Saturday, January 22, 2005
Why does junk food taste so GOOD?!!
If healthy, low-calorie foods were tasty, there'd be no problems with weight in America, and we'd all be getting the full spectrum of nutrients with the attendant health benefits; sadly, these foods are NOT the best-tasting choices available, and in fact many of them taste downright BAD to people whose tastebuds are used to the yummiest stuff there is... junk food.
It's all the fault of our biology and our success as a species. We're genetically programmed to seek out and prefer to consume certain things:
1) Salt: crucial to survival but tricky to get enough of in a world without processed food and the Morton company, salt is so important that we have a whole set of tastebuds devoted to it, and the inborn urge to eagerly consume anything that tastes salty
2) Fat: since every gram of fat has 9 calories compared to only 4 for protein and carbs, fat was the best bet in the days when we had to forage and hunt in order to eat, and were often on the brink of starvation... it's also necessary for the absorption of certain nutrients, and that made it doubly necessary for us to slurp up any fatty foods we encountered
3) Sweetness: in the times before medical science and Imodium AD, the dreadful diarrhea that a person could get from eating UNripe fruit was no joke, especially for kids, who can become dangerously dehydrated very quickly... so, we have a set of tastebuds to alert us to sweetness, and a preference for sweet things, to predispose us to eat RIPE fruit, which is safe and healthy
Not coincidentally, modern foods that contain these 3 elements seem extra-tasty to us, and, also not coincidentally, these same things are the basis for all junk foods. Unfortunately, we do NOT have biological mechanisms for dealing with the excess consumption of foods full of fat, sugar and salt, and the omnipresence of food resulting from our astounding success as a species means that we can gorge ourselves on foods that nature never intended for us to eat in large quantities, or at all, and have all sorts of health problems as a result.
If science could figure out a way to make pizza, ice cream, chocolate and cheeseburgers taste bad, and broccoli, fish, rice cakes and spinach taste GOOD, we'd all be effortlessly thin and much healthier. I can't even imagine getting my nutrients from food instead of pills, or not being hungry all the time because the foods I liked weren't too high-calorie to eat more than a little bit of; it sounds like paradise, but... could there BE a paradise that didn't have cheesecake and Fritos?
It's all the fault of our biology and our success as a species. We're genetically programmed to seek out and prefer to consume certain things:
1) Salt: crucial to survival but tricky to get enough of in a world without processed food and the Morton company, salt is so important that we have a whole set of tastebuds devoted to it, and the inborn urge to eagerly consume anything that tastes salty
2) Fat: since every gram of fat has 9 calories compared to only 4 for protein and carbs, fat was the best bet in the days when we had to forage and hunt in order to eat, and were often on the brink of starvation... it's also necessary for the absorption of certain nutrients, and that made it doubly necessary for us to slurp up any fatty foods we encountered
3) Sweetness: in the times before medical science and Imodium AD, the dreadful diarrhea that a person could get from eating UNripe fruit was no joke, especially for kids, who can become dangerously dehydrated very quickly... so, we have a set of tastebuds to alert us to sweetness, and a preference for sweet things, to predispose us to eat RIPE fruit, which is safe and healthy
Not coincidentally, modern foods that contain these 3 elements seem extra-tasty to us, and, also not coincidentally, these same things are the basis for all junk foods. Unfortunately, we do NOT have biological mechanisms for dealing with the excess consumption of foods full of fat, sugar and salt, and the omnipresence of food resulting from our astounding success as a species means that we can gorge ourselves on foods that nature never intended for us to eat in large quantities, or at all, and have all sorts of health problems as a result.
If science could figure out a way to make pizza, ice cream, chocolate and cheeseburgers taste bad, and broccoli, fish, rice cakes and spinach taste GOOD, we'd all be effortlessly thin and much healthier. I can't even imagine getting my nutrients from food instead of pills, or not being hungry all the time because the foods I liked weren't too high-calorie to eat more than a little bit of; it sounds like paradise, but... could there BE a paradise that didn't have cheesecake and Fritos?
Friday, January 21, 2005
The irritating emailer RETURNS
I originally posted about him on 12-3-04; he's a depressed, lonely, friendless guy who I met on a forum and got buried in emails from... emails that went on and on and ON about his sad and boring life, and contained no inkling of interest in ME or in being my friend. Although this is typical of depressive behavior, and I know he doesn't know any better, and that no one else in the world was talking to him, and of course I felt sorry for him, I finally got fed up and pointed out the problems with our "relationship" and his behavior, and issued an ultimatum; change his ways or stop writing to me... with the expectation that he'd never write to me again. I didn't hear from him for a long while, and, as I posted on 1-11-05, I assumed that he HAD in fact gone stalking off to find new people to bore and alienate... but, to my amazement, he has written to me again!! :-O
It broke my heart a little to read his letter, because, although it's clear that part of him is still trying to believe that his behavior is ok and I'm an old meanie, he DID make what for him must be a gargantuan effort; he actually asked me a few things about myself, and did NOT add a monologue about his @#$%^&* woodworking projects. He's obviously desperate to hold onto the only person who's talked at length to him in who knows HOW long, but... but... but *I* really do NOT want to get caught up with him again, because he's like a black hole sucking up my time and energy, and even if he IS making an effort, he's still a bottomless pit of neediness and misery, and I already put in YEARS dealing with people like him, and... and... sigh.
It would be so easy to just brush him off, to block him from my inbox or tell him that I'm not willing to make any more effort for him, and no one who understood the situation could judge against me... but I just CAN'T. I'm not a wimp or a doormat, and I've got a titanium spine, but I KNOW what it's like to be all the way at rock bottom like he is, and I can tell him how to improve his situation if he'll listen to me, and it looks like he's willing to give it a try, and even to attempt to be a true friend to me, and... I can't turn my back on him. I can't reject someone in need who's shown a willingness to accept guidance on how to behave, even though it must hurt what little pride he still has; it just wouldn't be RIGHT, and I'm guessing that the karma would be especially bad.
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!
It broke my heart a little to read his letter, because, although it's clear that part of him is still trying to believe that his behavior is ok and I'm an old meanie, he DID make what for him must be a gargantuan effort; he actually asked me a few things about myself, and did NOT add a monologue about his @#$%^&* woodworking projects. He's obviously desperate to hold onto the only person who's talked at length to him in who knows HOW long, but... but... but *I* really do NOT want to get caught up with him again, because he's like a black hole sucking up my time and energy, and even if he IS making an effort, he's still a bottomless pit of neediness and misery, and I already put in YEARS dealing with people like him, and... and... sigh.
It would be so easy to just brush him off, to block him from my inbox or tell him that I'm not willing to make any more effort for him, and no one who understood the situation could judge against me... but I just CAN'T. I'm not a wimp or a doormat, and I've got a titanium spine, but I KNOW what it's like to be all the way at rock bottom like he is, and I can tell him how to improve his situation if he'll listen to me, and it looks like he's willing to give it a try, and even to attempt to be a true friend to me, and... I can't turn my back on him. I can't reject someone in need who's shown a willingness to accept guidance on how to behave, even though it must hurt what little pride he still has; it just wouldn't be RIGHT, and I'm guessing that the karma would be especially bad.
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The need for affection
If you've ever had pets, or watched the Discovery channel, you know that the higher mammals show affection to each other; male, female, young, old, they all do it, and the nuzzling, licking, and grooming allows them to form and maintain bonds with each other, bonds that are crucial to their survival. The most advanced mammals after us, the great apes, spend a great deal of their free time doing this sort of thing, and they're not doing it to impress the scientists watching them from the bushes; they do it because it's instinctive. So why don't WE act that way... don't WE have similar instincts?
Babies need affectionate touching so much that those that don't get any can suffer from "failure to thrive"; it's as if something in their tiny bodies decides that there must not be anyone taking care of them, and shuts them down. Little kids are always wanting to be picked up, held, sit in your lap, get in bed with any family member, hug, kiss, or just hang on to someone's hand or leg... kinda sounds like we DO have the same instincts, doesn't it?
So, what happens to us? Once a child gets past a certain age, we start telling them that they're "too big" to be picked up, or sit in a lap, or do any of the other perfectly natural affectionate things that they were doing before, and from then on we train our kids to touch, and ask to be touched, less and less... until, one sad day, the instinct dies out, and they don't even want to be hugged or kissed good-bye anymore, and that's about it for physical affection until they're old enough for their hormones to kick in.
The sexual instinct is VERY strong, and, because sex is physical, it indirectly satisfies much or our natural desire for affection, so affection for its own sake all too often becomes a distant memory; using sex as the only form of meaningful contact among adults is NOT one of the better aspects of "civilization," let's face it. We HAVE gotten better in recent years, as there's alot more hugging and even kissing between friends than there used to be... at least, there has been when at least one of the friends is a woman-men are still too afraid of the stigma of homosexuality to show each other affection in any way other than punching each other's shoulders. Still, we're a long, LONG way from the level of friendly interaction that many animals enjoy; doesn't it seem like life would be happier if we COULD hang out in groups and all show open affection for each other?
Would it be so hard to show a little bit more affection for our loved ones, and even our "liked ones"? Being less eager to teach kids to be stiff and serious rather than to seek closeness would help, too. Elderly people who no longer have spouses are often starved for touch, especially if they rarely see their family; the sorry treatment of our elderly people in America is a whole other rant, so suffice it to say that you can give a REAL boost to any senior citizen that you care about by giving them some hugs (but don't force kids to hug an unfamiliar relative if they're uncomfortable doing so-that's not fair). If you have a romantic partner, affection can seem like a ticking time bomb that can explode into sexual contact at any moment; since affectionate couples tend to be happier, agree to start cuddling more for cuddling's sake... and, if you have kids, make sure they see some of this going on, so that it'll seem like the "right" way to have a relationship, which of course it IS.
Affection can't be automated, mechanized, computerized, digitized, processed, packaged, preserved, or done more quickly and efficiently; that's what makes it so lovely. Can we take a break from our desire for instant gratification and our passion for technical gadgets and try to fan the flame of our instinctive desire for affection? I dunno; I'll try it if you will.
Babies need affectionate touching so much that those that don't get any can suffer from "failure to thrive"; it's as if something in their tiny bodies decides that there must not be anyone taking care of them, and shuts them down. Little kids are always wanting to be picked up, held, sit in your lap, get in bed with any family member, hug, kiss, or just hang on to someone's hand or leg... kinda sounds like we DO have the same instincts, doesn't it?
So, what happens to us? Once a child gets past a certain age, we start telling them that they're "too big" to be picked up, or sit in a lap, or do any of the other perfectly natural affectionate things that they were doing before, and from then on we train our kids to touch, and ask to be touched, less and less... until, one sad day, the instinct dies out, and they don't even want to be hugged or kissed good-bye anymore, and that's about it for physical affection until they're old enough for their hormones to kick in.
The sexual instinct is VERY strong, and, because sex is physical, it indirectly satisfies much or our natural desire for affection, so affection for its own sake all too often becomes a distant memory; using sex as the only form of meaningful contact among adults is NOT one of the better aspects of "civilization," let's face it. We HAVE gotten better in recent years, as there's alot more hugging and even kissing between friends than there used to be... at least, there has been when at least one of the friends is a woman-men are still too afraid of the stigma of homosexuality to show each other affection in any way other than punching each other's shoulders. Still, we're a long, LONG way from the level of friendly interaction that many animals enjoy; doesn't it seem like life would be happier if we COULD hang out in groups and all show open affection for each other?
Would it be so hard to show a little bit more affection for our loved ones, and even our "liked ones"? Being less eager to teach kids to be stiff and serious rather than to seek closeness would help, too. Elderly people who no longer have spouses are often starved for touch, especially if they rarely see their family; the sorry treatment of our elderly people in America is a whole other rant, so suffice it to say that you can give a REAL boost to any senior citizen that you care about by giving them some hugs (but don't force kids to hug an unfamiliar relative if they're uncomfortable doing so-that's not fair). If you have a romantic partner, affection can seem like a ticking time bomb that can explode into sexual contact at any moment; since affectionate couples tend to be happier, agree to start cuddling more for cuddling's sake... and, if you have kids, make sure they see some of this going on, so that it'll seem like the "right" way to have a relationship, which of course it IS.
Affection can't be automated, mechanized, computerized, digitized, processed, packaged, preserved, or done more quickly and efficiently; that's what makes it so lovely. Can we take a break from our desire for instant gratification and our passion for technical gadgets and try to fan the flame of our instinctive desire for affection? I dunno; I'll try it if you will.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Adoption
In America, we have many thousands of kids waiting to be adopted, and many thousands of people who want to adopt; is there any sane reason why these 2 groups can't be joined together, getting those poor kids out of grim government facilities and into loving homes?
You hear alot about how this or that thing that's currently run by some level of gov't should be privatized... but can you think of anything more important than our nation's children? It just wouldn't be possible for any company or group of people to do a WORSE job with adoptions than is currently being done, so how about giving some folks with an ounce of common sense the opportunity to wipe out the endless and difficult process currently in place and come up with a way for parents and kids to hook up before the kids are too OLD to be adopted any more?
Prospective parents would of course still need to be checked out, but some of the current disqualifiers should be eliminated, so that every possible non-criminal person who wanted to adopt could do so:
1) Single parents; this one has already been eliminated in some areas, but should be eliminated in ALL states... while few people would deny that a child would be better off with 2 parents instead of one, no one can deny that one parent is FAR better than NONE.
2) Age; as long as it's reasonably certain that the parents would live long enough to take the child to adulthood, and are healthy enough to care for a young child if that's what they're asking for, where's the problem? My husband's mother was past 50 when he was adopted as an infant (illegally, of course, given the laws), with his father a little younger, and he received a perfect, golden childhood... the best of anyone I've ever known.
3) Race; yes, it's a nice idea for children to be raised by people of the same race, so that they can learn about their heritage, but the sad truth is that there are far too few non-white people trying to adopt kids in this country, and so a minority child is much more likely than a white child to never get adopted... a particularly cruel form of racism. The point has been made that there are kids matched with parents of races other than theirs who have done things that show that they want to be the same race as their parents, with the conclusion drawn being that such mixed-race adoptions are "bad," and thus that parents should only get kids of their same race, but I've read about white-looking multi-racial kids trying to color their skin with their markers to look like the non-white parent, and we certainly wouldn't dare say that those kids shouldn't be with THEIR parents, so, again, you have to think of the non-existent ideal parents vs NO parents, and let white people adopt non-white kids... especially in the case of the aforementioned multi-racial kids, as most non-white parents won't take a multi-racial child.
4) Sexual orientation; I know, some people claim that gay parents could somehow "make" a child gay, but, if parents could "program" kids with their orientation, how do you explain that nearly all gay kids have 2 STRAIGHT parents, but weren't "programmed" by THEM? Gay parents are every bit as loving as straight parents, and there's no evidence that they EVER try to force their kids to be gay... in fact, the only parents that I've ever heard of that actually try to force an orientation on kids are STRAIGHT parents.
5) People who can't take multiple siblings; yes, it's preferable for siblings to stay together, but all too often they're together at an orphanage because so few people can take in several kids at once, and that's NOT in their best interests. There should certainly be requirements for the kids to be allowed to keep in touch and see each other, which is more than they usually get if they get farmed out to foster homes, but beyond that they should be given the same chance at adoption as singleton orphans.
So, what's left to cause a potential parent to be turned down? As long as they don't have criminal records, aren't living in absolute poverty, don't appear to be hoping to get a child that can work for them for free (I've read about some unscrupulous farm families adopting older boys for this purpose, grrrrrrr), and don't have anything about them that would make it seem as if they couldn't properly care for a child, such as severe mental illness, they should be cleared to adopt, and how long could checking this stuff take? Certainly not YEARS, which is how long the wait usually is to be allowed to adopt currently. Once they were cleared, they'd obviously still have to wait if they wanted a healthy white infant, as the supply is far less than the demand, but if, as is often the case, they'll take children from a wide range of ages, races and even health problems, they should be able to start the selection process right away.
This is the richest country in the world, and NO child should be stuck in an orphanage or foster home as long as there are people who can afford to adopt who wish to do so; it'd sure be nice if some of the politicians who talk big about valuing children and family got together and DID something about all this, wouldn't it?
You hear alot about how this or that thing that's currently run by some level of gov't should be privatized... but can you think of anything more important than our nation's children? It just wouldn't be possible for any company or group of people to do a WORSE job with adoptions than is currently being done, so how about giving some folks with an ounce of common sense the opportunity to wipe out the endless and difficult process currently in place and come up with a way for parents and kids to hook up before the kids are too OLD to be adopted any more?
Prospective parents would of course still need to be checked out, but some of the current disqualifiers should be eliminated, so that every possible non-criminal person who wanted to adopt could do so:
1) Single parents; this one has already been eliminated in some areas, but should be eliminated in ALL states... while few people would deny that a child would be better off with 2 parents instead of one, no one can deny that one parent is FAR better than NONE.
2) Age; as long as it's reasonably certain that the parents would live long enough to take the child to adulthood, and are healthy enough to care for a young child if that's what they're asking for, where's the problem? My husband's mother was past 50 when he was adopted as an infant (illegally, of course, given the laws), with his father a little younger, and he received a perfect, golden childhood... the best of anyone I've ever known.
3) Race; yes, it's a nice idea for children to be raised by people of the same race, so that they can learn about their heritage, but the sad truth is that there are far too few non-white people trying to adopt kids in this country, and so a minority child is much more likely than a white child to never get adopted... a particularly cruel form of racism. The point has been made that there are kids matched with parents of races other than theirs who have done things that show that they want to be the same race as their parents, with the conclusion drawn being that such mixed-race adoptions are "bad," and thus that parents should only get kids of their same race, but I've read about white-looking multi-racial kids trying to color their skin with their markers to look like the non-white parent, and we certainly wouldn't dare say that those kids shouldn't be with THEIR parents, so, again, you have to think of the non-existent ideal parents vs NO parents, and let white people adopt non-white kids... especially in the case of the aforementioned multi-racial kids, as most non-white parents won't take a multi-racial child.
4) Sexual orientation; I know, some people claim that gay parents could somehow "make" a child gay, but, if parents could "program" kids with their orientation, how do you explain that nearly all gay kids have 2 STRAIGHT parents, but weren't "programmed" by THEM? Gay parents are every bit as loving as straight parents, and there's no evidence that they EVER try to force their kids to be gay... in fact, the only parents that I've ever heard of that actually try to force an orientation on kids are STRAIGHT parents.
5) People who can't take multiple siblings; yes, it's preferable for siblings to stay together, but all too often they're together at an orphanage because so few people can take in several kids at once, and that's NOT in their best interests. There should certainly be requirements for the kids to be allowed to keep in touch and see each other, which is more than they usually get if they get farmed out to foster homes, but beyond that they should be given the same chance at adoption as singleton orphans.
So, what's left to cause a potential parent to be turned down? As long as they don't have criminal records, aren't living in absolute poverty, don't appear to be hoping to get a child that can work for them for free (I've read about some unscrupulous farm families adopting older boys for this purpose, grrrrrrr), and don't have anything about them that would make it seem as if they couldn't properly care for a child, such as severe mental illness, they should be cleared to adopt, and how long could checking this stuff take? Certainly not YEARS, which is how long the wait usually is to be allowed to adopt currently. Once they were cleared, they'd obviously still have to wait if they wanted a healthy white infant, as the supply is far less than the demand, but if, as is often the case, they'll take children from a wide range of ages, races and even health problems, they should be able to start the selection process right away.
This is the richest country in the world, and NO child should be stuck in an orphanage or foster home as long as there are people who can afford to adopt who wish to do so; it'd sure be nice if some of the politicians who talk big about valuing children and family got together and DID something about all this, wouldn't it?
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
An odd marital moment
My husband is the sort of man who can take apart and repair complex mechanisms (and even get them put back together most of the time) withOUT the benefit of training or manuals; he just opens things up, takes a look, and figures it out. This exact same man, when faced with a bathroom counter, and the handful of doodads that customarily go there (soap dispenser, tissue holder, etc), is utterly incapable of coming up with ANY reasonable arrangement of the latter on the former, despite having seen such an arrangement 20 times a day for YEARS. He'll put the items down at random in the available space, and then claim that he thought he'd "done it right," despite the fact that the soap is so far away from the sink that no one wanting to wash their hands could reach it, the lotion dispenser's spout is turned into the wall so that no lotion can be extracted without moving it, or all of it is just sitting in a ragged clump in the middle of the bare space, as if attractive placement didn't exist on his planet. For the benefit of the unmarried women, allow me to add here that this is a standard male tactic to keep from having to do part of a task, and, if he's lucky, to be excused from doing ANY of said task in the future; I'm an old hand at dealing with this one, so I'm not fooled, but I was unable to overcome having to take MY time to help him finish up with the bathroom cleaning... until today.
Taking advantage of the bathroom being clean due to the recent visit of a friend, I told him to bring his digital camera in there tonight after dinner; while he fetched it, I meticulously arranged all the doodads in the exact positions and orientations they should ideally be in. Once he was in the room with me, I told him to take photos of every bit of the counter area, from every reasonable angle, so that, the next time he had to clean the bathroom, he'd be able to put everything back where it belongs... and have no further excuses to NOT do it right. Amused at being outmanuevered, he took the photos, and we discussed what sort of printouts he should make; I've gotta remember to get a photo of him in there cleaning with the doodad diagrams taped to the wall for him to refer to, hehehehehe.
Shortly thereafter, he was sitting on the throne, and I went in there to talk to him... yeah, I know, that's sort of gross, and I'd NEVER have thought in a million years that I'd be in the bathroom with someone who was, er, doing that, and I myself always have the bathroom door closed and locked when I'M in there, with barbed wire strung up and a guard dog stationed outside... no, not really, but I would if I could, as I'm NOT the sort of person who accepts company while performing bathroom functions... then again, neither was my husband before we met, lol... um, anyways, I was in there talking to him, and I noticed that the camera was still in there. While he was on the throne. And an idea came to me.
I asked if I could take some photos too, and of course he said yes, so I asked to be shown how to use the camera; once he fooled around with some controls (don't ask, I don't know), all he had to do was show me which of the dozen or so buttons was the right one to push, and explain how to get the autofocus to work. So, I'm holding the camera up to my eye, pointing it at random walls, and reporting on the green #'s, black circle, and red flash that I'm seeing, and he's trying to explain what all of it is... and meanwhile, I'm backing away from him. When I judged I was far enough back, I engaged the autofocus, swung the camera to point at HIM, and CLICK, captured him in all his glory on... well, it's not film, of course, but whatever that thing is in there that pics get recorded on.
I howled in laughter at his belated protest, and he was laughing too because of how I GOT HIM. He showed me the pic, and, figuring I could do better, I took back the camera, told him to smile, and took some more photos of him with a wide and toothy grin on his face. He joked about deleting them all, but ended up promising to print them out for me; since this is the same man who, after an innocent question from me years ago about whether the scanner he had then could be used to scan his butt, demonstrated that yes, it COULD, and printed THAT out, I'm reasonably sure he'll do it. What would be even funnier would be if I could get him to Photoshop in a Santa hat on his head, and presto, there'd be our Christmas card for 2005.
Many years ago, when the first of my friends to marry would tell me about stuff that had gone on with her and her husband, my reply would typically be, "That's GROSS!! Marriage is GROSS!! I'm NEVER getting married!!" As the saying goes, never say never, because now I'M the one with the stories to gross people out with... and I've discovered that it's just this sort of thing that makes marriage FUN. You won't see that in any of the relationship self-help books, but believe me, it's true; if you can be gross with a person, you're probably in synch enough to have a solid relationship. Or, you're both out of your minds; take your pick.
Taking advantage of the bathroom being clean due to the recent visit of a friend, I told him to bring his digital camera in there tonight after dinner; while he fetched it, I meticulously arranged all the doodads in the exact positions and orientations they should ideally be in. Once he was in the room with me, I told him to take photos of every bit of the counter area, from every reasonable angle, so that, the next time he had to clean the bathroom, he'd be able to put everything back where it belongs... and have no further excuses to NOT do it right. Amused at being outmanuevered, he took the photos, and we discussed what sort of printouts he should make; I've gotta remember to get a photo of him in there cleaning with the doodad diagrams taped to the wall for him to refer to, hehehehehe.
Shortly thereafter, he was sitting on the throne, and I went in there to talk to him... yeah, I know, that's sort of gross, and I'd NEVER have thought in a million years that I'd be in the bathroom with someone who was, er, doing that, and I myself always have the bathroom door closed and locked when I'M in there, with barbed wire strung up and a guard dog stationed outside... no, not really, but I would if I could, as I'm NOT the sort of person who accepts company while performing bathroom functions... then again, neither was my husband before we met, lol... um, anyways, I was in there talking to him, and I noticed that the camera was still in there. While he was on the throne. And an idea came to me.
I asked if I could take some photos too, and of course he said yes, so I asked to be shown how to use the camera; once he fooled around with some controls (don't ask, I don't know), all he had to do was show me which of the dozen or so buttons was the right one to push, and explain how to get the autofocus to work. So, I'm holding the camera up to my eye, pointing it at random walls, and reporting on the green #'s, black circle, and red flash that I'm seeing, and he's trying to explain what all of it is... and meanwhile, I'm backing away from him. When I judged I was far enough back, I engaged the autofocus, swung the camera to point at HIM, and CLICK, captured him in all his glory on... well, it's not film, of course, but whatever that thing is in there that pics get recorded on.
I howled in laughter at his belated protest, and he was laughing too because of how I GOT HIM. He showed me the pic, and, figuring I could do better, I took back the camera, told him to smile, and took some more photos of him with a wide and toothy grin on his face. He joked about deleting them all, but ended up promising to print them out for me; since this is the same man who, after an innocent question from me years ago about whether the scanner he had then could be used to scan his butt, demonstrated that yes, it COULD, and printed THAT out, I'm reasonably sure he'll do it. What would be even funnier would be if I could get him to Photoshop in a Santa hat on his head, and presto, there'd be our Christmas card for 2005.
Many years ago, when the first of my friends to marry would tell me about stuff that had gone on with her and her husband, my reply would typically be, "That's GROSS!! Marriage is GROSS!! I'm NEVER getting married!!" As the saying goes, never say never, because now I'M the one with the stories to gross people out with... and I've discovered that it's just this sort of thing that makes marriage FUN. You won't see that in any of the relationship self-help books, but believe me, it's true; if you can be gross with a person, you're probably in synch enough to have a solid relationship. Or, you're both out of your minds; take your pick.
Monday, January 17, 2005
The healing power of friendship
Do you remember Lifesaver "books," boxes of rolls of Lifesavers candy inexplicably designed to look like chunky little books? I remember the 1st time I got one as a gift, as the result of a gift exchange at school (I think it was 2nd grade); I was so happy and excited to have this little hoard of candy all for myself (I was only rarely allowed to have even a single piece of candy)... that is, until I got it home, and my father threw it out. ALL of it. I didn't get a single roll, I didn't get a single PIECE; it went right in the trash, still sealed in its plastic... yes, sadly, it hadn't occurred to me to open it up and have any, as I hadn't yet learned how to outwit my parents where treats were concerned. Come to think of it, if I HAD thought to open the candy instead of waiting until after dinner to have sweets, I'd probably have been unable to resist having several pieces, and who knows what sort of wrath would have descended on me for THAT hideous crime; I suppose that's the silver lining, although it wouldn't have seemed like much of one at the time.
I received Lifesavers books several other times; once, it was at my birthday party, and that one was in the trash before the last guest's mom had pulled away from the curb, but the other 2 were at other gift exchanges, and I swapped them for non-food gifts with kids with less psychotic parents. I can still see their faces, and the faces of the teachers, when I explained WHY I was trying to get someone to trade with me; the shock with which my father's cruelty was greeted provided me with proof that he really WAS acting in a way far different than a normal father, and this understanding, combined with others garnered from people's reactions to other sick behaviors of his, kept me from falling into the common trap of assuming that I, the child, was the "abnormal" one for seeing my parents as being bad people... and there's another silver lining.
Everyone who's ever heard this story has naturally reacted with disgust and outrage, but to one particular friend, whose terrific parents would never have even contemplated taking something harmless like a box of candy away from her, this theft became symbolic of everything that was taken away from me, or just never given to me, throughout my childhood, and she decided to make it her personal goal to make it up to me; at least once a year since she first heard this story over a decade ago, she has given me a Lifesavers book. I don't know where she finds them, because I've never seen them for sale anywhere since I was a kid, but she manages every year without fail... and she always makes the point that it's to make up for the candy that was taken from me.
THAT is what true friendship looks like... and yes, the fact that someone cares enough to make that sort of effort for me IS healing, even though it's in reference to an objectively minor thing like candy.
Now here's the part of the story that my friend doesn't know; although ANY candy was heaven on Earth to me as a kid, after a couple of decades of being able to have as much candy as I want, I find the basic-flavor Lifesavers that get put in those books to be vaguely icky, and certainly not worth wasting my carefully-rationed calories on... so, although I express heartfelt gratitude each time she presents me with the candy, I don't actually eat any of it-I pass it along to the kids and grandkids of my neighbors. My not being able to actually eat the candy in no way reduces my pleasure in receiving it, or my appreciation for her efforts or her kindness; this lady has taught me, in a way no one else will ever match, that it really IS the thought that counts.
I received Lifesavers books several other times; once, it was at my birthday party, and that one was in the trash before the last guest's mom had pulled away from the curb, but the other 2 were at other gift exchanges, and I swapped them for non-food gifts with kids with less psychotic parents. I can still see their faces, and the faces of the teachers, when I explained WHY I was trying to get someone to trade with me; the shock with which my father's cruelty was greeted provided me with proof that he really WAS acting in a way far different than a normal father, and this understanding, combined with others garnered from people's reactions to other sick behaviors of his, kept me from falling into the common trap of assuming that I, the child, was the "abnormal" one for seeing my parents as being bad people... and there's another silver lining.
Everyone who's ever heard this story has naturally reacted with disgust and outrage, but to one particular friend, whose terrific parents would never have even contemplated taking something harmless like a box of candy away from her, this theft became symbolic of everything that was taken away from me, or just never given to me, throughout my childhood, and she decided to make it her personal goal to make it up to me; at least once a year since she first heard this story over a decade ago, she has given me a Lifesavers book. I don't know where she finds them, because I've never seen them for sale anywhere since I was a kid, but she manages every year without fail... and she always makes the point that it's to make up for the candy that was taken from me.
THAT is what true friendship looks like... and yes, the fact that someone cares enough to make that sort of effort for me IS healing, even though it's in reference to an objectively minor thing like candy.
Now here's the part of the story that my friend doesn't know; although ANY candy was heaven on Earth to me as a kid, after a couple of decades of being able to have as much candy as I want, I find the basic-flavor Lifesavers that get put in those books to be vaguely icky, and certainly not worth wasting my carefully-rationed calories on... so, although I express heartfelt gratitude each time she presents me with the candy, I don't actually eat any of it-I pass it along to the kids and grandkids of my neighbors. My not being able to actually eat the candy in no way reduces my pleasure in receiving it, or my appreciation for her efforts or her kindness; this lady has taught me, in a way no one else will ever match, that it really IS the thought that counts.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
A sad lesson from TV
I missed alot of the sitcoms that ran while I was growing up, because my parents dictated what was on TV and they weren't interested for the most part; as a result, I never saw "Full House" until recently, when it started coming on late at night when I was on the computer in the family room. I'd heard about it, though, and it was always described as being so wholesome and clean-cut that it was almost sickening; having seen a fair chunk of episodes now, I have to agree for the most part... and that makes one element of the show particularly dismaying.
There's a girl in the show, Kimmy, who's always dressed a little oddly, and says some strange things, and is thus set up to be "weird"; despite this, she's the best friend of the oldest girl of the family, DJ. Since the latter is beautiful, the friendship is totally unrealistic, but that's not where the real problem is; the problem is that, in this family where everyone is supposed to be so sweet and sensitive and nice all the time:
1) The kids trash-talk Kimmy behind her back, and the adults not only don't correct them, they AGREE, and laugh along.
2) The kids trash-talk Kimmy TO HER FACE, and the adults not only don't correct them, they AGREE, and laugh along.
3) The ADULTS trash-talk Kimmy behind her back, even in front of the kids, for whom they SHOULD be setting a good example.
4) The adults trash-talk Kimmy TO HER FACE, as if part of being a paragon of virtue is picking on a CHILD.
I don't know what horrifies me more; that the writers for the show felt that it was perfectly fine to portray all the members of this idealized family as gleefully joining forces to mistreat Kimmy, or that, in all the many reviews and mentions I've seen of this show, not one person ever made reference to it, much less pointed out that it's just plain WRONG.
There's an echo of this attitude in an otherwise excellent show, "Everybody Loves Raymond"; the older brother, Robert, is always treated like dirt by the parents, because Raymond is the favored son by a WIDE margin... and this is always portrayed as something we're supposed to be AMUSED by, rather than something we should feel bad about. Robert is always shown as being VERY hurt, and looking miserable, from his parent's behavior, and he's a sweet and kind person, so, even though he's an adult who could choose to absent himself from the situation rather than a little girl who'd have to give up her best friend to escape being sniped at, it's STILL a grim commentary on our culture that people think this is FUNNY.
A kid looks and acts a little "off," so that makes it ok, and entertaining, for everyone around her to ridicule her? A man is unusually tall and a little shy and awkward, and thus his parents treat him like something the department of health found lurking behind a garbage pail, and THAT'S supposed to be ok and entertaining? What does it take to get it through people's heads that weirdo-baiting is NOT a sport, and that it's just as cruel to laugh at that as it would be to laugh if someone was teased or slighted for any other reason?
What lesson do kids learn from watching this sort of thing going on on TV... especially if their parents are laughing?
There's a girl in the show, Kimmy, who's always dressed a little oddly, and says some strange things, and is thus set up to be "weird"; despite this, she's the best friend of the oldest girl of the family, DJ. Since the latter is beautiful, the friendship is totally unrealistic, but that's not where the real problem is; the problem is that, in this family where everyone is supposed to be so sweet and sensitive and nice all the time:
1) The kids trash-talk Kimmy behind her back, and the adults not only don't correct them, they AGREE, and laugh along.
2) The kids trash-talk Kimmy TO HER FACE, and the adults not only don't correct them, they AGREE, and laugh along.
3) The ADULTS trash-talk Kimmy behind her back, even in front of the kids, for whom they SHOULD be setting a good example.
4) The adults trash-talk Kimmy TO HER FACE, as if part of being a paragon of virtue is picking on a CHILD.
I don't know what horrifies me more; that the writers for the show felt that it was perfectly fine to portray all the members of this idealized family as gleefully joining forces to mistreat Kimmy, or that, in all the many reviews and mentions I've seen of this show, not one person ever made reference to it, much less pointed out that it's just plain WRONG.
There's an echo of this attitude in an otherwise excellent show, "Everybody Loves Raymond"; the older brother, Robert, is always treated like dirt by the parents, because Raymond is the favored son by a WIDE margin... and this is always portrayed as something we're supposed to be AMUSED by, rather than something we should feel bad about. Robert is always shown as being VERY hurt, and looking miserable, from his parent's behavior, and he's a sweet and kind person, so, even though he's an adult who could choose to absent himself from the situation rather than a little girl who'd have to give up her best friend to escape being sniped at, it's STILL a grim commentary on our culture that people think this is FUNNY.
A kid looks and acts a little "off," so that makes it ok, and entertaining, for everyone around her to ridicule her? A man is unusually tall and a little shy and awkward, and thus his parents treat him like something the department of health found lurking behind a garbage pail, and THAT'S supposed to be ok and entertaining? What does it take to get it through people's heads that weirdo-baiting is NOT a sport, and that it's just as cruel to laugh at that as it would be to laugh if someone was teased or slighted for any other reason?
What lesson do kids learn from watching this sort of thing going on on TV... especially if their parents are laughing?
