Saturday, February 21, 2004
What's sexy?
Modern society shoves sex at us from every angle 24/7, such that we are sated and unsurprised by it all, and have forgotten the pleasures of the tease, of being tantalized, of buildup, of true eroticism, and in general of all the things that used to be seen as sexy before the days of breast implants and thongs. Women, who to this day are judged primarily on looks and sex appeal, have had, since movies and then TV brought beautiful and provocative images into the lives of all men, to go to ever greater extremes to be ahead of the curve sexual-display wise, which forced the curve to move, and so on. The use of female sexiness to sell EVERYTHING, from breakfast cereal to entire movies, meant that these ever more extreme images have pounded our brains to near numbness, so that imagery that would have given our grandparents heart attacks just makes us shrug... so what can we get to seem sexy, REALLY sexy, to us any more?
Those of us old enough to remember the not-so-distant past, in which a man would be aggressive in his sexual pursuit but not "look" sexy, dress sexy, or ACT sexy can see that, with women having gone so far to "out-sexy" each other that they've become virtually indistinguishable, and therefore rather dull, with their hair extensions and push-up bras, it's really only MALE attempts at sexual display that are novel enough to BE sexy anymore.
Don't believe it? In an attempt to keep the female body "new" and exciting, they've had no choice but to cover it up more; compare what actresses were wearing 5-10 years ago with what they wear NOW, for example. It's not just famous women who are changing, although they are always the first TO change, as their $ depends on them being the most sexy: Have you noticed the increasing popularity of women's underpants that look like shorts, and cover more of the female lower body than any popular undergarment has done in DECADES? Of skirts that make you think of Audrey Hepburn rather than "stripper"? Of women, even quite young ones, returning to the 70's idea of sexy with jeans and a moderately revealing top rather than all wearing hooker outfits? Sexiness DOES require some element of novelty, and, once you've gotten thoroughly used to seeing nearly-naked, it ceases to create the most excitement any more, and something more covered up seems exciting (not to mention classier).
Meanwhile, we're seeing MEN grooming themselves, moisturizing, using hair products (have you heard the term "metrosexual," referring to a straight man who grooms himself to the level a gay man would?), working out, dieting, and dressing to show it off, especially men in the entertainment industry. Men's magazines and catalogs of men's clothing are filled with pics that are nearly pornographic, in part to interest gay men, of course, but in general because we're now ready as a culture to see men being sexy; magazines for women, such as Cosmo, are filled with "naughty" pics of men that would have seemed extreme not that long ago.
Any new male actor shows us his washboard abs as reliably as new starlets used to show their cleavage. Male beauty and sexiness is now being marketed in the way women's has always been, and men now have a degree of beauty and sexiness that they've never had before; look at photos of old-time male stars, who were older, less attractive by FAR, and muscle-free compared to modern heartthrobs, and you can't miss it.
The female form has been hyper-eroticized and exaggerated to the point that the pendulum is swinging back to something less sleazy, something that leaves a bit to the imagination. What's sexiest now is the MEN who suddenly have bare skin, hard bodies, bulging groins, and loose, sensual body language; since women now have the $ to pay for whatever those sexy images of men point them to, male sexiness is good business, and that make it easy for this trend to take off in a way it never could have before.
Yes, men are still looking at the same sort of nudie pics they always have, for the same purpose they've always used them for, but they are biologically programmed to be easily bored, and are willingly turning to images of a less blatantly-displayed female form as the ideal, while male sex symbols are becoming MORE blatant, more "hot." As a woman, I've gotta say that I'm looking forward to MEN getting steadily nakeder and more "obvious" in the years to come, while women go back to being more "ladylike" and old-school sexy; turnabout is fair play!! :-)
Those of us old enough to remember the not-so-distant past, in which a man would be aggressive in his sexual pursuit but not "look" sexy, dress sexy, or ACT sexy can see that, with women having gone so far to "out-sexy" each other that they've become virtually indistinguishable, and therefore rather dull, with their hair extensions and push-up bras, it's really only MALE attempts at sexual display that are novel enough to BE sexy anymore.
Don't believe it? In an attempt to keep the female body "new" and exciting, they've had no choice but to cover it up more; compare what actresses were wearing 5-10 years ago with what they wear NOW, for example. It's not just famous women who are changing, although they are always the first TO change, as their $ depends on them being the most sexy: Have you noticed the increasing popularity of women's underpants that look like shorts, and cover more of the female lower body than any popular undergarment has done in DECADES? Of skirts that make you think of Audrey Hepburn rather than "stripper"? Of women, even quite young ones, returning to the 70's idea of sexy with jeans and a moderately revealing top rather than all wearing hooker outfits? Sexiness DOES require some element of novelty, and, once you've gotten thoroughly used to seeing nearly-naked, it ceases to create the most excitement any more, and something more covered up seems exciting (not to mention classier).
Meanwhile, we're seeing MEN grooming themselves, moisturizing, using hair products (have you heard the term "metrosexual," referring to a straight man who grooms himself to the level a gay man would?), working out, dieting, and dressing to show it off, especially men in the entertainment industry. Men's magazines and catalogs of men's clothing are filled with pics that are nearly pornographic, in part to interest gay men, of course, but in general because we're now ready as a culture to see men being sexy; magazines for women, such as Cosmo, are filled with "naughty" pics of men that would have seemed extreme not that long ago.
Any new male actor shows us his washboard abs as reliably as new starlets used to show their cleavage. Male beauty and sexiness is now being marketed in the way women's has always been, and men now have a degree of beauty and sexiness that they've never had before; look at photos of old-time male stars, who were older, less attractive by FAR, and muscle-free compared to modern heartthrobs, and you can't miss it.
The female form has been hyper-eroticized and exaggerated to the point that the pendulum is swinging back to something less sleazy, something that leaves a bit to the imagination. What's sexiest now is the MEN who suddenly have bare skin, hard bodies, bulging groins, and loose, sensual body language; since women now have the $ to pay for whatever those sexy images of men point them to, male sexiness is good business, and that make it easy for this trend to take off in a way it never could have before.
Yes, men are still looking at the same sort of nudie pics they always have, for the same purpose they've always used them for, but they are biologically programmed to be easily bored, and are willingly turning to images of a less blatantly-displayed female form as the ideal, while male sex symbols are becoming MORE blatant, more "hot." As a woman, I've gotta say that I'm looking forward to MEN getting steadily nakeder and more "obvious" in the years to come, while women go back to being more "ladylike" and old-school sexy; turnabout is fair play!! :-)
Friday, February 20, 2004
Some recent synchronicities
I got an email a few days ago from a friend describing a browser problem that I hadn't encountered. I asked my husband about it, and, although HE had never seen it either, he agreed that the description of the problem and the bug in the browser that would cause it made sense. Ten minutes later, that exact browser problem occurred on my computer.
A couple of days ago, I got the CD of the soundtrack to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Listening to it, I developed a strong desire to see the movie again. Guess what turned out to be showing on Bravo, of all channels, last night?
Yesterday, as an episode of M*A*S*H came on, I asked my husband how the lyrics to the theme song, "Suicide is Painless," had anything to do with the concept of the show; he had no idea. Tonight, BANG, there was the original movie on which the series was based, being shown on FX, and once I started watching it the explanation for the lyrics became totally clear.
Coincidence?
My husband still doesn't believe in synchronicities, but, when I pointed these out to him, he suggested, only half-jokingly, that I speculate with him about a movie he's hoping will come on TV some time soon. Only half-joking, because he KNOWS, he just can't accept it. He's known since...
We had gone into a stereo store, and saw a little side room that turned out to be the place to hear all the different kinds of car speakers all at the same time. Having ascertained that, we turned to go out, but I found myself compelled to stay. "What are you looking at?" he asked. "Nothing, just wait," I said. "Wait for what?" he asked. "I don't know, just WAIT," I replied. He stood there with that put-upon expression of "man indulging irrational woman" for another 10 seconds or so... at which point a song by my favorite band, which I had NEVER heard on the radio before, not even when it had first been released many years before, started playing.
Life will be MUCH less stressful for him once science shows how our brains pick up on what will happen in the near future, lol.
A couple of days ago, I got the CD of the soundtrack to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Listening to it, I developed a strong desire to see the movie again. Guess what turned out to be showing on Bravo, of all channels, last night?
Yesterday, as an episode of M*A*S*H came on, I asked my husband how the lyrics to the theme song, "Suicide is Painless," had anything to do with the concept of the show; he had no idea. Tonight, BANG, there was the original movie on which the series was based, being shown on FX, and once I started watching it the explanation for the lyrics became totally clear.
Coincidence?
My husband still doesn't believe in synchronicities, but, when I pointed these out to him, he suggested, only half-jokingly, that I speculate with him about a movie he's hoping will come on TV some time soon. Only half-joking, because he KNOWS, he just can't accept it. He's known since...
We had gone into a stereo store, and saw a little side room that turned out to be the place to hear all the different kinds of car speakers all at the same time. Having ascertained that, we turned to go out, but I found myself compelled to stay. "What are you looking at?" he asked. "Nothing, just wait," I said. "Wait for what?" he asked. "I don't know, just WAIT," I replied. He stood there with that put-upon expression of "man indulging irrational woman" for another 10 seconds or so... at which point a song by my favorite band, which I had NEVER heard on the radio before, not even when it had first been released many years before, started playing.
Life will be MUCH less stressful for him once science shows how our brains pick up on what will happen in the near future, lol.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Are online relationships "real"?
The FEELINGS we have for people we become involved with online are certainly real, but does that mean that the relationships themselves are?
For most of human history, the ONLY way to have a relationship was with someone you knew face to face. In the time since most people were able to read and write, and mail delivery became reliable, it has been possible to have some sort of involvement with people at a distance, but can that really be called a relationship when you've never SEEN the person, and so can't be SURE about your perceptions of them? When you've never had to depend on them to do things for you, never been through hard times with them to see how they cope?
Nowadays, when we can share endless words and photos at the touch of a button, when we can chat on the IM's or in chatrooms and feel a real-time connection, it's much easier to get emotionally involved... but, does that mean that it's a relationship when we STILL haven't interacted "for real"?
I've spent a pretty huge amount of time socializing online, felt alot of things for alot of people, and seen other people go through all sorts of entanglements as well. It's clear that being online is an easy way to find people who have your same interests, which is often the basis for friendship; these friendships can certainly carry over into real life, but they have a significantly higher rate of ending in unpleasantness than relationships that form from the start in "real life," most likely because it's easier for people to deceive others, and deceive themselves ABOUT others, online than in person.
The same thing goes for romantic relationships, times TEN; it's human nature to try to make a potential partner think that we're better than we really are, and online we can pretend almost anything, and the other person becomes swept away before they get the chance to test the reality of what has been said (which they would have been doing all along if they were face to face), not realizing that the person they love bears little relationship to the person they're talking to until it's too late. BEWARE any situation where you think you're in love with someone you haven't spent a great deal of time with in person; people who go from online love to real-life love, and STAY in love, are the exception rather than the rule.
Another part of human nature is to fade away when things get tough, or stop being fun, or when the novelty wears off, if a way to fade is available, and the fade is ALWAYS available online. People can block you from their email and IM accounts, and in these days of ubiquitous caller ID they can screen you out easily enough if you have progressed to phone calls; if you don't live near enough to someone that you can show up on their doorstep (and know where that doorstep IS), they can evaporate in an instant if they want, and it happens ALL the time, even when those involved seemed like the best of friends or romantic "soul mates."
I think there ARE people that can really have "true friendships" or "true romances" with people they've only been involved with online, but most online "relationships" are just "friendly interactions of convenience" that wouldn't survive real life even if the participants tried to make them real. If you live nearby someone you're befriending online, I'd suggest meeting sooner rather than later, to maximize your chances; if you live too far away, it still MIGHT be that you've made a lifelong buddy, but keep telling yourself that the chances are very, VERY low.
I'm recalling so many people that seemed like true bosom buddies that I've been involved with online through clubs, forums, message boards, etc, and they nearly all burned hot and then burned out, or faded out, or erupted into the sort of fights that would be nothing offline but are the kiss of death online..... the only exceptions are people I didn't get TOO deeply involved with, or didn't have TOO frequent of contact with, and that's probably not a coincidence.
It's so much easier to pour your heart out to a chat screen, or a blog, or an email, or a forum post, than it is to look someone in the eye and tell them the same stuff, and we really WANT to share all we have with others. Once we've shared, we naturally feel emotionally connected, but we need to FIGHT that tendency online, because just because someone has read our chat comments, blog, email or forum post does NOT mean that THEY feel an attachment to US, although they might fake it to get you to continue giving them a voyeuristic thrill from the peep show into your soul.
No matter WHAT you feel, don't believe it's "real" until you've met the person offline and interacted with them long enough to PROVE that it's real-this will save you endless heartbreak. Enjoy online contacts for what they are, and save your love for people who can give you love back; don't mistake online relationships for real ones.
For most of human history, the ONLY way to have a relationship was with someone you knew face to face. In the time since most people were able to read and write, and mail delivery became reliable, it has been possible to have some sort of involvement with people at a distance, but can that really be called a relationship when you've never SEEN the person, and so can't be SURE about your perceptions of them? When you've never had to depend on them to do things for you, never been through hard times with them to see how they cope?
Nowadays, when we can share endless words and photos at the touch of a button, when we can chat on the IM's or in chatrooms and feel a real-time connection, it's much easier to get emotionally involved... but, does that mean that it's a relationship when we STILL haven't interacted "for real"?
I've spent a pretty huge amount of time socializing online, felt alot of things for alot of people, and seen other people go through all sorts of entanglements as well. It's clear that being online is an easy way to find people who have your same interests, which is often the basis for friendship; these friendships can certainly carry over into real life, but they have a significantly higher rate of ending in unpleasantness than relationships that form from the start in "real life," most likely because it's easier for people to deceive others, and deceive themselves ABOUT others, online than in person.
The same thing goes for romantic relationships, times TEN; it's human nature to try to make a potential partner think that we're better than we really are, and online we can pretend almost anything, and the other person becomes swept away before they get the chance to test the reality of what has been said (which they would have been doing all along if they were face to face), not realizing that the person they love bears little relationship to the person they're talking to until it's too late. BEWARE any situation where you think you're in love with someone you haven't spent a great deal of time with in person; people who go from online love to real-life love, and STAY in love, are the exception rather than the rule.
Another part of human nature is to fade away when things get tough, or stop being fun, or when the novelty wears off, if a way to fade is available, and the fade is ALWAYS available online. People can block you from their email and IM accounts, and in these days of ubiquitous caller ID they can screen you out easily enough if you have progressed to phone calls; if you don't live near enough to someone that you can show up on their doorstep (and know where that doorstep IS), they can evaporate in an instant if they want, and it happens ALL the time, even when those involved seemed like the best of friends or romantic "soul mates."
I think there ARE people that can really have "true friendships" or "true romances" with people they've only been involved with online, but most online "relationships" are just "friendly interactions of convenience" that wouldn't survive real life even if the participants tried to make them real. If you live nearby someone you're befriending online, I'd suggest meeting sooner rather than later, to maximize your chances; if you live too far away, it still MIGHT be that you've made a lifelong buddy, but keep telling yourself that the chances are very, VERY low.
I'm recalling so many people that seemed like true bosom buddies that I've been involved with online through clubs, forums, message boards, etc, and they nearly all burned hot and then burned out, or faded out, or erupted into the sort of fights that would be nothing offline but are the kiss of death online..... the only exceptions are people I didn't get TOO deeply involved with, or didn't have TOO frequent of contact with, and that's probably not a coincidence.
It's so much easier to pour your heart out to a chat screen, or a blog, or an email, or a forum post, than it is to look someone in the eye and tell them the same stuff, and we really WANT to share all we have with others. Once we've shared, we naturally feel emotionally connected, but we need to FIGHT that tendency online, because just because someone has read our chat comments, blog, email or forum post does NOT mean that THEY feel an attachment to US, although they might fake it to get you to continue giving them a voyeuristic thrill from the peep show into your soul.
No matter WHAT you feel, don't believe it's "real" until you've met the person offline and interacted with them long enough to PROVE that it's real-this will save you endless heartbreak. Enjoy online contacts for what they are, and save your love for people who can give you love back; don't mistake online relationships for real ones.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Psychic synch
A good friend of mine is in psychic synch with water; any time a plumbing disaster is about to happen, even if she's miles and miles away, she knows INSTANTLY, and knows the exact spot in her home to run to to look for the leak/flood/etc. Water conducts various kinds of energy quite well, and obviously the energy of karma and thought can resonate with it too.
*I* am in psychic synch with electrical appliances... so much so that I "scramble" them. Just today, I managed to have one in a long series of problems happen with a computer that are not supposed to be ABLE to happen; the first one came over 20 years ago in high school, with the first computer I ever interacted with, on which my little Basic program (which was 100% correct and identical to what others had written for the same assignment) brought forth an error that no one had ever heard of, that the manual claimed was an "imaginary error" that meant something obscurely bad was going on... and no one else EVER got that error.
In the past, I've had all sorts of appliances fail to respond when I push their buttons, or do something other than what they're supposed to; whimsically, this is FAR more likely to happen when no one else is around, so the presence of another person must somehow mute the effect. One of the wildest incidences of this was the one and only time I was supposed to start my mother's VCR taping by pressing Record on the remote (normally, she would program it, but as it was something for just ME she couldn't be bothered); when the time came, I pressed the button, and nothing happened. I lost the first few minutes of the show as I pressed the button over and over, screaming for my mother to come and do something, while the VCR refused to start. Finally, I ran to the machine, found that there WAS a record button on it, and got the stupid thing to start... at which point my mother FINALLY showed up, screaming bloody murder because I'd touched a button other than the one I'd been told to use (my family works on the theory that there's only one right way to do things on a machine, and the end of civilization will come if you do it a different way, which might be the root of my ability to mess machines up), and insisting that it just wasn't POSSIBLE for the button on the remote to not have worked. She was right, in a way, because that is the ONLY time in the 20 years or so that she had that VCR (yes, she's VERY cheap) that ANY button on that remote failed to work.
Another wild example is one I mentioned in an earlier essay; a "Vegas" arcade game that I played blackjack on, on which I went over 21 EVERY time I had 12 and hit, despite the fact that no one else who played that game EVER had that happen. It wasn't ALL arcade games that went bad with me at the joystick, though; I had the world record score on a machine just a few feet away from the Vegas one.
Clearly, the energy behind psychic ability CAN interact with certain physical forces, and different people work on very different wavelengths than others; I've also had a friend who passed away contact me via my computer, TWICE, so THAT energy must be similar, or identical, which is what I've always thought. I'm going to try thinking about what I could do to consciously control some of this energy right before I go to sleep, so that maybe my subconscious will give me an answer in a dream; wish me luck.
*I* am in psychic synch with electrical appliances... so much so that I "scramble" them. Just today, I managed to have one in a long series of problems happen with a computer that are not supposed to be ABLE to happen; the first one came over 20 years ago in high school, with the first computer I ever interacted with, on which my little Basic program (which was 100% correct and identical to what others had written for the same assignment) brought forth an error that no one had ever heard of, that the manual claimed was an "imaginary error" that meant something obscurely bad was going on... and no one else EVER got that error.
In the past, I've had all sorts of appliances fail to respond when I push their buttons, or do something other than what they're supposed to; whimsically, this is FAR more likely to happen when no one else is around, so the presence of another person must somehow mute the effect. One of the wildest incidences of this was the one and only time I was supposed to start my mother's VCR taping by pressing Record on the remote (normally, she would program it, but as it was something for just ME she couldn't be bothered); when the time came, I pressed the button, and nothing happened. I lost the first few minutes of the show as I pressed the button over and over, screaming for my mother to come and do something, while the VCR refused to start. Finally, I ran to the machine, found that there WAS a record button on it, and got the stupid thing to start... at which point my mother FINALLY showed up, screaming bloody murder because I'd touched a button other than the one I'd been told to use (my family works on the theory that there's only one right way to do things on a machine, and the end of civilization will come if you do it a different way, which might be the root of my ability to mess machines up), and insisting that it just wasn't POSSIBLE for the button on the remote to not have worked. She was right, in a way, because that is the ONLY time in the 20 years or so that she had that VCR (yes, she's VERY cheap) that ANY button on that remote failed to work.
Another wild example is one I mentioned in an earlier essay; a "Vegas" arcade game that I played blackjack on, on which I went over 21 EVERY time I had 12 and hit, despite the fact that no one else who played that game EVER had that happen. It wasn't ALL arcade games that went bad with me at the joystick, though; I had the world record score on a machine just a few feet away from the Vegas one.
Clearly, the energy behind psychic ability CAN interact with certain physical forces, and different people work on very different wavelengths than others; I've also had a friend who passed away contact me via my computer, TWICE, so THAT energy must be similar, or identical, which is what I've always thought. I'm going to try thinking about what I could do to consciously control some of this energy right before I go to sleep, so that maybe my subconscious will give me an answer in a dream; wish me luck.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Online personal ads
Ideally, personal ads are a terrific way to pre-screen people and allow them to pre-screen YOU, so that you hook up with people that you have a true chance of compatibility with. The reality is that most people ignore the information given about a potential date and make a snap judgment based on the photo(s), or, if there aren't any photos and they're interested in what they've read, they instantly ASK for photos... heaven forbid they waste their precious time sending a few emails to someone who they haven't verified looks like a model.
Then again, you can't blame people for ignoring what is written when they see the same pointless nonsense over and over again. I laughed my way through a bunch of ads here:
http://www.hotornot.com/
Each of these folks gets to give a list of keywords and write a little blurb about themselves, and here's what I'd like to tell them:
1) Don't say that you "like having fun," "like doing anything fun," "like having a good time," etc; everyone on Earth likes having a good time and doing whatever is fun to them, and what that is varies wildly from person to person.... try DESCRIBING what is fun to YOU.
2) Don't say that you like "good food," "good music," "good movies," etc; everyone thinks that what THEY like is good, and what we need to know is that what is good to YOU is pizza, jazz and comedies (or whatever).
3) Don't make sexual references; only a real lowlife is going to pick an ad that includes your love of oral sex in your 50 words or less (this goes double for women-trust me, no man respects a woman who advertises herself with sex).
4) Men, if you have a flabby, pasty, undefined upper body, do NOT use a pic of you with your shirt off.
5) Ladies, no one wants to see your underwear, butt cleavage or cellulite.
6) SMILE!! At least PRETEND you have a personality!! There's nothing worse than a photo that looks like a mug shot; what sort of person would respond to a grim, humorless photo?
7) Men, you don't attract women by talking about the sports, beer, and other testosterone pursuits you enjoy; try listing activities that more than 1 woman in a million likes.
8) Ladies, no man wants to feel like an element on your agenda; DON'T mention your intention to marry and/or have kids "some day."
9) Use a photo of you that is at least moderately flattering; if you have greasy hair, undereye bags, and stains on your shirt in your pic, you're not going to maximize your hits.
10) Try to not seem more shallow than average; no one wants to hear about the flawlessly gorgeous person you're looking for, especially if you yourself are no better than average-looking.
I could go on and on, but, based on the evidence, using any brain cells to create an online personal ad is against the rules, lol.
Then again, you can't blame people for ignoring what is written when they see the same pointless nonsense over and over again. I laughed my way through a bunch of ads here:
http://www.hotornot.com/
Each of these folks gets to give a list of keywords and write a little blurb about themselves, and here's what I'd like to tell them:
1) Don't say that you "like having fun," "like doing anything fun," "like having a good time," etc; everyone on Earth likes having a good time and doing whatever is fun to them, and what that is varies wildly from person to person.... try DESCRIBING what is fun to YOU.
2) Don't say that you like "good food," "good music," "good movies," etc; everyone thinks that what THEY like is good, and what we need to know is that what is good to YOU is pizza, jazz and comedies (or whatever).
3) Don't make sexual references; only a real lowlife is going to pick an ad that includes your love of oral sex in your 50 words or less (this goes double for women-trust me, no man respects a woman who advertises herself with sex).
4) Men, if you have a flabby, pasty, undefined upper body, do NOT use a pic of you with your shirt off.
5) Ladies, no one wants to see your underwear, butt cleavage or cellulite.
6) SMILE!! At least PRETEND you have a personality!! There's nothing worse than a photo that looks like a mug shot; what sort of person would respond to a grim, humorless photo?
7) Men, you don't attract women by talking about the sports, beer, and other testosterone pursuits you enjoy; try listing activities that more than 1 woman in a million likes.
8) Ladies, no man wants to feel like an element on your agenda; DON'T mention your intention to marry and/or have kids "some day."
9) Use a photo of you that is at least moderately flattering; if you have greasy hair, undereye bags, and stains on your shirt in your pic, you're not going to maximize your hits.
10) Try to not seem more shallow than average; no one wants to hear about the flawlessly gorgeous person you're looking for, especially if you yourself are no better than average-looking.
I could go on and on, but, based on the evidence, using any brain cells to create an online personal ad is against the rules, lol.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Where does religion come from?
Every culture that has ever existed, from caveman days onwards, has had religion; WHY? Part of it certainly stems from the universal human need to explain the powerful forces that exist in the world and our lives, and part of it is the desire to believe that just because we're grown up doesn't mean that there isn't still a parent figure or figures out there who are looking after us... but is that it?
Once a religion is established, of course, the vast majority of people born into it believe it because that's what they were taught to believe as kids, in the same way modern kids believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and all the cultural references to the religion help keep belief going, too, but that doesn't account for those who feel DRIVEN to switch to a different religion than they were brought up in, or those who were brought up without religion who "find it," or those who had a fairly indifferent sort of belief who become impassioned about it... what happens to cause those sorts of feelings?
We can't discount everyone who sees, hears or feels something that they interpret as a religious experience as crazy, so there's got to be SOMETHING... but what? It seems to me that if there were one true deity, or group of deities, everyone would be perceiving him/them, but instead there are people who feel the existence of all sorts of things-try talking to a wiccan some day. My personal view is that there IS energy out there, the energy that fuels the engine of karma, and that people perceive that energy and interpret it to be whatever sort of religious experience their personality leads them to want/need.
How do I know that I'M not the one giving a subjective interpretation to the energy *I* perceive? Because I'm not giving ANY interpretation to it; I've felt and seen things, but I'm not creating something in my own image to explain it, I'm not pretending that it loves me or is thinking about me... I see a force acting in a consistent way, much as I see every object I drop falling to the ground, and have merely given the force, in all its manifestations, a name (karma) rather than creating a religion around it, or picking a religion to explain it.
COULD there be God or gods at the center of all this energy? Sure-I can't prove otherwise. A deeply religious and spiritual (they are NOT the same) friend of mine is a believer in both God and karma; she sees karma as a device God created to do His will. She also believes that God shows to each person whatever facet of Himself is most appropriate for that person, and that for some of us what is appropriate is to see the engine of karma and not the maker of that engine. If she's right, I hope I'll see Him one day...
Once a religion is established, of course, the vast majority of people born into it believe it because that's what they were taught to believe as kids, in the same way modern kids believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and all the cultural references to the religion help keep belief going, too, but that doesn't account for those who feel DRIVEN to switch to a different religion than they were brought up in, or those who were brought up without religion who "find it," or those who had a fairly indifferent sort of belief who become impassioned about it... what happens to cause those sorts of feelings?
We can't discount everyone who sees, hears or feels something that they interpret as a religious experience as crazy, so there's got to be SOMETHING... but what? It seems to me that if there were one true deity, or group of deities, everyone would be perceiving him/them, but instead there are people who feel the existence of all sorts of things-try talking to a wiccan some day. My personal view is that there IS energy out there, the energy that fuels the engine of karma, and that people perceive that energy and interpret it to be whatever sort of religious experience their personality leads them to want/need.
How do I know that I'M not the one giving a subjective interpretation to the energy *I* perceive? Because I'm not giving ANY interpretation to it; I've felt and seen things, but I'm not creating something in my own image to explain it, I'm not pretending that it loves me or is thinking about me... I see a force acting in a consistent way, much as I see every object I drop falling to the ground, and have merely given the force, in all its manifestations, a name (karma) rather than creating a religion around it, or picking a religion to explain it.
COULD there be God or gods at the center of all this energy? Sure-I can't prove otherwise. A deeply religious and spiritual (they are NOT the same) friend of mine is a believer in both God and karma; she sees karma as a device God created to do His will. She also believes that God shows to each person whatever facet of Himself is most appropriate for that person, and that for some of us what is appropriate is to see the engine of karma and not the maker of that engine. If she's right, I hope I'll see Him one day...
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Common sense is an oxymoron
You see it every day. The friend whose parents have given them nothing but grief and disapproval their entire life who's still trying to find that magic combination of actions that will get them one scrap of approval. People whose families in general are toxic, but who keep on staying involved with them. The guy that ignores perfectly nice people that he could be friends with while clutching onto people who treat him like dirt, and even takes back people who abused him and walked off, often with the excuse of having known the jerks for many years, as if THAT changes anything. The woman whose man cheats and/or beats her who she stays with because she "loves" him. The morons on Jerry Springer who find out that their partners have committed every possible sin against them, but will literally FIGHT to try to keep them. The latest example for me, which inspired this rant, is a sweet, brilliant, gorgeous woman I know who is separated from her husband, and it turns out that they are SO separated that he didn't even contact her on Valentine's Day... and I'm left wondering which one of them is crazier, him for his gross neglect of her or her for bothering with him when he's so obviously just hanging onto her as a fallback position for when he gets tired of his midlife crisis and wants to come home.
We're not living in an old-time agrarian society where we only have a handful of potential partners and so have to grab one and hold on for dear life or be out of luck. We're no longer so dependent on our families of origin that we need to stick around even when they, or any one of them, are abusive. We don't have to hang onto friends who mistreat us-there are countless others who can be our friends. None of this is news to anyone, so why, why, WHY is it that nearly every person I know is keeping a white-knuckle grip on at least one shithead they should be kicking to the curb?
We're not living in an old-time agrarian society where we only have a handful of potential partners and so have to grab one and hold on for dear life or be out of luck. We're no longer so dependent on our families of origin that we need to stick around even when they, or any one of them, are abusive. We don't have to hang onto friends who mistreat us-there are countless others who can be our friends. None of this is news to anyone, so why, why, WHY is it that nearly every person I know is keeping a white-knuckle grip on at least one shithead they should be kicking to the curb?
