Posted on another forum to another inquisitive mind. Minor mods, as usual. Also, don't worry about stuff that's out of context. The major points still apply and they are reasons for posting this here.
--Wag--
------------------------
Religion. Whew. I think I could write a book on the subject. I was born and raised in one of the more pervasive religious cults ever: Mormonism. It isn't the worst but it's pretty bad, generally speaking. But it's given me an immense amount of subject matter with which to write books on the subject! You name it: Brainwashing, intimidation, fear, guilt, fallacy; the works. Now I just need to get to writing it!
One of my friends quipped one time, "The reason we know god is a creation of men is because he hates all the same people we do." Makes ya stop and think. Why DO people claim that god told them to wipe someone out?
Marx hit the nail on the head when he said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." I personally believe religion is about control. It's easy to keep people suppressed when they believe that no matter how rotten this life could ever get, the next life will see everything all fixed up. Ostensibly, the bad guys will get the punishment they deserve and the good guys will get the rewards and the riches of an all-powerful god, said rewards and punishments to last FOREVER! Sadly, such ingrained belief causes people to lose hope and enjoyment for this life and keeps them from becoming all they can be. Keeps them from thinking about possibilities.
The usual exceptions apply. I don't believe for a microsecond that my general comments above are globally applicable to all individuals. I'll get to that below.
I've come to believe that in many cases, religion causes more problems than it solves. T. alluded to the idea that you either believe or you don't. You can't make yourself believe. If you, as an individual, are incompatible to religious belief, you'll be miserable and vice-versa. For many years, I was one of the ones who WANTED to believe and TRIED really really hard to believe and ended up realizing that regardless of anything I said or did, I simply had never believed. Did I give up hope? Not really. I merely refocused my life and attention on things which were and are much more productive to my own well-being and overall enjoyment of life. Hope was restored and refreshed.
It's unfortunate that feverish religious nutballs, though a minority, make the most racket and therefore bring the judgment of others on the whole group, simply by association. I believe, though I could be wrong, that the majority of Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc. etc. are inherently good-hearted and intend no harm or ill-will to others. It's the charismatic fruitcakes who bring a bad image to the whole of their specific religions. Every time I encounter one of these types of believers, I have to laugh because despite their professions of love for me, it is comically apparent that such is not the intent of their hearts. Ironically, it's sad at the same time. The "rightness" of any of their additional commentary becomes suspect at that point.
What is it about human nature which compels us to always want to be "right?" Sometimes even at the expense of ours and others' well-being.
Yesterday, I read about the death of S. back in December. It is a prime example of people being capable of many great and wonderful things. I was deeply touched when I read some of those accounts and my heart goes out to the friends and family of a wonderful man I will never know. The people on this board do fantastic things for and with each other. I have greater faith in human nature because of that series of threads and I love the idea that people have this power within them. But you see examples of this kind of benevolence on a regular basis. Enough to make life worth living.
I'm continually impressed with other people's ability to do good things for each other but are those good things inspired by religion? I don't believe so, not because religion CAN'T inspire good things but that there is no causal relationship between doing good things and having religion in your life. There are too many various people with differing beliefs all doing good things for and with each other for me to believe that religion is the key motivator of it. Granted, if religion inspires some people to do well, to clean up their lives, to take more happines home with them every day, more power to those religious experiences. There are equal examples, however, of people doing evil things because of religion and no religion is excepted of this, past, present or future. Bottom line is, I think people are what they are. They will continue to be as such regardless of any external influence.
I've seen religious zealots pray with destitute families when what that family needed was groceries on the table. That is not Christian, nor is it faithful, nor is it a show of true Christian belief. On the other hand, I've seen people who were given the sustenance they needed to carry them through rough times without another word spoken. You can imagine which of the two types of experiences was the more religious to observe. At the end of the day, it made no difference whatsoever what religion anyone believed in.
Recently a motorcylist told of being confronted mid-morning by a fellow employee about the fact that the biker was splitting lanes in traffic and had been seen by the workmate as the biker passed by. The fellow employee said, "If I weren't a Christian, I would have opened my door on you as you went by." Sounds like the kind of Christian who professes to be one thing but in their heart of hearts, is something else entirely. Living such a double-life can only cause misery. This particular individual is a murderer at heart and while it's good that her "Christianity" stopped her from an evil deed, still, it changes not at all what she is. Her particular brand of "Christianity" has changed her behavior but has not changed what she is.
It's one of the primary reasons I no longer attempt to change people's beliefs as I once did. It's not good for people to be shoehorned into a space for which they are not suited. Farbeit from me to be the cause of that kind of suffering any longer.
Sometimes, the religious organization is faulty, other times, the person is faulty, sometimes, it's a combination of both. It's important to be able to judge which is the case in any individual contact we make before we react as much as, or more so, than the imbecile we seem to despise.
T., you're probably one of the more rational Christians I've ever encountered, 'specially on line. It'd be a pleasure to trade conceptual beliefs with you some day, given the opportunity to do so. You're relatively near so maybe that's more probable than not! I agree that slamming people for idiocy is appropriate but slamming them for their religion and hiding behind the defense that religion itself is idiocy is out of line. Granted, I've met plenty of religious idiots but I've encountered far more who are rational and thoughtful and deserving of great respect. You seem to be one of those and I suspect there are many others on this board of similar nature.
Life changed for me when I kicked religion to the curb. My marriage improved a thousand percent, my feelings of self-worth increased, my fears and guilt were washed away and I was reborn an atheist without regret and except for early on in that process of exiting Mormonism, I have never looked back. This is one guy who would remain an atheist, even in the proverbial foxhole.
I'm in agreement that we can all live together and all believe as we please and no harm no foul, insofar as unpleasantries are dispensed and we see each other as valuable people in any way possible.
We need each other, every one of us.
--Wag--
Friday, March 11, 2005
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Persistence
I read this article this morning and was struck by it rather deeply. Personally, I don't have a drive to do any one particular thing, a fact brought to the forefront of my mind by this article. Hope you find it of value. Regardless, I'm merely posting it here for my future reference at the moment.
--Wag--
-----------------------
Persistence by Bob Proctor
If you were to choose just one part of your personality to develop that would virtually guarantee your success, I'd like to suggest that you place persistence at the top of your list.
Napoleon Hill, in his classic "Think and Grow Rich" felt so strongly about this subject, he devoted an entire chapter to it. Hill suggested, "There may be no heroic connotation to the word persistence but the quality is to your character what carbon is to steel."
Think about it. If you took a quick mental walk down memory lane and reviewed some of your accomplishments in the past - large and small - you would have to agree that persistence played an important role in your success.
Napoleon Hill studied many of the world's most successful people. He pointed out the only quality he could find in Henry Ford, Thomas Edison or a host of other notable greats that he could not find in everyone else was persistence. What I found even more intriguing was the fact that Hill made comment of the fact that these individuals were often misunderstood to be ruthless or cold-blooded and that this misconception grew out of their habit of following through in all of their plans with persistence.
It's both interesting and sadly amusing to me that, as a society, we would be quick to criticize people for realizing they had an unshakeable power within them and were capable of overcoming any obstacle outside of them. This power would ultimately move them toward a greater chance of achieving any goal they set for themselves!
Milt Campbell is a good friend of mine. He and I have shared many hours together discussing the very topic of persistence. Milt was a Decathlete in the Olympic Games held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. His goal was to capture gold for the US. Unfortunately, another fierce competitor who had taken home the gold four years previous in London wasn't satisfied with one gold, Bob Mathias wanted two; Milt had to settle for silver. That did not deter Milt one bit. He had formed the habit of persistence and four years later in Melbourne, Australia, Milt won the gold medal, earning him the title of the greatest athlete in the world.
On numerous occasions Milt has said, "There were many guys in school who were far better athletes than me, but they quit." I can recount story after story about individuals who overcame obstacles so great, but only did so because they dared persist. These individuals are no different than you and I.
Ultimately persistence becomes a way of life, but that is not where it begins. To develop the mental strength - persistence - you must first want something. You have to WANT something so much that it becomes a heated desire... a passion in your belly. You must fall in love with that idea. Yes, literally fall in love with the idea and magnetize yourself to every part of the idea. At that point, persistence will be virtually automatic.
Persistence is a subject I have studied all of my adult life and I can tell you one thing I know for certain: very few people ever, mentally or verbally, say to themselves... this is what I really want and I am prepared to give my life for it, and thus, they never develop the persistence to achieve it.
Persistence is a unique mental strength; a strength that is essential to combat the fierce power of the repeated rejections and numerous other obstacles that sit in waiting and are all part of winning in a fast-moving, ever-changing world. As Napoleon Hill found out, there are hundreds of highly successful men and women who have cut a path for others to follow, while leaving their mark on the scrolls of history รข€¦ and every one of these great individuals was persistent. In many cases it was the only quality that separated them from everyone else.
It is generally believed that a lack of persistence is a consequence of a weak willpower. That is not true. A person could have a highly evolved willpower and still lack the persistence required to keep moving forward in life. In more cases than not, if a person lacks persistence, they do not have a goal that is worthy of them, a desirable goal that excites them to their very core.
Though willpower is important in moving a person toward their goal, if there is ever a war between the will and the imagination, the imagination will win every time. What that means is: you're powered by desire and fuelled by the dream you hold. Once you start to use your imagination to help you build a bigger picture of your dream, to define and refine it until you get it just right in your mind, the emotion that is triggered by that desire far outweighs any force that may be caused by sheer will alone. I am not suggesting the will does not have to be developed, it does. It must become highly developed in order to direct you toward the image with which you are emotionally involved.
Your intellectual factors hold the potential for enormous good when they are properly employed. However, you must remember that everything has an opposite and any of your intellectual factors can turn, without warning, into destructive lethal enemies when they are directed toward results that are not wanted. It is easy to find individuals who are persistently doing what they don't want to do and achieving results that they do not want. A lack of persistence is not their problem; that person is persisting to their own detriment. Ignorance and paradigms are the enemy that we must defeat. Everyone is persistent. Our objective must be to put persistence to work for us rather than against us.
Vision and desire have to be the focus of your attention if you're going to develop persistence into the great ally it can become.
Another excellent example of persistence was demonstrated when, in 1953, a beekeeper from Auckland, N.Z., Edmund Hillary and his native guide, Tenzing Norguay, became the first two people to climb Mt. Everest and return, after having tried and failed the two previous years.
Hillary had two obvious character strengths that took him to the very top - vision and desire. Even despite the seemingly insurmountable challenges, he had no trouble persisting with the strenuous acts that were required because every act was hooked into the image of him standing on top of the mountain. They were expressed because of his persistence, but he was persistent because he was emotionally involved with the image. Without persistence, all his skills would have meant nothing.
Persistence is an expression of the mental strength that is essential in almost every profession, where repeated rejection and obstacles are part of a daily routine.
In closing, let me give you four relatively simple steps that will help you to turn persistence into a habit. These steps can be followed by virtually anyone.
1. Have a clearly defined goal. The goal must be something you are emotionally involved with, something you want very much. (In the beginning, you may not even believe that you can accomplish it - the belief will come.)
2. Have a clearly established plan that you can begin working on immediately. (Your plan will very likely only cover the first and possibly the second stage of the journey to your goal. As you begin executing your plan, other steps required to complete your journey will be revealed at the right time.)
3. Make an irrevocable decision to reject any and all negative suggestions that come from friends, relatives or neighbors. Do not give any conscious attention to conditions or circumstances that appear to indicate the goal cannot be accomplished.
4. Establish a mastermind group of one or more people who will encourage, support and assist you wherever possible.
What do you dream of doing with your life? Do it. Begin right now and never quit. There is greatness in you. Let it out. Be persistent.
--Wag--
-----------------------
Persistence by Bob Proctor
If you were to choose just one part of your personality to develop that would virtually guarantee your success, I'd like to suggest that you place persistence at the top of your list.
Napoleon Hill, in his classic "Think and Grow Rich" felt so strongly about this subject, he devoted an entire chapter to it. Hill suggested, "There may be no heroic connotation to the word persistence but the quality is to your character what carbon is to steel."
Think about it. If you took a quick mental walk down memory lane and reviewed some of your accomplishments in the past - large and small - you would have to agree that persistence played an important role in your success.
Napoleon Hill studied many of the world's most successful people. He pointed out the only quality he could find in Henry Ford, Thomas Edison or a host of other notable greats that he could not find in everyone else was persistence. What I found even more intriguing was the fact that Hill made comment of the fact that these individuals were often misunderstood to be ruthless or cold-blooded and that this misconception grew out of their habit of following through in all of their plans with persistence.
It's both interesting and sadly amusing to me that, as a society, we would be quick to criticize people for realizing they had an unshakeable power within them and were capable of overcoming any obstacle outside of them. This power would ultimately move them toward a greater chance of achieving any goal they set for themselves!
Milt Campbell is a good friend of mine. He and I have shared many hours together discussing the very topic of persistence. Milt was a Decathlete in the Olympic Games held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. His goal was to capture gold for the US. Unfortunately, another fierce competitor who had taken home the gold four years previous in London wasn't satisfied with one gold, Bob Mathias wanted two; Milt had to settle for silver. That did not deter Milt one bit. He had formed the habit of persistence and four years later in Melbourne, Australia, Milt won the gold medal, earning him the title of the greatest athlete in the world.
On numerous occasions Milt has said, "There were many guys in school who were far better athletes than me, but they quit." I can recount story after story about individuals who overcame obstacles so great, but only did so because they dared persist. These individuals are no different than you and I.
Ultimately persistence becomes a way of life, but that is not where it begins. To develop the mental strength - persistence - you must first want something. You have to WANT something so much that it becomes a heated desire... a passion in your belly. You must fall in love with that idea. Yes, literally fall in love with the idea and magnetize yourself to every part of the idea. At that point, persistence will be virtually automatic.
Persistence is a subject I have studied all of my adult life and I can tell you one thing I know for certain: very few people ever, mentally or verbally, say to themselves... this is what I really want and I am prepared to give my life for it, and thus, they never develop the persistence to achieve it.
Persistence is a unique mental strength; a strength that is essential to combat the fierce power of the repeated rejections and numerous other obstacles that sit in waiting and are all part of winning in a fast-moving, ever-changing world. As Napoleon Hill found out, there are hundreds of highly successful men and women who have cut a path for others to follow, while leaving their mark on the scrolls of history รข€¦ and every one of these great individuals was persistent. In many cases it was the only quality that separated them from everyone else.
It is generally believed that a lack of persistence is a consequence of a weak willpower. That is not true. A person could have a highly evolved willpower and still lack the persistence required to keep moving forward in life. In more cases than not, if a person lacks persistence, they do not have a goal that is worthy of them, a desirable goal that excites them to their very core.
Though willpower is important in moving a person toward their goal, if there is ever a war between the will and the imagination, the imagination will win every time. What that means is: you're powered by desire and fuelled by the dream you hold. Once you start to use your imagination to help you build a bigger picture of your dream, to define and refine it until you get it just right in your mind, the emotion that is triggered by that desire far outweighs any force that may be caused by sheer will alone. I am not suggesting the will does not have to be developed, it does. It must become highly developed in order to direct you toward the image with which you are emotionally involved.
Your intellectual factors hold the potential for enormous good when they are properly employed. However, you must remember that everything has an opposite and any of your intellectual factors can turn, without warning, into destructive lethal enemies when they are directed toward results that are not wanted. It is easy to find individuals who are persistently doing what they don't want to do and achieving results that they do not want. A lack of persistence is not their problem; that person is persisting to their own detriment. Ignorance and paradigms are the enemy that we must defeat. Everyone is persistent. Our objective must be to put persistence to work for us rather than against us.
Vision and desire have to be the focus of your attention if you're going to develop persistence into the great ally it can become.
Another excellent example of persistence was demonstrated when, in 1953, a beekeeper from Auckland, N.Z., Edmund Hillary and his native guide, Tenzing Norguay, became the first two people to climb Mt. Everest and return, after having tried and failed the two previous years.
Hillary had two obvious character strengths that took him to the very top - vision and desire. Even despite the seemingly insurmountable challenges, he had no trouble persisting with the strenuous acts that were required because every act was hooked into the image of him standing on top of the mountain. They were expressed because of his persistence, but he was persistent because he was emotionally involved with the image. Without persistence, all his skills would have meant nothing.
Persistence is an expression of the mental strength that is essential in almost every profession, where repeated rejection and obstacles are part of a daily routine.
In closing, let me give you four relatively simple steps that will help you to turn persistence into a habit. These steps can be followed by virtually anyone.
1. Have a clearly defined goal. The goal must be something you are emotionally involved with, something you want very much. (In the beginning, you may not even believe that you can accomplish it - the belief will come.)
2. Have a clearly established plan that you can begin working on immediately. (Your plan will very likely only cover the first and possibly the second stage of the journey to your goal. As you begin executing your plan, other steps required to complete your journey will be revealed at the right time.)
3. Make an irrevocable decision to reject any and all negative suggestions that come from friends, relatives or neighbors. Do not give any conscious attention to conditions or circumstances that appear to indicate the goal cannot be accomplished.
4. Establish a mastermind group of one or more people who will encourage, support and assist you wherever possible.
What do you dream of doing with your life? Do it. Begin right now and never quit. There is greatness in you. Let it out. Be persistent.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
A letter to a new mom.
I sent the following e-mail to my cousin, J. today. It came from the heart and I thought it usefully exposed another layer to my feelings about the birth of my new "nephew" 02/14. This was sent in response to an e-mail from her.
--Wag--
P.S. Yes, I know that R. is not my nephew, he is my first cousin once removed, as J. informed me! Still, I'm lazy and it's easier to refer to him as a nephew!
J,
You're cute! It's nearly impossible to put myself into your shoes given the radical changes you're having now. Picturing you as a mother is something I haven't done yet. I've still thought of you as the same fun-loving, party animal we've come to love and enjoy in the recent years. Nevertheless, I hope the mommy side of you will still let the plaything out from time to time. We out here in the sandbox still need a J. fix from time to time! ;-)
I wrote in my blog something about the fact R.'s birth and the fact that I was there for it has changed me in some fundamental way which I can't put my finger on.
What I hadn't considered in depth until reading your e-mail is that it has most assuredly changed you and D. as well. And FAR more drastically than it changed me. It has to have changed how you think about yourself, just you you say. I can't even begin to comprehend how that is. It's one thing to consider how I look at you but I'm fascinated with how your view of yourself has been changed. Also, D.'s perspective about himself and about you as well. Your e-mail has overwhelmed me as I consider how you both must have had changes to your views of your inner selves.
Some other thoughts I had as we talked the other night. In a radical sense, you're doing things backwards from how "everyone else" does them. Many couples have children early in life, WAY before they're really ready to have that kind of responsibility. Indeed, in the VAST majority of cases, it seems couples or mothers have kids completely IR-responsibly. It makes for more sad times than joyous ones in families with an immature mother and father (if there's a father around after the sperm-donor stage) trying to be parents when they haven't finished being kids yet.
I look at you and D. and I admire the fact that you've made the decision to have a child and that you did so with careful consideration and deliberation. Not to mention all the effort you put into maximizing his health in the process. The responsible way in which you've gone about this is a demonstration of a purer love than I've encountered in the past.
I suppose N. and I did the same thing: Approached the idea of children in the home with a sense of responsibility and with a determination of what is going to be best for a little one. Ultimately, we concluded that it would be best to not have kids but truth be told, had we not encountered obstructions along the way, we would be the irresponsible parents with kids we can't handle and wondering how we got ourselves into that mess.
Well, you've done more than I could have hoped for. I doubt that at this point, I could improve on anything you've done. You've had a child later in life but frankly, you're older and more mature and you have a greater sense of responsibility than you would have had ten or fifteen years ago. Full kudos to you. That all applies equally to D., as you know.
I can't tell you enough how much I admire the two of you. Thanks for including us in your lives.
All my love,
--Wag--
--Wag--
P.S. Yes, I know that R. is not my nephew, he is my first cousin once removed, as J. informed me! Still, I'm lazy and it's easier to refer to him as a nephew!
J,
You're cute! It's nearly impossible to put myself into your shoes given the radical changes you're having now. Picturing you as a mother is something I haven't done yet. I've still thought of you as the same fun-loving, party animal we've come to love and enjoy in the recent years. Nevertheless, I hope the mommy side of you will still let the plaything out from time to time. We out here in the sandbox still need a J. fix from time to time! ;-)
I wrote in my blog something about the fact R.'s birth and the fact that I was there for it has changed me in some fundamental way which I can't put my finger on.
What I hadn't considered in depth until reading your e-mail is that it has most assuredly changed you and D. as well. And FAR more drastically than it changed me. It has to have changed how you think about yourself, just you you say. I can't even begin to comprehend how that is. It's one thing to consider how I look at you but I'm fascinated with how your view of yourself has been changed. Also, D.'s perspective about himself and about you as well. Your e-mail has overwhelmed me as I consider how you both must have had changes to your views of your inner selves.
Some other thoughts I had as we talked the other night. In a radical sense, you're doing things backwards from how "everyone else" does them. Many couples have children early in life, WAY before they're really ready to have that kind of responsibility. Indeed, in the VAST majority of cases, it seems couples or mothers have kids completely IR-responsibly. It makes for more sad times than joyous ones in families with an immature mother and father (if there's a father around after the sperm-donor stage) trying to be parents when they haven't finished being kids yet.
I look at you and D. and I admire the fact that you've made the decision to have a child and that you did so with careful consideration and deliberation. Not to mention all the effort you put into maximizing his health in the process. The responsible way in which you've gone about this is a demonstration of a purer love than I've encountered in the past.
I suppose N. and I did the same thing: Approached the idea of children in the home with a sense of responsibility and with a determination of what is going to be best for a little one. Ultimately, we concluded that it would be best to not have kids but truth be told, had we not encountered obstructions along the way, we would be the irresponsible parents with kids we can't handle and wondering how we got ourselves into that mess.
Well, you've done more than I could have hoped for. I doubt that at this point, I could improve on anything you've done. You've had a child later in life but frankly, you're older and more mature and you have a greater sense of responsibility than you would have had ten or fifteen years ago. Full kudos to you. That all applies equally to D., as you know.
I can't tell you enough how much I admire the two of you. Thanks for including us in your lives.
All my love,
--Wag--
RoHS Compliance
Without doing any professional research on the matter, here are some speculative and therefore, highly suspect thoughts. In other words, I'm only writing based on what I've overheard on a peripheral level.
Remember the Y2K scare? Allegedly, computers everywhere were going to fail right and left. Chaos would reign the world over.
How many computer failures did YOU hear about on 01 January, 2000? I didn't hear of a single one. Maybe my life is too sheltered . . . . Even now, however, there is room for Y2K problems which have not yet been discovered but I have to believe that possibility to be remote.
Nevertheless, there was plenty of fear about the subject which resulted in a frenzy of buying replacement computer systems and software. I suspect that in the process, there was some innovation in software designs, etc. etc. But what can't be denied is the fact that there was a huge boom in the electronics industry and a LOT of people made huge amounts of money in the process.
So, came 01 January, 2000, the extreme majority of all computer and electronics users had replaced substantially all of their equipment and it was all new.
Now I don't know about the rest of you but I don't replace my computer every year. In fact, if I can, I try to make it last about 5 years and since I don't demand a lot from it, I can usually make it last a very long time. I know a lot of companies feel the same about it. They make their systems last as long as possible. More power to them and us.
Remember what happened in the subsequent years after Y2K? Recession, especially in the electronics industry. The pool of consumers and businesses buying new electronics shrank considerably. As the recession progressed with fewer customers for new products, companies went out of business in droves. The new equipment they had purchased during the boom of Y2K was sold as used and people and businesses got some great deals . . .
. . . and new stuff simply got sold in much smaller volumes for quite some time.
I think most of that equipment has been used up and the electronics industry seems to be juuuuust about to get back on its feet. Many systems bought during the Y2K scare are still being used but they are getting replaced now. Finally. Hell, a lot of those systems are still using Windows 98 to the extreme that Microsoft even extended it's deadline for End of Life on Windows 98 and they are still supporting it for that reason. There's your key indicator. When those Windows 98 systems all go away, you can be sure that most of the Y2K systems are finally gone.
But there is another problem which is faced by the electronics industry every day. Actually, two very closely related problems. Prices and Life Cycles. The electronics industry is one of the very few industries in which products continually get better AND cheaper at the same time. Remember the first Compaq "portable" 21 years ago? It had ten times the memory of anything else with a whopping 640K (yes, that's "K") of RAM. TWO, count 'em, TWO floppy disk drives. (Personally, I hadn't even heard of a hard drive at the time, though they did exist.) It had a VGA monitor and with the proper RF modulator, it could easily be connected to a T.V. to conjur up some pretty cool graphics for the day. It cost about $4,000, not including the printer and some WordPerfect software.
Nowadays, people are getting PDA's and cell phones which are FAR more powerful than that Compaq "portable" and if you work the deal right, you can damn near get 'em for free. Look at the Zire 72. Whoa. Most desktops made before about 6 to 10 years ago couldn't even compete in terms of power and capability, to say nothing of doing it for the same price. Try $300 vs. $3,000.
So, what's the effect of that pricing problem on the electronics industry? Well, everything gets better and cheaper which results in better market penetration (two cars in every garage and a computer in every living room) BUT, and this is the kicker, electronics companies have to deal with continuous pressure to get their prices down and THAT means, they are operating ever more closely to their break-even points. Moving closer and closer to the edge of the cliff, so to speak.
They HAVE to produce new products. Which brings me to the other component of the electronics industry's major problem: life cycles. When a new product is introduced, the price of it on the shelf instantly starts to decline because the product is only going to be "the latest and greatest" for a very short time. If the company is exceptionally lucky, they'll get a year of good sales out of a single product. Typically, it's more like four to six months. At that point, they'll be lucky to unload it for ANY price and the product gets relegated to pretty near garbage status. The only way for a company to do well and make any money is to release a new product every six months. Or even more often.
It's nearly a Catch-22. The very thing that makes electronics great is the same thing which shoots it in the toe. We make better and better products and we do it faster and faster all the time but doing so creates a vicious cycle of continuous and very rapid replacement of products on the shelf. Continuous and rapid obsolescence of all products electronic. Even the capital equipment required to build these products goes obsolete VERY quickly. Prices fall to the point of making it impossible to turn a profit on any "old" product.
Nasty. Kudos to the managers and company execs who manage these products and make the decisions necessary to keep their companies afloat in such a scenario.
So, I have this idea that the Y2K panic, while not conspiratorial, seems to have given the electronics industry an idea; that they have to create some kind of crisis to generate a buying spree every so often in order to keep afloat.
Introduce the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) Directive. Essentially, it says that manufacturers are to reduce the amount of things like Lead, Mercury, etc. etc. from the products made in the electronics industry. It appears that the primary focus for the electronics industry is lead. Lead is an important component of the solder used in all or most electronics components. It gets blended with tin or silver, et al and serves to make the solder last longer, be more flexible, and resist the ordinary wear and tear and the effects of age on a circuit board. Take it out and you reduce the reliability of the product.
Note this, too. The entire electronics industry produces less than 10% (going from memory here) of the world's lead "waste" or "pollution." Even if the entire electronics industry goes completely lead-free, the world's lead pollution problem will still be an issue. (If we really want to eliminate lead from the environment, guess who we need to talk to? Battery makers, maybe?)
So what have we done here? RoHS has created another crisis, similar to that of the Y2K crisis. The only difference is, instead of affecting people at an end-user level, we have moved the crisis to the level of the electronics manufacturer. The result is similar, however. It obsoletes a lot of older inventory and demands its replacement. Prices are stabilized and profits can be restored. Puts companies a little farther above break-even because they can justify the increase or at least the maintenance of prices. Also, the reduced reliability of products means that there will be a slight increase in demand, albeit from repairs, etc. Manufacturing will have found a way to keep their assembly lines up and running.
Is it a conspiracy? Well, I'm no conspiracy nutball but this is one of those things which make you raise an eyebrow and say, "Hmmmmm. I wonder." And you do have to wonder. Is the European Union so hard-up for business that they have to create some imaginary crisis in order to compete with the rest of the world? Remember back when ISO 9000 was all the rage? My opinion only here, but that was mostly a "fad" which originated in Europe. I suppose it was a way of suggesting that if you could comply with ISO standards, your product was allegedly a better product and buying from a certified company meant you were doing better than the other guys. Kinda like the car salesman who suggests, "You don't want to buy from THOSE guys! They don't have THIS!"
So what's the deal with RoHS? I think you're going to see a lot of companies, in Europe, ironically, who will want exceptions to the "rules" and they'll gum up the whole works right before they go completely out of business. There will be plenty of exceptions made in the medical and aeorspace industries to allow their products to be made with lead in the solder to provide the reliability they demand. The prices of non-lead products will go down, eventually, as more and more companies comply. The prices of non-compliant products will start to rise as they become ever more difficult to find. Eventually, soldering and other metallurgical technologies will rise to the occasion and we'll find that we can make things without lead which are just as reliable as things with lead.
We have to hope.
But I still have to wonder: How on earth are we going to fix the problems of excess lead in batteries? Can we? I'd be the last to know but I do believe this: RoHS isn't about solving problems with lead or other hazardous materials in the environment. It's about stimulating the electronics industry and giving it a boost for a while. Especially in the European Union. The only questions are going to be, "How long will the boost last?" and "What crisis is going to come up next in order to boost the electronics industry?" Or, to rephrase that last question, "What is the European Union going to do next in order to create a bigger market for itself?" Short of actually producing some quality and service on its own merits, that is.
--Wag--
Remember the Y2K scare? Allegedly, computers everywhere were going to fail right and left. Chaos would reign the world over.
How many computer failures did YOU hear about on 01 January, 2000? I didn't hear of a single one. Maybe my life is too sheltered . . . . Even now, however, there is room for Y2K problems which have not yet been discovered but I have to believe that possibility to be remote.
Nevertheless, there was plenty of fear about the subject which resulted in a frenzy of buying replacement computer systems and software. I suspect that in the process, there was some innovation in software designs, etc. etc. But what can't be denied is the fact that there was a huge boom in the electronics industry and a LOT of people made huge amounts of money in the process.
So, came 01 January, 2000, the extreme majority of all computer and electronics users had replaced substantially all of their equipment and it was all new.
Now I don't know about the rest of you but I don't replace my computer every year. In fact, if I can, I try to make it last about 5 years and since I don't demand a lot from it, I can usually make it last a very long time. I know a lot of companies feel the same about it. They make their systems last as long as possible. More power to them and us.
Remember what happened in the subsequent years after Y2K? Recession, especially in the electronics industry. The pool of consumers and businesses buying new electronics shrank considerably. As the recession progressed with fewer customers for new products, companies went out of business in droves. The new equipment they had purchased during the boom of Y2K was sold as used and people and businesses got some great deals . . .
. . . and new stuff simply got sold in much smaller volumes for quite some time.
I think most of that equipment has been used up and the electronics industry seems to be juuuuust about to get back on its feet. Many systems bought during the Y2K scare are still being used but they are getting replaced now. Finally. Hell, a lot of those systems are still using Windows 98 to the extreme that Microsoft even extended it's deadline for End of Life on Windows 98 and they are still supporting it for that reason. There's your key indicator. When those Windows 98 systems all go away, you can be sure that most of the Y2K systems are finally gone.
But there is another problem which is faced by the electronics industry every day. Actually, two very closely related problems. Prices and Life Cycles. The electronics industry is one of the very few industries in which products continually get better AND cheaper at the same time. Remember the first Compaq "portable" 21 years ago? It had ten times the memory of anything else with a whopping 640K (yes, that's "K") of RAM. TWO, count 'em, TWO floppy disk drives. (Personally, I hadn't even heard of a hard drive at the time, though they did exist.) It had a VGA monitor and with the proper RF modulator, it could easily be connected to a T.V. to conjur up some pretty cool graphics for the day. It cost about $4,000, not including the printer and some WordPerfect software.
Nowadays, people are getting PDA's and cell phones which are FAR more powerful than that Compaq "portable" and if you work the deal right, you can damn near get 'em for free. Look at the Zire 72. Whoa. Most desktops made before about 6 to 10 years ago couldn't even compete in terms of power and capability, to say nothing of doing it for the same price. Try $300 vs. $3,000.
So, what's the effect of that pricing problem on the electronics industry? Well, everything gets better and cheaper which results in better market penetration (two cars in every garage and a computer in every living room) BUT, and this is the kicker, electronics companies have to deal with continuous pressure to get their prices down and THAT means, they are operating ever more closely to their break-even points. Moving closer and closer to the edge of the cliff, so to speak.
They HAVE to produce new products. Which brings me to the other component of the electronics industry's major problem: life cycles. When a new product is introduced, the price of it on the shelf instantly starts to decline because the product is only going to be "the latest and greatest" for a very short time. If the company is exceptionally lucky, they'll get a year of good sales out of a single product. Typically, it's more like four to six months. At that point, they'll be lucky to unload it for ANY price and the product gets relegated to pretty near garbage status. The only way for a company to do well and make any money is to release a new product every six months. Or even more often.
It's nearly a Catch-22. The very thing that makes electronics great is the same thing which shoots it in the toe. We make better and better products and we do it faster and faster all the time but doing so creates a vicious cycle of continuous and very rapid replacement of products on the shelf. Continuous and rapid obsolescence of all products electronic. Even the capital equipment required to build these products goes obsolete VERY quickly. Prices fall to the point of making it impossible to turn a profit on any "old" product.
Nasty. Kudos to the managers and company execs who manage these products and make the decisions necessary to keep their companies afloat in such a scenario.
So, I have this idea that the Y2K panic, while not conspiratorial, seems to have given the electronics industry an idea; that they have to create some kind of crisis to generate a buying spree every so often in order to keep afloat.
Introduce the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) Directive. Essentially, it says that manufacturers are to reduce the amount of things like Lead, Mercury, etc. etc. from the products made in the electronics industry. It appears that the primary focus for the electronics industry is lead. Lead is an important component of the solder used in all or most electronics components. It gets blended with tin or silver, et al and serves to make the solder last longer, be more flexible, and resist the ordinary wear and tear and the effects of age on a circuit board. Take it out and you reduce the reliability of the product.
Note this, too. The entire electronics industry produces less than 10% (going from memory here) of the world's lead "waste" or "pollution." Even if the entire electronics industry goes completely lead-free, the world's lead pollution problem will still be an issue. (If we really want to eliminate lead from the environment, guess who we need to talk to? Battery makers, maybe?)
So what have we done here? RoHS has created another crisis, similar to that of the Y2K crisis. The only difference is, instead of affecting people at an end-user level, we have moved the crisis to the level of the electronics manufacturer. The result is similar, however. It obsoletes a lot of older inventory and demands its replacement. Prices are stabilized and profits can be restored. Puts companies a little farther above break-even because they can justify the increase or at least the maintenance of prices. Also, the reduced reliability of products means that there will be a slight increase in demand, albeit from repairs, etc. Manufacturing will have found a way to keep their assembly lines up and running.
Is it a conspiracy? Well, I'm no conspiracy nutball but this is one of those things which make you raise an eyebrow and say, "Hmmmmm. I wonder." And you do have to wonder. Is the European Union so hard-up for business that they have to create some imaginary crisis in order to compete with the rest of the world? Remember back when ISO 9000 was all the rage? My opinion only here, but that was mostly a "fad" which originated in Europe. I suppose it was a way of suggesting that if you could comply with ISO standards, your product was allegedly a better product and buying from a certified company meant you were doing better than the other guys. Kinda like the car salesman who suggests, "You don't want to buy from THOSE guys! They don't have THIS!"
So what's the deal with RoHS? I think you're going to see a lot of companies, in Europe, ironically, who will want exceptions to the "rules" and they'll gum up the whole works right before they go completely out of business. There will be plenty of exceptions made in the medical and aeorspace industries to allow their products to be made with lead in the solder to provide the reliability they demand. The prices of non-lead products will go down, eventually, as more and more companies comply. The prices of non-compliant products will start to rise as they become ever more difficult to find. Eventually, soldering and other metallurgical technologies will rise to the occasion and we'll find that we can make things without lead which are just as reliable as things with lead.
We have to hope.
But I still have to wonder: How on earth are we going to fix the problems of excess lead in batteries? Can we? I'd be the last to know but I do believe this: RoHS isn't about solving problems with lead or other hazardous materials in the environment. It's about stimulating the electronics industry and giving it a boost for a while. Especially in the European Union. The only questions are going to be, "How long will the boost last?" and "What crisis is going to come up next in order to boost the electronics industry?" Or, to rephrase that last question, "What is the European Union going to do next in order to create a bigger market for itself?" Short of actually producing some quality and service on its own merits, that is.
--Wag--
Sunday, February 20, 2005
The miracle is growing up already.
Spent the afternoon and evening at D. and J.'s home this evening. Very enjoyable. "Our" little miracle is doing well. Growing, even. Oh, yeah, right. Big surprise. Well, the truth is, he's impressive in a lot of ways. Granted, as I've said before, I don't have kids so I'm no genius about children but from what I keep seeing, I'm impressed.
Okay, I've seen the videos before. It always seems like the usual baby is born pretty much purple and slimy. I was a little surprised to see that R. was born more "normal" looking. Not looking like a science experiment. Or a space alien. Looked rather like a kid three weeks old.
Now, I'm the oldest of 10 kids. Strange or not, I helped raise the last 6 of them. No kidding. Changed diapers, fed, bathed. The works. No it was NOT cool but I did it.
So, fast forward to today. Little R. is notably ahead of his class. Start with the fact that he was born looking pretty much 3 weeks or so ahead of his time. Way cool. He is exceptionally strong. Indeed, his legs actually have definition already. Very impressive, to say the very least. I'm actually blown away. He seems to be coordinated. That's to say that when he moves his arms, he appears to move them deliberately and with control rather than just thrashing around.
He follows things with his eyes, even from a distance. He's feeding really well. His eyes have taken on a beautiful hazel color. His face is exceptionally expressive and he passes his face through a lot of motions. Sometimes he appears to smile but we all know he's too young to smile at us. Isn't he? Hmmmmmmmmm.........
I'm utterly captivated by him. I spent the week at work trying to figure out ways to get to come over and visit him and hold him. Hell, I'm a macho man (I think) and I want to be with this little guy. Funny thing is, Thursday I was thinking, "Hey! Tomorrow's Friday and we can go over there after work! Cool!" No sooner had I thought that than one of my buddies called to remind me that I had a prior engagement for Friday evening.
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn.
We were at our event last night and it was VERY enjoyable. But the whole time I was there, I kept thinking, "This is VERY enjoyable! I wish we could go and visit R." So, this morning, I reshuffled some things and we struggled all day, holding off the urge to come and visit him before D. and J. were ready to have us over. That was tough. I spent the morning at the local computer super store wasting time, just to divert my thoughts. Self-defense.
I'm still feeling somewhat changed by all this. D. and J. were more than generous to us, inviting us to be a part of this perfect event. R. is now a part of our life. We're not his parents, to be sure, but still, my mind dwells on him constantly. I love holding the little guy and watching him. I love seeing him interact with his mother and his father.
Thanks to digital cameras, there are more pictures of him from the past week than there were of me my entire life! But for every moment we capture in a photo, there are 10,000 more we wish we could grab. And for every word I write here about my feelings on this most miraculous of things, there are 100,000 which could be written and still only describe the thousandth part of what I'm feeling.
The words aren't there for me yet.
Hopefully, they will come.
--Wag--
Okay, I've seen the videos before. It always seems like the usual baby is born pretty much purple and slimy. I was a little surprised to see that R. was born more "normal" looking. Not looking like a science experiment. Or a space alien. Looked rather like a kid three weeks old.
Now, I'm the oldest of 10 kids. Strange or not, I helped raise the last 6 of them. No kidding. Changed diapers, fed, bathed. The works. No it was NOT cool but I did it.
So, fast forward to today. Little R. is notably ahead of his class. Start with the fact that he was born looking pretty much 3 weeks or so ahead of his time. Way cool. He is exceptionally strong. Indeed, his legs actually have definition already. Very impressive, to say the very least. I'm actually blown away. He seems to be coordinated. That's to say that when he moves his arms, he appears to move them deliberately and with control rather than just thrashing around.
He follows things with his eyes, even from a distance. He's feeding really well. His eyes have taken on a beautiful hazel color. His face is exceptionally expressive and he passes his face through a lot of motions. Sometimes he appears to smile but we all know he's too young to smile at us. Isn't he? Hmmmmmmmmm.........
I'm utterly captivated by him. I spent the week at work trying to figure out ways to get to come over and visit him and hold him. Hell, I'm a macho man (I think) and I want to be with this little guy. Funny thing is, Thursday I was thinking, "Hey! Tomorrow's Friday and we can go over there after work! Cool!" No sooner had I thought that than one of my buddies called to remind me that I had a prior engagement for Friday evening.
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn.
We were at our event last night and it was VERY enjoyable. But the whole time I was there, I kept thinking, "This is VERY enjoyable! I wish we could go and visit R." So, this morning, I reshuffled some things and we struggled all day, holding off the urge to come and visit him before D. and J. were ready to have us over. That was tough. I spent the morning at the local computer super store wasting time, just to divert my thoughts. Self-defense.
I'm still feeling somewhat changed by all this. D. and J. were more than generous to us, inviting us to be a part of this perfect event. R. is now a part of our life. We're not his parents, to be sure, but still, my mind dwells on him constantly. I love holding the little guy and watching him. I love seeing him interact with his mother and his father.
Thanks to digital cameras, there are more pictures of him from the past week than there were of me my entire life! But for every moment we capture in a photo, there are 10,000 more we wish we could grab. And for every word I write here about my feelings on this most miraculous of things, there are 100,000 which could be written and still only describe the thousandth part of what I'm feeling.
The words aren't there for me yet.
Hopefully, they will come.
--Wag--
Thursday, February 17, 2005
An atheist believes in miracles!
Not what you may think, however. Let me explain. Of course, I'm the atheist in this story. I believe all the rest of the people in this story actually believe in god at some level but I, myself, do not. But we all still love each other; more power to us!
My wonderful cousin, J. and her equally wonderful husband, D. just had a baby on Monday. Yup. Valentine's Day. "So what?" you may ask. "People have babies all the time." Well this baby and the baby's parents have a story that is rather unique. No, the birth/labor/pregnancy, etc. were all normal and uneventful. No problems during any of it. The baby is perfectly healthy and J. has come through with her health and in flying colors. No, what made this story unique is that D. and J. invited us to attend them at the birth. Yup. That's right. We were there for the whole thing.
Now, from the very beginning, which is to say, several months ago, we have been excited about the prospects of being able to attend. We were honored beyond compare by the mere invitation. My wife and I were given the great privilege of being asked to video tape the delivery and participate and assist in any way possible. The excitement built up to Monday when we finally got the call, 9:30 a.m. My wife and I went running. Cops could have written us a dozen tickets and we arrived at their house a short time later.
Oh! I didn't mention that yet! Yeah, they did the labor and delivery in their home. Two professional midwives were in attendance and took care of all the "important" things J. wasn't doing herself. J. decided at the last minute that she didn't want ANY video so that didn't happen. When I was first told that there would be no video I got the idea in my head that I'd be able to park my ass in a chair with a bag of popcorn and a beer and watch the show!
Naive, I know.
There was a ton of stuff to be done. We just did it. All five of us, attending to J. as she went through the labor. Completely successfully, too. She was a champ beyond compare and she became a hero to me that day. So did those two midwives. So did D. So did my wife. My estimation of the quality of the character of all involved, including myself, I must add, has risen dramatically. Yeah, I threw in with the rest of 'em. There was no chair or popcorn or beer for me. Just a labor of love on my part to help in any way I could. To say I "enjoyed" it would be an understatement more severe than any other in history, I assure you. It was an experience beyond any other.
And it has changed me. I don't entirely understand how, yet. I'm still trying to understand all of it. I'm trying to sift through my feelings on the matter. I'm still in the throes of more intense emotion than I've ever felt before in my life. Indeed, the birth of their child and our role in participating in it has become the focal point of a great deal of my life's thoughts, my philosophies, my outlook on life and my inner self.
But all in all, the result of whatever changes have occurred are a greater peace within me.
Oh, and the miracle of it all? Most assuredly it is a miracle. I'm still an atheist and I don't believe miracles come from a deity, but indeed, the birth of their child is a miracle beyond compare. I'm completely awed by it.
--Wag--
My wonderful cousin, J. and her equally wonderful husband, D. just had a baby on Monday. Yup. Valentine's Day. "So what?" you may ask. "People have babies all the time." Well this baby and the baby's parents have a story that is rather unique. No, the birth/labor/pregnancy, etc. were all normal and uneventful. No problems during any of it. The baby is perfectly healthy and J. has come through with her health and in flying colors. No, what made this story unique is that D. and J. invited us to attend them at the birth. Yup. That's right. We were there for the whole thing.
Now, from the very beginning, which is to say, several months ago, we have been excited about the prospects of being able to attend. We were honored beyond compare by the mere invitation. My wife and I were given the great privilege of being asked to video tape the delivery and participate and assist in any way possible. The excitement built up to Monday when we finally got the call, 9:30 a.m. My wife and I went running. Cops could have written us a dozen tickets and we arrived at their house a short time later.
Oh! I didn't mention that yet! Yeah, they did the labor and delivery in their home. Two professional midwives were in attendance and took care of all the "important" things J. wasn't doing herself. J. decided at the last minute that she didn't want ANY video so that didn't happen. When I was first told that there would be no video I got the idea in my head that I'd be able to park my ass in a chair with a bag of popcorn and a beer and watch the show!
Naive, I know.
There was a ton of stuff to be done. We just did it. All five of us, attending to J. as she went through the labor. Completely successfully, too. She was a champ beyond compare and she became a hero to me that day. So did those two midwives. So did D. So did my wife. My estimation of the quality of the character of all involved, including myself, I must add, has risen dramatically. Yeah, I threw in with the rest of 'em. There was no chair or popcorn or beer for me. Just a labor of love on my part to help in any way I could. To say I "enjoyed" it would be an understatement more severe than any other in history, I assure you. It was an experience beyond any other.
And it has changed me. I don't entirely understand how, yet. I'm still trying to understand all of it. I'm trying to sift through my feelings on the matter. I'm still in the throes of more intense emotion than I've ever felt before in my life. Indeed, the birth of their child and our role in participating in it has become the focal point of a great deal of my life's thoughts, my philosophies, my outlook on life and my inner self.
But all in all, the result of whatever changes have occurred are a greater peace within me.
Oh, and the miracle of it all? Most assuredly it is a miracle. I'm still an atheist and I don't believe miracles come from a deity, but indeed, the birth of their child is a miracle beyond compare. I'm completely awed by it.
--Wag--
Friday, February 11, 2005
Philip Wylie Strikes Again.
In another forum in which I participate, a particular thread meandered around the subject of intent preceding action, hovered over the idea of whether or not people should want to allow mind reading (if it were possible) to prevent crime before it occurs, and gave birth to this mini-essay below. I've modified it slightly for readability and clarified some points which are out of context.
Enjoy!
--Wag--
One of the best philosophical essays I've ever read on this subject, albeit tangentially, is Philip Wylie's, "An Essay on Morals." I think one of the horrors feared most by the human being is the revelation of their own inner thoughts, thoughts which they guard with fierce determination. Throughout much of human history, we struggled to create of humans, an ethereal, mystical, mighty and powerful self, culminating in a creature superior in all ways to all other creatures on the planet. We made gods of ourselves and then, in ever-increasing arrogance, began to use our newfound reason to castigate ourselves and brought fear and guilt into the picture. In order to assuage that fear and guilt, we created gods above us for ourselves and then, in the ultimate arrogance of all time, we began to adhere to the belief that, via our own sacrifices and obeisances, we could influence and guide the decisions of these almighty gods, especially in their whimsical punishments of newly self-deprecated humans.
Certain individuals, more arrogant than the rest, claimed to even speak to these gods, as if the gods had nothing more important to do than pay attention to us pathetic animals. 'Cause that's exactly what humans are. Simply animals with the powers of reason, creativity and long-term memory. We had ideas, fer Krissakes! Yeah, we had greater ability than the common animals of the world but were we better than they? Of course! We had gods and they did not!
Fast forward through the millenia and we find that these delusional and arrogant assumptions about ourselves and our relationships to these selfsame gods, albeit with different names here and there, these gods have such a hold over man that we have learned to completely fear to acknowledge our animal sides, our basic instincts which drive us. The same instincts which we have attempted to whitewash and to call "evil" and which still rest quietly at our core, influencing our every thought. But remember: We proved to ourselves that we are better than animals and we created morals to demonstrate to ourselves that our instincts were now subject to our powerful will.
Our list of commandments grew (Seven? Fourteen?) to the point where we believed that to even think of any basic instinctual urge contrary to our new moral code was in itself a grossly negligent abandonment of our self-created greatness. We began to fear to expose our thoughts and hence, we carefully hid them behind heavy masks. Our thoughts became subject to personal judgement and close inner scrutiny for fear that if others of our compatriots knew of them, they would cease to love us, cease to respect us and if motivated well enough, to even hate us in a hypocrisy of indulgence in the animal side of our instinctive natures.
We carefully guard our thoughts now. If a man considers in his mind the joys of sex with a woman who is married to another, he must keep it to himself and never express that desire to anyone, otherwise, he suffers dire consequences. If he wishes to have his neighbor's car or lawnmower for himself, he's convicted in his own conscience with sufficient severity to prevent him from letting anyone know lest he then be railed upon by his fellows.
We fear to reveal our thoughts indiscretionately. It has become necessary to become something other than what we are in order to survive in a society with rules. Perhaps that survival instinct is still there, hidden somewhere inside us and keeping us from gross errors which would jeopardize our very existence.
I think, therefore, that such are the reasons we fear to reveal our thoughts. We do not wish to be proven to be the animals which we deny of ourselves, particularly among others of our fellow human animals who think in their inherited arrogance, that they are better than we and will use any device necessary to prove it.
If they could get ahold of our thoughts, we would all definitively be shown to be even as the animals.
--Wag--
Enjoy!
--Wag--
One of the best philosophical essays I've ever read on this subject, albeit tangentially, is Philip Wylie's, "An Essay on Morals." I think one of the horrors feared most by the human being is the revelation of their own inner thoughts, thoughts which they guard with fierce determination. Throughout much of human history, we struggled to create of humans, an ethereal, mystical, mighty and powerful self, culminating in a creature superior in all ways to all other creatures on the planet. We made gods of ourselves and then, in ever-increasing arrogance, began to use our newfound reason to castigate ourselves and brought fear and guilt into the picture. In order to assuage that fear and guilt, we created gods above us for ourselves and then, in the ultimate arrogance of all time, we began to adhere to the belief that, via our own sacrifices and obeisances, we could influence and guide the decisions of these almighty gods, especially in their whimsical punishments of newly self-deprecated humans.
Certain individuals, more arrogant than the rest, claimed to even speak to these gods, as if the gods had nothing more important to do than pay attention to us pathetic animals. 'Cause that's exactly what humans are. Simply animals with the powers of reason, creativity and long-term memory. We had ideas, fer Krissakes! Yeah, we had greater ability than the common animals of the world but were we better than they? Of course! We had gods and they did not!
Fast forward through the millenia and we find that these delusional and arrogant assumptions about ourselves and our relationships to these selfsame gods, albeit with different names here and there, these gods have such a hold over man that we have learned to completely fear to acknowledge our animal sides, our basic instincts which drive us. The same instincts which we have attempted to whitewash and to call "evil" and which still rest quietly at our core, influencing our every thought. But remember: We proved to ourselves that we are better than animals and we created morals to demonstrate to ourselves that our instincts were now subject to our powerful will.
Our list of commandments grew (Seven? Fourteen?) to the point where we believed that to even think of any basic instinctual urge contrary to our new moral code was in itself a grossly negligent abandonment of our self-created greatness. We began to fear to expose our thoughts and hence, we carefully hid them behind heavy masks. Our thoughts became subject to personal judgement and close inner scrutiny for fear that if others of our compatriots knew of them, they would cease to love us, cease to respect us and if motivated well enough, to even hate us in a hypocrisy of indulgence in the animal side of our instinctive natures.
We carefully guard our thoughts now. If a man considers in his mind the joys of sex with a woman who is married to another, he must keep it to himself and never express that desire to anyone, otherwise, he suffers dire consequences. If he wishes to have his neighbor's car or lawnmower for himself, he's convicted in his own conscience with sufficient severity to prevent him from letting anyone know lest he then be railed upon by his fellows.
We fear to reveal our thoughts indiscretionately. It has become necessary to become something other than what we are in order to survive in a society with rules. Perhaps that survival instinct is still there, hidden somewhere inside us and keeping us from gross errors which would jeopardize our very existence.
I think, therefore, that such are the reasons we fear to reveal our thoughts. We do not wish to be proven to be the animals which we deny of ourselves, particularly among others of our fellow human animals who think in their inherited arrogance, that they are better than we and will use any device necessary to prove it.
If they could get ahold of our thoughts, we would all definitively be shown to be even as the animals.
--Wag--
Thursday, January 27, 2005
What makes a great relationship?
In another forum, a young lady wrote a request asking for married people's advice on relationships. The ensuing discussion really has me reflecting. Again. I've contemplated this subject for quite some time, years, actually. When I first started hanging out on RfM, (Recovery from Mormonism, www.exmormon.org) I was pretty naive about relationships though I didn't know it at the time. That was 3+ years ago. As I started to realize people have serious problems with their relationships, I wondered what the hell was I doing right? If anything. I say that last because most Mormon and Exmormon men are pussified and brainwashed to the point of believing that if they have a good marriage, it's solely because of their wives. For a while, I was one of those. I had to really study it out for a while to realize that ultimately, I have as much to do with the excellent quality of our relationship as my wife does. Perhaps that's a subchapter of a very long topic. Let's see if I come back to it here.
Anyhoo, back then I thought I should write an essay on what great relationships are made of. I even started such an essay and made almost no progress with it. It's very complex and I'm not even sure I can even get a very good start on it. We'll see what happens here.
So, what is it that makes my relationship with my wife so great? So very fantastic? My wife and I look at other couples and we have a tough time figuring them out. Let's see what a quick brainstorming session will reveal of the mind of Wag. I should mention that all of this applies equally to gay couples as well, just change the genders to suit your needs! ;)
Communication
I think the big part, at the risk of sounding like a cliche, is communication. However, as I alluded to in another post on the young lady's thread, it's not WHAT a couple communicates but HOW they communicate it. (This is extraordinarly difficult to describe because I'm having trouble coming up with decent examples.)
I frequently see women approach their mates with topics which are genuinely important BUT they bring it up from their own point of view rather than figuring out what their partner's point of view is. She's pissed about him leaving his skidmarked underwear on the floor all the time. It really pisses her off. She jumps in his face about it. At best, he sheepishly picks 'em up for a couple of days but before you know it, there they are again some morning and there they keep showing up every day until she blows off at him about it again.
She never takes a thought for what might actually motivate him to change his habit. It's all about her. She can't take her mind off the fact that it really pisses her off. Okay, that's the easy part of the example. The hard part is continuing with a solution.
Auuughghghgh! I can't get the grip on it! And believe me, that's exactly what she should be feeling. She can't get a grip on how to approach him. But waitaminnit. She get's naked with this guy all the time, she washes those skidmarks out of his skivvies and she can't take the time and make the effort to figure him out? C'mon!!! She's just not thinking! She KNOWS this man and she CAN figure him out if she puts some effort into it.
She has to explain how it makes her feel when he drops his undies on the floor. Therein lies a multi-faceted problem for her. The first part is, she may not really know HOW she feels. Which is to say, she can't put it into words, even to herself. There's her first task. Define how it is she feels when she trips over the stinky Fruit-of-the-Looms going into the bedroom in the morning. Does she feel he doesn't care? Yup! But wait. That's too broad to approach him with it because it applies to too many other things. She has to be more specific or it's going to be a very short meaningless conversation when she does eventually bring it up. And she's going to lose.
Does she feel like she thinks of her as a personal slave? Perhaps. That's a little broad too, but getting better. You see where this is going? It's a detective's job and it takes effort. I should point out that over time, it gets much easier. And by the way, it's not just women, it's men, too. Turn it over to him being pissed that she clogged the toilet drain with a tampon AGAIN, and you can switch the example over VERY easily.
Ah, but you may say those are such minor issues, they don't need a lot of in-depth contemplation and heavy discussion.
Oh, really?
Then I ask you, how the FUCK are you supposed to take care of the big issues if you don't know how to deal with the little ones? Practice, you idiot! You need it!
Back to the example. So, she finally figures out what it is that she really feels. It was more complex to figure it out than the actual feeling was when she finally exposed it to herself! It usually is. Sometimes, after the introspection, it becomes a non-issue entirely and it can be laughed off. That's good too, frankly. But such isn't the case here. The floor isn't the place to drop the odiferous bun-huggers. It has to be dealt with.
What's next? She has to have a great deal of confidence that her husband is sensitive to her feelings, sure that he's really interested in not hurting her, ever. If she doesn't already know that, then this whole exercise is going to be futile at best. That's where the counsellor came in handy for fixing up my relationship with my wife. He was the catalyst that made me frame the thought in my mind that, "Hey, I really DON'T like to cause my wife any ill feelings because I really DO love her." After that, it's all progress from there.
That's really the crux of successful communication in a relationship. Other necessary dimenstions include setting the right time (not while he's watching Sports Center, is hungry, is sleeping, etc.), the right body language, the right tone of voice, etc. Once those ideal components are in place, the conversation should go MUCH better and may even engender a change in the behavior.
Sex
I've said it so many times, it's becoming a cliche but it may not yet be one. Are you ready?
Sex is not the door to a good long-term relationship but it's definitely the hinge that it swings on.
If the sexual hinge gets rusty, the relationship gets squeaky. I'm not talking about the springs on that old mattress yer bangin' her on or your latent need for K-Y Jelly, or 10W-40 Valvoline, either. I've seen a great many men AND women in relationships where they aren't getting any or not getting it very good and they wait it out, miserable, looking okay on the surface in public but inside just having a very bad time of it. A good sexual relationship will have its ups and downs, sure. But the overall trend for sexual quality in a great relationship will be upward-sloping through the entire relationship.
That begs the question, though: "Why is that?" Generally, it's because the partners in the relationship actually care about how good the sex is for their partner. Even back when I was an adherent to the sexually repressed cult, we threw caution and prudishness to the winds and made sure we took care of each other. I was proud of the fact that EVERY time, for about 10 years straight, I made her scream like a banshee in ecstactic sexual heaven. Peeling her off the ceiling was a regular and frequent occurrence. She made sure I got great sex in any configuration I wanted as often as I wanted. There was a great deal of sexual generosity between the two of us and y'know what? There still is. More than ever before and moreso than I see between most couples out there. Yeah, there were things that made one or the other of us uncomfortable so we didn't do them more than once and we don't go revisit them now. Those boundaries got set up very well over time.
"Sexual generosity." There's a term I don't think I've heard before. What are YOU giving to your partner? Or are you just being selfish? Is your partner? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Money
Do what it takes to make enough. Get a better education, start the business you need, live on less than what you earn right now, you name it. Financial security solves a GREAT MANY PROBLEMS!!! There are lots of people out there who have been brainwashed into believing that money is the root of all evil, if you want money YOU are evil and those who have money did it by selling their souls to Satan. (No lie, my father used to preach that last one to me!) People are actually afraid of money and the more there is of it, the more they hate it.
Of course, that's all bullshit. People steal most often when they DON'T have enough money. People in marriages fight because they don't have enough money. People go hungry, or sick, or inadequately clothed or sheltered because they don't have enough money. Lack of money causes far more problems than it solves. If a couple isn't fighting over money, they don't have a lot of fights.
Don't get me wrong, you CAN have a ton of money and if you're irresponsible with it, it doesn't really matter how much you have, it's never enough. I tell couples thinking of getting into it long-term under the same roof that they should do a full credit check on their potential partner. Believe you me, you don't want the kinds of problems that financial irresponisibility of a mate and lack of money causes. No relationship should be put under that strain if it can be avoided at all.
If you're already in a relationship and your mate is not responsible about money, you have to take the bull by the horns and do what is required to make sure he or she doesn't bring you to financial devastation. It may not be easy but ya gotta do it. Pure and simple. And if all else fails, sorry to say, get the hell out. Your "relationship" is probably usurious and enabling at some level and fails to qualify as a relationship.
Bottom line is, the phrase, "Money is the root of all evil," is utter bullshit. LACK of money, to restate it, cause far more problems than money ever did.
The subject of money is VERY complex when you bring it to an emotional and ethical level. Those types of thoughts have to be reconciled to reality and fundamental facts about money. We'll do that another time.
Kids
I don't have kids but here are some thoughts 'cause I was a kid a long time ago and I have friends and family with kids. What I DON'T know are the day-to-day instant decisions which have to be made but I think I can address some general ideas with some small degree of competence. Maybe . . . ;)
So, are ya gonna have 'em or not? If one of you wants kids and the other doesn't, you'd be playing with fire to get into a relationship. That isn't to say you can't still have a relationship but you will never be certain your partner is completely satisfied and that it won't become a huge blowout fight somewhere down the line.
If you decide you both don't want kids, get fixed. No mistakes allowed now!
But what about if you already have kids or want to have kids? How ya gonna raise 'em? How many do you want? What if you have one or two and change your mind about how many? How ya gonna divide up the parenting responsibilities? Are you financially prepared to have kids? Can one of you stay home and raise the kids yourselves instead of putting them into daycare? How ya gonna educate 'em? Can you handle THAT responsibility? Moneywise? Timewise?
One thing is a certainty. Having kids is going to change your life unalterably. I mean, we have a horse and we joke about it being our kid but the reality is, if we ever become in any way disenchanted with the critter we can sell it. We can even legally shoot it if we like. Ya ain't doin' THAT with your kids! Sorry! You're stuck with 'em for the duration and that duration is longer for some than others.
We tried to adopt kids and were circumvented for a lot of years, long enough to finally realize that our perspective and desires had changed so we ended that effort because we decided that frankly, we didn't really want kids any more. Had we had kids early on, of course we would have been able to rise to the task. But I see a lot of people who have kids for various irrational reasons and end up resenting the kids later on. Sometimes not very much later on.
Premarital discussions
I tell couples beginning a long-term relationship to discuss all these issues herein and more before they get together under one roof and before they make a commitment of that seriousness. It's just good practice. And just what is a pre-nup, anyway if not a discussion of all of these issues? The difference is, with a pre-nup, you pay an attorney to do it for you and it protects any existing assets. Pre-nups also, for the record, make it a lot easier to break off the relationship.
Goals
Where do your life's objectives match up? Where do they digress? How supportive are you toward each other's desires and intentions for their lives? Are you helping your mate with the goals he has? Is he helping you with yours? Do you both like doing so or is it an insufferable burden to you? Just some things to think about. You don't have to have the same goals or be supportive of each other necessarily but as a bare minimum, you can't be resentful and you can't be obstructive.
Individuality
Speaking of goals, do you override your mate's goals with yours? That's a bad thing. All too often, I see a guy working to build up a business out of his hobby of collecting horse biscuits and varnishing them for sale and the poor spouse has to help out (or thinks she does) and she gives up her dream of learning to fly zeppelins. That would be terrible, to be sure. 'Specially if you had to live that way for very long.
Education
How supportive are you of each other's educational objectives? One of the great tragedies I see FREQUENTLY is when the woman works her fingers to the bone to put her honey through law school and the minute he becomes successful in his new career, he trades her in for a younger model. How pathetic is that? What kinda scum does that? Or just as bad, the woman wants a degree and her husband berates her for it all the time she's studying and refuses to create an environment wherein she can do the schooling for herself. Becomes obstructive in various ways, etc. etc. Or vice-versa. Women do it to their men, too. Ostensibly, it's jealousy but whatever the reason, that can't be good.
What a pisser, eh?
Religion
Without going into a long discussion about it, how important is religion and how will it affect EVERY aspect of your life or ANY of your life? I should mention that just because you're both in the same religion, you may not have the same beliefs. And what if your spouse changes religions mid-stream, will it matter to you? Even if it means sacrificing chickens in the back yard in the moonlight? SOME religions can break up families entirely when one of the pair moves off in a different direction with changes in belief.
Respect
I think one of the key components of a successful long-term relationship is respect for the partner. With the proper respect, most of the above falls very easily into place. I've seen guys married to some real twitlet women and they don't respect the women in the least. Not that she deserves any respect but what on earth did he marry her for? Sex? Well, young guys do it all the time but still, that doesn't lend itself to a good relationship at all.
Other things
There are plenty of things which aren't addressed here at all and the topics above are not explored the least bit completely or conclusively. But every aspect of the relationship is important. what is most important, however, is . . .
Love
I used to know what love was. When I proposed to my wife, I thought I knew what love was. I thought I was in love. Little did I know! Ha! A year later, I realized how silly I had been because at that point, I REALLY knew what love was. I was sadly mistaken. Another year later, I realized that wasn't what you could call love. I became absolutely CERTAIN that I understood the meaning of love and knew what it was. That powerful love I felt at that time was the key that saved my marriage but again, I was severely mistaken about what love is.
Fast forward many more years. 15 1/2 years of marriage later, I can assure you I absolutely KNOW what love is now. Too bad I can't really describe it to you! Seriously, it's beyond the ability of pathetically inadequate words to even begin to describe. A year ago, I really thought I knew what love is but I was wrong again and now I'm completely SURE I know what love is! ;)
Well, I'm only being a little frivolous above. The point is, of course, that love, real love, grows and develops continually. It's not something you acquire one day or fall into. Well, you can fall into or acquire some early forms of love but if you want to truly have the black belt of love, you have to keep learning about it all the time and to do so, you have to stay in a long-term committed, mutually satisfying relationship for an extended period of time. And the longer you stay in it, the more you'll feel what love really is.
I fall in love with my wife every day, all over again but more than the day before. We have reached the point where we are nearly physically a part of one another, even when we're away from each other. Again, it's tough to describe.
As a footnote, I should mention that love does NOT overcome all obstacles. Brains make a huge difference in people's ability to work out the difficulties of long-term relationships. Love DOES, however, frequently become the motivator to boost people into WANTING to put the effort into it.
Conclusion
Well, like I said, this is a tough thing to write which is why I never wrote it before. Probably shouldn't have written it just now! What DOES make a GREAT relationship? Almost impossible to cover everything though the subjects above tend to be the big ones.
I should also mention that what makes a great relationship is a topic about which I learn something new every day. I can't wait to see what I learn more about it tomorrow!
;)
--Wag--
Anyhoo, back then I thought I should write an essay on what great relationships are made of. I even started such an essay and made almost no progress with it. It's very complex and I'm not even sure I can even get a very good start on it. We'll see what happens here.
So, what is it that makes my relationship with my wife so great? So very fantastic? My wife and I look at other couples and we have a tough time figuring them out. Let's see what a quick brainstorming session will reveal of the mind of Wag. I should mention that all of this applies equally to gay couples as well, just change the genders to suit your needs! ;)
Communication
I think the big part, at the risk of sounding like a cliche, is communication. However, as I alluded to in another post on the young lady's thread, it's not WHAT a couple communicates but HOW they communicate it. (This is extraordinarly difficult to describe because I'm having trouble coming up with decent examples.)
I frequently see women approach their mates with topics which are genuinely important BUT they bring it up from their own point of view rather than figuring out what their partner's point of view is. She's pissed about him leaving his skidmarked underwear on the floor all the time. It really pisses her off. She jumps in his face about it. At best, he sheepishly picks 'em up for a couple of days but before you know it, there they are again some morning and there they keep showing up every day until she blows off at him about it again.
She never takes a thought for what might actually motivate him to change his habit. It's all about her. She can't take her mind off the fact that it really pisses her off. Okay, that's the easy part of the example. The hard part is continuing with a solution.
Auuughghghgh! I can't get the grip on it! And believe me, that's exactly what she should be feeling. She can't get a grip on how to approach him. But waitaminnit. She get's naked with this guy all the time, she washes those skidmarks out of his skivvies and she can't take the time and make the effort to figure him out? C'mon!!! She's just not thinking! She KNOWS this man and she CAN figure him out if she puts some effort into it.
She has to explain how it makes her feel when he drops his undies on the floor. Therein lies a multi-faceted problem for her. The first part is, she may not really know HOW she feels. Which is to say, she can't put it into words, even to herself. There's her first task. Define how it is she feels when she trips over the stinky Fruit-of-the-Looms going into the bedroom in the morning. Does she feel he doesn't care? Yup! But wait. That's too broad to approach him with it because it applies to too many other things. She has to be more specific or it's going to be a very short meaningless conversation when she does eventually bring it up. And she's going to lose.
Does she feel like she thinks of her as a personal slave? Perhaps. That's a little broad too, but getting better. You see where this is going? It's a detective's job and it takes effort. I should point out that over time, it gets much easier. And by the way, it's not just women, it's men, too. Turn it over to him being pissed that she clogged the toilet drain with a tampon AGAIN, and you can switch the example over VERY easily.
Ah, but you may say those are such minor issues, they don't need a lot of in-depth contemplation and heavy discussion.
Oh, really?
Then I ask you, how the FUCK are you supposed to take care of the big issues if you don't know how to deal with the little ones? Practice, you idiot! You need it!
Back to the example. So, she finally figures out what it is that she really feels. It was more complex to figure it out than the actual feeling was when she finally exposed it to herself! It usually is. Sometimes, after the introspection, it becomes a non-issue entirely and it can be laughed off. That's good too, frankly. But such isn't the case here. The floor isn't the place to drop the odiferous bun-huggers. It has to be dealt with.
What's next? She has to have a great deal of confidence that her husband is sensitive to her feelings, sure that he's really interested in not hurting her, ever. If she doesn't already know that, then this whole exercise is going to be futile at best. That's where the counsellor came in handy for fixing up my relationship with my wife. He was the catalyst that made me frame the thought in my mind that, "Hey, I really DON'T like to cause my wife any ill feelings because I really DO love her." After that, it's all progress from there.
That's really the crux of successful communication in a relationship. Other necessary dimenstions include setting the right time (not while he's watching Sports Center, is hungry, is sleeping, etc.), the right body language, the right tone of voice, etc. Once those ideal components are in place, the conversation should go MUCH better and may even engender a change in the behavior.
Sex
I've said it so many times, it's becoming a cliche but it may not yet be one. Are you ready?
Sex is not the door to a good long-term relationship but it's definitely the hinge that it swings on.
If the sexual hinge gets rusty, the relationship gets squeaky. I'm not talking about the springs on that old mattress yer bangin' her on or your latent need for K-Y Jelly, or 10W-40 Valvoline, either. I've seen a great many men AND women in relationships where they aren't getting any or not getting it very good and they wait it out, miserable, looking okay on the surface in public but inside just having a very bad time of it. A good sexual relationship will have its ups and downs, sure. But the overall trend for sexual quality in a great relationship will be upward-sloping through the entire relationship.
That begs the question, though: "Why is that?" Generally, it's because the partners in the relationship actually care about how good the sex is for their partner. Even back when I was an adherent to the sexually repressed cult, we threw caution and prudishness to the winds and made sure we took care of each other. I was proud of the fact that EVERY time, for about 10 years straight, I made her scream like a banshee in ecstactic sexual heaven. Peeling her off the ceiling was a regular and frequent occurrence. She made sure I got great sex in any configuration I wanted as often as I wanted. There was a great deal of sexual generosity between the two of us and y'know what? There still is. More than ever before and moreso than I see between most couples out there. Yeah, there were things that made one or the other of us uncomfortable so we didn't do them more than once and we don't go revisit them now. Those boundaries got set up very well over time.
"Sexual generosity." There's a term I don't think I've heard before. What are YOU giving to your partner? Or are you just being selfish? Is your partner? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Money
Do what it takes to make enough. Get a better education, start the business you need, live on less than what you earn right now, you name it. Financial security solves a GREAT MANY PROBLEMS!!! There are lots of people out there who have been brainwashed into believing that money is the root of all evil, if you want money YOU are evil and those who have money did it by selling their souls to Satan. (No lie, my father used to preach that last one to me!) People are actually afraid of money and the more there is of it, the more they hate it.
Of course, that's all bullshit. People steal most often when they DON'T have enough money. People in marriages fight because they don't have enough money. People go hungry, or sick, or inadequately clothed or sheltered because they don't have enough money. Lack of money causes far more problems than it solves. If a couple isn't fighting over money, they don't have a lot of fights.
Don't get me wrong, you CAN have a ton of money and if you're irresponsible with it, it doesn't really matter how much you have, it's never enough. I tell couples thinking of getting into it long-term under the same roof that they should do a full credit check on their potential partner. Believe you me, you don't want the kinds of problems that financial irresponisibility of a mate and lack of money causes. No relationship should be put under that strain if it can be avoided at all.
If you're already in a relationship and your mate is not responsible about money, you have to take the bull by the horns and do what is required to make sure he or she doesn't bring you to financial devastation. It may not be easy but ya gotta do it. Pure and simple. And if all else fails, sorry to say, get the hell out. Your "relationship" is probably usurious and enabling at some level and fails to qualify as a relationship.
Bottom line is, the phrase, "Money is the root of all evil," is utter bullshit. LACK of money, to restate it, cause far more problems than money ever did.
The subject of money is VERY complex when you bring it to an emotional and ethical level. Those types of thoughts have to be reconciled to reality and fundamental facts about money. We'll do that another time.
Kids
I don't have kids but here are some thoughts 'cause I was a kid a long time ago and I have friends and family with kids. What I DON'T know are the day-to-day instant decisions which have to be made but I think I can address some general ideas with some small degree of competence. Maybe . . . ;)
So, are ya gonna have 'em or not? If one of you wants kids and the other doesn't, you'd be playing with fire to get into a relationship. That isn't to say you can't still have a relationship but you will never be certain your partner is completely satisfied and that it won't become a huge blowout fight somewhere down the line.
If you decide you both don't want kids, get fixed. No mistakes allowed now!
But what about if you already have kids or want to have kids? How ya gonna raise 'em? How many do you want? What if you have one or two and change your mind about how many? How ya gonna divide up the parenting responsibilities? Are you financially prepared to have kids? Can one of you stay home and raise the kids yourselves instead of putting them into daycare? How ya gonna educate 'em? Can you handle THAT responsibility? Moneywise? Timewise?
One thing is a certainty. Having kids is going to change your life unalterably. I mean, we have a horse and we joke about it being our kid but the reality is, if we ever become in any way disenchanted with the critter we can sell it. We can even legally shoot it if we like. Ya ain't doin' THAT with your kids! Sorry! You're stuck with 'em for the duration and that duration is longer for some than others.
We tried to adopt kids and were circumvented for a lot of years, long enough to finally realize that our perspective and desires had changed so we ended that effort because we decided that frankly, we didn't really want kids any more. Had we had kids early on, of course we would have been able to rise to the task. But I see a lot of people who have kids for various irrational reasons and end up resenting the kids later on. Sometimes not very much later on.
Premarital discussions
I tell couples beginning a long-term relationship to discuss all these issues herein and more before they get together under one roof and before they make a commitment of that seriousness. It's just good practice. And just what is a pre-nup, anyway if not a discussion of all of these issues? The difference is, with a pre-nup, you pay an attorney to do it for you and it protects any existing assets. Pre-nups also, for the record, make it a lot easier to break off the relationship.
Goals
Where do your life's objectives match up? Where do they digress? How supportive are you toward each other's desires and intentions for their lives? Are you helping your mate with the goals he has? Is he helping you with yours? Do you both like doing so or is it an insufferable burden to you? Just some things to think about. You don't have to have the same goals or be supportive of each other necessarily but as a bare minimum, you can't be resentful and you can't be obstructive.
Individuality
Speaking of goals, do you override your mate's goals with yours? That's a bad thing. All too often, I see a guy working to build up a business out of his hobby of collecting horse biscuits and varnishing them for sale and the poor spouse has to help out (or thinks she does) and she gives up her dream of learning to fly zeppelins. That would be terrible, to be sure. 'Specially if you had to live that way for very long.
Education
How supportive are you of each other's educational objectives? One of the great tragedies I see FREQUENTLY is when the woman works her fingers to the bone to put her honey through law school and the minute he becomes successful in his new career, he trades her in for a younger model. How pathetic is that? What kinda scum does that? Or just as bad, the woman wants a degree and her husband berates her for it all the time she's studying and refuses to create an environment wherein she can do the schooling for herself. Becomes obstructive in various ways, etc. etc. Or vice-versa. Women do it to their men, too. Ostensibly, it's jealousy but whatever the reason, that can't be good.
What a pisser, eh?
Religion
Without going into a long discussion about it, how important is religion and how will it affect EVERY aspect of your life or ANY of your life? I should mention that just because you're both in the same religion, you may not have the same beliefs. And what if your spouse changes religions mid-stream, will it matter to you? Even if it means sacrificing chickens in the back yard in the moonlight? SOME religions can break up families entirely when one of the pair moves off in a different direction with changes in belief.
Respect
I think one of the key components of a successful long-term relationship is respect for the partner. With the proper respect, most of the above falls very easily into place. I've seen guys married to some real twitlet women and they don't respect the women in the least. Not that she deserves any respect but what on earth did he marry her for? Sex? Well, young guys do it all the time but still, that doesn't lend itself to a good relationship at all.
Other things
There are plenty of things which aren't addressed here at all and the topics above are not explored the least bit completely or conclusively. But every aspect of the relationship is important. what is most important, however, is . . .
Love
I used to know what love was. When I proposed to my wife, I thought I knew what love was. I thought I was in love. Little did I know! Ha! A year later, I realized how silly I had been because at that point, I REALLY knew what love was. I was sadly mistaken. Another year later, I realized that wasn't what you could call love. I became absolutely CERTAIN that I understood the meaning of love and knew what it was. That powerful love I felt at that time was the key that saved my marriage but again, I was severely mistaken about what love is.
Fast forward many more years. 15 1/2 years of marriage later, I can assure you I absolutely KNOW what love is now. Too bad I can't really describe it to you! Seriously, it's beyond the ability of pathetically inadequate words to even begin to describe. A year ago, I really thought I knew what love is but I was wrong again and now I'm completely SURE I know what love is! ;)
Well, I'm only being a little frivolous above. The point is, of course, that love, real love, grows and develops continually. It's not something you acquire one day or fall into. Well, you can fall into or acquire some early forms of love but if you want to truly have the black belt of love, you have to keep learning about it all the time and to do so, you have to stay in a long-term committed, mutually satisfying relationship for an extended period of time. And the longer you stay in it, the more you'll feel what love really is.
I fall in love with my wife every day, all over again but more than the day before. We have reached the point where we are nearly physically a part of one another, even when we're away from each other. Again, it's tough to describe.
As a footnote, I should mention that love does NOT overcome all obstacles. Brains make a huge difference in people's ability to work out the difficulties of long-term relationships. Love DOES, however, frequently become the motivator to boost people into WANTING to put the effort into it.
Conclusion
Well, like I said, this is a tough thing to write which is why I never wrote it before. Probably shouldn't have written it just now! What DOES make a GREAT relationship? Almost impossible to cover everything though the subjects above tend to be the big ones.
I should also mention that what makes a great relationship is a topic about which I learn something new every day. I can't wait to see what I learn more about it tomorrow!
;)
--Wag--
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Geek Gods
Saw this article today:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1748125,00.asp
The Dick Tracy watch with video and phone is still a way off but this seems like another step in that direction. I can't wait to see what's next.
Suffice it to say that my PDA (Zire 72) has scads more power (100's of times?) than the old XT's we started with 20 years ago and is inherently more powerful than even the first Pentiums. Well, more useful, that is. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the Palm OS particularly in it's current iteration.
I can't complain. It cost me $600 with all the software I wanted vs. the $3,500 it used to cost for the first Pentiums. Bad thing: I still need a Pentium to make the Palm truly accessible and to back it up. The battery isn't all that great. Still, I can't complain.
So, when the PC gets implemented to the wrist and the interface to it is a pair of VR goggles and a virtual keyboard, I'll finally be content.
Maybe.
--Wag--
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1748125,00.asp
The Dick Tracy watch with video and phone is still a way off but this seems like another step in that direction. I can't wait to see what's next.
Suffice it to say that my PDA (Zire 72) has scads more power (100's of times?) than the old XT's we started with 20 years ago and is inherently more powerful than even the first Pentiums. Well, more useful, that is. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the Palm OS particularly in it's current iteration.
I can't complain. It cost me $600 with all the software I wanted vs. the $3,500 it used to cost for the first Pentiums. Bad thing: I still need a Pentium to make the Palm truly accessible and to back it up. The battery isn't all that great. Still, I can't complain.
So, when the PC gets implemented to the wrist and the interface to it is a pair of VR goggles and a virtual keyboard, I'll finally be content.
Maybe.
--Wag--
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Abortion
In response to a question asked elsewhere, I wrote the following:
This is a key issue for me, not in the usual sense but in the sense that it has been battled at so furiously from all sides that my own position has had to be evaluated and re-evaluated numerous times. I've been on both sides of the debate and have believed both sides to be "the correct" one. Which is to say that my article here will be more of a discussion of reflections rather than an attempt to say "what is right." As if there were such a thing. As to what *I* believe? It will become more clear as you read on.
Individual choice in the matter is paramount. This ties in very closely with the idea that we can't or rather, shouldn't legislate morality. What is right for one person or even the majority in such an issue is irrelevant to the focal point of the matter, that focal point being, of course, the choice and option of the individual pregnant woman. Moral legislation such as this is founded almost entirely in emotion. But even that isn't a sufficient argument to keep this issue out of congressional debates and out of our courtrooms. Most laws are based on morals, for example, we aren't allowed to kill, we aren't allowed to cut of a man's hand when he steals an orange from the supermarket. The difference here is that abortion is a crime only because it is defined as such, not because there is a secondary harm to society, ie., no victim.
"Aha!" some may say. "The unborn child is a victim of MURDER!" That statement forces the argument of whether or not the embryo/fetus is a viable life form. Even scientists are at odds about this so I doubt that we as mere mortals can make the call. Personally, I think the embryo/fetus is a parasite to the mother and lives, not even symbiotically, but feeds entirely off the mother's body, relying wholly upon it for it's survival, beyond the womb, even. That's an exclusively biological view and leads to the conclusion that while it may be alive, it is only by the grace and permission of the mother. Even the hormonal changes forced on the mother leading to an emotional attachment to the unborn child are geared toward ensuring that the mother takes care of said unborn child. Still, it is a parasite.
Before you flame me, recall that such a statement of the status of the embryo/fetus is an emotionally detached biological statement, not one which is arguable in the least. It's simply an unemotional statement of what nature has done to propogate life in mammals.
Having said all of that, a pregnant woman can genuinely feel the life inside her quite early on in the pregnancy. But not immediately. The only immediate effects are the quiet realization that something is changing in her body. After a few weeks, movement can be felt and the mother's attachment to the unborn begins to solidify quite well.
At what point, though, is it a life? Even a parasite is alive so you can't even use the argument that a child which cannot survive outside the womb is not a life. Yet, I don't believe you can call it a human life immediately upon conception. It is not even recognizable as human unless you jump into the DNA itself. The few cells which make up my gall bladder are alive and have human DNA but they are not a viable human life. That the embryo can eventually become human is not an argument that at the moment, it IS human.
So when does life begin? Not at conception. Certainly before birth. When the heart starts pumping? When brainwave activity is apparent? When does life begin? All of the above is to present the argument that abortion BEFORE the start of life should be a non-issue. Yet, we have not come to an agreement about when life begins and therefore, we have to admit that by having this argument, we don't even agree on what life, over all, really is.
I'm opposed to late-term and partial birth abortions. In my pea brain, I believe there is no doubt that at that point, the fetus is viable, human, and a sustainable life, regardless of the fact that it's still living parasitically off the mother host. Partial-birth abortions are not, in fact, abortions, they are killings, pure and simple. I also find it truly amazing that a woman could go through her entire pregnancy of nine-months and decide at the last minute that she doesn't want the child. There isn't any difference between this method of baby-disposal and the dumping of a newborn into a nearby garbage dumpster. My opinion, of course.
As a birth control method, I'm opposed to abortion. There are far more effective ways to prevent the birth of a child. I'll agree, however, that sometimes other methods can fail and allow an unwanted pregnancy to occur. At that point, I think abortion is pretty much paramount, however, it needs to be effected right away in order to accomplish it before life truly begins. The sooner the better, of course. Women who are on birth control and have a failure of that birth control method should have an easy decision ahead of them. I'm always confused, therefore, about why people get in a sweat about abortion when they've been doing other things to prevent pregnancy in the first place. The other method failed, jump on this other last-ditch option and don't debate about it. Ahh, but the reality is, the emotional ties a woman has with the new embryo are part of biology's attempt to protect the child. Hence the change of heart when a woman gets pregnant "accidentally."
People are generally very irresponsible with their sexual behavior. If a person is going to have sex, they should decide up front if they want to have a baby or not. It isn't just about having a baby after 9 months, it's about having a child under your care for the next 9 months, PLUS eighteen or more years. All planning and thought and care should be given to this and it should be a conscientious decision, well in advance of the conception. A good financial backing, a good marital relationship, a strong support structure, etc. etc. Having kids willy-nilly is abhorrent. Yet I'm sure that the huge majority of all children are born without a thought from their parents about the future care. If a person doesn't want to have a baby, they need to be sure they take steps to make sure their sexual activity does not lead to an unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child. It's one reason I'm all but completely convinced that the huge majority of "accidental" conceptions are intentional.
Here's one which makes me laugh uproariously and painfully. I've heard this countless times when abortion is suggested as a way to undo one of these "accidental" pregnancies.
"But it's contrary to the laws of god."
"Waitaminnit. You're a believer in god's will? Christian, I presume?"
"Yeah."
"And it's against Christian beliefs to have an abortion?"
"Yeah!" And I refuse to participate in a practice which is against god's law!"
"Are you married?"
"Er, no."
"Then why are you having sex? Isn't THAT against god's law?"
"Ummmm, errr, uhhhh, well, gee."
"That's what I thought."
These are the same people who are the purveyors of unwanted children in our society. "No, we don't want abortions to ever happen," they say, but they also give woefully underenthusiastic support of helping unwanted children have a decent chance or opportunity in this life. Unwanted kids become the predators of our society and they lose out on the good things we have available, particularly in the devoped nations. Adoptions? Only perfect newborn infants get adopted with regularity and frankly, most mothers will keep their kids until they are just old enough to become unadoptable before they start to have second thoughts. At that point, while they aren't crowding around to drop the kids off at the orphanages, they do abandon them emotionally and for all intents and purpose, drop them off their radar and don't do what it takes to make sure those kids are viable members of society. Remember, the commitment to a child goes well beyond the womb.
The biggest double-whammy of these moralists is that they frequently are the same people who advocate little or no sex eduction for young teens who are starting to experiment with sex. They don't want sex ed in the classrooms because they believe that sex ed is the reponsibility of the parents. Ironically, that statement is absolutely correct, however, they fail miserably in its execution. Their failure, however, isn't enough to convince them that they should at least give the schools a chance to fix that problem, however inept the schools may be. Thus, hypocrisy is heaped up on hypocricy and once again, the end-all and be-all of solutions to society's problems becomes the cause and the exacerbator of those very same problems. I'm appalled, to say the least.
Ultimately, however, the woman put the baby there, she should be able to do with it as she pleases. She should be able give birth and keep the child 'til it's a productive adult member of society. She should be able to give birth and neglect the child or raise it badly as it grows older. She should be able to give birth and put the child up for adoption. OR she should be able to abort it.
Personally, I'm opposed to abortion as a primary form of birth control and I think that if abortion is to be used at all, it should be as a last-ditch, we-did-everything-else-and-it-failed approach to preventing pregnancy. Or it can be used when the life the the mother is genuinely threatened or there is rape or incest. Even then, it should be up to the discretion of the mother. Yeah, some of those are holdovers from my days as a Right-Winger but after a lot of thought, I think those are valid reasons to have an abortion. Ultimately, what I believe is that it is up to the mother entirely. In fact, it always has been up to the mother anyway so I'm still uncertain as to why we still have to bring it up as a political issue every time we have an election. The only thing the right-wingers will accomplish if they succeed in outlawing abortions is they will create an underground network of illicit abortion clinics wherein peoples lives are destroyed. Much as they have done with many others of society's ills.
"What's the candidate's/Party's stand on Abortion," is always a key question. Some people don't even vote unless this question is answered and it is the only issue for these voters. Psychotic. What's also psychotic are the people conducting violence against abortion or even in the name of abortion rights. They are NOT generating sympathy from me and they frequently do their cause a great deal of damage. The guy who murders abortion doctors because he claims he was told to by god has ensured that I and many many others want nothing to do with his god.
If people believe abortion is against the commandments of god, they should be letting god sort it all out after we all die. How arrogant are we to think we can legislate people into obeying god's will when all he has to do is solve the problem himself? This is, again, a victimless crime, more than less, and if god has a problem with it, let's allow him to solve it. Nobody is his agent here on earth to deal with this debate for him. We rarely or never legislate adultery as a crime any longer, why abortion?
--Wag--
This is a key issue for me, not in the usual sense but in the sense that it has been battled at so furiously from all sides that my own position has had to be evaluated and re-evaluated numerous times. I've been on both sides of the debate and have believed both sides to be "the correct" one. Which is to say that my article here will be more of a discussion of reflections rather than an attempt to say "what is right." As if there were such a thing. As to what *I* believe? It will become more clear as you read on.
Individual choice in the matter is paramount. This ties in very closely with the idea that we can't or rather, shouldn't legislate morality. What is right for one person or even the majority in such an issue is irrelevant to the focal point of the matter, that focal point being, of course, the choice and option of the individual pregnant woman. Moral legislation such as this is founded almost entirely in emotion. But even that isn't a sufficient argument to keep this issue out of congressional debates and out of our courtrooms. Most laws are based on morals, for example, we aren't allowed to kill, we aren't allowed to cut of a man's hand when he steals an orange from the supermarket. The difference here is that abortion is a crime only because it is defined as such, not because there is a secondary harm to society, ie., no victim.
"Aha!" some may say. "The unborn child is a victim of MURDER!" That statement forces the argument of whether or not the embryo/fetus is a viable life form. Even scientists are at odds about this so I doubt that we as mere mortals can make the call. Personally, I think the embryo/fetus is a parasite to the mother and lives, not even symbiotically, but feeds entirely off the mother's body, relying wholly upon it for it's survival, beyond the womb, even. That's an exclusively biological view and leads to the conclusion that while it may be alive, it is only by the grace and permission of the mother. Even the hormonal changes forced on the mother leading to an emotional attachment to the unborn child are geared toward ensuring that the mother takes care of said unborn child. Still, it is a parasite.
Before you flame me, recall that such a statement of the status of the embryo/fetus is an emotionally detached biological statement, not one which is arguable in the least. It's simply an unemotional statement of what nature has done to propogate life in mammals.
Having said all of that, a pregnant woman can genuinely feel the life inside her quite early on in the pregnancy. But not immediately. The only immediate effects are the quiet realization that something is changing in her body. After a few weeks, movement can be felt and the mother's attachment to the unborn begins to solidify quite well.
At what point, though, is it a life? Even a parasite is alive so you can't even use the argument that a child which cannot survive outside the womb is not a life. Yet, I don't believe you can call it a human life immediately upon conception. It is not even recognizable as human unless you jump into the DNA itself. The few cells which make up my gall bladder are alive and have human DNA but they are not a viable human life. That the embryo can eventually become human is not an argument that at the moment, it IS human.
So when does life begin? Not at conception. Certainly before birth. When the heart starts pumping? When brainwave activity is apparent? When does life begin? All of the above is to present the argument that abortion BEFORE the start of life should be a non-issue. Yet, we have not come to an agreement about when life begins and therefore, we have to admit that by having this argument, we don't even agree on what life, over all, really is.
I'm opposed to late-term and partial birth abortions. In my pea brain, I believe there is no doubt that at that point, the fetus is viable, human, and a sustainable life, regardless of the fact that it's still living parasitically off the mother host. Partial-birth abortions are not, in fact, abortions, they are killings, pure and simple. I also find it truly amazing that a woman could go through her entire pregnancy of nine-months and decide at the last minute that she doesn't want the child. There isn't any difference between this method of baby-disposal and the dumping of a newborn into a nearby garbage dumpster. My opinion, of course.
As a birth control method, I'm opposed to abortion. There are far more effective ways to prevent the birth of a child. I'll agree, however, that sometimes other methods can fail and allow an unwanted pregnancy to occur. At that point, I think abortion is pretty much paramount, however, it needs to be effected right away in order to accomplish it before life truly begins. The sooner the better, of course. Women who are on birth control and have a failure of that birth control method should have an easy decision ahead of them. I'm always confused, therefore, about why people get in a sweat about abortion when they've been doing other things to prevent pregnancy in the first place. The other method failed, jump on this other last-ditch option and don't debate about it. Ahh, but the reality is, the emotional ties a woman has with the new embryo are part of biology's attempt to protect the child. Hence the change of heart when a woman gets pregnant "accidentally."
People are generally very irresponsible with their sexual behavior. If a person is going to have sex, they should decide up front if they want to have a baby or not. It isn't just about having a baby after 9 months, it's about having a child under your care for the next 9 months, PLUS eighteen or more years. All planning and thought and care should be given to this and it should be a conscientious decision, well in advance of the conception. A good financial backing, a good marital relationship, a strong support structure, etc. etc. Having kids willy-nilly is abhorrent. Yet I'm sure that the huge majority of all children are born without a thought from their parents about the future care. If a person doesn't want to have a baby, they need to be sure they take steps to make sure their sexual activity does not lead to an unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child. It's one reason I'm all but completely convinced that the huge majority of "accidental" conceptions are intentional.
Here's one which makes me laugh uproariously and painfully. I've heard this countless times when abortion is suggested as a way to undo one of these "accidental" pregnancies.
"But it's contrary to the laws of god."
"Waitaminnit. You're a believer in god's will? Christian, I presume?"
"Yeah."
"And it's against Christian beliefs to have an abortion?"
"Yeah!" And I refuse to participate in a practice which is against god's law!"
"Are you married?"
"Er, no."
"Then why are you having sex? Isn't THAT against god's law?"
"Ummmm, errr, uhhhh, well, gee."
"That's what I thought."
These are the same people who are the purveyors of unwanted children in our society. "No, we don't want abortions to ever happen," they say, but they also give woefully underenthusiastic support of helping unwanted children have a decent chance or opportunity in this life. Unwanted kids become the predators of our society and they lose out on the good things we have available, particularly in the devoped nations. Adoptions? Only perfect newborn infants get adopted with regularity and frankly, most mothers will keep their kids until they are just old enough to become unadoptable before they start to have second thoughts. At that point, while they aren't crowding around to drop the kids off at the orphanages, they do abandon them emotionally and for all intents and purpose, drop them off their radar and don't do what it takes to make sure those kids are viable members of society. Remember, the commitment to a child goes well beyond the womb.
The biggest double-whammy of these moralists is that they frequently are the same people who advocate little or no sex eduction for young teens who are starting to experiment with sex. They don't want sex ed in the classrooms because they believe that sex ed is the reponsibility of the parents. Ironically, that statement is absolutely correct, however, they fail miserably in its execution. Their failure, however, isn't enough to convince them that they should at least give the schools a chance to fix that problem, however inept the schools may be. Thus, hypocrisy is heaped up on hypocricy and once again, the end-all and be-all of solutions to society's problems becomes the cause and the exacerbator of those very same problems. I'm appalled, to say the least.
Ultimately, however, the woman put the baby there, she should be able to do with it as she pleases. She should be able give birth and keep the child 'til it's a productive adult member of society. She should be able to give birth and neglect the child or raise it badly as it grows older. She should be able to give birth and put the child up for adoption. OR she should be able to abort it.
Personally, I'm opposed to abortion as a primary form of birth control and I think that if abortion is to be used at all, it should be as a last-ditch, we-did-everything-else-and-it-failed approach to preventing pregnancy. Or it can be used when the life the the mother is genuinely threatened or there is rape or incest. Even then, it should be up to the discretion of the mother. Yeah, some of those are holdovers from my days as a Right-Winger but after a lot of thought, I think those are valid reasons to have an abortion. Ultimately, what I believe is that it is up to the mother entirely. In fact, it always has been up to the mother anyway so I'm still uncertain as to why we still have to bring it up as a political issue every time we have an election. The only thing the right-wingers will accomplish if they succeed in outlawing abortions is they will create an underground network of illicit abortion clinics wherein peoples lives are destroyed. Much as they have done with many others of society's ills.
"What's the candidate's/Party's stand on Abortion," is always a key question. Some people don't even vote unless this question is answered and it is the only issue for these voters. Psychotic. What's also psychotic are the people conducting violence against abortion or even in the name of abortion rights. They are NOT generating sympathy from me and they frequently do their cause a great deal of damage. The guy who murders abortion doctors because he claims he was told to by god has ensured that I and many many others want nothing to do with his god.
If people believe abortion is against the commandments of god, they should be letting god sort it all out after we all die. How arrogant are we to think we can legislate people into obeying god's will when all he has to do is solve the problem himself? This is, again, a victimless crime, more than less, and if god has a problem with it, let's allow him to solve it. Nobody is his agent here on earth to deal with this debate for him. We rarely or never legislate adultery as a crime any longer, why abortion?
--Wag--
Friday, October 15, 2004
Masturbation + Mormonism + Guilt = Suicide
A new acquaintance asked me for this story. He is a Clinical Sexologist in Ogden, UT. If you need his name, e-mail me and I'll forward your e-mail to him.
Below is my e-mail to him.
-------------------------
Dear Mark,
You asked me to tell my story, the story about how Mormon-instilled taboos about masturbation led me to the point of attempted suicide. That I failed at killing myself is a good thing to truly understate the obvious!
Here's my story, as best as I can remember it. As I started to write it, it really brought back a flood of memories and it fleshed out with more detail than I originally thought it might. Feel free to use it any way you wish, and when you do, sign me or credit me as . . .
--Wag--
------------------------------
As an 18- or 19-year old Mormon man, I was getting ready to go on a mission. I was engaged in the regular and frequent practice of masturbation and felt guilty about it all the time. I had gotten started early at the age of seven. Of course, in Mormonism, masturbation is considered a major sin, major enough to keep people out of the temples and certainly off of a mission. In any case, while getting ready for my mission, I had confessed it to my bishop and he made the decision to keep me off my mission for a while until I could stop masturbating for a sufficient length of time.
At some point in there, I got truly despondent and took about three quarters of an economy-sized bottle of Tylenol, believing whole-heartedly that I would be dead within a couple of hours. Little did I know that it would have no effect on me and that it could have easily wiped out my kidneys. I didn't find that out until later that there are probably NO OTC meds which are potent enough to kill an adult human. I'm lucky in the sense of being alive and more lucky I didn't roast my internal organs in the process. I never told a soul about it at the time. I still genuinely believe that my intent in the attempt was two-sided. One, I was tired of life but Two, and more importantly to me at the time, was I wanted to cause pain to my parents. I really thought it would be highly embarrassing to them to have their oldest son commit suicide. I even thought that a couple of my siblings might follow in my footsteps and that pleased me even more. At some base mental level, I even thought my parents were depressive enough to follow my lead, too.
Bear in mind, however, that as I had grown up, I had been infused with a very low self-esteem and felt I was not worth the clothes on my back. I was never good enough, I was always guilty of something and never had I done something which deserved a compliment from anyone, particularly my parents from whom I should have had the most support in doing good things. I was ruled by fear and guilt levied thick upon me by my parents primarily, followed closely by the church and its representatives. Furthermore, as I was the oldest of ten children, I was supposed to be the example to the rest of my siblings and lo and behold, frequently, I was accused of being the cause of various of their delinquencies as well. A more complete mantle of guilt couldn't possibly have been conceived or executed.
There were many things which occurred during my life to destroy any sense of self-worth I might have had. Positive things were ignored at best, pushed down at worst The talent and potential I had was never recognized by my parents and therefore left unrealized. For example, when I was seven years old, I was in the third grade. My reading and comprehension was tested at a second-year university level and I was naturally reading at 1200 wpm. I'm not even sure I can still do that now! But I was never recognized for it and I never got any additional training to focus me on a path which would take advantage of those skills.
Another example is that when I was eight years old, my parents started me with piano lessons. For a while I enjoyed it, but soon I didn't want to practice any more, probably 'cause my buddies were teasing me about it. My parents forced me to continue because the piano teacher I had insisted I had talent. Actually, I just had brains and piano was not difficult to figure out. So, for about four or five years, I was forced to take piano lessons and threatened with whippings if I didn't perform well. Lo and behold, I started to get pretty good. Much to my surprise, I started to enjoy it. Then, my teacher moved and my parents ran me through a couple of other teachers but very soon, the became unavailable for some reason. I was content for a while to not have to practice any more.
But I surprised myself by actually beginning to enjoy playing, especially since I could play what I wanted to play. After a couple of years of guiding myself at the piano, I asked my parents for lessons again and they refused. That was the time when I could have really used lessons, too. I didn't make a big issue out of it and continued to play on my own and progressed to some degree. Very little, in retrospect but at the time, ignorance was bliss. I tell that as an example of how I was not given the support of my parents for the good things I was able to do and wasn't recognized for doing well. Years later, I took lessons from a concert pianist at my own initiative and made light years of progress in a very short time.
As a child, I generally got nearly perfect grades. That was because of the fear of getting my ass whipped by my old man. I was a smart kid, but it was because I didn't dare be otherwise. Indeed, as a near straigt-A student all through Junior High and High School, I can't remember once ever being told by either of my parents that I had done a great job. I do remember, however, a couple of times where I just screwed around in class and got a "D" or an "F" as a H.S. Freshman and all hell broke loose. I had gotten bored with how easy school was and it was no challenge for me, there was no motivation for me to do well. I had forgotten, however, the wrath of my old man.
That was the way it was for me as a child in my household. Keep your nose clean and never step outside the realm of perfection that my parents establish with the Mormon Church as their guide to it all. We were to be good little Mormon kids, never embarrass our parents and do everything right. Our opinions didn't matter and we were not allowed to speak outside the religious dogma that was thrust upon us. To do so was to risk the wrath of my parents, most especially my father.
My mother was a master of manipulating me through guilt me. I remember one particular occasion just after my father had lost his butt big time in his first business venture. I was about 15 and hadn't played the piano for quite a long time. My mother came to me one day and said, "Louis, your father finds a great deal of comfort when you play the piano and would very much like it if you would play once in a while." Hmmmmmm. I was a little taken aback and I said, "Okay," and moved on. However, my initial reaction inside, which I didn't dare show, was one of feeling empowered. I could finally pay back my old man! I had power, all of a sudden to cause him grief in return for the grief I had lived with all my short life. Internally, I refused to play. But in a matter of a few weeks, the drive to be accepted by my old man AND my mother, for that matter, and starving for compliments, I gave in and started playing again. And the guilt? Very much a part of my decision to play again. Never heard much more about it, though. Once in a while, I recall my father saying he liked a particular song but it was more about him controlling what I played than about giving me a compliment. He never did say that I played well.
I remember only two compliments I got from my father. There may have been more, but I don't remember them at all. Which means they were likely never given, quite frankly. One compliment was the only compliment I ever got on my grades. I had pulled straight A's on one report card and he patted me on the back and said, "Good job." That was it. The other time "I" got a "compliment" from my father was on a Monday night at Family Home Evening. He stood in front of all of us kids and said, with tears of happiness in his eyes, "Your mother and I really appreciate that you kids are well-behaved and you don't cause us any problems. We get complimented all the time by other people about how well you all behave when you're not at home." At the time, we were bubbling over about it and we felt the warm fuzzies etc. etc. Now, it just turns my stomach. My parents were saying that to them it was more important for us to keep from embarrassing them than anything else.
There are plenty of other stories to be told but I think the picture is rather clear, thus far. To automatically link the first of my suicide attempts directly to masturbation might be a little bit of a stretch. However, there can be no doubt that since the age of 12 when a bishop first asked me if I masturbated and told me it was a bad thing to do, it has been a factor. My father lectured me on it soon after that and told me it was a bad thing to do. When I was 17 or 18, my grandfather even told me it was a bad thing to do. I was 13 or 14 and was in attendance via satellite at the LDS Priesthood session when Mormon Apostle, Boyd K. Packer first delivered his infamous "Little Factory" speech. It was later printed in a little pamphlet called, "For Young Men Only." That way, I could carry the guilt around with me at all times, if I so desired. Even my younger brother once accused me of committing "adultery" though it was apparent he really didn't know what the term meant. *I* knew what he meant, however. In our home, all seven of us boys shared one bedroom and I suppose I wasn't quite as quiet as I had always thought.
So, adding the onslaught of all the masturbation guilt with a daily suppression of any positive reinforcement to my sense of self worth, I naturally became very depressed about life, felt very "unworthy" as defined by Mormonism, and as my mission approached and I battled the masturbation "problem," my depression grew exponentially in that last few months before my mission. I was told by my bishop that it was just Satan working to keep me off my mission. He even told me I should consider breaking up with my girlfriend just to make sure we didn't "do anything" to keep me off my mission.
I was successful at abstaining from masturbation for about seven or eight months before my mission. It was during the second or third month that I attempted suicide with the Tylenol. I wasn't happy in life, even as I started to succeed at suppressing my sexual urges and stopped masturbating. My bishop was pleased and I told him I was happy, just to make him more pleased. He gave me a hug and told me he was proud of me but I felt empty inside. Not because I couldn't masturbate and feel good about it, I don't think, but because I was at the bottom of a whirlpool of despondency.
So, the bishop sent in my papers for a mission and I waited for the call. I actually started to get a little excited about it. I hoped to finally get a testimony and was studying the scriptures obsessively, looking for a testimony in it's pages. I fasted and prayed often, knowing that a testimony from God would be forthcoming soon, possibly even before my mission call arrived. I had hopes of going to a foreign country. I had tested off the charts for language aptitude and I just knew I would be sent to Japan or some place equally challenging. I looked forward to it and genuinely started to get excited. Naturally, given my household environment, I didn't express my desire to go to a foreign country but kept it to myself.
The envelope came. My mother called me at work to tell me it was waiting for me at home and completely ruined the rest of my day. I was virtually useless to my employer up to quitting time. When I got home, it was late at night, my mother had gone to bed and hadn't told me where she had put the letter and I couldn't find it in any of the usual places. I didn't dare wake her up. And I didn't sleep for a very long time, naturally. I just knew I was being sent on a mission to Japan. The next morning, I finally fell asleep and slept past all my siblings leaving for school and my father leaving for work and I didn't wake up until nearly noon that day. I went looking for my mother and couldn't find her and so I started looking in the daylight for the mission call. I saw it right off on the kitchen table where we never kept mail. Oh, well, I was still excited and I opened the letter. I didn't even read it, I just scanned it quickly to see where I was going to go. Arcadia, California. Where the heck is Arcadia, CA? I dug out an atlas and found it on a map next to Pasadena. I was highly disappointed. I took the time to read the letter through and didn't learn anything really important except that I was going to be speaking English on my mission. Double whammy. I wouldn't even be learning another language.
(I should mention, in retrospect, that nearly all of the missionaries I know who went to foreign countries had really lousy experiences so from that standpoint, I'm glad I went stateside. It was bad enough as it was.)
I was somewhat depressed by the "call" and getting more depressed by the moment. My mother came in at some point in there and asked me, rather excited, where I was going to go.
"Arcadia, CA, Mom."
"Where's Arcadia, CA?"
"Right by Pasadena."
"Oh, I know where that is."
She perused my letter for a moment and went about her day without further comment. My dad held a special family home evening that night to gather all the kids around and everyone revered my mission call. I was very disappointed and over the next couple of weeks, I nearly pulled the plug on my mission. To this day, I wish I had done exactly that. Well, utlimately, I did meet my wife on my mission so that was a good thing but still, I should have been true to my self and stayed off my mission. Why did I go then? I was still feeling the pressure, generated from within and founded on years of brainwashing, the pressure of being the oldest son and having a responsibility of setting an example for my siblings. THAT was why I went on a mission in the first place, that was why I didn't pull the plug when I found out I was going on a stateside mission.
I went on my mission and through the MTC, still abstaining from masturbation. I got out into the field and made some new friends and had a rather enjoyable time. A month into my mission, however, I woke up from a wet dream one morning, with a raging erection. I suspected that the least little touch to it would bring me to orgasm. I couldn't even pee so I jumped in the shower and finally managed to pee as the warm water relaxed me just enough to do so, but it did nothing to eliminate the "problem" I had between my legs. Add to that, the fact that the images from my very erotic and hard-core sex dream were still rolling through my mind.
I tried Packer's suggestion and was singing just about every church song I knew, all at once, and rehearsing scripture after scripture in my mind.
Nothing. I still had a raging erection which demanded attention. I continued soaping myself up avoiding my penis for the moment because I knew what was next if I grabbed it to lather it up. I actually felt fear of it, as I recall. But I finished with the rest of me and it was all that was left. Still as hard as iron. I grabbed hold to lather up quickly and at that point, I think my body just took over and I automatically began masturbating. I was a couple of strokes into it before I orgasmed in the shower for the first time in over 8 months. It felt really super good but immediately, the programming of the Mormon Church and the brainwashing of it started to do its job. Guilt set in right away, followed very closely by depression. What I remember now, but didn't notice then, was the extreme relief my body felt at having gotten that out of my system. I should have been relieved and glad but noooo. I was going to have a spiralling depression about it.
I called my mom on the phone that same morning which was a big no-no for missionaries but at the time I didn't care. I was calling to tell her I was coming home because I felt like a complete and utter failure. She didn't understand why I wanted to "quit." (Her word, with all it's implications to my character. Mom was the master of guilt.) I still hadn't told her why at this point but during the course of our conversation over the next few minutes, I told her what was up. It was embarrassing to talk to my mother about my masturbation "problem" though in a "normal" mother-son relationship, I see no reason why it should be. At the time, I was mortified but I was doing things to prove that I had a reason to leave my mission. She didn't know what to say and she was just as embarrassed as I was. Her words of encouragement consisted of telling me to keep fasting and praying and God would help me so I could stay on my mission.
I hung up the phone and plodded through my day. The self-imposed trauma of it all was enough to keep me from masturbating for a couple of weeks and I started to feel confident again, like the fasting and praying was working. I didn't talk to my mission president about it at the time and thought I had the tempation pretty well conquered. I went about another four months without masturbating.
I was in a different area and again, same scenario: Wet dream, shower, masturbation. Only this time I was completely devastated by it, moreso than before, if that's possible. I really thought there was something wrong with me. I really believed I was the only man my age that was masturbating, in or out of the Mormon Church. I genuinely didn't think other guys did it and I was feeling very dirty, very worthless, very useless. I really believed God couldn't possibly love me and I for sure didn't love myself. The next morning, I jumped in the shower with a razor blade and slashed my wrists. I waited. And waited. They bled for a while and stopped. It hurt, so I didn't do it again right away. A couple of days later, I did it again, same result. The day after that, I did it again and again, same result. I couldn't even kill myself right. I found out later I had done it wrong but I won't belabor that here. In hindsight, I'm VERY glad I failed at it.
For whatever reason, in my letter to the mission president that week, I told him about it to some degree. Not in great detail because I never believed he was reading my letters first. I always figured the AP's read everything first if my letter got read at all. Somehow though, he read it and I got a call from his secretary requesting that I come in for an interview. He sent me to a psychologist who didn't have the brains of a mechanical pencil but at least she realized she wasn't adequately equipped to do anything for me. So she sent me to a psychiatrist who was able to prescribe an anti-depressant to me. He was also the first person who I told about the Tylenol attempt on my life and he was the one who told me of the potential damage it could have done to my kidneys.
He explained things really well. He said that sometimes the body gets in the habit of being depressed and the brain gets in the mode of producing "depressive" chemistry too frequently. The brain just doesn't know any better after a while and "forgets" how to make the upbeat chemistry. The anti-depressant drugs are focused on kicking the brain back into gear and into producing normal chemistry again.
I had told him about the masturbation "problem" but he never discussed it with me even though we was a Mormon psychiatrist, paid by the Mormon church. I wonder, sometimes, if he believed the depression was causing masturbation, not the other way around and that if he could cure the depression, he would cure the masturbation "problem" as a result. If so, he never told me that. In any case, about three months later, I was dutifully taking my Merital and was feeling pretty good about life. Wasn't masturbating, few or no wet dreams, nothing I couldn't dismiss in any case. In about the fourth month, the makers of Merital pulled it from the market because it was causing some kind of fatal anemia in some patients and so I didn't have my drug anymore. But I felt fine and I've never looked back, never had to get on another anti-depressant. The psychiatrist and his Merital had done the trick.
A few months later, I started masturbating again, finally, but the guilt I felt about it was very mild. I was no longer seeking a strong testimony and I was content to merely move along through my mission without worrying about it.
Looking back, I have in the past, greatly resented Mormonism and my parents for having imposed that guilt on me so traumatically and so thoroughly. According to Mormonism, the "Natural Man" is an enemy to God and I was that natural man. Somehow, somewhere along the way, I had made the connection and, being unable to overcome that natural man within me, I was an enemy to God and therefore, not worth the ground I walked on.
In retrospect, I can look back without any further anger. I'm making up for lost time now and thanks to a psychiatrist who prescribed a medical solution to a medical problem and didn't blame me for being the cause of the problem, I was able to become exactly what I am: A Natural Man, with natural and good desires and drives. There are no longer any restraints falsely posing as guides, no longer any cages falsely posing as places of serenity. No longer any guilt, no longer any pain. Nothing but freedom remains for me and my loving wife.
The only good thing that ever came out of Mormonism for me was my wife. I met her and her family while I was on my mission and while I never had an interest in her then, a time came after my misison when I went to visit them and fell in love with that same girl. She was an angel then and she is more of an angel now.
And depression? For me, it is a thing of the past. Masturbation? A thing of the present and never again the two shall meet.
Below is my e-mail to him.
-------------------------
Dear Mark,
You asked me to tell my story, the story about how Mormon-instilled taboos about masturbation led me to the point of attempted suicide. That I failed at killing myself is a good thing to truly understate the obvious!
Here's my story, as best as I can remember it. As I started to write it, it really brought back a flood of memories and it fleshed out with more detail than I originally thought it might. Feel free to use it any way you wish, and when you do, sign me or credit me as . . .
--Wag--
------------------------------
As an 18- or 19-year old Mormon man, I was getting ready to go on a mission. I was engaged in the regular and frequent practice of masturbation and felt guilty about it all the time. I had gotten started early at the age of seven. Of course, in Mormonism, masturbation is considered a major sin, major enough to keep people out of the temples and certainly off of a mission. In any case, while getting ready for my mission, I had confessed it to my bishop and he made the decision to keep me off my mission for a while until I could stop masturbating for a sufficient length of time.
At some point in there, I got truly despondent and took about three quarters of an economy-sized bottle of Tylenol, believing whole-heartedly that I would be dead within a couple of hours. Little did I know that it would have no effect on me and that it could have easily wiped out my kidneys. I didn't find that out until later that there are probably NO OTC meds which are potent enough to kill an adult human. I'm lucky in the sense of being alive and more lucky I didn't roast my internal organs in the process. I never told a soul about it at the time. I still genuinely believe that my intent in the attempt was two-sided. One, I was tired of life but Two, and more importantly to me at the time, was I wanted to cause pain to my parents. I really thought it would be highly embarrassing to them to have their oldest son commit suicide. I even thought that a couple of my siblings might follow in my footsteps and that pleased me even more. At some base mental level, I even thought my parents were depressive enough to follow my lead, too.
Bear in mind, however, that as I had grown up, I had been infused with a very low self-esteem and felt I was not worth the clothes on my back. I was never good enough, I was always guilty of something and never had I done something which deserved a compliment from anyone, particularly my parents from whom I should have had the most support in doing good things. I was ruled by fear and guilt levied thick upon me by my parents primarily, followed closely by the church and its representatives. Furthermore, as I was the oldest of ten children, I was supposed to be the example to the rest of my siblings and lo and behold, frequently, I was accused of being the cause of various of their delinquencies as well. A more complete mantle of guilt couldn't possibly have been conceived or executed.
There were many things which occurred during my life to destroy any sense of self-worth I might have had. Positive things were ignored at best, pushed down at worst The talent and potential I had was never recognized by my parents and therefore left unrealized. For example, when I was seven years old, I was in the third grade. My reading and comprehension was tested at a second-year university level and I was naturally reading at 1200 wpm. I'm not even sure I can still do that now! But I was never recognized for it and I never got any additional training to focus me on a path which would take advantage of those skills.
Another example is that when I was eight years old, my parents started me with piano lessons. For a while I enjoyed it, but soon I didn't want to practice any more, probably 'cause my buddies were teasing me about it. My parents forced me to continue because the piano teacher I had insisted I had talent. Actually, I just had brains and piano was not difficult to figure out. So, for about four or five years, I was forced to take piano lessons and threatened with whippings if I didn't perform well. Lo and behold, I started to get pretty good. Much to my surprise, I started to enjoy it. Then, my teacher moved and my parents ran me through a couple of other teachers but very soon, the became unavailable for some reason. I was content for a while to not have to practice any more.
But I surprised myself by actually beginning to enjoy playing, especially since I could play what I wanted to play. After a couple of years of guiding myself at the piano, I asked my parents for lessons again and they refused. That was the time when I could have really used lessons, too. I didn't make a big issue out of it and continued to play on my own and progressed to some degree. Very little, in retrospect but at the time, ignorance was bliss. I tell that as an example of how I was not given the support of my parents for the good things I was able to do and wasn't recognized for doing well. Years later, I took lessons from a concert pianist at my own initiative and made light years of progress in a very short time.
As a child, I generally got nearly perfect grades. That was because of the fear of getting my ass whipped by my old man. I was a smart kid, but it was because I didn't dare be otherwise. Indeed, as a near straigt-A student all through Junior High and High School, I can't remember once ever being told by either of my parents that I had done a great job. I do remember, however, a couple of times where I just screwed around in class and got a "D" or an "F" as a H.S. Freshman and all hell broke loose. I had gotten bored with how easy school was and it was no challenge for me, there was no motivation for me to do well. I had forgotten, however, the wrath of my old man.
That was the way it was for me as a child in my household. Keep your nose clean and never step outside the realm of perfection that my parents establish with the Mormon Church as their guide to it all. We were to be good little Mormon kids, never embarrass our parents and do everything right. Our opinions didn't matter and we were not allowed to speak outside the religious dogma that was thrust upon us. To do so was to risk the wrath of my parents, most especially my father.
My mother was a master of manipulating me through guilt me. I remember one particular occasion just after my father had lost his butt big time in his first business venture. I was about 15 and hadn't played the piano for quite a long time. My mother came to me one day and said, "Louis, your father finds a great deal of comfort when you play the piano and would very much like it if you would play once in a while." Hmmmmmm. I was a little taken aback and I said, "Okay," and moved on. However, my initial reaction inside, which I didn't dare show, was one of feeling empowered. I could finally pay back my old man! I had power, all of a sudden to cause him grief in return for the grief I had lived with all my short life. Internally, I refused to play. But in a matter of a few weeks, the drive to be accepted by my old man AND my mother, for that matter, and starving for compliments, I gave in and started playing again. And the guilt? Very much a part of my decision to play again. Never heard much more about it, though. Once in a while, I recall my father saying he liked a particular song but it was more about him controlling what I played than about giving me a compliment. He never did say that I played well.
I remember only two compliments I got from my father. There may have been more, but I don't remember them at all. Which means they were likely never given, quite frankly. One compliment was the only compliment I ever got on my grades. I had pulled straight A's on one report card and he patted me on the back and said, "Good job." That was it. The other time "I" got a "compliment" from my father was on a Monday night at Family Home Evening. He stood in front of all of us kids and said, with tears of happiness in his eyes, "Your mother and I really appreciate that you kids are well-behaved and you don't cause us any problems. We get complimented all the time by other people about how well you all behave when you're not at home." At the time, we were bubbling over about it and we felt the warm fuzzies etc. etc. Now, it just turns my stomach. My parents were saying that to them it was more important for us to keep from embarrassing them than anything else.
There are plenty of other stories to be told but I think the picture is rather clear, thus far. To automatically link the first of my suicide attempts directly to masturbation might be a little bit of a stretch. However, there can be no doubt that since the age of 12 when a bishop first asked me if I masturbated and told me it was a bad thing to do, it has been a factor. My father lectured me on it soon after that and told me it was a bad thing to do. When I was 17 or 18, my grandfather even told me it was a bad thing to do. I was 13 or 14 and was in attendance via satellite at the LDS Priesthood session when Mormon Apostle, Boyd K. Packer first delivered his infamous "Little Factory" speech. It was later printed in a little pamphlet called, "For Young Men Only." That way, I could carry the guilt around with me at all times, if I so desired. Even my younger brother once accused me of committing "adultery" though it was apparent he really didn't know what the term meant. *I* knew what he meant, however. In our home, all seven of us boys shared one bedroom and I suppose I wasn't quite as quiet as I had always thought.
So, adding the onslaught of all the masturbation guilt with a daily suppression of any positive reinforcement to my sense of self worth, I naturally became very depressed about life, felt very "unworthy" as defined by Mormonism, and as my mission approached and I battled the masturbation "problem," my depression grew exponentially in that last few months before my mission. I was told by my bishop that it was just Satan working to keep me off my mission. He even told me I should consider breaking up with my girlfriend just to make sure we didn't "do anything" to keep me off my mission.
I was successful at abstaining from masturbation for about seven or eight months before my mission. It was during the second or third month that I attempted suicide with the Tylenol. I wasn't happy in life, even as I started to succeed at suppressing my sexual urges and stopped masturbating. My bishop was pleased and I told him I was happy, just to make him more pleased. He gave me a hug and told me he was proud of me but I felt empty inside. Not because I couldn't masturbate and feel good about it, I don't think, but because I was at the bottom of a whirlpool of despondency.
So, the bishop sent in my papers for a mission and I waited for the call. I actually started to get a little excited about it. I hoped to finally get a testimony and was studying the scriptures obsessively, looking for a testimony in it's pages. I fasted and prayed often, knowing that a testimony from God would be forthcoming soon, possibly even before my mission call arrived. I had hopes of going to a foreign country. I had tested off the charts for language aptitude and I just knew I would be sent to Japan or some place equally challenging. I looked forward to it and genuinely started to get excited. Naturally, given my household environment, I didn't express my desire to go to a foreign country but kept it to myself.
The envelope came. My mother called me at work to tell me it was waiting for me at home and completely ruined the rest of my day. I was virtually useless to my employer up to quitting time. When I got home, it was late at night, my mother had gone to bed and hadn't told me where she had put the letter and I couldn't find it in any of the usual places. I didn't dare wake her up. And I didn't sleep for a very long time, naturally. I just knew I was being sent on a mission to Japan. The next morning, I finally fell asleep and slept past all my siblings leaving for school and my father leaving for work and I didn't wake up until nearly noon that day. I went looking for my mother and couldn't find her and so I started looking in the daylight for the mission call. I saw it right off on the kitchen table where we never kept mail. Oh, well, I was still excited and I opened the letter. I didn't even read it, I just scanned it quickly to see where I was going to go. Arcadia, California. Where the heck is Arcadia, CA? I dug out an atlas and found it on a map next to Pasadena. I was highly disappointed. I took the time to read the letter through and didn't learn anything really important except that I was going to be speaking English on my mission. Double whammy. I wouldn't even be learning another language.
(I should mention, in retrospect, that nearly all of the missionaries I know who went to foreign countries had really lousy experiences so from that standpoint, I'm glad I went stateside. It was bad enough as it was.)
I was somewhat depressed by the "call" and getting more depressed by the moment. My mother came in at some point in there and asked me, rather excited, where I was going to go.
"Arcadia, CA, Mom."
"Where's Arcadia, CA?"
"Right by Pasadena."
"Oh, I know where that is."
She perused my letter for a moment and went about her day without further comment. My dad held a special family home evening that night to gather all the kids around and everyone revered my mission call. I was very disappointed and over the next couple of weeks, I nearly pulled the plug on my mission. To this day, I wish I had done exactly that. Well, utlimately, I did meet my wife on my mission so that was a good thing but still, I should have been true to my self and stayed off my mission. Why did I go then? I was still feeling the pressure, generated from within and founded on years of brainwashing, the pressure of being the oldest son and having a responsibility of setting an example for my siblings. THAT was why I went on a mission in the first place, that was why I didn't pull the plug when I found out I was going on a stateside mission.
I went on my mission and through the MTC, still abstaining from masturbation. I got out into the field and made some new friends and had a rather enjoyable time. A month into my mission, however, I woke up from a wet dream one morning, with a raging erection. I suspected that the least little touch to it would bring me to orgasm. I couldn't even pee so I jumped in the shower and finally managed to pee as the warm water relaxed me just enough to do so, but it did nothing to eliminate the "problem" I had between my legs. Add to that, the fact that the images from my very erotic and hard-core sex dream were still rolling through my mind.
I tried Packer's suggestion and was singing just about every church song I knew, all at once, and rehearsing scripture after scripture in my mind.
Nothing. I still had a raging erection which demanded attention. I continued soaping myself up avoiding my penis for the moment because I knew what was next if I grabbed it to lather it up. I actually felt fear of it, as I recall. But I finished with the rest of me and it was all that was left. Still as hard as iron. I grabbed hold to lather up quickly and at that point, I think my body just took over and I automatically began masturbating. I was a couple of strokes into it before I orgasmed in the shower for the first time in over 8 months. It felt really super good but immediately, the programming of the Mormon Church and the brainwashing of it started to do its job. Guilt set in right away, followed very closely by depression. What I remember now, but didn't notice then, was the extreme relief my body felt at having gotten that out of my system. I should have been relieved and glad but noooo. I was going to have a spiralling depression about it.
I called my mom on the phone that same morning which was a big no-no for missionaries but at the time I didn't care. I was calling to tell her I was coming home because I felt like a complete and utter failure. She didn't understand why I wanted to "quit." (Her word, with all it's implications to my character. Mom was the master of guilt.) I still hadn't told her why at this point but during the course of our conversation over the next few minutes, I told her what was up. It was embarrassing to talk to my mother about my masturbation "problem" though in a "normal" mother-son relationship, I see no reason why it should be. At the time, I was mortified but I was doing things to prove that I had a reason to leave my mission. She didn't know what to say and she was just as embarrassed as I was. Her words of encouragement consisted of telling me to keep fasting and praying and God would help me so I could stay on my mission.
I hung up the phone and plodded through my day. The self-imposed trauma of it all was enough to keep me from masturbating for a couple of weeks and I started to feel confident again, like the fasting and praying was working. I didn't talk to my mission president about it at the time and thought I had the tempation pretty well conquered. I went about another four months without masturbating.
I was in a different area and again, same scenario: Wet dream, shower, masturbation. Only this time I was completely devastated by it, moreso than before, if that's possible. I really thought there was something wrong with me. I really believed I was the only man my age that was masturbating, in or out of the Mormon Church. I genuinely didn't think other guys did it and I was feeling very dirty, very worthless, very useless. I really believed God couldn't possibly love me and I for sure didn't love myself. The next morning, I jumped in the shower with a razor blade and slashed my wrists. I waited. And waited. They bled for a while and stopped. It hurt, so I didn't do it again right away. A couple of days later, I did it again, same result. The day after that, I did it again and again, same result. I couldn't even kill myself right. I found out later I had done it wrong but I won't belabor that here. In hindsight, I'm VERY glad I failed at it.
For whatever reason, in my letter to the mission president that week, I told him about it to some degree. Not in great detail because I never believed he was reading my letters first. I always figured the AP's read everything first if my letter got read at all. Somehow though, he read it and I got a call from his secretary requesting that I come in for an interview. He sent me to a psychologist who didn't have the brains of a mechanical pencil but at least she realized she wasn't adequately equipped to do anything for me. So she sent me to a psychiatrist who was able to prescribe an anti-depressant to me. He was also the first person who I told about the Tylenol attempt on my life and he was the one who told me of the potential damage it could have done to my kidneys.
He explained things really well. He said that sometimes the body gets in the habit of being depressed and the brain gets in the mode of producing "depressive" chemistry too frequently. The brain just doesn't know any better after a while and "forgets" how to make the upbeat chemistry. The anti-depressant drugs are focused on kicking the brain back into gear and into producing normal chemistry again.
I had told him about the masturbation "problem" but he never discussed it with me even though we was a Mormon psychiatrist, paid by the Mormon church. I wonder, sometimes, if he believed the depression was causing masturbation, not the other way around and that if he could cure the depression, he would cure the masturbation "problem" as a result. If so, he never told me that. In any case, about three months later, I was dutifully taking my Merital and was feeling pretty good about life. Wasn't masturbating, few or no wet dreams, nothing I couldn't dismiss in any case. In about the fourth month, the makers of Merital pulled it from the market because it was causing some kind of fatal anemia in some patients and so I didn't have my drug anymore. But I felt fine and I've never looked back, never had to get on another anti-depressant. The psychiatrist and his Merital had done the trick.
A few months later, I started masturbating again, finally, but the guilt I felt about it was very mild. I was no longer seeking a strong testimony and I was content to merely move along through my mission without worrying about it.
Looking back, I have in the past, greatly resented Mormonism and my parents for having imposed that guilt on me so traumatically and so thoroughly. According to Mormonism, the "Natural Man" is an enemy to God and I was that natural man. Somehow, somewhere along the way, I had made the connection and, being unable to overcome that natural man within me, I was an enemy to God and therefore, not worth the ground I walked on.
In retrospect, I can look back without any further anger. I'm making up for lost time now and thanks to a psychiatrist who prescribed a medical solution to a medical problem and didn't blame me for being the cause of the problem, I was able to become exactly what I am: A Natural Man, with natural and good desires and drives. There are no longer any restraints falsely posing as guides, no longer any cages falsely posing as places of serenity. No longer any guilt, no longer any pain. Nothing but freedom remains for me and my loving wife.
The only good thing that ever came out of Mormonism for me was my wife. I met her and her family while I was on my mission and while I never had an interest in her then, a time came after my misison when I went to visit them and fell in love with that same girl. She was an angel then and she is more of an angel now.
And depression? For me, it is a thing of the past. Masturbation? A thing of the present and never again the two shall meet.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Driving Test, Part III
Okay, so I failed the damn DMV Motorcycle Driving skills test a month ago. Last weekend, I took the Motorcycle Safety Foundation http://www.msf-usa.org/ Basic Safety Course. For California locations, look here: http://www.ca-msp.org/ And no, I don't represent these guys, just saying what I did. FWIW, however, I took the course with U-Ride in Costa Mesa and while I don't represent them either, I WILL recommend them as being right on top of things. Kip was a great range instructor and I can't for the life of me, remember the name of the classroom instructors. They did a great job too.
That was all last weekend. I had my DL-389 skills test waiver by Wednesday, went and got my license endorsement on Friday last week and put 400+ miles on the bike over the weekend! Ahhhhhhh. Feels good!
--Wag--
That was all last weekend. I had my DL-389 skills test waiver by Wednesday, went and got my license endorsement on Friday last week and put 400+ miles on the bike over the weekend! Ahhhhhhh. Feels good!
--Wag--
Evil T.V. Beautiful Books
As a small child, younger than five, I'm sure, I recall my father getting pissed off about something he saw on television and yanking it from the wall, marching it out to the curb and dropping it in the trash can. I was later told it was because of some filth or other he had seen on there.
Bear in mind, this was before 1970.
It made a huge impression on me. From that point on, until I left home at 17, Mom and Dad were at least conscientious about keeping books in the home for us. Bought encyclopedias for us, read to us at night before bed, the works. We had a very good collection of books for as long as I can remember. My grandparents, being professional eductors also contributed to our library and it was rather substantial and of rather high quality and diversity. Their efforts instilled a love of reading within me at a very young age. I suspect that part of it was a desire to escape the misery of the real world in a Louis L'Amour book, but that's beyond the scope of this text. There are only a very few things which my parents gave to me which are of value and this is probably the biggest and the best favor they ever did for me.
As I grew up and got good at reading, I spent a majority of my time in the library at school, reading everything I could get my hands on. At 7 years old while I was in 2nd grade, I was testing for reading and comprehension ability. As the test was evaluated, I was told I was at a second year university level on both counts. Can we say, "high potential?" I was reading 1,200 wpm which, I've been told, is pretty good. I've never tested for these traits since that time.
NOT having a T.V. was a stigma to us growing up. All of our friends thought we were weird or that our parents were. The latter had pity on us and we took frequent occasion to ask to spend Friday nights at these various friends' homes so we could watch cartoons on Saturday mornings. Summer afternoons were often wasted away watching T.V. shows like "Star Trek" and "Lost in Space." None of these shows really appealed to me since they couldn't compete with the visualizations I created while reading. It was too tough to suspend disbelief with visual effects that, well, sucked. That is, until Star Wars came out. But, since that was only a movie, I couldn't very well watch it every day, either.
Reading seems to have been a positive influence on me in several ways. Back then, I read a lot of fiction which was probably not as good for me as one might think. However, it was a good way for me to learn to spell rather well, to read fast, read well and comprehend readily. I also learned to write fairly well, though I couldn't begin to tell you what a dangling participle is or any other grammatical structure beyond nouns and verbs! Basically, I imitate other people and go with what sounds good. Here, I have to give very high credit to my grandfather who taught me more about writing in one year than most people learn in a lifetime.
By reading mostly fiction and fantasy, however, I missed out on a lot of the classics of literature. To this day, I haven't read Moby Dick, Shakespeare, etc. etc. The classics people normally speak of still have no part of my reading history. I did start to read Harper Lee's, "To Kill a Mockingbird," but it got really boring so maybe I'm just not quite smart enough for the "classics."
Back to television, to round this off, I find that it's a prime waste of time. There was a time early in our marriage when my wife and I bought a T.V. Granted, there are things like the news which have SOME redeeming qualities, SOMEtimes. I loved things like the History Channel, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, etc. etc. Very good programming most of the time. But even now, I just find that I'd rather put in some time reading a good book or working at the piano. T.V. is a total distraction and unnecessary at that.
When we did have a T.V., I was appalled one day to notice I was scheduling my life around the programming. "No, we won't be able to make it to your party on Friday because we have other plans." The plans were, laughably, watching "Cheers" among other things. How pathetic is that?!! Well, maybe it was just us. But at some point, when we realized we were addicted to it and were doing nothing else productive in our lives, we got rid of the T.V. and to this day, we still don't have T.V. in the home. Well, that is to say, no cable, no antennae, no signal. We do watch a lot of DVD's at home on a decent T.V. but no programming.
The evils of T.V.? Well, for one thing, I think T.V. causes or at least exacerbates ADD/ADHD. Think about it: T.V. has about 6 minutes of a "show" during which the scenes change, probably every 30 seconds or so. Then you have 5 or 6 minutes of commercials where the commercial itself changes every 30 to 60 seconds and within those short time slots, the scenes change in rapid-fire style. Then, another 6 or 8 minutes of T.V. program, more commercials and on and on for as long as you're sitting there watching the show. If you get a T.V. movie, the first block and the last block are sometimes 20 or 30 minutes but they definitely make up for the lost time by using longer commercial breaks for the remainder of the movie.
So picture a kid there watching all this crap and having to tune in to an idea for an instant, then tune into something else for another instant, then something else, then something else, then something else, etc. etc. Is it any wonder that it's difficult for a kid to learn to focus on any one thing for very long?
Of course, there is the complete lack of physical activity, the loss of time which could be spent learning to play the piano or build airplanes or just ride bikes or something else which is actually productive. The "passiveness" of T.V. is simply destructive. Rest assured, there are plenty of kids who, if school weren't "required," would spend their entire days in front of the damn thing and probably do during summer breaks. Parents too, for that matter.
And parents. They make a sad case for T.V. when they frequently say, "But it's such a good babysitter!" Well, okay, I can see using it on occasion when you need a break or need to get some work done without kid distractions. But often enough, it seems parents are using it more as a crutch day by day rather than as an aid from time to time. I don't know. I don't have kids but it seems there HAS to be a better way to discharge your responsibility as a parent as opposed to letting the kids watch T.V. so much and taking the risk of ruining their mental and physical health in the process.
T.V. has provided for the pacification of people in many ways. I think a great many people are plenty content to be happy as long as they have "Sports Center," "CNN" or "General Hospital" available whenever they want it. Who gives a rat's ass about politics when you can be titillated by the MUCH more exciting "Apprentice?!" Why bother writing to a senator or other representative about your opinion when your opinion is being dictated to you by a nameless source on T.V.?
People have been squashed by it. Not to be a dire predictor of doom, but it seems we have allowed T.V. to become our new god, in spite of whatever religion we may profess to believe in. "I heard it on T.V." will become the 11th commandment if it hasn't already!
--Wag--
Bear in mind, this was before 1970.
It made a huge impression on me. From that point on, until I left home at 17, Mom and Dad were at least conscientious about keeping books in the home for us. Bought encyclopedias for us, read to us at night before bed, the works. We had a very good collection of books for as long as I can remember. My grandparents, being professional eductors also contributed to our library and it was rather substantial and of rather high quality and diversity. Their efforts instilled a love of reading within me at a very young age. I suspect that part of it was a desire to escape the misery of the real world in a Louis L'Amour book, but that's beyond the scope of this text. There are only a very few things which my parents gave to me which are of value and this is probably the biggest and the best favor they ever did for me.
As I grew up and got good at reading, I spent a majority of my time in the library at school, reading everything I could get my hands on. At 7 years old while I was in 2nd grade, I was testing for reading and comprehension ability. As the test was evaluated, I was told I was at a second year university level on both counts. Can we say, "high potential?" I was reading 1,200 wpm which, I've been told, is pretty good. I've never tested for these traits since that time.
NOT having a T.V. was a stigma to us growing up. All of our friends thought we were weird or that our parents were. The latter had pity on us and we took frequent occasion to ask to spend Friday nights at these various friends' homes so we could watch cartoons on Saturday mornings. Summer afternoons were often wasted away watching T.V. shows like "Star Trek" and "Lost in Space." None of these shows really appealed to me since they couldn't compete with the visualizations I created while reading. It was too tough to suspend disbelief with visual effects that, well, sucked. That is, until Star Wars came out. But, since that was only a movie, I couldn't very well watch it every day, either.
Reading seems to have been a positive influence on me in several ways. Back then, I read a lot of fiction which was probably not as good for me as one might think. However, it was a good way for me to learn to spell rather well, to read fast, read well and comprehend readily. I also learned to write fairly well, though I couldn't begin to tell you what a dangling participle is or any other grammatical structure beyond nouns and verbs! Basically, I imitate other people and go with what sounds good. Here, I have to give very high credit to my grandfather who taught me more about writing in one year than most people learn in a lifetime.
By reading mostly fiction and fantasy, however, I missed out on a lot of the classics of literature. To this day, I haven't read Moby Dick, Shakespeare, etc. etc. The classics people normally speak of still have no part of my reading history. I did start to read Harper Lee's, "To Kill a Mockingbird," but it got really boring so maybe I'm just not quite smart enough for the "classics."
Back to television, to round this off, I find that it's a prime waste of time. There was a time early in our marriage when my wife and I bought a T.V. Granted, there are things like the news which have SOME redeeming qualities, SOMEtimes. I loved things like the History Channel, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, etc. etc. Very good programming most of the time. But even now, I just find that I'd rather put in some time reading a good book or working at the piano. T.V. is a total distraction and unnecessary at that.
When we did have a T.V., I was appalled one day to notice I was scheduling my life around the programming. "No, we won't be able to make it to your party on Friday because we have other plans." The plans were, laughably, watching "Cheers" among other things. How pathetic is that?!! Well, maybe it was just us. But at some point, when we realized we were addicted to it and were doing nothing else productive in our lives, we got rid of the T.V. and to this day, we still don't have T.V. in the home. Well, that is to say, no cable, no antennae, no signal. We do watch a lot of DVD's at home on a decent T.V. but no programming.
The evils of T.V.? Well, for one thing, I think T.V. causes or at least exacerbates ADD/ADHD. Think about it: T.V. has about 6 minutes of a "show" during which the scenes change, probably every 30 seconds or so. Then you have 5 or 6 minutes of commercials where the commercial itself changes every 30 to 60 seconds and within those short time slots, the scenes change in rapid-fire style. Then, another 6 or 8 minutes of T.V. program, more commercials and on and on for as long as you're sitting there watching the show. If you get a T.V. movie, the first block and the last block are sometimes 20 or 30 minutes but they definitely make up for the lost time by using longer commercial breaks for the remainder of the movie.
So picture a kid there watching all this crap and having to tune in to an idea for an instant, then tune into something else for another instant, then something else, then something else, then something else, etc. etc. Is it any wonder that it's difficult for a kid to learn to focus on any one thing for very long?
Of course, there is the complete lack of physical activity, the loss of time which could be spent learning to play the piano or build airplanes or just ride bikes or something else which is actually productive. The "passiveness" of T.V. is simply destructive. Rest assured, there are plenty of kids who, if school weren't "required," would spend their entire days in front of the damn thing and probably do during summer breaks. Parents too, for that matter.
And parents. They make a sad case for T.V. when they frequently say, "But it's such a good babysitter!" Well, okay, I can see using it on occasion when you need a break or need to get some work done without kid distractions. But often enough, it seems parents are using it more as a crutch day by day rather than as an aid from time to time. I don't know. I don't have kids but it seems there HAS to be a better way to discharge your responsibility as a parent as opposed to letting the kids watch T.V. so much and taking the risk of ruining their mental and physical health in the process.
T.V. has provided for the pacification of people in many ways. I think a great many people are plenty content to be happy as long as they have "Sports Center," "CNN" or "General Hospital" available whenever they want it. Who gives a rat's ass about politics when you can be titillated by the MUCH more exciting "Apprentice?!" Why bother writing to a senator or other representative about your opinion when your opinion is being dictated to you by a nameless source on T.V.?
People have been squashed by it. Not to be a dire predictor of doom, but it seems we have allowed T.V. to become our new god, in spite of whatever religion we may profess to believe in. "I heard it on T.V." will become the 11th commandment if it hasn't already!
--Wag--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
