Saturday, March 27, 2004
My husband said something interesting
It DOES happen from time to time. ;-)
We were watching a movie in which a male character feeds a line to a female character about wanting to "take it slow," about which my husband piped up: "No, the whole point is that you're supposed to get her to sleep with you BEFORE she finds out what an asshole you are." He wasn't just talking about the guy in the movie, it turns out; he was expressing one of the rules of manhood (yeah yeah, I know, no guy YOU know thinks that way).
It's true what they say; boys and girls ARE different. We nearly all grew up in households where a woman made the rules as to how we should groom ourselves, keep up our rooms, handle perishable foods and so forth, and girls internalize that and expect their homes (and everyone else's) to work the same way, while boys try to be as different as possible from that female role model as proof of their maleness.
You think not? Come on, do you think men don't grasp that it takes more effort to gather the laundry when they've thrown it everywhere EXCEPT the hamper, or that the bathroom STINKS if they don't flush the toilet, or that if they wear clothes with holes and stains it makes them repulsive to the opposite sex? They DO know, but they think it's more important to "be men" than it is to please the people they want sex from by doing things the proper way... ok, this shows a LITTLE bit of a lack of grasp of their best interests, lol, but that's men for you-if they DID fully grasp what was in their best interests, who would have done all the exploring and taken all the other risks that have moved the human race forward?
Although in these days of AIDS it's wise for us ALL to want to take it slow, regardless of gender, studies show that very few men actually want that; if they say they do, it's usually a line to try to get the woman into bed, just as was shown in the movie... which brings up a scary point. For all their outward contempt about chick flicks, magazines like Cosmo, and talk shows, guys are actually soaking alot of that stuff in when we're not around, and they're finding out what female concerns are and coming up with lines to counter them... and it's apparently WORKING. They're getting organized about it, too; I've seen entire websites devoted to men telling other men all the objections women have to having sex with a near stranger, and how to overcome those objections. These sites emphasize a "strike while the iron is hot" mentality, meaning that the idea is to get the woman in bed while the initial attraction is still there, and BEFORE she starts to notice his many faults and lose interest, or, even worse, starts to see him as a "just a friend."
Since *I* was brought up by parents who told me endlessly that men would do anything, say anything, promise anything, to get a woman into bed, I've always seen male attempts to speak the "female language" and make it sound like they want what we want as the lines they are, and it never ceases to amaze me how easily OTHER women fall for those same lines. Ladies, listen; men don't care about communication, they don't want to share their feelings, they don't want to willingly drag out the wait before they get sex from you, and they're not contemplating commitment with women they've just met. No, they're not. NO, they're NOT. Men instinctively FEAR those sorts of topics, as they know they can't compete with women in the areas of emotions and relationship issues, and, while a good guy will endure them to please you, and WILL wait a few weeks or even months for sex, a guy who brings these sorts of things up himself is a player-count on it.
It was sort of freaky that my husband, who is a geek with no clue about social interactions in general, and is the farthest thing imaginable from a ladies' man, STILL understood the basic principles under which other men act; more than ever, I'm convinced that when the girls were sequestered watching those "Your Period and You" movies in school, the boys were being given training sessions in this stuff... how else could they ALL know?
We were watching a movie in which a male character feeds a line to a female character about wanting to "take it slow," about which my husband piped up: "No, the whole point is that you're supposed to get her to sleep with you BEFORE she finds out what an asshole you are." He wasn't just talking about the guy in the movie, it turns out; he was expressing one of the rules of manhood (yeah yeah, I know, no guy YOU know thinks that way).
It's true what they say; boys and girls ARE different. We nearly all grew up in households where a woman made the rules as to how we should groom ourselves, keep up our rooms, handle perishable foods and so forth, and girls internalize that and expect their homes (and everyone else's) to work the same way, while boys try to be as different as possible from that female role model as proof of their maleness.
You think not? Come on, do you think men don't grasp that it takes more effort to gather the laundry when they've thrown it everywhere EXCEPT the hamper, or that the bathroom STINKS if they don't flush the toilet, or that if they wear clothes with holes and stains it makes them repulsive to the opposite sex? They DO know, but they think it's more important to "be men" than it is to please the people they want sex from by doing things the proper way... ok, this shows a LITTLE bit of a lack of grasp of their best interests, lol, but that's men for you-if they DID fully grasp what was in their best interests, who would have done all the exploring and taken all the other risks that have moved the human race forward?
Although in these days of AIDS it's wise for us ALL to want to take it slow, regardless of gender, studies show that very few men actually want that; if they say they do, it's usually a line to try to get the woman into bed, just as was shown in the movie... which brings up a scary point. For all their outward contempt about chick flicks, magazines like Cosmo, and talk shows, guys are actually soaking alot of that stuff in when we're not around, and they're finding out what female concerns are and coming up with lines to counter them... and it's apparently WORKING. They're getting organized about it, too; I've seen entire websites devoted to men telling other men all the objections women have to having sex with a near stranger, and how to overcome those objections. These sites emphasize a "strike while the iron is hot" mentality, meaning that the idea is to get the woman in bed while the initial attraction is still there, and BEFORE she starts to notice his many faults and lose interest, or, even worse, starts to see him as a "just a friend."
Since *I* was brought up by parents who told me endlessly that men would do anything, say anything, promise anything, to get a woman into bed, I've always seen male attempts to speak the "female language" and make it sound like they want what we want as the lines they are, and it never ceases to amaze me how easily OTHER women fall for those same lines. Ladies, listen; men don't care about communication, they don't want to share their feelings, they don't want to willingly drag out the wait before they get sex from you, and they're not contemplating commitment with women they've just met. No, they're not. NO, they're NOT. Men instinctively FEAR those sorts of topics, as they know they can't compete with women in the areas of emotions and relationship issues, and, while a good guy will endure them to please you, and WILL wait a few weeks or even months for sex, a guy who brings these sorts of things up himself is a player-count on it.
It was sort of freaky that my husband, who is a geek with no clue about social interactions in general, and is the farthest thing imaginable from a ladies' man, STILL understood the basic principles under which other men act; more than ever, I'm convinced that when the girls were sequestered watching those "Your Period and You" movies in school, the boys were being given training sessions in this stuff... how else could they ALL know?
Friday, March 26, 2004
Twin telepathy
I read this phrase in the newest Stephen King novel, and it jumped out at me as an interesting topic to cover; everyone is familiar with it, but no one tries to explain it.
We all hear the stories about twins that appear able to read each other's minds, pick up images from each other, suffer pain when the other one does, at the same time and in the same part of the body; EVERY twin I've ever known has been able to describe instances like these, even when they're not identical twins, or even twins of the same gender. Even people who claim to not believe in telepathy tend to accept that twins have this ability... but what is it?
There doesn't seem to be any evolutionary advantage to twins having an extra psychic connection beyond what we're all capable of, so my best guess is that it's a side effect of developing in the womb together. I've heard the viewpoint that it's a genetic thing, but that's just a reference to identical twins, and the half-formed idea that maybe they have identical brains somehow that make it easier to pick up on each other's thoughts... which is certainly possible, but doesn't explain why non-identical twins have the same abilities.
Have you ever wondered at what point the body acquires the soul, and how and from where? My personal view is that the soul grows along with the brain, and doesn't become fully-developed until the brain reaches a certain level of development... which means that an infant would NOT have a "full soul," as they are mostly just criers and excreters at that point, not capable of the thought, the sacrifices, and the selfless feelings that *I* see as pointing to the existence of a soul. Even if you shriek in horror at that thought, try to move past it and see what I'm getting at; that the soul doesn't just pop into existence fully-formed at some point, that it STARTS forming in the womb, possibly at the moment of conception (I'll grant that as I can't disprove it), but more likely NOT starting to form until there is an actual BRAIN for it to reside in... because the brain creates the energy of thought and feeling from which the soul is MADE.
In the case of twins, you would have 2 nascent souls developing literally side by side, 2 energy "entities" growing together; is it so hard to imagine that this proximity has an effect? It's logical to assume that the psychic bond that mothers have been shown to have with their babies develops gradually in the womb, rather than appearing all at once at birth, so it's not much of a stretch to see that each of the little fetal brains that is synching up with the mother's brain would do some synching up with the other, too, with the result that they have special telepathy with each other.
This process could also explain why so many people get psychic flashes from people they know well and have been around alot, as opposed to from neighbors or other, less well known people in their lives... hmmmmmmm.....
We all hear the stories about twins that appear able to read each other's minds, pick up images from each other, suffer pain when the other one does, at the same time and in the same part of the body; EVERY twin I've ever known has been able to describe instances like these, even when they're not identical twins, or even twins of the same gender. Even people who claim to not believe in telepathy tend to accept that twins have this ability... but what is it?
There doesn't seem to be any evolutionary advantage to twins having an extra psychic connection beyond what we're all capable of, so my best guess is that it's a side effect of developing in the womb together. I've heard the viewpoint that it's a genetic thing, but that's just a reference to identical twins, and the half-formed idea that maybe they have identical brains somehow that make it easier to pick up on each other's thoughts... which is certainly possible, but doesn't explain why non-identical twins have the same abilities.
Have you ever wondered at what point the body acquires the soul, and how and from where? My personal view is that the soul grows along with the brain, and doesn't become fully-developed until the brain reaches a certain level of development... which means that an infant would NOT have a "full soul," as they are mostly just criers and excreters at that point, not capable of the thought, the sacrifices, and the selfless feelings that *I* see as pointing to the existence of a soul. Even if you shriek in horror at that thought, try to move past it and see what I'm getting at; that the soul doesn't just pop into existence fully-formed at some point, that it STARTS forming in the womb, possibly at the moment of conception (I'll grant that as I can't disprove it), but more likely NOT starting to form until there is an actual BRAIN for it to reside in... because the brain creates the energy of thought and feeling from which the soul is MADE.
In the case of twins, you would have 2 nascent souls developing literally side by side, 2 energy "entities" growing together; is it so hard to imagine that this proximity has an effect? It's logical to assume that the psychic bond that mothers have been shown to have with their babies develops gradually in the womb, rather than appearing all at once at birth, so it's not much of a stretch to see that each of the little fetal brains that is synching up with the mother's brain would do some synching up with the other, too, with the result that they have special telepathy with each other.
This process could also explain why so many people get psychic flashes from people they know well and have been around alot, as opposed to from neighbors or other, less well known people in their lives... hmmmmmmm.....
Thursday, March 25, 2004
WHY do we get sucked in by people who act badly?
It's Thursday, which means I just watched Mad Mad House; Don the vampire is, as I've mentioned before, a MAJOR babe, and I've gotten involved in the show to watch him do his thing (and was richly rewarded today, as he had his shirt off for the first time... YOWZA!!). I don't normally watch "reality" shows, so I don't know if what I've observed in this show is standard, but I've noticed some interesting psychological points being made.
Today's biggie was one of the saddest truths of the human race; those who behave badly, if they can get the ones they've behaved badly TO to see them in a somewhat better light, will end up with a more intense closeness to the victims than those who never mistreated them have achieved... and, those who behaved badly, or at least suboptimally, who belatedly show a little bit of correct behavior will be praised and made much of, while those whose behavior has always been good get ignored or even discarded. This sort of thing falls under the heading of "The Prodigal Effect," which I posted about on 1-22, and, as I said then, it SUCKS.
It happened TWICE in this episode: One of the guys had behaved in a way that upset one of the "judges" of the competition, but he sucked up to her for a while and she did a complete 180, and was saying what a great guy he is, when in fact he's a manipulative jerk who had inarguably acted in an unpleasant way... and ended up with bonus points for it. Then, one of the girls, who had been acting according to her real personality and hanging back from speaking up even when someone was being slammed in front of her, finally spoke up in someone's defense, and the "judges" were practically bursting into SONG afterwards.
And who do you suppose got eliminated today? Someone who had never done or said a single mean thing, and whose overall behavior had been virtually perfect; big frigging surprise THERE.
The guy who had won that day's competition, and so was immune to elimination although he had ticked so many people off that he was the prime candidate to be kicked out, asked the judges if he could have a clean slate, and they told him he COULD... too bad that the well-behaved lady had no second chances, or really a fair FIRST chance, since she was booted out despite not having been the cause of any problems... or rather BECAUSE of that very thing.
What is WRONG with us as a species that we trample over the nicest ones to lavish love on those with a history of bad behavior? WHY are we so eager to not just forgive and forget, but to forgive and REWARD? In the early caveman/tribal days of the human race, we needed a way to get people back into the group and contributing, but in today's world what possible benefit do we get from favoring the wrongdoers? How many times do we have to be smacked in the face by people we forgave and favored above those who were nice to us before we see that this is NOT the smartest way to handle things? Why, WHY does a single apology or a few minutes of sucking up make us blind and stupid and willing to offer our butts up for another kick?
It dismays me no end, but the painful truth is that the way to get ahead, to get the most success, to be liked and valued the most, is NOT to do everything right and be nice all the time; the way to the top is to screw up and behave badly (to a "reasonable" degree), and then pretend to be sorry, or suddenly do something good/right, and then reap the rewards. Sigh...
Today's biggie was one of the saddest truths of the human race; those who behave badly, if they can get the ones they've behaved badly TO to see them in a somewhat better light, will end up with a more intense closeness to the victims than those who never mistreated them have achieved... and, those who behaved badly, or at least suboptimally, who belatedly show a little bit of correct behavior will be praised and made much of, while those whose behavior has always been good get ignored or even discarded. This sort of thing falls under the heading of "The Prodigal Effect," which I posted about on 1-22, and, as I said then, it SUCKS.
It happened TWICE in this episode: One of the guys had behaved in a way that upset one of the "judges" of the competition, but he sucked up to her for a while and she did a complete 180, and was saying what a great guy he is, when in fact he's a manipulative jerk who had inarguably acted in an unpleasant way... and ended up with bonus points for it. Then, one of the girls, who had been acting according to her real personality and hanging back from speaking up even when someone was being slammed in front of her, finally spoke up in someone's defense, and the "judges" were practically bursting into SONG afterwards.
And who do you suppose got eliminated today? Someone who had never done or said a single mean thing, and whose overall behavior had been virtually perfect; big frigging surprise THERE.
The guy who had won that day's competition, and so was immune to elimination although he had ticked so many people off that he was the prime candidate to be kicked out, asked the judges if he could have a clean slate, and they told him he COULD... too bad that the well-behaved lady had no second chances, or really a fair FIRST chance, since she was booted out despite not having been the cause of any problems... or rather BECAUSE of that very thing.
What is WRONG with us as a species that we trample over the nicest ones to lavish love on those with a history of bad behavior? WHY are we so eager to not just forgive and forget, but to forgive and REWARD? In the early caveman/tribal days of the human race, we needed a way to get people back into the group and contributing, but in today's world what possible benefit do we get from favoring the wrongdoers? How many times do we have to be smacked in the face by people we forgave and favored above those who were nice to us before we see that this is NOT the smartest way to handle things? Why, WHY does a single apology or a few minutes of sucking up make us blind and stupid and willing to offer our butts up for another kick?
It dismays me no end, but the painful truth is that the way to get ahead, to get the most success, to be liked and valued the most, is NOT to do everything right and be nice all the time; the way to the top is to screw up and behave badly (to a "reasonable" degree), and then pretend to be sorry, or suddenly do something good/right, and then reap the rewards. Sigh...
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Telekinesis?
... so there I was, running flat-out through the deserted, gore-filled halls of the hospital, trying not to touch any of the blood or nameless lumps of flesh with my bare feet, knowing that if I slipped they'd probably catch up to me, and even if they didn't they'd certainly be able to track me easily enough if I'd flailed around on the floor and gotten blood all over me. I darted down intersecting hallways at random, avoiding lit doorways where more potential enemies did whatever it was that led to the horrific mess on the floors, searching frantically for a door to the outside, my only chance of escape... THUMP!! I was suddenly awake, or rather in the partial state of awakeness known to people who suffer from night terrors (nightmares that persist after the sufferers wake up), and somehow I knew exactly what the sound I'd heard was, I knew that a tote bag had fallen off of the shelf in my closet, and, as I fought to get free of the last tentacles of the nightmare (I could still see and feel it, and was still unable to move my body, even though I was technically awake, which is typical of night terrors), I kept thinking "I woke myself up, I made a noise and woke myself up."
In another 30 seconds, I was free of the dream and got out of bed; not to my surprise, there WAS a tote bag on the floor that had fallen from the closet shelf. Picking up a telepathic image when in a hyper-aware state of unconsciousness (if that makes sense) doesn't surprise me at all; it's not like there are jingle bells or anything on the tote bag that would have allowed me to identify it by the sound it made when it hit the ground, so the fact that I DID know points inarguably to extra-sensory perception. What was freaky was my certainty that I had somehow MADE the tote bag fall.
Even for a believer in psychic phenomena, telekinesis brings out the inner skeptic; although I HAVE experienced telekinesis by poltergeists, I've never seen evidence of it by humans. I also don't think that everything that comes into my mind in an altered state of consciousness is true; most of it is in fact random nonsense. But... BUT... I undeniably had SOME sort of psychic connection with what happened, since I knew what had made the noise before I saw it, and right along with that came the certainty that I had caused it; COULD I have sent out a "psychic scream" that non-coincidentally gave the lightest-weight thing in the room that could have been easily "pushed" to the ground a little nudge? COULD I?
Even though I'm not a believer in coincidence, I can't quite say yes, but it all fits so perfectly together that I can't... quite... say... no...
In another 30 seconds, I was free of the dream and got out of bed; not to my surprise, there WAS a tote bag on the floor that had fallen from the closet shelf. Picking up a telepathic image when in a hyper-aware state of unconsciousness (if that makes sense) doesn't surprise me at all; it's not like there are jingle bells or anything on the tote bag that would have allowed me to identify it by the sound it made when it hit the ground, so the fact that I DID know points inarguably to extra-sensory perception. What was freaky was my certainty that I had somehow MADE the tote bag fall.
Even for a believer in psychic phenomena, telekinesis brings out the inner skeptic; although I HAVE experienced telekinesis by poltergeists, I've never seen evidence of it by humans. I also don't think that everything that comes into my mind in an altered state of consciousness is true; most of it is in fact random nonsense. But... BUT... I undeniably had SOME sort of psychic connection with what happened, since I knew what had made the noise before I saw it, and right along with that came the certainty that I had caused it; COULD I have sent out a "psychic scream" that non-coincidentally gave the lightest-weight thing in the room that could have been easily "pushed" to the ground a little nudge? COULD I?
Even though I'm not a believer in coincidence, I can't quite say yes, but it all fits so perfectly together that I can't... quite... say... no...
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Visual stimulation
No, not THAT kind... the kind that comes from OTHER things that Mother Nature has programmed us to respond to.
Did you ever wonder why we find colors like blue and green "soothing"? It's obvious when you think about it, as is the reason for the relaxation we feel around earthtones-these are the main nature colors. Yellow, the color of sunshine, is seen as cheerful, as we are warm and have plentiful food during sunny times of the year; gray, on the other hand, is often seen as depressing, which isn't surprising, since we call a "gray" day "gloomy."
Colors like red and orange grab our eye and excite us; if you were a hungry, poorly-nourished caveperson, you'd do better if you paid special attention when trees had those brightly-colored thingies on 'em, as they're full of vitamins. These colors also make us eat faster, which is why fast-food restaurants use those colors heavily (to get people to eat and get out fast), and probably encouraged early humans to gorge on fruit when they could find it, to suck up as much nutrition as possible before some bigger caveman came along and took the rest.
To me, the most amazing color response is that pastel pink "enforces" relaxation on your muscles, so much so that you can't lift as much weight in a light pink room as you can in a room of a different color, and police stations have found that tossing a violent arrestee into a pink room calms them down faster; I'm a naturally tense person, and guess what my favorite color is? It's amazing how your subconscious mind steers you to things that are good for you.
Which color creates the greatest feeling of sexual stimulation? Red, because, er... well, you know, lol.
Why do we all have different favorite colors, and what does it mean? Some folks think that your entire personality can be analyzed based on your color preferences; if you want to give it a go, take the Luscher Color Test here:
http://www.viewzone.com/luscher/colortest.html
or here, if you want more elaborate answers:
http://www.supervert.com/shockwave/colortest/colortest.html
You can get some info as to why the colors mean what they do in that test here:
http://www.viewzone.com/luscher44.html
We are also stimulated by patterns; if you've ever recoiled from a garish plaid, or smiled at a floral print, you were expressing preferences that appear to be inborn (we like things that remind us of nature, and perhaps plaid is just TOO unnatural for us, lol). Have you ever wondered why clothes with animal prints are considered sexy? It's because we're biologically programmed to REALLY notice patterns that are associated with dangerous creatures like snakes and big cats, and we get a spurt of adrenaline from seeing them.
I'm gonna look for a red leopard print outfit; I figure that's as close to irresistible as I'll ever get. ;-)
Did you ever wonder why we find colors like blue and green "soothing"? It's obvious when you think about it, as is the reason for the relaxation we feel around earthtones-these are the main nature colors. Yellow, the color of sunshine, is seen as cheerful, as we are warm and have plentiful food during sunny times of the year; gray, on the other hand, is often seen as depressing, which isn't surprising, since we call a "gray" day "gloomy."
Colors like red and orange grab our eye and excite us; if you were a hungry, poorly-nourished caveperson, you'd do better if you paid special attention when trees had those brightly-colored thingies on 'em, as they're full of vitamins. These colors also make us eat faster, which is why fast-food restaurants use those colors heavily (to get people to eat and get out fast), and probably encouraged early humans to gorge on fruit when they could find it, to suck up as much nutrition as possible before some bigger caveman came along and took the rest.
To me, the most amazing color response is that pastel pink "enforces" relaxation on your muscles, so much so that you can't lift as much weight in a light pink room as you can in a room of a different color, and police stations have found that tossing a violent arrestee into a pink room calms them down faster; I'm a naturally tense person, and guess what my favorite color is? It's amazing how your subconscious mind steers you to things that are good for you.
Which color creates the greatest feeling of sexual stimulation? Red, because, er... well, you know, lol.
Why do we all have different favorite colors, and what does it mean? Some folks think that your entire personality can be analyzed based on your color preferences; if you want to give it a go, take the Luscher Color Test here:
http://www.viewzone.com/luscher/colortest.html
or here, if you want more elaborate answers:
http://www.supervert.com/shockwave/colortest/colortest.html
You can get some info as to why the colors mean what they do in that test here:
http://www.viewzone.com/luscher44.html
We are also stimulated by patterns; if you've ever recoiled from a garish plaid, or smiled at a floral print, you were expressing preferences that appear to be inborn (we like things that remind us of nature, and perhaps plaid is just TOO unnatural for us, lol). Have you ever wondered why clothes with animal prints are considered sexy? It's because we're biologically programmed to REALLY notice patterns that are associated with dangerous creatures like snakes and big cats, and we get a spurt of adrenaline from seeing them.
I'm gonna look for a red leopard print outfit; I figure that's as close to irresistible as I'll ever get. ;-)
Online fakers
The best summary of this that I've ever seen is something I read in a magazine a few years ago, in which a woman described how her 50-something husband went online pretending to be a 25 year old lesbian, so that he'd get to talk to... other 50-something men pretending to be 25 year old lesbians, lol.
I've encountered any # of gay men who've pretended to be women in order to have cybersex with straight men, and even get the guys to send them nude photos and, er, perform for them on webcam.
Nearly anyone you encounter who's spent a decent chunk of time online has stories of people they thought were friends, or more than friends, who turned out to be total liars who were nothing like what they pretended to be.
How do people get away with this so easily? We all know that people can use the anonymity of the internet to claim to be anything they want, but somehow we assume that anyone WE talk to, anyone WE like, will automatically be on the up and up... just like in real life.
Even when we are a little bit cautious, we accept far too little as "proof." I've encountered a shocking # of people who think that by asking for a photo of someone they're getting "proof" of who that person is, as if it's rocket science to grab a photo off someone's website, or who think that because when an email comes in, or when they look at an IM or online forum profile, they see a name that matches the one they've been told, that means that it's really that person's name, as if Hotmail or AIM or any forum does some sort of verification process on all the info people submit... and that means that things such as city of residence, gender, age, and anything else you find anywhere other than on, say, a site for a known corporation, a school, or a government agency, is NOT "proof" of anything.
One of the funniest examples I ever saw of an outright scam was in an online club for erotica, where one of the members had posted a bunch of naked photos that she said were of her, under which were endless comments from the other members, to which she replied all sweetness and light... until someone posted that the photos were of a British "model" (whose official site he gave the URL for), and the picture-posting member, who had NOT claimed to be either British or a model, never posted again. {snicker}
Now that blogging has become so popular, faking is at an all time high. Look around, and see what % of the photos you see on blogs are of gorgeous people, compared to the % of people in general that are gorgeous... and you don't think that gorgeous people have alot more time on their hands than we average folks do, and have no way to use it except by blogging, do you? Care to take any bets as to what % of the blogs that are "sex journals," or based around erotica or porn, that are allegedly written by women are ACTUALLY written by women?
I think that blogs written by people who are obviously intelligent and articulate, and have substantive things to say, especially on deeply emotional issues, are pretty likely to be on the up and up, as they don't need to invent a sexy persona to get readers, and if you find a blog whose alleged "owner" posts a pic that shows him with a slightly self-conscious expression and creative facial fungus, you've probably found a winner.
On a serious note; do you suppose that any of the perverts that used to hang out in the AOL and MSN chatrooms trying to lure teenagers are writing blogs as teenagers for the same purpose? This is a SCARY time in history to have a kid whose welfare you're responsible for...
Some people have fully internalized the possibility of online fakers, so much so that they are overly suspicious to the point of irrationality; this one affects me personally, as I post "assertively" wherever I go, and that makes some people convinced that I'm a man... since we "know" that all women are weak and wimpy. I've also encountered guys who claimed that my posts were "too logical" for me to be a woman, and despite the implied compliment to my intellectual abilities, the grim picture that paints of how some men stereotype women is disturbing. The funny side to all of this is that by "admitting" that I'm a woman, I know that my "debate posts" are automatically taken less seriously by some people of BOTH genders; when, in disgust, I've made those sorts of posts under a male persona, I've been accorded much more respect for saying the exact same things in the exact same way.
The online world is complex and full of surprises; be careful out there.
I've encountered any # of gay men who've pretended to be women in order to have cybersex with straight men, and even get the guys to send them nude photos and, er, perform for them on webcam.
Nearly anyone you encounter who's spent a decent chunk of time online has stories of people they thought were friends, or more than friends, who turned out to be total liars who were nothing like what they pretended to be.
How do people get away with this so easily? We all know that people can use the anonymity of the internet to claim to be anything they want, but somehow we assume that anyone WE talk to, anyone WE like, will automatically be on the up and up... just like in real life.
Even when we are a little bit cautious, we accept far too little as "proof." I've encountered a shocking # of people who think that by asking for a photo of someone they're getting "proof" of who that person is, as if it's rocket science to grab a photo off someone's website, or who think that because when an email comes in, or when they look at an IM or online forum profile, they see a name that matches the one they've been told, that means that it's really that person's name, as if Hotmail or AIM or any forum does some sort of verification process on all the info people submit... and that means that things such as city of residence, gender, age, and anything else you find anywhere other than on, say, a site for a known corporation, a school, or a government agency, is NOT "proof" of anything.
One of the funniest examples I ever saw of an outright scam was in an online club for erotica, where one of the members had posted a bunch of naked photos that she said were of her, under which were endless comments from the other members, to which she replied all sweetness and light... until someone posted that the photos were of a British "model" (whose official site he gave the URL for), and the picture-posting member, who had NOT claimed to be either British or a model, never posted again. {snicker}
Now that blogging has become so popular, faking is at an all time high. Look around, and see what % of the photos you see on blogs are of gorgeous people, compared to the % of people in general that are gorgeous... and you don't think that gorgeous people have alot more time on their hands than we average folks do, and have no way to use it except by blogging, do you? Care to take any bets as to what % of the blogs that are "sex journals," or based around erotica or porn, that are allegedly written by women are ACTUALLY written by women?
I think that blogs written by people who are obviously intelligent and articulate, and have substantive things to say, especially on deeply emotional issues, are pretty likely to be on the up and up, as they don't need to invent a sexy persona to get readers, and if you find a blog whose alleged "owner" posts a pic that shows him with a slightly self-conscious expression and creative facial fungus, you've probably found a winner.
On a serious note; do you suppose that any of the perverts that used to hang out in the AOL and MSN chatrooms trying to lure teenagers are writing blogs as teenagers for the same purpose? This is a SCARY time in history to have a kid whose welfare you're responsible for...
Some people have fully internalized the possibility of online fakers, so much so that they are overly suspicious to the point of irrationality; this one affects me personally, as I post "assertively" wherever I go, and that makes some people convinced that I'm a man... since we "know" that all women are weak and wimpy. I've also encountered guys who claimed that my posts were "too logical" for me to be a woman, and despite the implied compliment to my intellectual abilities, the grim picture that paints of how some men stereotype women is disturbing. The funny side to all of this is that by "admitting" that I'm a woman, I know that my "debate posts" are automatically taken less seriously by some people of BOTH genders; when, in disgust, I've made those sorts of posts under a male persona, I've been accorded much more respect for saying the exact same things in the exact same way.
The online world is complex and full of surprises; be careful out there.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Karma=potential energy?
I read a quote today that said that, and I think it fits; if something has the potential to happen a certain way, that means it COULD be that way, but it could be some other way(s) too, depending on what happens, which is how karmic paths work; there's a certain amount of predestination, because of the existence of precognition, but the future is always a little fluid until it becomes the present. If YOU have potential, that means that you have some significant ability to work towards a goal, which karma allows you to do in a variety of ways, but you have free will, and can choose to NOT work WITH karma, and thus miss your chance.
If karma is potential energy, does that mean that all the karma that will ever be exists out there somewhere, waiting, maybe in the spaces between the universes? If not, how and where is it created, and how does it get to us? Does karma get recycled, like water? Does it ever change into different types of energy? Into ALL types of energy? Is EVERYTHING made from karma? If so, karma could be the basis of the unifying theory that science is looking for, or karma could be the sort of energy that some superbeing puts out when it wants to create a few universes... it can't be proven either way. I wish it COULD be.
I wish I knew.
If karma is potential energy, does that mean that all the karma that will ever be exists out there somewhere, waiting, maybe in the spaces between the universes? If not, how and where is it created, and how does it get to us? Does karma get recycled, like water? Does it ever change into different types of energy? Into ALL types of energy? Is EVERYTHING made from karma? If so, karma could be the basis of the unifying theory that science is looking for, or karma could be the sort of energy that some superbeing puts out when it wants to create a few universes... it can't be proven either way. I wish it COULD be.
I wish I knew.
The pernicious trap inherent in "So, what do you like to do?"
Also phrased as "What do you do for fun?" "What are your hobbies/interests?" and "What do you do in your free time?".
The trap is that what the person expects from you is a list of things that you ALLEGEDLY do regularly that fit within specific criteria, which is that each of these things must:
1) Require you to go outside of your home to do it, or
2) Require vigorous physical activity, or
3) Result in the creation of something
The answer a normal person gives includes things that they haven't done in months or YEARS, or that they only do once in a blue moon, or that they vaguely remember thinking about doing once, such that the coach potato who has watched ESPN every non-working waking moment for the past 5 years tells you with a straight face that he enjoys softball, basketball, building birdhouses, gardening, working on his car (he changed a flat tire in 1978, after all, lol), museums, and, of course, walking on the beach.
I'M not willing to lie or exaggerate, so MY reply to the loaded question is; eat, sleep, read, go online, listen to music and watch TV. The first 2 are facetious, of course, but all the others are what I would call perfectly worthwhile ways to spend one's time; no one else on the face of the Earth agrees, though, as evidenced by the response I always get (from those who don't just head for the hills at this shocking proof of my severe abnormality); "But that's not what I meant-none of those things count as interests/hobbies/having fun."
Since WHEN, that's what I'D like to know; I'll say something along those lines, and they'll ignore it.
The next step is the interrogation, to try to bring to light activities that I must have somehow forgotten: "Don't you work out? Do you have pets? Don't you like to travel? Do you go dancing?" and on and on, to which *I* wearily reply "No... no... no... no..."
If the person doesn't get uncomfortable and bail at this point, the next phase is: "But there must be SOMETHING that you like to do!!" "There is; I already gave you the list." "No, BESIDES that stuff." "Nope, that's all there is, and it keeps me busy and happy."
Of course no one is willing to believe that, and they'll try to search for hidden reasons why I'm "not doing anything" in my free time: "Is it that you can't afford to do anything? Do you not actually have any free time? Are you afraid to try new things? Do you not like being around people? Are you rebelling against your parents by 'refusing' to do anything?" (I actually got that one from a new friend today, one who knows that I'm pushing middle age) and so on, trying to come up with some deep-seated psychological reason for my lack of "interests," which usually includes the assertion that I DO have interests, but am just hiding them for some convoluted reason that I suppose makes sense to the asserter but makes no sense to me ("You're intelligent, so obviously you really DO want to take classes, but you're afraid of making the effort to learn the preliminary things that aren't fun" was one I heard today, when the reality is that I HATED school and would rather be in a Turkish prison than in a classroom).
Even people who themselves do little or nothing despite their claims to the contrary will cheerfully hammer away at me for HOURS trying to "solve the mystery," and keep after me even weeks or MONTHS after we met, in a few cases YEARS after, as if they'll win points in heaven if they can make me "admit" to an activity I like and why I'm not doing it, with bonus points if they can talk me into "doing something."
I'll go along with a discussion of this nature for as long as I deem necessary for politeness, and then give my final word on the subject: "I'm not a 5 year old claiming not to like anything just for the sake of being contrary, I'm a grown woman and have been one for 2 decades, and when I say that I do NOT have anything that you accept as 'interests,' never have in my entire life, and have no desire or intention to pick random activities and 'just try them' to satisfy other people, I MEAN IT. I know what I like to do, and I spend my free time doing those things, just like everyone else does; I'm happy, and there's no reason for me to change anything."
Sometimes that shuts them up for good, but not always; some day, I hope to find out the psychological explanation for why people are so emotionally invested in making sure that everyone will publicly claim that they have "interests."
The trap is that what the person expects from you is a list of things that you ALLEGEDLY do regularly that fit within specific criteria, which is that each of these things must:
1) Require you to go outside of your home to do it, or
2) Require vigorous physical activity, or
3) Result in the creation of something
The answer a normal person gives includes things that they haven't done in months or YEARS, or that they only do once in a blue moon, or that they vaguely remember thinking about doing once, such that the coach potato who has watched ESPN every non-working waking moment for the past 5 years tells you with a straight face that he enjoys softball, basketball, building birdhouses, gardening, working on his car (he changed a flat tire in 1978, after all, lol), museums, and, of course, walking on the beach.
I'M not willing to lie or exaggerate, so MY reply to the loaded question is; eat, sleep, read, go online, listen to music and watch TV. The first 2 are facetious, of course, but all the others are what I would call perfectly worthwhile ways to spend one's time; no one else on the face of the Earth agrees, though, as evidenced by the response I always get (from those who don't just head for the hills at this shocking proof of my severe abnormality); "But that's not what I meant-none of those things count as interests/hobbies/having fun."
Since WHEN, that's what I'D like to know; I'll say something along those lines, and they'll ignore it.
The next step is the interrogation, to try to bring to light activities that I must have somehow forgotten: "Don't you work out? Do you have pets? Don't you like to travel? Do you go dancing?" and on and on, to which *I* wearily reply "No... no... no... no..."
If the person doesn't get uncomfortable and bail at this point, the next phase is: "But there must be SOMETHING that you like to do!!" "There is; I already gave you the list." "No, BESIDES that stuff." "Nope, that's all there is, and it keeps me busy and happy."
Of course no one is willing to believe that, and they'll try to search for hidden reasons why I'm "not doing anything" in my free time: "Is it that you can't afford to do anything? Do you not actually have any free time? Are you afraid to try new things? Do you not like being around people? Are you rebelling against your parents by 'refusing' to do anything?" (I actually got that one from a new friend today, one who knows that I'm pushing middle age) and so on, trying to come up with some deep-seated psychological reason for my lack of "interests," which usually includes the assertion that I DO have interests, but am just hiding them for some convoluted reason that I suppose makes sense to the asserter but makes no sense to me ("You're intelligent, so obviously you really DO want to take classes, but you're afraid of making the effort to learn the preliminary things that aren't fun" was one I heard today, when the reality is that I HATED school and would rather be in a Turkish prison than in a classroom).
Even people who themselves do little or nothing despite their claims to the contrary will cheerfully hammer away at me for HOURS trying to "solve the mystery," and keep after me even weeks or MONTHS after we met, in a few cases YEARS after, as if they'll win points in heaven if they can make me "admit" to an activity I like and why I'm not doing it, with bonus points if they can talk me into "doing something."
I'll go along with a discussion of this nature for as long as I deem necessary for politeness, and then give my final word on the subject: "I'm not a 5 year old claiming not to like anything just for the sake of being contrary, I'm a grown woman and have been one for 2 decades, and when I say that I do NOT have anything that you accept as 'interests,' never have in my entire life, and have no desire or intention to pick random activities and 'just try them' to satisfy other people, I MEAN IT. I know what I like to do, and I spend my free time doing those things, just like everyone else does; I'm happy, and there's no reason for me to change anything."
Sometimes that shuts them up for good, but not always; some day, I hope to find out the psychological explanation for why people are so emotionally invested in making sure that everyone will publicly claim that they have "interests."
