Saturday, November 27, 2004
The day after Thanksgiving
What do we do in America on the last Friday of November?
1) Eat leftovers (this is the first day of MANY in some households where leftovers will be on the menu)
2) Get up at 5AM to be there when the stores open their doors at 6AM with insane sales to begin the Christmas buying frenzy
3) Start putting up Christmas decorations
In MY household, however:
1) We have very few leftovers from our Thanksgiving dinner, as we have a simple meal for just the 2 of us, and what little there are get vacuumed up by my husband before I even get out of bed, so *I* never have to eat any-HOORAY!!
2) "Insane" is my exact word for these sales that start before dawn, and for the people who get up to go to them; I'm just going to BED by 5AM as often as not, and the thought of going out into the cold and dark to SHOP at that hour is about as appealing as a root canal. Also, I don't NEED to go shopping during the holiday season, because I bought all of my Christmas gifts by June; the likes and dislikes of my loved ones are the same all year long, so there's no reason to wait until a month before Christmas to buy their presents... and nothing short of an emergency will get me into a mall from this point until the new year.
3) I've intended to start decorating at this time every year of my marriage, but have always been thwarted by my husband, whose muscles are necessary to drag the boxes out... and the fact that our Halloween decorations are always still up at this point doesn't help either. This year, though, I set my jaw, got the Halloween stuff and assorted clutter cleared up, and... ok, we don't actually have any Christmas decorations up yet, but the boxes ARE out, and as soon as the artificial tree parts are dug out and put together, and my husband drags the ladder in so that things can be hung up, we ARE going to get at least a solid % of the stuff up by the end of the long weekend.
Now, if we can only get the decorations back DOWN by the end of January, rather than the end of APRIL like we usually do...
1) Eat leftovers (this is the first day of MANY in some households where leftovers will be on the menu)
2) Get up at 5AM to be there when the stores open their doors at 6AM with insane sales to begin the Christmas buying frenzy
3) Start putting up Christmas decorations
In MY household, however:
1) We have very few leftovers from our Thanksgiving dinner, as we have a simple meal for just the 2 of us, and what little there are get vacuumed up by my husband before I even get out of bed, so *I* never have to eat any-HOORAY!!
2) "Insane" is my exact word for these sales that start before dawn, and for the people who get up to go to them; I'm just going to BED by 5AM as often as not, and the thought of going out into the cold and dark to SHOP at that hour is about as appealing as a root canal. Also, I don't NEED to go shopping during the holiday season, because I bought all of my Christmas gifts by June; the likes and dislikes of my loved ones are the same all year long, so there's no reason to wait until a month before Christmas to buy their presents... and nothing short of an emergency will get me into a mall from this point until the new year.
3) I've intended to start decorating at this time every year of my marriage, but have always been thwarted by my husband, whose muscles are necessary to drag the boxes out... and the fact that our Halloween decorations are always still up at this point doesn't help either. This year, though, I set my jaw, got the Halloween stuff and assorted clutter cleared up, and... ok, we don't actually have any Christmas decorations up yet, but the boxes ARE out, and as soon as the artificial tree parts are dug out and put together, and my husband drags the ladder in so that things can be hung up, we ARE going to get at least a solid % of the stuff up by the end of the long weekend.
Now, if we can only get the decorations back DOWN by the end of January, rather than the end of APRIL like we usually do...
Friday, November 26, 2004
This year I was thankful that...
... when so many people are oppressed, I'm free.
... when so many people live in danger, I'm safe.
... when so many people are ill, I'm healthy.
... when so many people are homeless, I have a lovely house.
... when so many people are hungry, I've never missed a meal.
... when so many people are impoverished, I have $ in the bank.
... when so many people are lonely, I have loved ones.
... when so many people can't find love, I found the right man and married him.
... when so many people are miserable, I'm happy.
And I'm thankful for the annual reminder that, although I'll never have everything I want, I already have everything that matters.
... when so many people live in danger, I'm safe.
... when so many people are ill, I'm healthy.
... when so many people are homeless, I have a lovely house.
... when so many people are hungry, I've never missed a meal.
... when so many people are impoverished, I have $ in the bank.
... when so many people are lonely, I have loved ones.
... when so many people can't find love, I found the right man and married him.
... when so many people are miserable, I'm happy.
And I'm thankful for the annual reminder that, although I'll never have everything I want, I already have everything that matters.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
A different sort of thing to be grateful for
When bad things happen in your life, if you're like most people you agonize endlessly over them, and think "why ME?!!" Look at it logically, though; when GOOD things happen to you, do you think obsessively about them, trying to figure out "why you"? Probably not, because we tend to go through life believing that good things are our due, but that bad things should never touch us, and if they do it's a catastrophe; it's understandable from an emotional standpoint, but it's not very logical.
Aside from realizing that we should be more accepting of the inevitability of bad things, and more appreciative of good things, we should be aware that, when bad things happen, they're not usually ALL bad, especially when seen from a broader perspective:
You've probably heard the line about how we need the bad times to make us appreciate the good times, and this is true; not just on Thanksgiving, but EVERY day, we should be grateful for all the good things that come into our lives.
When bad things happen, our loved ones console us, and we truly feel the affection they have for us; using their example, we learn to console others, which is an important part of being a good person.
When times are tough, this is when we learn most of life's important lessons; one day, these lessons will benefit us, and we can use them to advise our dear ones when they're in similar straits.
When we learn what pain feels like, it gives us the ability to have empathy for others who are in pain, and this in turn tells us when to feel sympathy, and keeps us from engaging in the sorts of behaviors that cause others pain... all of which makes us better people.
How many times have you heard someone who went through a tragedy say that it has enriched their lives, made them stronger, braver and happier, and that in general it was a GOOD thing? Tragedy can lead to people making different choices that improve their lives (the most common one is probably the person who has a heart attack who then becomes a health nut), and bad things at all levels can stimulate us to grow and change... with the end result that we end up with more happiness in our lives than we would have had had we not had any of the bad things happen to us. If you're young enough to think this sounds crazy, I don't blame you, as it DOES sound a little counter-intuitive, but let me assure you; the roots of the lion's share of good things in MY life today can be traced to the most tragic period in my life, so it really does work that way.
Just as the most beautiful flowers grow in manure, the best parts of human nature flourish from adversity; be grateful today, not just for the good things in your life, but for the bad things that made you into the special person you are.
Aside from realizing that we should be more accepting of the inevitability of bad things, and more appreciative of good things, we should be aware that, when bad things happen, they're not usually ALL bad, especially when seen from a broader perspective:
You've probably heard the line about how we need the bad times to make us appreciate the good times, and this is true; not just on Thanksgiving, but EVERY day, we should be grateful for all the good things that come into our lives.
When bad things happen, our loved ones console us, and we truly feel the affection they have for us; using their example, we learn to console others, which is an important part of being a good person.
When times are tough, this is when we learn most of life's important lessons; one day, these lessons will benefit us, and we can use them to advise our dear ones when they're in similar straits.
When we learn what pain feels like, it gives us the ability to have empathy for others who are in pain, and this in turn tells us when to feel sympathy, and keeps us from engaging in the sorts of behaviors that cause others pain... all of which makes us better people.
How many times have you heard someone who went through a tragedy say that it has enriched their lives, made them stronger, braver and happier, and that in general it was a GOOD thing? Tragedy can lead to people making different choices that improve their lives (the most common one is probably the person who has a heart attack who then becomes a health nut), and bad things at all levels can stimulate us to grow and change... with the end result that we end up with more happiness in our lives than we would have had had we not had any of the bad things happen to us. If you're young enough to think this sounds crazy, I don't blame you, as it DOES sound a little counter-intuitive, but let me assure you; the roots of the lion's share of good things in MY life today can be traced to the most tragic period in my life, so it really does work that way.
Just as the most beautiful flowers grow in manure, the best parts of human nature flourish from adversity; be grateful today, not just for the good things in your life, but for the bad things that made you into the special person you are.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
A nice guy finished FIRST!! :-O
I've greatly enjoyed watching the TBS reality series "He's a Lady," which featured macho men who thought they were signing on to climb mountains and eat worms, and instead had to participate in all sorts of "girly" competitions in full-on drag; I was a little bummed that today's episode was the last one, but I was astounded, and thrilled, when they gave the $250,000 prize to the guy that was so big that he had no neck, and who possessed no shred of prettiness, but who was a devoted husband and father, a good friend to all the other guys, gentle and soft-spoken, and nice, nice, NICE!! :-)
The other 2 of the final 3 were the one who was by far the best-looking of the bunch, who'd done the best job of passing as a woman, and won the most competitions, and the one who was the most ruthless and conniving competitor, and I'd have expected one of them to win; in real life, after all, it IS the hotties and the sociopaths who get most of the goodies, and on reality shows they're at the top of the heap too. They did something innovative on this show that made all the difference, though; they gave each man the opportunity to say what "being a lady" had taught him about being a man, and the big guy did such a good job of showing that the biggest thing about him was his HEART that people in the audience were crying, and emotions ran so high that the standard American deal of rewarding the LEAST deserving people fell by the wayside.
Is this the start of a new dynamic on reality shows, one where people will be judged by goodness rather than by degree of deviousness or breast size? Could Americans be tired of seeing the shallow and mean types cleaning up on every show? Will we start seeing more basic, decent folks winning the big $? Probably not, sadly, but there's at least a little bit of hope that maybe, just maybe, virtue is coming back into fashion.
The important thing is, a nice guy DID finish first instead of last; now THERE'S something to be thankful for on Thursday. :-)
The other 2 of the final 3 were the one who was by far the best-looking of the bunch, who'd done the best job of passing as a woman, and won the most competitions, and the one who was the most ruthless and conniving competitor, and I'd have expected one of them to win; in real life, after all, it IS the hotties and the sociopaths who get most of the goodies, and on reality shows they're at the top of the heap too. They did something innovative on this show that made all the difference, though; they gave each man the opportunity to say what "being a lady" had taught him about being a man, and the big guy did such a good job of showing that the biggest thing about him was his HEART that people in the audience were crying, and emotions ran so high that the standard American deal of rewarding the LEAST deserving people fell by the wayside.
Is this the start of a new dynamic on reality shows, one where people will be judged by goodness rather than by degree of deviousness or breast size? Could Americans be tired of seeing the shallow and mean types cleaning up on every show? Will we start seeing more basic, decent folks winning the big $? Probably not, sadly, but there's at least a little bit of hope that maybe, just maybe, virtue is coming back into fashion.
The important thing is, a nice guy DID finish first instead of last; now THERE'S something to be thankful for on Thursday. :-)
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Do 2 wrongs make a right?
Where did people get the idea that those who've been mistreated should just eat their misery and never strike back, because striking back somehow magically makes the victim a wrongdoer too, and thus makes their perfectly correct actions wrong?
When someone does something evil, should they get off scott-free just because whatever might be done in retaliation wouldn't combine with it to "make a right"? We'd expect a wrong-doer to expound that philosophy, as it's to their benefit, but what on EARTH induces anyone else to spout this nonsense?
When someone does a person wrong, they DESERVE to get something done to them in retribution, and there's no wrongdoing involved in the victim doing just that (unless, of course, the victim chooses to do something criminal, which is obviously a different story)... so saying that 2 wrongs don't make a right is conceptually wrong from the get-go, because there aren't 2 wrongs involved, just a wrong and a morally-acceptable payback.
Even if you think that the payback IS something wrong despite it being deserved, and that it's not right for the wrongdoer to suffer, and thus that the 2 "wrongs" didn't make a right, that still doesn't mean that that 2nd "wrong" didn't do some good, because it DID; it counteracted the first wrong... and isn't it better that a wrong be counteracted than left there, unchallenged and triumphant? Furthermore, the 2nd "wrong," by giving the original wrongdoer some well-deserved unhappiness, provides them with a powerful disincentive to behave badly again, and as a bonus the victim gets to feel closure and vindication instead of wounded; call me crazy, but that has the feeling of a "right" to it, and therefore I'd say that 2 "wrongs" DO make a right, or rather several rights... thus leaving us with no reason to not kick the butt of whoever does us wrong.
One of the main reasons that the evildoers of the world are able to do so much harm to so many people is because of this psycho idea that anything done back to them is "wrong"; *I* say that it's time for us to remember that we're supposed to support the VICTIM, not the wrongdoer, and to go back to the sort of behavioral cause and effect that makes hurtful actions less attractive to those who're likely to engage in them, and so less likely to happen. There's nothing morally superior about letting people get away with murder; get Old Testament on them, and win one for the good guys.
When someone does something evil, should they get off scott-free just because whatever might be done in retaliation wouldn't combine with it to "make a right"? We'd expect a wrong-doer to expound that philosophy, as it's to their benefit, but what on EARTH induces anyone else to spout this nonsense?
When someone does a person wrong, they DESERVE to get something done to them in retribution, and there's no wrongdoing involved in the victim doing just that (unless, of course, the victim chooses to do something criminal, which is obviously a different story)... so saying that 2 wrongs don't make a right is conceptually wrong from the get-go, because there aren't 2 wrongs involved, just a wrong and a morally-acceptable payback.
Even if you think that the payback IS something wrong despite it being deserved, and that it's not right for the wrongdoer to suffer, and thus that the 2 "wrongs" didn't make a right, that still doesn't mean that that 2nd "wrong" didn't do some good, because it DID; it counteracted the first wrong... and isn't it better that a wrong be counteracted than left there, unchallenged and triumphant? Furthermore, the 2nd "wrong," by giving the original wrongdoer some well-deserved unhappiness, provides them with a powerful disincentive to behave badly again, and as a bonus the victim gets to feel closure and vindication instead of wounded; call me crazy, but that has the feeling of a "right" to it, and therefore I'd say that 2 "wrongs" DO make a right, or rather several rights... thus leaving us with no reason to not kick the butt of whoever does us wrong.
One of the main reasons that the evildoers of the world are able to do so much harm to so many people is because of this psycho idea that anything done back to them is "wrong"; *I* say that it's time for us to remember that we're supposed to support the VICTIM, not the wrongdoer, and to go back to the sort of behavioral cause and effect that makes hurtful actions less attractive to those who're likely to engage in them, and so less likely to happen. There's nothing morally superior about letting people get away with murder; get Old Testament on them, and win one for the good guys.
Monday, November 22, 2004
When handicapped access goes too far
As all too many of us do, I have people that I care about who are forced to use wheelchairs; I want them to have everything they need to make their lives easier, and I want them to be able to live their lives as freely as the rest of us do, including being able to go where they want to go. However, in the same way that I don't expect the hills of San Francisco to be bulldozed because they're not manageable in a wheelchair, or the forests to be razed because wheelchairs can't always fit between the trees, or the beaches to be paved over because wheelchairs can't get through the sand, I don't think it's rational to expect that 100% of public buildings can, or even should, be remade such that someone in a wheelchair can get in and get around without help, or sometimes at all. Don't get me wrong, I think that ALMOST all such buildings can, and SHOULD, be made handicapped accessible, because it doesn't generally take an unreasonable amount of $ or effort to do so, but there are a few exceptions where trying to provide access, or independent access (eg with no assistance from another person) to folks in wheelchairs would be disastrous; historical buildings are one example (since the entire point of them BEING historical means that they can't be torn apart for the necessary remodeling), but I've seen other instances where I think they went too far in enforcing the idea of total wheelchair access in places were it was just ridiculous to try to do so... judge for yourself:
The first accounts of this that I heard about in my city where when they required ALL businesses to be fully accessible by wheelchair, including those businesses whose premises were so tiny that they had to literally rip out most of their merchandise displays to comply, leading swiftly to their going out of business; people's finances, LIVES, were wrecked from this unstoppable destruction of their ability to make a living from their stores, with all of their hard work ending up wasted. I'm all for NEW businesses being required to take handicapped access into account as part of their layouts, AND for older ones being required to retrofit to that same end, but NOT in cases of stores that are too tiny to allow for wide aisles AND enough merchandise displays to be profitable... and besides, when they're forced out of business, people in wheelchairs have STILL been denied the ability to shop there, have they not? Along with everyone else. Not having some flexibility in the laws to allow for small stores is just outrageous, doubly so because this disproportionately targets stores in poor and minority areas of the city.
Another example was of an office building that had a sidewalk that was proclaimed too steep for wheelchair use; since they didn't want to pay to rip it out and replace it with another sort of sidewalk, and didn't have to do so because it wasn't the only way into the building, they just ripped it out and that was it, to the inconvenience of EVERYONE... including the one man in a wheelchair who worked in that building, who had been using the sidewalk just fine, and from then on had to go all the way around the building to use a different entrance. Needless to say, the enforcement of laws requiring handicapped access should NOT lead to an access to a building just being removed; what possible good could that ever do?
The grimmest example of the blind and foolish enforcement of these laws is at one of our local libraries. First, they demanded that the racks containing periodicals be lowered so that they were all reachable from a wheelchair, and no, it was NOT ok for them to have to ask for help getting things down; that sounded reasonable at first, but it turns out that the new rack positioning made many of the periodicals INaccessible to some of the senior citizens, who can't be expected to be squatting down... so now THEY have to sacrifice THEIR independence to ask for help reaching the materials. There's no point in robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the old saying goes; it's unfair to alter things to make them easier for people in wheelchairs to use but harder for some other group to use, especially a group that is less than perfectly able-bodied... it's a wonderful goal to want all wheelchair-bound folks to never have to ask for help, but other people would like to be independent too, and it's not right to take that from them just so that someone else can have it.
Next, they demanded that ALL of the restrooms be made handicapped-accessible, not just one; the resulting remodeling caused the bathrooms to take up far more floor space than they had before... which they accommodated by ripping out racks of books, to the loss of all. Since this library had NEVER had a patron in a wheelchair, perhaps it was a little much to require them to be able to accommodate a whole group of them all needing to use the restroom at once?
The worst was yet to come; the claim was made that IF someone in a wheelchair came to this library by bus, and IF they had a non-motorized wheelchair, they'd have difficulty making it up the ramp to the library. Again, they refused outright the idea of just letting someone help them; they demanded a wheelchair lift from street level up to the library level... and they got it, to the tune of $100,000 from the library's budget, and that's NOT a typo. What's even WORSE is, because of the issues of kids messing around with the lift, they had to make it so that the lift can NOT be controlled from street level; they would have to STILL call up to the library, a library staff member would STILL have to go down to help them, in this case by bringing a key to turn the lift on... and since this is NOT indicative of the person in the wheelchair acting totally independently, can you see any reason for the library to have lost out on $100,000 worth of books and other materials just so this theoretical person would have the staffer turn a key for them rather than give them a push?
Worst of all; the $100K lift, which continues to drain money from the library's budget for constant repairs and maintenance, has NEVER been used, not ONCE in the nearly a DECADE that it's been there; no handicapped patrons ever materialized to use it. To say that this has been a disgraceful misuse of the taxpayers' $ would be an understatement; for a tiny fraction of the $ wasted on this nightmare, they could have bought a van, hired a driver, and had him drive all over the city, picking up wheelchair-bound people and dropping them off right at the front door of the library... assuming they could have found any that cared to go there.
In general, we must OF COURSE find a way to get folks in wheelchairs into every building operated by any level of government, regardless of the geography of the surrounding land, but... if there had ever been a handicapped person trying to use that library, can you imagine them saying that it was worth all that loss of books to the many children and seniors who use that facility just so that the assistance they had to receive to get to the door was NOT in the form of their wheelchair being pushed?
I'm all for spending as much $ as it takes to do research that will lead to those with ANY handicap being helped, healed, or given more ability to get around and do things for themselves. I'm happy for tax dollars to go for the latest wheelchairs, customized vans, and special equipment to allow people with limited use of their limbs to get in and out of bed, the bathtub, whatever, without assistance... for virtually ANYTHING that will directly benefit them. Where I draw the line, and where I'm hoping we as a society will eventually insist on drawing the line, is at the point beyond which an insane amount of $, and/or the ruination of businesses, is required to get that last .001% of structures into compliance with the admittedly noble idea of making it possible for folks in wheelchairs to go everywhere, and without assistance; at that point, let us instead extend caring hands to those who need a little extra help, knowing that one day, when WE need help, it will be there for us.
The first accounts of this that I heard about in my city where when they required ALL businesses to be fully accessible by wheelchair, including those businesses whose premises were so tiny that they had to literally rip out most of their merchandise displays to comply, leading swiftly to their going out of business; people's finances, LIVES, were wrecked from this unstoppable destruction of their ability to make a living from their stores, with all of their hard work ending up wasted. I'm all for NEW businesses being required to take handicapped access into account as part of their layouts, AND for older ones being required to retrofit to that same end, but NOT in cases of stores that are too tiny to allow for wide aisles AND enough merchandise displays to be profitable... and besides, when they're forced out of business, people in wheelchairs have STILL been denied the ability to shop there, have they not? Along with everyone else. Not having some flexibility in the laws to allow for small stores is just outrageous, doubly so because this disproportionately targets stores in poor and minority areas of the city.
Another example was of an office building that had a sidewalk that was proclaimed too steep for wheelchair use; since they didn't want to pay to rip it out and replace it with another sort of sidewalk, and didn't have to do so because it wasn't the only way into the building, they just ripped it out and that was it, to the inconvenience of EVERYONE... including the one man in a wheelchair who worked in that building, who had been using the sidewalk just fine, and from then on had to go all the way around the building to use a different entrance. Needless to say, the enforcement of laws requiring handicapped access should NOT lead to an access to a building just being removed; what possible good could that ever do?
The grimmest example of the blind and foolish enforcement of these laws is at one of our local libraries. First, they demanded that the racks containing periodicals be lowered so that they were all reachable from a wheelchair, and no, it was NOT ok for them to have to ask for help getting things down; that sounded reasonable at first, but it turns out that the new rack positioning made many of the periodicals INaccessible to some of the senior citizens, who can't be expected to be squatting down... so now THEY have to sacrifice THEIR independence to ask for help reaching the materials. There's no point in robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the old saying goes; it's unfair to alter things to make them easier for people in wheelchairs to use but harder for some other group to use, especially a group that is less than perfectly able-bodied... it's a wonderful goal to want all wheelchair-bound folks to never have to ask for help, but other people would like to be independent too, and it's not right to take that from them just so that someone else can have it.
Next, they demanded that ALL of the restrooms be made handicapped-accessible, not just one; the resulting remodeling caused the bathrooms to take up far more floor space than they had before... which they accommodated by ripping out racks of books, to the loss of all. Since this library had NEVER had a patron in a wheelchair, perhaps it was a little much to require them to be able to accommodate a whole group of them all needing to use the restroom at once?
The worst was yet to come; the claim was made that IF someone in a wheelchair came to this library by bus, and IF they had a non-motorized wheelchair, they'd have difficulty making it up the ramp to the library. Again, they refused outright the idea of just letting someone help them; they demanded a wheelchair lift from street level up to the library level... and they got it, to the tune of $100,000 from the library's budget, and that's NOT a typo. What's even WORSE is, because of the issues of kids messing around with the lift, they had to make it so that the lift can NOT be controlled from street level; they would have to STILL call up to the library, a library staff member would STILL have to go down to help them, in this case by bringing a key to turn the lift on... and since this is NOT indicative of the person in the wheelchair acting totally independently, can you see any reason for the library to have lost out on $100,000 worth of books and other materials just so this theoretical person would have the staffer turn a key for them rather than give them a push?
Worst of all; the $100K lift, which continues to drain money from the library's budget for constant repairs and maintenance, has NEVER been used, not ONCE in the nearly a DECADE that it's been there; no handicapped patrons ever materialized to use it. To say that this has been a disgraceful misuse of the taxpayers' $ would be an understatement; for a tiny fraction of the $ wasted on this nightmare, they could have bought a van, hired a driver, and had him drive all over the city, picking up wheelchair-bound people and dropping them off right at the front door of the library... assuming they could have found any that cared to go there.
In general, we must OF COURSE find a way to get folks in wheelchairs into every building operated by any level of government, regardless of the geography of the surrounding land, but... if there had ever been a handicapped person trying to use that library, can you imagine them saying that it was worth all that loss of books to the many children and seniors who use that facility just so that the assistance they had to receive to get to the door was NOT in the form of their wheelchair being pushed?
I'm all for spending as much $ as it takes to do research that will lead to those with ANY handicap being helped, healed, or given more ability to get around and do things for themselves. I'm happy for tax dollars to go for the latest wheelchairs, customized vans, and special equipment to allow people with limited use of their limbs to get in and out of bed, the bathtub, whatever, without assistance... for virtually ANYTHING that will directly benefit them. Where I draw the line, and where I'm hoping we as a society will eventually insist on drawing the line, is at the point beyond which an insane amount of $, and/or the ruination of businesses, is required to get that last .001% of structures into compliance with the admittedly noble idea of making it possible for folks in wheelchairs to go everywhere, and without assistance; at that point, let us instead extend caring hands to those who need a little extra help, knowing that one day, when WE need help, it will be there for us.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
When is it cheating?
It never ceases to amaze me the ridiculous excuses people make to give themselves permission to get sexual gratification outside of their relationship without admitting that they're cheating:
1) It's only sex, not a relationship, so it's not cheating.
2) I don't love her/him, so it's not cheating.
3) It was only once, and it didn't mean anything, so it wasn't cheating.
4) It was with a hooker, so it wasn't cheating.
5) It was with someone of my same gender, so it wasn't cheating.
6) I was drunk, so it wasn't cheating.
7) I was out of town and lonely, so it wasn't cheating.
8) My partner was out of town, and I was lonely, so it wasn't cheating.
9) We had a fight, and we were sort of broken up, so it wasn't cheating.
10) We didn't mean it to happen, it just happened, so it wasn't cheating.
11) We didn't have intercourse, so it wasn't cheating.
12) "Eating isn't cheating."
13) We weren't naked, so it wasn't cheating.
14) I didn't come, so it wasn't cheating.
15) We didn't kiss, so it wasn't cheating.
16) All we did was kiss, so it wasn't cheating.
GUESS AGAIN.
Having ANY sort of sexual contact with another person is cheating, and "sexual contact" is any sort of physical contact you wouldn't have with your mother.
Is looking at porn cheating? No; cheating requires another human being to be directly involved, and images are just paper or pixels.
How about chatting and exchanging emails? No; talking isn't cheating in person, and it's not cheating using a computer.
How about calling a phone sex line? This is interacting with a human being with the intent of sexual arousal, but it's not actually having sex, so I'd say no... although I admit that there IS some gray area and valid cause for the partner to protest.
How about cyber? If it's with a stranger, hooked up with online just for both parties to get their thrills and then part company, I'd say it was the same as phone sex... BUT, if it's part of a developing relationship online, we have to understand that real feelings could result, and with those feelings would naturally come the desire to be together, which makes it the equivalent of having an affair... and that IS cheating.
What it boils down to is; if you did ANYTHING that you find yourself coming up with arguments about as to how it wasn't cheating... it probably WAS.
1) It's only sex, not a relationship, so it's not cheating.
2) I don't love her/him, so it's not cheating.
3) It was only once, and it didn't mean anything, so it wasn't cheating.
4) It was with a hooker, so it wasn't cheating.
5) It was with someone of my same gender, so it wasn't cheating.
6) I was drunk, so it wasn't cheating.
7) I was out of town and lonely, so it wasn't cheating.
8) My partner was out of town, and I was lonely, so it wasn't cheating.
9) We had a fight, and we were sort of broken up, so it wasn't cheating.
10) We didn't mean it to happen, it just happened, so it wasn't cheating.
11) We didn't have intercourse, so it wasn't cheating.
12) "Eating isn't cheating."
13) We weren't naked, so it wasn't cheating.
14) I didn't come, so it wasn't cheating.
15) We didn't kiss, so it wasn't cheating.
16) All we did was kiss, so it wasn't cheating.
GUESS AGAIN.
Having ANY sort of sexual contact with another person is cheating, and "sexual contact" is any sort of physical contact you wouldn't have with your mother.
Is looking at porn cheating? No; cheating requires another human being to be directly involved, and images are just paper or pixels.
How about chatting and exchanging emails? No; talking isn't cheating in person, and it's not cheating using a computer.
How about calling a phone sex line? This is interacting with a human being with the intent of sexual arousal, but it's not actually having sex, so I'd say no... although I admit that there IS some gray area and valid cause for the partner to protest.
How about cyber? If it's with a stranger, hooked up with online just for both parties to get their thrills and then part company, I'd say it was the same as phone sex... BUT, if it's part of a developing relationship online, we have to understand that real feelings could result, and with those feelings would naturally come the desire to be together, which makes it the equivalent of having an affair... and that IS cheating.
What it boils down to is; if you did ANYTHING that you find yourself coming up with arguments about as to how it wasn't cheating... it probably WAS.
