Archive for the 'Athletics and Fitness' Category

A note on a father’s day run

It’s just after 12 noon on Father’s Day, my first Father’s Day since my Dad died nearly a year ago.

Last Father’s Day was the last time my father and I were able to speak. He was in the very late stages of dying of cancer, and we knew he had only a few days left. He was still coherent most of the time, and — blessedly — in virtually no pain. My wife and I spent the day with him, my stepmom, and my two sisters in Santa Barbara. He dozed most of the day in his easy chair, periodically waking up to chat with us or smile at us while we held his hand. He died four days later.

I woke up this morning very early, even before my alarm went off at 5:00. I went downstairs, meditated for a bit, and thought about the fact that this would be the first Father’s Day of my life without my Dad. I remembered the little gifts and cards I made him in elementary school; I remembered the lunches I took him out to in more recent years. I thought about last Father’s Day when, in the evening, we put Dad into bed and I heard him say — for the last time — the same words he had been saying to me for nearly four decades: “Good night, Huggle.”

I’m in the heart of my marathon training now; today’s run was a hard twenty-miler from the Aquatic Center parking lot south of the Rose Bowl to the top of Brown Mountain in the Angeles Forest. I was looking forward to the run today of all days because it would be something joyous, liberating, peaceful, exhilarating.

I ran with two of my buddies, Caz and Mark; both are fathers. Both knew my Dad. I didn’t talk much about missing my father, but I was soothed by the presence of these old companions of mine; their gentle maleness is reminiscent of my papa’s, and I needed some gentle masculinity today.

The last stage of the run was grueling. We had added in an extra section that gave us another mile, so I was doing a solid 21 this morning. I ran the last four miles alone, in the blazing sun, down through Devil’s Gate dam and along the east side of the Bowl. I felt my father with me as I ran; it was he, after all, who taught me to run thirty years ago, back when he was briefly caught up in the “jogging craze” of the mid-to-late 1970s. And when I came to a stop near my car, soaked in sweat, my skin coated in dust and salt, I felt the tears well up. Running, for me, isn’t really an escape from emotional pain; it is in my running that I draw closer to my own woundedness, my own grief — it is in endurance athletics that I find a kind of catharsis and healing that I find nowhere else, not even on my knees at the communion rail.

And doing 21 miles of long, slow, painful distance on this Father’s Day brought me very close to the pain of losing my father a year ago. But it also brought home for me the Great Hope that I hold in my heart, that I will be with him again in another country. Perhaps when I join him there, they will have hills and fire roads, and we will run a very long time together.

That’s not just my hope, that’s my certainty this Father’s Day.

The chinchillas got their dad a dozen yellow roses and a gift certificate to the movies. Their papa is grateful.

Loving the look, ignoring the sport: some thoughts on Allison Stokke: UPDATED

It was a busy weekend. My wife and I were able to spend some excellent time together, and on Saturday night — before heading out for some vegan Nepalese — I got some of the live coverage of the California high school track and field championships. I got to see the future Golden Bear running back, Jahvid Best, show some awesome speed in the 200; I got to see the remarkable Jordan Hasay (whose career I’ve been tracking since she was an eighth grader) lap most of the field on her way to another easy victory in the two-mile. Hasay is only a sophomore, and if she keeps her composure and stays injury free, she’s going to be a household name outside of the track world very soon.

Track doesn’t get much coverage in the mainstream press, even in the sports section. But Friday’s LA Times featured a front-page piece on Allison Stokke, a high school pole-vaulter from Orange County. Allison’s a fine vaulter (though she finished fourth at state on Saturday), and I’m happy to say she’s a future Cal athlete. But the article was about the attention Allison has drawn for her looks:

…intelligence and athletic ability aren’t what made her the most-watched athlete at the state high school track and field championships in Sacramento on Friday.

It was the Internet.

Stokke happens to be physically attractive, with shiny dark hair; flawless olive-colored skin; a wide, bright smile; and the toned 5-foot-7 frame of a well-trained athlete — and that’s why her name has become among the most searched on the Internet, making her a flashpoint for debate about 1st Amendment rights and who can post what about whom in cyberspace.

One day she was just another accomplished high school athlete. The next, she was the topic of media reports from London, Spain and Italy; her YouTube video got nearly 200,000 views; and photos of her were posted on college message boards around the country and linked to by bloggers around the world.

Keith Richmond, chief executive of Break.com, has a term he uses for the instantly famous: “e-lebrities.” His site bills itself as an “entertainment channel for guys fueled by user-created media.”

The Times, helpfully for those who don’t follow the sport, offers two pictures of Stokke, one vaulting, one just smiling for the camera. The latter is captioned “head-turner.”

On so many levels, this is so infuriating. For starters, it’s one thing for the Times to report on the unseemly obsession that many men (who probably know damn all about field events, and couldn’t name one of Stokke’s competitors) have with a high-school aged female athlete. It’s another thing for the Times article (written by Diane Pucin) to label Allison a “head-turner” and rhapsodize about her “flawless” skin. A whole lot of folks who didn’t know about Stokke before surely did internet searches for her after reading the paper last Friday. And how the heck can Pucin be sure that Stokke was the one all the fans were focused on? Can she not draw a distinction between drooling middle-aged men on the Internet surfing for T&A and serious aficionados of T&F?

I’m angry about the way in which the attention paid to Stokke marginalizes the many other athletes in the sport. Stokke is a great vaulter, but as any T&F fan will tell you, the best in the country right now is Palo Alto’s marvelous Tori Anthony, who this past weekend became the first high school girl in the United States to clear 14 feet in outdoor competition. Anthony has been consistently ahead of Stokke all year — except in camera attention. (To be fair, Stokke is no Anna Kournikova, the Russian tennis player who never won a significant tournament but made a fortune off her looks; a better comparison might be to Maria Sharapova, another Russian player who gets tremendous camera attention for her physical features but who also has two grand slam championships to give heft to her credentials.) Thirty-five years after Title IX, and women’s sports still get far less media attention and financial support than do boys’ athletics. Paying attention to one bright and talented athlete among many, merely because she is judged beautiful, isn’t healthy for women’s sports. And it certainly doesn’t leave many of the women who are competing in track and field feeling good.

I’m also angry about the way in which we legitimize the eroticising of adolescents. I’ve spent a fair amount of time at track and field events over the years, and I’ve noted not insignificant number of creepy lookin’ guys with cameras who seem unduly interested in taking pictures of just one or two female athletes. A few years ago, I was at the big Arcadia Invitational meet, watching the high jumpers. One girl was wearing a particularly tight outfit, and as she flopped over the bar, a man a few rows behind me frantically clicked his camera with its long lens. “Ve-ee–ee–ry ni-ii-ii-ce” he muttered excitedly at one point, studying the digital images he had just taken. Like the guys at football games more interested in snapping a photo of a cheerleader’s kick pants than the action on the field, there’s a small cadre of these characters who make the circuit at track events. They aren’t generally asked to leave unless they make trouble, and most of them don’t. (I’ve gotten into it with one of them, and nearly got myself thrown out of the meet for my trouble). The pictures they take do end up all over the internet, and they are usually much the same. (You can imagine what body parts they like to focus on.)

All things being equal, there are more white girls than young women of color doing vaulting and high jumping. While events like the long jump and the triple jump tend to be dominated by young African-American women, pole vaulters and high jumpers are largely drawn from the ranks of former gymnasts. Gymnastics lessons are priced for the middle and upper-middle classes, of course, and thus there ends up being an economic and even ethnic component to women’s track and field competition. We live in a culture that tends to erotically fixate on tall, slender, pretty white girls — and in track and field, they are disproportionately found in the pole vault and the high jump. Thus, there’s a classist, racist, and sexist element in this focus on Allison Stokke.

I like Allison Stokke. I’m a fan (especially since the smart gal has chosen to go to Berkeley). But I’m also a fan of Tori Anthony. I’m an even bigger fan of Hasay, and of Jamesha Youngblood, who brought home two state titles this past weekend. The latter is probably the most dominant female athlete in the West right now. But her pictures aren’t plastered all over the internet.

Straight men don’t love their male athletic heroes because they’re sexy. Teenage boys are quite capable of idolizing LeBron James or Peyton Manning without fantasizing about them. They fantasize about being them, which is very different. But we live in a culture where a great many men can only identify “hot” female athletes. As a sports fan, a teacher, and a mentor, I find that exasperating, disappointing, and even enraging. I can idolize a female athlete as easily as a male one. Growing up, Martina Navratilova and Bjorn Borg were my tennis heroes. I wanted to emulate both of them, and I was sensible enough to see that I had no reason to identify with Borg more merely because he was male. I had no more chance of being as good a tennis player as Borg than I did of waking up one day as a woman; even as a child, I knew that much. And so I could look up to, be inspired by, and want to emulate athletes of both sexes equally. And though as a lad I certainly had my athletic crushes (even a few with a sexual component), I never picked who to root for — of either sex — based on looks. Surely, I’m not that unusual a bear.

So google Allison Stokke. But then google Jordan Hasay, and Jamesha Youngblood. And remember that whatever they look like, they are simply young women of extraordinary ability and talent who deserve to be recognized on the basis of what they achieve alone.

UPDATE: Twisty at I blame the patriarchy has a long post on this subject with over 100 comments; she posted on Saturday, and I ought to have done a search to see who else had touched on the issue first. As usual at IBTP, the language is raw and eloquent. Twisty and I have, in the end, much the same view. Read it.

Short race report, and two links on faith and veganism

I haven’t run many short races in recent years. On a whim, I did the Fiesta Days 10K in La Canada this morning; it’s quite a hilly course (with all the uphills in the second half, which is what I like). I had two goals — break 45 minutes for the race, and run the second (uphill) half faster than the first. I missed my first goal, finishing in an unofficial 45:06, but did (by my rough calculations) do the second half about fifteen seconds faster than the first.

When I was younger, I would run fast early and hang on at the end; now, far wiser (if far slower) my goal is not to get passed in the final third of any race I run. Today, I was more than six minutes slower than my personal best on a certified 10K course (38:49, back in the day when I was a skinny, nervy thing) but I had lots of fun. And no one passed me at the end.

Also, I just joined the Christian Vegetarian Association. Would have done it earlier, but somehow didn’t know about ‘em. Thanks to reader “Jay” for the link. The CVA reminds me that the literal reading of Genesis 1:29-30 would seem to support the notion of the vegan diet as “God’s best.”

Read through CVA’s faqs here, and check out the Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians as well.

Happy Memorial Day.

A note on why Hugo hates getting massaged

For my birthday dinner last night, my wife took me out to a great little vegan place in Los Feliz. Before dinner, we went to get massages. And I was reminded, not for the first time, of how much work I have had to do in my life to get to the place where I allow myself to be massaged and touched.

Though I’ve been running and doing other fitness activities for years, I didn’t have my first massage until I was 36. For years and years, the idea of having a stranger — or even someone whom I knew well — rubbing me all over freaked me out. No matter how sore or achey I got, I preferred to treat my pain with massive doses of ibuprofen. (At one time, when I was more foolish in my training, I was doing 2400 milligrams of ibuprofen every darned day, before, during, and after workouts.) It wasn’t the expense of a massage; I felt the same way about allowing a girlfriend or buddy to rub my neck or back.

I’ve always been an affectionate person. I’m a hugger, an enthusiastic back-slapper, a comforting patter of knees and shoulders. And I was always quite willing to rub the aching shoulders or neck of a friend or loved one. I never had a problem initiating physical contact; as long as I was in control of how much contact happened and how long it lasted, I was happy. Receiving was, to put it mildly, a different story. I had zero ability to lie back and enjoy any kind of physically pleasurable experience, unless that pleasure was provided by an inanimate object. (I remember discovering a massage chair in an airport lounge many years ago. Though I still had some trouble enjoying the experience, I was at least willing to try it.)

What I came to realize, with the help of she who is now my wife, is that I had a very serious control issue when it came to my body. As someone who battled eating disorders for years, and still has to watch his exercise addiction, I’m unduly infatuated with my own physical autonomy, particularly when it came to pleasure. I was very good — during my various youthful hospitalizations — about putting up with various medical procedures. I used to joke that I had an easier time being catheterized or having my stomach pumped than being given a full-body massage. (The former two experiences happened entirely too often.) So it wasn’t just about losing control — I could accept losing control when it involved suffering in a way that I couldn’t when it involved pleasure. What I couldn’t accept was the overwhelming discomfort that came when someone else seemed single-mindedly focused on giving pleasure to me.

The strange mix of guilt and anxiety that I felt just at contemplating getting massaged (by loved one or hired stranger) wasn’t rooted in any early childhood trauma, nor — as far as I could tell — was it connected to a profound sense of guilt about my body. My massage phobia was alive and well during the most promiscuous times of my life, when I had no trouble being sexual with people I barely knew, as long as those sexual experiences didn’t involve me passively receiving anything pleasurable. I had no trouble undergoing medical exams either; I’ve never been one of those men who is reluctant to go to the doctor. It wasn’t about a loathing of the body, it was about a mistrust of other human beings rooted in something so deep that I couldn’t name or see the source.

My very patient girlfriend, now my wife, worked on me gently and lovingly. I finally broke down and gave into a massage on Valentine’s Day, 2003. We were out in Palm Springs together, and when we woke up on the morning of February 14, she hit me with a bombshell: she had ordered a “couples massage.” Two men would be coming to our room that afternoon with tables and oils and New Age music, and they would rub each of us. For an hour. And there was to be no arguing; I was to give it a try as part of my Valentine’s present for her. And I gulped, swallowed hard, and agreed. I spent half an hour in the shower before the masseurs showed up, scrubbing myself clean. Though at this point I had been off drugs and alcohol for five years, I found myself longing for a quick little drink, or better yet, a handful of benzodiazepines to cope with the anxiety. But I went through the experience stone cold sober.

The masseur was wonderful, gentle, strong. He found the sore spots in my lower back and my chronically tight hamstrings right away. About fifteen minutes into the massage, I began to cry. I kept on crying, softly, until the hour-long experience was over. It was an extraordinarily cathartic mix of profound emotional discomfort, intense pleasure, and psychological release. After the men left, I felt overwhelmed with nausea. All of the toxins stored in my muscles for so long were now flooding my system, having been released by the massage; I spent the rest of Valentine’s Day 2003 puking. It wasn’t very romantic, but my gal was thrilled, knowing that I had broken through this phobia about pleasure and control.

I still only get massaged a couple of times a year. It’s still often a difficult experience to endure, though I’m getting better and better at receiving pleasure and healing work while I lie passive. I know I’ve got a strong puritanical streak within me. Most of the time, I think that puritanism is fundamentally good — after all, it’s rooted in the conviction that I must not allow my own selfish desires to trump my ethical responsibilities to the earth and its creatures. But there’s a thin line between restriction for the sake of sharing with other living beings, and anhedonia, the aversion to pleasure in its own right. Learning to accept massage, learning to accept touch, learning to accept caress and care is an important, if incredibly difficult, part of this journey towards making that vital distinction.

Remembering uncle Peter

Ten days ago, I noted the passing of my uncle, Peter Roeding Butler. His obituary in the San Francisco Chronicle appears today, and it seems the right time to write a short tribute.

Uncle Peter was both my uncle and my cousin. He married his second cousin, my mother’s sister Marianna, after they met at a family reunion. As his obituary makes clear, he was born and raised in Hawaii, but spent most of his adult life in the Bay Area.

My parents divorced when I was six; though I stayed close to my father, after their separation, he rarely came to family gatherings at our Northern California ranch. My maternal grandfather had died in 1969, and this meant that Uncle Peter was perhaps the central male figure at the ranch in my childhood. At Easters and Thanksgivings and Christmas gatherings throughout the 1970s, Peter was one of the two senior men on the premises. (The other vitally important man in my growing up years was my great-uncle, Stanley Williams Moore, the late philosopher.) Uncle Peter was the first Santa Claus I can remember, and for years, he ran our small “safe and sane” ranch Independence Day fireworks show to the great delight of his children and nephews and nieces.

I don’t think I would have become an endurance athlete if it wasn’t for Peter Butler. He started running the first of his 81 marathons in the mid-1970s (I’ve run 13 to date, and have a long way to go to catch him). In the summer of 1978, he and my aunt came to visit us in Carmel; they decided to stay at a little inn out in the valley, about eleven miles from our home by the sea. One weekend morning Peter, always eager for a run, sent my aunt Marianna ahead to our house. He wanted to make the journey to our place on foot, but was worried about getting lost. My mother sent me, aged 11, out on a bike to meet him; I would accompany him the final miles to our place.

I knew the drive from our house out to Carmel Valley Village well. I remember bicycling about five miles up the valley to our agreed-upon meeting point, amazed that anyone could run as far as my uncle was running that day. I had heard of marathons, but I didn’t know how long they were; running eleven miles (when I had a hard time biking that far) seemed absurd. It seemed impossibly heroic. And on that summer day in 1978, I waited for my uncle at the top of a little hill in the valley. After a few minutes, I saw him. It was a warm day, and he ran in a sweat-soaked singlet and red shorts. He was a tall man — about 6′2″, well over 200 pounds, with a frame that was never ideal for running. (I’m an inch and a half shorter and of somewhat slimmer build — it makes endurance work much easier). To little eleven year-old me, Peter was a great big bear of a man, all power and muscle and will. I was awed as I watched him ascend towards me. I handed him the bottle of water I had brought, and slowing only slightly, he drank most of it down. “Hugo”, he said, “take me to the ocean!”

I brought him the rest of the way, riding far enough ahead not to bother him, constantly looking over my shoulder as I did so. His strength and his purpose amazed me; at that age, I was fascinated by mythology, and I remember thinking he looked like a drawing I had seen of Woden, the great father god of the Norse. I took him to Carmel Beach, and watched him plunge into the water, bellowing like a delighted moose. I was utterly transfixed. The next day we drove out to Carmel Valley to see Peter and Marianna, and I remember staring out the window in amazement as the miles rolled by, scarcely able to conceive what it would be like to run all that way.

It would be nearly two decades before I ran my first marathon, at Los Angeles in 1998. It would be 25 years before I would run my first ultra, here in our local mountains in 2003. As soon as I started training, however, I sought out advice from my uncle. He urged me to do as many miles as possible on dirt rather than asphalt; in his later years, he had both knees and a hip replaced as a result of having logged too many hard road miles in too short a time on too big a body. My own father, whom I loved with all my heart, did not share my growing fascination with endurance sports. Peter was a role model and a mentor for me; I bought my Trek 5000 bicycle because it was what he had. He and I had our last long talk about running last August. He couldn’t run in his later years, but still biked and swam. I heard the wistfulness in his voice as we talked of my latest workouts, and I remember his gentle admonition to continue to “take it easy” so that I would still have my knees in my old age.

My Uncle Peter took me to my first college football game (at Cal, of course); he was the first person to explain the rules of that sport to me. (And by God, he could spot a holding penalty faster than anyone!) My Austrian-born, English-raised father had no interest in American sports –Peter did, and it was with him that I watched countless hours of football, baseball, and other sports on television. With my mother and father separated (however amicably), I needed and craved grown men in my life: Peter Butler was one of a very small number who was there for me through what was, truth be told, a difficult and often unhappy childhood. I am grateful beyond words for that.

Peter became a family activist. There’s a park in Fresno, Roeding Park, named for my great-great grandparents. In 2004, our family fought an unsuccessful legal battle to keep an expanded zoo out of the park. My ancestors gave that land to Fresno for quiet contemplation and recreation, not the exploitation of animals. The voters of Fresno didn’t see it that way, alas, but my Uncle Peter was the leader of a large family coalition that fought to keep the park’s future use consistent with the intent of the original bequest.

He was justifiably proud of his nickname of “Ironman”, earned when he finished an early edition of the famed Hawaii Ironman Triathlon (at 50). Though I followed him into endurance sports, I never thought of him as “ironman.” The great ultramarathoners I train with don’t think of themselves as made of iron. We are, in the end, ordinary men and women who push our bodies to do extraordinary things. Iron rusts. Iron can’t bend, can’t expand, can’t grow any stronger than it already is. My uncle grew more tender and more loving with age. At times he could be hard and inflexible, like many of us. But his heart, his generosity, his genuine vulnerability, always seemed to trump that hardness, that iron aspect of his identity. He was my uncle and my cousin, a role model throughout my life. In his later years, he was also my friend, and I will miss him.

All true endurance athletes are happiest going uphill, I think. Whether on a bike or on foot, we love to climb and climb. Next to being in the arms of my wife, I am most at peace when I am alone, running up a mountain on switchback after switchback, the longed-for summit growing slowly closer. The downhill that follows is usually less relief than it is anti-climax. In a short documentary made for the family by his son Dean, my uncle Peter spoke last year about this longing to ascend endlessly, the sense that life itself is a long, often difficult but also joy-filled climb. Not much more than six months before his death my uncle remarked, “I’m not at the summit yet, but it’s in sight.” When I saw the DVD (produced for his 75th birthday last fall) and heard those words, I gasped aloud and began to weep. On a visceral level, I got what he meant instantly. His life was filled with joy, but also with an endless sense of struggle. And I have so much of that in me, more perhaps than most of the rest of his family.

I am no poet, though I love verse. Years ago, I wrote a haiku about running up, up, up. I’ve modified it a few times, but here’s the original:

Climbing the mountain
Blazing summit in my sight
There is no descent

There is no descent, Peter. You can stay on top of the mountain now.

I’m running the San Francisco Marathon on July 29; I’m dedicating that race — and the training season until then — to him.

A note on virtue, exercise, and disability: a response to Mr. Soul

Last week, a reader named Mr. Soul sent me an email:

I see that you have blogged extensively about what you
call “mental illness”–but you never use the word
“disability”–and have zero entries (in how many years
of blogging?) about disability or disability rights
politics. Do you think your dislike of using the term
disability, or the subject of disability itself (as
evidenced by the way you have consistently ignored the
topic) has to do with your fitness obsession, and the
way you conflate a healthy, fit body with godliness?

I’ll take it as a fair request, even though I think that there are some whopping and false assumptions behind the question he asks.

It’s true I don’t blog about disability issues. To be fair, I never intended this blog to be about all possible social justice issues. At its core, this blog reflects my own passions and interests, which tend to revolve around sexuality, gender, faith, and animal rights. I hardly ever blog about the Iraq war, for example, because I don’t think I have anything original to say on the topic. (My views are generally in line with those of, say, Dennis Kucinich, but he knows more about the topic than I.) The same is true of disability; it’s not something with which I am wholly unconcerned, but it is a topic about which I am sure I know less than many other fine bloggers.

Still, I do blog a lot about fitness. And at times, I admit, I do suggest that there is something inherently virtuous about paying close attention to diet and committing to regular exercise. Yes, I do believe that we are called to be both stewards of our bodies and stewards of the earth, and that — to me — means that what we eat and how we keep fit are issues of justice and responsibility.

Eating vegan (and whenever possible, eating “local”) is about taking responsibility for animals, for the earth, and for my own health. If I am to be of maximum service, I need to be as fit as possible. If my diet shortens my life, leaves me short of energy, and has me nauseated or depressed much of the time, then my food choices are holding me back from doing important work. If I eat such a big meal that I have to collapse into bed, leaving myself unavailable to my wife and friends, then my eating habits aren’t just hurting the planet, they’re hurting those to whom I am responsible. If I eat in such a way that I take years off of my life, then I steal from my future children time with their father. Heck, I won’t be a Dad until well into my forties — I have a moral responsibility to be fit, because being fit is one of the best guarantors I know that I will be around for my children as they grow.

So yes, I think that God calls us to eat justly and to keep our bodies fit. I do think vegetarianism (and better yet, veganism) is more than just one lifestyle choice among many: I think it’s a morally preferable choice because of its undeniable benefits both to the “eater” and the creatures of the earth who are not eaten. A meat-free, dairy-free, egg-free diet requires far fewer natural resources and far less land to maintain, and it involves far less cruelty to animals. A program of regular exercise keeps the body stronger, and thus more “available” to the world.

Mind you, it’s very easy to let exercise addiction become selfish. I work out much less than I would like. Left to my own devices, without outside commitments, I would happily train for an ultramarathon by logging 120-140 miles a week. I’ve got the build to do it, the determination to do it, the huge desire to do it — but it would eat into the time I spend with my wife, with my students, with my youth group, with my other (growing) volunteer activities, with my writing. I try and walk a thin line, one in which I maintain lifelong fitness (and get high on endorphins) without compromising my commitments to God and to His creatures. I’ve seen people abandon their families in order to run or bike or train for extreme fitness events; I understand the temptation to do so, but I cannot justify such single-mindedness.

I am absolutely convinced that working to live a healthy (or healthier) life is something virtually everyone can do, including those with severe disabilities. Those who are wheelchair bound or who face other huge physical challenges are no less fully human in my eyes — and I am deeply sorry if anything I have written has suggested otherwise. The ability to run marathons does not make me any more enlightened than someone who can’t walk. We are all called to do the best we can with what we have been given, and as the Paralympic Games have made clear, great fitness and profound disability are not as incompatible as we sometimes imagine. What matters is this: within the context of the choices we have, we ought to do whatever we can to gain or maintain health, with the caveat that that health ought not be bought at the cost of suffering inflicted on innocent creatures. (Hence my opposition to animal research.) What that specifically involves will look very different for different people, which is a very trite thing to say but is the most truthful and thoughtful thing I can contribute on the subject.

Tennyson and Sharon Olds, Ulysses and Telemachus: a very long post about endurance athletes, independence, and the single body alone in the universe against its own best time

Another busy Monday morning finds me sitting at the messiest desk in the Western Hemisphere. Really, it’s appalling — Clif bar wrappers and old tests, coffee-stained handouts and framed wedding pictures all jostling together. Merely to type a post or an e-mail requires blowing the crumbs off the keyboard. (I need a new keyboard annually, thanks to the food and drink spills).

I’m thinking this morning about a dear relative of mine. Because it’s a private family matter, I won’t share much, but I will say that this relation is a man in his mid-seventies, now suddenly frail and weak and battling serious illness. Though his physical diagnosis isn’t immediately terminal, he seems to have lost much of his will to live. I am praying and meditating for him daily.

This man and I have had a lot in common for many years. My relation was the first endurance athlete I ever knew; he started marathoning in the 1970s, back when the sport was first becoming popular. He ended up doing more than 80 marathons, as well as several Ironman distance triathlons (including a strong finish in the Hawaii Ironman back in the very early years of the event.) He was a great bear of a man, not terribly fast but with a tremendous will to compete and and a tremendous capacity to live with physical pain — two things any serious endurance runner must have. He gave me lots of good advice when I first became a distance athlete, and in many ways, has been an athletic role model for me for more than twenty-five years.

What he and I share, more than a love of sport itself, is an intense desire to maintain our own autonomy and to pursue self-perfection through the endless disciplining of our own flesh. So much of our identity is built around the very satisfying thought that we do things other people can’t do. While others sleep in, we push our bodies to their limits, always seeing what else we can do to improve. And while there is much that is praiseworthy about this tremendous longing to achieve maximum fitness and performance, there’s a dark side to all of this as well. At its worst, this addiction to endurance sports can isolate us from others, cause us to ignore social and familial responsibilities, lead us to prioritize logging miles rather than spending time with those who love us most.

Berkeley-born Sharon Olds’ most famous poem is surely the marvelous Sex without Love. I loved it the first time I read it, largely because it was as close to a perfect description of how my companions and I lived out our erotic lives in our twenties as anything I’ve ever seen. And as a man who was both sexually promiscuous and athletically obsessive, I recognized myself at once in the closing lines:

They do not
mistake the lover for their own pleasure,
they are like great runners: they know they are alone
with the road surface, the cold, the wind,
the fit of their shoes, their over-all cardio-
vascular health–just factors, like the partner
in the bed, and not the truth, which is the
single body alone in the universe
against its own best time
.

I long ago surrendered my sexuality to God, and gave up “sex without love.” I have received indescribable gifts in return. But I struggle, Lord how I struggle, not to think of myself as going through life as a solitary runner, alone in the world, always racing against my own best time. The danger for distance athletes, both world-class and amateur, is that we can become profoundly selfish. Beating “our own best time” becomes the one meaningful battle in our lives. We discipline ourselves with restrictive diets, we beat up our joints on endless hills, we drag ourselves out of bed hours before dawn to do solitary combat on the roads and trails and treadmills. And if we’re not careful, we mistake the pursuit of our own individual excellence with authentic virtue.

Authentic virtue is never selfish, as Aristotle and a hundred other wise folks have pointed out. Authentic virtue is about balancing one’s own need to endlessly recreate and improve with one’s responsibility to the world at large. If our running gives us great pleasure, but leaves us so drained and self-absorbed that we are less available for our loved ones and our community, then we’re not being virtuous. We have to make choices, and in the past couple of years, I’ve made that choice. Many folks think I work out a lot (14-20 hours per week). But that’s nothing compared to what I would do if I gave up more of my outside commitments! Oh, how I long to take eighteen good months and train for a solid 100-miler. But running 120 miles per week would take too much from my wife, too much from my chinchillas, too much from my students and my youth group, my seven classes, my mentees, my colleagues.

The greatest danger for distance athletes, however, isn’t that we become selfish. The greatest danger, one that I see in the life of my ailing relation, is that we become so enraptured by our own physical capabilities that we begin to believe we are radically autonomous. Our bodies do such incredible things, and bring us such pride and satisfaction, that we start to think we’re indestructible. We become particularly loath to rely on others, jealously, often pridefully guarding our own independence. The phrase “our bodies, ourselves” takes on a radically different meaning: our identity as human beings becomes enmeshed with our sense of what our bodies can do.

We came into this world naked and helpless. We had no control over our flesh; we were diapered and dressed and spanked and bathed and fed on another’s schedule. We wailed and flailed, but for the first few years were utterly incapable of meeting our own needs. And unless we are taken young and suddenly, most of us will leave the world in that same way. Even if we retain the ability to use the toilet and feed ourselves up until the end, old age will rob us, sooner or later, of our precious independence. If we’ve spent fifty or sixty years building up a personal myth of indestructible autonomy, “alone in the universe against our own best time”, we’re going to be absolutely devastated by the slow surrenderings we will inevitably have to make as we age.

I’ve posted a bit about my Dad lately. His dying was relatively quick last year; he got the terminal diagnosis in mid-April and he passed on on June 22. A gentle man, not in the least concerned with “personal best times” or “faster and farther”, he surrendered himself easily to his caregivers. He was uncomplaining as he slowly lost his abilities to do for himself what he had done for nearly seven decades. He maintained his dignity and his sense of humor, and above all, he maintained his sense of self even as his body shriveled. My father, a philosopher by training and a wise soul by natural temperament, knew that he was not his body. While he had a hard time accepting the soul as separate from the flesh, he knew that his “Hubertness” was not defined by what his muscles and bones could do. That knowledge gave him the strength to surrender gently when his time came.

My ailing relative, my fellow endurance athlete, is not going so gently. He’s raging against the dying of the light. For him, the “light” remains connected to what his body can do, and losing those capabilities is devastating for him in a way that it wasn’t for my far-less competitive father. As for me, I have had both these dear men as role models all of my life. Though there is much I owe to my Dad, and though I love him still with all my heart, I did not get my manic restlessness from him. That longing I have to climb the next mountain, and the next, and the next, until I reach the final summit from which there is no descent — that obsession comes from somewhere else. My cousin has it in him; his were the first pair of eyes in which I saw what I so often see when I look in the mirror: the sense that life is a constant struggle against weakness, against darkness, against our own sense of limitations. And when at last our limitations overwhelm us… it’s hard.

On the list of the hundred most famous English-language poems, Tennyson’s Ulysses must rank near the top. I first read it in college in a frosh Comp Lit class. I loved it then and love it now, and remember fighting with my Marxist TA who insisted that it was the “Ulysseses” of the world who were responsible for colonialism and imperialism and slavery. She hated the poem (and hated Tennyson) and wanted her students to mock the sentiments within it. I nearly lost my temper, so eager was I to defend both the poet and his protagonist. And I think of Ulysses often as I think of my dear cousin, fighting so hard in his hospital bed.

Ulysses was a lousy husband, to put it mildly. He wasn’t much of a king either, if we take Tennyson’s view — he has no interest in doing what his son Telemachus does:

…by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties
, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness…

Ulysses is not centered in that sphere of common duty; he hears a different call:

How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!
As though to breathe were life!

It’s whopping hubris to compare oneself and one’s relations to the ancient heroes, of course. But when I think of my father, I think of one very gentle, loving, devoted Telemachus. My God, Dad was “strong in the sphere of common duties”! Though he was not a political man or a natural leader, he was a pillar of his family and of the broader community; the hundreds and hundreds of mourners at his memorial service were all touched and moved by him. In my life, especially since his death, I’ve sought to become more and more of the sort of man he was. Kindness and grace came naturally to my father, and I long to emulate him in those virtues.

But my cousin and I — like so many of my friends in the endurance running community — have the restlessness of a Ulysses. We are the ones who find “how dull it is to pause, not to shine in use.” And though we don’t kill monsters, we devote our lives to killing our own limitations. Contentment scares us; complacency unnerves us; we embrace domesticity with often considerable unease. We are capable of common duties, but we’re not centered there. Our center is always a mile further up the trail.

Near the end of the poem, Ulysses says:

Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are…

That which we are, we are. I am thinking this morning of a man I love and admire, lying in his bed four hundred miles from here. A man who has climbed mountains, swum through oceans, run marathons on five continents. For him, the great question is finding the will to live now that so much has been taken. The question for him is whether “much abides”, and whether or not what remains is enough to continue to live.

Those with the spirit of Telemachus have an easier time letting go. They give up the bicycle, the running shoes, the car keys. They may mourn the loss of their independence, but they haven’t staked their identity to their autonomy the way those with the spirit of Ulysses have. And as one who struggles to reconcile his inner Telemachus with his inner Ulysses, I have much to think about this morning.

Working out, eating right, self-acceptance and the call to transform: towards reconciling a series of contradictions

One of the things about going vegan this year: no more Cadbury cream eggs. I’m thinking about this because my sources tell me that I’ve had several visitors who came here with the search query “cadbury eggs sweden”. Sigh.

I’m thinking about feminism and bodies again this morning. I read Sara’s post at F-Words yesterday. She notes that a poster appeared on campus at Washington State (she’s got the photo) with the caption: “Better your Body”. That wouldn’t have been unusual as an ad for a gym, but it was a flyer advertising free body composition testing in conjuction with WSU’s body image awareness week. Body image awareness programs have been around on college campuses for two decades or more, designed to combat the epidemic of eating disorders and self-loathing that is rampant among college students, particularly among young women. And if there’s something at the core of all “body image awareness workshops” it’s the notion that feminists ought to resist the imperative to be thin, to be overly concerned with body fat, to be endlessly obsessed with having a “better” physique.

Sara points out the absurdity of all this, and moves on to muse about what a truly “body-friendly” gym would look like.

It seems like there is so much emphasis on the idea expressed in that image - that we need to change our bodies, that we need to quantify them and judge them to be responsible and healthy - that it’s not necessarily a mentally-healthy environment.

In my body-friendly gym, there would be no scales. What do we need them for? No one leading an aerobics class would remind us that “swimsuit season” is coming. There would be fitness classes geared toward people whose bodies are different - classes for the disabled, for example. Even a person’s size can significantly change their experience of a class. I’ve found out (the hard way, having gained a fair amount of weight over a period when I was really into pilates) that having a belly makes pilates harder….

Mostly, I’d like a gym where a person’s current body was what’s being worked out and enjoyed. No matter how hard you work, you’re not going to lose actual pounds or gain actual muscle mass during any gym session. I’d like the emphasis on a future, perfected body to take a backseat to the things a person can appreciate about their current body.

I’m thinking about this at the same time that I’m thinking about an e-mail I got from a wonderful former student of mine. She enjoys the blog, but recently went through my photo albums at my old Typepad place, and was troubled that several of the photos were of me, shirtless. As I’ve explained many times before, I almost always run shirtless. I hike shirtless. When I’m down in Colombia on my wife’s family’s finca , I spend much of my time shirtless. (Drenched in SPF 50 sun lotion, mind you; I’ve had enough battles with skin cancer.) Mind, my student was not suggesting that there was a sexual or flirtatious component to these photos. What bothered her was that these pictures came in conjunction with the frequent notes I make on the blog about diet, exercise, and sport. My student admitted that it made her feel bad about herself, particularly because she saw me (rightly or wrongly) as a pro-feminist role model. In a very thoughtful and polite way, she made it clear that there was a disconnect between my very public commitment to working with young people to combat eating disorders and body dysmorphia, and my almost equally public fascination with the endless improvement of my own flesh. And while she could accept that disconnect in print, she had a hard time with it reflected in photos as well.

So, I’ve cleaned up all of my old Typepad photo albums. No more shirtless pictures. (I will still be shirtless all over the greater San Gabriel Valley this spring and summer, in mountains and on roadways, as I up my mileage for a July marathon.)

The connection between Sara’s post and my student’s e-mail? They’ve both got me thinking about ways to create a pro-fitness, pro-health culture that is radically respectful of body diversity. It’s got me wondering how we can do a better job of articulating fitness goals that aren’t visual. Gyms and health clubs and personal trainers often speak the language of health, but as Sara makes clear, the atmosphere of most clubs is one that encourages a pre-occupation with achieving a specific size goal. There’s an almost universal double-speak going on in which everyone claims to be doing whatever they’re doing in order to “get healthy”, but most feel compelled to emphasize aesthetic achievement over true fitness. I don’t know a lot of young women who worry as much about osteoporosis, heart disease, and breast cancer as they do about weight.

My mother is a big fan of the Curves franchise. She’s been overweight much of her adult life, and is — thank God — a cancer survivor. She started going to Curves a few times a week back in 2002, and she’s really enjoyed her experience in a mirrorless, women-only gym. She would never have joined an ordinary health club, but she found the non-judgmental, accepting atmosphere at Curves to be just what she needed in order to experiment with an exercise regimen. I’ve never been inside a Curves, obviously, but I hear almost universal praise from the women I know who have become regulars.

It’s often hard for me to write about fitness and body image issues, knowing that I still have miles to go on my own journey towards radical and complete self-acceptance. I don’t work out merely to improve my body’s appearance, of course. I don’t work out for health alone, either, at least not only for physical health. I work out so much because I’m addicted to endorphins; I am a nervous, restless energizer bunny who needs to burn off tension constantly. Running, boxing, Pilates, cycling — to one degree or another, they all get me high. And I like being high. It just so happens that my addiction has the side effect of a lean and toned physique!

My views on diet, too, are rooted less in an obsession with my own health and appearance and more in a commitment to justice. I gave up meat a while ago because of my commitment to animals; I’m now embracing a fully vegan lifestyle out of that same commitment. If it keeps me healthy, great. But while my health matters, my choices about what I put in my mouth are linked first and foremost to a desire to live as cruelty-free as possible. I’m not willing to eat what I’m not willing to kill, and I’m not willing to kill many things.

There’s an element of defensiveness to what I’m writing, and that frustrates me. I suppose that in the end, I’m torn. I position myself, quite deliberately, as a role model. I do it in my teaching. I do it in my volunteer work with youth. I do it in my blogging. I believe I’ve hit upon a set of values for living, rooted in my faith and my feminism, that have not only made me a better human being but might very well work for others. I keep making the case, over and over again, that what we do in every area of our life matters. How we eat and what we eat matters, not least because we are called to be stewards of our own bodies and stewards of the earth we share.

I realize that what I want to work on is this: further developing and articulating a pro-feminist “ethics of diet and fitness.” My core assumptions: health, fitness, and a sense of well-being are a priori goods. Self-acceptance is also an a priori good. Self-loathing is an a priori evil. Concern for how our dietary choices impact the planet is an a priori good. And yes, pleasure — as long as that pleasure is not at another’s expense — is still another fundamental good. Somehow, I want to put all of these “first principles” together and articulate an ethic that embraces both transformation and self-acceptance, that promotes ultimate well-being and is simultaneously radically accepting of body diversity.

I’ve seen others try to create a synthesis of pro-feminist values and a commitment to maximum physical fitness; I’ve seen them fall woefully short. And I myself continue to fall prey to my own contradictions around the body and self-acceptance. Too often, my words to others say “Love yourself just as you are!” while my actions show a man who is relentlessly committed to his own transformation.

One of the paradoxes of a strong Christian faith is this: Jesus loves us just as we are. He could not love us more. He loves the child molester just as much as he loves the saint; He loves Jeffrey Dahmer and Mother Teresa, Saddam Hussein and Martin Luther King. But for Christians, realizing that God loves us just as we are is not the same as God’s endorsement of what we’re doing. God loves us no matter what, but He longs for us to transform, to become more and more like His Son. We hold in tension two seemingly contradictory ideas: we are loved whether or not we change, and God longs for us to change and grow. This tension is familiar to any serious Christian, and to the followers of many other spiritual paths.

I’m convinced that there’s a way to apply this mixture (radical, complete acceptance and the radical call to growth) to a culture of fitness and diet. I’m going to figure it out, Lord willing, and when I get a clearer idea of how to articulate it, I’m gonna let you know.

Or maybe you’ll have to wait for the TV show.

Lapping the Louvre and sprinting Schoenbrunn: the dream TV series for a hyperactive philistine

On Tuesday, I posted this very short note about my frustration with those who walk too slowly; the thread turned out to be rather fun.

Reading the comments, it occurs to me I’ve never posted about one of my future plans: to create a company that offers running tours of major historical sites. Not just running tours of famous cities, but of museums, cathedrals, temples, and so forth. You combine my natural hyperactivity, my inattentiveness, my love of running, my love of travel, and an unfortunate tendency to be a cultural philistine, and voila! A brand new way to see the world!

When I spent a semester teaching in a study abroad program in Italy, I mastered getting in and out of museums while still seeing all that needed to be seen. The Uffizi? Twenty minutes. The Doge’s Palace? Fifteen minutes. The Bargello? Seventeen. The Vatican museum took forty, but that was due to crowds that slowed down my steaming pace, not to any great desire to linger. And during my few months in Italy, I got an idea: create running tours of museums.

We’d need to rent out museums early in the morning, when runners like to work out and before the crowds come. We’d have to wear special racing flats that wouldn’t scuff the floors of the glorious galleries. Gathering before dawn, I’d work in conjunction with some athletic art historians, and we’d lead a pack of similarly-minded folks through a whirl-wind tour of the great galleries, palaces, and museums. We’d see everything, if not on a dead run, at least at a steady jog. Ten seconds with Botticelli, five with Donatello, three quick circuits around the feet of David in the Accademia. We’d run through all the rooms at Versailles; we’d climb the Eiffel Tower; we’d race through Schoenbrunn, do fartlek in the Tate, and sprint the Hermitage. Folks who needed to linger would be allowed to do so for a minute or two, and then catch up with our merry band composed of the spandex-clad and the Asics-hooved.

As the day wore on, this happy, sweaty group would move outside into the dawn (this tour will work best in spring or summer). We’d find the coffee shops, slurp down the local stimulating beverage, and then head off to the parks. In Dublin, we’d cavort in Phoenix Park; in London, run with the squirrels in Hyde Park; in Madrid, we might do intervals in the Jardin Botanico.

You get the idea.

At the very least, I’d like to go to Europe with a camera crew. I could be miked to lecture as I ran, and offer breezy, light-footed commentary as I jogged through the cities. I’d show visiting runners the best routes, and I’d conduct guest interviews with athletic locals; there’s always some expert in the antiquities about who also likes to lace up the trainers and break a sweat. Our conversations would be conducted at a pace rapid enough for a workout, slow enough for us to chat easily. We’d do a series of half-hour episodes, and air them on some happy mix of the History Channel and ESPN.

I’m fortunate to have run in many different cities. Some cities around the world are marvelous to run in, of course. Running the shoreline in Chicago, running Central Park, running the Mall in our nation’s capital, running Hayward field in Eugene: these are sublime experiences for the tourist. Europe offers its glorious parks and boulevards. When I spent those many months in Florence, I ran the Cascine every day; when I visit family in Devon, I run for miles along the banks of the lugubrious river Exe. Not all places are easy to run: Hong Kong is very, very crowded! I made a sincere effort to run through Central at midday, and it didn’t go well until I gave up and jogged up the Peak Road. Bogota is, well, not very safe for this little white boy; it’s the one city I’ve ever visited where I’ve felt compelled to confine my running to the treadmill in the hotel gym.

I remember trying to run in John O’Groats in northern Scotland in the wind and the rain. That was tough. I tried to run up the side of Table Mountain in Cape Town, got winded, and had to break it off to my considerable shame. And when it comes to cities that are unfriendly to runners, Venice is the greatest challenge. I managed to do a few runs through the streets between the train station and San Marco, but after I knocked over a couple of slow-moving tourists and a postcard stand, I surrendered to the elements and gave up.

Let me get a book or two out, and then I’m pitching this “run the great heritage sites of the world” idea to the Discovery channel. Don’t go scooping me, now!

Perhaps I’m overcaffeinated…

… but most people walk too damn slowly. On this campus in particular, the number who amble aimlessly is epidemic. I ought to teach a class called “Purposeful Striding 1A.”

Hall and Bales: my two current jock-crushes — UPDATED

Jock-Crush: The response one feels to an athlete of either sex, in any sport, who just makes your heart sing, if only for a moment.

While I follow major sports like soccer and American football, I also have some other particular passions: I love women’s college basketball, and I love distance running. Though my most enduring jock-crush in the former sport is Katie Feenstra, and in the latter, the sublime Scott Jurek, my current heroes are Alison Bales and Ryan Hall.

Ryan just became the first American to break an hour in the half-marathon. Even though the half-marathon is not an Olympic event, it’s one of my favorite distances to race. My best time was 1:30:00 to the second; I had raced to go under ninety minutes and missed my goal by one second. It’s a great distance in which to mix pure speed and endurance.

Alison is the rockin’ tough center of the #1 Duke Blue Devils. 6′7″ of blockin’-out, in the post-bangin’, free-throw nailin’ goodness. She played an awesome game last night in the Devils’ win over Tennessee; ’twas a thing to watch.

If anyone can get me an autographed picture of Ryan or Alison, that would be cool. In my life, I am frequently unimpressed by those who should impress me, and frequently awed by those who do not always attract the attention of the masses. Such is the nature of the jock-crush.

UPDATE: It is not entirely unnoticed by me that I tend to be drawn to female athletes who are unusually tall and strong. (I’m a huge fan of Serena Williams for example, as well as the aforementioned Feenstra and Bales). My male athletic heroes tend to be small and wiry, like Hall and Jurek and your average international class cyclist. Those who wish to psychoanalyze are free to do so. I am quite clear that there is nothing fetishistic about all this, but it is a pattern I recognize.

The Happy Puritan: a response to Dan Oppenheimer

First off, let me note that the Masculinity and its Discontents blog is NOT merely Dan Oppenheimer’s, I am corrected today by his co-blogger, Jamie Berger. Jamie also takes issue with my weltanschauung here.

I want to respond, at least in part, to Dan’s critique that I mentioned yesterday.

Dan suggested in detail what others have said in passing: that my vision of what it means to be a pro-feminist, Christian man is too demanding, too puritanical, too focused on the relentless quest for self-improvement, too intolerant of human (or masculine) foibles. As I said yesterday, I’m honored by the thoughtfulness and gentleness of his response to my writing.

One problem I notice in my writing: I find it remarkably difficult to keep my remarks for a secular audience free from a Christian worldview. My feminism informs my faith, and my faith informs my feminism, and the two are sufficiently intertwined so as to make it difficult for me to separate the two. (In my classes at a secular college, I can do it; I’m less inclined to do it on a self-titled blog which is, for better or for worse, designed to reflect my actual, uncensored beliefs.) And Dan, who isn’t a Christian, picks up on the evangelical undertones of my writing and finds them troubling — or at least exhausting.

I spent a few years worshipping with the Mennonites. One of the reason I joined a Mennonite church was because of something I read in the days after 9/11. I can’t remember the website, but what it said was something like this: “Mennonites take Matthew 5 as serious instruction, and believe we can fulfill Jesus’s call to radical peacemaking.” It’s in Matthew 5 that we read that the peacemakers are blessed; it’s in Matthew 5 we read that we are to turn the other cheek; and it’s in Matthew 5 that we are cautioned against even looking at another woman in lust. And it’s in Matthew 5 that Jesus says:

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Now, I am not perfect. I came to the Mennonites in the middle of my third divorce, and divorce is also condemned in Matthew 5. But I was attracted to the idea that no matter what our past, no matter what our weakness, through Christ we can become “perfect.” While other Christians tend to dismiss the idea that Matthew 5 could ever be normative human behavior, the Mennonites argued the so-called “Sermon on the Mount” represented an attainable (if tremendously difficult) goal for human beings in this life. And Matthew 5:48 does undergird a lot of my thinking about men, masculinity, and (to paraphrase Lexus) the relentless pursuit of perfection.

Of course I don’t expect non-Christians to be bound by explicitly Christian precepts. At the same time, I do think that Christian ethics, even when stripped of the idea of the divinity of Christ, often make good sense. That’s why I don’t hesitate to invite those who aren’t Christian to consider the insights of the Christian moral tradition, not as it is applied by the James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons of the world, but as it has been lived out quietly and gently for millenia by the peaceful and the faithful.

Dan’s most powerful criticism is this one:

I fear, however, that there can be something destructive in ethical systems, such as his, which set purity as the standard. They create anxiety, and breed hypocrisy, because there’s never really a resting place, an equilibrium, from where you can say to yourself, “Hey, I’m not doing so badly right now.” The chasm between the real, imperfect lives that most of us live and these Everest-high standards of moral purity is just too vast, and I don’t think the human psyche is well-equipped to process the cognitive dissonance that bubbles up in the chasm.

There’s some truth in what he’s saying. I know what it’s like to feel exhausted and overwhelmed and anxious. I’ve pushed my body to its limits, working out for hours each day while trying to meet an ever-growing list of private and public commitments. Every once in a while, I need a mental health day to find the very sort of resting place to which Dan refers; there are days I just need to lie on the couch, watch the Classic Sports Network, or nap with the newspaper on my chest. Those days aren’t often, but they are necessary.

Jesus, as His followers know, calls us to a very high standard. But He also invites us to come and rest; “my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” It seems contradictory, of course. How can we be relentless in our pursuit of perfection while at rest? How can this yoke of ongoing self-transformation seem light? One answer, the easy one for a Christian, is that God’s grace enables us to do what we did not believe possible. It is the Spirit that strengthens us, and the Spirit that refreshes us. But to my non-Christian friends and readers, that comes across as airy, condescending, gobbledy-gook.

But my experience has been that a commitment to continual growth can coexist with that place of balance where we can say, as Dan does, “I’m not doing so badly right now.” My own spiritual journey is a long and windy one, and I frequently need to visit the rest stops. I have a vision of the man I’d like to be, I am clear about the man I have been in the past, and I am comfortable with the reality that I am today somewhere in between. When I slip up, as I do, I don’t beat myself. I don’t wallow in the sense that I am a miserable wretch and a fraud. I simply say to myself, “Hugo, you fucked up. And that’s okay. Let’s take a step back, take a break, and find out ways to make sure that that fuck-up doesn’t happen again.”

As a trail runner, I’ve fallen a lot. If you were to look closely at my knees and hips, you’d see various scars and bruises sustained in tumbles on the mountain. And you know, I usually fall when I’m going uphill. Running downhill, I am very attentive to my foot placement, as I’m afraid of a spill; going uphill, I tend to be focused more on the difficulty of the climb and less on what’s beneath me. And when I fall, I don’t try and spring back up again right away. I let myself lie there for a minute. I’ve had some wonderful experiences, flat on my back, 5500 feet above the city, watching the trees and the birds and feeling the rocks and dirt beneath me. If I go too fast, I stumble. And when I stumble, I need to rest for a bit. But I don’t quit the climb. I get up eventually, dust myself off, inspect the scrapes and the blood, and, gingerly, continue the ascent. That’s what I do on the trail, and that’s pretty much how I live my life.

So yeah, I’m a bit of a Puritan. But as any good recent historian of the Puritans will tell you, the Puritans laughed more than we think. This latter day Puritan is not averse to pleasure; I’m averse to pleasure that comes at the expense of human or animal dignity. My right to delight must be balanced by my commitment to not use other creatures — in fantasy or reality — to meet my own needs. My opposition to porn, my opposition to animal testing and research, my commitment to feminism and vegetarianism; these are not tools with which to flagellate myself! They are views grounded in an intense desire to do justice. They are not at odds with pleasure, but they set the boundaries for when and how I experience pleasure. And within those boundaries, I find peace and fulfillment.

Call me the happy puritan, climbing an endless trail up a steep mountain, joyful in the ascent, joyful even as I know that the moment I reach the final summit is the moment I go home to God. And call me happy even when I stumble, and lie in the dirt for a while and watch the birds.

Uncomfortably numb

Feministing links to this article about female cyclists and loss of genital sensation. It jives with what I’ve heard from some women I know who ride regularly. The study also found, I was delighted to read, that no such problem occurred in a control group of women runners.

I cycle rarely these days. I enjoy the bike, but it doesn’t give me the same high, the same rush, as running. The article above suggests that many women might be well-advised to consider reducing saddle time, or at least invest in extra padding in the shorts. (Too many folks, both male and female, ride without sufficient padding in the right places.)

A note on professional boxers and shin splints

Yesterday at the boxing gym, I met this young professional fighter.  Vicente’s a great guy,  and we had a nice chat — and to my considerable pleasure,  I was able to give him some knowledgeable advice about overcoming shin splints.  From the knees up, I have no doubt this fellow could destroy me in any athletic competition he could name.  But for an old man, I have some pretty damn strong lower legs from years of hill running, and I haven’t had shin problems in years and years.  My trainer, Pepe, asked me to give VIcente some tips, and I was immensely flattered by the rapt attention I received from this 2004 Olympian.  (I know, I’m shamelessly name-dropping and bragging.)

Key to overcoming shin splints: hills, hills, hills.  Shins hurt when the calves aren’t as well-developed as they should be.  Just as building strong abs is the best way to deal with lower back pain, building strong calves helps cure shin splints.  And running uphill builds calves like nothing else.

In any event, my boxing training is really coming along.  Only problem: with the new nearly vegan diet, I’m losing muscle as well as fat despite all the protein supplements.  More legumes, more tofu, more push-ups.

Vicente fights next November 10.  I may have to finally start watching boxing.  But what of my pacifism?  Can it coexist with a love of pugilism?

Running report, and a note on hairy chests

Mark, Caz, Magnus and I had a glorious, tough fifteen miler today, running in the cool and the mists of the Angeles National Forest.  (If there are any of my readers who know the San Gabriel Mountains, we ran from Chantry Flats to Newcomb’s Saddle via First Water and the Sturtevant Trail.  After years of running, those very names reek of sweat and excitement to me.)  Four tired and happy men we were at the end.  I ran shirtless, the other lads wore tights and long sleeves.  There were a few chilly gusts, but nothing I couldn’t handle.   Of course, I just got over a nasty cold, so this probably wasn’t the brightest idea I’ve ever had.

We ended up at Noah’s bagels.  For a decade now, I’ve ordered the same thing over and over: cinnamon raisin bagel toasted with sun-dried tomato shmear.  I have no idea what anything else tastes like there.  (And yes, New Yorkers, I know, your bagels are better.  I concede.)

We’ve got quite a good (and mostly civil) discussion going in the comments section below Friday’s post about feminism and loneliness.  I’m grateful that Amanda Marcotte discussed it at length yesterday, and offered some interesting insights (and sent lots of welcome hits this way.)  If you don’t already read Pandagon, read my post and hers as well as both comments sections.

And as anyone who has been doing any reading this week in the feminist blogosphere knows, we’ve all been obsessed with hair.  Mostly, we’ve been interested in how women groom — or don’t — the hair below eye level.  I posted here, Happy posted here, Jill posted here (and was ripped here), Zuzu posted here,  Lauren here, and if you poke around elsewhere, I am sure a dozen other feminist bloggers have weighed in on issues of waxing and plucking and related strategies.  It may seem silly, but it isn’t, not really, not when we’re all convinced that we have an obligation to live lives of integrity and we disagree passionately about whether or not our most intimate grooming habits are or aren’t consistent with our core values. 

It’s been pointed out in many corners that women are not the only ones who remove body hair.   While in an earlier era, only athletes in certain sports (body building and swimming, for example) regularly removed chest and leg hair, within the past ten years the number of men "going bare" has increased enormously.   Pick up any men’s magazine (Men’s Health, etc.), and the chances are good the bare-chested model on the cover will be completely or nearly hairless.  Many folks assume that the focus on hairlessness has to do with the tremendous increase in body anxiety among men that we’ve witnessed in recent years.  It’s widely argued that men are more and more likely to be judged on their appearance these days, and as a consequence we’re seeing an upsurge in male body hair removal.  Men are, perhaps, beginning to suffer from the same concerns from which women have suffered for considerably longer.

One key difference, however, goes unremarked most of the time.  Classically, the reason why men remove chest hair is that hair obscures muscle.  A rug, or even some wisps, may make it more difficult to display one’s pecs.  Taking off the hair immediately makes the chest look bigger and makes the upper body appear more defined.  Trust me, I know this first hand.  When I was lifting a lot of weights about a decade ago, I "Naired" my chest a couple of times.  (I had one brief experience with waxing at the hands of a helpful but not very skilled female friend.  Yikes.)  The "Nair" burned, particularly around my nipples (which were pierced at the time), but it got rid of all the hair from my throat to below my belt line. 

The visual results were instant — my chest looked manlier, which struck me as oddly paradoxical.  The hair (which I’ve had on my chest since I was 16) "should" have been the primary signifier of masculinity.   After all, we’re all familiar with the the exhortation "Come on, do it, it’ll put hair on your chest" — which is usually said about something dangerous or "manly".  But in our world, pectoral muscles are an even more powerful signifier of manliness, particularly because their appearance is more likely to be the result of effort rather than genetics.   In order to enhance my masculine appeal, I "had" to remove what was quintessentially masculine.  As I washed the stinging Nair off in the shower, the contradiction did not escape me!

Male porn stars generally have very closely cropped pubic hair, if they have any at all.  (Their female co-stars increasingly have little or none.)  Many women who wax claim it enhances their comfort, or their sense of pleasure, or — and this seems to be the most frequent — their sense of cleanliness.  (Even when they know intellectually that body hair is not inherently dirty.) But the reason for a man to remove his pubic hair is radically different — as with the chest, hair "down there" obscures.  An erect penis automatically looks bigger when there’s little or no hair about.  In porn, where "size matters" tremendously, there’s little doubt that a male actor can enhance his attributes by removing his pubic hair.  Of course, while both men and women have pubic hair naturally (and most women, and some men, don’t have chest hair) men and women are removing the "hair down there" for radically different reasons.   For many women, anxiety about cleanliness is at least one factor — while for men (even outside of the porn industry), the old anxiety about being "too small" is the primary motivation.

I haven’t removed any body hair from the vast expanses below my neck since early in the second Clinton Administration.  I enjoyed the visual effect of hairlessness, but hated the stubble as it came back in.  And though I found that some women liked a bare chest, I found — and here I step into dangerous territory — that the women I was most likely to actually want to be with were those who liked men with hair. Somehow, there was something suspicious to me about women who liked their men too smooth.  Perhaps it was — and here I psychoanalyze without a license — a sense I got that women who were turned off by chest hair were in some sense intimidated by or frightened of certain aspects of male sexuality.  (Bring on the flaming, but so help me, that was my experience.  I agree that my anecdotes, no matter how numerous, do not in any way constitute data!)  I will note that when my teenage girls in youth group talk about what they like and don’t like in guys, most are enthusiastic about hairless, smooth chests.  Given that those are what the chests of most of their peers look like, it makes sense.  But the connection between eroticising hairlessness and a kind of adolescent view of sexuality does seem to be logical, if nothing else.

I don’t trust Esquire Magazine with much.  (They named the no-doubt talented and lovely, but very young Scarlett Johannson the "sexiest woman alive" earlier this year, a decision which mystified me.  In my mind, she falls into the category of "much younger women I would set up with my college-age nephew, not my best friend.")  But they do report this month that "chest hair is back", which, if true, I find quite encouraging.  Of course, the linked article implies that it’s all a backlash against metro-sexuality:

The area rugs popularized by Hugh (Jackman) et al. are more than just decorative statements; they’re welcome beacons of masculinity in a too-calm sea of feyness. They’re a rebuttal to the androgynous Jude Law pretty-boy aesthetic and the skinny-pantsed Strokesification of our time. In short: Your chest hair is hot. Own it.

Uh, my chest hair is not a rebuttal to anything. It is what it is — a tribute to my DNA, which decreed (thank you, ancestors) that I would naturally have hair on my head for life, hair on my chest in moderate abundance, and very little hair on my back.  (That constellation of gifts almost makes up for the hopeless nearsightedness.)   Praise be to God that my wife loves every last little sprout and tuft!  (Especially, bless her heart, the increasing number of white ones.)

Note: After further reflection, the photo that was here of said chest hair has been removed.