Saturday, August 21, 2004
How much do you love?
What does it mean to you to love someone? Does it mean that you hang around as long as it feels good, or that you're willing to make a real effort for them? How much effort? Are you willing to sacrifice for them? How big of a sacrifice?
It used to be that if a person fell on hard times, they could count on the entire community to help them out; these days, many people can't even count on their best friends to so much as stick around, much less do anything for them. What would YOU do for a friend in need? Let them move in with you? Put your life on hold to help them sort things out? Tell your significant other that you have to cool things off for a while so that you can help your friend?
It used to be that we'd make ANY effort for a family member in need; these days, it's all too common for "inconvenient" family members to get put in nursing homes, or institutions, or just plain abandoned... and that includes romantic partners. When people ask me how to know if what they feel about their girlfriend or boyfriend is sufficient for them to get married and be together forever, I reply; ask yourself, "If this person was in an accident that left them horribly crippled and disfigured, what would I do?" and if the answer is anything other than an immediate, "I'd take care of them and try to give them the best life possible," you either don't love them enough, or are too immature to marry... or are just so "modern" that you think that "in sickness and in health" means YOUR sickness only. {sigh}
The most astonishing example of love that I've seen in a long time, or perhaps EVER, was in a show on the National Geographic channel; a man in the Philippines had the joy of his wife giving birth shattered when complications set in and it looked like he might lose both of them. He did the only thing he could think of; he prayed, and told God that if He would save his wife and baby, he would show his gratitude by undergoing an unbelievable ordeal... he would have himself crucified. CRUCIFIED. Can you think of anything more selfless? How about this; he agreed to be crucified FIFTEEN TIMES. His wife and baby DID survive, and a few days later, he got started on making good on his promise; first, he walked the 15 miles to his church, beating himself with bamboo the entire way. The next day, he was crucified for the first time. The program showed the 12th time he was doing all this, and showed him being crucified... and this was the real thing, nails through the hands and all. When it was over, they showed him looking strong and serene, with his arm around the daughter that he was enduring unimaginable suffering to insure the life of... now THAT'S love.
How about you? What would YOU endure for a loved one? How much do you love?
It used to be that if a person fell on hard times, they could count on the entire community to help them out; these days, many people can't even count on their best friends to so much as stick around, much less do anything for them. What would YOU do for a friend in need? Let them move in with you? Put your life on hold to help them sort things out? Tell your significant other that you have to cool things off for a while so that you can help your friend?
It used to be that we'd make ANY effort for a family member in need; these days, it's all too common for "inconvenient" family members to get put in nursing homes, or institutions, or just plain abandoned... and that includes romantic partners. When people ask me how to know if what they feel about their girlfriend or boyfriend is sufficient for them to get married and be together forever, I reply; ask yourself, "If this person was in an accident that left them horribly crippled and disfigured, what would I do?" and if the answer is anything other than an immediate, "I'd take care of them and try to give them the best life possible," you either don't love them enough, or are too immature to marry... or are just so "modern" that you think that "in sickness and in health" means YOUR sickness only. {sigh}
The most astonishing example of love that I've seen in a long time, or perhaps EVER, was in a show on the National Geographic channel; a man in the Philippines had the joy of his wife giving birth shattered when complications set in and it looked like he might lose both of them. He did the only thing he could think of; he prayed, and told God that if He would save his wife and baby, he would show his gratitude by undergoing an unbelievable ordeal... he would have himself crucified. CRUCIFIED. Can you think of anything more selfless? How about this; he agreed to be crucified FIFTEEN TIMES. His wife and baby DID survive, and a few days later, he got started on making good on his promise; first, he walked the 15 miles to his church, beating himself with bamboo the entire way. The next day, he was crucified for the first time. The program showed the 12th time he was doing all this, and showed him being crucified... and this was the real thing, nails through the hands and all. When it was over, they showed him looking strong and serene, with his arm around the daughter that he was enduring unimaginable suffering to insure the life of... now THAT'S love.
How about you? What would YOU endure for a loved one? How much do you love?
Friday, August 20, 2004
I need a REAL spiritual vocabulary
It can be terribly difficult, not to mention frustrating, for me to try to explain my spirituality to people, even those who are highly intelligent and with a broad base of knowledge, because there are no words no describe... well, MOST of the concepts involved, much less the details. I end up using the word "karma" to describe many aspects of my beliefs, AND my overall belief system, which is really too much to ask of the word (and probably confusing to new readers to this blog who don't know what I mean).
I'd like to be able to tell people what I believe without spouting an essay, but it just can't be done; there's no word or phrase that encompasses the entire "tapestry of karma" that I see when I view "the unknown." I'm not alone in this dilemma, of course, since there are plenty of other people who embrace metaphysical concepts to one extent or another, with or without traditional religion being mixed in; I'm betting that a few of you, my readers, have this problem too.
In my attempts to make clear my beliefs in a discussion today, a few terms were discussed that may be useful to some of the mystics out there; for those of you who see God as being behind what I call karma (several of my dearest friends are in this zone), we have:
Pantheism:
1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe
Panentheism:
1. The belief that the universe is a part of God and that Nature is thus an aspect of divinity.
2. The doctrine that God is within all creation, but the universe is not part of God, rather God is the animating force behind the universe.. Unlike pantheism, it does not say that the universe is synonymous with God; it maintains that there is more to God than the material universe. In panentheism God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality.
If you see karma as sort of "magical" (rather than as an unmysterious force of nature as *I* see it), this one might help:
Immanence:
In metaphysics, the presence within the natural world of a spiritual or cosmic principle, especially of the Deity. It is contrasted with transcendence. The immanence of God in the world is the basic feature of pantheism.
I hope that by passing these terms along, I'll be creating a "karmic slot" (there's another concept that needs a word, grrrr) into which someone else will pass along some new terms that DO describe at least some segments of my worldview.
Even with people who have developed very similar belief systems, it can be hard to have a fruitful discussion, because we all use different names for everything; for example, a lovely man that I have an ongoing email exchange with tends towards melodrama, and referred to a household where negative energy was being generated as being "full of darkness," as if someone were about to die, or as if there were some great evil there... of course, from HIS perspective, saying "negative energy" fails to get across the correct "feel" and nature of the energy. If we had "official" words for these things, we'd be more accurate and less "creative."
Jung saw the connection between quantum physics and synchronicity, but he didn't give a name to it; I sincerely hope that the next time someone prominent sees a significant chunk of the workings of karma, they'll give it a NAME.
I'd like to be able to tell people what I believe without spouting an essay, but it just can't be done; there's no word or phrase that encompasses the entire "tapestry of karma" that I see when I view "the unknown." I'm not alone in this dilemma, of course, since there are plenty of other people who embrace metaphysical concepts to one extent or another, with or without traditional religion being mixed in; I'm betting that a few of you, my readers, have this problem too.
In my attempts to make clear my beliefs in a discussion today, a few terms were discussed that may be useful to some of the mystics out there; for those of you who see God as being behind what I call karma (several of my dearest friends are in this zone), we have:
Pantheism:
1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe
Panentheism:
1. The belief that the universe is a part of God and that Nature is thus an aspect of divinity.
2. The doctrine that God is within all creation, but the universe is not part of God, rather God is the animating force behind the universe.. Unlike pantheism, it does not say that the universe is synonymous with God; it maintains that there is more to God than the material universe. In panentheism God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality.
If you see karma as sort of "magical" (rather than as an unmysterious force of nature as *I* see it), this one might help:
Immanence:
In metaphysics, the presence within the natural world of a spiritual or cosmic principle, especially of the Deity. It is contrasted with transcendence. The immanence of God in the world is the basic feature of pantheism.
I hope that by passing these terms along, I'll be creating a "karmic slot" (there's another concept that needs a word, grrrr) into which someone else will pass along some new terms that DO describe at least some segments of my worldview.
Even with people who have developed very similar belief systems, it can be hard to have a fruitful discussion, because we all use different names for everything; for example, a lovely man that I have an ongoing email exchange with tends towards melodrama, and referred to a household where negative energy was being generated as being "full of darkness," as if someone were about to die, or as if there were some great evil there... of course, from HIS perspective, saying "negative energy" fails to get across the correct "feel" and nature of the energy. If we had "official" words for these things, we'd be more accurate and less "creative."
Jung saw the connection between quantum physics and synchronicity, but he didn't give a name to it; I sincerely hope that the next time someone prominent sees a significant chunk of the workings of karma, they'll give it a NAME.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
The wisdom of "primitive" societies
Why do I refer to tribal societies as "primitive," in quotes like that? Because there are all sorts of ways to be primitive other than in terms of the only way we as a society look at, technology, such as culture, societal cohesion, and spirituality, and in those ways these societies are NOT primitive-WE ARE.
I saw some cool programs on the National Geographic channel today that showed various "tests of faith" and "rites of passage," most of which were in less-developed cultures; they were usually scary to American eyes, because they involved so much pain and risk. Watching this made me wonder; why is it that EVERY such culture, in every country on every continent, developed these sorts of rituals?
There has to be a reason for these traditions to be so consistently formed and maintained; there has to be a benefit to those tribes from going through such suffering. Part of it is that these ceremonies contribute greatly to the bonding between members; the hazing and rituals common in fraternities is a pale echo of this. When the life of any member of the tribe might depend on the actions of any other member, and the best interests of the tribe depend on everyone working together, that bonding is of infinite value. Another benefit is that it toughens them up and makes them more able to handle the many hardships that their lives will entail. Another is that pain and suffering lead to an enhanced feeling of spirituality, which is a great help in enduring a difficult life. A final benefit is one you don't hear much about; natural selection.
Surprised to hear that term applied to humans? We ARE animals, and, despite what the environmentalists say, we ARE a part of nature, so why would it NOT apply to us? A person who lacks the strength, courage, or other abilities necessary to get through the rituals won't be able to marry, and so won't be able to breed and pass on their "inferior" genes... and thus the gene pool of the tribe is strengthened. When, as is often the case, open wounds are the result of the "tests," with the "victim" being in unsanitary conditions with no medical care, any whose bodies can't deal with infection quickly and easily won't survive... and, again, the gene pool is strengthened.
Why do we, with our morbid fear of death, aging, illness, injury, pain, and even discomfort, feel so superior to the "savages" we see on educational programs enduring grisly-looking tortures for the good of their tribes? We're physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually weak compared to them; our wealth and technology have made us soft. From that perspective, the so-called modern primitives, who endure extensive body modification to feel part of something bigger, and to feel a deeper spirituality, seem pretty smart.
On a certain level, I envy them.
I saw some cool programs on the National Geographic channel today that showed various "tests of faith" and "rites of passage," most of which were in less-developed cultures; they were usually scary to American eyes, because they involved so much pain and risk. Watching this made me wonder; why is it that EVERY such culture, in every country on every continent, developed these sorts of rituals?
There has to be a reason for these traditions to be so consistently formed and maintained; there has to be a benefit to those tribes from going through such suffering. Part of it is that these ceremonies contribute greatly to the bonding between members; the hazing and rituals common in fraternities is a pale echo of this. When the life of any member of the tribe might depend on the actions of any other member, and the best interests of the tribe depend on everyone working together, that bonding is of infinite value. Another benefit is that it toughens them up and makes them more able to handle the many hardships that their lives will entail. Another is that pain and suffering lead to an enhanced feeling of spirituality, which is a great help in enduring a difficult life. A final benefit is one you don't hear much about; natural selection.
Surprised to hear that term applied to humans? We ARE animals, and, despite what the environmentalists say, we ARE a part of nature, so why would it NOT apply to us? A person who lacks the strength, courage, or other abilities necessary to get through the rituals won't be able to marry, and so won't be able to breed and pass on their "inferior" genes... and thus the gene pool of the tribe is strengthened. When, as is often the case, open wounds are the result of the "tests," with the "victim" being in unsanitary conditions with no medical care, any whose bodies can't deal with infection quickly and easily won't survive... and, again, the gene pool is strengthened.
Why do we, with our morbid fear of death, aging, illness, injury, pain, and even discomfort, feel so superior to the "savages" we see on educational programs enduring grisly-looking tortures for the good of their tribes? We're physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually weak compared to them; our wealth and technology have made us soft. From that perspective, the so-called modern primitives, who endure extensive body modification to feel part of something bigger, and to feel a deeper spirituality, seem pretty smart.
On a certain level, I envy them.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Is $ the root of all evil?
Since much of crime arises from poverty, it seems more like the LACK of $ is the root of all evil, doesn't it?
Do you see many rich people committing crimes? If you ignore victimless crimes like taking drugs and paying for sex, all that's really left is the small % of the wealthy who do things like insider trading; $ makes people want to buy flashy cars and art, not do evil things.
Crimes come from people wanting more "stuff" than they can afford, and not caring what they do to get it.... or from mental illness (most sex crimes are included in this category)... or from hate (hence the term "hate crimes")... or from things like drunkenness, anger, or the combo thereof ("crimes of passion"); not all of these things are evil, but evil acts, criminal or not, come from some of these sources.
At the most basic level, evil acts come from people who are themselves evil (to varying degrees, of course), or sick, or both; thus, the root of all, or at least most, evil, is lodged in the brain, in the areas that, if messed up, lead to the lack of empathy, and thus sociopathy, that is found in many criminals, and the craziness that explains most of the rest of crime.
It's been popular for many years now to blame every aspect of a person's life and environment for their evil acts, and for centuries the devil or demonic possession or some similar thing got blamed, but the cold hard reality is that evil can be traced to a genetic defect in the brain; it's not the melodramatic thing that society tells us it is, or should be, and it's therefore admittedly anti-climactic to realize this, but there it is.
So; don't hate the evil ones... PITY them. They no more asked for their evil than a rabid dog asked for the rabies. If you can grasp this, and believe it, and feel accordingly, you'll eliminate a great deal of negative energy, and therefore a great deal of bad karma, from your life.
Do you see many rich people committing crimes? If you ignore victimless crimes like taking drugs and paying for sex, all that's really left is the small % of the wealthy who do things like insider trading; $ makes people want to buy flashy cars and art, not do evil things.
Crimes come from people wanting more "stuff" than they can afford, and not caring what they do to get it.... or from mental illness (most sex crimes are included in this category)... or from hate (hence the term "hate crimes")... or from things like drunkenness, anger, or the combo thereof ("crimes of passion"); not all of these things are evil, but evil acts, criminal or not, come from some of these sources.
At the most basic level, evil acts come from people who are themselves evil (to varying degrees, of course), or sick, or both; thus, the root of all, or at least most, evil, is lodged in the brain, in the areas that, if messed up, lead to the lack of empathy, and thus sociopathy, that is found in many criminals, and the craziness that explains most of the rest of crime.
It's been popular for many years now to blame every aspect of a person's life and environment for their evil acts, and for centuries the devil or demonic possession or some similar thing got blamed, but the cold hard reality is that evil can be traced to a genetic defect in the brain; it's not the melodramatic thing that society tells us it is, or should be, and it's therefore admittedly anti-climactic to realize this, but there it is.
So; don't hate the evil ones... PITY them. They no more asked for their evil than a rabid dog asked for the rabies. If you can grasp this, and believe it, and feel accordingly, you'll eliminate a great deal of negative energy, and therefore a great deal of bad karma, from your life.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Odds and ends of synchronicity
After what I wrote last night, I thought about how I should fill my most religious friend in on it and get her perspective; I had a call waiting on my machine from her when I woke up today.
I called my mother this afternoon, and she yelped that she'd just been coming down the stairs to call ME when the phone rang.
My husband and I went out to dinner, and shared a dessert; as we got down to the very end, I pushed the last chunk towards him, and commented that it was like that scene from "Lady and the Tramp"; later in the evening, we watched a rented DVD (one we'd never seen before), and a couple in it made a show of acting out that exact scene (and yes, they DID specify that it was from that movie).
The restaurant we went to is the sort of place where dinner for 2 is over $100. When we got there, the staff was talking about a couple that had reservations that would bring them there soon; the male half had arranged for champagne to be brought to the table, as he was going to propose. They were all saying that they hoped things didn't end up like the last time they'd had a proposal, a couple of days before, when the woman had declined (which they'd been amazed that anyone would do when taken out for such an expensive dinner). When the couple came, we kept an eye on them, hoping to see the proposal; we lingered after we finished eating, looking out for the romantic moment. No luck; she turned him down, and off they went. The waiter who verified what had happened for us added that the previous couple with the aborted engagement had been sitting at that same booth, and that they were going to have to stop putting "proposal couples" there.
My husband and I had originally been booked for that booth, but I'd asked to be put somewhere else.
I discussed this with him later, suggesting that there might have been some bad karma about that booth, and he said "Maybe you DID sense something." How undeniable do the workings of karma have to be to make even my non-believer husband start to wonder? :-O
I called my mother this afternoon, and she yelped that she'd just been coming down the stairs to call ME when the phone rang.
My husband and I went out to dinner, and shared a dessert; as we got down to the very end, I pushed the last chunk towards him, and commented that it was like that scene from "Lady and the Tramp"; later in the evening, we watched a rented DVD (one we'd never seen before), and a couple in it made a show of acting out that exact scene (and yes, they DID specify that it was from that movie).
The restaurant we went to is the sort of place where dinner for 2 is over $100. When we got there, the staff was talking about a couple that had reservations that would bring them there soon; the male half had arranged for champagne to be brought to the table, as he was going to propose. They were all saying that they hoped things didn't end up like the last time they'd had a proposal, a couple of days before, when the woman had declined (which they'd been amazed that anyone would do when taken out for such an expensive dinner). When the couple came, we kept an eye on them, hoping to see the proposal; we lingered after we finished eating, looking out for the romantic moment. No luck; she turned him down, and off they went. The waiter who verified what had happened for us added that the previous couple with the aborted engagement had been sitting at that same booth, and that they were going to have to stop putting "proposal couples" there.
My husband and I had originally been booked for that booth, but I'd asked to be put somewhere else.
I discussed this with him later, suggesting that there might have been some bad karma about that booth, and he said "Maybe you DID sense something." How undeniable do the workings of karma have to be to make even my non-believer husband start to wonder? :-O
Monday, August 16, 2004
Beauty for ashes
I watched Joel Osteen today (and I've got my husband hooked on him too, to his dismay, lol), and I saw with absolutely screaming clarity that he MUST have at least a subconscious grasp of karma... so much so that he's varying somewhat from Christian doctrine in describing how things work. This is NOT meant as an insult to him or his degree or variety of faith; rather, I think it praiseworthy and courageous of him to call it as he sees it, and VERY sharp of him to "see it" in the first place.
What I'm referring to is today's sermon, which focused on "before you can get the good things in life, you have to let go of all the bad feelings you have about the bad things that have happened to you." On the surface, it just sounds a little New Age-y, but there's more to it; he probably said 20 times in a 30 minute sermon that God CAN'T give you all the good things He's got waiting for you unless and until you give up those bad feelings. See the contradiction with traditional Christian doctrine? God's supposed to be omnipotent, isn't He? So, what one would expect to be said in reference to an all-powerful deity would be that he would REFUSE to take action for you unless you did what He wanted, not that He CAN'T take action unless YOU make it possible for Him... so what does it mean that Osteen kept saying CAN'T?
The idea that radiating negative energy prevents positive things from getting to you in general is pure karma, NOT Christianity; God is supposed to come help you out when you're in pain, not decline to help, much less be unable to help. Osteen drove the point home even deeper with a real-life example, as he generally does; he referred to a woman who'd had some really bad breaks, and was feeling terrible because of it, and said that being around her he could feel the "poison" radiating from her... and the concept that not just "bad" emotions like hate and jealousy create negative energy, but hurt and fear and such also, is one of the biggest realizations I've had about karma this year.
Once again, I'm dazzled to see someone from a Christian perspective seeing the same truths about karma that I do, especially the counterintuitive truth about ALL negative emotions blocking good from reaching you, keeping you in a rut of bad things happening, even when you're a VICTIM; no one else that I've encountered has independently seen that one. I wonder what he's going to have to say that I have NOT thought of yet....
What I'm referring to is today's sermon, which focused on "before you can get the good things in life, you have to let go of all the bad feelings you have about the bad things that have happened to you." On the surface, it just sounds a little New Age-y, but there's more to it; he probably said 20 times in a 30 minute sermon that God CAN'T give you all the good things He's got waiting for you unless and until you give up those bad feelings. See the contradiction with traditional Christian doctrine? God's supposed to be omnipotent, isn't He? So, what one would expect to be said in reference to an all-powerful deity would be that he would REFUSE to take action for you unless you did what He wanted, not that He CAN'T take action unless YOU make it possible for Him... so what does it mean that Osteen kept saying CAN'T?
The idea that radiating negative energy prevents positive things from getting to you in general is pure karma, NOT Christianity; God is supposed to come help you out when you're in pain, not decline to help, much less be unable to help. Osteen drove the point home even deeper with a real-life example, as he generally does; he referred to a woman who'd had some really bad breaks, and was feeling terrible because of it, and said that being around her he could feel the "poison" radiating from her... and the concept that not just "bad" emotions like hate and jealousy create negative energy, but hurt and fear and such also, is one of the biggest realizations I've had about karma this year.
Once again, I'm dazzled to see someone from a Christian perspective seeing the same truths about karma that I do, especially the counterintuitive truth about ALL negative emotions blocking good from reaching you, keeping you in a rut of bad things happening, even when you're a VICTIM; no one else that I've encountered has independently seen that one. I wonder what he's going to have to say that I have NOT thought of yet....
Sunday, August 15, 2004
What would the ideal lover be like?
Different for everyone, yes, I know, but let's think about it for a minute. Not about what's ideal in a PARTNER, but what would be ideal in a person you'd only sleep with a few times, or even just ONCE, and that would be the entire "relationship." What qualities would a person have to have to make sex with them the wildest you've ever have?
Did some famous person pop into your mind? Celebrities are an arrogant and self-absorbed bunch... not likely to be good lovers, one would suspect. Still, the excitement of being with a person like that might be enough... but wouldn't it be more satisfying to be able to do the things you've always fantasized about, rather than just doing whatever the famous person likes to do?
That's a good start; someone who'd either like to do all the weird stuff we don't want to freak out our long-term partners with, or is at least open to doing ANYTHING without having an agenda of their own to want to talk us into. Someone with no inhibitions, who was accepting rather than judgmental, who'd want to have a good time, and make sure the person with them had a good time, and who wouldn't get weirded out from having done a few kinky things and act like a jerk and spoil it. Creativity would be good, too; you never know when someone else might have thought of a few interesting things that haven't occurred to us yet.
The right sexual mindset isn't enough, of course; I think that rigorous hygiene and a lifelong dedication to safe sex would be essential, too. I'm not focused on age, but a "dirty old man" wouldn't do it for me, and someone too young would be just as creepy, in a way... although a guy young enough to still have some muscle tone and a dimple-free butt would be good, as long as he was old enough to have a reasonably hairy chest.
And now we're edging into looks; while I'm normally banging the drum for IGNORING looks, for a one-nighter or fast fling I think you might as well go with someone who taps into your biological programming to go for hotties. So, what sort of person do you find supremely sexy, in a purely physical sense? I like a guy with a butt about so big (imagine me holding my hands out about a foot apart), with either tousled blonde hair and a boyish face, or dramatic goth looks... and did I mention the hairy chest?
Ok, time for me to go do a little... more in-depth imagining. ;-)
Did some famous person pop into your mind? Celebrities are an arrogant and self-absorbed bunch... not likely to be good lovers, one would suspect. Still, the excitement of being with a person like that might be enough... but wouldn't it be more satisfying to be able to do the things you've always fantasized about, rather than just doing whatever the famous person likes to do?
That's a good start; someone who'd either like to do all the weird stuff we don't want to freak out our long-term partners with, or is at least open to doing ANYTHING without having an agenda of their own to want to talk us into. Someone with no inhibitions, who was accepting rather than judgmental, who'd want to have a good time, and make sure the person with them had a good time, and who wouldn't get weirded out from having done a few kinky things and act like a jerk and spoil it. Creativity would be good, too; you never know when someone else might have thought of a few interesting things that haven't occurred to us yet.
The right sexual mindset isn't enough, of course; I think that rigorous hygiene and a lifelong dedication to safe sex would be essential, too. I'm not focused on age, but a "dirty old man" wouldn't do it for me, and someone too young would be just as creepy, in a way... although a guy young enough to still have some muscle tone and a dimple-free butt would be good, as long as he was old enough to have a reasonably hairy chest.
And now we're edging into looks; while I'm normally banging the drum for IGNORING looks, for a one-nighter or fast fling I think you might as well go with someone who taps into your biological programming to go for hotties. So, what sort of person do you find supremely sexy, in a purely physical sense? I like a guy with a butt about so big (imagine me holding my hands out about a foot apart), with either tousled blonde hair and a boyish face, or dramatic goth looks... and did I mention the hairy chest?
Ok, time for me to go do a little... more in-depth imagining. ;-)
