Pen and Ink

Resolute.

So it's February first.  How are you doing with those resolutions for the new year?

Most people who planned to blog on New Year's resolutions probably did it a month ago. I chose an alternate path.

I didn't make any resolutions this year. People set all these grand plans and then get discouraged a couple of weeks into the year when they haven't done a thing toward fulfilling those plans.

This year, I set some goals. Without expectation that they will be completed within 30 days.

1.  Get serious about photography.  I've been dabbling the last couple of years. I'm not to bad behind the camera, but I have no training other than what I picked up from my father. So I am enrolling in a class starting at the beginning of March.

2. Write some more.  I know I haven't been writing much, but there are reasons. And they are my own.  But here I am, writing this on a Saturday night. I have a whole list of things to talk about.  So I'm trying to give this blog some more attention.  I'm also starting to do some professional writing.

3. Expand my professional network.  I know a lot of people, but I need to strengthen my professional network in strategic ways.  I'm doing that with some writing (see above), some speaking, and some meetings with people I want to know.  My friend Susan and I are doing some of this together.  It's a short- and long-term investment. 

4. Lose some weight.  Yeah, yeah. Everyone says this. But I joined a gym (again) and started Weight Watchers Online (again).  I have to get serious about this. Apparently I snore, so losing some weight will help (me and whoever might be in my bed).  Beside the health benefits, there's the matter of the cruise I'm taking in September.  One must look good for a ship of 2,500 gay men.

How are you doing with your "goals?"

Harder, better, faster.

Check this out.  Really cool.

Award season.

So here we are again: award season. 

The nominations for the Oscars were announced. It was a banner year in terms of my own theater-going: I actually saw one of the films in contention -- Milk. 

Since I have seen none of the other movies nominated in any category, I really can't comment on my favorites to win.  But Milk -- wow.  Jose and I went to see it a couple of weeks ago.  I knew relatively little about Harvey Milk's story, so I found this important piece of the history of the gay community pretty fascinating.  And Sean Penn certainly deserves a nomination. He did a great job.

The nominations for the Razzie Awards were announced too. And again, I only saw one of the movies that was nominated for an award.  The entire cast of the tragic remake of The Women was nominated in the Worst Actress category.

I went to see The Women, having seen the original in my Fag 101 course way back when.  I didn't think cast did a bad job at all. The problem was the direction the movie took. These women are supposed to be catty and bitchy.  But I guess this is what happens when you put a film like this in the hands of...well...a woman.  Only a gay man should have been chosen to direct the remake of this classic.  (I recently asked Christopher what I could get Drew as a birthday present. He suggested the DVD of the remake.  I steadfastly refused.)

* * * * *

One of the reasons I never seem to see most of the movies that are nominated for Oscars is that I generally don't select films for their star power. Tom Cruise?  Oh please.  Bruce Willis?  No thanks.  Brad Pitt?  Couldn't care less.

It's Brad Pitt that has kept me from seeing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.  Well, that and the fact that the storyline isn't all that interesting to me. 

What would have gotten me into the theater was the fact that Button is based on a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald.  Who knew?  I was roaming through Books & Books on Lincoln Road a couple of weeks ago (for those in Miami who haven't seen it -- they did a really nice job on the new location) and found the small volume on a table. 

I thought it was curious that they didn't even mention in any of the marketing for this film that it's an F. Scott Fitzgerald story. For this English major, that makes up for the presence of Brad Pitt.  I mentioned this to Meredith this afternoon and she replied, "Do you really think anyone today even knows F. Scott Fitzgerald?"  I hope that's not really true. 

* * * * *

Speaking of films, Meredith's dragging me to see Marley & Me tomorrow.  It wasn't on my list, but I do like Jennifer Aniston, I love dogs, and to be honest, I could use a laugh.  So off to Marley we will go.

Light the candles.

A happy birthday shout-out to my friend Steven from Human Nature. It's nice to see you firmly entrenched in your thirties.

Seeing you, seeing me.

So here's some news to start the new year: I'm "seeing" someone.  Romantically, that is, as opposed to, say, a therapist.

Jose and I met right after Thanksgiving, thanks to the clever programmers at match.com. However, we've actually known of each other for about a year and a half. We spoke by telephone once when I called him for a reference check for a person I was considering hiring. 

Now, I've done dozens and dozens of reference checks in my career, and can't remember a single one. Except this one.  Turns out, he remembers the call too. It also helps that my (now former) employee had talked to him about me on numerous occasions.  Interesting how things play out, huh?

So we went out on a lunch date, and things have progressed nicely from there.

Having spent much of my adult life in two relationships, I'm not so good at dating. I mentioned that to Jose and he responded, "Who is?"  The whole thing confuses me. I became more befuddled after a humorous conversation earlier this week.

Jose introduced me to some people the other day by name, without a qualifier.  One of the people inquired what we are to each other.  I looked at Jose and said, "Hmmm...what are we?"  He responded to the person that we were "seeing each other."

What does that mean, "seeing" each other?

We got into a conversation later on about this. The truth of the matter is that I really like him and am not interested in dating anyone else. He feels the same way.  So I asked him, in a somewhat lighthearted way, "Are we boyfriends now?"

"Oh, no," he responded. "Not yet."

Turns out that there are, apparently, various steps that two people go through before they become boyfriends (it's different for lesbians; they meet and then call U-Haul, as the old joke goes). 

First, apparently, you go out on dates. OK, that makes sense.  But then you are "dating."  Huh?  I don't get it.  What's the difference between "going out on dates" and "dating?" 

"Oh, but there is," Jose confirmed with conviction.  Never mind that he could not explain the difference to me. I suppose I just have to accept it as fact.

Then, once you get through dating, you're "seeing each other."  I understand the difference there.  When you're "dating" it's not necessarily exclusive. You can still see each other people should you desire to do so.  But when you're "seeing each other," no one else is involved.

Once you've seen enough of each other, then you become boyfriends.  Again, I'm confused.  What is the difference?  If you're spending time together, not going out with other people, then aren't you boyfriends?  I don't get it.  Jose couldn't explain this one either.

After you are boyfriends for awhile, according to Jose, then you are married. That part, I think I get.  Boyfriends don't live together, once you move in together you're married.  I think.

The whole thing bemuses and amuses me.  Can anyone else shed some light on this?