David Wallace - Brief Interviews with Hideous Men

____________

date 32. USAGE/HISTORICAL NOTE:R. and F. Leckie, eds., DFX Lattice of the Monochromosomatic Psyche, and other authorities hold standard definition 2of date 3to be connotationally descended from the (n.)/(v.) use of dateby 2 °C prostitutes to solicit genital-financial interface without exposing themselves to statutory prosecution. The same authorities hold the euphemym hard dateto be derived from the c. 2020 idiomatic/vulgar hardware-dating (arch.), a compound gerund denoting (with the 20s’ characteristic lack of subtlety) “ sex with a machine ”/“ machine-assisted sex ” ( Webster’s IX, 2027, DVD/ROM/print). Soft dateis held to have evolved as a natural antonym by at least 2030. Some authorities argue that soft date’s idiomatic longevity is also due to its apparently coincidental ability to connote the tender sentiments often associated with P.G.I. and soft offspring (see below; KEY at SENTIMENTS, TENDER).

____________

____________

date 3USAGE/HISTORICAL NOTE:Definitions 1and 2 supra are both the connotational descendants of the univocal 2 °C definition of date 3: “( a) social engagement(s) with (a) member(s) of the opposite sex ” (Webster’s V, 1999, ROM/print). Nash & Leckie’s Condensed DVD 2History of Male Sexuality notes that for 2 °C males, dateas intergender “social engagement” could connote either of two highly distinct endeavors: (A) the mutual exploration of possibilities for long-term neurogenetic compatibility (KEY at Historical Note (5) for RELATIONSHIP), leading to legally codified intergender union and P.G.I. and soft offspring; or (B) the unilateral pursuit of an immediate, vigorous, and uncodified episode of genital interface without regard to neurogenetic compatibility or soft offspring or even a telephone call the next day. Because — according to R. and F. Leckie, eds., DFX Lattice of the Monochromosomatic Psyche —the connotational range of date 3as “social engagement” for 2 °C females was almost exclusively (A), whereas an implicit but often unspoken and just as often fraudulent interest in connotation (A) was often employed by 2 °C males for purposes related exclusively to connotation (B) (KEY at LOTHARIONISM; at SPORTFUCKING ‡; at MISOGAMY; at LIZARDRY, LOUNGE- ‡; at OEDIPAL, PRE-), the result of an estimated 86.5 % of 2 °C dateswas a state of severe emotional dissonance between the date’s participants, a dissonance attributed by most sources to basic psychosemantic miscodings (KEY at MISCODINGS, INTERGENDER; Secondary KEYS at Historical Notes for MISOGYNY, OSTENSIBLE PROJECTED FORMS OF; for VICTIMIZATION, CULTURE OF; for FEMINISM, MALEVOLENT SEPARATIST OF EARLY U.S. 21C; for SEXUAL REVOLUTION OF LATE 2 °C, PATHETIC DELUSIONS OF).

The A.D. 2006 patent and 2008 commercial introduction of Digitally Manipulable Video (KEY at D.M.V. 2; at MICROSOFT-VCA D.M.V. VENTURES CORP.), in which video pornography could be home-edited to allow the simulated introduction of the viewer into filmed images of explicit genital interface, were upheld in U.S.S.C. Civil Action #1819049, Schumpkin et al. v. Microsoft-VCA D.M.V. Ventures Corp. (2009), partly on the grounds that the availability to U.S. male consumers of wholly depersonalized simulacra of genital interface could reasonably be expected to palliate the 86.5 % semioemotional conflict that attended genuine interpersonal dating; and this reasoning was subsequently (2012) extended to the legal introduction of Virtual Reality Sensory Arrays, whose costly full-body Joysuit with four extensions for human appendages rapidly gave way (2014) to the now familiar five-extension “Polioerotic Joysuit” and the first generation of three-dimensional Virtual Female DXF Meshes (KEY at JOYSUIT, POLIOEROTIC; at TELEDIDDLER †; at MESH, DXF; at MODELING, NAUGHTY ‡; Secondary KEY at Historical Notes for DESIGN, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; for FEMALE, VIRTUAL), home-entertainment innovations which, despite initial bugs and glitches (KEY at ELECTROCUTION, GENITAL), evolved rapidly into the current technology of V.F.S.A.’s and S.-R.J.A.’s (KEY at ARRAY, VIRTUAL FEMALE SENSORY; at APPENDAGE, SHOCK-RESISTANT JOYSUIT-), a technology which has all but forced today’s modificatory split into the bivocal “hard” and “soft” denotations for date 3.

____________

date 3GENDER-SPECIFIC CONNOTATIONAL NOTE:Most contemporary-usage authorities observe a marked shift, for 21C males, in the “romantic” or “emotional” connotations of date 3(KEY at SENTIMENTS, TENDER), affective connotations which, for most males, have now been removed altogether from “hard” or S.G.I.- dating(KEY at DYSPHORIA, HYPERORGASMIC; at N.G.O.S.; at SYNDROME, NARCISSISTIC GRATIFICATION OVERLOAD; at SOLIPSISM, TECHNOSEXUAL) and, in “soft” or P.G.I.- dating, have now been transferred almost entirely to the procreative function and the gratification associated with having one’s Procreativity Designators affirmed by both culture and complement as neurogenetically desirable (KEY at PARADOXES, TECHNOSEXUAL; at DOGMA, PERVERSE VINDICATION OF CATHOLIC).

____________

POP QUIZ 4

Two late-stage terminal drug addicts sat up against an alley’s wall with nothing to inject and no means and nowhere to go or be. Only one had a coat. It was cold, and one of the terminal drug addicts’ teeth chattered and he sweated and shook with fever. He seemed gravely ill. He smelled very bad. He sat up against the wall with his head on his knees. This took place in Cambridge MA in an alley behind the Commonwealth Aluminum Can Redemption Center on Massachusetts Avenue in the early hours of 12 January 1993. The terminal drug addict with the coat took off the coat and scooted over up close to the gravely ill terminal drug addict and took and spread the coat as far as it would go over the both of them and then scooted over some more and got himself pressed right up against him and put his arm around him and let him be sick on his arm, and they stayed like that up against the wall together all through the night.

Q:Which one lived.

POP QUIZ 6

Two men, X and Y, are close friends, but then Y does something to hurt, alienate, and/or infuriate X. They had been very close. In fact X’s family had almost sort of adopted Y when Y arrived in town alone and had no family or friends yet and got a position in the same department of the same firm X worked for, and X and Y work side by side and become close compadres, and before long Y is usually over at X’s house hanging out with the X family just about every night after work, and this goes on for quite some time. But then Y does X some kind of injury, like maybe writing an accurate but negative Peer Evaluation of X at their firm, or refusing to cover for X when X makes a serious error in judgment and gets himself in trouble and needs Y to lie to cover for him somehow. The point is that Y’s done some honorable/upright thing that X sees as a disloyal and/or hurtful thing, and X is now totally furious at Y, and now when Y comes over to X’s family’s house every night to hang out as usual X is extremely frosty to him, or witheringly snide, or sometimes even yells at Y in front of the X family’s wife and kids. In response to all which, however, Y simply continues to come over to X’s family’s house and to hang around and take all the abuse X dishes out, nodding sort of studiously in response but not saying anything or in any other way responding to X’s hostility. On one particular occasion X actually screams at Y to ‘get the hell out of’ his family’s house and kind of half-hits-half-slaps Y, right in front of one of the family’s kids, hard enough to make Y’s glasses fall off, and all Y does by way of response is hold his cheek and nod sort of studiously at the floor while he picks his glasses up and repairs a bent arm-hinge as best he can by hand, and even after this he still continues to come around and hang out at X’s house like an adopted member of the family, and to just stand there and take whatever X dishes out in retaliation for whatever it is Y apparently did to him. Just why Y does this (i.e., continues to come around and to hang out at the Xes’) is unclear. Maybe Y is basically spineless and pathetic and has noplace else to go and nobody else to hang out with. Or maybe Y’s one of those quietly iron-spined people who are internally strong enough not to let any kind of abuse or humiliation get to them, and can see (Y can) through X’s present pique to the generous and trusted friend he’d always been to Y before, and has decided (Y has, maybe) that he’s just going to hang in there and stick it out and keep coming around and stoically allow X to vent whatever spleen he needs to vent, and that eventually X will probably get over being pissed off so long as Y doesn’t respond or retaliate or do anything to aggravate the situation further. In other words, it’s not clear whether Y is pathetic and spineless or incredibly strong and compassionate and wise. On only one specific further occasion, when X actually jumps up on an end table in front of the whole X family and screams at Y to ‘take [his] ass and hat and get the fuck out of [his, i.e., X’s] family’s house and stay out,’ does Y actually leave because of anything X says, but even after this further episode Y’s still right back over there hanging out at the Xes’ the very next night after work. Maybe Y just really likes X’s wife and kids a lot, and that’s what makes it worth it to him to keep coming around and enduring X’s vitriole. Maybe Y is somehow both pathetic and strong… though it’s hard to reconcile Y’s being pathetic or weak with the obvious backbone it must have required to write a negatively truthful Peer Evaluation or to refuse to lie or whatever it was that X hasn’t forgiven him for doing. Plus it’s unclear how the whole thing plays out — i.e., whether Y’s passive persistence pays off in the form of X finally getting over being furious and ‘forgiving’ Y and being his compadre again, or whether Y finally can’t take the hostility anymore and eventually stops hanging around X’s house… or whether the whole incredibly tense and unclear situation simply continues indefinitely. What made it a half-slap is that X had had a partly open hand when he hit Y that one time. There’s also the factor of how X’s overt unfriendliness to Y and Y’s passive reaction to it affect certain intramural dynamics within the X family, like whether X’s wife and kids are horrified by X’s treatment of Y or whether they agree with X that Y dicked him over somehow and so are basically sympathetic to X. This would affect how they feel about Y continuing to come around and hang out at their house every night even though X is making it crystal clear he’s no longer welcome, like whether they admire Y’s stoic fortitude or find it creepy and pathetic and wish he’d finally just get the message and quit acting like he’s still an honorary part of the family, or what. In fact the whole mise en scène here seems too shot through with ambiguity to make a very good Pop Quiz, it turns out.