concrete, so as to self-destruct

my question is this: if it is true that the ultimate acceptance of all that must be overturned is to place another 'intolerably in your debt', then what remains when even that is overturned? what if the failure of maggie and hopey isn't a punk response to the stifling nature of relationships, but is simply a failed relationship? what can one replace this debt-owing system with?
and, was your straight-edge response to the torments and neediness of adolescence the thing that has kept you engaged by punk to this day (rather than having joined the hordes who stopped wrestling with the contradictions of punk in the interest of 'winning', having conflict-free relationships etc)? (i am curious abt these things because i feel much empathy with your position. i hope you don't see these qs as antagonistic. i would go back and rephrase but i have to leave work now.)

"Which is why anyone who couldn't see beyond the random naffness of my outward appearance in most of the 80s, who couldn't see how crap clothes and haircut were totally punk, wasn't worth trying to persuade. Those who mistook such non-gesture gestures for fence-sitting, timidity or laziness - well, let's just say that the strong points they may have had were always outgunned by stronger ones they were missing. In my head."

as a general point; how can one distinguish between the non-gesture gesture and the other possibilities here, w/out say just asking what yr intentions are directly?

"So who you are (who you can get yourself to be labelled as) still determines who you can get to love. Which is why etiquette is also always the vector by which the resisted power-system is re-introduced. Which is why the only acceptable punky pick-up line has ever been the intolerably unmannerly "Wanna fuck?" "

a couple of queries; what does "who you can get to love" mean? does this mean "who you can fall in love with" or (as i presume) "which ppl will fuck you"? the latter seems to fit in better but makes the wording a bit odd, with the "get" seeming a bit possessive to me (which you are avoiding in the previous paragraph).

is "wanna fuck?" the only acceptable punk chatup line because anything else involves engaging in society's existing etiquette? how does this work? how is the other person going to make a yes/no decision based on anything other than how you look? because presumably no previous conversation wd be allowed, as that would be falling into societal norms. and at that point do we not get back into the area of my initial query as to how one could distinguish between yr deliberate refusal to engage in fashion in the 80s and someone being lazy or perhaps even entirely ignorant of fashion? because if you want to avoid sleeping with the one who wears flares you have to be able to decide which of these you're dealing with. and if, for example, you decide that because this person has just come up and said "wanna fuck?" and is looking pretty naff that they must be a punk, are you not (apart from being in danger of sleeping with a very self-confident person with crap taste in clothes, which wd seem like quite a real possibility to me, at least more likely than the punky scenario you relate) simply forming a new etiquette?

right - here's a few more observations/queries, based on the bits i've underlined in "concrete..."; i guess that contradictions are built into yr whole notion of punk, so it's a bit silly to go looking for them, but anyway. (also, i'm just back from the pub, so this may well be even less well expressed than usual.)

i think the notion of "straight edge" may finally be making sense to me; following on from what i said before, it seems to me now that celibacy may actually be a logical consequence of punk notions of etiquette- busting (if you can't be sure of identifying someone else with similar views, you can't sleep with anyone). i'm not quite sure how this leads to a no drink/drugs policy, though; "bargaining fun's deferral against being untrapped and untricked" - but how do drink/drugs trap/trick you?

alternatively, perhaps it's the price you have to pay for attmepting to destroy conventional etiquette (but what a price! i guess this may be your point, but to me at least such bloody-minded denial of pleasure for the purpose of an obviously futile end is inconceivable, certainly over a period of more than a few days).

(another thought - given footnote 12 - perhaps you seek someone else who is prepared to deny society's conventions up to the point of settling down to, i guess, a conventional breeder lifestyle - ie someone who is as close to the punk ideal as possible w/out denying the possibility of a relationship - and thus a contradiction).

whu...?

sorry i got distracted from this, i shall provide some "answers" at the weekend

punk chat up line = U+K indeed; bonus marks if it is any good in french in case i meet any punXor ppl in paris.

stop being a tease and tell us what it is!

(i am 19 pages into influence stuff = maybe an email will be forthcoming by the end of the week...)

the interweb is not big enuff to contain it!!

tomorrow for answers re concrete: apologies for delay...

influence misreading has been interrupted by underworld reading. can't believe i've been putting it off for three years.

sending influence stuff to hotmail = dangerous; it was enough to swamp my account, anyway.

Dave M.:
1: if it is true that the ultimate acceptance of all that must be overturned is to place another 'intolerably in your debt', then what remains when even that is overturned?
1A: I don’t think the first bit is true! Did I say that somewhere? You can’t "overturn everything": that’s the point, really. < br> 2: what if the failure of Maggie and Popey isn't a punk response to the stifling nature of relationships, but is simply a failed relationship?
2A: Maggie and Hopey are fictional, so nothing about them is "simply" anything. And when were failed relationships simple anyway? (Non-snarky answer: I think Jaime Hernandez is as interested in punk as a way of life as I am, and that’s why he did Love and Rockets.)
3: what can one replace this debt-owing system with?
3A: You tell me!
4: was your straight-edge response to the torments and neediness of adolescence the thing that has kept you engaged by punk to this day (rather than having joined the hordes who stopped wrestling with the contradictions of punk in the interest of 'winning', having conflict-free relationships etc)?
4A: My adolescence wasn’t tormented OR needy, that I was aware of, so superficially the answer there is no. I’m "engaged" by punk still because what for it was "about" for me then (which I didn’t really entirely grasp until I started working on this piece) is a kind of confidence in the value of human fallibility — the right to make mistakes, to be confused and stupid and frightened, to be inconsistent or torn or tormented — which is elsewhere routinely evaded. Its acknowledgment of its conflictedness is its power. Frank Kogan I think might argue that by "punk" I mean "rock" btw.

david h(owie):
5: can you reconcile 'concrete' with having a style [as you do on ilm] and having catchphrases ["do you see?"]?"
5A: Yes. They’re the same thing. That’s what "concrete" means, in a way, a non-trivial, non-apologetic, non-overbearing way of announcing one’s self (not that I’m claiming it achieves any of those, often or ever: but that’s the purpose). HERE I AM: LAUGH AWAY FUCKFACE.

toby:
6: as a general point; how can one distinguish between the non-gesture gesture and the other possibilities here [see full quote upthread], w/out say just asking what yr intentions are directly?
6A: Someone asking wd totally be sexy!! But the point abt etiquette is that it’s unavoidable: the only escape is "withdrawal from relationality", or whatever Bersani calls it. In the piece I mainly talk abt relationality as meaning b/f or b/f but of course it includes non-sexual friendships and acquaintanceships also; the same tensions obtain, maybe not so often the same hypocrisies. < br> 7: what does "who you can get to love" mean? does this mean "who you can fall in love with" or (as i presume) "which ppl will fuck you"? (the latter seems to fit in better but makes the wording a bit odd, with the "get" seeming a bit possessive to me (which you are avoiding in the previous paragraph).
7A: Sorry, clumsy writing. "who you can get to love" = "who’s available" (it’s a non-possessive "get", as in "finally I got to understand")
8: is "wanna fuck?" the only acceptable punk chatup line because anything else involves engaging in society's existing etiquette? How does this work?
8A: Society's existing etiquetteS. An etiquette = an identity (as in the ticket that allows you into the particular Identity Politics club). But look, this line is a joke mainly, because the point is that as a chat-up line it is fairly UNLIKELY to work (for toby’s "random naffness" reason, as often as not). The other one I thought of was "Wanna breed?" Which seems EVEN LESS LIKELY to work.
9: how is the other person going to make a yes/no decision based on anything other than how you look? (because presumably no previous conversation wd be allowed, as that would be falling into societal norms
9A: All I’m saying really is that (punkwise) you shouldn’t say, "Have you ever heard Belle and Sebastien?" when you mean "I need to jg yr branes out". You can talk to who you like when you like about what you like. DO WHAT THOU WILT IS THE WHOLE OF THE LAW. I think it’s pretty punky just going up to strangers and befriending them. My pal Talitha does that all the time. It’s hilarious.
10: at this point do we not get back into the area of my initial query as to how one could distinguish between yr deliberate refusal to engage in fashion in the 80s and someone being lazy or perhaps even entirely ignorant of fashion? (because if you want to avoid sleeping with the one who wears flares you have to be able to decide which of these you're dealing with. and if, for example, you decide that because this person has just come up and said "wanna fuck?" and is looking pretty naff that they must be a punk, are you not (apart from being in danger of sleeping with a very self-confident person with crap taste in clothes, which wd seem like quite a real possibility to me, at least more likely than the punky scenario you relate) simply forming a new etiquette?
10A: Grrr G.Marcus missed the point abt "sex with flares-person" also. The point is, the injunction is RIDICULOUS. It’s a joke, not a law. But the deep point of the joke — which it seems to me sort of goes to the heart of yr anxiety here Toby heh — is that it says, "Why are you so uncritically certain that getting sex matters more to me than [insert whatevah here]? Maybe I’m not that needy, that trapped?"
11: i think the notion of "straight edge" may finally be making sense to me; celibacy may be a logical consequence of punk notions of etiquette-busting (if you can't be sure of identifying someone else with similar views, you can't sleep with anyone). how does this lead to a no drink/drugs policy? how do drink/drugs trap/trick you?
11A: Straight edge wasn’t THE solution, it was just MY solution, because it was routinely convenient (not just mine, but I didn’t KNOW about the other guys, and anyway they were much later) (haha influence backwards in time!! It’s TRUE!!) and because it upset or puzzled people. More than "punky" hair.
12: perhaps you seek someone else who is prepared to deny society's conventions up to the point of settling down to, i guess, a conventional breeder lifestyle - ie someone who is as close to the punk ideal as possible w/out denying the possibility of a relationship - and thus a contradiction).
12A: Do I "seek someone else"? Should I? Should that be mattering to me? Is the problem of the the possibility of a relationship actually a problem, or just something I have to say I agree is a problem to stop people looking funny at me?