
i sat on the toilet and she hopped up on the counter. with a constant thudding in the background and voices we didn't care to know, i pissed in the toilet and she pissed in the sink and we may or may not have had one of the best conversations of my entire life. she later lifted her shirt and her tits were so perfect that i had to confess explicitly that i hated everything about her, and she laughed. i laughed too. a few hours in the future, after i lost most feeling and self-respect and realized i didn't like who i was anymore, i told her i loved her, and she laughed, and i laughed too.
the following morning i texted her: 'my hoodie smells like perfume, beer, sweat, and deceit.'
she laughed. and i laughed too.
chuckyboy: "i never understood the song 'infatuation,' just as i have never understood the concept of infatuation. it has always been my understanding that being 'infatuated' with someone means you think you are in love, but you're actually not; infatuation is (supposedly) just a foolish, fleeting feeling. but if being 'in love' is an abstract notion, and it's not tangible, and there is no way to physically prove it to anyone else...well, how is being in love any different than having an infatuation? they're both human constructions. if you think you're in love with someone and you feel like you're in love with someone, then you obviously are; thinking and feeling is the sum total of what love is. why do we feel an obligation to certify emotions with some kind of retrospective, self-imposed authenticity?...if my only way to understand the world is through what i think and what i feel, how can thinking that i'm in love and feeling that i'm in love be relegated into the category of 'infatuation'? what's the fucking difference?"
she laughed. and i laughed too.
chuck klosterman is perpetually affecting my writing. i now think like he writes, and i hate the way he thinks, but like the way he writes, so after a few left turns, i'm not mad about my train of thought.
chuckyboy: "i never understood the song 'infatuation,' just as i have never understood the concept of infatuation. it has always been my understanding that being 'infatuated' with someone means you think you are in love, but you're actually not; infatuation is (supposedly) just a foolish, fleeting feeling. but if being 'in love' is an abstract notion, and it's not tangible, and there is no way to physically prove it to anyone else...well, how is being in love any different than having an infatuation? they're both human constructions. if you think you're in love with someone and you feel like you're in love with someone, then you obviously are; thinking and feeling is the sum total of what love is. why do we feel an obligation to certify emotions with some kind of retrospective, self-imposed authenticity?...if my only way to understand the world is through what i think and what i feel, how can thinking that i'm in love and feeling that i'm in love be relegated into the category of 'infatuation'? what's the fucking difference?"
on a crumpled receipt in my wallet i find a note, from myself. past kendall to future kendall.
i imagine it was something i wanted to write about, but i think it's best left standing alone.
'mustard hiding.
poltergeist in my fridge.
like my phone.'
i imagine it was something i wanted to write about, but i think it's best left standing alone.
'mustard hiding.
poltergeist in my fridge.
like my phone.'
//end//






