Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Digging out from under
My husband is a packrat; the only thing that keeps our home from being like that of the infamous sort of packrat with ceiling-high towers of newspapers is that he dumps everything in boxes and stacks THEM. It's not just newspapers, but magazines, catalogs for things he'll never buy, statements of various financial types (unopened, scarily enough) from his entire adult life, clothes his ever-expanding waistline will never let him fit into again (which is just as well for most of them), every piece of technical equipment he's ever owned over a quarter-century of geekhood, and mountains of other bits and pieces of little or no value that he can't bear to part with. He had some shred of restraint before we got married, since he was living in just one room in someone else's home, but once we moved into this house, with its many empty rooms (neither of us owned more than a piece or 2 of pre-marital furniture, so we had nothing to fix the rooms up with at first), attic and shed, his stuff began to increase exponentially, filling every room, every closet, every nook and cranny, such that we literally still haven't furnished most of our house after all our years of marriage because there's nowhere to PUT furniture (when I said we were geeks, I wasn't kidding). I've naturally tried many times over the years to get him to clear his junk out of all the rooms but the one assigned for just his use (plus the shed and attic), and either re-do the attic to hold it all or get a storage unit, and he always yeah-yeah-yeahed me without doing anything... and we were always so wildly busy, with so many emergencies and near-emergencies to deal with, that there was never any time to arm-twist him into such a huge project.
A couple of days ago, it hit me; middle age is looming ever nearer, and I'm living in what's essentially a warehouse with a handful of furnishings, 95% of my stuff is still at my mother's because there's nowhere to put it in my own frigging home, there are 2 of us here but he's using 99.99% of the floor area and storage space for HIS worthless old junk, I've never been able to invite a friend to stay here because there's literally nowhere for them to sleep unless they want to lay down in the middle of the hallway (we don't even have a COUCH), which I've long since run out of excuses to explain why he refuses to make any effort to fix (although people don't get the hint, and unfortunately keep asking what year they might be able to come for a visit, sigh), when we have company over we have to pile things into the narrow walking paths in the bedrooms, and onto the bed, and close all the doors, to be able to clear floorspace, counters, and table for people to be able to use (and to hide the fact that we live in what's essentially a giant trash heap), and, with our lives not quite half over, it's already become nearly impossible to get anything new because there isn't anywhere to store it... what are we supposed to do when the point of 100% saturation comes, as it will very soon?
I pointed all that out to my husband at full volume (imagine the ceiling cracking) while we were having our 10 billionth screaming battle about what he's going to do with his stuff... and suddenly, so undramatically that I didn't absorb it at 1st, he said that I was right, that we were almost out of room but not slowing down on acquiring new things, so he was going to get a big storage unit and start the lengthy process of moving all non-essential boxes of his stuff (which means nearly all of them) out of the house, and that the end goal would be FINALLY being able to bring all my stuff into my home, furnish and decorate all the rooms (except his study, where he'll still surround himself with boxes), and have guests come to stay like any nearly middle aged couple should have been able to do for 15 years or so.
I'm not holding my breath for the end goal to happen anytime soon, as clearing the house out will take quite a while, especially since it's not like my husband is going to take a bunch of vacation time to do it and so will have to do it gradually, but I can't over-state the importance of the process having begun, of my many years of living in a way that no one can believe 2 adults with our financial resources have lived all this time finally reaching an end. I was already past 30 when I married, and expected to be able to dive right in and create an established, comfortable home like my friends had right away, since we had a nice house and the $ to do it with; it didn't work out that way, but maybe, just maybe, by the time the big 4-0 rolls around, we'll have finally caught up with our peers and stopped living like college kids in their 1st apartment when we're almost old enough to be the PARENTS of those kids.
I hope they don't kick us out of the Geek Association for this...
A couple of days ago, it hit me; middle age is looming ever nearer, and I'm living in what's essentially a warehouse with a handful of furnishings, 95% of my stuff is still at my mother's because there's nowhere to put it in my own frigging home, there are 2 of us here but he's using 99.99% of the floor area and storage space for HIS worthless old junk, I've never been able to invite a friend to stay here because there's literally nowhere for them to sleep unless they want to lay down in the middle of the hallway (we don't even have a COUCH), which I've long since run out of excuses to explain why he refuses to make any effort to fix (although people don't get the hint, and unfortunately keep asking what year they might be able to come for a visit, sigh), when we have company over we have to pile things into the narrow walking paths in the bedrooms, and onto the bed, and close all the doors, to be able to clear floorspace, counters, and table for people to be able to use (and to hide the fact that we live in what's essentially a giant trash heap), and, with our lives not quite half over, it's already become nearly impossible to get anything new because there isn't anywhere to store it... what are we supposed to do when the point of 100% saturation comes, as it will very soon?
I pointed all that out to my husband at full volume (imagine the ceiling cracking) while we were having our 10 billionth screaming battle about what he's going to do with his stuff... and suddenly, so undramatically that I didn't absorb it at 1st, he said that I was right, that we were almost out of room but not slowing down on acquiring new things, so he was going to get a big storage unit and start the lengthy process of moving all non-essential boxes of his stuff (which means nearly all of them) out of the house, and that the end goal would be FINALLY being able to bring all my stuff into my home, furnish and decorate all the rooms (except his study, where he'll still surround himself with boxes), and have guests come to stay like any nearly middle aged couple should have been able to do for 15 years or so.
I'm not holding my breath for the end goal to happen anytime soon, as clearing the house out will take quite a while, especially since it's not like my husband is going to take a bunch of vacation time to do it and so will have to do it gradually, but I can't over-state the importance of the process having begun, of my many years of living in a way that no one can believe 2 adults with our financial resources have lived all this time finally reaching an end. I was already past 30 when I married, and expected to be able to dive right in and create an established, comfortable home like my friends had right away, since we had a nice house and the $ to do it with; it didn't work out that way, but maybe, just maybe, by the time the big 4-0 rolls around, we'll have finally caught up with our peers and stopped living like college kids in their 1st apartment when we're almost old enough to be the PARENTS of those kids.
I hope they don't kick us out of the Geek Association for this...
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
When is a pet not a pet?
Granted that any critter you own and feel affectionate towards can technically be seen as a pet, but what's the POINT of paying for food, supplies (cat litter, fish tank, bird cage) and medical bills for, cleaning up after the excretory functions (including vomit, drool and hairballs) of, dealing with the hair all over, and damage to, your possessions from, and the noise and other forms of disturbance of, a creature with which you don't have the affectionate interaction that's supposed to be the entire REASON for having a pet in the 1st place? There are several kinds of animal ownership in this gray area:
First, there's the so-called outdoor pet; isn't that a contradiction in terms? How can a creature whose apparent sole purpose is for you to see them out in the yard (wouldn't a statue do just as well, and cost less over time?), and that's rarely anywhere near you except of course when you've got food to give them, earn your love, much less be giving BACK enough love to make them worth the time, trouble and $ of owning them? Even if the outdoor pet is better than most, and can be called over to interact with you when you're outside, most people are too busy to stand around outdoors much anymore, so what's the benefit of an outdoor pet over, say, the neighbor's pet that will come to you to be petted when you're in the mood for animal contact, and that you don't have to scoop the poop of and pay to maintain? Why bother to obtain an animal just to have something running around your property, much less call it a pet?
(A couple of special points for "outside cat" owners, that you won't like but need to know; it's been shown that outdoor cats only live HALF as long on the average as indoor cats (with indoor/outdoor types falling in between), and many organizations that try to protect endangered birds plead with people to not let their cats roam outside, for the obvious reasons... so why not keep kitty inside where it'll live twice as long, and can only harm your stuff rather than irreplaceable wild creatures?)
Then, there's the "phantom pet," which is where the owner says something like: "She hasn't come out from under the couch in the 3 years since we got her, but her food gets eaten and she's using the litter box, so I know she's ok," or "He's very shy, and doesn't really like to be petted-I did touch him once for 2 seconds in 1999, though" or "She hates me, hates my family, hates all people, and hides in the closet when we're home, but loves to shred the couch and the curtains when we're at work"... any circumstance where there's allegedly an animal in the house but you can't be sure because no one ever sees, much less interacts with, it. This seems like an even worse deal for the owners than the outdoor pet, as the animal's hair and smell are in the house, as are their excretory functions, which will NOT always be in the litter box or on the papers, in addition to the potential damage they might cause; why not just get a stuffie and stick it in the closet or under the couch, which will look pretty much like the animal that's hiding there, and not cost you any time or $? Why bother with a creature that doesn't LIKE you, and is utterly uninterested in interacting with you, when there are so many sweet, loving animals getting put to sleep every single day that need good homes? If you don't care about having all the aggravations of pet ownership but none of the joys, think of the poor animal; why should it live its entire life with people it can't bear to be around? Give up the endless battle to win it over, give it to someone else or to a shelter (one where they DON'T put the animals down, of course) that can place it where it'll be happy, and rescue an animal from the Humane Society that'll be thrilled to live in your home with you.
Last but not least is the pet that's untouchable and/or incapable of loving you; fish, amphibians, reptiles (including poisonous ones, how's that for insanity?), tarantulas and sometimes birds fall into this category. Some of these creatures are attractive or interesting to look at, but pictures would be cheaper and less trouble... and realistically, few people that own this sort of pet spend much time looking at them, at least not that I've seen. Fish are calming to watch swim around, and some birds make nice tweeting sounds, but is that really enough reason to keep animals trapped in tiny enclosures for their entire lives, much less for you to have to care for them? While birds ARE capable of seeking and giving affection, some do not, and of course all the other, lower sorts of creatures in this category aren't capable of love, no matter how much their eagerly approaching their food-providers in the hopes of food, or happily laying on their warm owners to heat their little bodies up, may appear otherwise to owners inexplicably eager to believe that creatures so far down the evolutionary ladder care about them. Even assuming there's some thrill to, say, having a tank with a lizard in it that sits motionless on a branch for 23 hours and 55 minutes a day, one which makes it worth the expense, the tank-cleaning, and often the handling of live bugs to feed it, why call such a thing a pet?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine for people to have whatever critters they want, as long as there's no cruelty, law-breaking, or endangerment of people, animals or the property of others involved, and they can feel any way they want about those creatures, and see them as pets, as children, or whatever makes them happy... I just want to point out that to those of us looking in from the outside, it plain doesn't make sense how much people are willing to expend or endure for animals that don't give anything back, and why they feel the need to call every living thing on their property other than plants "pets."
What do *I* think qualifies a creature to be a pet for my own life? When I say that someday my husband and I would like to have pets, I mean animals that will live in our home with us, hang out with us just for the pleasure of being with us (as opposed to in the hope of being fed), demonstrate love for us, and seek our love and attention in return. I want animals that will sit on my lap or at my heel, follow me around the house, and be waiting eagerly at the door when I get home. An animal who gives its loyalty and its heart is worthy of a great deal of time and expense to give it what it needs, because such a creature possesses as pure of a kind of goodness as exists in the world, the sort of unswerving, unselfish devotion that we humans can't match. An animal like that DESERVES the most special label we can give it; pet.
First, there's the so-called outdoor pet; isn't that a contradiction in terms? How can a creature whose apparent sole purpose is for you to see them out in the yard (wouldn't a statue do just as well, and cost less over time?), and that's rarely anywhere near you except of course when you've got food to give them, earn your love, much less be giving BACK enough love to make them worth the time, trouble and $ of owning them? Even if the outdoor pet is better than most, and can be called over to interact with you when you're outside, most people are too busy to stand around outdoors much anymore, so what's the benefit of an outdoor pet over, say, the neighbor's pet that will come to you to be petted when you're in the mood for animal contact, and that you don't have to scoop the poop of and pay to maintain? Why bother to obtain an animal just to have something running around your property, much less call it a pet?
(A couple of special points for "outside cat" owners, that you won't like but need to know; it's been shown that outdoor cats only live HALF as long on the average as indoor cats (with indoor/outdoor types falling in between), and many organizations that try to protect endangered birds plead with people to not let their cats roam outside, for the obvious reasons... so why not keep kitty inside where it'll live twice as long, and can only harm your stuff rather than irreplaceable wild creatures?)
Then, there's the "phantom pet," which is where the owner says something like: "She hasn't come out from under the couch in the 3 years since we got her, but her food gets eaten and she's using the litter box, so I know she's ok," or "He's very shy, and doesn't really like to be petted-I did touch him once for 2 seconds in 1999, though" or "She hates me, hates my family, hates all people, and hides in the closet when we're home, but loves to shred the couch and the curtains when we're at work"... any circumstance where there's allegedly an animal in the house but you can't be sure because no one ever sees, much less interacts with, it. This seems like an even worse deal for the owners than the outdoor pet, as the animal's hair and smell are in the house, as are their excretory functions, which will NOT always be in the litter box or on the papers, in addition to the potential damage they might cause; why not just get a stuffie and stick it in the closet or under the couch, which will look pretty much like the animal that's hiding there, and not cost you any time or $? Why bother with a creature that doesn't LIKE you, and is utterly uninterested in interacting with you, when there are so many sweet, loving animals getting put to sleep every single day that need good homes? If you don't care about having all the aggravations of pet ownership but none of the joys, think of the poor animal; why should it live its entire life with people it can't bear to be around? Give up the endless battle to win it over, give it to someone else or to a shelter (one where they DON'T put the animals down, of course) that can place it where it'll be happy, and rescue an animal from the Humane Society that'll be thrilled to live in your home with you.
Last but not least is the pet that's untouchable and/or incapable of loving you; fish, amphibians, reptiles (including poisonous ones, how's that for insanity?), tarantulas and sometimes birds fall into this category. Some of these creatures are attractive or interesting to look at, but pictures would be cheaper and less trouble... and realistically, few people that own this sort of pet spend much time looking at them, at least not that I've seen. Fish are calming to watch swim around, and some birds make nice tweeting sounds, but is that really enough reason to keep animals trapped in tiny enclosures for their entire lives, much less for you to have to care for them? While birds ARE capable of seeking and giving affection, some do not, and of course all the other, lower sorts of creatures in this category aren't capable of love, no matter how much their eagerly approaching their food-providers in the hopes of food, or happily laying on their warm owners to heat their little bodies up, may appear otherwise to owners inexplicably eager to believe that creatures so far down the evolutionary ladder care about them. Even assuming there's some thrill to, say, having a tank with a lizard in it that sits motionless on a branch for 23 hours and 55 minutes a day, one which makes it worth the expense, the tank-cleaning, and often the handling of live bugs to feed it, why call such a thing a pet?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine for people to have whatever critters they want, as long as there's no cruelty, law-breaking, or endangerment of people, animals or the property of others involved, and they can feel any way they want about those creatures, and see them as pets, as children, or whatever makes them happy... I just want to point out that to those of us looking in from the outside, it plain doesn't make sense how much people are willing to expend or endure for animals that don't give anything back, and why they feel the need to call every living thing on their property other than plants "pets."
What do *I* think qualifies a creature to be a pet for my own life? When I say that someday my husband and I would like to have pets, I mean animals that will live in our home with us, hang out with us just for the pleasure of being with us (as opposed to in the hope of being fed), demonstrate love for us, and seek our love and attention in return. I want animals that will sit on my lap or at my heel, follow me around the house, and be waiting eagerly at the door when I get home. An animal who gives its loyalty and its heart is worthy of a great deal of time and expense to give it what it needs, because such a creature possesses as pure of a kind of goodness as exists in the world, the sort of unswerving, unselfish devotion that we humans can't match. An animal like that DESERVES the most special label we can give it; pet.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Joel Osteen got laid tonight
Osteen begins his sermons with a joke, which is a clever way to set an upbeat tone and start everyone off with a positive mindset. Tonight's joke really demonstrated his sly humor: A Hindu priest, a rabbi and a televangelist were traveling together, and when night came they asked a farmer if they could stay with him. The farmer was willing, but pointed out that he only had room for 2 of them to sleep in the house, so the 3rd would have to sleep in the barn; the men agreed, and the Hindu priest announced that he'd be the one to sleep in the barn. A few minutes later, there was a knock on the door, and it was him, saying that there was a cow in the barn, which was a sacred animal to him, so he couldn't sleep there; the rabbi said that he'd go out there instead. A few minutes later, there was a knock on the door, and it was him, saying that there was a pig in the barn, so he couldn't sleep there, as it wouldn't be kosher; the televangelist said that he'd go sleep in the barn, and off he went. A few minutes later, there was a knock on the door... and it was the cow and the pig. lol
The central theme of tonight's sermon was the idea of choosing to be happy, no matter what your situation is. For example, you might hate your job, but instead of feeling that way, you could choose to be grateful that you're not standing in the unemployment line, and if you're cranky about having to do the dishes, you could instead choose to be grateful that you have a place to live and something to eat. He asserts that you can retrain yourself to enjoy rather than endure, by finding the positive aspects of every situation and focusing on them rather than on the negatives, even when the negatives are substantial; he's right for the most part, although I'D assert that when things are really bad, few people are able to still see them in a positive light... in general, though, we cry far too much about far too little, even when we have far more than 99% of the people on this planet could ever dream of having, and we'll be healthier and happier if we think of it that way.
Osteen tells us that it's not enough to enjoy SOME of what we do each day; don't dread part of your life and enjoy the other, but find a way to make EVERY part of the day feel good. He warns against getting caught up with little negatives too, because they can bog you down and make your whole day seem bad, and aren't remotely worth it; a negative day is a wasted day, so the smart thing to do is to try to make every day a good day. Considering the power of our thoughts and feelings, that's excellent advice, but I suspect that those of us who can't assure ourselves that a loving God is going to fix everything if we use force of will to be positive even when our lives objectively aren't will have a harder time managing it.
Perhaps the most important point of the sermon was that if you take on a false sense of responsibility for creating the right choices of others, you'll almost surely fail, and will make yourself unhappy; he wasn't referring to small children, who need adult guidance, but to other adults, each of whom bears 100% responsibility for their own choices and their outcomes, and whom psychologists keep telling us are impossible to force to change... which isn't totally true, as any wife who's made her husband start putting the toilet seat back down can attest, but is generally true, and so we have to just shrug and let go of most of our attempts to improve those around us.
In summary, almost every day we can find an excuse to not be happy, but we don't have to use it; don't wait for everything to get better before you start enjoying life, choose to start enjoying it right now, and things will start to FEEL better, and eventually you'll perceive them to BE better. We're such a complaining, whiny culture that most people won't even want to try this... but imagine if any significant # of us succeeded.
What does any of that have to do with Joel Osteen getting laid? No disrespect is intended towards him by my saying that, in fact I admire how he worked the following into his sermon; while he was talking about how we should feel about our marital partners, he described how terrific his own marriage and wife were, which could easily be glib and thus not mean much... but then he said that if he had the choice between spending time with a bunch guys or with her, he'd choose her (even though that meant he'd have to go to the mall, lol), and that comment about the woman he's been married to for 18 years, so contrary to how most women at least think their own men would react to that choice, was guaranteed to get Osteen some appreciation that night.
Atta boy, Joel!! :-)
The central theme of tonight's sermon was the idea of choosing to be happy, no matter what your situation is. For example, you might hate your job, but instead of feeling that way, you could choose to be grateful that you're not standing in the unemployment line, and if you're cranky about having to do the dishes, you could instead choose to be grateful that you have a place to live and something to eat. He asserts that you can retrain yourself to enjoy rather than endure, by finding the positive aspects of every situation and focusing on them rather than on the negatives, even when the negatives are substantial; he's right for the most part, although I'D assert that when things are really bad, few people are able to still see them in a positive light... in general, though, we cry far too much about far too little, even when we have far more than 99% of the people on this planet could ever dream of having, and we'll be healthier and happier if we think of it that way.
Osteen tells us that it's not enough to enjoy SOME of what we do each day; don't dread part of your life and enjoy the other, but find a way to make EVERY part of the day feel good. He warns against getting caught up with little negatives too, because they can bog you down and make your whole day seem bad, and aren't remotely worth it; a negative day is a wasted day, so the smart thing to do is to try to make every day a good day. Considering the power of our thoughts and feelings, that's excellent advice, but I suspect that those of us who can't assure ourselves that a loving God is going to fix everything if we use force of will to be positive even when our lives objectively aren't will have a harder time managing it.
Perhaps the most important point of the sermon was that if you take on a false sense of responsibility for creating the right choices of others, you'll almost surely fail, and will make yourself unhappy; he wasn't referring to small children, who need adult guidance, but to other adults, each of whom bears 100% responsibility for their own choices and their outcomes, and whom psychologists keep telling us are impossible to force to change... which isn't totally true, as any wife who's made her husband start putting the toilet seat back down can attest, but is generally true, and so we have to just shrug and let go of most of our attempts to improve those around us.
In summary, almost every day we can find an excuse to not be happy, but we don't have to use it; don't wait for everything to get better before you start enjoying life, choose to start enjoying it right now, and things will start to FEEL better, and eventually you'll perceive them to BE better. We're such a complaining, whiny culture that most people won't even want to try this... but imagine if any significant # of us succeeded.
What does any of that have to do with Joel Osteen getting laid? No disrespect is intended towards him by my saying that, in fact I admire how he worked the following into his sermon; while he was talking about how we should feel about our marital partners, he described how terrific his own marriage and wife were, which could easily be glib and thus not mean much... but then he said that if he had the choice between spending time with a bunch guys or with her, he'd choose her (even though that meant he'd have to go to the mall, lol), and that comment about the woman he's been married to for 18 years, so contrary to how most women at least think their own men would react to that choice, was guaranteed to get Osteen some appreciation that night.
Atta boy, Joel!! :-)
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Not all nudity is the same
One of the saddest aspects of American culture is our inability to deal with nudity; we legislate against it on the one hand, and then pursue it ardently on the other hand... and wonder why other cultures see us as childish.
We all know what the "dirty parts" are; breasts (but NOT the male chest, doesn't that seem odd when looked at objectively?), butt and genitals... but these parts aren't ALWAYS dirty:
A woman can legally show her bare breasts, nipples included, in public if it's part of the process of breastfeeding... but otherwise, it's indecent exposure.
Depending on where you live, a thong bathing suit, which fully reveals the buttocks, might or might not be legal at the beach... and is very likely ILlegal away from the beach.
It's legal for a baby or small child to be totally nude in public, but NOT for an adult to be nude in public (I wonder at what age it switches from legal to illegal); child nudity in photos, TV shows and movies, however, might be illegal depending on how it's handled and what city you're in (laws about photography are particularly inconsistent), while an adult can appear nude in any media they choose.
It's illegal to put photos of nude or semi-nude people in most public places, including schools and gov't buildings, but ART depicting full-frontal nudity IS ok. Most states forbid even the mildest cheesecake photos in the workplace, as they count as "sexual harassment," but, again, ART showing even complete nudity would be totally ok.
We've got lots of statues depicting females with bare breasts, and everyone thinks that's alright (except for John Ashcroft, lol), but if a woman stood next to one of those statues with her real-life breasts bared, that'd be indecent exposure.
TV channels that have advertising pretty much follow the traditional standards about nudity, but there are a couple of major exceptions:
Educational programs about tribal cultures have created the term "indigenous nudity" to refer to anything from bare butts to genitals that got captured on film... and I don't mean "Gee, what's that 50 feet away, is that a bare penis?", I mean tight body shots that are meant to show them doing something like making spears, but are also showcasing, er, other things the men take pride in, and in prime time no less. A program with a white man showing HIS genitals, on the other hand, even if he were also making spears, would be so illegal that they'd never DARE try it.
The other exception is when showing childbirth, and it's that type of show that got me thinking about all this; I was watching an interesting program about the development of a baby in the womb, and upon hearing a shriek I looked up from my keyboard to see a FULL-SCREEN closeup of the mother's genitals with the baby's head starting to emerge... normally, you'd have to look at hard-core porn to see that sort of extreme pudendal image, but this show came on at 7PM on the National Geographic channel. They had a couple more shots of that type, and, much as I admire mothers and think that childbirth is miraculous and all that... I just don't think anyone needs to see genital images of that size unless they're, um, doing something private at the same time. It goes without saying that under ANY other circumstances you can NOT show that sort of thing on non-porn channels; I'm all for greater acceptance of nudity, but I think that's just as well... the human body is beautiful, but few anatomical parts look good THAT close up.
Now that we've broken down some of the taboos about nudity on TV, it'll be interesting to see what other stuff they'll be trying to show; there's already some envelope-pushing occurring with a show on the Discovery channel called "Going Tribal," in which British cutie Bruce Parry lives with various isolated tribes, adopting their ways and trying to be accepted by them... and showing his bare and quite-attractive butt in most episodes, which I assume is deemed ok because the "tribal men" are showing theirs, and there's no reasonable way to allow one but not the other. (I highly recommend the show, by the way, and NOT just because of Bruce's butt.) My best guess for what'll come next is that they're going to try to start showing nudity on some of the grittier reality shows... what do you think?
We all know what the "dirty parts" are; breasts (but NOT the male chest, doesn't that seem odd when looked at objectively?), butt and genitals... but these parts aren't ALWAYS dirty:
A woman can legally show her bare breasts, nipples included, in public if it's part of the process of breastfeeding... but otherwise, it's indecent exposure.
Depending on where you live, a thong bathing suit, which fully reveals the buttocks, might or might not be legal at the beach... and is very likely ILlegal away from the beach.
It's legal for a baby or small child to be totally nude in public, but NOT for an adult to be nude in public (I wonder at what age it switches from legal to illegal); child nudity in photos, TV shows and movies, however, might be illegal depending on how it's handled and what city you're in (laws about photography are particularly inconsistent), while an adult can appear nude in any media they choose.
It's illegal to put photos of nude or semi-nude people in most public places, including schools and gov't buildings, but ART depicting full-frontal nudity IS ok. Most states forbid even the mildest cheesecake photos in the workplace, as they count as "sexual harassment," but, again, ART showing even complete nudity would be totally ok.
We've got lots of statues depicting females with bare breasts, and everyone thinks that's alright (except for John Ashcroft, lol), but if a woman stood next to one of those statues with her real-life breasts bared, that'd be indecent exposure.
TV channels that have advertising pretty much follow the traditional standards about nudity, but there are a couple of major exceptions:
Educational programs about tribal cultures have created the term "indigenous nudity" to refer to anything from bare butts to genitals that got captured on film... and I don't mean "Gee, what's that 50 feet away, is that a bare penis?", I mean tight body shots that are meant to show them doing something like making spears, but are also showcasing, er, other things the men take pride in, and in prime time no less. A program with a white man showing HIS genitals, on the other hand, even if he were also making spears, would be so illegal that they'd never DARE try it.
The other exception is when showing childbirth, and it's that type of show that got me thinking about all this; I was watching an interesting program about the development of a baby in the womb, and upon hearing a shriek I looked up from my keyboard to see a FULL-SCREEN closeup of the mother's genitals with the baby's head starting to emerge... normally, you'd have to look at hard-core porn to see that sort of extreme pudendal image, but this show came on at 7PM on the National Geographic channel. They had a couple more shots of that type, and, much as I admire mothers and think that childbirth is miraculous and all that... I just don't think anyone needs to see genital images of that size unless they're, um, doing something private at the same time. It goes without saying that under ANY other circumstances you can NOT show that sort of thing on non-porn channels; I'm all for greater acceptance of nudity, but I think that's just as well... the human body is beautiful, but few anatomical parts look good THAT close up.
Now that we've broken down some of the taboos about nudity on TV, it'll be interesting to see what other stuff they'll be trying to show; there's already some envelope-pushing occurring with a show on the Discovery channel called "Going Tribal," in which British cutie Bruce Parry lives with various isolated tribes, adopting their ways and trying to be accepted by them... and showing his bare and quite-attractive butt in most episodes, which I assume is deemed ok because the "tribal men" are showing theirs, and there's no reasonable way to allow one but not the other. (I highly recommend the show, by the way, and NOT just because of Bruce's butt.) My best guess for what'll come next is that they're going to try to start showing nudity on some of the grittier reality shows... what do you think?
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Why don't wishes always come true?
No, that's not meant to be the equivalent of when small children ask why they can't have everything they want, I mean why can't we say a few days, or weeks, or even months, of affirmations (I describe how to do them in my post of 1-12-04) and make anything we wish come to pass, knowing that our thoughts DO have the power to shape reality?
1) This should go without saying, but some people feel it necessary to make an issue of it; we can't do magic, or otherwise violate the laws of physics, no matter how many times we do affirmations asking for it, because you can't use the power of karma to overcome the structure of karma.
2) Some things are just too big for us to influence meaningfully; as much as we'd like to prevent natural disasters from occurring, the forces behind them are so enormous that we can't make a dent in them.
3) We can't change human nature; if you're a minority in the area you live, for example, you can't make people stop viewing you as "other" just by wishing it to be so.
4) We can't change an individual person's nature; if you're in love with someone whose sexual orientation isn't towards your gender, there's no point in trying to alter that.
5) In circumstances where many people are hoping for contradictory outcomes, it's silly to think that your extra bit of hoping will tip the balance; you can't do affirmations to control the scores of sporting events, or who wins the Miss Universe pageant, for example.
6) a) If your karma's not clean, you can't expect to have much of ANY effect... and remember that things like fear and sadness, although not "bad" in the sense of being wrongdoings, lead to negative karma. If necessary, re-build your karma through good deeds and positive thoughts/feelings before attempting to do affirmations.
b) In most circumstances, the bad karma of people closely associated with you can block you from drawing in what you want, as their negative energy surrounds you even though you didn't generate it; unless you can distance yourself from those people long enough to do the affirmations and receive what you asked for, you're unfortunately just stuck with that.
7) It's crucial to be VERY specific about what you ask for, and to be sure that it reflects EXACTLY what you want; if you want to lose 50 lbs, and just do an affirmation to lose weight, once you've lost 1 lb, or even 1 oz, your request has been fulfilled, and all that effort has been wasted.
8) It's equally important to NOT be specific as to HOW karma is to deliver what you want, as that closes off some of the pathways it could use, including maybe 1 that'll make or break your results; if you wish for wealth, don't specify that it has to be from winning the lottery, or that inheritance your great aunt has to pass along might go to a different relative, one who's less picky.
9) You have to truly focus and project your thoughts, which is the entire point of doing affirmations; you can't just have a wistful daydream about a thing every so often and expect to be significantly altering your chances of getting it.
10) You have to keep at it, even after the novelty wears off; after a few days, writing out those 15 sentences can seem like a gigantic task that you've got no time for, believe me I know, but to get even the simplest things done takes TIME, and if you don't persist you can't expect to triumph... just like with anything else.
With that said, I owe you a couple of warnings, too:
1) The saying "be careful what you ask for, because you might get it" applies; before you ask for that promotion, think long and hard if all it really is is a few dollars more for working twice as many hours. Even if the thing you want doesn't have a catch, it still might not be the best thing for YOU; don't ask for a doctor for a husband if you can't handle being alone alot of the time, and rarely being the center of his thoughts when he IS with you.
2) Be very, VERY cautious about wishing for something that does harm; various belief systems warn that whatever you send out will come back to you threefold, or even TENfold, and when you're wishing harm you're virtually guaranteed to be sending out anger, hate, jealousy, resentment or other negative feelings with your thoughts, and negative feelings bring negativity into your life... so unless you possess the ability to have ice-cold detachment, it's better to handle problematic people in less metaphysical ways.
Our thoughts DO shape reality... what sort of reality are YOU creating?
1) This should go without saying, but some people feel it necessary to make an issue of it; we can't do magic, or otherwise violate the laws of physics, no matter how many times we do affirmations asking for it, because you can't use the power of karma to overcome the structure of karma.
2) Some things are just too big for us to influence meaningfully; as much as we'd like to prevent natural disasters from occurring, the forces behind them are so enormous that we can't make a dent in them.
3) We can't change human nature; if you're a minority in the area you live, for example, you can't make people stop viewing you as "other" just by wishing it to be so.
4) We can't change an individual person's nature; if you're in love with someone whose sexual orientation isn't towards your gender, there's no point in trying to alter that.
5) In circumstances where many people are hoping for contradictory outcomes, it's silly to think that your extra bit of hoping will tip the balance; you can't do affirmations to control the scores of sporting events, or who wins the Miss Universe pageant, for example.
6) a) If your karma's not clean, you can't expect to have much of ANY effect... and remember that things like fear and sadness, although not "bad" in the sense of being wrongdoings, lead to negative karma. If necessary, re-build your karma through good deeds and positive thoughts/feelings before attempting to do affirmations.
b) In most circumstances, the bad karma of people closely associated with you can block you from drawing in what you want, as their negative energy surrounds you even though you didn't generate it; unless you can distance yourself from those people long enough to do the affirmations and receive what you asked for, you're unfortunately just stuck with that.
7) It's crucial to be VERY specific about what you ask for, and to be sure that it reflects EXACTLY what you want; if you want to lose 50 lbs, and just do an affirmation to lose weight, once you've lost 1 lb, or even 1 oz, your request has been fulfilled, and all that effort has been wasted.
8) It's equally important to NOT be specific as to HOW karma is to deliver what you want, as that closes off some of the pathways it could use, including maybe 1 that'll make or break your results; if you wish for wealth, don't specify that it has to be from winning the lottery, or that inheritance your great aunt has to pass along might go to a different relative, one who's less picky.
9) You have to truly focus and project your thoughts, which is the entire point of doing affirmations; you can't just have a wistful daydream about a thing every so often and expect to be significantly altering your chances of getting it.
10) You have to keep at it, even after the novelty wears off; after a few days, writing out those 15 sentences can seem like a gigantic task that you've got no time for, believe me I know, but to get even the simplest things done takes TIME, and if you don't persist you can't expect to triumph... just like with anything else.
With that said, I owe you a couple of warnings, too:
1) The saying "be careful what you ask for, because you might get it" applies; before you ask for that promotion, think long and hard if all it really is is a few dollars more for working twice as many hours. Even if the thing you want doesn't have a catch, it still might not be the best thing for YOU; don't ask for a doctor for a husband if you can't handle being alone alot of the time, and rarely being the center of his thoughts when he IS with you.
2) Be very, VERY cautious about wishing for something that does harm; various belief systems warn that whatever you send out will come back to you threefold, or even TENfold, and when you're wishing harm you're virtually guaranteed to be sending out anger, hate, jealousy, resentment or other negative feelings with your thoughts, and negative feelings bring negativity into your life... so unless you possess the ability to have ice-cold detachment, it's better to handle problematic people in less metaphysical ways.
Our thoughts DO shape reality... what sort of reality are YOU creating?
Friday, September 02, 2005
Brown shoes and the larva
Women are supposed to love shoes, but I've never had much interest in them; part of it's that I have big feet, and most cute shoes don't look good on me, part of it's that I didn't have much $ most of my life, and didn't want to waste any on shoes that could be spent on shirts or earrings, and part of it's that I've got narrow heels, and most shoes cut into me there, making them unwearable.
I CAN wear pumps easily, even very high ones, as then the pressure is on the balls of my feet rather than on the backs of my heels, so I have some business and formal pairs that I haven't needed to wear in years, sitting in my closet in boxes. Boots are also fine, but they're a little fancy for my jeans and t-shirts, and I've found them to be insufficiently padded for me to walk more than a token amount in, although perhaps their cheapness is a factor too (I'm just not willing to buy expensive things to wear of any kind, even though I can afford them now-it seems like such a waste of $)... thinking about which made me realize something recently:
Haven't you ever wondered why ugly, clunky shoes with filthy laces to struggle with have become our official footwear? I think I finally understand why; athletic shoes have to be cushiony on all the surfaces of your feet to be usable, and, unlike most other shoes, that have hard, unpadded soles, uppers and of course that edge that digs into the back of your heel, they're COMFORTABLE, even with all the standing and walking we do on cement... all these years of having my feet hurt came from my disliking athletic shoes so much that I was wearing shoes that weren't meant to be walked around in, sigh.
I hadn't had comfortable footwear since I graduated college and started wearing "adult" shoes; when I didn't need to wear pumps anymore, I switched to boots, which looked cool but led to real pain if I had to walk far. I didn't even remember that my feet didn't feel like that when I'd worn athletic shoes, and it never occurred to me that I could do real walking without pain until, having decided that boots were a little much with my geekwear, I started looking around for new shoes, and the only pair I could find that didn't gouge my heels turned out to have such springy padding that I felt like I was walking on bubble wrap... it was a revelation. Not only were they blissful with every step, they allowed me to shop an entire mall without limping and having my feet swell up to twice their size; it was a whole new world.
A few months later, I realized that I only had that ONE pair of shoes, and that wasn't enough, so I went back to the store where I'd gotten them... and they had every single style by that brand still EXCEPT the ones that fit me. That was 5 YEARS ago, and I never found another pair to fit me until now; what I finally realized was that I needed that high, padded thing on the back of the heel, like athletic shoes have, to not have that cutting pain, but you don't often see that in any other sort of shoe... finally, a sporting goods store got some, and, although they have the minor drawback that the elastic insets in the upper let my foot lift up and out slightly when I take a certain angle of step, they're cushy and comfy, and have a bonus attribute as well.
They're BROWN.
Why does that matter? Because all my boots are black, and the 1 pair of shoes I've been wearing are black, and even the most clueless MEN know you can't just have black shoes, you need brown ones too; it was hard, but I've been able to overcome my deeply-entrenched ideas of "black goes with everything, so that's all I need" and "if they're not black they'll show every speck of dirt" enough to have brown shoes even though I don't much like that color... although probably only because it was the only color they came in, lol, and I'd have gotten them in literally ANY color just to have a 2nd pair of shoes.
And now on to the larva; I found one oozing along the wall in the hallway this evening, and was a little nervous because there's never just ONE when they show up. A couple of hours later, I was typing along, tap-tap-tap-tap (or rather, since I'm a very slow typist, more like tap... tap... tap... tap...), when suddenly, horrifyingly, it became tap-tap-tap-SQUISH. I looked down, and saw to my utter revulsion that one of the loathsome things was writhing on the key I'd just tried to hit; shrieking piercingly enough to put a car alarm to shame, I grabbed a napkin, snatched it up before it could crawl off my laptop, squashed it, and was still screaming when my husband came charging in. Horribly aware that I'd TOUCHED a larva, I began frantically scrubbing my finger on the only thing handy; my husband's shirt. He waited patiently for me to finish, agreeing with my howled declarations as to the filthiness and evil of the larva; then, following my panicked instructions, he dragged in the step-stool and checked the ceiling to see if any more of them were up there waiting to jump down on my keyboard (or my HEAD)... there weren't any, but my skin has been crawling ever since.
I swear, between the swarms of vermin and my husband's offensive emissions (don't ask), I'm going to need to get full-on hazmat gear and seal myself in... and won't it look slick with my new brown shoes?
I CAN wear pumps easily, even very high ones, as then the pressure is on the balls of my feet rather than on the backs of my heels, so I have some business and formal pairs that I haven't needed to wear in years, sitting in my closet in boxes. Boots are also fine, but they're a little fancy for my jeans and t-shirts, and I've found them to be insufficiently padded for me to walk more than a token amount in, although perhaps their cheapness is a factor too (I'm just not willing to buy expensive things to wear of any kind, even though I can afford them now-it seems like such a waste of $)... thinking about which made me realize something recently:
Haven't you ever wondered why ugly, clunky shoes with filthy laces to struggle with have become our official footwear? I think I finally understand why; athletic shoes have to be cushiony on all the surfaces of your feet to be usable, and, unlike most other shoes, that have hard, unpadded soles, uppers and of course that edge that digs into the back of your heel, they're COMFORTABLE, even with all the standing and walking we do on cement... all these years of having my feet hurt came from my disliking athletic shoes so much that I was wearing shoes that weren't meant to be walked around in, sigh.
I hadn't had comfortable footwear since I graduated college and started wearing "adult" shoes; when I didn't need to wear pumps anymore, I switched to boots, which looked cool but led to real pain if I had to walk far. I didn't even remember that my feet didn't feel like that when I'd worn athletic shoes, and it never occurred to me that I could do real walking without pain until, having decided that boots were a little much with my geekwear, I started looking around for new shoes, and the only pair I could find that didn't gouge my heels turned out to have such springy padding that I felt like I was walking on bubble wrap... it was a revelation. Not only were they blissful with every step, they allowed me to shop an entire mall without limping and having my feet swell up to twice their size; it was a whole new world.
A few months later, I realized that I only had that ONE pair of shoes, and that wasn't enough, so I went back to the store where I'd gotten them... and they had every single style by that brand still EXCEPT the ones that fit me. That was 5 YEARS ago, and I never found another pair to fit me until now; what I finally realized was that I needed that high, padded thing on the back of the heel, like athletic shoes have, to not have that cutting pain, but you don't often see that in any other sort of shoe... finally, a sporting goods store got some, and, although they have the minor drawback that the elastic insets in the upper let my foot lift up and out slightly when I take a certain angle of step, they're cushy and comfy, and have a bonus attribute as well.
They're BROWN.
Why does that matter? Because all my boots are black, and the 1 pair of shoes I've been wearing are black, and even the most clueless MEN know you can't just have black shoes, you need brown ones too; it was hard, but I've been able to overcome my deeply-entrenched ideas of "black goes with everything, so that's all I need" and "if they're not black they'll show every speck of dirt" enough to have brown shoes even though I don't much like that color... although probably only because it was the only color they came in, lol, and I'd have gotten them in literally ANY color just to have a 2nd pair of shoes.
And now on to the larva; I found one oozing along the wall in the hallway this evening, and was a little nervous because there's never just ONE when they show up. A couple of hours later, I was typing along, tap-tap-tap-tap (or rather, since I'm a very slow typist, more like tap... tap... tap... tap...), when suddenly, horrifyingly, it became tap-tap-tap-SQUISH. I looked down, and saw to my utter revulsion that one of the loathsome things was writhing on the key I'd just tried to hit; shrieking piercingly enough to put a car alarm to shame, I grabbed a napkin, snatched it up before it could crawl off my laptop, squashed it, and was still screaming when my husband came charging in. Horribly aware that I'd TOUCHED a larva, I began frantically scrubbing my finger on the only thing handy; my husband's shirt. He waited patiently for me to finish, agreeing with my howled declarations as to the filthiness and evil of the larva; then, following my panicked instructions, he dragged in the step-stool and checked the ceiling to see if any more of them were up there waiting to jump down on my keyboard (or my HEAD)... there weren't any, but my skin has been crawling ever since.
I swear, between the swarms of vermin and my husband's offensive emissions (don't ask), I'm going to need to get full-on hazmat gear and seal myself in... and won't it look slick with my new brown shoes?
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Interesting spiritual ideas from an odd source
To capitalize on the remake of "The Amityville Horror," earlier this year they released a DVD set with the original movie, 2 sequels, and a bonus disc
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?BB=true&movieID=139210&channel=Movies&subChannel=sub#Full
which contains "a pair of documentaries produced for The History Channel on the real-life events that inspired the first film, as well as a look at the production of the 2005 remake of The Amityville Horror and more"... and that's the one I got in the mail today.
I got my 1st look at the people who actually lived through the events that inspired the book and movie... well, they SAY they lived through the events, which isn't the same thing, but since they gave no indication of being dishonest, "slick" types, they did verifiably abandon their home and everything they owned when they fled (they gave the house back to the bank, and their belongings were auctioned off for a pittance), and I know from personal experience with ghosts, particularly poltergeists, that entities of various sorts exist and interact with humans, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I also saw a bewildering array of contradictory claims from several people who'd involved themselves in the case in various ways... none of which means anything, because it either happened or it didn't, and only the Lutz family knows for sure.
There was one intriguing thing revealed; the Catholic priest who had come to bless the house, Father Ralph Pecoraro, testified in court that he DID hear that deep voice saying "get out," and he also supposed felt a slap to the face... no sane person sees priests as paragons of virtue anymore, but why would he have opened himself up to ridicule and censure by giving that testimony if the incident hadn't happened?
Now here's the spiritual part; the Lutzes said something that would be illogical if they were trying to persuade people of the validity of a false story... that it was typical in that house for 1 person to experience something that no one else perceived, or for everyone to be seeing/hearing something, but not the same thing. If YOU were going to try to perpetrate a fraud about supernatural happenings, wouldn't you have everyone telling the SAME story for each incident, to add credence to it by backing each other up? One of the supposed experts in paranormal phenomena that appeared in the documentaries gave an explanation for each person having different perceptions; that these perceptions were telepathic in nature, and thus each person experienced whatever was projected at them, or nothing if they weren't being targeted. If spirits and such WERE plugging into our brains rather than creating visible and audible apparitions, that'd make them easier to understand, because they wouldn't have to be able to manipulate light and sound waves... but it wouldn't explain their ability to move things around, so they've gotta have more to them than psychic ability.
The other spiritual thing is the explanation Kathy Lutz gave for why they had those terrifying experiences when no one else who's lived in that house (yes, other people are willing to live somewhere where, at the very least, 6 people, 4 of which were children, were brutally murdered) has reported anything; she revealed that they'd gotten into transcendental meditation before moving there, and that she thought that it opened their minds to... other things. I can certainly see how this could be, although just because you can see a logical way something COULD happen doesn't mean it DID; just to be safe, though, if I ever get the urge to dabble in TM, I'm going to suppress it.
So, now I have a new facet of "the unknown" to ponder; what is the interface between humans and non-corporeal entities, how does it work, and can we "fine-tune" it? hmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?BB=true&movieID=139210&channel=Movies&subChannel=sub#Full
which contains "a pair of documentaries produced for The History Channel on the real-life events that inspired the first film, as well as a look at the production of the 2005 remake of The Amityville Horror and more"... and that's the one I got in the mail today.
I got my 1st look at the people who actually lived through the events that inspired the book and movie... well, they SAY they lived through the events, which isn't the same thing, but since they gave no indication of being dishonest, "slick" types, they did verifiably abandon their home and everything they owned when they fled (they gave the house back to the bank, and their belongings were auctioned off for a pittance), and I know from personal experience with ghosts, particularly poltergeists, that entities of various sorts exist and interact with humans, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I also saw a bewildering array of contradictory claims from several people who'd involved themselves in the case in various ways... none of which means anything, because it either happened or it didn't, and only the Lutz family knows for sure.
There was one intriguing thing revealed; the Catholic priest who had come to bless the house, Father Ralph Pecoraro, testified in court that he DID hear that deep voice saying "get out," and he also supposed felt a slap to the face... no sane person sees priests as paragons of virtue anymore, but why would he have opened himself up to ridicule and censure by giving that testimony if the incident hadn't happened?
Now here's the spiritual part; the Lutzes said something that would be illogical if they were trying to persuade people of the validity of a false story... that it was typical in that house for 1 person to experience something that no one else perceived, or for everyone to be seeing/hearing something, but not the same thing. If YOU were going to try to perpetrate a fraud about supernatural happenings, wouldn't you have everyone telling the SAME story for each incident, to add credence to it by backing each other up? One of the supposed experts in paranormal phenomena that appeared in the documentaries gave an explanation for each person having different perceptions; that these perceptions were telepathic in nature, and thus each person experienced whatever was projected at them, or nothing if they weren't being targeted. If spirits and such WERE plugging into our brains rather than creating visible and audible apparitions, that'd make them easier to understand, because they wouldn't have to be able to manipulate light and sound waves... but it wouldn't explain their ability to move things around, so they've gotta have more to them than psychic ability.
The other spiritual thing is the explanation Kathy Lutz gave for why they had those terrifying experiences when no one else who's lived in that house (yes, other people are willing to live somewhere where, at the very least, 6 people, 4 of which were children, were brutally murdered) has reported anything; she revealed that they'd gotten into transcendental meditation before moving there, and that she thought that it opened their minds to... other things. I can certainly see how this could be, although just because you can see a logical way something COULD happen doesn't mean it DID; just to be safe, though, if I ever get the urge to dabble in TM, I'm going to suppress it.
So, now I have a new facet of "the unknown" to ponder; what is the interface between humans and non-corporeal entities, how does it work, and can we "fine-tune" it? hmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
