"Meltdown in aisle 2, meltdown in aisle 2. We need a clean up crew to come to aisle 2, we have a muttering, swearing and clearly somewhat deranged woman…"

That would be me they are talking about.

You see, it was requested, can you imagine, that I take this form (it doesn't matter which form, any form) go over to one of tables, a table, I might add, that is too high for any mere mortal to write at comfortably, find a working pen, untangle the pen from its' chain, and fill the form out. Both sides.

First, however, one needs to watch a video that would prompt one on how to fill out the form. It is quite clear to me that the instructions on how to get the video to work were written by a sadist. Alternatively, they were written by someone who is almost, but not quite, graduated from their Rosetta Stone classes. I have great admiration and respect for multilingual individuals. I have yet, however, to meet someone who is totally fluent in writing intelligible questions in the language of  Forms.

You  really know you are in trouble when the form comes with a glossary of terms.

Cheating did seem like a viable option, but the height of the table, after all we were elbow to elbow, negated this option. Additionally, the fear of my calves cramping from standing on my tip toes, trying to see over their shoulder, further negated this plan.

On planes one is required to rummage around for their passport in order to enter their passport number.  Additionally there is the requirement of lknowing what airline they are flying, the flight number and where they will be staying when they arrive at their destination. How can I possible do this while concentrating on keeping the plane from plunging out of the sky?  I am pretty certain that raising my hand and announcing that I am opting to get off the plane, mid air, rather than fill in these blanks would result in no more wine glass refills for me.

Here's the solution to this.

It seems clear that sidestepping filling out forms, more often than not, really isn't a viable option. But, I've learned, that after the clean up crew comes to the rescue, there usually is some sympathetic soul, fearful of watching a grown woman unravel, who graciously offers to help out, if not to simply fill out the form.

Works for me. Everytime.

If I had any power of concentration, scientific aptitude, and the ability to pronounce multisyllabic words, I might have considered being a scientific researcher.

Knowing that I possess none of the above qualities I am content to read about what scientists are doing, the questions they pose for themselves and the swipes they take at other scientists who are going down a different road to achieve the same results.

Anti aging is a biggie.

Tests begin on drugs that may slow aging reported the Times, confirmed my thoughts about a day in the life of being a researcher. For example, as the scientists looked at caloric restriction and longevity, they "needed to decide whether life extension by caloric restriction is an artifact of mice in captivity,  (so) why not try it on wild mice?" 

Try it on wild mice?

How does one do that? Close the mouse 7/11, so it is no longer a 24/7? Put an incredibly well built, Madonnesque mouse in the midst of the chubbette mice, causing a flurry of crash diets so as to compete for the more desirable male mice? Open up a Jenny Craig with endorsements by Minnie Mouse?

The results of this wild vs. lab mice question, ultimately and predictably, were interpreted differently. Why? The reasons for wanting to be the first on your block with a new and improved drug are pretty clear. Maybe making $720 million dollars, which was the sum paid to a doctor and scientific entrepreneur to own the rights to Sirtris, a company that will explore the effects of how to activate sirtuins, would be a motivator to be the first on your block to identify a drug that promises something, anything, to staid off aging.

Sadly, the mice, who donated their bodies to science, calorically restricted or not, made not a dime. The upside, I suspect, is that for some of them, they looked YEARS younger then their actual mouse age, and after all, wasn't that a perk?

Not the alcohol, gambling, shopaholic or overeating anonymous type wagons, it's the on line dating wagon.

I read the comments from women who swear up down and around that this cyberdating phenomenon is absolutely, categorically, definitively, not for them.

And then they re up. Just like that. 12 step program not withstanding, they can't keep away.

While clearly addictive, they confess, it isn't fattening, nor is it entirely socially unacceptable, nor, all things considered, particularly expensive…. so why not?

So I have done my own little polling and here are some additional rationalizations I'd like to share.

-You can sit like a slug in front of the computer, in your sweats, without having to meet and greet in the local hangout spot.

-You can create an exotic, wild and rich fantasy life, which bears absolutely no resemblance to reality, which not incidentally, coincides with the fantastical life created by your on line partner.

-You can have a whole travel experience without leaving home. Look, there's the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China, the Great Pyramids of Egypt.

-You can challenge your imagination by conjuring up a picture of what someone without pictures posted might look like. Then request a photo and see how close your guess was to reality.

Millions of reasons. 

When I come back from Bloomies, settle down with a glass of Pinot Grigio, after enjoying a deliciously, caloric laden prepared feast, you can bet that I will think about whether I should join in, too.

Have I been under a rock for the past few years?  I realized that I never heard/read/used that phrase "hen lit" until very recently, coming across it while reading a review of a couple in books in the NY Times. 

The over 40 crowd, it seems, has it's own designated genre. Wonder if they are happy about it? Definitively confirmed to be to old to be a chick. However, speaking for the feminists among us, frankly any aviary reference is barely acceptable to begin with.

And for the over 60 crowd?  Rachel Cooke dubbed them the "twi lit"  in a wonderful piece she had written in 2002. Which, not incidently, confirmed that the term hen lit has been bandied about for far longer than I was aware of, confirming my personal rock hiding concern.

I wonder, if the author is writing for teens does a new designation of fowl have to be assigned? Pul lit?

Anyway, I am seriously considering writing a pul/chick/hen/twi lit book and therefore will be comfortable that I have covered all bases of readers. Let's see…Dorothy, after returning from Oz, runs off with the Scarecrow, after having a torrid but difficult relationship with the Tin Man, who contributed to her heartbreak when he left her for Glenda, but ultimately determined that he actually wanted Auntie Em the whole time.

Yeah, that covers it.

Weighing When I am on a roll, I have been known to get on the scale multiple times. That would be multiple times within 2 minutes, not multiple times over the course of the week.
“Could that be?” I say aloud, to no one in ear shot.  And yup, that is right there with my observations about my mutterings.
So I move the scale to another spot. And another. And another. Desperately seeking the place where I can find a number I find more satisfying. Usually I do. “See, knew I didn’t gain anything…phew.” One would think that once I have found the perfect place to weigh myself I’d put the scale there the next time I step on.

Doesn’t work. I’ve tried that.

Another thing. Browsing in a unisex clothing store the other day, I made this observation. We, as in women, can’t decide if we like a garment that we have just tried on, without tilting our head to one side. Tilt head and turn. Gaze over our own shoulder to see the rear view. Delighted or critical, I might add, depending on expectations.  Men, emerge from the fitting room, double check that the fly is zipped up, no tilts, turns or twirls. If you have seen a male doing the head tilting, twirling, or turning, I stand corrected.

Wanna weigh in?

 

"It was 20 years ago today" sang the Beatles, actually over 40 years
ago. When also, I might add, Paul wondered if he'd still be loved "when
he's 64." Which, Happy Birthday Paul, he turned this August.

The summer of '69. Indelibly etched in the minds of most Boomers, (if you were REALLY enjoying the 60's it might be a fuzzy memory). Alternatively, if you are currently lamenting your memory loss, might also be a fuzzy memory.

Alas, the 40th anniversary of Woodstock event, to be held this summer, has been canceled.

But back to a twirl down memory lane.

Neil Armstrong, bounding (does one bound?) out of the Eagle, the lunar vehicle of the Apollo 11, stating "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" actually has claimed that he said "one small step for A man…." which apparently some editor thought not as pithy.

Not, it seems to have not been heard.

Anyway, I for one, do remember the first Woodstock weekend. Didn't go, but do remember it vividly.
No Cheech and Chong fuzzy memories here. (Do you know who Cheech and Chong are?)

This weekend we will have many replays, plus a documentary or two or three, revisiting this culturally iconic event. And for Neil and Buzz, nary a shopping mall event.

Okay, I lied. There was a great photo op with Barack Obama.

Happy Anniversary.

Not exactly mutterings.

Full sentences commenting on something or other, but realizing, that there is no one there to hear what you just said.

Except yourself, which, I suppose, must be good enough.

Talking to yourself Have you experienced this? Would you admit to it, if you do? I find myself not exactly having full blown conversations with myself, simply a comment or two, usually about something I am observing.

“Why is she/he wearing THAT?” I’ll ask aloud. Perhaps, if I am in earshot of someone, they will think I am talking to them and answer. I’ll smile, respond to their comment, and know perfectly well that I hadn’t asked them for their opinion. Perhaps, they too, are commenting to themselves on what they were observing and it was simply coincidental that I was near enough, as well, to hear their thoughts.

In any event, I used to be somewhat chagrined at my own behavior. Is this the precursor to something infinitely more serious? Should I discuss it with a professional? Did I just ask myself that very question, aloud? Did I respond?

Not to worry.

I suspect when the time comes and I am not aware of my aloud utterances, friends and family might join together to look into this, and do something proactive.

For now, it is comforting to know that I have an enraptured audience. Me.

Do you read the women's sports pages? The New York Times refers to it as The Sunday Styles Section. Can you imagine that?

Anyway, it's the Times' play by play of life in the fast lane.  The ultimate scorecard is how many fetes one can attend, coupled with who wed whom.

There are pages and pages devoted to marriage announcements. Additionally, there is always a highlighted story, I think it is called modern vows, that gives an in depth back story, apparently worthy of devoting paragraphs to explain.

They met, they dated, they broke up, they reconnected, they broke up again, they married others, they reunited, they wed. They lived happily ever after. We hope, because we really don't know, except that every so often the Times revisits these highlighted stories to see how the marriage held up. Some well, alas, others, not so well.

Too bad.

But, as to the stories about folks who knew one an other in an earlier lifetime, parted and then found one another for a second go around, I thought maybe I should revisit ghosts from my past.

The major challenge was,  of course, remembering names.

So, with a little Google look here, and a facebook look there, e i e i o, (too much time with grandbabies??) I came up pretty empty. Did they all the guys from my past fall off the earth? Did I only know non accomplished people? Are they so wildly successful that they live anonymously? Did I actually remember the right names?

But then,  I thought, was there actually a first go around worthy of a second go around? Hmmm, not so much.

However, if someone from my past is reading this, and thinks we actually did have a connection once, wishes for a waltz down memory lane…..I'm here.

I looked, enthusiastically, to see what was possibly "new" that required an update of the 70's classic, "The Joy of Sex."

Not much.

Oh, sure, there was the necessary addition about Viagra, Hormone Replacement Therapy and seeking therapy for sexual problems, but basically that's about it. I could be a cliche, I suppose, and suggest that after 60 some odd years of age the joy found in the bedroom is awakening, delighting in knowing that you have a pulse.

I know what fascinated me about the Joy of Sex (new and improved or the first version, written some 40 plus years ago), was the story behind the story. 

As reported in an article entitled Doing It "Comfort and his wife, Ruth, divorced shortly after “Joy” came out:
the unpleasantness of his infidelity seems to have been heightened for
Mrs. Comfort when her husband became internationally known as “Dr.
Sex.” In 1973, a few months later, Comfort married his mistress and
muse, Jane, and the two moved to Santa Barbara so that Comfort could
assume a post at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, a
liberal think tank. The move also gave them closer proximity to the
Sandstone, a clothing-optional community of utopian swingers in Topanga
Canyon, which was reportedly visited by Timothy Leary, Sammy Davis,
Jr., Betty Dodson, and the porn star Marilyn Chambers, and which
Comfort and Jane had frequented since 1970. “Often the nude biologist
Dr. Alex Comfort, brandishing a cigar, traipsed through the room
between the prone bodies with the professional air of a lepidopterist
strolling through the fields waving a butterfly net,” Gay Talese wrote
in “Thy Neighbor’s Wife.”

But Jane, according to a friend who was
interviewed by the journalist Pagan Kennedy, eventually tired of group
sex and open marriage. (Sexual fads may come and go, but jealousy is
forever.) At the same time, Comfort’s relationship with the Center for
the Study of Democratic Institutions soured, and he became involved in
lawsuits with the center over breach of contract. In 1985, Comfort and
Henderson returned to England, where he lived the rest of his life,
more or less monogamously, in Kent."

More or less?

I guess as it relates to sex, more is still better than less. Agree?

I actually was going to call this post "early adopter" which, by definition ( or some variation of a definition) means someone who " is an early
customer of a given company, product, or technology; in politics,
fashion, art, and other fields, this person would be referred to as a trendsetter. The term originates from Everett M. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations (1962)[1]."

But if you are reading this and never heard of the expression "early adopter" (which would, I suppose, suggest you…like me….aren't) you might have thought I was referring to a non biological addition to a family.

Anyway, I am, for example, circling the concept of buying a Kindle. I think that Kindles made their entry into the marketplace in 2007.  Two years later and I am still debating whether I should have bought one. Of course, I hadn't purchased an iPhone until 2 months ago and the iPhone had made its entry into the marketplace in 2007. So, it appears that I am geared up and ready to go after 2 years time.

But, I like the feel of a book in my hands, turning pages, even underlining a passage I find particularly compelling. I never return to that passage, reread or even think about it, but the concept of knowing that I could reread the passage, if I wanted to, compels me to do it.

Now I read that Barnes and Noble has made their move to be the latest entry into e-books.

This is a good thing. I need to do my research, ask friends their opinions, perhaps even wait for some other manufacturer to enter the fray and then I can make a decision about what I should purchase.

I'll let you know, hmmm, sometime in the year 2011, if I did and if I like it.

Cartoon images on aMusingBoomer are from Cartoonstock.com

About Me

Archives