Do what you want to the girl...

I know that many people say they wish that their kids' lives will be better than their own, that their children should have all the opportunities possible. They say, "I want her to have all the things I never did"...not me. I want my own life to be the best and certainly to be better than it was growing up; my kid can fend for himself, it's alright if I let him do without a few things. I should get all the treats and gifts because, really, I'm who is important in this world; I count for more since I'm older and have more to offer than a child who can't do anything on his own. Not that I want him to have a horrible life, or plan on creating drama, or trauma, for him-all I'm saying's that me and my life are what matters. Besides, it'll be good for him in the long run: it will give him more character and provide great "life experiences". In fact, allow me to explain more fully my attitude, and say that the same reasoning applies to my wife. She's on her own when it comes to what she wants; I'm not here to provide, to be her supplier of joy or support-she should be happy just to have me in her life. Yes, sir, I'm out for myself, only looking out for my needs, and not to worry about anyone else's. No one else is going to do it for me, that's for sure, and why should I do it for anyone else?

This is all farce, of course, I don't believe in this attitude, nor do I think anyone would say they do subscribe to it. On hearing it, I think most people would say it sounds completely ridiculous: that is backwards, we cherish our children and need to protect them, to provide for and enrich the lives of children; we are even willing to give our lives for them if necessary. Yet for all this lip-service a lot of people actually apply the attitude I outlined previously when it comes to their lives, and act as though it were what they truly believe. Since it is the actions that count, rather than what we claim we will do, then it is our actions which indicate who we truly are (though that is a topic for another time). So these people behave as though their selves and their own lives are more important to them than those who they "care most about" and "love", showing who and what is truly important to them. They will treat their intimates as if only their own needs and desires matter, and that others should accommodate this attitude; as though those around them should somehow serve them. I've seen it and experienced it myself, with intimate relationships in particular: no matter how much I could give, it would not be enough because I still want to be treated as a human and live my own life according to what works for me and makes me happy. Another way this attitude can play out is if the first person tries to give and do "all" for the second, making themselves the "willing servant". This is actually another form of control, as it allows the subservient person to manipulate others by pointing out their own sacrifice and how much it takes for them to do so. Thusly, the child or spouse becomes a pawn, rather than an individual, just another means to their own needs. The needs that will be filled are those that the "subservient one" feels like allowing.

So now we've explored this issue and seen behind these attitudes a little, we find we're talking basically about two sides of the same coin. We know that we cannot give all of ourselves for any other individual, it is not a rational means of obtaining our own or others' fulfillment. Moreover, it leaves only a shell of a person with no means of provoking true challenge to and reward for others. Neither should we be so careless and selfish as to wish for others to react this way. Else we risk becoming entirely self-centered and attempting to be self-sufficient all alone. We should have care for those around us and their individuality, as we expect them to do for us. Somewhere between these two extremes we can find a balance, without feeling we have to sacrifice ourselves or others to achieve happiness.

Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

People enjoy their legends, their superhuman heroes-they wish they could emulate and strive to become those people. Our history is dotted with examples and stories: Beowulf, Jesus the Christ, Buddha, Superman, Robin Hood, Mahatma Gandhi, Valentine Michael Smith, Abraham Lincoln, the Kwisatz Haderach, Mohamed, and so on. We have to ask ourselves then, where are our modern-day heroes? Who do we look up to as these people have been celebrated? Do we wish to copy Bill Gates? Are we really supposed to idolize George Bush or Tony Blair? Or do we favor the Hilton crowd, the Anna Nichole Smiths and Britney Spears of the world? Because it seems more and more that people are respected and idolized solely for being famous instead of doing something to deserve that respect. In fact, the whole notion of these people being role models is absurd because they do nothing that can be emulated. Unless that is the goal, now; if it is fashionable to instead lead a pointless life filled with trivia and never use ones' gifts to improve things. If the pinnacle of success is to have everything done for you, then it is no wonder people feel so unfulfilled all the time. What is there to strive for if when one arrives nothing is there: no meaning, just continued existence? Life is only worth living when it has a purpose, when there is a reason and a goal one is attempting. Since that is the case, what we need are idols who never stop trying and helping. Some leaders who can show us how to keep our interest in ourselves and our lives even when we've "made it". Who do we have that is leading a revolution, who is on a mission to save us all and lead us to a new dawn in our poor world? Is it really that we have too many options? Are we bombarded by people who claim to have "The Answer"? Indeed, we must ask how many are trying to help everyone rather than just themselves. That is the only way we can tell who actually has it.

CTR-Choose The Right

Something that we can comprehend is something we are equal with or superior to, I mean it is not beyond us, or our level of understanding. When we understand something it means that on some level we have to accept that we can understand it. If we cannot, or do not think we can, understanding then will elude us. I mean that we will never understand if we don't allow ourselves to, even if we have the capacity. This is such a fundamental concept it seems to be lost on most, people so often overlook it. It requires both that faith in ourselves as well as the basic ability to understand. It is actually in our nature to want to understand and be able to do so. Further it means the knowledge is accepted, something we become a part of and which becomes a part of us. Once we know something, once it is understood, we cannot be free of it and will never be the same as before we knew.

So, claiming to know the mind of God, to understand what the message or messiah (messenger) means is hubris. From the Judeo-Christian standpoint (as well as those of most other mono-theistic religions), there is no way to know these things. This is because to understand this, as we have discussed above, one would have to be on a par with The Creator. Placing oneself alongside God in this context is absurd, since the basis of the religion is the inherent unworthiness of humans. It is necessary to repent and/or make oneself worthy enough just to get into Heaven (or whatever it is called). The plan behind the Word is shrouded in mysteries we are not supposed to understand, according to most religions' acolytes. Yet somehow they have, at the same time, hit upon the solution to the mysteries while still remaining devoutly and totally observant of the religions' tenets, including the need to repent.

To live in a way that you will be accepted into your Great Reward, you cannot presume to know the mind of the Almighty. Yet one has to do just that in order to know what to do to be worthy. It is a Catch-22 that is absurd in its scope and consequence.

Living in Disneyland

The world is not black-and-white, right-and-wrong; this despite what our parents and grandparents, rabbis and priests, politicians and rulers try to tell us. The abstraction that there is “one true way”, or “one right answer”, is false. This is not just me spouting "morally relativistic" nonsense; I'm not advocating that there is no real-world way of truly "being good". I'm just admitting that everyone has opinions of what these things mean, but there is no absolute standard or empirically-evident answer beyond the most basic of things. What we all agree on is not our problem, however; rather it is those things that we don't all consider "right". The problem then being that we may never actually agree on those contested items, so it makes no sense to keep arguing and focussing on the negative side. Rather we should take those things we have in common and work together, accepting all else simply as being differences. This would allow us to progress and improve, as only working together can. As long as we are exercising our philosophical minds, however, we may as well do so to a larger extent. An example: if one were forced to do something considers abhorrent and wrong through extenuating circumstances or by events one never considered to be possible. If one commits one of these "unpardonable" acts under duress, is one really "wrong"? If there was no "correct" answer evident, is one “damned for all time"? If the choice is to allow an innocent, starving child to die of hunger, can one steal some food if there is no other way? Despite being an outstanding person in all other respects, does one act really mean one is "bad" forever? Can there be no return, no repentance, despite ones' intentions? I propose that our perceptions lend it that colour; looking upon the idea is what determines whether it is positive or negative. I propose that the real question of redemption and forgiveness is, “Can you live with it?” Oftentimes, there can be some minor or commonplace thing that is thought of as a major transgression, and a person will not feel as though they can overcome it. They will feel marked forever, this one mistake altering their entire life, even if the "window can be fixed", so to speak. Conversely, even the most blatant and fiendish acts can be outlived in a society if one finds the will to do so. When a person is psychopathic or convinced, by whatever method, of the "rightness" of some action then it loses its sting, despite the actual harm it may cause others. So, in essence, those who act boldly and regret not have found the path to their own salvation. Being unconcerned with or unaware of the consequences of ones' actions is an excellent definition of living in forgiveness-for that individual, at any rate. The awfulness of "living in sin" is the horrible way one feels about it, it is how much one is guilty and ashamed of ones' worthlessness. Without the emotional baggage, this type of life is no longer a problem. However, it should not be that we live without boundaries, heedless of consequences: that is not life but instead a video game. In the end, it is true that we find ourselves and our self-worth in our own eyes. In ones' own heart, mind, and conscience lie the answer to what kind of person one is. In the end, only you can decide what’s right for you-and how to be the best person you can. The same would be true of an Adam, just as it would for a god looking down as Creator, judging. Until he formed an opinion about what he was doing, Adam was just engaging in another activity, neither "good" nor "bad". Only that deity could decide whether the Creation was suitable or not. If we thought of ourselves as "bad" or "wrong", then we would be, and would feel accordingly. If, on the other hand, we like ourselves and are happy with what we do, everyday would be like living in an enchanted kingdom where benevolence prevailed.

The Anatomy of a Failed Relationship

Is it just “having one’s needs met”, or is there more to Love and being in an intimate relationship? If you just care about having someone to have sex with or who will clean, does that mean it will work and is a relationship that should last? What about those who have a set of requirements, or guidelines, if you prefer? Does someone fitting your "ideal" really mean everlasting joy? Is it just “a cute ass, nice hair, good in bed, a great cook, well read, and financially stable"? Is that really the recipe for Love? I don’t think so; I think so many people are unhappy precisely because they think a monogamous relationship with a person that fills out the requisites for a personal ad should be bliss. Furthermore, I think that so many of these couples end up splitting because they are not really compatible, they literally cannot be. They don’t know how to have a truly adult relationship, one that is based on commonalities as well as differences, one that accounts for reality and "human nature". How can they, when society at large doesn't know? When people are still excluded and persecuted instead of being understood and accepted? How can any of us know how to have healthy relationships, when our parents didn't know-or even prepare us by admitting their ignorance to us? If we don't know ourselves, what we want and need, then there is no use to have others in our life. People change, lives shift focus, people grow and outgrow, and expecting to “stay together forever” may not be entirely realistic or honest. I say this because so many seem to forget that they are not (or should not be) the same person they were at 18, or at 30, years old. In the intervening time, things adjust to the world; experience shapes who we become and what we want. Expecting that two people will keep the same level of interest and desire for each other through even the modern "ideal" of marriage is naive.

The very basis of "marriage" is stagnation, the idea being that each puts their life in the hands of the other "for better or worse." This is not freedom, but rather mutual reassurance. It is a bargain that each will stick with the other so neither need to worry about being alone. There is no room for growth, for acceptance of an ever-evolving "other-half", so there can be no real "together". Half of marriages in the U.S. end in two people unhappy with each other and not able to be together. Even more are the uncounted number of intimate, committed relationships that take place outside of that section of the populace which chooses (or is allowed) to marry. These 'renegade' relationships face equal turbulence and more break-ups, yet are not counted because of their "non-sanctioned" or accepted "temporary" status. They remain outside of statistics and study of marriage, I think, because the numbers and findings would be so much larger and it would be uncomfortable to admit what it might mean.

The Difference Between “Artist” and “Entertainer”

I am not trying to compare these two types, or to detract from what either of them does, or say that someone is "just" an entertainer, even though many times someone may say as much. That one is not as "intellectual", or on as "high a plane" as the other; it isn't that artists are better, or entertainers are "sell-outs" who have no morals left. An artist does what she does because she has to, it is for herself, her own joy/enrichment that she makes her art; many have expressed that they are driven to do what they do, something compels them to, irregardless of whether it is lucrative or not-I imagine this is where the "starving artist" stereotype comes from. It all stems from a complex of urges that we all share: the basic drives to connect, express, understand, and be understood. In the artist, however, it is amplified in some way and brought to the center-the spotlight, if you will-so that it is a more integral part of the character of the person. It may consume the individual, leaving little room for anything else, which most people may think I mean. Yet this also applies to the person with a consuming hobby, and it is this person who toils in obscurity and without reward that I think of. Those who, even after a long day's work will be "out in the work-shed" grinding away at some project. On the other hand, an entertainer does what he does because he wants to bring happiness or joy to other people, and feels better for having made you feel better. A strong empathy is needed, and an ability to connect, this is the basis for entertainment. Although some buffoons seem only to want to be celebrated for entertaining people, the true value of being entertained can be appreciated by anyone, and I'm sure goes back nearly as far as artistry. It is the hallmark of a society which has overcome the basic subsistence problem and thus has time for recreation that art and entertainment exist. One (or both) may seem more peripheral, unnecessary, or nonessential, but life encompasses all types, and self-expression is only one avenue; we can certainly also value that which is done for the enjoyment of others. It is in some way two sides of the same coin, one directed inward and one directed outward. Artistry is self-expression for the sake of yourself, and Entertainment is self-expression for the sake of others.

A Generation of Serial Killers

The idea that we are all of our society-that we belong to or are part of a larger group-our "community", keeps us rooted, connected, so we cannot separate from that group. This is a good thing to keep in mind, especially when we begin to think of “others”. When we create that distance from ourselves, “they” become less important. If “they” no longer have the same impact for us, if “they” are just blocking us from our goals, then we can disregard "them"-in fact “they” cease to be human and simply become obstacles to overcome. From there, it is a short leap to "them" being wholly unimportant and without value to us, so who cares if we kill a few of "them"? For most people it takes a lot of conditioning and pressure to produce the divide between an "us/loyalty" and a "them/hatred". The reversal of that kind of thinking is also a lengthy and difficult process, one that is being fought over around the world. Whereas with a "psychopath" this is simply the way things are, that the only us is "me" and everyone else doesn't matter because there is no caring connection. The connection between us at that point is reduced to only what I need/want and what others can provide, and because no one cares to give them to me these things have to be taken . To distance/remove ourselves from our community, by not maintaining the communication needed-we stop thinking in terms of "us", and shift to thinking it's “me against them”. There is no wonder as to why this creates conflict, how violence stems from this thinking; we have deliberately contorted the situation to produce these effects. Instead we should understand that connection is important for all of us, to be connected to others, to feel as though we belong and others care about us and our needs. In return it is important to care about others' needs and wants. None of us can do it alone, we are not that way, it is essential to our psyche that we have contact and friends to care about and for us. We all need each other, without all the others there is no me. Finally, in truth, there is no "them", it is a basic misunderstanding to think of people that way. There is just "us", all of us here together, that is just the way it is, and it is for the best.

Public Education v Private Profit

The purpose of universal public education is to allow all citizens (indeed, all humans if it were truly "universal") the methods and ability-not the opportunity-the ability to obtain and understand information. The idea being that these fully-educated, informed people can then agree on some Truth, which in turn drives the society further along the road of civilization. To begin, there has to be a basis for the consumption of information, a common pool of knowledge to work from. If the underpinnings of this information are not presented then the information has no value, no substance. If you don't know why 2 - 3 = -1, then you won't understand the charge of electrons and you'll have no hope of knowing how important phospholipids are. Further, if we don't all know the same information, it would be as though we did not speak the same language. Which, in effect, really happens: we are at odds-with one talking about this thing, while the other may be saying something completely different-all because we "understand" the subject differently. I use quotation marks around this word because it is outside of simple point-of-view, where we interpret the information in our own way. I refer to actually disagreeing on what the facts are, to each having access to different and/or incomplete information, whereby we can hardly be said to know or understand what we are talking about. Language is something to be discussed at a later time, but some of the same concepts do apply here. Thirdly, and this is vital: not to limit what can be known, but to allow the free-flow of conversation and ideas between individuals. Concurrently, I have to say that as with language and words, in knowing there are no such thing as "bad" facts. There should be no cap or constraint on what we learn or are exposed to, even. There should be neither censorship nor secrecy where public knowledge is concerned. The keeping of information from the populace by its government is wrong, this is self-evident as every time the knowledge is released however-many years later, it would have resulted in a better outcome had the full story been known. If people would have been informed about certain decisions made by the U.S. government with regard to the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and Bay of Pigs fiasco, for example. While ignorance is certainly comfortable for some, it is never blissful, and what you do not know can certainly hurt, and even kill you. Next, we are not allowed to learn or know, it is a necessity that we get information, indeed it is a right, just the same as Life and Liberty. Knowledge is part of the "Pursuit of Happiness" (or "Property", as Hobbes would have it), for how can one be happy unless the concept is understood or one can truly understand how to go about being happy? Again, that means we have to get access to all available knowledge; we need the tools, those concepts, to learn about every subject so we can understand our world and ourselves to the fullest. While it is sad that people no longer appreciate knowledge for its own sake as they once did, this attitude is actually a side effect to information being so readily available. This does not, however, change the nature of information, whereas its treatment by governments, corporations, and institutions does alter the makeup of information. If it is ignored by individuals, knowledge is still there, like a book just waiting to be opened; if these agencies want to ignore it, however, they can delete, change the appearance of, or limit access to data. This means that even if the population cries out for it, we may not get the facts, instead we are allowed only limited glimpses, if any at all. This is justified by different means: calling them state or trade secrets, or military or tactical intelligence, labeling the data as dangerous and potentially harmful, claiming it is "of no interest" or beyond the "lay-persons'" understanding, distraction or misdirection, and any number of others. Instead interest in (certain kinds of) knowledge is drummed up by advertising and packaging it in some guise that is appealing within the system of capitalism. So we are told that knowledge is, in essence, a safeguard against being fooled or taken advantage of. Incidentally, this is just another indication of how important it really is, to say that it can keep you safer, don't you think? Information becomes a tool, a shield, a theft deterrent, an investment in self-protection. In closing, I would say knowledge is perverted when it becomes a commodity, it is made to look like another petty thing to be bought and sold. It never is however; rather, information is something to be shared not hoarded, free and not constrained, open to all and any but never kept for one alone. And why is this? Why am I writing all of this, telling you that it is important? Why have I devoted so much space herein to the subject? Because this is for the betterment of the entire society, and indeed, the world. As each individual is improved, all of us-as a whole species, more than the sum of its parts-are better off. This is the function of educating our children, of creating a "school system": to encourage that expansion of knowledge and not force people to endure retracing and reiterating fallacies that are already known, but to create a populace which can build upon what is known and factual, and then dive into the unknown.

Get it Done

It is a drive of people to have things done, it seems; out of the way, so that they can be crossed off "the list". Unfortunately, this includes other people as well; there is even that expression, "to write someone off." Once you've made up your mind and have given the person a fair chance and evaluated their merits, what's the use in changing your opinion; why allow all that hard work to be undone by new information? You don't want to have to do that, it is already "done". That's one down, and only 29 million, 426 thousand, and 62 more things to go, right? There is no time to be constantly thinking about what is going on around you, you have more important things to do. Those who get caught up in this are blinding themselves to the truth that there is nothing that is ever 'done' or that will never again need to be re-evaluated. Such a thing does not exist in my experience, and that of many others who speak of these things. Life is a process, one that evolves constantly; the best we can do is accept that. We all need to deal with life on its own terms, and do the best we can by it. Just because we think we understand something one day does not mean it will stay that way forever. Our understanding of the world around us is constantly being revised. We learn new information and make new theories all the time. That is the nature of knowledge and our lives. There is no last anything until we die, and even then there is a lot of debate.

The Terrible Truth About Lying

I have a lot to say on this subject, but I'll try and keep it interesting and of reasonable length; we can always come back to it and discuss it further later. First: as with anger, lying is based in fear. One does not lie if there is nothing to be afraid of by telling the truth, and one does not go through life lying because it is easier. If I were unafraid of saying something to someone on some level, why would I feel the need to make up a lie? Why go through all the trouble of concocting some tale except to placate my conscience or someone's sense of propriety? Telling the truth is easy, it's basically just reporting what happened. The only reason to lie is because one thinks it is better personally, either to advance in status or keep out of trouble. Instead of letting the boss know it was another person, you take credit for something successful. Trying to tell your spouse, "that affair didn't mean anything to me!" because you don't want to lose the security of having them around. Secondly, since no one controls anyone else, lies are one way of getting others to do what you want. If you know (or just suspect) that I won't help you with something you want, you lie to me to make it seem right or proper to help you. You actually trade your own reputation for that item, because when you are found out people around you are less likely to believe you. Instead of being honest and accepting the consequences, even if it's something simple like missing out on a few dollars or being grounded, you change things to your advantage. Last, and most important-even if least addressed: lying always, always, begins within you. When you lie, you always lie to yourself first and worst; you cannot lie effectively to another if you don't believe what you are saying. This means that you have gone through the process of convincing yourself of the lie, you have to accept that piece of unreality to persuade others of it. In doing so, you decrease your own hold on reality, you convince yourself a little bit more of your own importance and correctness. None of which is true; your own needs are not paramount, nor of spectacular concern for the rest of us, only yourself. By lying you make it clear that you place yourself before others, that you don't value the opinions and feelings of your fellow humans. It takes courage and conviction to tell the truth when it's really important, when lives are effected. It's important to talk about what is lacking in a marriage, even if it's difficult to admit being angry, or sorry. Really brave individuals accept rejection, understand the importance of respect, and handle failure well. It is okay to admit to being wrong, because it's okay to be wrong.

Judgment and Judge-mental

It is common to be convinced of the similarity of others to begin with. When one is young, the world revolves around what "I" want or need, and it is only through age and experience that one comes to understand what "other" really means. Even then, there is a common error of thinking others are motivated by the same things as ones' self. Many people never overcome the tendency of interpreting others' actions in light of one's own motivations. How often have you been angry at or, conversely, pleased with someone until they revealed their own reasons for doing something? Until they shattered that perception, you had thought they were slighting or insulting you, or that they had done something out of the kindness of humanity on their own. Then you find out they had a completely different train of thought, which you didn't consider and it's because they really are a different person than you are! Knowing people are different and treating them as though they are different from one's self are not automatic, nor necessarily consecutive. It is all too easy to take this progression only halfway and once one realizes that others are truly different, to leave off, to begin discounting it. It is important to continue and understand those differences and their significance. Recognizing, accepting, and even valuing differences is a positive thing that many people claim to do. The problem is that it is not a simple, one-step process, it doesn't just happen suddenly; instead, it is accomplished through effortful study and consideration. When one thinks one has it licked, it can change and another piece can rear it's head. What I'm saying is this can easily be a lifelong process, one which is slippery and tricky. But in the end, it frees one from others' emotional weight and gives one a finer appreciation for those others.

No One Is an Island

It is easy to think of people in terms of groups rather than as individuals; this can be seen most readily in schools. Kids hang out in "cliques", rarely venturing outside of these select enclaves and seemingly always engulfed by them. Even the "out crowd" is a group, though it is comprised of those who don't fit easily into other ones. So we have these kids being conditioned to think in terms of who they are surrounded by, and who is easiest to be with. They aren't challenged by, and don't challenge, their peers because they all want to continue to fit together, and the fear of being rejected by those "friends" is too great. Everyone fears rejection, it is natural to dislike being alone and outcast, even those who try so hard to not need others. How does this lead to people behaving as adults? Does this tendency to cling to the comfortable just evaporate after school? I hardly think so, it is generally accepted that the people one befriends in school (the so-called "formative years") are supposed to be lifelong. So these kids become accustomed to being with certain people, and certain types of people. After a while peer pressure seems normal, just fades into the background, and doesn't get noticed anymore. Which just means it doesn't get counteracted, and it is accepted as the only choice. As adults, how does it effect the workplace? What is the impact on governments? Maybe some of these problems we experience aren't such a mystery (most notably we can recall The Bay of Pigs debacle). Groupthink is alive and well when people do not value others' opinions, thoughts, and contributions. When we continue to ignore what "outsiders" have to offer, what a fresh perspective can show us, then we are islands, but islands of insecurity and fear. Such islands and attitudes lead us nowhere, and offer little hope to reach a common ground.

The Cult of the Penis

It seems that many people, but men especially, have the idea that certain parts of their body are somehow special, even that they are “holy” in some way, and therefore get treated differently than the rest. It is strange that some things that are so close to the truth are yet so twisted and misguided. Just as all people are miraculous, our bodies are marvelous and incredible-but this doesn’t mean that one or another person or part is better than the others, in fact it means the opposite, that none can be. People have different abilities and different forms and that is all they are: different. One or another is not “better”, that is the type of thinking that seeks to control others, and love is not about power. The goal is not to conquer or subjugate, but to forge connections and enrich relationships. This goes for sex as well, and maybe especially, since it is an exposure of ones’ entire naked self to another. Not just physically, either, Love and being intimate with someone else requires an exposure of one’s inner self, as well as the outer. This state of vulnerability requires much trust and confidence in whomever you share it with, and it should be revered as an expression of that relationship. Just because a man penetrates a woman doesn’t make her a possession or an object, she still retains all her own sacredness. Men seem to feel that they take possession of a woman after having sex with her, that his ‘mark’ is on her and no one else should touch her because of that, not even herself. The insecurity of men in part stems from this, because they will wonder, “what if the ‘mark’ comes off, or is ‘overwritten’ by another?” These interactions and attitudes are reflected in movies such as Chasing Amy and Closer, demonstrated by characters that pursue and revere sex. These people eventually come to understand that there is no special “mark”, that the special part of the relationship is the love that makes it happen. The relationship itself is all the “mark” that is needed. Understanding the uniqueness of this act, and of the feelings that accompany it, takes a lot more maturity than most people care to develop. We should really be worried more about the mind, because that is the biggest sex organ, and source of all intentions in regards to sex and whether to remain “faithful or cheat”-not the penis or vagina.

A Confession

I have to admit some things, and I hope you will bear with me. Some people may stumble upon my blog out amoungst the many on the web; others know me personally and I have invited to read what I write here. It is my hope that whoever you are, dear reader, that you explore, ponder, and otherwise enjoy my blog. Having said that, I feel the need to share a few things about myself, as writer and individual. I am not just a robot typing out drivel at random, though it may indeed seem that way (hopefully not, but it is possible); I am a person, much like yourself, I imagine. We probably share the same desires, hopes, and dreams: living in a better world, making a difference, loving and being loved in return, all the things that make us feel important and human. I recently went through a divorce from my partner of eight years, and it has been surprisingly difficult for both of us to act like rational adults in the process. Things have changed that I thought had been set for all time-I really considered us to be inseparable for the rest of our lives. But this is what happens when we delude ourselves, and allow ourselves to be deluded by others. I was silly to have thought that, and only now am I beginning to see why and how. I don't think I regret the experience, just that it had to be such a painful lesson, and that I caused so much inadvertent pain to someone I loved. However, I think I did learn some things, and so I can still agree with Alanis who said, "I greatly recommend getting your heart trampled on...."