Monday mornings are very busy here. I’ve got lectures to prepare, mortgage companies to call, and students with whom to meet. I’m rarely in blogging mode at this hour, but hope to have a more thoughtful post up later in the day. The comments below my last two posts have turned into a relatively interesting rehashing of the classic canard that the sexual revolution has failed women. (And the old "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" line has made an appearance as well.) I’ll have some thoughts this afternoon.
My next marathon (Long Beach) is now just five weeks away. I feel reasonably ready. I’ve dropped twelve or thirteen pounds since my sluggish performance in San Diego in June, but I haven’t been doing much up-tempo speed-work. I’ve realized over the years that running at a moderate pace gives me the same endorphin high as track work — with a good deal less pain. As I get older, I’m less willing to beat up my body for the sake of cutting down time.
I know that my focus on personal fitness comes across as narcissistic (and in times of national tragedy), almost offensively obtuse. At the same time, I also know that my devotion to my body’s performance offers me the opportunity to commit more energy to other activities. Teaching seven classes a week, regular volunteering within two spiritual communities, and steady writing (I’m going to get some articles out this year, lord willing) would be impossible for me if I didn’t give the time to my body. I’d either have to drink or go mad, and neither option is anywhere near as appealing as a brutal session of Pilates or a few tough hours pounding the trail. People say, "Hugo, can you afford to spend so much time and money on working out?" I always answer, "I can’t afford not to!" I do believe I have more energy, more perspective, more ability to listen compassionately, when I have burned up all my little demons in exercise.
I suppose this is where I have some affection for our president. Not his politics, mind you. But I’ve heard the criticisms of his obsession with exercise (the running, and now the mountain biking), and I’ve always felt protective of a man who at least in that regard, I see as a kindred spirit. Without pushing the point, my life narrative and his are not terribly different; I know what it is to prolong adolescent recklessness and heavy drinking far beyond what is chronologically appropriate. I know what it is to surrender to a Higher Power, and to experience the profound transformation that comes with a "born-again" commitment to Christ. But I’ve also noted that for those of us who are touched by addictions, the "disease moves laterally." When we surrender our drinking (or other bad behaviors), our addictiveness simply switches to something more positive. I have no doubt that both President Bush and I are addicted to exercise; I also have no doubt that it is the regular opportunity to indulge that addiction that frees us up to meet our responsibilities. (Not that I am suggesting that my burdens are anywhere near as weighty as his). Without that outlet, he could not do what he does; I’m not sure I could either.
I don’t know if the president feels closer to God when he works out. I know that I do, especially in the long painful sessions. Though I love to work out with companions, sometimes I like to run alone, if only because in the latter stages of a major run, I start to talk out loud to God. When all that pain mixes with the endorphin high, I feel uniquely vulnerable and open. Perhaps it’s just my body’s biochemistry that creates the perception of being spiritually connected, but whatever the source, I am utterly dependent upon it. And given the benefits that it has brought to my life, and given what it has enabled me to do for those around me that I was not able to do before, I’ll zealously defend my runs and rides and gym sessions against all those who suggest my time and money be spent elsewhere. And when called for, in this one regard, I’ll defend the president as well.
No offense, Hugo, but I don’t think you exercising is quite like President Bush’s obsession. Your exercise doesn’t get in the way of your job.
And I’m highly suspicious of the president’s claim to be a born-again. I think it’s playing politics, not sincere.
I really couldn’t care less about the President’s exercise habits, addiction history, or spiritual development.
And fwiw, Hugo, I don’t have an issue with your exercise habits. I have an issue with your belief that women should be required to sacrifice our bodies so that fetuses can live, combined with your absolute certainty that you’re entitled to your expensive, time-consuming exercise routine, even though the money you spend on pilates classes could save more lives than any one woman is capable of gestating. I’m sure you wouldn’t be as productive if you didn’t exercise. Most women aren’t as productive when they’re pregnant. I’m still not understanding how you justify this double standard.
And yes, I know that you don’t necessarily want to outlaw abortion. But making abortion “unthinkable” is just a soft form of coercion. The bottom line is that you demand sacrifices of women that you don’t demand of yourself.
“And I’m highly suspicious of the president’s claim to be a born-again. I think it’s playing politics, not sincere.”
And I’m highly suspicious of your ability to make that call.
Stephen
Sally, thanks for making it clear that I do not support outlawing abortion. When I say that I want a world where abortion is unthinkable, I mean the sort of world where our sexual behavior, our global resources, and our collective beliefs about life have been so fundamentally transformed that we can honestly say that yes, we can’t dream of a world where abortion would be necessary. What others accept as inevitable, I don’t — and that belief in the possibility of transformation is rooted in my training as a historian, not in spite of it. (I don’t see spiritual renewal and greater male and female sexual responsibility as coercive, by the way, but we can disagree cheerfully on that!)
So can I take it that you’re pro-choice until we arrive at utopia?
Hugo,
I feel your pain. I have become addicted to running and spinning. I try not to feel guilty about putting those things first and so should you. Those long lonely runs enable me to work out those things in my head that usually eat away at me during the day thus, hindering my productivity. My mad crazy energy and clear mind are beneficial to those directly and indirectly involved in my day.
I am a woman who plans on having children some day and my biggest worry (when it comes to that) is how I am going to fit in my running and spinning. I do know it can be done.
Sally, you can take it that I have prayerfully decided to remain silent on the subject, contributing to neither “side” in the abortion debate, until I get some more clarity. That’s not dodging the subject, it’s an admission of intellectual and spiritual paralysis.
Jean, my friends of both sexes who have had kids have managed to go to some pretty remarkable lengths to keep working out; having an understanding spouse is immensely helpful. Rotating child care around workout schedules can be done.
Maybe you’re being tongue-in-cheek by calling your exercise habits an “addiction,” but I think it’s worth pointing out that:
“Addiction is now narrowly defined as ‘uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm’; if there is no harm to the patient or another party, there is no addiction.” (taken from here: http://www.answers.com/addiction&r=67)
What harm does running or Spinning cause to the person working out, even if that person feels the need to do that activity 5 days a week?
If “addiction” can mean doing something regularly that helps keep you feeling healthy and sound, then I’d say the word has lost all meaning!
I think any true addiction is harmful. A balanced life is more satisfying.
Onlooker, I prefer the Merriam-Webster definition:
…”compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.”
Add in endorphins to the substance, and you’ve got me nailed. Wait till you see me after three days of no exercise! There is serious harm to friends, family, drivers on the freeway, and anything in range.
Seriously, folks, I wouldn’t have nearly as even a keel if I didn’t work out all the time. If I am rarely intemperate and unpleasantly vicious on this blog, it’s got lots to do with my body chemistry. (Though one would like to think a certain degree of maturity plays in as well!)
Pres. Bush may be 100% sincere about being a born-again Christian. That status is perfectly compatible with extreme self-absorption and insensitivity to others’ needs. It is also perfectly compatible with mature selfless action. So, when someone says, “I’m born again”, I think, “So what?”.
Stephan:
His record is hardly “Christ”ian. I’ve read the New Testaments dozens of times, I’ve never read anything suggesting that Christians should go to war.
Antigone:
The New Testament is maddeningly enigmatic on many important issues. Your assumption that Christian leaders who go to war are therefore doing so counter to their beliefs is too simplistic by a long shot — throws out good, in my opinion, theological justification for a “just war.” (Not, mind you, that this war is meets that justification.)
But, my point was that sssuming we can ascertain the “sincerity” of another’s belief is highly problematic and suspect. Sincerity is such a thin accolade anyway . . .
Stephen
Whatever happened to sex as a sacred act consecrated by marriage and a sense of a divine? As opposed to a pure animal act designed to satisfy a bodily urge such as hunger and thirst.
Okay, Stephen, I’ve talked to many a Christian, and when I bring up a morally reprehensible character (such as Fred Phelps) that claims to be a Christian, their response is that he’s not a “true Christian” and you have to look at a person’s actions to see if they’re really touched by Christ. As Bush has done things that Christ reviled, all I can think he is not sincere, therefore, not a true Christian.
Rainbow-
False dicotomy; it can be a sacred, divine and animalistic act. At the same time, or different at different acts with the same person speaks to one or the other, or they may be none. Trying to put sex in a box or trying to say that a sex drive ISN’T basic is highly disingenius.
but sex and food and thirst can be elevated to recognize the divine. You can say grace, blessings before a meal. You can keep sex within a consecrated union which celebrates the divine.
or can you can wallow in gluttony and indescriminate, abusive meaningless couplings among multiple configurations.