 |
|
Jocks and Their Balls
We live in a violent society, no doubt about it. The scientific research into our DNA shows that at some point in our history, our species got down to less than 10,000. That's about the size of a small village. It wasn't easy for us to survive not only life as prey, but also against things as cataclysmic of ice ages. It's believed that without our hardships, we would not have evolved as we did. Push came to shove, and in order to survive, we evolved a very strong desire to shove. And shove. Our violent nature is why we are where we are as a species (along with our pack instincts to protect the group or village). Now here we are with our TVs, our couches--and we're bored. We still have that bloodlust in us (hence the traffic jams we create just to get an opportunity to see a mangled bloody body), although we try to deny and repress it as well as we can. I feel sports are an "outlet" for our hostile nature. We can follow our favorite team, wear their colors and feel a part of their "cause", watch them in a controlled combat, and when the game is over, we get up off the couch and get on with our placid lives. No blood was shed, no lives lost. Sure beats attacking some third-world nation. No doubt about it, sporting teams clearly are a mild case of nationalism. Fans tend to get too emotionally attached, probably even more attached than the players themselves. Fans end up acting like asses while watching their team perish in the final showdown tournament. Fans may even suffer a temporary depression from it. But it sure beats carrying a gun into battle.
July 2, 2003
No Sympathy
When people overdose, I have very little sympathy. Yeah, it really sucks, I know, but who is to blame? Did they not die at their own hand? Surely they knew, like we all know, the pitfalls of doing drugs that can kill you. Another one I really like is the old excuse, "but I was drunk." What kind of bullshit is that? It's a weak excuse to depart from the responsibility of your actions. Who put the alcohol in you? Was it not you? So you found yourself in a predicament because of what you drank, well, are you not the person responsible for choosing to give up your own self-control? No sympathy here. How about your buddy that can't drive because he got a DUI? I don't think the laws are hard enough. Putting other people's lives in jeopardy so you can get drunk with your buddies…sorry, no sympathy. If anything, it's so pathetic that it makes me laugh at their expense. People have a real problem with being responsible for their own actions. Always seeking someone or something else to blame. Play with fire, you just might get burnt. You should be old enough to know better.
June 25, 2003
Male Sexuality
Funny thing about guys, they're always in such a race to lose their virginity. When I see adolescent people hanging out, I can't help but be aware of the fact that most of the girls have had more sexual encounters with girls than the guys have had. Another thing that always makes me laugh is how it's so commonly perceived that men always have a higher sex drive than women. From all the people I've talked to, and all the couples I know, I would say that women in relationships have higher sex drives than men do. Men love the chase, while women love the comfort and safety to explore their sexuality with that one person. By the time males become adults and can handle serious relationships, their sex drives are already slowing down. Women haven't even hit their stride, and won't until they're in their 30s (which by the way, is sort of nature's way of putting fire under the woman's ass in case she hasn't had a child yet, before it's too late to ever have one). I would venture a guess that in your average relationship, the woman is driven more toward sex than the man is. Men have the reputation of being wild and lustful, but trust me when I say in a lot of cases, it's just an act. It's a form of machismo. They'd really rather be watching a football game or finding a woman that would love, respect, and admire them (no kidding). The men who actually are highly sexual are acting more on impulses of domination and empowerment than on making love with pretty women. Any woman who thinks men in bars want sex with them because they're pretty is sadly mistaken. It's not so much that they want you as it is that they want you to give up your body to them. They want the power of you sacrificing your power. After you've made that decision, before they've even laid a hand on you, they've gotten what they wanted. And it wasn't you. It was for you to submit to him.
June 5, 2003
Female Sexuality
It's always fascinated me how girls psychologically "flower" sexually in their late teens. The fascinating part is the varying ways in which they try to do it, because our society is not very accepting when it comes to female sexual liberation, or female sexuality in any way, for that matter. To act as men, like so many women try to do, is a common misstep. It's a different playing field, and argue it as you may, but promiscuity is a man's game. In human evolution we needed two things in place to keep the gene pool strong and alive. One, that men would be depended upon to spread the seed of life as much as possible, to cover the "quantity" issue. Women, on the other hand, are biologically designed to increase the quality of the gene pool of our species. If a woman has too many men, she runs the risk of getting cervical cancer, and other physical problems. The reason nature sets up such roadblocks for female promiscuity? To maintain the quality control. Men play the field because men were biologically designed to. It's a double-edged sword, but it has been working for a very long time. It's not a choice, it's an instinct. Female promiscuity is more a form of long-term self-abuse than liberation. Some women claim they are truly okay with promiscuity. So why do they always lie about how many people they've had sex with? Is that not shame in its truest form? How about liberating yourself by realizing your immeasurable personal value? How about liberating yourself by learning the power of saying no? Choose wisely whom you allow to use and abuse the very organ that will potentially give life to your own child. Would you want to know that your mother gave it up to anyone that said hello to her? Who would? Learn to say no--it's the strongest power a woman can have with her sexuality.
June 3, 2003
Problem or Solution?
There are two types of people. Those that are part of the world's problems, and those capable of being part of the world's solutions. Being part of the problem stems from selfishness and dishonesty, and manifests itself in every action of the spiritually diseased who make up the majority of the world's population. Being part of the solution, it's a combination of common sense, integrity, and compassion toward others that never wanes. I know what I am. I know what the world would be like if everyone acted as I do. What about you? Are you part of the problem, or solution?
May 29, 2003
Culture in America
Our grandparents and great-grandparents chose to bury the traditions of their native lands, keeping their native tongue and culture to themselves, away from their children in the hopes (I assume) that they would mix better in the new land. Your average American teenager has no clue of their cultural heritage. We are Americans--we eat at McDonalds, we shop at Wal-Mart…these are our cultural traditions. Most are satisfied with this. Most, but not all. Some kids with higher levels of reasoning tend to seek more. Since their own heritage and traditions are lost to them, they can choose a new culture in the modern world that defines whom they are. Hip-hop culture, punk, goth, hippies, it's all out there just waiting for you to sign up. But are these subcultures not extensions of that lost heritage? Ever heard a punk band incorporate Irish, English, and Scottish folk music into their sound? For that matter, think of the punk bands that have incorporated Native American and Mexican aspects to their music. Ever noticed how goth music has a Celtic sound to it? And how Industrial is very German sounding? Do I even need to say that hip-hop is an extension of African culture? How long will it be before all these subcultures bleed into American culture so much that it becomes something new, something entirely its own? Entirely American. Culture, along with language, is nothing more than social trends that probably pissed off the elders but eventually defined their culture. How will our society define itself in 50 years? How much of our present subcultures will simply be a part of the fabric of American culture by then? My guess would be a lot.
May 27, 2003
Heroes
There is nothing exceptional about a hero. They are average people who make a stand at exactly the right time. They are people who could have failed at every other insignificant thing in their life, but when it really mattered, for however briefly it mattered, they were there at just the right time to do the right thing. Motivation and timing are the only things separating you from the people whose actions have inspired your life. Are you fulfilling your potential?
May 22, 2003
Autistic = The Real X-Men?
I don't believe human evolution is a slow process. I think that evolution must take grandiose leaps in short periods of time for the change to be effective. But is all evolution about survival? I believe that we will evolve to accommodate what our species pushes itself to constantly enhance. In our society, it's absolutely necessary to calculate numbers throughout the day, and we really suck at it. We really do. Take something that should be simple, like 51 multiplied by 17, and divided by 2. It's usually faster to find a calculator than it is to figure it out yourself, and this is a skill that we greatly rely on in this society. If you can't compute, you can't survive. So it only makes sense that we would evolve greater math skills, and I don't believe test scores would slowly get better as a result. I think there would be dramatic mutations in our species that would make our brains more adept for computation. I have a hunch this is autism. I feel it's human evolution. Now, one could argue that the lack of social skills and compassion would contradict this theory. Not really. Evolution isn't a constant step forward. It's an adaptation. Some creatures actually got dumber from evolution because it worked to the advantage of their survival. Imagine if humans weren't governed by emotions. Would we not have a perfect, though cold and dull, world? Without emotion, we would have no conflict. No wars. No trouble getting along because it wouldn't matter. I don't feel this is a positive step, but I feel it's a logical evolution for humankind. Could this be the reason autism is on the rise? Are they our future?
May 20, 2003
Why I Hate Vegetarians
Allow me to give my own personal credentials. I've been a vegetarian for twenty years. Let me tell you why my "fellow" vegetarians give themselves such a bad name. They are better than you. Didn't know that? Go to a meatless restaurant and try to cut through their aloof pompousness. Ironically, you get the most attitude from the ones who have been on a meatless diet for the shortest amount of time. The newer they are to the lifestyle, the more pretentious they are. The louder they are about their beliefs, the less grounded they are with them. Those who have comfortably and truly made a meatless diet part of their lifestyle don't constantly bark about it because it's just part of who they are, not all of what they are. Trust me when I say that the elitist ones who are too insecure with their choice to quiet the chatter will be off the wagon in less than five years. Anyone who makes that much noise about their beliefs are trying harder to convince themselves than anyone else. Sad thing is, these clowns represent vegetarians/vegans because when people visualize a vegetarian or vegan, this is the type of idiot that comes to mind. The extremist actions of a few taint the image of those who are more comfortable with their beliefs. Too much pretense, too much phoniness. I do my best to avoid them.
May 15, 2003
Going Meatless
I have often heard people arguing against vegetarians and vegans saying that eating meat is natural for our species. We have the teeth for it, we have the stomachs and intestines to digest it, we rely on proteins, etc. Well, I could not agree with them more. The fact that we can eat meat and actually have some benefits from it are a testament to that. But in the same context, we also don't have to eat meat. Yes, it's a natural action for the natural world, but we do not live in the natural world. We live in cities where the vast majority of us get our food on the run without much thought, from grocery stores or from the pimply kid at Taco Bell. More than likely, your average meat-eater has never had the blood of their next meal on their hands. That is natural. And that is not the world we live in. We no longer need to kill to survive, which makes the action of eating meat a frivolous luxury in this society. We can go a lifetime on a meatless diet and it's completely natural to this unnatural civilization. I support hunting animals for food. I don't support the armchair critics who have never had the balls to slash a living creature's throat for dinner. In this society, I don't have to kill to survive. Therefore I choose not to.
May 13, 2003
Refinement, or Innovation?
When it comes to political and social issues, there are two approaches. One is refinement, or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This is the belief that after thousands of years of trial and error, the best ideas are already in place, and the only thing left to do is work toward perfecting the system. This applies to everything from politics, to parenting, to your interest in art and music (punk culture would definitely fall into this category). The other approach is innovation. Pushing the envelope is how we evolve, but on the other hand, it's rare that something new is groundbreaking in ways that make any substantial difference on culture and technology. For every Edison and Picasso, there are hordes of people defecating on canvas and calling it art. Communism was one of those innovative ideas in the early 20th century, which looked a lot better on paper than it did in practice. But then again, Democracy was an innovation just 150 years earlier (which has been successful, and should not be confused with Capitalism, which is what most leftist people really oppose, not Democracy). Without innovation, we cannot progress. Learning from the past, on the other hand, is vital to our survival. A balance, as with anything, is the answer.
May 8, 2003
Groups, or Individuals?
I have a real problem with people who identify themselves with a group. In most cases, it's a mask for insecurity, a vain effort to cover character flaws. The group they haven chosen, no matter what group it is, enticed them with personality traits they feel are missing in their own lives. For instance, an uptight person would be drawn to associate with hippies, and someone living too structured a life would be drawn to becoming punk. Have you ever met a truly laidback hippie? Have you ever met a punk that wasn't obsessed with social structures? If you think you have, then maybe you don't really know the person that comes to mind. It's a façade, and it is that façade that lures people to groups. Once any group has established itself, it immediately becomes a cartoon of what it once represented. It's a lot like atomic structure--observation alters the behavior. People have a knack of dumbing down once they identify themselves with a group, and they should since by doing so you close yourself off to so much of the world. The irony of a group is that every member is seeking to be what that group represents, but never truly being. In other words, groups are made up entirely of blowhard wannabes who couldn't be any further from the group image. No one in the group truly represents the personality traits claimed by the whole. Forget any identity that isn't your own. Rid yourself of any costume or uniform that you want to represent you, and find the courage to represent yourself.
May 6, 2003
The Subculture Cocoon
For a young person stuck in circumstances beyond their grasp, subcultures are a great vehicle for finding oneself. For that matter, most groups make for good environments for people to grow. No matter what the group represents, there is a reason an individual is drawn to be a part of it, and in almost every case, it's to force an emergence in some emotional or psychological state. But there comes a point in one's term in any subculture that the individual needs to spring from the cocoon that gave them strength and turn away from it all. Because if you don't, there comes an adverse affect on your psychology. You start peddling backward. You become that crusty, bitter, game-playing know-it-all that can be found in every scene in every subculture. The one that has overstayed their welcome because they're too afraid of the world to face it alone as an individual. A subculture is a great life lesson, a boot camp for the soul. When it gives you wings, take flight. Take with you all that you learned and carry it with you until you die. Those bitter old ones who have overstayed their welcome will call such actions "selling out", but that's simply because they're too afraid to take the step you are about to take. If you keep the subculture's ideology pure inside you and never disown its values, then you will leave the group with more honor than those who fearfully remained.
May 1, 2003