Saturday, July 09, 2005
Relationship weirdness
I saw an episode of "Babylon 5" a couple of days ago, in which the beautiful telepath got onto the elevator with the guy who's hot for her; we can see that he's thinking lewd thoughts, and that she's picking up on them... and then she elbows him hard in the middle, doubling him over. The elevator reaches her floor, and she sweeps out the door without glancing at him; he, still doubled over with his eyes bugging out, clutches the edge of the door, watching her go, and croaks out, "I think I'm in LOVE!!"
You probably guessed before you read the punchline that his interest in her escalated after she injured him... but WHY did you guess that, WHY would we assume that a man's interest in a woman would INcrease after she assaulted him, when logically he SHOULD have lost all interest and branded her a psycho?
A friend of mine has been eager to date a woman he's worked with for several years; during all that time, she's been with the same boyfriend, who she constantly weeps and wails is mistreating her... clinging onto my friend for support, of course, even though he's made it clear that he wants to be with her and not just be her shoulder to cry on. Did you even BLINK when you read that that woman stayed year after year with a man who mistreated her? Very unlikely. But, shouldn't it be a SHOCK that any human being would stay with an unpleasant partner, especially when they have someone nice they could switch right over to?
The common point between these 2 stories is adrenaline, the chemical responsible for excitement; someone who acts in unexpected and extreme ways fills us with it (especially when it's a woman taking intense physical action, as that suggests sexual passion to a man), as does someone who's not treating us the way we think they should, and is thus beyond our control and understanding (uncertainty is one of the most powerful forces in inducing, guess what, passion). This is why we're so often uninterested in the sweet and decent people that we and our future offspring would be best served by our hooking up with; the adrenaline effect is one of the many twisted and counterintuitive aspects of human nature that favors the uncaring, rotten and worthless people in the world over those who are kind, dependable, and strive for virtue.
Sucks, doesn't it?
You probably guessed before you read the punchline that his interest in her escalated after she injured him... but WHY did you guess that, WHY would we assume that a man's interest in a woman would INcrease after she assaulted him, when logically he SHOULD have lost all interest and branded her a psycho?
A friend of mine has been eager to date a woman he's worked with for several years; during all that time, she's been with the same boyfriend, who she constantly weeps and wails is mistreating her... clinging onto my friend for support, of course, even though he's made it clear that he wants to be with her and not just be her shoulder to cry on. Did you even BLINK when you read that that woman stayed year after year with a man who mistreated her? Very unlikely. But, shouldn't it be a SHOCK that any human being would stay with an unpleasant partner, especially when they have someone nice they could switch right over to?
The common point between these 2 stories is adrenaline, the chemical responsible for excitement; someone who acts in unexpected and extreme ways fills us with it (especially when it's a woman taking intense physical action, as that suggests sexual passion to a man), as does someone who's not treating us the way we think they should, and is thus beyond our control and understanding (uncertainty is one of the most powerful forces in inducing, guess what, passion). This is why we're so often uninterested in the sweet and decent people that we and our future offspring would be best served by our hooking up with; the adrenaline effect is one of the many twisted and counterintuitive aspects of human nature that favors the uncaring, rotten and worthless people in the world over those who are kind, dependable, and strive for virtue.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Friday, July 08, 2005
What makes a "real blog"?
I used quotes because, really, it's pretty arrogant for anyone to suggest that THEY have the final word as to what's a "real" blog and what isn't... especially since their parameters are always, noncoincidentally, whatever they themselves are using on their own blogs.
Things that people have posted are necessary for a blog to be a "real blog" include:
1) Commenting
2) Trackbacks
3) Email addy for the blogger(s)
4) The real name(s) of the blogger(s)
5) Photo(s) of the blogger(s)
6) A PHONE # for the blogger(s) (in caps because the idea of giving random, and often hostile, strangers one's home phone # online makes my head spin)
Some people think that only one of the above is necessary (which one the magic one is varies), some insist that multiple items are necessary, and some think that most or ALL of those things are necessary... despite the fact that only a VERY tiny % of blogs could qualify, since, even if we ignore the extreme of the phone #, very few blogs contain a full name (and of course it's reasonable to assume that many of the ones that do are fakes, since we know how rare genuine personal info is online), and plenty of people who do allow for interactivity of some degree don't have all 3 kinds.
I looked through some online dictionaries, and the consensus is that a blog is just a site with dated entries, with NO other requirements; I'm sure that some dictionary I didn't get to says differently, and in general we could validly ask "but what do THEY know about it anyways?", but the point is that those bloggers who try to make it sound like "everyone" agrees that a "real blog" has anything OTHER than dated entries are demonstrably wrong, regardless of what they think the real-blog requirements are.
Commenting is the thing most often trumpeted as a requirement, and it puzzles me no end; if a blogger's stuff was put in a magazine article or book instead of online, people wouldn't be claiming that they should be allowed to include their input, or even that they'd like to be able to, so what is it about something being posted online that makes people wild to add their 2¢, and certain of their right to do so? If reading a blog entry gives you ideas that you'd like to share, why not just post them on your own blog; why is it so important to you that the total stranger who posted the original entry, and their readers (who are also strangers), see what you have to say on the topic? I'm not saying that you shouldn't leave comments if there's a way to, and in fact I think it's a good idea to leave a comment at any blog you enjoy if you can, just to give the blogger a well-deserved boost, but if a blogger has no way to get your input... SO WHAT? Why does anyone give this 1 second of thought, much less see it as so important that it HAS to be available?
This must be one of those human nature things that doesn't apply to me, because no one has been able to make me see it; in any case, my position is that a blog with comments, and/or any of the other things on the list, does NOT cease to be a "real blog" if those things are removed, and something that's NOT a blog doesn't suddenly become a blog if those things are added on. If, IF, there's anything other than dated entries that I'd say makes something a "real blog," it's...
Do you know what I'm about to say, or has the blogosphere gotten so bogged down with self-proclaimed experts dictating how a blog has to be set up that it's not obvious what a site actually needs OTHER than a string of dates with some non-zero amount of stuff below each one?
Oh please, let it be unnecessary for me to say; content.
As I posted on 4-24-05, there's an alarming # of companies using blogs to post lists of links to sites where products or services can be purchased, and an increasing # of blogs being used for students and teachers to exchange info (a virtuous use, of course), and also as the latest way to display porn (somewhat less virtuous, and sometimes disgustingly NON-virtuous); I'd say that this sort of thing does NOT constitute "real blog content," and thus that a case can be made that these aren't "real blogs."
Few people would argue with that, except maybe those who REALLY prefer form over substance (as those sorts of "blogs" often DO have things like commenting, email addies and real names used), so does it really need to be said? How about this, then: I'll go out on a limb and add that sites that are a substitute for, or an adjunct to, corporate or political-candidate websites shouldn't necessarily be called "real blogs" just because their content has been broken up into dated entries.
I'll go even farther out on a limb and say that most of the gigantic political blogs are actually political discussion forums, not "real blogs," for all that they're using dated entries rather than an actual forum layout... and they'd be FAR easier to use if they WERE laid out as forums rather than as an endless list of posts, which I think is meaningful.
So, now we have a 2-part "requirement" for a "real blog"; a site with dated entries containing "real content" that's suited to the dated-entry format, and not just shoehorned or spread out into it. I think it's reasonable, realistic and fair... but I don't see it as other than my OPINION, and I'm not going to insist that this is the ultimate, only or definitive definition, or go around posting to people that their blogs aren't "real blogs" because they don't happen to be handling their sites the way I handle mine or to suit my preferences.
And neither should anyone else.
Things that people have posted are necessary for a blog to be a "real blog" include:
1) Commenting
2) Trackbacks
3) Email addy for the blogger(s)
4) The real name(s) of the blogger(s)
5) Photo(s) of the blogger(s)
6) A PHONE # for the blogger(s) (in caps because the idea of giving random, and often hostile, strangers one's home phone # online makes my head spin)
Some people think that only one of the above is necessary (which one the magic one is varies), some insist that multiple items are necessary, and some think that most or ALL of those things are necessary... despite the fact that only a VERY tiny % of blogs could qualify, since, even if we ignore the extreme of the phone #, very few blogs contain a full name (and of course it's reasonable to assume that many of the ones that do are fakes, since we know how rare genuine personal info is online), and plenty of people who do allow for interactivity of some degree don't have all 3 kinds.
I looked through some online dictionaries, and the consensus is that a blog is just a site with dated entries, with NO other requirements; I'm sure that some dictionary I didn't get to says differently, and in general we could validly ask "but what do THEY know about it anyways?", but the point is that those bloggers who try to make it sound like "everyone" agrees that a "real blog" has anything OTHER than dated entries are demonstrably wrong, regardless of what they think the real-blog requirements are.
Commenting is the thing most often trumpeted as a requirement, and it puzzles me no end; if a blogger's stuff was put in a magazine article or book instead of online, people wouldn't be claiming that they should be allowed to include their input, or even that they'd like to be able to, so what is it about something being posted online that makes people wild to add their 2¢, and certain of their right to do so? If reading a blog entry gives you ideas that you'd like to share, why not just post them on your own blog; why is it so important to you that the total stranger who posted the original entry, and their readers (who are also strangers), see what you have to say on the topic? I'm not saying that you shouldn't leave comments if there's a way to, and in fact I think it's a good idea to leave a comment at any blog you enjoy if you can, just to give the blogger a well-deserved boost, but if a blogger has no way to get your input... SO WHAT? Why does anyone give this 1 second of thought, much less see it as so important that it HAS to be available?
This must be one of those human nature things that doesn't apply to me, because no one has been able to make me see it; in any case, my position is that a blog with comments, and/or any of the other things on the list, does NOT cease to be a "real blog" if those things are removed, and something that's NOT a blog doesn't suddenly become a blog if those things are added on. If, IF, there's anything other than dated entries that I'd say makes something a "real blog," it's...
Do you know what I'm about to say, or has the blogosphere gotten so bogged down with self-proclaimed experts dictating how a blog has to be set up that it's not obvious what a site actually needs OTHER than a string of dates with some non-zero amount of stuff below each one?
Oh please, let it be unnecessary for me to say; content.
As I posted on 4-24-05, there's an alarming # of companies using blogs to post lists of links to sites where products or services can be purchased, and an increasing # of blogs being used for students and teachers to exchange info (a virtuous use, of course), and also as the latest way to display porn (somewhat less virtuous, and sometimes disgustingly NON-virtuous); I'd say that this sort of thing does NOT constitute "real blog content," and thus that a case can be made that these aren't "real blogs."
Few people would argue with that, except maybe those who REALLY prefer form over substance (as those sorts of "blogs" often DO have things like commenting, email addies and real names used), so does it really need to be said? How about this, then: I'll go out on a limb and add that sites that are a substitute for, or an adjunct to, corporate or political-candidate websites shouldn't necessarily be called "real blogs" just because their content has been broken up into dated entries.
I'll go even farther out on a limb and say that most of the gigantic political blogs are actually political discussion forums, not "real blogs," for all that they're using dated entries rather than an actual forum layout... and they'd be FAR easier to use if they WERE laid out as forums rather than as an endless list of posts, which I think is meaningful.
So, now we have a 2-part "requirement" for a "real blog"; a site with dated entries containing "real content" that's suited to the dated-entry format, and not just shoehorned or spread out into it. I think it's reasonable, realistic and fair... but I don't see it as other than my OPINION, and I'm not going to insist that this is the ultimate, only or definitive definition, or go around posting to people that their blogs aren't "real blogs" because they don't happen to be handling their sites the way I handle mine or to suit my preferences.
And neither should anyone else.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Color-full insights
I've had an interest in color, and its effects on humans, for a long time now; I wrote a little bit about it on 3-23-04. Today, I stumbled across a page called "The Karma of Colour," the bulk of which is attributed to Shelly Wu, PhD; much of what's said isn't anything new or surprising, but there are some fascinating revelations:
Yellow:
"speeds metabolism"
That sounds intriguing... unless it just lasts a few moments, in which case it wouldn't be helpful for weight loss/control.
"Paint a room yellow, you will make babies cry and grown-ups lose their tempers in it."
My parents were too cheap to ever paint the walls in any home we lived in, but my mother, ignoring my color preferences, had everything in my room yellow throughout my entire childhood, and it was certainly a room full of negative emotions much of the time... would I have been less unhappy if she'd been less of a psycho, and didn't feel the need to do my room in my least favorite color?
Blue:
"be careful when using blue in association with food - it is a natural appetite suppressant and can be repulsive in some instances. Blue is one of the least appetizing [colors]. Blue food is rare in nature. Blue-colored food is repulsive to humans because when our ancestors searched for food, they learned to avoid toxic or spoiled objects, which were often blue, black, or purple. During experiments, when participants were served with food dyed blue, they lost appetite."
If blue surroundings can cause any shred of this effect, I see a blue dining room in my future; to someone who's hungry all the time, loss of appetite is a blessing. If not, I'd be willing to experiment with blue dye and see if, say, a blue rice appetizer would make me want less dinner.
"Blue relaxes our nervous system. It has a sobering effect on the mind and can cause people to be more contemplative. Blue surroundings, if not too dark, increase productivity. Studies show that students score higher, weightlifters lift heavier weights in blue rooms."
Sounds like blue would be a good color for a computer room, not to mention weight rooms.
"Peaceful, tranquil blue, which is a good color for bedrooms, causes the body to produce calming chemicals."
That makes me remember my idea for a bedspread of blue changeable taffeta or shot silk that'd give the effect of a pool of water with a pebble dropped into it...
"Darker shades of blue, however, can feel cold and depressing."
I'm thinking of bedroom walls of that purplish twilight blue, that I think might be the color of karma... with touches of cobalt, maybe, but I agree about too much dark blue being unpleasant.
"People retain more when reading information written in blue text."
Ad execs please take note... but bloggers who want people to remember what they say, keep in mind that more than a little blue text is hard to read.
Green:
"Green is the easiest color on the eye and can improve vision."
VERY interesting; could this be related to our need in the caveman days to see clearly into dense masses of foliage to find food or avoid predators?
"It is a calming color and has a neutral effect on the human nervous system."
I don't like green enough to make it part of my decor, but I plan to have a bunch of indoor plants eventually, which should help create a tranquil atmosphere in my home.
"The 'green rooms' are designed for people who are waiting to appear on TV to sit and relax. Green is also a popular color in hospitals because it relaxes patients."
I'd honestly never made those connections before; sure, I know that all the "nature colors" are soothing, for the obvious reason, but the "green rooms" I've seen were NOT green, so I assumed there was a "historical" reason for calling them that, and I'd never thought that the hideous green used in hospitals was supposed to calm anyone... heck, any time I see "hospital green" anywhere, it makes me TENSE, because of the association with hospitals.
Orange:
"Orange is the color most associated with appetite."
I've read several times that this is why fast food restaurants have shades in the orange to red spectrum in their decor; they make you eat faster.
"Orange has a declassifying, broad appeal. It can be used to indicate that a product is suitable for everyone, and can make an expensive product seem more affordable."
Again, ad execs take note.
Pink:
"Pink is the most romantic and tender color."
That's a new one on me... perhaps because of the connection to sexual flush?
"It is also tranquilizing. Research suggested that pink makes people calm and soft-hearted. Dr. Alexander Schauss, Ph.D., director of the American Institute for Biosocial Research in Tacoma Washington, reported that when prison cells were painted pink, it reduced aggressive behavior among prisoners. 'Even if a person tries to be angry or aggressive in the presence of pink, he can't. The heart muscles can't race fast enough. It's a tranquilizing color that saps your energy. Even the color-blind are tranquilized by pink rooms,' according to Dr. Schauss."
This I HAD heard before, and I've certainly always found pastel pinks to be very soothing; since color-blind people are affected, it makes you wonder if even with the colors where the effect on us "makes sense" it doesn't actually have anything to do with psychological associations, and is instead biological in nature.
"Such a[n] effect, unfortunately however, was short-lived as later studies would show. It appears that once the body returns to a state of equilibrium, a prisoner may regress to an even more agitated state."
Maybe the optimum strategy if you need to get calmed down would be to start in a pink room and switch to a blue room right before that happens?
"Other people tried to apply the above research finding. When Hayden Fry, who had a degree in psychology, was the football coach at the University of Iowa, he had the visiting team's lock[er] room painted pink hoping to make the visiting team lose their energy and the aggressive drive for winning."
I'd like to know if this did any good; either way, you've gotta hand it to him for trying.
Red:
"It [c]an elevate blood pressure and respiratory rate. It has the effect of stimulating people to make quick decisions and increase expectations."
Lingerie and short dresses are often red for a reason.
"Red is an attention grabber. Words and objects in red get people's attention immediately."
Even the gov't knew this one; that's why stop signs are red.
"When it comes to cars, there is a positive correlation between the color red and theft rate."
No one ever said that thieves were logical.
"Red rooms make people anxious"
Something to keep in mind when decorating a doctor's or dentist's waiting room... or choosing a wall color for an interrogation room.
"but rooms with a red accent can cause people to lose track of time, thus are favored by bars and casinos."
That might be useful in a meditation room, or in a large garden where you'd like to wander and lose yourself in nature.
"Restaurants often use red as a decorating scheme because of its appetite stimulant function."
See, told ya.
You can read the rest of the article here
http://www.enorc.com/colour.htm
The big question here is; WHY do the various colors affect our physical, mental and emotional states in these ways, or in ANY ways? Why does a color like pink, that our primitive ancestors would only have seen briefly sometimes at sunrise/sunset, and maybe if they stumbled across a field of pink flowers in the spring, have such a powerful effect on us? Why does yellow affect the speed of our metabolism, especially when it seems as if you'd need a higher metabolism in the winter, to keep you warmer, and there's not much yellow sunshine, or yellow anything, then? Why does blue help with reading retention when reading is NOT something we're biologically programmed to do? You can make biological cases for bits and pieces of how color affects us, but the rest of it seems... accidental.
Color as we perceive it is just energy, wavelengths of light, not something magical, but it DOES do something to us once our perception of it reaches our brains... and given that, and that everything is at its base just energy, is it possible that the people of various belief systems that assign spiritual powers to colors are onto something?
Yellow:
"speeds metabolism"
That sounds intriguing... unless it just lasts a few moments, in which case it wouldn't be helpful for weight loss/control.
"Paint a room yellow, you will make babies cry and grown-ups lose their tempers in it."
My parents were too cheap to ever paint the walls in any home we lived in, but my mother, ignoring my color preferences, had everything in my room yellow throughout my entire childhood, and it was certainly a room full of negative emotions much of the time... would I have been less unhappy if she'd been less of a psycho, and didn't feel the need to do my room in my least favorite color?
Blue:
"be careful when using blue in association with food - it is a natural appetite suppressant and can be repulsive in some instances. Blue is one of the least appetizing [colors]. Blue food is rare in nature. Blue-colored food is repulsive to humans because when our ancestors searched for food, they learned to avoid toxic or spoiled objects, which were often blue, black, or purple. During experiments, when participants were served with food dyed blue, they lost appetite."
If blue surroundings can cause any shred of this effect, I see a blue dining room in my future; to someone who's hungry all the time, loss of appetite is a blessing. If not, I'd be willing to experiment with blue dye and see if, say, a blue rice appetizer would make me want less dinner.
"Blue relaxes our nervous system. It has a sobering effect on the mind and can cause people to be more contemplative. Blue surroundings, if not too dark, increase productivity. Studies show that students score higher, weightlifters lift heavier weights in blue rooms."
Sounds like blue would be a good color for a computer room, not to mention weight rooms.
"Peaceful, tranquil blue, which is a good color for bedrooms, causes the body to produce calming chemicals."
That makes me remember my idea for a bedspread of blue changeable taffeta or shot silk that'd give the effect of a pool of water with a pebble dropped into it...
"Darker shades of blue, however, can feel cold and depressing."
I'm thinking of bedroom walls of that purplish twilight blue, that I think might be the color of karma... with touches of cobalt, maybe, but I agree about too much dark blue being unpleasant.
"People retain more when reading information written in blue text."
Ad execs please take note... but bloggers who want people to remember what they say, keep in mind that more than a little blue text is hard to read.
Green:
"Green is the easiest color on the eye and can improve vision."
VERY interesting; could this be related to our need in the caveman days to see clearly into dense masses of foliage to find food or avoid predators?
"It is a calming color and has a neutral effect on the human nervous system."
I don't like green enough to make it part of my decor, but I plan to have a bunch of indoor plants eventually, which should help create a tranquil atmosphere in my home.
"The 'green rooms' are designed for people who are waiting to appear on TV to sit and relax. Green is also a popular color in hospitals because it relaxes patients."
I'd honestly never made those connections before; sure, I know that all the "nature colors" are soothing, for the obvious reason, but the "green rooms" I've seen were NOT green, so I assumed there was a "historical" reason for calling them that, and I'd never thought that the hideous green used in hospitals was supposed to calm anyone... heck, any time I see "hospital green" anywhere, it makes me TENSE, because of the association with hospitals.
Orange:
"Orange is the color most associated with appetite."
I've read several times that this is why fast food restaurants have shades in the orange to red spectrum in their decor; they make you eat faster.
"Orange has a declassifying, broad appeal. It can be used to indicate that a product is suitable for everyone, and can make an expensive product seem more affordable."
Again, ad execs take note.
Pink:
"Pink is the most romantic and tender color."
That's a new one on me... perhaps because of the connection to sexual flush?
"It is also tranquilizing. Research suggested that pink makes people calm and soft-hearted. Dr. Alexander Schauss, Ph.D., director of the American Institute for Biosocial Research in Tacoma Washington, reported that when prison cells were painted pink, it reduced aggressive behavior among prisoners. 'Even if a person tries to be angry or aggressive in the presence of pink, he can't. The heart muscles can't race fast enough. It's a tranquilizing color that saps your energy. Even the color-blind are tranquilized by pink rooms,' according to Dr. Schauss."
This I HAD heard before, and I've certainly always found pastel pinks to be very soothing; since color-blind people are affected, it makes you wonder if even with the colors where the effect on us "makes sense" it doesn't actually have anything to do with psychological associations, and is instead biological in nature.
"Such a[n] effect, unfortunately however, was short-lived as later studies would show. It appears that once the body returns to a state of equilibrium, a prisoner may regress to an even more agitated state."
Maybe the optimum strategy if you need to get calmed down would be to start in a pink room and switch to a blue room right before that happens?
"Other people tried to apply the above research finding. When Hayden Fry, who had a degree in psychology, was the football coach at the University of Iowa, he had the visiting team's lock[er] room painted pink hoping to make the visiting team lose their energy and the aggressive drive for winning."
I'd like to know if this did any good; either way, you've gotta hand it to him for trying.
Red:
"It [c]an elevate blood pressure and respiratory rate. It has the effect of stimulating people to make quick decisions and increase expectations."
Lingerie and short dresses are often red for a reason.
"Red is an attention grabber. Words and objects in red get people's attention immediately."
Even the gov't knew this one; that's why stop signs are red.
"When it comes to cars, there is a positive correlation between the color red and theft rate."
No one ever said that thieves were logical.
"Red rooms make people anxious"
Something to keep in mind when decorating a doctor's or dentist's waiting room... or choosing a wall color for an interrogation room.
"but rooms with a red accent can cause people to lose track of time, thus are favored by bars and casinos."
That might be useful in a meditation room, or in a large garden where you'd like to wander and lose yourself in nature.
"Restaurants often use red as a decorating scheme because of its appetite stimulant function."
See, told ya.
You can read the rest of the article here
http://www.enorc.com/colour.htm
The big question here is; WHY do the various colors affect our physical, mental and emotional states in these ways, or in ANY ways? Why does a color like pink, that our primitive ancestors would only have seen briefly sometimes at sunrise/sunset, and maybe if they stumbled across a field of pink flowers in the spring, have such a powerful effect on us? Why does yellow affect the speed of our metabolism, especially when it seems as if you'd need a higher metabolism in the winter, to keep you warmer, and there's not much yellow sunshine, or yellow anything, then? Why does blue help with reading retention when reading is NOT something we're biologically programmed to do? You can make biological cases for bits and pieces of how color affects us, but the rest of it seems... accidental.
Color as we perceive it is just energy, wavelengths of light, not something magical, but it DOES do something to us once our perception of it reaches our brains... and given that, and that everything is at its base just energy, is it possible that the people of various belief systems that assign spiritual powers to colors are onto something?
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Selling on eBay is NOT rocket science
Or so you'd think... but it's amazing how much trouble some people have figuring out how to get paid for their auctions:
There's a seller that I won a vintage poster from a month and a half ago that I just got the shipping amount for TODAY, not because he'd been sick, or out of town, or without internet access, but because he's an IDIOT... and of course because eBay was falling down on the job as usual.
I was sending messages to the seller every few days, using every message system on eBay, but he wasn't getting them, firstly because eBay, despite being a multi-BILLION dollar corporation, is too clueless to figure out how to send notification emails that don't get screened out as spam, and secondly because, as I later learned, the seller had decided not to bother going into his bulk mail folder looking for emails from eBay, and that it was somehow ok to ignore them entirely (!!!)... they should offer this guy a job, because he'd fit right in with them.
After the 1st couple of weeks passed with no shipping info, I started trying to get the seller's contact info; after a bunch of failed attempts, someone told me that the American eBay site's request-info system doesn't work, and to log onto the Canadian eBay and use their system... which I did, to no avail.
Next, I started trying to get help from eBay; live chat help, customer service and "Trust and Safety" all blithered and stonewalled, tossing out lies like "we only provide a place for buyers and sellers to meet, nothing more" and "we CAN'T contact the seller on your behalf," and even refusing to manually generate the contact info that by their own rules I had a right to have.
I continued hammering them on all fronts, and finally, a MONTH after the end of the auction, the contact info appeared in eBay's latest innovation, the "My Messages" inbox accessible from each person's account, and I was able to call the seller; I gave him my email addy, and he said he'd send me the shipping info that day. Several days later, with no info received, I sent him an email at the addy he'd given me. Several more days later, I sent another one. Several days after that, I phoned him again, and left him a message. Today, he called me back and left a message... withOUT the shipping info!! I called him again, and discovered that he'd never gotten my emails, and that he'd sent the shipping info to my husband's email addy, NOT mine as agreed, despite my making it clear that he was being screened out there (I use free webmail accounts that don't screen much of anything, which comes in handy sometimes). The moron then tried to tell me that I should email him again to get the shipping amount... and I nearly bit my tongue out of my head trying to make myself speak pleasantly as I pointed out that at this juncture he really needed to go look the amount up and just TELL me while we were on the phone, which he grudgingly did.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
If YOU sell on eBay, it'd improve the experience for everyone if you'd keep a few things in mind:
1) This is NOT a game, it's a legal contract you've entered into to sell something and deliver it in a timely manner; treat your auctions accordingly.
2) Thanks to the spammers, almost every buyer's inbox is screening out lots of emails, including those from eBay, so do NOT count on being able to send info to a buyer via "eBay emails"; instead, you should:
A) Choose the account option that makes your email addy visible to your buyers, giving them another way to contact you whether or not emails from you are reaching them; people who give you $ SHOULD have a direct way to reach you in any case.
B) If you use PayPal or other online payment system, put a shipping amount or a shipping calculator on your auction page, AND put the shipping total into the payment form associated with the auction, so that the buyer can get their total due and pay you without hearing from you.
C) If time is passing and you haven't heard from the buyer, instead of forgetting about the auction (as my seller amazingly had, according to him), or tossing out - feedback which will get you one in return, request contact info, and harass eBay until you get it... and then use it with common sense-if you leave a message on someone's answering machine, leave the info they need from you as part of the message, AND your phone # as well.
3) YOUR inbox may be screening out emails too, and you can NOT just ignore emails from buyers (it's against eBay rules to not be contactable via email by your buyers, plus it's just plain stupid), so you MUST:
A) Alter your settings, if you have them, such that eBay emails are getting to you... and NOT in your bulk/junk folder, either. If you honestly can't get the eBay emails into your main folder without being flooded with spam, you're going to have to sift through your bulk emails every day looking for eBay stuff.
B) Check your "My Messages" inbox (it's in the left-hand margin in your "My eBay" area) every single day if you have uncompleted transactions, as copies of messages buyers are trying to send you will supposedly all end up there.
C) Make sure that your official eBay contact info contains your current phone #, and return any calls you receive with professional promptness... again, be sure any messages you leave contain all necessary info.
4) Keep in mind that not 1 buyer in a million will make the sort of protracted effort *I* did, and will instead give you - feedback which can NOT be retracted and/or report you to eBay for fraud or non-performance, which can cost you your eBay account... so don't expect to be spoon-fed your $, take action to make SURE your buyer can get it to you.
This last one has nothing to do with my specific eBay topic, but it makes me so nuts that I'm going to tack it on:
5) If you're selling something with a "face," such as a doll, stuffie or figurine, the most important photo to take is one that shows the face straight on; if you only have 1 pic on your auction page, that's the 1 to have. No, it doesn't show the side(s), which in the case of a "long" stuffie can mean a large % of the item isn't being seen, but when people display these things they usually display them facing forward, so that's the part of the item that they most want to see.
Until such time as eBay gets some long-overdue regulations applied to it, they're set up so that they can really stick it to you, and so can every trading partner; a little common sense will insure that you don't risk losing access to this increasingly valuable marketplace.
There's a seller that I won a vintage poster from a month and a half ago that I just got the shipping amount for TODAY, not because he'd been sick, or out of town, or without internet access, but because he's an IDIOT... and of course because eBay was falling down on the job as usual.
I was sending messages to the seller every few days, using every message system on eBay, but he wasn't getting them, firstly because eBay, despite being a multi-BILLION dollar corporation, is too clueless to figure out how to send notification emails that don't get screened out as spam, and secondly because, as I later learned, the seller had decided not to bother going into his bulk mail folder looking for emails from eBay, and that it was somehow ok to ignore them entirely (!!!)... they should offer this guy a job, because he'd fit right in with them.
After the 1st couple of weeks passed with no shipping info, I started trying to get the seller's contact info; after a bunch of failed attempts, someone told me that the American eBay site's request-info system doesn't work, and to log onto the Canadian eBay and use their system... which I did, to no avail.
Next, I started trying to get help from eBay; live chat help, customer service and "Trust and Safety" all blithered and stonewalled, tossing out lies like "we only provide a place for buyers and sellers to meet, nothing more" and "we CAN'T contact the seller on your behalf," and even refusing to manually generate the contact info that by their own rules I had a right to have.
I continued hammering them on all fronts, and finally, a MONTH after the end of the auction, the contact info appeared in eBay's latest innovation, the "My Messages" inbox accessible from each person's account, and I was able to call the seller; I gave him my email addy, and he said he'd send me the shipping info that day. Several days later, with no info received, I sent him an email at the addy he'd given me. Several more days later, I sent another one. Several days after that, I phoned him again, and left him a message. Today, he called me back and left a message... withOUT the shipping info!! I called him again, and discovered that he'd never gotten my emails, and that he'd sent the shipping info to my husband's email addy, NOT mine as agreed, despite my making it clear that he was being screened out there (I use free webmail accounts that don't screen much of anything, which comes in handy sometimes). The moron then tried to tell me that I should email him again to get the shipping amount... and I nearly bit my tongue out of my head trying to make myself speak pleasantly as I pointed out that at this juncture he really needed to go look the amount up and just TELL me while we were on the phone, which he grudgingly did.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
If YOU sell on eBay, it'd improve the experience for everyone if you'd keep a few things in mind:
1) This is NOT a game, it's a legal contract you've entered into to sell something and deliver it in a timely manner; treat your auctions accordingly.
2) Thanks to the spammers, almost every buyer's inbox is screening out lots of emails, including those from eBay, so do NOT count on being able to send info to a buyer via "eBay emails"; instead, you should:
A) Choose the account option that makes your email addy visible to your buyers, giving them another way to contact you whether or not emails from you are reaching them; people who give you $ SHOULD have a direct way to reach you in any case.
B) If you use PayPal or other online payment system, put a shipping amount or a shipping calculator on your auction page, AND put the shipping total into the payment form associated with the auction, so that the buyer can get their total due and pay you without hearing from you.
C) If time is passing and you haven't heard from the buyer, instead of forgetting about the auction (as my seller amazingly had, according to him), or tossing out - feedback which will get you one in return, request contact info, and harass eBay until you get it... and then use it with common sense-if you leave a message on someone's answering machine, leave the info they need from you as part of the message, AND your phone # as well.
3) YOUR inbox may be screening out emails too, and you can NOT just ignore emails from buyers (it's against eBay rules to not be contactable via email by your buyers, plus it's just plain stupid), so you MUST:
A) Alter your settings, if you have them, such that eBay emails are getting to you... and NOT in your bulk/junk folder, either. If you honestly can't get the eBay emails into your main folder without being flooded with spam, you're going to have to sift through your bulk emails every day looking for eBay stuff.
B) Check your "My Messages" inbox (it's in the left-hand margin in your "My eBay" area) every single day if you have uncompleted transactions, as copies of messages buyers are trying to send you will supposedly all end up there.
C) Make sure that your official eBay contact info contains your current phone #, and return any calls you receive with professional promptness... again, be sure any messages you leave contain all necessary info.
4) Keep in mind that not 1 buyer in a million will make the sort of protracted effort *I* did, and will instead give you - feedback which can NOT be retracted and/or report you to eBay for fraud or non-performance, which can cost you your eBay account... so don't expect to be spoon-fed your $, take action to make SURE your buyer can get it to you.
This last one has nothing to do with my specific eBay topic, but it makes me so nuts that I'm going to tack it on:
5) If you're selling something with a "face," such as a doll, stuffie or figurine, the most important photo to take is one that shows the face straight on; if you only have 1 pic on your auction page, that's the 1 to have. No, it doesn't show the side(s), which in the case of a "long" stuffie can mean a large % of the item isn't being seen, but when people display these things they usually display them facing forward, so that's the part of the item that they most want to see.
Until such time as eBay gets some long-overdue regulations applied to it, they're set up so that they can really stick it to you, and so can every trading partner; a little common sense will insure that you don't risk losing access to this increasingly valuable marketplace.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Separation of church and state
I caught a program about Ben Franklin on the History Channel tonight, and learned something new; when he was reviewing the Declaration of Independence with the other committee members, preparatory to showing it to congress, he requested that "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal" be changed to the familiar phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"... because he thought that the word "sacred" would prevent the new nation from having the separation of church and state that they wanted it to have.
Religious wrong, I mean "right," please take note; THAT is what the founding fathers wanted for this country.
You can see a pic of an actual rough draft, with a transcription of the alterations below it, here
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/rough.htm
It never ceases to amaze me how people who'd scream bloody murder if they had to be exposed to the images, symbols, rituals and words of any other religion truly believe that everyone in this country should be subjected to THEIR religion without complaint. My reply to their "but what harm would it do?" argument is:
"None... so let's rotate through ALL the religions and spiritual beliefs held by people in this country in our public displays; that'd be fair, and, after all, there's no harm in seeing other people's beliefs represented, right? We'll put your stuff up right after, say, the devil worshippers have had their opportunity to shove their beliefs in your face... how does that grab you?"
Do you suppose any of them would go for it, lol?
Then, there are those who say that because the original colonists were all Christian, that makes this a de facto Christian country; my reply to that is that Jews had long since settled here when we became a nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history_in_Colonial_America
and that the slaves, who weren't seen as citizens but were nevertheless residents of the colonies, had brought a variety of belief systems with them from Africa. If they try to push it back further, and point to the uniform Protestantism of the Puritans as "proof" that we're based in Christianity, my reply is that the actual endpoint of looking back in history to find our "national religion" would in fact be Native Americans and their spiritual beliefs... but I don't see anyone championing THEM, although frankly it'd probably do us alot of good to be submerged in their wise, planet-friendly worldview.
I respect all religions, and understand people's desire to be surrounded by references to their beliefs, but when it shades over into trying to force everyone else to be surrounded, that's where I become intolerant... and it doesn't matter how big of a majority Christians are in this country, the concept remains the same. Heck, not all Christians can even agree on what they like; the Catholic vs the Protestant thing is pretty major, but there are other disagreements too... I remember one I saw on TV, where a little boy from, I think, a Lutheran family, was in a school in a primarily Baptist district that featured prayers read over the intercom each day; the parents objected to how Jesus was being prayed to, so their boy had to sit in the classroom with big headphones on his head to block out the prayers, which of course resulted in him becoming a friendless laughing stock.
Even if you remove all the specifics from something with religious intent, making it apply to everyone is STILL not ok; the much-touted "moment of silence" is a perfect example, as forcing people to freeze in place and be silent for no reason is arbitrary and stupid, blocks their pursuit of happiness, and has no similarity to what the laws normally require people to do.
The government is supposed to serve ALL Americans equally, and the only way for it to do that is to have total separation of church and state; that we don't actually HAVE that degree of separation leads to all sorts of inequities, such as only Christian holidays leading to time off of work and school, swearing on a Bible in court, and gays not being allowed to marry.
Even our MONEY has a reference to God on it, which, given our focus on finances, is about as UNseparate as it gets... and how must that make people who pray to Allah, Buddha or other deities feel? I know that as an agnostic cum metaphysicist, it even bothers ME to not be able to be free of the influence of Christianity; I'm not picking on that faith, mind you, I don't want ANY religion pushed at me, but in America no other religion is an issue in this area.
The founding fathers meant for us to have REAL freedom; to get that, we had to have no royalty to automatically have power over us, and no state religion, which would constitute another category of people having automatic power over us... they wanted us to have a government elected by the people as the ONLY source of authority, and that's one of their greatest gifts to us, even if it hasn't been implemented perfectly.
Unless and until we have another group of leaders of the same caliber as the founding fathers, we should NOT presume to change their plan for this nation... and I hope you're not holding your breath for THAT to ever happen.
Religious wrong, I mean "right," please take note; THAT is what the founding fathers wanted for this country.
You can see a pic of an actual rough draft, with a transcription of the alterations below it, here
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/rough.htm
It never ceases to amaze me how people who'd scream bloody murder if they had to be exposed to the images, symbols, rituals and words of any other religion truly believe that everyone in this country should be subjected to THEIR religion without complaint. My reply to their "but what harm would it do?" argument is:
"None... so let's rotate through ALL the religions and spiritual beliefs held by people in this country in our public displays; that'd be fair, and, after all, there's no harm in seeing other people's beliefs represented, right? We'll put your stuff up right after, say, the devil worshippers have had their opportunity to shove their beliefs in your face... how does that grab you?"
Do you suppose any of them would go for it, lol?
Then, there are those who say that because the original colonists were all Christian, that makes this a de facto Christian country; my reply to that is that Jews had long since settled here when we became a nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history_in_Colonial_America
and that the slaves, who weren't seen as citizens but were nevertheless residents of the colonies, had brought a variety of belief systems with them from Africa. If they try to push it back further, and point to the uniform Protestantism of the Puritans as "proof" that we're based in Christianity, my reply is that the actual endpoint of looking back in history to find our "national religion" would in fact be Native Americans and their spiritual beliefs... but I don't see anyone championing THEM, although frankly it'd probably do us alot of good to be submerged in their wise, planet-friendly worldview.
I respect all religions, and understand people's desire to be surrounded by references to their beliefs, but when it shades over into trying to force everyone else to be surrounded, that's where I become intolerant... and it doesn't matter how big of a majority Christians are in this country, the concept remains the same. Heck, not all Christians can even agree on what they like; the Catholic vs the Protestant thing is pretty major, but there are other disagreements too... I remember one I saw on TV, where a little boy from, I think, a Lutheran family, was in a school in a primarily Baptist district that featured prayers read over the intercom each day; the parents objected to how Jesus was being prayed to, so their boy had to sit in the classroom with big headphones on his head to block out the prayers, which of course resulted in him becoming a friendless laughing stock.
Even if you remove all the specifics from something with religious intent, making it apply to everyone is STILL not ok; the much-touted "moment of silence" is a perfect example, as forcing people to freeze in place and be silent for no reason is arbitrary and stupid, blocks their pursuit of happiness, and has no similarity to what the laws normally require people to do.
The government is supposed to serve ALL Americans equally, and the only way for it to do that is to have total separation of church and state; that we don't actually HAVE that degree of separation leads to all sorts of inequities, such as only Christian holidays leading to time off of work and school, swearing on a Bible in court, and gays not being allowed to marry.
Even our MONEY has a reference to God on it, which, given our focus on finances, is about as UNseparate as it gets... and how must that make people who pray to Allah, Buddha or other deities feel? I know that as an agnostic cum metaphysicist, it even bothers ME to not be able to be free of the influence of Christianity; I'm not picking on that faith, mind you, I don't want ANY religion pushed at me, but in America no other religion is an issue in this area.
The founding fathers meant for us to have REAL freedom; to get that, we had to have no royalty to automatically have power over us, and no state religion, which would constitute another category of people having automatic power over us... they wanted us to have a government elected by the people as the ONLY source of authority, and that's one of their greatest gifts to us, even if it hasn't been implemented perfectly.
Unless and until we have another group of leaders of the same caliber as the founding fathers, we should NOT presume to change their plan for this nation... and I hope you're not holding your breath for THAT to ever happen.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Happy 4th of July
If you're interested in learning a few facts about our founding fathers, whose efforts and sacrifices gave us a nation where we can be free, check out my July 4th and 5th posts from last year... and watch the wonderful movie "1776," which will tell you more about them, and the events of that fateful year, than 99% of Americans know.
Have you ever actually read the Declaration of Independence? If not, you should:
http://federalistpatriot.us/histdocs/declaration.htm
In my post a year ago, I said, "the Declaration as originally written would have ended slavery"; this year, I've found an online copy of the 1st draft of the Declaration:
http://www.constitution.org/tj/doi_rough.txt
The anti-slavery clause, the one that almost sank the Declaration because some of the southern states would have voted it down (the vote to pass it had to be unanimous), the one that, contrary to what modern media pundits would have us believe, many of the founding fathers passionately supported, begins with:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce..."
At what other time in history when people had slaves were any of them determined to END slavery... including people who, like Jefferson, were born into slave-owning families, and depended on the slaves for all their wealth? (Remember, Jefferson freed his slaves, knowing that the ruination of his finances would result.)
Every year that I've been online, I've been asked by people from other countries what the 4th of July is all about; after all, from the outside, it just looks like the standard excess consumption of food associated with all American holidays (in this case, primarily in picnic and BBQ form) enhanced by fireworks. For all we complain about how meaningless Christmas has become, the 4th means far less to most people, even though it SHOULD be overwhelmingly important to all of us; nearly every American beyond earliest childhood can tell the story of Jesus, regardless of their religious beliefs, but it's a VERY rare one of us who has any idea about the events that led up to the signing of the Declaration, even though that was arguably one of the most important incidents in the history of the human race... the moment of conception for the nation that would eventually become the most powerful in the world.
If you'd like to know more about what drove the then-colonies to revolution and the Declaration, here are a couple of sites to get you started:
http://www.americanrevolution.com/EventsLeadingTo.htm
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa070401a.htm
Some info on all of the 56 signers of the Declaration can be found here:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/index.htm
And last, but FAR from least, an image of the Declaration itself can be found here:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/image.htm
Doesn't look like much, does it? A chunk of text, bold titles, and a cramped bunch of signatures of men who, had things gone the other way, would have been seen as lunatics and traitors, and been hanged... but who history has proven to be visionaries, innovators, and heroes.
When they say that the pen is mightier than the sword, THIS is what they're talking about. This is why we celebrate the 4th of July. Be sure to take some time today from your hotdogs and potato salad and think about it.
Have you ever actually read the Declaration of Independence? If not, you should:
http://federalistpatriot.us/histdocs/declaration.htm
In my post a year ago, I said, "the Declaration as originally written would have ended slavery"; this year, I've found an online copy of the 1st draft of the Declaration:
http://www.constitution.org/tj/doi_rough.txt
The anti-slavery clause, the one that almost sank the Declaration because some of the southern states would have voted it down (the vote to pass it had to be unanimous), the one that, contrary to what modern media pundits would have us believe, many of the founding fathers passionately supported, begins with:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce..."
At what other time in history when people had slaves were any of them determined to END slavery... including people who, like Jefferson, were born into slave-owning families, and depended on the slaves for all their wealth? (Remember, Jefferson freed his slaves, knowing that the ruination of his finances would result.)
Every year that I've been online, I've been asked by people from other countries what the 4th of July is all about; after all, from the outside, it just looks like the standard excess consumption of food associated with all American holidays (in this case, primarily in picnic and BBQ form) enhanced by fireworks. For all we complain about how meaningless Christmas has become, the 4th means far less to most people, even though it SHOULD be overwhelmingly important to all of us; nearly every American beyond earliest childhood can tell the story of Jesus, regardless of their religious beliefs, but it's a VERY rare one of us who has any idea about the events that led up to the signing of the Declaration, even though that was arguably one of the most important incidents in the history of the human race... the moment of conception for the nation that would eventually become the most powerful in the world.
If you'd like to know more about what drove the then-colonies to revolution and the Declaration, here are a couple of sites to get you started:
http://www.americanrevolution.com/EventsLeadingTo.htm
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa070401a.htm
Some info on all of the 56 signers of the Declaration can be found here:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/index.htm
And last, but FAR from least, an image of the Declaration itself can be found here:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/image.htm
Doesn't look like much, does it? A chunk of text, bold titles, and a cramped bunch of signatures of men who, had things gone the other way, would have been seen as lunatics and traitors, and been hanged... but who history has proven to be visionaries, innovators, and heroes.
When they say that the pen is mightier than the sword, THIS is what they're talking about. This is why we celebrate the 4th of July. Be sure to take some time today from your hotdogs and potato salad and think about it.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Love and sex with aliens
Countless scifi books, movies and TV shows have portrayed humans falling in love with members of alien species (which are almost always very human in appearance, naturally)... but, could that every actually happen? Could such a wildly different being have enough of a meeting of the minds with one of us for love to bloom? Would they WANT to? Could love beyond the infatuation stage exist with someone whose mind worked in a way beyond our comprehension, whose psychology was utterly different than we were used to dealing with?
And what about sex? It's easy to be hot for aliens as portrayed on TV and in movies, who after all are just attractive actors with makeup and prosthetics, but would even the most humanoid-looking aliens send off the right physical signals for us to feel attracted to them, or, of course, for them to be attracted to any of US? Old school scifi always showed reptilian or insectile aliens eager to copulate with busty Earth women, but is there any chance whatsoever of species with no physical similarity being able to feel attraction to each other?
As to the sex itself; assuming the genitals were compatible, would any but the most adventurous of us really be able to go through with it? What if their skin was blue, or had an odd texture, or their body temperature was significantly different, or their nerves, if they had them, were much more or less sensitive, than ours? How would they smell, and, er, taste? Could a human really skip along the path to orgasm faced with this sort of thing? Even if they had no perceptible differences from humans, do you think YOU could go through with it, knowing that you'd be touching, and touched by, something not of this world?
And what if the alien was non-humanoid; if you somehow developed affection for it, like if it were really smart and funny and kind, could anything ever induce you to try physical contact, or form a romantic attachment to it?
If they as a species were able to be attracted to us, sexually and/or romantically, but we didn't reciprocate, would they think us racist... or rather species-ist? If the situation were reversed, would we think that of THEM?
If aliens wanted to come and live here, would you think that was ok? Would you be willing to have them living in your neighborhood, working at your office, sending their kids to school with your kids? Would you ever be able to trust one of them like you would a human? Could you be friends with one? If one of your loved ones started dating one, would you be happy or alarmed? What about when the 1st pregnancy between species occurred, assuming we were capable of interbreeding?
We're so used to the idea of humans and sentient non-humans interacting as if being different species didn't matter, because of the scifi films and shows we've been seeing all our lives, that this seems like the natural way for it to work... but if aliens DID show up one day, is there really any chance of human beings, who can't even tolerate it when another human's too short, fat, or old, or a different race or religion, or has non-standard genitals or sexual preferences, offering the aliens the opportunity to live among us as if they were like us?
And what about sex? It's easy to be hot for aliens as portrayed on TV and in movies, who after all are just attractive actors with makeup and prosthetics, but would even the most humanoid-looking aliens send off the right physical signals for us to feel attracted to them, or, of course, for them to be attracted to any of US? Old school scifi always showed reptilian or insectile aliens eager to copulate with busty Earth women, but is there any chance whatsoever of species with no physical similarity being able to feel attraction to each other?
As to the sex itself; assuming the genitals were compatible, would any but the most adventurous of us really be able to go through with it? What if their skin was blue, or had an odd texture, or their body temperature was significantly different, or their nerves, if they had them, were much more or less sensitive, than ours? How would they smell, and, er, taste? Could a human really skip along the path to orgasm faced with this sort of thing? Even if they had no perceptible differences from humans, do you think YOU could go through with it, knowing that you'd be touching, and touched by, something not of this world?
And what if the alien was non-humanoid; if you somehow developed affection for it, like if it were really smart and funny and kind, could anything ever induce you to try physical contact, or form a romantic attachment to it?
If they as a species were able to be attracted to us, sexually and/or romantically, but we didn't reciprocate, would they think us racist... or rather species-ist? If the situation were reversed, would we think that of THEM?
If aliens wanted to come and live here, would you think that was ok? Would you be willing to have them living in your neighborhood, working at your office, sending their kids to school with your kids? Would you ever be able to trust one of them like you would a human? Could you be friends with one? If one of your loved ones started dating one, would you be happy or alarmed? What about when the 1st pregnancy between species occurred, assuming we were capable of interbreeding?
We're so used to the idea of humans and sentient non-humans interacting as if being different species didn't matter, because of the scifi films and shows we've been seeing all our lives, that this seems like the natural way for it to work... but if aliens DID show up one day, is there really any chance of human beings, who can't even tolerate it when another human's too short, fat, or old, or a different race or religion, or has non-standard genitals or sexual preferences, offering the aliens the opportunity to live among us as if they were like us?
