(Today's issue of The Federalist includes an article I wrote!)
A few years ago, in the middle of a swing dance lesson, I
found myself dancing with a middle-aged man. Suddenly he remarked that he enjoyed
our class, because, “with dancing, you get to touch people.” His words seemed
pretty creepy. Yet I think that they were innocent—innocent, and rather sad. He
enjoyed learning swing-outs and under-arm turns because they provided simple,
physical human contact. He had no other way of getting that contact because he
had no girlfriend.
Click to READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE
Happy Friday!
A few years ago, in the middle of a swing dance lesson, I
found myself dancing with a middle-aged man. Suddenly he remarked that he enjoyed
our class, because, “with dancing, you get to touch people.” His words seemed
pretty creepy. Yet I think that they were innocent—innocent, and rather sad. He
enjoyed learning swing-outs and under-arm turns because they provided simple,
physical human contact. He had no other way of getting that contact because he
had no girlfriend.
We modern Westerners shelter ourselves within a
personal-space bubble that allows us to touch others only with very specific
body parts in very specific contexts. We are uncomfortable with greater
intimacy not because we don’t like touch, but because most bodily contact has
been so sexualized.
Click to READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE
***
Happy Friday!
Death might not care if you are sexy but Mother Nature does. I assume sexy people have more sex and as a byproduct leave more offspring. You can't get more meaningful than that.
ReplyDeleteJim, "more sex = more offspring" is an illogical conclusion in these days of birth control and abortion, and even assuming that "sexy people have more sex" is unfounded.
DeleteFantastic article! I ran across it through Realclearpolitics and found it interesting and moving, esoecially the part about the man at the swing dancing lesson. Keep up the excellent writing and I look forward to reading more.
ReplyDelete