Piece of pie

A quick tip to use when facing temptation, like that (extra) piece of apple pie with ice cream that’s being offered with holiday dinner…if you can’t decide whether to have it or not, pretend it’s tomorrow morning and you’re looking back at yourself to see what you did. What will you wish you had decided? Usually, I wish I’d said “no,” which is why I’m having trouble making the decision. I might still make the so-called wrong choice, but it feels like an actual decision, from a better perspective than just “mmm-treat!” vs “waah, no-treat-for-me.”  It becomes an intellectual choice rather than an emotional one when you remove yourself from the immediacy of pie on the table in front of you.

It works for all kinds of decisions, not just dessert. And sometimes, it even helps me make that right choice.

Sex...and sharing

I’ll be honest…this is about me, and a realization I had to reach before I was comfortable enjoying sex.

The customary point of view of the male and female roles in sex is that the male is always trying to get something from the female, and the female says no a lot to protect her dignity and reputation and whatever. We have an entire culture built on the fact that men want sex and women don’t. There are thousands of bad jokes and hundreds of movie and television scenes that trade on these stereotypes, and growing up this was naturally my starting point for trying to understand the whole sexual interaction mystery. I remember a female comic saying that afterwards men want to sneak away like they just stole something, and she seemed to be correct from what I could gather. That was the only attitude on exhibit, the “I got some” victory cry. I wanted to have sex, and some girls were interested, but I let some opportunities get away because I didn’t understand how it all worked. I was scared of the whole thing because, seriously, I didn’t know how to act the next day. I didn’t know what it meant to a relationship, and I didn’t want to make a fool of myself. I would feel like I took something, and I didn’t know what to say or do about that. How do you get from “men always want it,” which is greedy and bad, and “women don’t want it” and have to protect themselves, to all the scenes in the movies where the man and woman are in bed together cuddling and smiling together and looking so wonderful? There’s a huge blank between those two snapshots, and what could possibly be in that space between that ties them together? What’s wrong with this picture?

Took me a couple years, but here’s the Big Truth of the situation, and this may help either guys or girls to better understand each other.

It’s difficult for men to discover this (well, it was for me), given our culture and the attitudes we see and hear daily, but…the healthy approach to sex is as “something two people share, as equals.” That’s it. There’s no “taking” or “getting from,” there’s just giving on both sides, and sharing. Turns out that naturally (obviously) women like sex just as much as men, so we are equal partners in it. We should enjoy it equally. If your partner doesn’t have that attitude, maybe it’s a good idea to bring it up as a positive change for the relationship, if it sounds right for you. Works for me.

First marriages

The divorce rate is high. There are lots of single moms, divorced or not. Second marriages are common; they at least seem to be better marriages and last longer,  based as they are on greater maturity. No, I won’t be looking up statistics…I have merely an observation: A great many first marriage failures are the result of some basic human nature, and there’s no reason to think “we should fix it,” which is the knee-jerk reaction to almost everything. This is just the way it is.

Young women mature faster, emotionally and sexually. We’ve all heard that, and it appears to be true. They’re in charge from an early age, and they know what they’re doing, and they’re good at it. They manage to keep teenage boys in line, for the most part. Tough job. But being in some control, being in a position to get what they want, by their late-teens they begin to shape their lives according to their own agenda. For the great many who want to start a family, or are just ready to have a baby, they can do that. They feel ready, it’s what they want to do, they choose the guy they want…and they can do that.

What about the guys at that age? For purposes of this discussion, let’s separate guys into two personality types. #1, the popular guy, has a car, maybe a fast car, probably on the high school football team, part of the social group at the center of local partying, openly chasing girls and not thinking about much else. Just wants to nail as many as possible. That guy.

As opposed to #2, a more serious type, mostly in the social background, maybe has one girlfriend in high school, worries about his future, tentative around girls because he’s not sure what it all means and he wants to know before he gets sexually involved, because he doesn’t want to be just another guy who takes advantage of and hurts girls.

Which one does the young woman want at this point in her life? The first one: the bad boy, the dangerous one, the one who so clearly wants her and makes her feel desirable. The one who, unbeknownst to her, thinks of her and treats her like an object, a conquest. She doesn’t know that much about guys yet, so he looks like the real thing. He might marry her, especially if there’s a baby involved, but he’ll think nothing of moving on in a few years.

Meanwhile, boy #2 has matured and come to terms with women and sexuality, thinks of them as precious and beautiful, treats them with respect, and makes the new divorcee feel desirable again. He offers a stable life and love, and he becomes the second husband. Second marriages have realistic expectations, and in my experience they last longer. Two people of similar maturity and understanding have the best chance to make a lasting commitment to each other.

About marriage

Here’s a pithy saying that I love…

No matter how good-looking she is, somebody is sick and tired of putting up with her bullshit.

Which means you’d better not base your relationship on looks, because no matter where you start it’s all about compatibility in the end. In spite of what many people seem to believe, marriage isn’t some kind of contest to see who marries the best-looking mate. It’s about who’s smart enough to marry their best friend; a best friend that they’ve allowed themselves to fall in love with. And then you go from there, because being in love gets deeper after you’re married, if you’re any good at it.

And that involves mostly trust. If you both believe your vows, if you mean it, then you feel safe enough to share of yourself on a day-to-day basis. To be open and unhesitating in what you think and say. When two people do that, and learn each other and get comfortable, that’s how a thousand tiny connections are made between the two of you over the years. That’s the unspoken thing you see sometimes in a close couple, the quick glance or the sly smile between them.

I know there are all kinds of successful relationships, or I suppose there are, but one thing I believe in is doing everything together, or reasonably so. Obviously, why wouldn’t I want to spend all my time with my best friend? I have since childhood, whoever it was at the time…seems like a good habit. This seems to be a touchy subject with some, who feel that there are rules about this among principled people. That ‘normal’ independent people would need to have their own life. Go ahead, follow somebody’s rules, live up to the expectations. I’ll just do what I like.

One thing you cannot do is lie to each other, because that’s breaking trust on a grand scale. If that happens, it’s not a marriage anymore; it’s just a stupid game. You’ll never say anything without double-checking it in your mind first. You force yourself to be vague and evasive. When you start to worry about spending time together, about what might come up in conversation, you certainly aren’t sharing your lives anymore. It’s a cancer that spreads fast, and touches everything in the relationship. How could you ever relax with pending lies circling overhead?

Mark Twain covered that, and he gets the last word:

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

Power

With all the election coverage, one of my pet peeves has been coming at me from all sides; the ubiquitous description of nearly every politician as ‘powerful.’

The problem stems from the fact that it only works in one direction. In a discussion of someone being promoted or elected to a certain position, with an explanation of the scope of responsibilities, it makes sense to conclude in context that this is now a ‘powerful’ person, because ‘power’ has been defined; the power to make certain decisions within that organization. That much makes sense. However, a standalone description of that person as ‘powerful,’ without context, implies so much more than in the first case because ‘power’ retains all of its meanings. In a sense, A=B, but B not=A. The word ‘power’ is defined in the first case, but not in the second.

So the standalone is not a good description because it has connotations way beyond what is intended. So-and-so is a ‘powerful’ person…a mystical, magical power? A sorceror or wizard, with a magic wand? A giant, perhaps, like Samson himself, thundering through the hallways on the way to a conference room? Or maybe just someone in a position of power and responsibility? It’s a little vague, alright, but the media toss it around like confetti.

In the office setting, there’s a different take on power and position.

The common parlance refers to ‘superiors,’ and these people are considered and treated as if they are somehow superior. Actually, they are supervisors. They merely occupy a position of greater responsibility than others; no reason to bring a value judgment into the picture.

There is a business axiom that says, “The most important job is the one that isn’t done right.”

Any government or business is ideally a group of people working together toward the same end, and in that light they are all equally important… but have different responsibilities. The idea of ‘superiors’ within the group introduces psychological and interpersonal issues that can only harm the effort. A more positive and cooperative model is to say all employees are on the same team, with a division of labor that requires some to supervise the efforts of others.

a quick political comment

Down in Florida, the showpiece of the democracy experiment, The Peninsula Of Shame, they’ve elected a known criminal to the position of governor. The Alzheimer’s State; home of electoral buffoonery. You have to laugh…

                                       ____________________

These elections were a mess.

I don’t really want to get into it, but just a quick comment, if I may…

The problem with voting in this country is that issues are not successfully explainable in one sentence, and therefore the average American cannot understand what is at stake. Voter decisions and choosings-of-sides are not generally intellectual in nature; they are emotional decisions. I’ll discuss that concept in a future post, but that’s exactly where that old saying comes from: “Never argue politics or religion.”

Meanwhile, silly catchphrases and manufactured hysteria (and don’t forget the lies) created a mood in the country that sucked in half the voters, and next thing you know, they’d been manipulated into voting against their own best interests. Americans don’t vote on the issues. They’ll say they do, because they think they do, but nobody (including me) has the time or probably the ability to research national issues to the point of true understanding. It’s just too big a job. But trusting the “information” you get at the gas station or local bar is absurd. It’s lazy and irresponsible. Now we’ve got the “death panel” concept (a complete fabrication) and other deliberate misinterpretations to live with the rest of our lives, instantly added to the political lexicon, tributes to lying and nasty tricks. And along with the rest of the crap that flourished in the election’s closing weeks, we’ve got mountains of proof of how cynically the voters were used.

It’s just so disappointing.

One for all...and politics

Oops. Missed the big tie-in to the election with yesterday's post.

Politics is a perfect example of what I said.

Again, briefly: 

These two statements are true.  

1. We are all on our own 

2. We are all in this together 

Each of us has our own balance between the two, as evidenced by our thoughts and actions. 

And, very simply, what politicians get wrong is that they should constantly, and consciously, be working for the good of the many, and what we see over and over again is that these people pursue the job for selfish reasons. Money, power, money, attention, money, self-aggrandizement…whatever hole-in-the-soul they need to fill, here’s a great way to get it.

I like to imagine who people were in high school, as a way of typing their personality. Politicians are the easiest to figure. We all know who they were.

One for all…

There are certainly many ways by which to describe someone’s personality. There are many, many facets to each of us, each one of them a potential yardstick. Here is one that came to me along the way, that I think of as useful on myself as well as others. It’s a good way to measure, or choose, one’s own “personal philosophy,” meaning in this case, “What kind of person am I?” or “What kind of person do I want to be?”

It’s based on these two statements, both of which are true.

1. We are all on our own.

2. We are all in this together.

Somehow, these two thoughts have to co-exist, and how you choose to manage that says a lot about who you are.

At any given moment you are either acting in your own interests (on our own), or for the benefit of more than just yourself (in this together). The balance you find between the two reveals some basic truths about your personality.

-----------1----------------444444555555666666---------------9-----------

Let’s say this line represents everything you face in life; every encounter, every task, every decision, every action. How do you react? Always for yourself? Half the time for yourself, the other half for the group? Your position on the line is determined by how you react to the Life that you face. When you do something, even when you say something, your approach to it will come from either the ”on our own” part of you (Zero on the line), or from the “in this together” part (100 on the line). If you are a very giving, group-oriented person, a helping, altruistic sort, you would find yourself near the “1” on the line, which means that maybe 10% of the time you act with only yourself in mind, with unusual emphasis on others. (Sure, it’s necessary to be selfish some of the time; this is just to make a general point, not to argue actual percentages.)

On the other end, if you act almost exclusively with just yourself in mind, with little regard for others, you might find your balance between the two sides at about “9”.

Most of us fall somewhere in the middle, in the 4-5-6 range, and anywhere in there, or somewhere in there, is normal. At the extremes, you have a personality trait that is readily observed; you might be selfish, or you might be selfless to a fault, not thinking of yourself enough.

Realizing where you fit on that line can be a helpful insight. It tells you if you are the person you think you are, or if you’re falling short of that.

Am I selfish? Too selfish? What is too selfish? It also applies to others, by judging where they fit on the line, and it can be used to explain behavior, if a “1” or a “9” makes an unexpected choice.

There are these two pieces of the trait of “largess,” shall we say, and they are mutually exclusive, (for purposes of this discussion, for argument’s sake, to make the broader point)…(sure, there may be examples when both are applicable, Life always has some fuzzy gray on the edges of description, but by and large) and with every choice and every action you’re standing on one side or the other. There’s no raging battle between the two, it’s no classic struggle, but it’s a useful way to look at yourself and others to help understand a part of who this person is.

Introduction

As it happens, I am wired in such a way that I am constantly examining life, sometimes in great detail, to a degree that most people see as compulsive. Just happens to be who I am; I actually find it no effort or issue at all. But I’ve come to understand that I may have an unusual perspective, and as such I thought I would write down my observations. Maybe some of it will be useful to others.

This blog is built solidly on the foundation of this quote from Socrates, ”The life which is unexamined is not worth living.” I’m a big believer.

_______________________________________________

So that's post #1.

Or that's what I settled on. I spent some time trying to guess where this blog is headed, to introduce it accurately, but that's not possible to know yet. And no sense making claims that I would try to stick to in the future. So I abandoned my first draft as too specific...not to mention wordy and maybe a little pompous, because after all, to commit to writing about yourself implies a high opinion of yourself that's necessary in order to this. That makes me uncomfortable, at least for now, but blogging is an accepted part of life and everybody seems to be fine with that part of it. So here I am; I wanna play, too.

Just for the heck of it, and since I don't want to just delete it, here is NOT post #1, the original version that didn't make the cut. What the heck, it's still a valid way to introduce myself.

Not post #1:

                                  Here’s The Plan

My purpose here, my raison d’etre, is to present and discuss observations and  truths about life that I find interesting or instructive. Not out of a belief that my thoughts are special, but, knowing that I’m wired to examine so much in so much detail, with the possibility of introducing a thought or perspective that would not have grown out of your experience. And I hope to be enriched by you as well, by equally foreign-sounding thoughts, if I’m lucky enough to engage readers to the point of feedback.

I feel I have observed much, and I’ve come to many conclusions about what is and what should be. You will find that I’m very sure of my conclusions. But that’s good, right?

I welcome any and all reactions, rebuttals, perspectives, etc. What are your thoughts and observations? What truths do you see? I can’t get it right every time, can I? Humble me, enlighten me, maybe together we’ll learn something new.

About this “examining life” business; there are 2 connected quotes that apply here, and I come down squarely on the side of the first, which is, ”The life which is unexamined is not worth living,” from Socrates. That’s the foundation of this endeavor, right there. (Why, the very foundation!) I interpret that to endorse examination of all of life; not just my own, but mine and any others I can observe or discuss. There’s something to be learned from just about everyone, and with that learning comes tolerance, patience, increased empathy…i.e. growth, all good. To walk a thin path with blinders on is to miss the mountains and valleys; get off the path and climb some trees, jump in the lake, make a mess, have some fun…sounds like a plan!

The other quote, which I don’t attribute because it’s an obvious inversion waiting to happen, is: ”The unlived life is not worth examining.” This to mean, since you’re living a different life than mine, conducting yourself in a different way, your story does not influence mine. I don’t see the value in understanding you so deeply. Eyes straight ahead, it says, don’t get distracted. From what? I don’t know. We shall agree on the foolishness of that approach.  8-D

Done.

I will talk about anything and everything; it’s all ‘capital L’ Life. With any luck, the more pieces that are examined and wrapped in some understanding, the better off we’ll all be.

Welcome, thanks for coming.

The table is set…