Personals offer perfect mates
Looking for love?
Try personal ads where you
can find the perfect
person(ification).
There are the abbreviated folk like
BM, DWF, SBF, MMM, GDWM,
etc. They are all looking for love, in
whatever manifestations love comes
in.
My friend placed an ad in a news
paper in California: SJF— figure this
one out — looking for love.
Of course she elaborated a bit more
than that, probably with something
like:
“SJF — intelligent, attractive,
witty, full of verve, likes to read and
contemplate the metaphysical mean
ing of human existence, very sensual
and, of course, not a despised smoker.
Looking for the perfect man: sensi
tive, rich, able to commit to monoga
mous relationships, honest, sensitive,
not too dominant but a little domi
nant, tall, handsome, low cholesterol
level, 3 percent body fat, head full of
hair, etc.”
After the ad appeared in the paper,
her phone rang constantly. She went
out on a different date every day for
two weeks. She didn’t dig any of the
dudes.
She said they were all shy, inhib
ited and looked like cruel tricks of
nature. Or they were just weird jerks.
“Really?” I said, trying to act sur
prised.
I asked her if she asked them to
send a picture.
“Of course! ” And most of the guys
actually did! Bold.
Like all fairy tales, however, even
tually she met the man of her dreams
through an ad and now they are in
romantic bliss eternally.
But what of those people who pay
a lot of money and never find love in
the want ads?
What about the40-year-old SWM:
“Looking fora slender, attractive lady,
So many people say
the perfect mate is
impossible to find.
They must be
looking in the wrong
place because all
the perfect people
are in the personal
ads.
23 to early 40s, at least 5-foot-4 or
taller” (real ad). Care to get a bit more
specific? Maybe she must have fin
gernails that are cut 3 millimeters
above the end of each finger. And
let’s say she must have eyebrows that
are each four inches long and be
wealthy and generous.
And then there’s the short dude
who weighs 250 pounds looking fora
“slender, attractive, petite woman.”
Or, in other words, a nice body. Well,
so is 90 percent of the rest of the male
population in this country.
Women are looking for love in the
guise of a tall, strong man. Honesty
(fidelity), sensitivity (compassion),
romance (foreplay) are paramount.
Honesty, above all, means a dude
won’t lie and say he’s not married
when he is. Or that when he says he’s
single, he forgets to mention that he’s
involved in a three-year monogamous
relationship with a woman. “But, I’m
not married, am I? See, then I’m
single.” It’s all a matter of semantics.
I wonder if the DWF who adver
tised for love as a‘‘buxom blonde with
green eyes” would get mad if a guy
she meets avoids her eyes and looks at
her breasts all night duting conversa
tion over dinner.
What about ubiquitous man whose
hobbies include sky diving, bungee
cord jumping, leaping through flam
ing hoops on a motorcycle, deep sea
diving, hang gliding, canoeing, jog
ging, rollerblading, rock climbing,
opera, foreign movies, writing po
etry, playing the guitar — keep in
mind, this is one person — alligator
wrestling, hunting, etc., and is look
ing for someone with the same quali
fications. Hell, if he’s this active, how
can he even make time for a relation
shi
, there are some of those
brilliantly conceived personal ads in
the DN by people who swear they’ve
made eye contact.
To: the blonde woman walking
downtown on a warm spring day dur
ing the lunch hour near 14th and O
wearing a blue business suit and black
shoes. Call me. I’m hot for you.
To: the girl at the sold-out Ne
braska vs. Oklahoma basketball game
Sunday sitting in the cheap sgats wear
ing a red sweatshirt. Your eyes are
beautiful. Call me.
To: the guy at general registration
waiting in line to add an English class
that is filled. You were wearing a
book bag. Nice shoulders. I'd love to
give you a back rub. Dial me up.
So many people say the perfect
mate is impossible to find. They must
be looking in the wrong place because
all the perfect people are in the per
sonal ads.
Send photo, please.
_ Moca is a graduate student in anthropol
ogy and a Daily Nebraskan columnist
Politics really a war of words
The opportunism of Washing
ton politics — liberal and
conservative alike—reached
a shameless high this past month, all
in view of an unfortunate triad of
news items: the murder of a doctor
who performed a high number of abor
tions, the bombing of the World Trade
Center by a Muslim terrorist, and the
apocalyptic stance against the federal
government by a man who claims to
e a species of Christ himself. Need
less to say, it has not been a good week
for religion.
Countless irreligious columnists,
cartoonists and the like exploited all
three episodes of belief gone violent
to soapbox against religion in gen
eral.
The once reflective New York
Times columnist Anthony Lewis had
the gall to claim that a lone killer’s
gruesome act was reflective of the
“radical” nature of the anti-abortion
movement in general. Never mind
that the “extremists” in the anti-abor
tion movemcntarc in large part Catho
lic grandparents. Apparently when
the Times buys the ink, any pretense
to fair-mindedness is left aside: Hy
perbole runs thick.
On the other side, anti-abortion
leadership actually attempted to use
the doctor’s death to stump for their
cause. Rather than flatly condemn the
unjust killing of a human — which is
after all, the injustice of abortion it
self — they viewed the death as a
public relations opportunity: “Yes,
the killing of Dr. Gunn was wrong, but
...” It was the one moment in the
abortion debate when the Right to
Life leadership conceded the moral
high ground.
The shamelessness of both the left
and the right in these days is perhaps
at a crescendo. Civility in public dis
course amounts to no more than dress
ing up in a wool suit before you rip
into your opponent at a press confer
ence. This is not discourse. It is some
thing disturbingly different.
In his landmark book “After Vir
tue,” Notre Dame philosopher
The only way to gain
victory in this type
of debate is by
increasing one’s
volume, or
censoring the
opposition.
Alasdair MacIntyre critiques the sta
tus of modem moral discourse. At the
onset of modem history, political phi
losophers who had wrestled the state
from the judgment of the church found
that they were left without a founda
tion for morality. Initial attempts —
by Kant, for example—attempted to
justify morality on rational grounds
alone.
MacIntyre argues that the 20th
century’s reliance on the moral phi
losophy of emotivism signals the con
cession of modernity that it cannot
solve the moral problem. Emotivism
holds that all moral claims are not
reflections of any transcendent un
derstanding of right or wrong, but are
simply expressions of personal pref
erence.
The claim that “Murder is wrong”
is transformed into “I don’t prefer
murder.”Few find this satisfying. The
famous philosopher Bertrand Russell
once commented that although he
accepted emotivism, he didn't like
thinking that the difference between
Hitler and himself was no more than
a matter of taste.
With the expulsion of Christianity
from the public realm as a dominant
moral system, the West is left with a
plurality of diverse and conflicting
moral languages. Each community
within the larger realm has its own
basic moral assumptions, and those
assumptions are largely irresolvable,
leaving moral disputes unresolved as
well.
As a result, our moral discourse
has become so thoroughly fragmented
that we are increasingly unable to
agree. One person argues that abor
tion is a fundamental human right,
while another asserts that it is a funda
mental evil. In our moral landscape,
we have no means forjudging who is
right.
The only way to gain victory in this
type of debate is by increasing one’s
volume, or censoring the opposition.
This is not discourse, but oral battle.
Hence MacIntyre’s famous dictum:
modem “politics is civil war by other
means.”
Ironically, while the division of
modem moral discourse threatens
social cohesion like never jyefore —
perhaps since the battle over slavery
— our elites have taken to asserting
that pluralism is a virtue as such. But
this is no solution to our division; it is
only a call for more. Pluralism ac
cepts that moral persuasion is impos
sible.
Pluralism calls us to validate the
incommensurability of moral argu
ment. It calls us to accept that the
shouting match is all there is. It calls
us, essentially, to forever live in “civil
war by other means.”
But, as this month has proven,
politics as a fragmented snouting
match is unsatisfying. Maintaining a
political unity requires maintenance
of a common sense of the good. Work
ing it out requires civility and integ
rity that both left and right only rarely
exhibit. Oral assault and media op
portunity does not discourse make.
Leaders should know better, and citi
zens should demand more.
Young is a first-year law student and a
Dally Nebraskan columnist.
W.C.'s tips their hat to
Jagermeister
Friday April 2 from 9-12 PM
Shot Specials!
GiveAways!
Jagermeister!
Featuring the Jagermeister Girls!
W.C. 's 1228 P St. 477-4006
'Ibtiuen&ity
Con*tAu4&efi Tttwic&iHf Sand
FLAG LINE AUDITIONS
(First round session)
March 30, 31
and April 1
7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Schulte Field House
Use entrance off of Avery Avenue
Auditions are open to academically eligible UNL
students and incoming freshmen. No previous
experience required. Dress for movement and wear
tennis shoes. Equipment will be provided. If you
have a schedule conflict, another first round audition
session is set for Saturday, June 26. Second round
auditions scheduled for August 14-20. For more
Information call 472-2505.
It is the policy ol the University ol Nebraska-Uncoin not to discriminate on the
basis ol sex, age, handicap, race, color, religion, marital status, veteran's
status, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.
TO PERMIT SMOKING OR NOT
IN THE NEBRASKA UNIONS?
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
An Open Forum Discussion
Sponsored by
The Nebraska Union Board
Wednesday, March 31st, 1993
12:00 Noon - 1:00 p.m.
City Union Main Lounge
UNL is reviewing its smoking policy with a
view toward Smoke Free Buildings. The
Nebraska Union Board has been asked to
make a recommendation to Vice Chancellor
Goebel whether the Unions should be smoke *
free or not. What do you think?
Give us your view at the Open Forum
or write to (by Apr. 2nd):
Nebraska Union Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
220 Nebraska Union J
Lincoln, NE 68588-0452 |
