Saturday, September 25, 2004
OK, it's time to talk about boobs
First, we'll have the daily synchronicity report; there were a couple of items an eBay seller had offered nearly a month ago that he'd faked a problem with the listing for because someone had (illegally) offered him big $ for them and he had agreed to take it (he admitted as much in an email to me, but I didn't report him because I wanted those items). I wanted to see if he'd re-offer them, which usually happens if the person making the illegal offer flakes, so I didn't remove the auctions from my watch list... until today, when I decided I didn't need to keep them any more, and deleted them. Guess what the seller re-listed on eBay just a few hours later? Coincidence? Nope.
OK, now to the boobs... or did you just skip right down here, lol? Did you know that in Brazil, what's considered most desirable is SMALL boobs (and a BIG butt)? They have massive #'s of breast REDUCTIONS there every year, gotten by women trying to fit into the mold of what the men around them find the most appealing... just like the women here, but in the opposite direction. I've read that the pernicious influence of American culture is starting to change that (we're like a VIRUS, have you ever noticed?), but for now the traditional ideal of beauty is lingering.
In some cultures, breasts aren't even seen as sexual; they're seen as a nursing tool, and nothing more. (In those cultures, it's common for the woman's legs to be highly eroticized and kept hidden in public in the same way that women in this culture have to cover their breasts; whatever men can't see is what they obsess over.) If aliens were to land, how would we explain to them that a woman who wants to feed her baby in America has to go hide out of sight, or drape a towel or blanket over herself and the baby even if it's 100 degrees, because we're so psycho that we'll freak out if we should happen to see a nipple being used for its intended function? Breastfeeding in public is legal as long as the woman is somewhere she has a right to be, and most states have passed laws to explicitly protect breastfeeding women from being, say, made to leave stores or restaurants, but most women still go to great lengths to hide this natural, wholesome act because laws don't keep them from being hassled by uptight idiots.
Although a woman in America can have her nipples showing as part of breastfeeding, if she wants to keep them visible afterwards and sunbathe topless, she's out of luck. Topless beaches are the norm in Europe, though, and no one thinks twice about it, which is really how it SHOULD be; after all, MEN can go topless (which I think is pretty spiffy, especially if they have hairy chests). In most so-called primitive cultures, women don't have to cover their breasts EVER, and that means they don't have to strap them into uncomfortable contraptions meant to keep them in place, stop them from jiggling, and try to hold back the sagging that comes with time. Did you ever wonder whose idea bras and such were to begin with? A MAN, of course, but what was the purpose behind the decision that some parts of a woman's natural body had to be permanently encased in tight wrappings of some form? Did you ever stop to think that no other human body parts are subjected to this sort of thing (at least not since foot-binding went out of fashion in China)?
A girl's first rite of womanhood is usually the first time she puts on a training bra (what is the bra supposed to train them to do, did you ever wonder?); this uncomfortable undergarment, that will become even more uncomfortable when she gets to school and the boys start snapping her straps, is the beginning of the love/hate relationship she'll likely have with her breasts for the rest of her life. As soon as possible, she'll probably get a bra with padding and/or "push-up" to make them larger and more noticeable... unless they get big, in which case she's likely to be embarrassed about them. Every woman I know who has naturally full breasts has been unwilling to show them and/or in denial about how big they are; it's a source of great amusement to me how each one of them has had the exact same conversation with me claiming that their huge boobs were only 36C when they were each at least 38D... and the latter is very common among the voluptuous, according to a friend who's worked many years in the lingerie section of a department store. You'd think that, in a culture where big boobs are worshipped, women would be eager to put on the biggest size bra they could justify, but it just doesn't work that way.
The other thing with busty women is the difficulty in getting them to wear a bra that gives any support, as such bras are seen as "granny bras," with the result that before they hit 30 they sag as badly as women 20 years older; then, they discover that, although men like big boobs, they often do NOT like big SAGGY boobs, and they grow to hate their boobs as much as the tiny-breasted do. The sad thing is that in cultures where women don't wear bras, EVERY woman has saggy boobs, and no one cares; by fighting the sag, we've turned it into an issue. Isn't civilization great?
In my admittedly non-expert view, natural breasts are pretty much all beautiful, and ANY natural breasts look better than the fake ones, which are not only usually freakishly big but have shapes not found in nature, and the nipples too high or low... what do men SEE in boobs that look like they were glued onto the chest, anyways? If the hypothetical aliens were to ask why women were getting foreign objects inserted into their bodies to wildly alter the size and shape of said parts, and why by doing so they'd be considered far sexier than before, what could we tell them? Think about it, ladies, if a man you were attracted to turned out to have pec or butt implants, would you shrug and still be drooling, or would you recoil and be too grossed out to pursue sexual relations with him?
All this fuss about modified sweat glands surrounded by fat; we've gotta be the weirdest species in the universe, lol.
OK, now to the boobs... or did you just skip right down here, lol? Did you know that in Brazil, what's considered most desirable is SMALL boobs (and a BIG butt)? They have massive #'s of breast REDUCTIONS there every year, gotten by women trying to fit into the mold of what the men around them find the most appealing... just like the women here, but in the opposite direction. I've read that the pernicious influence of American culture is starting to change that (we're like a VIRUS, have you ever noticed?), but for now the traditional ideal of beauty is lingering.
In some cultures, breasts aren't even seen as sexual; they're seen as a nursing tool, and nothing more. (In those cultures, it's common for the woman's legs to be highly eroticized and kept hidden in public in the same way that women in this culture have to cover their breasts; whatever men can't see is what they obsess over.) If aliens were to land, how would we explain to them that a woman who wants to feed her baby in America has to go hide out of sight, or drape a towel or blanket over herself and the baby even if it's 100 degrees, because we're so psycho that we'll freak out if we should happen to see a nipple being used for its intended function? Breastfeeding in public is legal as long as the woman is somewhere she has a right to be, and most states have passed laws to explicitly protect breastfeeding women from being, say, made to leave stores or restaurants, but most women still go to great lengths to hide this natural, wholesome act because laws don't keep them from being hassled by uptight idiots.
Although a woman in America can have her nipples showing as part of breastfeeding, if she wants to keep them visible afterwards and sunbathe topless, she's out of luck. Topless beaches are the norm in Europe, though, and no one thinks twice about it, which is really how it SHOULD be; after all, MEN can go topless (which I think is pretty spiffy, especially if they have hairy chests). In most so-called primitive cultures, women don't have to cover their breasts EVER, and that means they don't have to strap them into uncomfortable contraptions meant to keep them in place, stop them from jiggling, and try to hold back the sagging that comes with time. Did you ever wonder whose idea bras and such were to begin with? A MAN, of course, but what was the purpose behind the decision that some parts of a woman's natural body had to be permanently encased in tight wrappings of some form? Did you ever stop to think that no other human body parts are subjected to this sort of thing (at least not since foot-binding went out of fashion in China)?
A girl's first rite of womanhood is usually the first time she puts on a training bra (what is the bra supposed to train them to do, did you ever wonder?); this uncomfortable undergarment, that will become even more uncomfortable when she gets to school and the boys start snapping her straps, is the beginning of the love/hate relationship she'll likely have with her breasts for the rest of her life. As soon as possible, she'll probably get a bra with padding and/or "push-up" to make them larger and more noticeable... unless they get big, in which case she's likely to be embarrassed about them. Every woman I know who has naturally full breasts has been unwilling to show them and/or in denial about how big they are; it's a source of great amusement to me how each one of them has had the exact same conversation with me claiming that their huge boobs were only 36C when they were each at least 38D... and the latter is very common among the voluptuous, according to a friend who's worked many years in the lingerie section of a department store. You'd think that, in a culture where big boobs are worshipped, women would be eager to put on the biggest size bra they could justify, but it just doesn't work that way.
The other thing with busty women is the difficulty in getting them to wear a bra that gives any support, as such bras are seen as "granny bras," with the result that before they hit 30 they sag as badly as women 20 years older; then, they discover that, although men like big boobs, they often do NOT like big SAGGY boobs, and they grow to hate their boobs as much as the tiny-breasted do. The sad thing is that in cultures where women don't wear bras, EVERY woman has saggy boobs, and no one cares; by fighting the sag, we've turned it into an issue. Isn't civilization great?
In my admittedly non-expert view, natural breasts are pretty much all beautiful, and ANY natural breasts look better than the fake ones, which are not only usually freakishly big but have shapes not found in nature, and the nipples too high or low... what do men SEE in boobs that look like they were glued onto the chest, anyways? If the hypothetical aliens were to ask why women were getting foreign objects inserted into their bodies to wildly alter the size and shape of said parts, and why by doing so they'd be considered far sexier than before, what could we tell them? Think about it, ladies, if a man you were attracted to turned out to have pec or butt implants, would you shrug and still be drooling, or would you recoil and be too grossed out to pursue sexual relations with him?
All this fuss about modified sweat glands surrounded by fat; we've gotta be the weirdest species in the universe, lol.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Control of children; the pendulum swings
A hundred years ago, a child had no rights whatsoever in the United States to protection from whatever their parents felt like doing to them; the cultural belief in those days was that a child was a virtual slave of the parents, especially the father, and that outsiders shouldn't interfere no matter what was going on. It was also very common in those days for children to receive whippings and beatings the likes of which would get a parent thrown in jail these days as standard punishment, and it was hard to pin down when "acceptable discipline" shaded over into abuse... and no one bothered to try, as it wasn't seen as an issue, not then nor for the whole of human history prior to that time.
Things changed at the beginning of the last century, when a man in New York administered a beating to his little girl that was so savage that the neighbors actually became alarmed and came to the scene to find the child terribly injured. They summoned the police, but, as there were no laws against beating your child in those days, there was nothing they could do. The desperate neighbors actually went to the SPCA looking for help; yes, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ANIMALS had long since existed, how's that for irony, but of course they had no help for the child either.
Finally, the neighbors carried the child to the courthouse, right into the courtroom, and laid her on the floor in front of the judge. The girl's injuries were so horrible that grown men burst into tears at the sight of her, and the members of the press who were present were so deeply moved that they wrote articles denouncing the lack of protection for children from this sort of treatment; the outrage that rose up in response to the articles led to the first-ever laws being passed restricting what parents could do to their kids, laws that eventually were adopted everywhere, leading to the astonishing progress that has been made in providing for the best interests of American children. This has inarguably been a good thing, overall; abuse of children is illegal now, as it should be, and parents have had to re-think what degree of punishment was reasonable and necessary to keep their kids in line, which was inarguably needed at that time.
As always, though, the pendulum of public opinion, law, and enforcement of law, has swung PAST the ideal level and off into the level of the excessive and fanciful; people have somehow gotten it into their heads that, contrary to what all available information would tend to show, kids can be controlled and trained in proper behavior without ANY sort of discipline, in other words without ever subjecting them to anything "unpleasant," and thus that a parent who tries to punish a child for misbehavior is being unnecessarily cruel and should be seen as an abuser. As a result, parents often hesitate to administer so much as a single slap to a child for fear that authorities might be notified, and if that slap takes place in public the chances of interference become VERY high; we have lost our ability to tell the difference between discipline and abuse, just as we've lost the ability to tell the difference between affection and molestation (remember when giving piggyback rides was called sexual abuse?).
For children too young to understand or remember parental lectures on what they're not supposed to do, and who tune the lecture out by the 3rd word in any case, verbal discipline is a waste of time, and modern methods such as time-outs have limited effect that rapidly evaporates once they've been used a few times; this is why children are wildly out of control these days, and why you see tearful parents on every talk show whining about how they "can't" get a 5 year old to do what they're told. When tiny children are running the households and doing as they please because the parents have no way to make them mind, it's time to wake up as a culture and realize that the modern idea of discipline does NOT work; furthermore, we do NOT do our children a favor by sending them out into the world with no clue as to how to listen or obey, or how to take the feelings of others into account, because that forces non-parental adults to try to make up for it on the fly (as any teacher or manager at a place that hires teens can attest to), and this gets our kids seen as troublemakers... because they ARE. Most importantly, kids WANT their parents to enforce rules, and they'll keep pushing until they have the security of a structure that rules provide, so if you fail to give them that you're also failing to give them a crucial element of emotional stability.
What does that mean? It means that we have to look back at the rest of human history, in which children WERE under control and being trained by parents to take their places in society, and re-learn how to be the ones in charge. This does NOT mean reverting to making it legal to beat children, as that is NOT necessary, but it DOES mean that we need to not make parents feel like criminals, or TREAT them literally as criminals, for administering a spanking or a slap; a SMALL amount of attention-getting pain WORKS in getting even the youngest child to rethink the wisdom of whatever bad behavior they've been punished for, which is the entire POINT of punishment.
But, what about some of the extreme "reparenting" solutions offered by people like Dr. Phil, who advocates doing things like taking everything out of a child's room except their bed, and that includes ALL of their toys, and making them "earn back" each and every one of their possessions through proper behavior? (Dr. Phil actually SAYS "No one will call Child Protection Services because you took toys away," so he IS aware of the need to give parents an alternative to physical punishment in the current extreme, fearful climate.) I have no doubt that these things will work, and I think they're a great idea for parents who're too afraid, or just unwilling, to give so much as a swat on the backside, but consider; which solution will cause a child more pain, a slap or being without their toys and such for WEEKS? We're enlightened enough as a people to grasp the concepts of mental and emotional cruelty and suffering, so we need to ask ourselves if it's ok to cause a child endless misery because we're unwilling to give a single slap; a slap causes pain for just a few minutes, which sure seems better than the days and weeks of internal pain a child would go through from having everything they care about taken away... doesn't it?
We also need to keep in mind what the child psychologists keep telling us about the importance of punishment happening right at the time of the misdeed, so that the child can connect the 2 in their mind; the "parenting methods" that require you to make a child suffer for days or weeks as a result of bad behavior (because you took away what they care about, be it toys, TV or whatever) just don't make sense when looked at from that angle, because all the kid sees is mommy and daddy are mean and won't let them have their toys-they can't remember what they did last month to cause this to happen. And what sort of joy is the household in general having when the kid has no toys or can't watch TV and is upset every minute of the day?
We can't keep letting kids run wild and essentially raise themselves because we're too fearful to discipline them; we're finally starting to see that, which is WHY experts like Dr. Phil are recommending "commando parenting" as a way to take back control of our children. Hopefully, this first little reversal of the swing of the pendulum back towards the center will lead us in the near future back to the idea that one smack on the rear end is the way to get a child squared away with the least suffering for them, and thus end up doing what is truly best for kids; teaching them how to behave, and doing it without having to plan a protracted, cruel campaign against them as if they were war prisoners being tortured rather than our loved ones.
All of the above does NOT mean that we should substitute slapping for using our BRAINS, however; if we can't out-think little kids, we're in BIG trouble. Even more important than realizing that talking 'til we're blue in the face is a waste of time, and that LIMITED physical punishment is effective and less cruel than anything else that actually works, is the revolutionary concept that we can use psychology, common sense, and a little bit of planning to steer our kids into doing what we want them to do withOUT relying on the implied threat of future punishment. The exhausted, stressed-out parents of the modern world may find it difficult to muster the energy to think things out in advance and set them up so that it's easy for a child following their natural instincts to do things the right way, but no one said that being a parent wasn't going to be challenging; if we're going to prevent the pendulum from swinging too far back in a desperate attempt to get control of our kids, we've GOT to switch our focus to setting our kids up for success rather than to letting events unfold randomly and then jumping in when it's too late with yelling and punishment.
If we do all that, and get good at it, maybe 20-30 years from now we'll be wondering why it was ever necessary to punish a child to make them behave or teach them to be good people; can you think of a better goal for us as a nation to strive for?
Things changed at the beginning of the last century, when a man in New York administered a beating to his little girl that was so savage that the neighbors actually became alarmed and came to the scene to find the child terribly injured. They summoned the police, but, as there were no laws against beating your child in those days, there was nothing they could do. The desperate neighbors actually went to the SPCA looking for help; yes, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ANIMALS had long since existed, how's that for irony, but of course they had no help for the child either.
Finally, the neighbors carried the child to the courthouse, right into the courtroom, and laid her on the floor in front of the judge. The girl's injuries were so horrible that grown men burst into tears at the sight of her, and the members of the press who were present were so deeply moved that they wrote articles denouncing the lack of protection for children from this sort of treatment; the outrage that rose up in response to the articles led to the first-ever laws being passed restricting what parents could do to their kids, laws that eventually were adopted everywhere, leading to the astonishing progress that has been made in providing for the best interests of American children. This has inarguably been a good thing, overall; abuse of children is illegal now, as it should be, and parents have had to re-think what degree of punishment was reasonable and necessary to keep their kids in line, which was inarguably needed at that time.
As always, though, the pendulum of public opinion, law, and enforcement of law, has swung PAST the ideal level and off into the level of the excessive and fanciful; people have somehow gotten it into their heads that, contrary to what all available information would tend to show, kids can be controlled and trained in proper behavior without ANY sort of discipline, in other words without ever subjecting them to anything "unpleasant," and thus that a parent who tries to punish a child for misbehavior is being unnecessarily cruel and should be seen as an abuser. As a result, parents often hesitate to administer so much as a single slap to a child for fear that authorities might be notified, and if that slap takes place in public the chances of interference become VERY high; we have lost our ability to tell the difference between discipline and abuse, just as we've lost the ability to tell the difference between affection and molestation (remember when giving piggyback rides was called sexual abuse?).
For children too young to understand or remember parental lectures on what they're not supposed to do, and who tune the lecture out by the 3rd word in any case, verbal discipline is a waste of time, and modern methods such as time-outs have limited effect that rapidly evaporates once they've been used a few times; this is why children are wildly out of control these days, and why you see tearful parents on every talk show whining about how they "can't" get a 5 year old to do what they're told. When tiny children are running the households and doing as they please because the parents have no way to make them mind, it's time to wake up as a culture and realize that the modern idea of discipline does NOT work; furthermore, we do NOT do our children a favor by sending them out into the world with no clue as to how to listen or obey, or how to take the feelings of others into account, because that forces non-parental adults to try to make up for it on the fly (as any teacher or manager at a place that hires teens can attest to), and this gets our kids seen as troublemakers... because they ARE. Most importantly, kids WANT their parents to enforce rules, and they'll keep pushing until they have the security of a structure that rules provide, so if you fail to give them that you're also failing to give them a crucial element of emotional stability.
What does that mean? It means that we have to look back at the rest of human history, in which children WERE under control and being trained by parents to take their places in society, and re-learn how to be the ones in charge. This does NOT mean reverting to making it legal to beat children, as that is NOT necessary, but it DOES mean that we need to not make parents feel like criminals, or TREAT them literally as criminals, for administering a spanking or a slap; a SMALL amount of attention-getting pain WORKS in getting even the youngest child to rethink the wisdom of whatever bad behavior they've been punished for, which is the entire POINT of punishment.
But, what about some of the extreme "reparenting" solutions offered by people like Dr. Phil, who advocates doing things like taking everything out of a child's room except their bed, and that includes ALL of their toys, and making them "earn back" each and every one of their possessions through proper behavior? (Dr. Phil actually SAYS "No one will call Child Protection Services because you took toys away," so he IS aware of the need to give parents an alternative to physical punishment in the current extreme, fearful climate.) I have no doubt that these things will work, and I think they're a great idea for parents who're too afraid, or just unwilling, to give so much as a swat on the backside, but consider; which solution will cause a child more pain, a slap or being without their toys and such for WEEKS? We're enlightened enough as a people to grasp the concepts of mental and emotional cruelty and suffering, so we need to ask ourselves if it's ok to cause a child endless misery because we're unwilling to give a single slap; a slap causes pain for just a few minutes, which sure seems better than the days and weeks of internal pain a child would go through from having everything they care about taken away... doesn't it?
We also need to keep in mind what the child psychologists keep telling us about the importance of punishment happening right at the time of the misdeed, so that the child can connect the 2 in their mind; the "parenting methods" that require you to make a child suffer for days or weeks as a result of bad behavior (because you took away what they care about, be it toys, TV or whatever) just don't make sense when looked at from that angle, because all the kid sees is mommy and daddy are mean and won't let them have their toys-they can't remember what they did last month to cause this to happen. And what sort of joy is the household in general having when the kid has no toys or can't watch TV and is upset every minute of the day?
We can't keep letting kids run wild and essentially raise themselves because we're too fearful to discipline them; we're finally starting to see that, which is WHY experts like Dr. Phil are recommending "commando parenting" as a way to take back control of our children. Hopefully, this first little reversal of the swing of the pendulum back towards the center will lead us in the near future back to the idea that one smack on the rear end is the way to get a child squared away with the least suffering for them, and thus end up doing what is truly best for kids; teaching them how to behave, and doing it without having to plan a protracted, cruel campaign against them as if they were war prisoners being tortured rather than our loved ones.
All of the above does NOT mean that we should substitute slapping for using our BRAINS, however; if we can't out-think little kids, we're in BIG trouble. Even more important than realizing that talking 'til we're blue in the face is a waste of time, and that LIMITED physical punishment is effective and less cruel than anything else that actually works, is the revolutionary concept that we can use psychology, common sense, and a little bit of planning to steer our kids into doing what we want them to do withOUT relying on the implied threat of future punishment. The exhausted, stressed-out parents of the modern world may find it difficult to muster the energy to think things out in advance and set them up so that it's easy for a child following their natural instincts to do things the right way, but no one said that being a parent wasn't going to be challenging; if we're going to prevent the pendulum from swinging too far back in a desperate attempt to get control of our kids, we've GOT to switch our focus to setting our kids up for success rather than to letting events unfold randomly and then jumping in when it's too late with yelling and punishment.
If we do all that, and get good at it, maybe 20-30 years from now we'll be wondering why it was ever necessary to punish a child to make them behave or teach them to be good people; can you think of a better goal for us as a nation to strive for?
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Synchronicity with Stephen King
I've been passionate about King's writing since I was a teen, and I don't just mean the novels, I mean the short stories too (which don't sell nearly as well, for reasons that escape me, especially with the short attention spans people have these days). In my not remotely humble opinion, King is the greatest writer who ever lived, and a new book from him has always been cause for great jubilation for me.
The most extreme example of this has been my intense eagerness over the excruciatingly slow appearance of the novels of the Dark Tower series
http://www.thedarktower.net/
the first book of which came out in 1982, and that's no typo..... 22 YEARS of being in suspense, wanting to see how it ended up (this was one of the many reasons King fans were having heart attacks when he got hit by the car-we'd never have known how it ended if he had died). I'd gotten the 5th book of the series for Christmas last year, and didn't know that anything else had been released... until today.
I was going through some blogs, and I saw something, SOMETHING, that clued me in to the 6th book having been released; weirdly, I can't remember what I saw, and after I brought up Amazon.com and looked it up, and went back and tried to find whatever the reference was that I'd seen so that I could post a thanks to whoever's page it was on, I couldn't find it , and mind you I hadn't closed any windows. This really freaked me out, especially after I checked my history and didn't find anything there either; no site that I'd seen today had any mention of the book that I could find, but I'm SURE that I SAW something that made me go check Amazon-I had to have. I'm resisting the feeling that I had a psychic flash, because it just doesn't seem possible to get one from something trivial like books... although, I DID used to get them all the time about songs and videos coming on... no, let's leave it as "I saw something and somehow couldn't find it again 2 minutes later," or it'll make me nuts.
If you noticed that I said "bookS," that was on purpose; when I did a search on Amazon for book #6, I discovered that, in wild departure from the way the books have been spaced for the past 2 DECADES, although book #6 was just released in June, book #7, the final book in the series, has ALSO been released. And WHEN, you ask, was it released? YESTERDAY!! :-O
There HAD to have been references to book #6 all over the place when it was released, but I was so caught up in my grief at a loved one living out her last few weeks during that time that they could have put a billboard on my front lawn and I wouldn't have seen it; it's worthwhile to notice from that how opportunities can pass by you when you're distracted mentally to the point of being unaware of what's going on around you-karma does NOT make allowances for this sort of thing, which is why we have the saying about how opportunity doesn't knock twice. This time around, however, I WAS paying attention, and karma provided me with beautiful synchronicity, allowing me to get not just book #6 but also, mindbogglingly, book #7, that I've been waiting over half my LIFE for, as soon as it became available; they've been ordered and are on their way to me. I don't know where I'm going to find the time to read them (I suppose I'll just have to get alot less sleep for a few days), but it'll be worth it. :-)
The most extreme example of this has been my intense eagerness over the excruciatingly slow appearance of the novels of the Dark Tower series
http://www.thedarktower.net/
the first book of which came out in 1982, and that's no typo..... 22 YEARS of being in suspense, wanting to see how it ended up (this was one of the many reasons King fans were having heart attacks when he got hit by the car-we'd never have known how it ended if he had died). I'd gotten the 5th book of the series for Christmas last year, and didn't know that anything else had been released... until today.
I was going through some blogs, and I saw something, SOMETHING, that clued me in to the 6th book having been released; weirdly, I can't remember what I saw, and after I brought up Amazon.com and looked it up, and went back and tried to find whatever the reference was that I'd seen so that I could post a thanks to whoever's page it was on, I couldn't find it , and mind you I hadn't closed any windows. This really freaked me out, especially after I checked my history and didn't find anything there either; no site that I'd seen today had any mention of the book that I could find, but I'm SURE that I SAW something that made me go check Amazon-I had to have. I'm resisting the feeling that I had a psychic flash, because it just doesn't seem possible to get one from something trivial like books... although, I DID used to get them all the time about songs and videos coming on... no, let's leave it as "I saw something and somehow couldn't find it again 2 minutes later," or it'll make me nuts.
If you noticed that I said "bookS," that was on purpose; when I did a search on Amazon for book #6, I discovered that, in wild departure from the way the books have been spaced for the past 2 DECADES, although book #6 was just released in June, book #7, the final book in the series, has ALSO been released. And WHEN, you ask, was it released? YESTERDAY!! :-O
There HAD to have been references to book #6 all over the place when it was released, but I was so caught up in my grief at a loved one living out her last few weeks during that time that they could have put a billboard on my front lawn and I wouldn't have seen it; it's worthwhile to notice from that how opportunities can pass by you when you're distracted mentally to the point of being unaware of what's going on around you-karma does NOT make allowances for this sort of thing, which is why we have the saying about how opportunity doesn't knock twice. This time around, however, I WAS paying attention, and karma provided me with beautiful synchronicity, allowing me to get not just book #6 but also, mindbogglingly, book #7, that I've been waiting over half my LIFE for, as soon as it became available; they've been ordered and are on their way to me. I don't know where I'm going to find the time to read them (I suppose I'll just have to get alot less sleep for a few days), but it'll be worth it. :-)
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
How did humor evolve?
When and why did the first caveman respond to another caveman falling flat on his face with the erratic bursts of sound known as laughter? What evolutionary value did this have, and why was someone being hurt a cause for others to feel mirth, rather than something less mean-spirited? How did enjoying the pains of others give us the benefit necessary for a new trait to propagate through the species?
There's no real reason for assuming that the first amusement was from an unintentional bit of physical comedy, of course; I just chose that because it could have happened when our species was still pre-verbal, but there's no proof that humor goes back that far. There's nothing to say that the first incident of humor wasn't in response to the first time someone meant to say a word meaning "food" and said a word meaning "excrement" instead... but I can't see any evolutionary value to THAT, either.
How did it help a person, or a tribe, to be more successful if they enjoyed seeing, or hearing about, other people suffering of being made fools of? And yes, that IS the basis for virtually every joke and sort of humor other than puns; try to think of some jokes that don't hinge on someone being hurt, fooled or humiliated, or on the idea that a certain subgroup of people, such as women or minorities, are inferior in some way, and you'll see what I mean. Is CARING about others such a terrible thing somehow that callous disregard for the feelings of others, as evidenced by laughing at their discomfiture, is beneficial?
People are usually amused by puns and other plays on words, too, even those that don't embarrass anyone; but WHY are we amused by them? How did this amusement lead to those people who felt it to being more likely to have more children to pass their tee-hee-hee genes to?
Even beyond why we find things funny, why do we LAUGH? How is making those unattractive sounds a good thing? We laugh for all sorts of reasons besides humor, such as when we're socially anxious, and those other kinds of laughter carry valuable information to others, but why laugh because someone slipped on a banana peel? (Do you suppose that's ever REALLY happened, other than in cartoons?) Why pass along to others that we're insensitive-what's the benefit in THAT?
This one's got me totally stumped; I can't find ANY reason for our ability to be amused, or to be amused at such cruel things, or to make noise to indicate our amusement, to have evolved, much less to have stayed as part of human nature for millennia. There MUST be one, though, because everything in our bodies and brains takes energy to create and pass on, so nothing in our nature is worthless; I see a great deal of research ahead of me...
(PS It's possible that humor is somehow connected to the soul, in which case we wouldn't expect to be able to see a scientifically valid benefit for it, but I'm not going to take the easy way out and decide that that's the reason; I figured I should add it in here for the sale of completeness, though.)
There's no real reason for assuming that the first amusement was from an unintentional bit of physical comedy, of course; I just chose that because it could have happened when our species was still pre-verbal, but there's no proof that humor goes back that far. There's nothing to say that the first incident of humor wasn't in response to the first time someone meant to say a word meaning "food" and said a word meaning "excrement" instead... but I can't see any evolutionary value to THAT, either.
How did it help a person, or a tribe, to be more successful if they enjoyed seeing, or hearing about, other people suffering of being made fools of? And yes, that IS the basis for virtually every joke and sort of humor other than puns; try to think of some jokes that don't hinge on someone being hurt, fooled or humiliated, or on the idea that a certain subgroup of people, such as women or minorities, are inferior in some way, and you'll see what I mean. Is CARING about others such a terrible thing somehow that callous disregard for the feelings of others, as evidenced by laughing at their discomfiture, is beneficial?
People are usually amused by puns and other plays on words, too, even those that don't embarrass anyone; but WHY are we amused by them? How did this amusement lead to those people who felt it to being more likely to have more children to pass their tee-hee-hee genes to?
Even beyond why we find things funny, why do we LAUGH? How is making those unattractive sounds a good thing? We laugh for all sorts of reasons besides humor, such as when we're socially anxious, and those other kinds of laughter carry valuable information to others, but why laugh because someone slipped on a banana peel? (Do you suppose that's ever REALLY happened, other than in cartoons?) Why pass along to others that we're insensitive-what's the benefit in THAT?
This one's got me totally stumped; I can't find ANY reason for our ability to be amused, or to be amused at such cruel things, or to make noise to indicate our amusement, to have evolved, much less to have stayed as part of human nature for millennia. There MUST be one, though, because everything in our bodies and brains takes energy to create and pass on, so nothing in our nature is worthless; I see a great deal of research ahead of me...
(PS It's possible that humor is somehow connected to the soul, in which case we wouldn't expect to be able to see a scientifically valid benefit for it, but I'm not going to take the easy way out and decide that that's the reason; I figured I should add it in here for the sale of completeness, though.)
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Thai tattoos
I've been watching the National Geographic Channel's Taboo series again, and, as usual, learned something fascinating: in Thailand, tattoos aren't for adornment, they're a deeply spiritual thing; not like in the cultures where it creates a deep bond with their society and history, but in the sense that the recipients believe that the tattoos have actual POWER, can protect them from harm and death, and that gods and spirits (including animal types) can possess them via the tattoos.
I watched in awe as man after man described the horrible accidents that happened to him, or rather all around him, from which he walked away without a scratch, and as a steady stream of men were "possessed" (there was nothing subtle about it, so you could see when it happened) both during the tattoo process and after having the tattoos "recharged" (which they do once a year). No, I don't see there being anything magical in the tattoo ink, or in the process of placing these huge and elaborate designs into the flesh, but it's obvious that the pain, the circumstances, and their belief system combined to make the recipients' minds open up and channel... who knows what (I consider the jury to be out on possession and the idea of spirits that are essentially minor deities).
For so many men to be so sure that having these tattoos would make them virtually invincible, and mind you it was all men who had horribly dangerous jobs who were getting them for protection, there has to be SOMETHING going on; my guess would be that they learn to gather and focus energy via the process and that this is what protects them, but I know too little about it to do more than speculate. They showed a man who had just been tattooed being required to test the tattoo; he was whacked repeatedly on the back with a machete, and all it left were some faint scratches. Now, I know well that it's a common "trick" in Eastern cultures to use the "blade didn't cut" bit to "prove" spiritual something or other, and I know how it works; a blade doesn't actually cut unless there's a sawing motion involved (this is why the guillotine blades were at an angle), so if you can meet the blade squarely it won't cut... but, could the machete-swinger have enough control to just make light scratches? It would seem like he'd have to, but a different man described being attacked by an ENEMY with a machete, grabbing for where he thought the wound was and discovering there was no blood, no wound, and the enemy sure wasn't playing a game, so...
No, I haven't suddenly become naive and credulous, but there's ample evidence of people who can exert inexplicable levels of control over their bodies, preventing them from suffering pain or injury under circumstances that Western eyes can barely stand to look at, and this feels like an extension of that, of men learning to tap into spiritual energy and channel it to protect themselves. I don't see the mechanism, though, and I wish I did, as always when I see intense spiritual experiences that I can't share; these men are enduring hours and hours of extreme pain every year because what they get in return makes it worth it to them... and I'd dearly love to experience, even for a few minutes, what that is.
I watched in awe as man after man described the horrible accidents that happened to him, or rather all around him, from which he walked away without a scratch, and as a steady stream of men were "possessed" (there was nothing subtle about it, so you could see when it happened) both during the tattoo process and after having the tattoos "recharged" (which they do once a year). No, I don't see there being anything magical in the tattoo ink, or in the process of placing these huge and elaborate designs into the flesh, but it's obvious that the pain, the circumstances, and their belief system combined to make the recipients' minds open up and channel... who knows what (I consider the jury to be out on possession and the idea of spirits that are essentially minor deities).
For so many men to be so sure that having these tattoos would make them virtually invincible, and mind you it was all men who had horribly dangerous jobs who were getting them for protection, there has to be SOMETHING going on; my guess would be that they learn to gather and focus energy via the process and that this is what protects them, but I know too little about it to do more than speculate. They showed a man who had just been tattooed being required to test the tattoo; he was whacked repeatedly on the back with a machete, and all it left were some faint scratches. Now, I know well that it's a common "trick" in Eastern cultures to use the "blade didn't cut" bit to "prove" spiritual something or other, and I know how it works; a blade doesn't actually cut unless there's a sawing motion involved (this is why the guillotine blades were at an angle), so if you can meet the blade squarely it won't cut... but, could the machete-swinger have enough control to just make light scratches? It would seem like he'd have to, but a different man described being attacked by an ENEMY with a machete, grabbing for where he thought the wound was and discovering there was no blood, no wound, and the enemy sure wasn't playing a game, so...
No, I haven't suddenly become naive and credulous, but there's ample evidence of people who can exert inexplicable levels of control over their bodies, preventing them from suffering pain or injury under circumstances that Western eyes can barely stand to look at, and this feels like an extension of that, of men learning to tap into spiritual energy and channel it to protect themselves. I don't see the mechanism, though, and I wish I did, as always when I see intense spiritual experiences that I can't share; these men are enduring hours and hours of extreme pain every year because what they get in return makes it worth it to them... and I'd dearly love to experience, even for a few minutes, what that is.
Monday, September 20, 2004
A non-karma-related point from Joel Osteen
I wish I had a transcript I could copy into this post, because Osteen gave a wonderful sermon today about the importance of not taking offense, and how harboring bad feelings poisons you (and has no effect whatsoever on the object of your ire).
The idea that having any kind of bad feelings has a negative impact on all areas of your life is one of his biggest themes, and it's a good one; negativity draws other negativity to itself with amazing power. And what's the point of wasting time and energy feeling angry at someone who cut you off on the freeway anyways? It's not just that they'll never know or care; they may not even be aware that they did it, and even if they were it's likely that they were just in a mad rush to get to work, and aren't bad people messing around on the freeway for funsies.
The issue of not taking offense ties into another theme of his, that of not judging when you don't know a person's story or anything about them; he points out, correctly, that most times when people take offense, it's at something unintentional, something the other person did or said because they're having a bad day, or are distracted, or are absent-minded, or are naturally outspoken, rather than from arrogance or meanness. We're often quick to label someone a bad person because they snapped at us or were rude, but think about it; YOU sometimes snap at people and are rude, and do you think that makes YOU a bad person? (It amazes me how quick we can be to condemn others for trivial things, while falling all over ourselves to forgive atrocious behavior.)
Sometimes, of course, people DO mean to give offense... but how do you tell? First, develop a habit of shrugging off behavior that doesn't matter, especially from people who don't matter; if a total stranger tells you that your jacket is ugly, so what? If a belligerent twit argues with your opinion, why care? If the person shooting their mouth off isn't someone who's a part of your life (this goes double for people online), isn't someone who has earned your respect, why should their opinion count for anything with you? If they try to be nasty, why play along with them and be hurt? While you probably can't shrug off attempts by your loved ones to be hurtful (it CAN be done, but it's hard for most people), it's quite easy to look at the ugly spoutings of some no-life jerk with nothing better to do than try to upset a total stranger as laughable, and thus to be amused... the added benefit to this is that you'll really aggravate them when you respond to their attempts at kicking you in the teeth with condescending laughter at their childishness.
Once you've developed the ability to not be offended by worthless types, make sure that when you respond to them (as you'll oftentimes have to) that your words, tone, expression and body language all convey unruffled calm; online, make sure that anything you post/send looks like your "regular stuff," ie no all-caps, cursing, or anything else that an objective reader would say was indicative of upset on your part. Then, wait for the magic words from the suspect; "There's no need to get upset/offended/mad," or "What are you getting upset/offended/mad about?" or a similar phrase that indicates their belief that you HAVE had that sort of response, despite the total lack of evidence... because these lines tell you that the person was TRYING to be offensive, and is just blindly assuming that you GOT offended because that was their plan, and that's the response they normally get from that behavior-in other words, they make a HABIT of doing this sort of thing, which tells you that they're not the sort of person you should EVER be concerned about.
This has gone far afield from what Joel Osteen talked about, and is probably something he'd recommend NOT trying to analyze, but I'm a practical sort, and like to have ways to decisively deal with all sorts of people, so I say; don't raise your blood pressure and ruin your day by taking offense at the rude behaviors of others, whether intended or not. It's better for your health, it keeps you from possibly lashing out at people who never intended offense, and it'll thwart the plans of the troublemakers when you can blandly reply to their "voicings of concern" aka proddings to try to make you madder; "But, I'm NOT upset/offended/mad-if I were, I'd ACT upset/etc," leaving them to sputter helplessly trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were clearly EXPECTING to have upset you, that that was their intention from the beginning.
As I always say, evil is at its base stupid; once you're on to 'em, it's very hard for them to ever "get" you. :-)
The idea that having any kind of bad feelings has a negative impact on all areas of your life is one of his biggest themes, and it's a good one; negativity draws other negativity to itself with amazing power. And what's the point of wasting time and energy feeling angry at someone who cut you off on the freeway anyways? It's not just that they'll never know or care; they may not even be aware that they did it, and even if they were it's likely that they were just in a mad rush to get to work, and aren't bad people messing around on the freeway for funsies.
The issue of not taking offense ties into another theme of his, that of not judging when you don't know a person's story or anything about them; he points out, correctly, that most times when people take offense, it's at something unintentional, something the other person did or said because they're having a bad day, or are distracted, or are absent-minded, or are naturally outspoken, rather than from arrogance or meanness. We're often quick to label someone a bad person because they snapped at us or were rude, but think about it; YOU sometimes snap at people and are rude, and do you think that makes YOU a bad person? (It amazes me how quick we can be to condemn others for trivial things, while falling all over ourselves to forgive atrocious behavior.)
Sometimes, of course, people DO mean to give offense... but how do you tell? First, develop a habit of shrugging off behavior that doesn't matter, especially from people who don't matter; if a total stranger tells you that your jacket is ugly, so what? If a belligerent twit argues with your opinion, why care? If the person shooting their mouth off isn't someone who's a part of your life (this goes double for people online), isn't someone who has earned your respect, why should their opinion count for anything with you? If they try to be nasty, why play along with them and be hurt? While you probably can't shrug off attempts by your loved ones to be hurtful (it CAN be done, but it's hard for most people), it's quite easy to look at the ugly spoutings of some no-life jerk with nothing better to do than try to upset a total stranger as laughable, and thus to be amused... the added benefit to this is that you'll really aggravate them when you respond to their attempts at kicking you in the teeth with condescending laughter at their childishness.
Once you've developed the ability to not be offended by worthless types, make sure that when you respond to them (as you'll oftentimes have to) that your words, tone, expression and body language all convey unruffled calm; online, make sure that anything you post/send looks like your "regular stuff," ie no all-caps, cursing, or anything else that an objective reader would say was indicative of upset on your part. Then, wait for the magic words from the suspect; "There's no need to get upset/offended/mad," or "What are you getting upset/offended/mad about?" or a similar phrase that indicates their belief that you HAVE had that sort of response, despite the total lack of evidence... because these lines tell you that the person was TRYING to be offensive, and is just blindly assuming that you GOT offended because that was their plan, and that's the response they normally get from that behavior-in other words, they make a HABIT of doing this sort of thing, which tells you that they're not the sort of person you should EVER be concerned about.
This has gone far afield from what Joel Osteen talked about, and is probably something he'd recommend NOT trying to analyze, but I'm a practical sort, and like to have ways to decisively deal with all sorts of people, so I say; don't raise your blood pressure and ruin your day by taking offense at the rude behaviors of others, whether intended or not. It's better for your health, it keeps you from possibly lashing out at people who never intended offense, and it'll thwart the plans of the troublemakers when you can blandly reply to their "voicings of concern" aka proddings to try to make you madder; "But, I'm NOT upset/offended/mad-if I were, I'd ACT upset/etc," leaving them to sputter helplessly trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were clearly EXPECTING to have upset you, that that was their intention from the beginning.
As I always say, evil is at its base stupid; once you're on to 'em, it's very hard for them to ever "get" you. :-)
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Dreaming about my dream house
We all do it, right? With the exception, one assumes, of the very wealthy, who already HAVE their dream homes, we all have radiant visions of what we'd want if we won the lottery and could have any sort of home we wanted.
I'd like my home to be one of those insanely modern concrete and glass ones that looks like a spaceship taking off... or, the traditional Spanish manse with pale pink stucco, deep red tile roof, and a central courtyard (I'm such a mass of contradictions, lol).
I'd like the interior to have slightly pearlescent pinkish white walls; it'd be like living inside a seashell. The carpet would be a dense pile shag, the kind your toes sink into, in a light, chic shade of taupe; it's my favorite light neutral. The furniture would be a blend of mid-century and mod (just think "retro" if you're not a design buff and can't visualize what I mean), with dashes of modern; curvy and organic, therefore, but with an edge. Deep shades like cobalt, amethyst and raspberry sorbet would make the rooms warm, the exact opposite of the gray on gray that is often part of any remotely modern decor.
I'd also want it to have:
Arched doorways, curved stairways; right angles are just not aesthetically appealing.
An intercom that reaches every room; we had that in one of the homes I lived in as a kid, and it saved endless hollering.
Stained glass; I'd like a custom WALL of glass, probably in the entryway, so that people coming in the front door would gasp in amazement as they stepped into a magical world of color.
An elevator; if you've every had an attack of bursitis in your hip, you'll understand.
A huge saltwater tank, with fancy fish, little shrimps and crabs, and most importantly, sea horses.
A hummingbird garden, and yes there is such a thing, filled with the plants they like best, feeders, and nesting boxes, so that I could have a whole flock of them living there during the warm months when they're here; they're exquisite little creatures that always give me a thrill to see.
Tall, welcoming trees, one of which would have a nice padded swing attached to it in such a way as not to damage it. (Before you snicker, swinging is excellent exercise for the thighs, and more relaxing than yoga.)
An indoor swing for when the weather is bad... maybe in the room with the stained glass, just imagine...
Fountains and other water features, inside and out; the sound of moving/falling/splashing water is so soothing.
Windchimes around the house and throughout the gardens, of all different sorts and sizes so that every area would have a unique "song."
An interior lap-swimming pool that generates a current for you to swim against so that you never have to do turns, and can basically swim in place.
Bidets in every bathroom; if you don't know, I'm not gonna tell you, lol.
Large windows at the correct angle to catch the prevailing breeze, and to fill the rooms with natural light.
Art in every room (not just the traditional framed kind, but also sculpture, art glass, and some extreme modern stuff); complex pieces that you could see something new in every time you looked at them.
A gameroom with air hockey, classic arcade games, and a whole wall of pinball machines.
My husband wants a basement, and it's a nice idea to have all his mess in one part of the house, one that no visitor would want to go to; he could have a mass of computer equipment, soundproofing so he can blast the awful music he likes, a mini-kitchen where he could grow fungus to his heart's content, a bathroom that could be sealed off and self-cleaned/sterilized like an oven... and electrodes in all the chairs so I could zap him via remote control when I needed him for something.
I DID say it was a dream, hehehehehe.
I'd like my home to be one of those insanely modern concrete and glass ones that looks like a spaceship taking off... or, the traditional Spanish manse with pale pink stucco, deep red tile roof, and a central courtyard (I'm such a mass of contradictions, lol).
I'd like the interior to have slightly pearlescent pinkish white walls; it'd be like living inside a seashell. The carpet would be a dense pile shag, the kind your toes sink into, in a light, chic shade of taupe; it's my favorite light neutral. The furniture would be a blend of mid-century and mod (just think "retro" if you're not a design buff and can't visualize what I mean), with dashes of modern; curvy and organic, therefore, but with an edge. Deep shades like cobalt, amethyst and raspberry sorbet would make the rooms warm, the exact opposite of the gray on gray that is often part of any remotely modern decor.
I'd also want it to have:
Arched doorways, curved stairways; right angles are just not aesthetically appealing.
An intercom that reaches every room; we had that in one of the homes I lived in as a kid, and it saved endless hollering.
Stained glass; I'd like a custom WALL of glass, probably in the entryway, so that people coming in the front door would gasp in amazement as they stepped into a magical world of color.
An elevator; if you've every had an attack of bursitis in your hip, you'll understand.
A huge saltwater tank, with fancy fish, little shrimps and crabs, and most importantly, sea horses.
A hummingbird garden, and yes there is such a thing, filled with the plants they like best, feeders, and nesting boxes, so that I could have a whole flock of them living there during the warm months when they're here; they're exquisite little creatures that always give me a thrill to see.
Tall, welcoming trees, one of which would have a nice padded swing attached to it in such a way as not to damage it. (Before you snicker, swinging is excellent exercise for the thighs, and more relaxing than yoga.)
An indoor swing for when the weather is bad... maybe in the room with the stained glass, just imagine...
Fountains and other water features, inside and out; the sound of moving/falling/splashing water is so soothing.
Windchimes around the house and throughout the gardens, of all different sorts and sizes so that every area would have a unique "song."
An interior lap-swimming pool that generates a current for you to swim against so that you never have to do turns, and can basically swim in place.
Bidets in every bathroom; if you don't know, I'm not gonna tell you, lol.
Large windows at the correct angle to catch the prevailing breeze, and to fill the rooms with natural light.
Art in every room (not just the traditional framed kind, but also sculpture, art glass, and some extreme modern stuff); complex pieces that you could see something new in every time you looked at them.
A gameroom with air hockey, classic arcade games, and a whole wall of pinball machines.
My husband wants a basement, and it's a nice idea to have all his mess in one part of the house, one that no visitor would want to go to; he could have a mass of computer equipment, soundproofing so he can blast the awful music he likes, a mini-kitchen where he could grow fungus to his heart's content, a bathroom that could be sealed off and self-cleaned/sterilized like an oven... and electrodes in all the chairs so I could zap him via remote control when I needed him for something.
I DID say it was a dream, hehehehehe.
