Anyone interested in seeing Macbeth?
I'd be willing to pick anyone up and take anyone home who wanted to. I'd like to go Thursday night, but if anyone wants to go Saturday I'd be glad to wait.
Tuesday, August 2
In Ages Past
I sort of neglected to update my adventures in Virginia, but there are a few memories I'd rather like to record that I thought of today.
While I was there, my aunt or uncle (I don't know which) told me one of the more tragic stories I'd heard. Apparently, a teenage girl had been killed in a car accident close to the place where one turned from the main road to my relative's neighborhood. What's worse is that a year later, her brother was killed in another car accident not a mile away from where his sister had died. I can't imagine how terrible it was for their parents. To have one child killed is bad enough. But then, after a year of grieving, when small steps are made towards adjustment and you try, desperately, to cling to the future, once again tragedy strikes, leaving you with next to nothing.
Such repeated devastation seems unfathomable to me. Admittedly, my views on death are quite fatalistic, but I can still try to empathize. I know there have been worse stories, but still...
I try to think of how I'd react, with my unorthodox views on death. I try to think how I'd feel if my mother or father or sister died. How I'd feel if one of my friends died. And each time, I just don't see me getting too upset. It scares me. I fear I'm too detached from my emotions, so intent on controlling them and maintaining a level of apathy putting me above emotional pain that I can't really love anyone. It's all lipservice.
Honestly, I think me wrecking my car 1.5 years ago was more tramatic and painful than my own mother's death would be today. Why? Because the car wreck was my fault. Not only do I seek detachment, but I've come to the point where the only person who can cause me emotional distress is myself. At least, that's who I blame. I don't hold a grudge or point a finger at anyone else for my state of mind except myself.
It's very confusing. Surely I can't just be a self-centered individualist with an affection for altruism. I mean, I love to make people laugh. But is that truly because I like the joy of others, or am I seeking to fight my own insecurity and prove myself to have some worth in the eyes of others? I want to help people, I want to be there for them and aid them in their endeavors if I'm able and agree that I really am needed. But isn't that just another ploy to make my life seem somehow worthwhile?
I'm so afraid of overstepping my boundaries. It's a primary reason I try and limit my physical contact, because I'm worried I'll be considered forward or make someone (observer or "victim") uncomfortable. But this isn't a concern for the other person so much as an issue of convenience for me. I don't have to risk confrontation.
Then again, this is quintessential cynicism. I could just as easily apply this line of thought to most other people. However, I do often wonder if I really "love" as others "love." One of the cons of being forced into one perspective, I suppose. A quandry I'll never be able to solve. Ah well.
Next Virginia entry: My Voyages to Church
While I was there, my aunt or uncle (I don't know which) told me one of the more tragic stories I'd heard. Apparently, a teenage girl had been killed in a car accident close to the place where one turned from the main road to my relative's neighborhood. What's worse is that a year later, her brother was killed in another car accident not a mile away from where his sister had died. I can't imagine how terrible it was for their parents. To have one child killed is bad enough. But then, after a year of grieving, when small steps are made towards adjustment and you try, desperately, to cling to the future, once again tragedy strikes, leaving you with next to nothing.
Such repeated devastation seems unfathomable to me. Admittedly, my views on death are quite fatalistic, but I can still try to empathize. I know there have been worse stories, but still...
I try to think of how I'd react, with my unorthodox views on death. I try to think how I'd feel if my mother or father or sister died. How I'd feel if one of my friends died. And each time, I just don't see me getting too upset. It scares me. I fear I'm too detached from my emotions, so intent on controlling them and maintaining a level of apathy putting me above emotional pain that I can't really love anyone. It's all lipservice.
Honestly, I think me wrecking my car 1.5 years ago was more tramatic and painful than my own mother's death would be today. Why? Because the car wreck was my fault. Not only do I seek detachment, but I've come to the point where the only person who can cause me emotional distress is myself. At least, that's who I blame. I don't hold a grudge or point a finger at anyone else for my state of mind except myself.
It's very confusing. Surely I can't just be a self-centered individualist with an affection for altruism. I mean, I love to make people laugh. But is that truly because I like the joy of others, or am I seeking to fight my own insecurity and prove myself to have some worth in the eyes of others? I want to help people, I want to be there for them and aid them in their endeavors if I'm able and agree that I really am needed. But isn't that just another ploy to make my life seem somehow worthwhile?
I'm so afraid of overstepping my boundaries. It's a primary reason I try and limit my physical contact, because I'm worried I'll be considered forward or make someone (observer or "victim") uncomfortable. But this isn't a concern for the other person so much as an issue of convenience for me. I don't have to risk confrontation.
Then again, this is quintessential cynicism. I could just as easily apply this line of thought to most other people. However, I do often wonder if I really "love" as others "love." One of the cons of being forced into one perspective, I suppose. A quandry I'll never be able to solve. Ah well.
Next Virginia entry: My Voyages to Church
Monday, August 1
Back for the Long Haul
Well, I'm back. And this time, I'm here to stay. In Knoxville, that is. Wednesday will be the official "three weeks til class starts" day. I'm still quintessentially ambivalent about the entire affair. I'm looking forward to getting out of the house, meeting new people, and taking challenging classes that will lead me further into my chosen career path. However, I'm also terrified of getting out of the house, meeting new people, and taking challenging classes that will lead me further into my chosen career path. You can see my problem.
Leaving home is a new level of freedom, and I won't have to feel like I'm going to be accosted at any moment to do something. Not that I am now, which makes it all the more peculiar that I feel this way. But, despite this counter-intuitive anxiety, this is still my "comfort zone." I'm safe, secure, and not threatened (for the most part) in my cold little corner. And when I leave I'll perpetually reside right in the middle of the action. Oy.
Then there's meeting new people. That's always a roll of the dice, now isn't it? I suppose I'm fairly amiable to everyone, and there's a moderate number with whom I can get along quite well. I really shouldn't be scared. I just have to act nice and not feel inferior.
And then, of course, I'm worried about my classes. Grades are pretty integral now that they're worth $12,300 a year. I also sort of look forward to them. At least, the ones other than Spanish. And Math. But the others look good!
Anyway, I meant to write more, but I got distracted. More... eventually!
Leaving home is a new level of freedom, and I won't have to feel like I'm going to be accosted at any moment to do something. Not that I am now, which makes it all the more peculiar that I feel this way. But, despite this counter-intuitive anxiety, this is still my "comfort zone." I'm safe, secure, and not threatened (for the most part) in my cold little corner. And when I leave I'll perpetually reside right in the middle of the action. Oy.
Then there's meeting new people. That's always a roll of the dice, now isn't it? I suppose I'm fairly amiable to everyone, and there's a moderate number with whom I can get along quite well. I really shouldn't be scared. I just have to act nice and not feel inferior.
And then, of course, I'm worried about my classes. Grades are pretty integral now that they're worth $12,300 a year. I also sort of look forward to them. At least, the ones other than Spanish. And Math. But the others look good!
Anyway, I meant to write more, but I got distracted. More... eventually!
Thursday, July 28
Away
Well, it's off to grandmother's house I go. No internet access for about 3 days. I think I'll survive, I'm not sure though... There's not much for me here but books, I'm afraid. I'm actually ready for college to start so I can get it over with. What a funny concept... Heh, take care guys. I'll be back online Monday!
Cheers!
Cheers!
Wednesday, July 27
Too Sexy For My Society
(THIS, now THIS is some entry right here. It goes places, believe you me. So if you have questions or comments, please make them after the trip. I'd hate for you to get misconceptions about my beliefs because I didn't properly express myself [a very probable possibility]. But, at any rate, here it is.)
Well, I watched the movie “Kinsey” tonight, and it got me thinking about a particular subject area that’s been prevalent in my musings recently. For those who don’t know, Kinsey was a professor who surveyed thousands of people about their sexual histories and helped to dispel numerous myths about sexuality and what is “normal.” One of the matters brought up in the movie was how love and sex tied together and whether a loving relationship could endure when sexual relations weren’t “exclusive.”
When I first learned about the concept, it startled me. I’d always assumed people either partnered for the intent of long term relationships or had “one night stands” with different frequencies. It really hadn’t occurred to me that a person could continuously have sexual relations with multiple, limited partners for extended durations.
At first I chalked it up to “Well, it wouldn’t work for me, but if you can deal with it and all parties agree, I certainly don’t mind” (that’s a fairly accurate summation of many of my views). However, I began thinking about it, and I wondered if I could survive under such circumstances. It’s really a complex area. Assuming my girlfriend/wife consented, would I be able to have an at least satisfactory relationship with another girl in addition? And, more importantly, would I be able to tolerate my wife having relations with other men?
The first psychological response in my imaginings is about as expected. I would feel quite jealous if my wife pursued other “interests”, but if she consented, I would be able to maintain multiple relationships myself without guilt. I’m not quite sure if it classifies as hypocritical, as these are feelings and not actions, nor are they necessarily endorsements.
That was where I stopped, until tonight when I watched the movie. Once again, it brought up my past internal debate. However, I imagined that my hypothetical lover was fornicating not for pleasure or with another lover, but as part of some sort of scientific experiment. I don’t feel any feelings of jealousy at all. And that’s when I see that the act itself isn’t important, just the implication. If my wife had intercourse with another man, I’d feel threatened that she’d leave me for him or that I would be proved inadequate. Even if that wasn’t her original intent, her main purpose being exploration and hedonism, the possibility is still there.
But then, I reason with myself. If she really enjoys the company of another man above mine, wouldn’t it be better that she gets the best? And of course, even if he is “better in bed”, I may still have enduring qualities that brings her back to me. Of course, the idea of sharing one’s wife is quite detached from society’s norm, but honestly I think I could adjust to it.
And as I adjust to the idea, my thought expands. Brie has a comment in Bonnie’s profile that reads something like “I don’t want to get married, I’d rather just have casual sex with my male friends.” It’s a concept that’s rather intrigued me, even if the thought itself may have been uttered facetiously. What if sex wasn’t treated as taboo or possessive at all? What if kissing, stimulation, even the actual act of fornication were commonplace between friends? What if one could detach themselves from the idea that sex is something private and special, instead integrating it into one’s social life? It’s almost disturbing. And yet, I’d imagine I could do it. I’ve got the right amount of logic to be able to handle my emotions, but the right amount of emotions to heighten the experience from just hedonism to something more fulfilling.
Of course, this is all speculation from someone who’s only been kissed. But really, breaking down the physical barriers and making physical contact become as acceptable as emotional connection, even raising the stakes to sensuality? It certainly has potential benefits. By making sex and physical relations more commonplace, you take away its power. It’s not as frightening, not as dramatic or damaging. It already creates closer bonds between individuals, why make those bonds be exclusive only to two people? Imagine the improved personal connections. Not to mention the hedonism itself.
Obviously there are drawbacks and risks aplenty. Pregnancy and disease, sexually transmitted or not, are both huge factors. Sexually transmitted diseases are an easier issue to discuss, because one either has one or one does not. In fact, in this state of heightened sexuality, the fear of STDs would be even more intense because if/when the presence of an STD is known, the afflicted individual would be ostracized to a greater extent than today. Sex would be a demonstration of trust between two individuals. Or the practice of sharing test results would increase, for the more skeptical. Either way, there are safeguards and precautions to be taken to prevent the threat.
But STDs are not the main problem of such a liberal society. Pregnancy is. As much as I hate to admit it, abstinence really is the only sure way. Even “The Pill” isn’t certain. So what would be done with the inevitable increase in pregnancy? Obviously one option is abortion. I’m tempted to argue that this would cause emotional damage to the patient, but then if we assume the sort of adjustments that have already been made to allow such a liberal environment in the first place, the idea that abortion should not be a source of guilt or regret isn’t too farfetched. *(see my below entry for clarification).*
What about the pregnancies that are delivered though? Obviously both parents would ideally have a say in the child’s growth, but it would seem a more “communal” take would be applied. The child would be exposed to more people and ideas, creating a more well rounded individual. It’d be interesting to see the results of such environments, at least.
Oy, I went from idle musings to a dramatic shift in society. What a ramble! I wonder if anyone can actually read that entire thing… Suffice it to say, I’m not advocating having sex with anything that moves. I'm not even saying this is my own ideal. I’m just saying that it’d be interesting to have sex play a more casual role in typical social structures. A lot of trust, precautions, and mental adjustments would have to be made, but it could morally work (everything would, of course, be between consenting adults or age-appropriate teenagers).
I’m turning into quite the hedonist. However, I suppose when I advocate sex, I’m assuming an emotional connection. Relationships would just be… heightened. And complicated. And simplified. The imagination runs wild.
Just some thoughts that lead in a myriad of directions. And to think, I wrote this entire thing without becoming physically arroused. Must be the diction…
Well, I watched the movie “Kinsey” tonight, and it got me thinking about a particular subject area that’s been prevalent in my musings recently. For those who don’t know, Kinsey was a professor who surveyed thousands of people about their sexual histories and helped to dispel numerous myths about sexuality and what is “normal.” One of the matters brought up in the movie was how love and sex tied together and whether a loving relationship could endure when sexual relations weren’t “exclusive.”
When I first learned about the concept, it startled me. I’d always assumed people either partnered for the intent of long term relationships or had “one night stands” with different frequencies. It really hadn’t occurred to me that a person could continuously have sexual relations with multiple, limited partners for extended durations.
At first I chalked it up to “Well, it wouldn’t work for me, but if you can deal with it and all parties agree, I certainly don’t mind” (that’s a fairly accurate summation of many of my views). However, I began thinking about it, and I wondered if I could survive under such circumstances. It’s really a complex area. Assuming my girlfriend/wife consented, would I be able to have an at least satisfactory relationship with another girl in addition? And, more importantly, would I be able to tolerate my wife having relations with other men?
The first psychological response in my imaginings is about as expected. I would feel quite jealous if my wife pursued other “interests”, but if she consented, I would be able to maintain multiple relationships myself without guilt. I’m not quite sure if it classifies as hypocritical, as these are feelings and not actions, nor are they necessarily endorsements.
That was where I stopped, until tonight when I watched the movie. Once again, it brought up my past internal debate. However, I imagined that my hypothetical lover was fornicating not for pleasure or with another lover, but as part of some sort of scientific experiment. I don’t feel any feelings of jealousy at all. And that’s when I see that the act itself isn’t important, just the implication. If my wife had intercourse with another man, I’d feel threatened that she’d leave me for him or that I would be proved inadequate. Even if that wasn’t her original intent, her main purpose being exploration and hedonism, the possibility is still there.
But then, I reason with myself. If she really enjoys the company of another man above mine, wouldn’t it be better that she gets the best? And of course, even if he is “better in bed”, I may still have enduring qualities that brings her back to me. Of course, the idea of sharing one’s wife is quite detached from society’s norm, but honestly I think I could adjust to it.
And as I adjust to the idea, my thought expands. Brie has a comment in Bonnie’s profile that reads something like “I don’t want to get married, I’d rather just have casual sex with my male friends.” It’s a concept that’s rather intrigued me, even if the thought itself may have been uttered facetiously. What if sex wasn’t treated as taboo or possessive at all? What if kissing, stimulation, even the actual act of fornication were commonplace between friends? What if one could detach themselves from the idea that sex is something private and special, instead integrating it into one’s social life? It’s almost disturbing. And yet, I’d imagine I could do it. I’ve got the right amount of logic to be able to handle my emotions, but the right amount of emotions to heighten the experience from just hedonism to something more fulfilling.
Of course, this is all speculation from someone who’s only been kissed. But really, breaking down the physical barriers and making physical contact become as acceptable as emotional connection, even raising the stakes to sensuality? It certainly has potential benefits. By making sex and physical relations more commonplace, you take away its power. It’s not as frightening, not as dramatic or damaging. It already creates closer bonds between individuals, why make those bonds be exclusive only to two people? Imagine the improved personal connections. Not to mention the hedonism itself.
Obviously there are drawbacks and risks aplenty. Pregnancy and disease, sexually transmitted or not, are both huge factors. Sexually transmitted diseases are an easier issue to discuss, because one either has one or one does not. In fact, in this state of heightened sexuality, the fear of STDs would be even more intense because if/when the presence of an STD is known, the afflicted individual would be ostracized to a greater extent than today. Sex would be a demonstration of trust between two individuals. Or the practice of sharing test results would increase, for the more skeptical. Either way, there are safeguards and precautions to be taken to prevent the threat.
But STDs are not the main problem of such a liberal society. Pregnancy is. As much as I hate to admit it, abstinence really is the only sure way. Even “The Pill” isn’t certain. So what would be done with the inevitable increase in pregnancy? Obviously one option is abortion. I’m tempted to argue that this would cause emotional damage to the patient, but then if we assume the sort of adjustments that have already been made to allow such a liberal environment in the first place, the idea that abortion should not be a source of guilt or regret isn’t too farfetched. *(see my below entry for clarification).*
What about the pregnancies that are delivered though? Obviously both parents would ideally have a say in the child’s growth, but it would seem a more “communal” take would be applied. The child would be exposed to more people and ideas, creating a more well rounded individual. It’d be interesting to see the results of such environments, at least.
Oy, I went from idle musings to a dramatic shift in society. What a ramble! I wonder if anyone can actually read that entire thing… Suffice it to say, I’m not advocating having sex with anything that moves. I'm not even saying this is my own ideal. I’m just saying that it’d be interesting to have sex play a more casual role in typical social structures. A lot of trust, precautions, and mental adjustments would have to be made, but it could morally work (everything would, of course, be between consenting adults or age-appropriate teenagers).
I’m turning into quite the hedonist. However, I suppose when I advocate sex, I’m assuming an emotional connection. Relationships would just be… heightened. And complicated. And simplified. The imagination runs wild.
Just some thoughts that lead in a myriad of directions. And to think, I wrote this entire thing without becoming physically arroused. Must be the diction…
Controversial Clarifications
A clarification on abortion: One of my problems with the idea that abortion is destroying possible children is that it’s a dangerous line of thinking. Every sperm is potential. Every time a woman menstrates, potential is lost. In fact, all fertile women who could physically endure childbirth should be pregnant so as to ensure that as many potential children are created as possible. Think of all the Mozarts and Leonardo da Vinci’s that could have been created if women just had more babies. Think of all the children who could have existed, but don’t, because they decided not to have unprotected sex. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Monday, July 25
An X is a Y with one more I and four L's
*sigh* I've been goofing on, because that is what one does when reading books puts them to sleep. Even interesting books, like 1984, that intrigue you but still make you want to take a nice, peaceful nap.
At any rate, part of my goofing off has been to look at relationship sites/guides. Not because I have any particular interest in that regard (I'm still ambivalent about the concept), but because it intrigues me. The two premier sites (if you want in, just use fake email addresses) seem to be David DeAngelo's "Double your Dating" for the men and "The Rules" by someone else, for the ladies.
I've looked over both, and at first glance they seem to be written by the same person. At the very least they're quite similiar. However, they diverge sharply in their message. The male's tells them how to get multiple females, and the female's tells them how to snag and keep one male. Now, this certainly isn't indicative of the majority of either sex, nor do I know how effective either is. The forum I found the link to DeAngelo's site on had an incredible amount of positive feedback though, and seeing as it's a forum for a web comic (ctrlaltdel), I'd imagine they could use the help.
The differences and similarities practically speak for themselves. The targeted woman sees a man as a long-term asset, whereas the targeted man sees a woman as a temporary vessel for satisfaction. Both seem rather mechanical and impersonal. Then there are these guides that break down how to manipulate the opposite sex into getting what you want, which it appears is conflicting. It's so... forced and unromantic. Of course, it could also be argued that these are more self-help books than anything, providing confidence and a better sense of direction. In that respect, I guess I can't be too critical. It's just... interesting.
For instance, the male guides and sites (and there are a fair number), mostly focus on the acquisition of sexual partners, often multiple at a time. There's an entire science, as it were, of seduction and attraction. And, it would seem, it's not all snake-oil. What they say makes sense, and that might be the eeriest part. Confidence is very important, as well as making the other person want you, not the other way around. It just oozes of manipulation though. It works, but it's... dirty. Not necessarily morally right or wrong, just somehow corrupt.
Blasted romanticism. You'll be my ruin yet! You or your bastard cousin existentialism. I write rants with little to no point involving each of you, you dirty little monsters. Ah well.
In other, more important news, I researched contraceptives today on wikipedia. You know, just so I'm prepared for hypothetical situations. Apparently "The Pill" has a .3 to 1.25 method effectiveness rating, meaning of 100 couples properly using the Pill over the course of a year, .3-1.25 will get pregnant. Yes, male and female. It's a freaky drug. However, it does sound more reassuring than a condom that can slip, tear, and steal your kidney all in the blink of an eye. The Pill doesn't protect against STDs, though.
Just thought I'd let you all know, cause, you know, I care. (Being with those kids up in Virginia really scared me about having children. I'm not even close to having sex and I'm already paranoid!)
In summary, Cheers!
At any rate, part of my goofing off has been to look at relationship sites/guides. Not because I have any particular interest in that regard (I'm still ambivalent about the concept), but because it intrigues me. The two premier sites (if you want in, just use fake email addresses) seem to be David DeAngelo's "Double your Dating" for the men and "The Rules" by someone else, for the ladies.
I've looked over both, and at first glance they seem to be written by the same person. At the very least they're quite similiar. However, they diverge sharply in their message. The male's tells them how to get multiple females, and the female's tells them how to snag and keep one male. Now, this certainly isn't indicative of the majority of either sex, nor do I know how effective either is. The forum I found the link to DeAngelo's site on had an incredible amount of positive feedback though, and seeing as it's a forum for a web comic (ctrlaltdel), I'd imagine they could use the help.
The differences and similarities practically speak for themselves. The targeted woman sees a man as a long-term asset, whereas the targeted man sees a woman as a temporary vessel for satisfaction. Both seem rather mechanical and impersonal. Then there are these guides that break down how to manipulate the opposite sex into getting what you want, which it appears is conflicting. It's so... forced and unromantic. Of course, it could also be argued that these are more self-help books than anything, providing confidence and a better sense of direction. In that respect, I guess I can't be too critical. It's just... interesting.
For instance, the male guides and sites (and there are a fair number), mostly focus on the acquisition of sexual partners, often multiple at a time. There's an entire science, as it were, of seduction and attraction. And, it would seem, it's not all snake-oil. What they say makes sense, and that might be the eeriest part. Confidence is very important, as well as making the other person want you, not the other way around. It just oozes of manipulation though. It works, but it's... dirty. Not necessarily morally right or wrong, just somehow corrupt.
Blasted romanticism. You'll be my ruin yet! You or your bastard cousin existentialism. I write rants with little to no point involving each of you, you dirty little monsters. Ah well.
In other, more important news, I researched contraceptives today on wikipedia. You know, just so I'm prepared for hypothetical situations. Apparently "The Pill" has a .3 to 1.25 method effectiveness rating, meaning of 100 couples properly using the Pill over the course of a year, .3-1.25 will get pregnant. Yes, male and female. It's a freaky drug. However, it does sound more reassuring than a condom that can slip, tear, and steal your kidney all in the blink of an eye. The Pill doesn't protect against STDs, though.
Just thought I'd let you all know, cause, you know, I care. (Being with those kids up in Virginia really scared me about having children. I'm not even close to having sex and I'm already paranoid!)
In summary, Cheers!