citizens, use tricks, hatch plots and schemes in secret, and do all this cloak-and-dagger secret agent cheating?
Even if I myself am not being targeted, I must stand up for my fellow citizens, in the interest of social harmony. And the state must dismantle its panopticon, in the interest of social harmony. Whoever resists that norm is a Satanic conspirator, and will be branded as our nemesis and treated accordingly.
Also in the interest of social harmony, that anti-conspiracy mindset will be bipartisan / non-partisan, as it used to be during the peak of social harmony in the early-to-mid '90s. Left-wingers, right-wingers, and centrists alike could enjoy X-Files, the JFK movie, Unsolved Mysteries, conspiracy-related episodes of Star Trek: TNG, and the rest of it.
It'll take us a couple decades to get to that next peak of social harmony, but that's where we're headed. No more insane demand among the citizenry to use the spying state against the rest of the citizenry, which itself is a trick or cheat code used by the citizens petitioning the state to intervene against the petitioners' adversaries.
Beat your enemies with this One Weird Trick -- get the FBI to label them domestic terrorists.
Well, slowly but surely, that era is now over. Not that all signs of it will vanish overnight -- but the end of the era just means that changes are coming. You'll see!
And you already *have seen* over the past couple years, the decline from the absolute peak hysterical begging of the FBI to intervene against your fellow citizens who are adversaries, or demanding to speak to someone's manager to get them fired for being your adversary, or whatever else.
The darkest days of online spies and online secret agents are, thankfully, in the rear-view mirror. A new era of "who gives a shit? we have to all get along with each other, and NOT beg powerful employers and federal government agencies to intervene against our enemies, or else society will implode all over again like in 2020".
Nobody has good memories of 2020, and that will drive all the vibes associated with it into the ether... until the mood reverses again, after the next-next-next generation has had no memory or experience of the 2020 chaos, and will re-ignite the discordant mood all over again.
Just as those with no memory or experience with the early '70s peak of chaos, re-ignited the discordant mood all over again during the late '90s and early 2000s.
And now to watch some Lois & Clark, which judging from the pilot episode that I watched last night, is a lot better than I expected. And I was already expecting something good, based on it being from the early '90s and from ABC (Twin Peaks, My So-Called Life, etc.).
ReplyDeleteIt's technically set in the present of the filming, but is staged and costumed and acted to give it a neo-'30s and '40s atmosphere. Love it.
Everyone remembers the '50s revival of Back to the Future, but most of the revivals from the '80s and '90s were from the '30s and '40s, before the Postwar era, and during the Depression or WWII. Even before 1990's Dick Tracy, there was 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit? And the entire iconic Indiana Jones series is set in 1936, '35, and '38.
Tim Burton's Batman movies also have a very pre-Postwar noir atmosphere.
And although Lois & Clark isn't thoroughgoing noir, it does have several scenes per episode that are clearly '30s / '40s noir. Pretty cool!
I really can't get enough of these "will they, or won't they" mixed-sex duos from iconic '90s TV shows! I just heard Agent Scully say that Mulder was the only person she'd lay her life on the line for -- damn!
Yeah, back when the battle between the sexes was completely dead and buried... before the rotten corpse's hand burst out of the ground during the late '90s.
Seeing this fine-grained schism across the '90s has really soured me on trying out further late '90s culture. Probably just a single episode from a series, not entire seasons. I already knew I wouldn't like any more of Dawson's Creek after the pilot. Probably will react the same to Charmed, Buffy, Fight Club, and all those other distinctly late '90s movies. I didn't like Romy & Michele's High School Reunion either.
Only late '90s stuff I liked at the time was the indie scene, it seemed like they held on to sincerity for a bit longer than the mainstream did. In fact, Friends was trailblazing, where Coen brothers' movies were rearguard moves. Ditto for music, not just TV or movies.
I watched 3 seasons of Desperate Housewives during lockdown (1, 3, and 4), and I was surprised by Teri Hatcher's physical comedy skills, facial expressions, etc. She clearly already had them honed by her late 20s, when she debuted as Lois Lane. Aside from being an absolutely intergalactic-league babe, she's great at comic relief. She can still do serious, and vulnerable, but she's funny too.
Unusual for a woman to be that funny, but she's kinda male-brained (studied math + engineering in college, both mom and dad were hard STEM-lords as well). She doesn't look masculine, though, other than having those captivatingly striking facial features. Still very feminine in appearance and overall mood / mood swings.
I always felt her potential was wasted in Tomorrow Never Dies, speaking of the spy revival of the late '90s. Ah well, at least we got two great series from her, between Lois & Clark and Desperate Housewives.
Luv her. ^_^
P.P.S. -- 2020 post of me gushing over Teri Hatcher's exotitude, or rather her passing-ness, drawing general conclusions from her particular case. Luv the Levantines. ^_^
ReplyDeletehttps://akinokure.blogspot.com/2020/05/teri-hatcher-levantine-lovely-or-ethnic.html
All for now, for real!
The CIA's MKUltra program was a product of the same period as the FBI's COINTELPRO, beginning in 1953 and lasting through '73 (the latter running from '56 to '71).
ReplyDeleteSocially discordant, low-trust, pro-spying, pro-schemes / tricks / magic / cheat codes / hacking.
Social discord means the state feels totally fine plotting and executing these tricks, hacks, and schemes upon the citizenry, but also that a decent share of the citizens will allow and even demand they be executed upon their fellow citizens.
With a fig-leaf rationalization of some greater good, but really just to heighten the adversarial "me against everyone else" mood that they're currently possessed by, escalating an arms race.
The best example of counter-paranoia from the Postwar era was the Twilight Zone episode "Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" from 1960. The final narration states it openly in case you didn't get the moral of the story already -- conquest can result from internal disintegration, itself due to suspiciousness and paranoia of the insiders toward one another. Not just external invasion, bombings, and so on.
ReplyDeleteThat was still the New Deal, so there was a cooperative spirit in the economic realm, which would get eroded during the neoliberal era after 1980.
And it was still before multiple failures to expand the empire, which were only convincingly demonstrated with the failed wars in Southeast Asia. In 1960, the only big loss was to North Korea. Cuba had left, but only very recently, maybe we'd get it back, who knows? And the Philippines left in the late '40s, but that wasn't a failed war on our part, just letting them declare independence.
So our asabiya was still fairly high, on the imperial growth vs. collapse time-scale.
We managed to persevere through the discordant climate of the late '40s through the early '70s, boosted by those other sources of cooperativeness.
By the late '70s, it seemed like that was all behind us, disco arrived with a whole new good vibes energy and message -- "these are the good times" -- and people were more willing to be open and unguarded around one another again.
Neoliberalism eroded that cooperativeness in the economic realm, then imperial stagnation eroded it in the asabiya realm during the 2000s (failed Iraq / Afghanistan wars, failed coup against Chavez in Venezuela, etc.), followed by outright collapse during the late 2010s and 2020s, and another discordant phase of the civic cohesion cycle reared its ugly head in the late '90s.
The second half of the '70s was the last unproblematic period, across all dimensions that might trouble a society and culture. Maybe absorbing the early '80s cusp, in its halo effect. Yeah, there was rising crime, but that's also linked to an outgoing social mood (instead of cocooning), so most people accept it as the cost we pay for the greater benefit.
ReplyDeleteLARP-ing as any later period brings at least one facet that's not desirable, although depending on the purpose of the LARP you may be able to push it out of view, like the neoliberalization of the economy during the '80s and early '90s, which were otherwise a continuation of the late '70s.
If you just want to remember, relive, or revive a pro-social dance-party culture, it didn't matter that our economy was being dismantled and inequality widening. You can party and dance your way through those material troubles -- plus at that early stage, the drop in material standard of living wasn't that bad, as it would become by the late '90s and 2000s, in the aftermath of NAFTA and the China trade bill and others like it.
But by the time you get to the late '90s and y2k, there's very little value to salvage from LARP-ing -- neoliberalization, imperial stagnation, cocooning, social discord... what's the point in reliving it? Only as a pointless fad, if other periods have been recently and successfully LARP-ed to death (like the '80s revival of the late 2000s through the 2010s).
I was hoping the so-called '90s revival would focus more on the first half of the '90s, but having been in it for several years now, and its explicit link with y2k, it's more of a "remember when every one of the current apocalyptic trends had only just begun, and weren't so apparently disastrous?" Sad and pathetic cope, not what a LARP should deliver.
RETVRN to early-mid '90s, not late '90s / y2k.
Old related post on '90s music worth saving from a fire, that I drew up in 2012, at the height of the '80s revival, just to explore outside of that LARP, and trying to evaluate the '90s objectively rather than blindly rehashing what I was into during the '90s.
ReplyDeletehttps://akinokure.blogspot.com/2012/06/nineties-music-worth-saving-from-fire.html
Already I had distinguished the first half of the '90s as superior to the second half, and pointing specifically to the camaraderie and other- / outward-directed mindset as opposed to me-first competitiveness.
Also included (in the comments) the stories about moshing and stage-diving and crowdsurfing, including at our middle school dances, sometimes joined by a few girls. Those memories will never fade, and I'll never stop reminding the historical record about them.
I could've done the same exercise for movies, TV shows, video games, clothing or fashion, really any domain of American culture.
It's really sad seeing the '90s revival being so dominated by the inferior part of it, the proto-2000s part of it, and explicitly linking it into a "'90s / y2k" revival.
We can't even carry out a proper period-LARP anymore, America truly has fallen rather than merely stagnated. I mean this non-ironically -- it should be an effortless, no-brainer, like the successful and exciting '80s revival, from when we were merely stagnating and not yet in outright collapse.
Another glaring sign of collapse, as revealed by our LARPs, is the total inability to carry out a dance-club component of the '90s / y2k revival. All previous revivals did this easily -- the swing revival of the '90s, the various '50s / '60s / '70s revivals, all had some kind of gathering together for music and/or dance component to them.
ReplyDeleteFor those living under a rock (or being too young), the '80s revival of the late 2000s and 2010s, well through the early 2010s at least, had a major dance-club component to it. It wasn't just sporting American Apparel clothes and uploading a selfie to your MySpace profile. You had to gather in a common public space for music, and especially DANCING, to fully participate in the '80s LARP.
There is no such thing whatsoever to the '90s / y2k LARP of the past several years.
And even though those years are inferior to the early-mid '90s, I'd still go to a '90s / y2k dance night -- some dancing is better than no dancing. Some form of crowd / mob / superorganism behavior is better than no forms of it at all.
Please, no tech-tard "explanations" blaming smartphones or social media -- every young person had a small digital camera, cell phone, early smartphone, and social media profile on MySpace or Facebook or perhaps as early adopters of Twitter and Instagram, throughout the '80s revival.
It's the social spirit that has left American society, not a tech change -- young people in 2022 have the exact same tech as young people in 2012. Yet one was part of a nationwide dance-club craze as part of their period-LARP, while the other is incapable of pulling of such a gathering-together phenomenon as part of their period-LARP.
We're no longer stagnating, we're outright collapsing.
Young people in the late 2000s / early 2010s also had YouTube accounts that they could, and did, upload footage of themselves dancing to recorded music. So tech-tards can't blame TikTok for why today's period-LARP doesn't involve dance-clubs, as though that energy were displaced into a social media outlet instead of taking form IRL.
ReplyDeleteNope -- if Millennials wanted to only upload audio-video footage to social media, rather than gather in a club to dance at '80s night, they had the technological means of doing so. But they did not.
Only the Zoomers of the '90s / y2k LARP are doing an entirely online dancing component of their LARP, rather than meeting up in a brick-and-mortar club for '90s / y2k night, which does not exist.
Not blaming Zoomers, just stating that our society has entered collapse, so they can't pull off something simple like dancing in a club, whereas Millennials could -- cuz society was merely stagnating back then, not cuz they're a superior generation.
Millennials are hyper-competitive anti-social freaks, but back then society was in stagnant shape, not a collapsing state, so even they could meet up and dance in clubs as part of their LARP.
Here's to hoping that with the reversal of the discordant phase of the civic cohesion cycle, future LARP-ers will be able to meet up IRL, especially in a dance-club. That's another thing weighing down Zoomer attempts to carry out a LARP -- not just imperial collapse, but the early 2020s being the peak of social chaos and discord, hardly favoring a happy-go-lucky dance-club crowd vibe.
ReplyDeleteImperial collapse is with us for the rest of our history, but civic cohesion goes in a 50-year cycle, and we're just getting out of the discordant phase and into the harmonious phase. So that will be one less piece of dead weight on future attempts to period-LARP in a group IRL space.
We'll just have to wait and see what Gen Alpha does as they get older.