I compare you- not to the notebooks
that portray my intricate writings,
Nor to the pen I so religiously hold within my hand.
You are much like the shiny ink
that touches the sadness in my mind.
You are heartfelt perception, silent serenity,
warmth, and understanding-
An outstretched hand when my pen has forsaken me,
Kind words of freedom when darkness clouds my mind.
When I think of you my pen becomes immortal
and my paper, content.
2
My Love, you are my inspiration
the one I truly adore
your voice and what you say
always makes me wanting more
I have so much love for you
It's hard to explain
everything about you is like a dream
My Love, you are my future
the one I want
your thoughts and your care
makes you so special to my heart
My Love, I love you so much
nothing will ever change that
I can't wait to spend my life with you
to have you by my side
Forever and ever, Always
3
It's hard to love someone,
but it's harder to find someone who will love you,
Love can be so ineffable,
that no word could even describe why it is incredible,
Love is still a mystery,
no one can explain why losing love can be a misery,
Love is just a feeling,
but everyone treats it like its a "thing",
Love is as exciting as being a millionaire,
but love can also be as devastating as losing your friend,
It is so hard to let go of someone you really love,
but it is harder trying to forget about the person you loved,
Love is susceptible to any human's looks,
it can be prevented if you're willing to love someone not for their looks,
If you love someone,
don't say "I LOVE YOU!",
but instead say "I NEED YOU!",
It takes a nice person to love someone,
but it takes a real person to love someone for who they are inside.
4
You ask my feelings about you
it is hard to define
I know people like you
come only once in a lifetime.
I dream of the sensation
one day your heart and mine,
to feel the deep penetration
of two hearts combined.
::::
You ask my feelings about you
I'll do the best job I can
to tell you how much I care about you
and to make you understand.
When I am with you,
a feeling is inside
a feeling that warms my heart,
my soul, my mind.
::::
You ask my feelings about you
I'm trying to make you see
if you'll be there for me,
I'll be there for you, unconditionly.
Because you see,
That's how it's got to be
with in do time developing
emotionaly, mentally, and physically.
::::
You ask my feelings about you
I need to know how you feel every day
I'll do the same
so we don't push one another away.
::::
You ask my feelings about you
well, it is very true
I want you to understand
I DO care for you...
5
How do you tell someone
who is everything to you,
"thanks?"
How do explain things
that are so deeply felt?
How do you define
a shift of the soul?
We are not of the same blood yet,
we are bound.
The dictionary
is full of useless adjectives.
So,
I will say,
you are my breath,
my heart,
my life.
6
My love for you
rolls on for an eternity.
It is like a never ending story
written just for you.
My love for you
is like the sky.
It goes on and on.
Everyday I look to the sky
and all I think about is you.
My love for you
will always hold a place in my heart.
It will always be special to me
because it never ends, it only grows deeper,
as each day passes.
7
Love can be shown in so many ways,
Physically, emotionally, and with the soul.
But love means the most with just spending precious time together,
Holding one another and whispering those sweet thoughts of forever.
Sometimes a solid hug touches the heart so much more
Than anything ever has before.
Sometimes just gazing into the eyes of your love
Makes you feel more special than you've ever dreamed of.
Just that one laugh, that one talk, that one smile
Is worth missing those physical things,
And it makes your love so much more worthwhile.
Just think with that one kiss,
What you could miss...
You could miss an emotional conversation, tons of laughs, and genuine smiles.
But whether you express your love physically, emtionally, or with your soul,
Make sure that you mean it,
And that the one you express it to makes you feel whole
Monday, January 12, 2015
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
PERSONAL: WHY GUYS DON'T DATE STRONG WOMAN AND WHAT THEY REALLY WANT
If an amazing woman like could be single, there must be something wrong with men. What she doesn’t acknowledge is that despite her impressive credentials – attractive, successful, intelligent – she might not be giving men what THEY WANT.When a man goes out with a woman, he’s not as concerned with whether she’s articulate and on track to make partner at the law firm. Men DO value intelligence, but they also want from their girlfriend what they CAN’T get from their business associates. Warmth, affection, nurturing, thoughtfulness. If he finds himself constantly hearing all the things he needs to change, he may just determine that he wants a bright woman who is less challenging. Not a Stepford Wife. Not a bimbo. Not a maid. Just someone who makes his life EASIER and more pleasant. huge reason
Count me against the men who ADORE strong, independent, intellligent women. But also count me as someone who finds many of them can’t get out of their professional shells when dating. From my own experience a reasonable number of professional women have a tough time letting their hair down and when with them seem to feel as if I were attending a 24 hour Martha Stewart festival. Now, the professional women who are genuine, authentic, intelligent, DOWN TO EARTH, affectionate, caring, nurturing, supportive and fun to be with…that’s an irresistible combination in my view! Heck, ANY woman with those qualities is worth keeping! Who wants to date a woman who doesn’t know when to turn it off? Leave the schmoozing, manipulating, ego stroking, best-foot-foward tactics at the office and try to connect as a real person. This is a skill that many successful, strong, intelligent women have not mastered. For this reason a lot of guys date economically disadvataged and sometimes uneducated women, many of them immigrants. Why?.. becuase what’s important to them are the values and principles concerning relationships they bring to the table. Most people who do not know me well, when they observe this they think that it is because I prefer subservient women whom I can control and manipulate easily. Not so! I just realized they if what is most important to me in a relationship is warmth, caring, sensitivity, well defined roles, etc., that I need to look at the real person, not their financial achievments and professional skills. Here’s a thought: Could it be that many highly educated, intelligent, successful people be emotionally ignorant?
In the final analysis the size of the pocketbook, the position in the boardroom, the model of the car does absolutely nothing to make a woman appealing. Is she fun? Does she let her hair down? Is she open to actually getting her jeans dirty during a vigorous, picturesque hike? Does she relish it when I play with her hair, or moan it’s no longer perfect? Does she set aside some time to actually listen to me, or is she answering her email, texts and cell phone calls constantly? Is she affectionate, or is she always in professional form even when away from the office? Is she secure enough in herself to date men who may not fit her “ideal” as far as their own professional stature, weight, height, etc., is concerned, or does she limit her choices to men with very narrow external preferences? Is she open to more than the missionary position and mind blowing oral sex and great fun in bed, or mechanical and routine? Will she at least pretend she loves giving oral sex and moan every once in awhile, or is she real quiet and making it obvious it’s a chore? Can she handle it when I am being just a guy, or judgmental on every small detail? Is she incessantly reminding me about my flaws, or actually gets a kick out of them? Does she realize sex is a great way to get intimate with a man, even through we know intimacy is a great way for a man to have sex with a woman, but will indulge me nevertheless since sex is on our minds 23.99 hours of the day? Is she on a constant search for clothes and material improvement, or will she actually attend an event with me she may not like?
Any time I hear a woman say that she thinks that she “intimidates” men due to her education, career, demeanor or looks I can immediately pick out at least 5 other, more tangible, reasons for why she has a hard time connecting with men.Hear this: Men are NOT intimidated by a strong, independent, successful and/or outspoken. They are, however, completely turned off by a ball buster. Many women failt to see that line between being outgoing and aggressive, confident and arrogant, outspoken and opinionated.
The key to any good relationship is a willingness to be vulnerable and to submit. It’s the key to flirting. Somebody has to lead or else you’ll both be stepping on each other’s toes throughout the whole song. There’s a reason why two magnets, when positioned the same way directly at each other, repel and why, if you turn one of the magnets 180 degrees, they click.Women with a distinctive male energy often confuse men. Sure, they can visually see she’s a female, but all of her non-verbal cues (posture, facial expressions, tone of voice) are distinctly male. That confuses the male brain and can trick the brain into treating you and “seeing” you as a male. The same can be said for women when dealing with a “nice guy.” They’re “seeing” his female energy – the submissive, demure, vulnerable part of him. That’s why they’re not attracted to them.
You’re undoubtedly a great catch. You can teach us a thing or two. You are a go-getter and worthy of everyone’s respect. But if that go-getter side ends up emasculating your man, or makes him feel insignificant, or second-guessed, he’s not really getting what he wants out of a partner. Men want to feel masculine. . This doesn’t mean you should play dumb, or be weak and needy, no more than the nice guy should start acting like a jackass. It might mean, however, turning off some of the things that make you “successful” at work. This is a bitter pill to swallow, perhaps even a double standard. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that “hard-driving, opinionated, and meticulous” are not on most men’s lists of ideal feminine traits.
It’s not a matter of giving anything up, or altering who you are in any fundamental way. It’s a matter of accepting that “He wants to be the boy” on dates, and letting him, for the sake of nurturing that spark that’s so critical to success in romantic relationships. If you want to go on “being the man” regardless, hey — more power to ya. Date guys who are dreamers and have no drive, who like to nest and pick out wallpaper (or sit home and drink all day and watch sports on T.V. instead of working for a living). They will savor be taken care of while you go out and slay those dragons to put meat on the table. If you truly are a masculine energy woman, things should work out great. If not… at some point you will burn out, feel drained and start resenting your man for not slaying a few damn dragons himself once in a while. Yes, you can kill your own spiders in the bathroom at 3 a.m., you’ve done it forever, but doggone it, wouldn’t it be nice if someone ELSE took over sometimes? Unfortunately, that’s the point at which conflict starts… it’s not what either of you signed up for, so you both wind up miserable.
You need to look at what you are saying. You want to be smart and driven and have a career, which is fine. You want a man who is smart and driven and has a career. This is fine too.The problem is you want both of these things. Putting two smart successful driven people together is like putting two alpha dogs in a cage. They are not going to get along. If one of the people in a relationship is a rock, the other has to be softer, or the relationship wont work.Women always write off men who are gentle and nurturing. Always. Do most men want to be the leader? Yes. Why? They saw this work for their parents and grandparents. But what about it worked? First, my father and grandfathers were not tyrants. It was not their way or the highway. They did not even reserve the position of calling the shots in every situation.
A good example. I was dating a girl who was more than willing to allow me to lead in most situations. I like to go to garage sales, but rarely do it. However, she was a pro at it. So when she said she wanted to do it, we made plans and early that morning, I cooked breakfast while she made a list of places to go and mapped it out on google maps. When we walked out to my truck, i handed her the keys and said, “Lead the way.” It was early in the relationship and so I am sure she was not totally sure what to expect from me, so she was a bit surprised, and i could see that that one little thing made her happy. It’s called respect. She felt respected and appreciated for what she brought to the table. Do you think a man won’t react the same way? Nobody says you have to stay with a tyrant, and in fact, every sane man on this site would tell you to get away from a tyrant. I won’t live with a woman who is. Guys like myself want one part of their life where we don’t have to compete. Men are sick and tired of relationships being power struggles. Every woman I was in a relationship with who said they wanted it to be an equal partnership, it always felt like a power struggle. In every case, it was her way or the highway. If she ever relented and allowed me to have my way, I was made to pay dearly for it. And it was also held over my head constantly. No thank you. It simply works better when one person is the default leader,but is also kind and loving in doing so, and is also wise enough to understand when it is better to temporarily relinquish that position.The point is, just because you give up that responsibility and put it on the man, and he turns out to be abusive in that role, you do not have to stay with him. If men were consistently being given that opportunity, they would rise to the challenge.
Count me against the men who ADORE strong, independent, intellligent women. But also count me as someone who finds many of them can’t get out of their professional shells when dating. From my own experience a reasonable number of professional women have a tough time letting their hair down and when with them seem to feel as if I were attending a 24 hour Martha Stewart festival. Now, the professional women who are genuine, authentic, intelligent, DOWN TO EARTH, affectionate, caring, nurturing, supportive and fun to be with…that’s an irresistible combination in my view! Heck, ANY woman with those qualities is worth keeping! Who wants to date a woman who doesn’t know when to turn it off? Leave the schmoozing, manipulating, ego stroking, best-foot-foward tactics at the office and try to connect as a real person. This is a skill that many successful, strong, intelligent women have not mastered. For this reason a lot of guys date economically disadvataged and sometimes uneducated women, many of them immigrants. Why?.. becuase what’s important to them are the values and principles concerning relationships they bring to the table. Most people who do not know me well, when they observe this they think that it is because I prefer subservient women whom I can control and manipulate easily. Not so! I just realized they if what is most important to me in a relationship is warmth, caring, sensitivity, well defined roles, etc., that I need to look at the real person, not their financial achievments and professional skills. Here’s a thought: Could it be that many highly educated, intelligent, successful people be emotionally ignorant?
In the final analysis the size of the pocketbook, the position in the boardroom, the model of the car does absolutely nothing to make a woman appealing. Is she fun? Does she let her hair down? Is she open to actually getting her jeans dirty during a vigorous, picturesque hike? Does she relish it when I play with her hair, or moan it’s no longer perfect? Does she set aside some time to actually listen to me, or is she answering her email, texts and cell phone calls constantly? Is she affectionate, or is she always in professional form even when away from the office? Is she secure enough in herself to date men who may not fit her “ideal” as far as their own professional stature, weight, height, etc., is concerned, or does she limit her choices to men with very narrow external preferences? Is she open to more than the missionary position and mind blowing oral sex and great fun in bed, or mechanical and routine? Will she at least pretend she loves giving oral sex and moan every once in awhile, or is she real quiet and making it obvious it’s a chore? Can she handle it when I am being just a guy, or judgmental on every small detail? Is she incessantly reminding me about my flaws, or actually gets a kick out of them? Does she realize sex is a great way to get intimate with a man, even through we know intimacy is a great way for a man to have sex with a woman, but will indulge me nevertheless since sex is on our minds 23.99 hours of the day? Is she on a constant search for clothes and material improvement, or will she actually attend an event with me she may not like?
Any time I hear a woman say that she thinks that she “intimidates” men due to her education, career, demeanor or looks I can immediately pick out at least 5 other, more tangible, reasons for why she has a hard time connecting with men.Hear this: Men are NOT intimidated by a strong, independent, successful and/or outspoken. They are, however, completely turned off by a ball buster. Many women failt to see that line between being outgoing and aggressive, confident and arrogant, outspoken and opinionated.
The key to any good relationship is a willingness to be vulnerable and to submit. It’s the key to flirting. Somebody has to lead or else you’ll both be stepping on each other’s toes throughout the whole song. There’s a reason why two magnets, when positioned the same way directly at each other, repel and why, if you turn one of the magnets 180 degrees, they click.Women with a distinctive male energy often confuse men. Sure, they can visually see she’s a female, but all of her non-verbal cues (posture, facial expressions, tone of voice) are distinctly male. That confuses the male brain and can trick the brain into treating you and “seeing” you as a male. The same can be said for women when dealing with a “nice guy.” They’re “seeing” his female energy – the submissive, demure, vulnerable part of him. That’s why they’re not attracted to them.
You’re undoubtedly a great catch. You can teach us a thing or two. You are a go-getter and worthy of everyone’s respect. But if that go-getter side ends up emasculating your man, or makes him feel insignificant, or second-guessed, he’s not really getting what he wants out of a partner. Men want to feel masculine. . This doesn’t mean you should play dumb, or be weak and needy, no more than the nice guy should start acting like a jackass. It might mean, however, turning off some of the things that make you “successful” at work. This is a bitter pill to swallow, perhaps even a double standard. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that “hard-driving, opinionated, and meticulous” are not on most men’s lists of ideal feminine traits.
It’s not a matter of giving anything up, or altering who you are in any fundamental way. It’s a matter of accepting that “He wants to be the boy” on dates, and letting him, for the sake of nurturing that spark that’s so critical to success in romantic relationships. If you want to go on “being the man” regardless, hey — more power to ya. Date guys who are dreamers and have no drive, who like to nest and pick out wallpaper (or sit home and drink all day and watch sports on T.V. instead of working for a living). They will savor be taken care of while you go out and slay those dragons to put meat on the table. If you truly are a masculine energy woman, things should work out great. If not… at some point you will burn out, feel drained and start resenting your man for not slaying a few damn dragons himself once in a while. Yes, you can kill your own spiders in the bathroom at 3 a.m., you’ve done it forever, but doggone it, wouldn’t it be nice if someone ELSE took over sometimes? Unfortunately, that’s the point at which conflict starts… it’s not what either of you signed up for, so you both wind up miserable.
You need to look at what you are saying. You want to be smart and driven and have a career, which is fine. You want a man who is smart and driven and has a career. This is fine too.The problem is you want both of these things. Putting two smart successful driven people together is like putting two alpha dogs in a cage. They are not going to get along. If one of the people in a relationship is a rock, the other has to be softer, or the relationship wont work.Women always write off men who are gentle and nurturing. Always. Do most men want to be the leader? Yes. Why? They saw this work for their parents and grandparents. But what about it worked? First, my father and grandfathers were not tyrants. It was not their way or the highway. They did not even reserve the position of calling the shots in every situation.
A good example. I was dating a girl who was more than willing to allow me to lead in most situations. I like to go to garage sales, but rarely do it. However, she was a pro at it. So when she said she wanted to do it, we made plans and early that morning, I cooked breakfast while she made a list of places to go and mapped it out on google maps. When we walked out to my truck, i handed her the keys and said, “Lead the way.” It was early in the relationship and so I am sure she was not totally sure what to expect from me, so she was a bit surprised, and i could see that that one little thing made her happy. It’s called respect. She felt respected and appreciated for what she brought to the table. Do you think a man won’t react the same way? Nobody says you have to stay with a tyrant, and in fact, every sane man on this site would tell you to get away from a tyrant. I won’t live with a woman who is. Guys like myself want one part of their life where we don’t have to compete. Men are sick and tired of relationships being power struggles. Every woman I was in a relationship with who said they wanted it to be an equal partnership, it always felt like a power struggle. In every case, it was her way or the highway. If she ever relented and allowed me to have my way, I was made to pay dearly for it. And it was also held over my head constantly. No thank you. It simply works better when one person is the default leader,but is also kind and loving in doing so, and is also wise enough to understand when it is better to temporarily relinquish that position.The point is, just because you give up that responsibility and put it on the man, and he turns out to be abusive in that role, you do not have to stay with him. If men were consistently being given that opportunity, they would rise to the challenge.
Monday, January 5, 2015
FROM A FAN: DATING IS BAD FOR WOMAN AS WELL
I have spent a lot of time being both incredibly admired and incredibly lonely. In my lifetime I have never had a man pursue me or ask me on a date. I have always been the initiator. Contrast that to the fact that most people in my life have in some way, shape, or form told me I was attractive. The argument therefore goes that men are intimidated by me and thus do not ask me out. Heard that one more times than I count – “You are intelligent, strong, beautiful, sexy, and successful – that is scary to men.” In my head, I call bull every time and finally I decided to take it out of my head and into reality. I asked my friends just to be truthful with me – tell me I am hideous or stink, or whatever it is that is proving a man repellant. To that, they invariably repeat, “You are intelligent, strong, beautiful, sexy, and successful – that is scary to men.”
The funny thing is, it really doesn’t make a darned bit of difference. I could be stinky, disgusting, and hideous, or I could be gorgeous, awesome, and intimidating. The net effect to me is the same. I am alone. I will readily admit before I am asked, that yes – I can get laid. And I have. When the loneliness is too much and I am craving human touch to feel like I even exist, there are any number of men willing to step in and give me an evening of…human touch. Some of them have even mastered making it feel meaningful despite their intent to go home and forget I ever existed until the next time I am so desperate that any human contact will do…and I call.
So why am I writing to you? Because many of you think this is proof that women have it easier than you. I want you to know that there are women like me that don’t post because you think this. Instead, we sit and internalize. We wonder why if we are supposed to have it so easy there is no one there. We wonder if this means we are defective and why we don’t experience the life so many assume we have.
And we also know that if we show our desperation and despair we will either be called out by some of the guys here who think we should be happy because we can get laid, or even more painful – demonized by the stronger better versions of ourselves that post here telling us to suck it up and say “Next” when the men we want don’t want us back.
Honestly, I wish I was that woman. I wish I had the strength of character that several of the strong female posters here have to not let the constant loneliness tear me apart. Or at least that I possessed the ability to enjoy a one night stand as so many men seem to think would make it all better. As it stands, I spend my life devoid of intimate male contact until the pain of being alone trumps the inevitable pain I know I will experience when my lover for the night decides never to call me again. Here me – I do actually know that will happen – I am not stupid or deluded by the players. I know each time I engage in "sex with the ex" that it will not change a damned thing about him not wanting me as anything more than a booty call. So when I do call, it is because the pain of loneliness in the present moment has overcome the pain of what I know the next day will bring.
I just hoped it would finally dawn on some of the men here that being a single woman is not a cake walk - that we are lonely and hurting and desperate. Yes, I said it. I admit it. I am desperate…and afraid. This is what drives me to do the things you all call stupid and silly. Unfortunately, each time I give in to the pain for momentary surcease, I am simply reminded that I am and will only ever be - a phuk. I am also posting for the other women who might feel as I do, that they must be broken or worthless because no one seems to want to love them...and are too afraid to admit that frankly, they do need it to feel complete. We do need to be held, and cherished, and adored but somehow our society has warped this into embarrassment and shame.
I am standing up and confessing, I am not immune to the desire and the need for connection - connection with a man.I mentioned earlier that I had as of late been on a mission to understand why I was not loved or chased, even though I do get admired. I actually did finally get my answer. It came in the form of a candid friend/lover when I asked him directly to tell me why I wasn’t loved or apparently why I could never be loved. To his credit, as uncomfortable as it might have been for him, he looked me dead in the eyes and finally told me the truth, a truth so many others have danced around and in doing so, confirmed a thought I had begun to form. I am, as I stand today, actually unlovable.
All my life I have been taught to be strong, to be confident, and to succeed in a man’s world and how to not bend in the face of adversity so that I could do so. And truly – I am that...and I have succeeded in a career dominated by the boys club. Unfortunately, the very traits that have made me successful have also doomed me to a lifetime without love. My friend/lover told me that it is evident to all the men in my circle that I have a “sword and shield” at the ready at all times – and while they respect it, admire it, and yield to it, they will not love it.
In other words, I am, for all intents and purposes, a man. Since I am attractive and by appearance female, they can get past this long enough to sleep with me, but they will never be inspired to be with me, to champion me, to love me...as that, my sword and shield will handle without them.
Meanwhile, after periods of celibacy and no human touch, I turn in desperation to a single night. A night that yes I can have with many or perhaps any of them. A night that provides a momentary salve to the pain of loneliness but then adds molten silver to the sword and shield I will inevitably carry the next day.
I guess my point to my single brethren is – never assume. Never assume the single (even if hot) girl is not desperate. Never assume that she dates continuously and simply picks and chooses between the men throwing themselves at her feet. For every assumption you make, I guarantee there is at least one counterpoint in the form of a woman like me. One who feels the loneliness you feel and doesn’t post for fear of being picked apart – either because she can “at least get laid” or because she knows her sistren will tell her “ to buck up and not need a man for happiness” – which when done, simply adds to the self-perpetuating shield that causes her to never have the love for which she actually yearns.
I am tired of being quiet. I am tired of being misunderstood. I am tired of not admitting that I need to be seen, to be loved, to be cherished. I am tired of living a life where I am lauded for my strength and in parallel missing out on the one thing I want most. All of my matched up girlfriends tell me how great they think I am and wish they had my strength. Then they go home to the men that adore them and I go home to my dog and a computer screen. So yes, I can get laid, and yes I am just as desperate as the men here that can’t. So we have come full circle. Assumptions about the easy life of at least one single woman are both completely true, and completely ridiculous.
The funny thing is, it really doesn’t make a darned bit of difference. I could be stinky, disgusting, and hideous, or I could be gorgeous, awesome, and intimidating. The net effect to me is the same. I am alone. I will readily admit before I am asked, that yes – I can get laid. And I have. When the loneliness is too much and I am craving human touch to feel like I even exist, there are any number of men willing to step in and give me an evening of…human touch. Some of them have even mastered making it feel meaningful despite their intent to go home and forget I ever existed until the next time I am so desperate that any human contact will do…and I call.
So why am I writing to you? Because many of you think this is proof that women have it easier than you. I want you to know that there are women like me that don’t post because you think this. Instead, we sit and internalize. We wonder why if we are supposed to have it so easy there is no one there. We wonder if this means we are defective and why we don’t experience the life so many assume we have.
And we also know that if we show our desperation and despair we will either be called out by some of the guys here who think we should be happy because we can get laid, or even more painful – demonized by the stronger better versions of ourselves that post here telling us to suck it up and say “Next” when the men we want don’t want us back.
Honestly, I wish I was that woman. I wish I had the strength of character that several of the strong female posters here have to not let the constant loneliness tear me apart. Or at least that I possessed the ability to enjoy a one night stand as so many men seem to think would make it all better. As it stands, I spend my life devoid of intimate male contact until the pain of being alone trumps the inevitable pain I know I will experience when my lover for the night decides never to call me again. Here me – I do actually know that will happen – I am not stupid or deluded by the players. I know each time I engage in "sex with the ex" that it will not change a damned thing about him not wanting me as anything more than a booty call. So when I do call, it is because the pain of loneliness in the present moment has overcome the pain of what I know the next day will bring.
I just hoped it would finally dawn on some of the men here that being a single woman is not a cake walk - that we are lonely and hurting and desperate. Yes, I said it. I admit it. I am desperate…and afraid. This is what drives me to do the things you all call stupid and silly. Unfortunately, each time I give in to the pain for momentary surcease, I am simply reminded that I am and will only ever be - a phuk. I am also posting for the other women who might feel as I do, that they must be broken or worthless because no one seems to want to love them...and are too afraid to admit that frankly, they do need it to feel complete. We do need to be held, and cherished, and adored but somehow our society has warped this into embarrassment and shame.
I am standing up and confessing, I am not immune to the desire and the need for connection - connection with a man.I mentioned earlier that I had as of late been on a mission to understand why I was not loved or chased, even though I do get admired. I actually did finally get my answer. It came in the form of a candid friend/lover when I asked him directly to tell me why I wasn’t loved or apparently why I could never be loved. To his credit, as uncomfortable as it might have been for him, he looked me dead in the eyes and finally told me the truth, a truth so many others have danced around and in doing so, confirmed a thought I had begun to form. I am, as I stand today, actually unlovable.
All my life I have been taught to be strong, to be confident, and to succeed in a man’s world and how to not bend in the face of adversity so that I could do so. And truly – I am that...and I have succeeded in a career dominated by the boys club. Unfortunately, the very traits that have made me successful have also doomed me to a lifetime without love. My friend/lover told me that it is evident to all the men in my circle that I have a “sword and shield” at the ready at all times – and while they respect it, admire it, and yield to it, they will not love it.
In other words, I am, for all intents and purposes, a man. Since I am attractive and by appearance female, they can get past this long enough to sleep with me, but they will never be inspired to be with me, to champion me, to love me...as that, my sword and shield will handle without them.
Meanwhile, after periods of celibacy and no human touch, I turn in desperation to a single night. A night that yes I can have with many or perhaps any of them. A night that provides a momentary salve to the pain of loneliness but then adds molten silver to the sword and shield I will inevitably carry the next day.
I guess my point to my single brethren is – never assume. Never assume the single (even if hot) girl is not desperate. Never assume that she dates continuously and simply picks and chooses between the men throwing themselves at her feet. For every assumption you make, I guarantee there is at least one counterpoint in the form of a woman like me. One who feels the loneliness you feel and doesn’t post for fear of being picked apart – either because she can “at least get laid” or because she knows her sistren will tell her “ to buck up and not need a man for happiness” – which when done, simply adds to the self-perpetuating shield that causes her to never have the love for which she actually yearns.
I am tired of being quiet. I am tired of being misunderstood. I am tired of not admitting that I need to be seen, to be loved, to be cherished. I am tired of living a life where I am lauded for my strength and in parallel missing out on the one thing I want most. All of my matched up girlfriends tell me how great they think I am and wish they had my strength. Then they go home to the men that adore them and I go home to my dog and a computer screen. So yes, I can get laid, and yes I am just as desperate as the men here that can’t. So we have come full circle. Assumptions about the easy life of at least one single woman are both completely true, and completely ridiculous.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
DATING:HERE IS WHAT IS HAPPENING TO ALL THE GOOD MEN
So what we have learned, is that women who poses all of the power and sexual currency, are actually pretty horrendous human beings on top of it? Shocking.
The divorce rates are as higher as ever and largely initiated by women, and not for abuse of infidelity, but frivolous reasons. They cna and do simply move on to the next guy, or simply live content to be alone, which they are generally much better at doing, especially when there reproductive capacity is quite over.
We are now finding studies which also show that women are now cheating more than men as well. So we have a population of entitled women with ever expanding lists of expectations who feel no shame in ruining a generation of men.
Women are shocked to find that men become bitter, and simply don’t bother anymore, and therefor they shouldn’t be shocked with not getting picked. Well, it turns out they have real reasons for said bitterness, because of what your fellow women have done to them. Sure there are exceptions on both sides, but the data is in.
Women want alpha males, and they also are more shallow and cheat more. Awesome. What we also find, is that men are far far far more forgiving about income and “acheivement”. As if having a peice of paper that says you know how to be taught what to think and take tests from a school is a sign of intelligence. Surveys and studies have shown successful men like and in many cases seek out women of lesser means, as they tend to not be ball busting “ambitious/driven” women who obsess over careerism, money, and superficiality.
We find that even the most liberal ball busting lefty left feminists who espouse how they are fine if there man makes less, or isn’t in some fancy job, will often feel bitter, resentful, or unattracted over time and leave or cheat on said man. The double standard is intense.
Women are valued for who they are, men are valued for what they can do, their utility, essentially. Men make up the majority of the homeless now, and have a 4-6x time rate of suicide, which comes as no surprise really given the societal shift that has happened. If you take an equally unattractive woman and man and put them in a public space long enough, the woman will always, ALWAYS, get more suitors than the guy. Please tell me how that’s fair.
It has and always will be an uphill battle for men, especially in an economy and culture that has so eviscerated everything that it means to be a guy. Men have become disposable and marginalized, and women have become entitled and narcissistic.
If you are ever wondering what happened to the good men? What happened to them especially as they age? You need not look to them for your cause, look at your fellow ladies who ruined them for you. The data doesn’t lie.
The divorce rates are as higher as ever and largely initiated by women, and not for abuse of infidelity, but frivolous reasons. They cna and do simply move on to the next guy, or simply live content to be alone, which they are generally much better at doing, especially when there reproductive capacity is quite over.
We are now finding studies which also show that women are now cheating more than men as well. So we have a population of entitled women with ever expanding lists of expectations who feel no shame in ruining a generation of men.
Women are shocked to find that men become bitter, and simply don’t bother anymore, and therefor they shouldn’t be shocked with not getting picked. Well, it turns out they have real reasons for said bitterness, because of what your fellow women have done to them. Sure there are exceptions on both sides, but the data is in.
Women want alpha males, and they also are more shallow and cheat more. Awesome. What we also find, is that men are far far far more forgiving about income and “acheivement”. As if having a peice of paper that says you know how to be taught what to think and take tests from a school is a sign of intelligence. Surveys and studies have shown successful men like and in many cases seek out women of lesser means, as they tend to not be ball busting “ambitious/driven” women who obsess over careerism, money, and superficiality.
We find that even the most liberal ball busting lefty left feminists who espouse how they are fine if there man makes less, or isn’t in some fancy job, will often feel bitter, resentful, or unattracted over time and leave or cheat on said man. The double standard is intense.
Women are valued for who they are, men are valued for what they can do, their utility, essentially. Men make up the majority of the homeless now, and have a 4-6x time rate of suicide, which comes as no surprise really given the societal shift that has happened. If you take an equally unattractive woman and man and put them in a public space long enough, the woman will always, ALWAYS, get more suitors than the guy. Please tell me how that’s fair.
It has and always will be an uphill battle for men, especially in an economy and culture that has so eviscerated everything that it means to be a guy. Men have become disposable and marginalized, and women have become entitled and narcissistic.
If you are ever wondering what happened to the good men? What happened to them especially as they age? You need not look to them for your cause, look at your fellow ladies who ruined them for you. The data doesn’t lie.
WOMAN ARE JUT CRAZY
Do you want to remain single or be in a relationship? Do you want to start a family and have kids or do you still want to hang out with your friends? Do you want to be loved and treated well or do you want to keep giving and get nothing back? It all up to you. Most woman take the latter.Weird..isn't it? I think so. They are holding out for what? I could have kids until i am in my 80s, most woman have until 37, but they don't get it. We live in crazy times.
I read — and have read — A LOT of women’s profiles — and most women seem to be describing — in terms of looks — the SAME guy — a very George Clooney / Jon Hamm type guy — 6 feet plus, head of hair (no matter what age), athletic, handsome (“I want to feel goosebumps when he walks into a room” etc.).I live on the Westside of LA and I rarely, rarely see any guys who come close to that type — I just came back from NYC and didn’t see any guys who looked like that“women rate 80% of all men as below average-looking” shows women as pretty brainless – dumb chicks cannot even divide 100 by 2 without getting an 80 – so on the surface, it is easy to laugh off.
Maybe something’s just wrong with me? Generally speaking, if someone is interested in me and seems to have enough in common with me (in terms of future plans, beliefs, morals, et al), I’ll go out with her. I’ve never turned someone down for a date unless the woman made me feel uncomfortable, initially (and maybe that wasn’t fair of me, I’ll admit).
None of the woman I’ve dated look anything like one another, as I’m not so much interested in a “look” or a “type” as I am who they are. I’d rather be with a good hearted, fun loving, respectful caring woman — and ifs he happens to be a 9 or 10, whatever. I’m not all that pressed.
I read — and have read — A LOT of women’s profiles — and most women seem to be describing — in terms of looks — the SAME guy — a very George Clooney / Jon Hamm type guy — 6 feet plus, head of hair (no matter what age), athletic, handsome (“I want to feel goosebumps when he walks into a room” etc.).I live on the Westside of LA and I rarely, rarely see any guys who come close to that type — I just came back from NYC and didn’t see any guys who looked like that“women rate 80% of all men as below average-looking” shows women as pretty brainless – dumb chicks cannot even divide 100 by 2 without getting an 80 – so on the surface, it is easy to laugh off.
Maybe something’s just wrong with me? Generally speaking, if someone is interested in me and seems to have enough in common with me (in terms of future plans, beliefs, morals, et al), I’ll go out with her. I’ve never turned someone down for a date unless the woman made me feel uncomfortable, initially (and maybe that wasn’t fair of me, I’ll admit).
None of the woman I’ve dated look anything like one another, as I’m not so much interested in a “look” or a “type” as I am who they are. I’d rather be with a good hearted, fun loving, respectful caring woman — and ifs he happens to be a 9 or 10, whatever. I’m not all that pressed.
THOUGHTS; TAMING OF THE SHREW
Getting a girlfriend is not hard: you just ask girls out, and eventually one of them says yes. And if she doesn’t work out, then you move on, because she’s just a girl and they make plenty of those.Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew has been loved for generations because it gives hope to both sexes. Petruchio was greedy and selfish, and Katherine was ugly and had a terrible personality, but by the end of it all, they had both found a deeper appreciation for each other than any of the other characters who were acting on their passions (Lucentio) or desperation (Hortensio).
Not only did they fall deeply in love with each other, but they finally gained respect from their peers. Think about it: Katherine, the most miserable harpy in English literature, was admired, lauded, and radically happy after spending only a few days with the first man she ever met who didn’t try to coddle or appease her.
Women want to possessed by a man. It is in their nature to be unable to articulate what they really want, but frankly it should be obvious to the menfolk who by nature are expected to lead. If American Jane can be manipulated by faceless propaganda, how much more so by a man whom she is absolutely in love with and could not imagine her life without? Everyone wants to get laid in a way that isn’t desperate and miserable, so put a higher value on your sex
Not only did they fall deeply in love with each other, but they finally gained respect from their peers. Think about it: Katherine, the most miserable harpy in English literature, was admired, lauded, and radically happy after spending only a few days with the first man she ever met who didn’t try to coddle or appease her.
Women want to possessed by a man. It is in their nature to be unable to articulate what they really want, but frankly it should be obvious to the menfolk who by nature are expected to lead. If American Jane can be manipulated by faceless propaganda, how much more so by a man whom she is absolutely in love with and could not imagine her life without? Everyone wants to get laid in a way that isn’t desperate and miserable, so put a higher value on your sex
THOUGHT: LIVING RIGHT NOW
"What if a demon were to creep after you one night, in your loneliest loneliness, and say, 'This life which you live must be lived by you once again and innumerable times more; and every pain and joy and thought and sigh must come again to you, all in the same sequence. The eternal hourglass will again and again be turned and you with it, dust of the dust!' Would you throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse that demon? Or would you answer, 'Never have I heard anything more divine'?"
-Friedrich Nietzsche
I only get this one life.
That's a profound realization. More than it sounds like, because it sounds like a cliche. But to really absorb and internalize that fact is soul-numbingly powerful.
When you give up on (or never had) the typical religious conception of an afterlife, of immortality, you are forced to confront the great fact of human existence in a way humans have tried to escape since they invented religion. We will not be around forever. Our days are numbered, our seconds ticking.
At first this seems such a frightening prospect. It goes so counter to our normal paradigm, the way we plan our life and put things off and wait for things to happen to us before reacting to them. We have been trained by the deepest threads of our cultural tapestry to be inert, because our culture has ignored this one deep fact of our mortality and tried to sell us on infinity.
But if infinity exists, it is not the eternity of a Heaven or a Hell. Those, those things are time extended to the horizon. That is not infinity. If there is an infinity, it is a timelessness, it is escaping the trap of time altogether, not extending it indefinitely. Someone else has better worded what I'm trying to get at here:
"The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough."
-Rabindranath Tagore
If you truly live in the present, in the moment, you can escape time and reach the infinite in a completely different way than that offered by religious afterlife. You do not need an unending extension of time to live fully, indeed to live infinitely.
If you try to live forever, then you just end up taking the moments for granted because, hell, there is always more time, right? But if instead you try to live in the moment, you find forever is always right there.
Tomorrow -- what an odd concept, for it never actually comes. We sleep, and when we open our eyes the calendar signals a different weekday but here we are still in *today*, in the *present*. The moment is all we ever have and all we ever will have. And when you accept that, I think you stop taking it for granted and start to open yourself to the awesome potential of each and every second.
"The way of awakening and freedom requires that we ask ourselves, with all of the earnestness, honesty, and humility at our command, just this one fundamental question: 'Am I willing to live this moment with as much attention and affection as possible, or am I going to do something else?'"
-Scott Morrison
What it comes down to in the end is not, I hope, merely some abstract philosophical insight about some larger view of life, an attempt to solve some existential crisis. Hell no. It is more concrete and visceral than that. What this stuff boils down to is that one life really is enough, and all we have to do to realize and absorb that fact is to accept that the future (finite or infinite) will never come, but only the present, only the moment will ever confront us. And that leaves us here and now, in this moment, in every moment, with no choice but to LIVE it.
For when this lesson sets it, I think a person can't help but live. It no longer becomes a conscious choice but irrevocably alters the way you perceive and intersect the world. Instead of waiting through time for the world to do something, and merely reacting to it, always reacting...instead you *act*. It is to become a subject rather than an object.
No fear can ever hold a person living in the infinity of the moment. What is fear to *that*?! Why waste a moment, any moment, with worry about what could go wrong? There's no reason to let that worry hold you back from doing what your heart, what your deepest self, is dying living to do!
"We must assume our existence as broadly as we in any way can; everything, even the unheard-of, must be possible in it. This is at bottom the only courage that is demanded of us: to have courage for the most strange, the most inexplicable."
--Rainer Maria Rilke
-Friedrich Nietzsche
I only get this one life.
That's a profound realization. More than it sounds like, because it sounds like a cliche. But to really absorb and internalize that fact is soul-numbingly powerful.
When you give up on (or never had) the typical religious conception of an afterlife, of immortality, you are forced to confront the great fact of human existence in a way humans have tried to escape since they invented religion. We will not be around forever. Our days are numbered, our seconds ticking.
At first this seems such a frightening prospect. It goes so counter to our normal paradigm, the way we plan our life and put things off and wait for things to happen to us before reacting to them. We have been trained by the deepest threads of our cultural tapestry to be inert, because our culture has ignored this one deep fact of our mortality and tried to sell us on infinity.
But if infinity exists, it is not the eternity of a Heaven or a Hell. Those, those things are time extended to the horizon. That is not infinity. If there is an infinity, it is a timelessness, it is escaping the trap of time altogether, not extending it indefinitely. Someone else has better worded what I'm trying to get at here:
"The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough."
-Rabindranath Tagore
If you truly live in the present, in the moment, you can escape time and reach the infinite in a completely different way than that offered by religious afterlife. You do not need an unending extension of time to live fully, indeed to live infinitely.
If you try to live forever, then you just end up taking the moments for granted because, hell, there is always more time, right? But if instead you try to live in the moment, you find forever is always right there.
Tomorrow -- what an odd concept, for it never actually comes. We sleep, and when we open our eyes the calendar signals a different weekday but here we are still in *today*, in the *present*. The moment is all we ever have and all we ever will have. And when you accept that, I think you stop taking it for granted and start to open yourself to the awesome potential of each and every second.
"The way of awakening and freedom requires that we ask ourselves, with all of the earnestness, honesty, and humility at our command, just this one fundamental question: 'Am I willing to live this moment with as much attention and affection as possible, or am I going to do something else?'"
-Scott Morrison
What it comes down to in the end is not, I hope, merely some abstract philosophical insight about some larger view of life, an attempt to solve some existential crisis. Hell no. It is more concrete and visceral than that. What this stuff boils down to is that one life really is enough, and all we have to do to realize and absorb that fact is to accept that the future (finite or infinite) will never come, but only the present, only the moment will ever confront us. And that leaves us here and now, in this moment, in every moment, with no choice but to LIVE it.
For when this lesson sets it, I think a person can't help but live. It no longer becomes a conscious choice but irrevocably alters the way you perceive and intersect the world. Instead of waiting through time for the world to do something, and merely reacting to it, always reacting...instead you *act*. It is to become a subject rather than an object.
No fear can ever hold a person living in the infinity of the moment. What is fear to *that*?! Why waste a moment, any moment, with worry about what could go wrong? There's no reason to let that worry hold you back from doing what your heart, what your deepest self, is dying living to do!
"We must assume our existence as broadly as we in any way can; everything, even the unheard-of, must be possible in it. This is at bottom the only courage that is demanded of us: to have courage for the most strange, the most inexplicable."
--Rainer Maria Rilke
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
ARTICLE: Kaley Cuoco on Feminism: I Like Coming Home and Serving My Husband By Antoinette Bueno .....SERVING YOUR MAN
Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting loves to "feel like a housewife," and isn't ashamed to show it.
In a new interview with Redbook magazine, the 29-year-old The Big Bang Theory star dishes on her dynamic with her husband of almost a year, tennis player Ryan Sweeting. When asked if sheconsiders herself a feminist, Kaley says that it is "not something [she] thinks about."
"I was never that feminist girl demanding equality, but maybe that’s because I've never really faced inequality," she says. "I cook for Ryan five nights a week: It makes me feel like a housewife; I love that. I know it sounds old-fashioned, but I like the idea of women taking care of their men. I'm so in control of my work that I like coming home and serving him. My mom was like that, so I think it kind of rubbed off."
Kaley is certainly not feeling any discrimination when it comes to her salary on her hit CBS show. The actress made headlines when she signed a contract for another three years of The Big Bang Theory at $1 million per episode, becoming one of television's highest-paid actresses.
"All I think about is what it means for my family … and knowing there is security for all of us," she says about her huge payday. "My parents spent 16 years hauling my butt to LA for audition after audition. Every day they were helping me learn my lines, dropping me off, waiting for me, picking me up, giving me pep talks when I didn't get the jobs, taking me to tennis and horseback riding lessons. I remember always hoping I could help take care of them because they took such good care of me. Knowing I'll be able to just brings tears to my eyes."
And though it's been nine months since she dropped the bombshell to Cosmopolitan magazine that she got breast implants when she turned 18, the actress is still answering questions about her decision to go under the knife.
Clearly, her stance on the subject hasn't changed.
"I had no boobs! And it really was the best thing ever!" she stresses. "I always felt ill-proportioned. My implants made me feel more confident in my body. It wasn’t about trying to be a porn star or wanting to look hot and sexy."
In a new interview with Redbook magazine, the 29-year-old The Big Bang Theory star dishes on her dynamic with her husband of almost a year, tennis player Ryan Sweeting. When asked if sheconsiders herself a feminist, Kaley says that it is "not something [she] thinks about."
"I was never that feminist girl demanding equality, but maybe that’s because I've never really faced inequality," she says. "I cook for Ryan five nights a week: It makes me feel like a housewife; I love that. I know it sounds old-fashioned, but I like the idea of women taking care of their men. I'm so in control of my work that I like coming home and serving him. My mom was like that, so I think it kind of rubbed off."
Kaley is certainly not feeling any discrimination when it comes to her salary on her hit CBS show. The actress made headlines when she signed a contract for another three years of The Big Bang Theory at $1 million per episode, becoming one of television's highest-paid actresses.
"All I think about is what it means for my family … and knowing there is security for all of us," she says about her huge payday. "My parents spent 16 years hauling my butt to LA for audition after audition. Every day they were helping me learn my lines, dropping me off, waiting for me, picking me up, giving me pep talks when I didn't get the jobs, taking me to tennis and horseback riding lessons. I remember always hoping I could help take care of them because they took such good care of me. Knowing I'll be able to just brings tears to my eyes."
And though it's been nine months since she dropped the bombshell to Cosmopolitan magazine that she got breast implants when she turned 18, the actress is still answering questions about her decision to go under the knife.
Clearly, her stance on the subject hasn't changed.
"I had no boobs! And it really was the best thing ever!" she stresses. "I always felt ill-proportioned. My implants made me feel more confident in my body. It wasn’t about trying to be a porn star or wanting to look hot and sexy."
Friday, December 26, 2014
ARTICLE: Let’s all screw the 1 percent: The simple move Obama could make to strengthen the rest of us BY PAUL ROSENBERG
“The economy” in the abstract is doing relatively well, with strong job growth, a booming stock market, and rising GDP. But the American people aren’t feeling it—and Democrats have paid a serious political price as a result—simply because the concrete, individual experience is quite different. Raising the minimum wage is one way to get at the problem—but for a problem that big, it’s a limited line of attack. There are millions of Americans making well more than the minimum wage, yet still doing much worse than their similarly situated parents did a generation ago.
“So what’s changed since the 1960s and ’70s?” progressive billionare venture capitalistNick Hanauer asked in Politico back in November. “Overtime pay, in part,” he answered: “Your parents got a lot of it, and you don’t. And it turns out that fair overtime standards are to the middle class what the minimum wage is to low-income workers: not everything, but an indispensable labor protection that is absolutely essential to creating a broad and thriving middle class.”
Although the details are a bit complicated, the bottom line is not: there’s a wage level below which everyone qualifies for mandatory time-and-a-half overtime, even if they’re on a salary, and that level has only been raised once since 1975, with the result that only 11 percent of salaried Americans are covered today, compared to over 65 percent of them in 1975. If you make less than $23,660 a year as a salaried worker, you qualify for mandatory overtime—if not, you’re out of luck. Only those hanging on to the lowest levels of the middle class have those protections anymore. Just adjusting the wage level for inflation since 1975—an act of restoration, not revolution—would be as significant an income increase for millions of middle-class Americans as a $10.10 or even $15 minimum wage is for low-wage workers. It would cover an additional 6.1 million salaried workers (by one account) up to $970 per week, about $50,440 annually—the vast majority of those it was originally designed to protect, but who have slowly lost their protections since the 1970s. Hanauer proposes a slightly greater increase, intended to cover roughly all the workforce that was covered in 1975. That would raise the threshold to $69,000 annually, and would cover an added 10.4 million workers.
________________________________
________________________________
“Salaried Americans now report working an average of 47 hours a week—18 percent report working more than 60 hours per week,” Hanauer wrote in a follow-up piece for the Hill in December. “If it feels like you’re working more hours for less money than your parents did a generation ago, it’s probably because you are.” But the solution, as indicated, is simple and the best part is that Congress has absolutely no say in the matter. It’s purely an executive branch decision whether to raise the eligibility level.
Oh, sure, conservatives are bound to yell, “Socialism!” But the original rationale behind the overtime regulations—enshrined in the Fair Labor Standards Act during the Great Depression, along with the minimum wage—comes right out of Adam Smith. Here’s a description from a March 2014 report on the subject from the Economic Policy Institute by Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein:
The fundamental idea behind overtime coverage, and the minimum wage, is to maintain a basic norm within our labor market. Under certain market conditions, for example when unemployment is high or workers hold especially low levels of bargaining power, employers might be able to require employees to labor long hours without receiving additional compensation. This was, in fact, the case prior to the passage of the FLSA. Congress decided that this was a market failure based on the asymmetrical bargaining positions of affected workers and employers, and thus enacted the OT rules to create a financial disincentive to subject employees to excessive work hours.
And here’s Adam Smith on precisely that same sort of power imbalance and market failure:
In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
As for how that translates into policy, Smith was equally blunt:
Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.
And this is exactly how the history of overtime pay regulations has worked out, in large part simply by doing nothing, and allowing inflation to erode away all the protections for tens of millions of Americans.
The fact that Adam Smith would be sympathetic is not the only sign that the logic involved ought to appeal to honest, principled conservatives, if any such unicorns actually existed. First, as already indicated, one purpose of the law is to shape social norms—a purpose that conservatives have repeatedly endorsed in a wide array of policy areas. Laws cannot make people good, they may say, but they can express society’s approval and disapproval, they can encourage and support virtuous behavior, and that behavior itself can, in turn, change people’s hearts over time. In the meantime, vice should not be rewarded.
OK, fair enough, you might say. But why would conservatives see overtime pay as good? Because of family values, of course, as Heidi Shierholz noted in an August 2014 EPI report, “Increasing the Overtime Salary Threshold Is Family-Friendly Policy”:
To ensure the basic, family-friendly right to a limited workweek, the Fair Labor Standards Act requires that workers covered by FLSA overtime provisions must be paid at least “time-and-a-half,” or 1.5 times their regular pay rate, for each hour of work per week beyond 40 hours.
Supporting strong families is a social good, which benefits from limiting the work week. If parents are asked to sacrifice family time, they should be paid extra for it. And the need today is greater than ever before, as Bernstein and Eisenbrey noted:
Preserving this right is just as important today as it was 75 years ago, and, when it comes to child-rearing, might be even more important. Between 1968 and 2008, the share of children living in households in which all parents work full time doubled from 24.6 percent to 48.3 percent.
Of course, I don’t expect any movement conservative activists, media figures or politicians to make such an argument—or any other argument in favor of higher wages for ordinary Americans. But it does square rather well with what they at least once pretended to believe, and what legions of their sometimes followers still believe, which is part of why it would be very popular for Obama to expand the scope of overtime coverage—which, again, he doesn’t need anyone else to sign off on.
The rationale for bold action from Obama is clear, as Hanauer noted back in mid-November:
Since the Republican Party’s takeover of both houses of Congress in the midterm elections, all the talk in Washington has been about what won’t get done because of gridlock between the White House and Capitol Hill. And Obama has talked of moving things forward by making unilateral changes to immigration law and climate protections.
But what about the most basic need of all—jump-starting the real economy by giving more middle-class Americans a fair shake? You would think that for a Democratic administration, raising the threshold back to where it once was would be a no-brainer….
However, Hanauer notes, with evident dismay, that the Obama administration seems to once again be going wobbly, to say the least. Administration officials “are likely to raise the threshold only partly,” he wrote, “ and the Obama administration has not yet grappled with the broader question of how moves such as this are critical to helping to restore America’s middle class.” And he’s not just guessing. He’s been in contact with those on the inside:
It is my sense, based on my conversations with government officials, that the administration is buying the line from corporate lobbyists who are arguing that such rule changes would devastate their bottom lines, forcing them to lay off workers. You know, the old trickle-down gambit—if workers earn more money, it would be bad for business, the economy and workers. The Obama team, in other words, is buying into the same discredited theories that were used to erode the threshold in the first place. Officials will very likely raise the overtime threshold just enough to say they’re doing something, without actually doing much of anything for the middle class or our demand-starved economy at all.
This is the sad truth about Obama’s economic policy—it’s still stuck in Ronald Reagan’s first term, when trickle-down was still a wild, untested theory, rather than one that had been thoroughly discredited by 30+ years of evidence, showing that supply-side economics is inferior in producing investment growth, productivity growth, GDP growth,faster job creation, growth in median income or wages while also causing the national debt to increase substantially. Obama doesn’t just say nice things about Ronald Reagan from time to time, he thinks like Ronald Reagan, deep down in his bones, and—like Reagan—no amount of pesky facts are going to change his mind. But groundswells of public pressure got Reagan to change his tune several times—in making Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday a national holiday, for example. So a similar groundswell of pressure on Obama to restore overtime protections to what they were in 1975 sure couldn’t hurt—and it could even help shape the direction of the next presidency, provided that the Democrats win, as now still seems overwhelmingly likely.
The opportunity that Obama and the Democrats have is clear, as Hanauer wrote for the Hill:
Just think about it: With the stroke of his pen, President Obama could force your employer to pay you time-and-a-half for every hour you work over 40 hours a week. And if corporate America didn’t want to pay you time-and-a-half, they would need to hire hundreds of thousands of additional workers to pick up the slack—slashing the unemployment rate and forcing up wages. That’s 10.4 million middle-class Americans with more money in your pocket or more time to spend with your friends and family.
That’s money that would not just make those workers better off, it’s money that would fuel the rest of the economy as well, in sharp contrast to money in the hands of the 1 percent or higher, who spend far less of what they earn, and invest far more in speculative ventures, rather than solid productive enterprises. That’s how the basic logic of Keynesian economics works, and despite decades of propaganda to the contrary—much of it coming from economists who should know better—that’s exactly what America’s economic history confirms. Doing what Hanauer advises—and firing the supply-siders in his own administration—would be the smartest thing President Obama could do right now, to ensure that the economy keeps on growing, regardless of what congressional Republicans try to do in the next two years.
One final thought. In her report, the source of the 6.1 million figure mentioned above, Heidi Shierholz summarizes her main findings as follows:
6.1 million workers would be newly covered by an increase in the salary threshold from $455 per week to $984 per week.
The newly covered workers would be those at the low end of the salary scale who have limited individual bargaining power and would therefore benefit from the overtime protections of the FLSA.
The increase would disproportionately help women, blacks, Hispanics, workers under age 35, and workers with lower levels of education because these workers are more likely than other subgroups to have lower salaries that put them below the proposed new threshold
It’s not really a surprise that the proposed changes would have such an effect. It’s no surprise, since those left behind by the erosion of protections in place 40 years ago are disproportionally female, black, Hispanic, young and less educated. These are precisely the groups who were largely excluded from the salaried job marketplace “When Affirmative Action Was White,” as the the title of Ira Katznelson’s book puts it. And they are precisely the groups who have formed Obama’s electoral base. Older white males—the conservative beneficiaries of America’s welfare state in its most robust form—will no doubt scream bloody murder when this is pointed out to them, by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or some other blowhard, who of course “doesn’t see race” anywhere. And that should be the surest sign of all to Obama that it’s exactly the right thing for him to do.
“So what’s changed since the 1960s and ’70s?” progressive billionare venture capitalistNick Hanauer asked in Politico back in November. “Overtime pay, in part,” he answered: “Your parents got a lot of it, and you don’t. And it turns out that fair overtime standards are to the middle class what the minimum wage is to low-income workers: not everything, but an indispensable labor protection that is absolutely essential to creating a broad and thriving middle class.”
Although the details are a bit complicated, the bottom line is not: there’s a wage level below which everyone qualifies for mandatory time-and-a-half overtime, even if they’re on a salary, and that level has only been raised once since 1975, with the result that only 11 percent of salaried Americans are covered today, compared to over 65 percent of them in 1975. If you make less than $23,660 a year as a salaried worker, you qualify for mandatory overtime—if not, you’re out of luck. Only those hanging on to the lowest levels of the middle class have those protections anymore. Just adjusting the wage level for inflation since 1975—an act of restoration, not revolution—would be as significant an income increase for millions of middle-class Americans as a $10.10 or even $15 minimum wage is for low-wage workers. It would cover an additional 6.1 million salaried workers (by one account) up to $970 per week, about $50,440 annually—the vast majority of those it was originally designed to protect, but who have slowly lost their protections since the 1970s. Hanauer proposes a slightly greater increase, intended to cover roughly all the workforce that was covered in 1975. That would raise the threshold to $69,000 annually, and would cover an added 10.4 million workers.
________________________________
________________________________
“Salaried Americans now report working an average of 47 hours a week—18 percent report working more than 60 hours per week,” Hanauer wrote in a follow-up piece for the Hill in December. “If it feels like you’re working more hours for less money than your parents did a generation ago, it’s probably because you are.” But the solution, as indicated, is simple and the best part is that Congress has absolutely no say in the matter. It’s purely an executive branch decision whether to raise the eligibility level.
Oh, sure, conservatives are bound to yell, “Socialism!” But the original rationale behind the overtime regulations—enshrined in the Fair Labor Standards Act during the Great Depression, along with the minimum wage—comes right out of Adam Smith. Here’s a description from a March 2014 report on the subject from the Economic Policy Institute by Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein:
The fundamental idea behind overtime coverage, and the minimum wage, is to maintain a basic norm within our labor market. Under certain market conditions, for example when unemployment is high or workers hold especially low levels of bargaining power, employers might be able to require employees to labor long hours without receiving additional compensation. This was, in fact, the case prior to the passage of the FLSA. Congress decided that this was a market failure based on the asymmetrical bargaining positions of affected workers and employers, and thus enacted the OT rules to create a financial disincentive to subject employees to excessive work hours.
And here’s Adam Smith on precisely that same sort of power imbalance and market failure:
In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
As for how that translates into policy, Smith was equally blunt:
Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.
And this is exactly how the history of overtime pay regulations has worked out, in large part simply by doing nothing, and allowing inflation to erode away all the protections for tens of millions of Americans.
The fact that Adam Smith would be sympathetic is not the only sign that the logic involved ought to appeal to honest, principled conservatives, if any such unicorns actually existed. First, as already indicated, one purpose of the law is to shape social norms—a purpose that conservatives have repeatedly endorsed in a wide array of policy areas. Laws cannot make people good, they may say, but they can express society’s approval and disapproval, they can encourage and support virtuous behavior, and that behavior itself can, in turn, change people’s hearts over time. In the meantime, vice should not be rewarded.
OK, fair enough, you might say. But why would conservatives see overtime pay as good? Because of family values, of course, as Heidi Shierholz noted in an August 2014 EPI report, “Increasing the Overtime Salary Threshold Is Family-Friendly Policy”:
To ensure the basic, family-friendly right to a limited workweek, the Fair Labor Standards Act requires that workers covered by FLSA overtime provisions must be paid at least “time-and-a-half,” or 1.5 times their regular pay rate, for each hour of work per week beyond 40 hours.
Supporting strong families is a social good, which benefits from limiting the work week. If parents are asked to sacrifice family time, they should be paid extra for it. And the need today is greater than ever before, as Bernstein and Eisenbrey noted:
Preserving this right is just as important today as it was 75 years ago, and, when it comes to child-rearing, might be even more important. Between 1968 and 2008, the share of children living in households in which all parents work full time doubled from 24.6 percent to 48.3 percent.
Of course, I don’t expect any movement conservative activists, media figures or politicians to make such an argument—or any other argument in favor of higher wages for ordinary Americans. But it does square rather well with what they at least once pretended to believe, and what legions of their sometimes followers still believe, which is part of why it would be very popular for Obama to expand the scope of overtime coverage—which, again, he doesn’t need anyone else to sign off on.
The rationale for bold action from Obama is clear, as Hanauer noted back in mid-November:
Since the Republican Party’s takeover of both houses of Congress in the midterm elections, all the talk in Washington has been about what won’t get done because of gridlock between the White House and Capitol Hill. And Obama has talked of moving things forward by making unilateral changes to immigration law and climate protections.
But what about the most basic need of all—jump-starting the real economy by giving more middle-class Americans a fair shake? You would think that for a Democratic administration, raising the threshold back to where it once was would be a no-brainer….
However, Hanauer notes, with evident dismay, that the Obama administration seems to once again be going wobbly, to say the least. Administration officials “are likely to raise the threshold only partly,” he wrote, “ and the Obama administration has not yet grappled with the broader question of how moves such as this are critical to helping to restore America’s middle class.” And he’s not just guessing. He’s been in contact with those on the inside:
It is my sense, based on my conversations with government officials, that the administration is buying the line from corporate lobbyists who are arguing that such rule changes would devastate their bottom lines, forcing them to lay off workers. You know, the old trickle-down gambit—if workers earn more money, it would be bad for business, the economy and workers. The Obama team, in other words, is buying into the same discredited theories that were used to erode the threshold in the first place. Officials will very likely raise the overtime threshold just enough to say they’re doing something, without actually doing much of anything for the middle class or our demand-starved economy at all.
This is the sad truth about Obama’s economic policy—it’s still stuck in Ronald Reagan’s first term, when trickle-down was still a wild, untested theory, rather than one that had been thoroughly discredited by 30+ years of evidence, showing that supply-side economics is inferior in producing investment growth, productivity growth, GDP growth,faster job creation, growth in median income or wages while also causing the national debt to increase substantially. Obama doesn’t just say nice things about Ronald Reagan from time to time, he thinks like Ronald Reagan, deep down in his bones, and—like Reagan—no amount of pesky facts are going to change his mind. But groundswells of public pressure got Reagan to change his tune several times—in making Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday a national holiday, for example. So a similar groundswell of pressure on Obama to restore overtime protections to what they were in 1975 sure couldn’t hurt—and it could even help shape the direction of the next presidency, provided that the Democrats win, as now still seems overwhelmingly likely.
The opportunity that Obama and the Democrats have is clear, as Hanauer wrote for the Hill:
Just think about it: With the stroke of his pen, President Obama could force your employer to pay you time-and-a-half for every hour you work over 40 hours a week. And if corporate America didn’t want to pay you time-and-a-half, they would need to hire hundreds of thousands of additional workers to pick up the slack—slashing the unemployment rate and forcing up wages. That’s 10.4 million middle-class Americans with more money in your pocket or more time to spend with your friends and family.
That’s money that would not just make those workers better off, it’s money that would fuel the rest of the economy as well, in sharp contrast to money in the hands of the 1 percent or higher, who spend far less of what they earn, and invest far more in speculative ventures, rather than solid productive enterprises. That’s how the basic logic of Keynesian economics works, and despite decades of propaganda to the contrary—much of it coming from economists who should know better—that’s exactly what America’s economic history confirms. Doing what Hanauer advises—and firing the supply-siders in his own administration—would be the smartest thing President Obama could do right now, to ensure that the economy keeps on growing, regardless of what congressional Republicans try to do in the next two years.
One final thought. In her report, the source of the 6.1 million figure mentioned above, Heidi Shierholz summarizes her main findings as follows:
6.1 million workers would be newly covered by an increase in the salary threshold from $455 per week to $984 per week.
The newly covered workers would be those at the low end of the salary scale who have limited individual bargaining power and would therefore benefit from the overtime protections of the FLSA.
The increase would disproportionately help women, blacks, Hispanics, workers under age 35, and workers with lower levels of education because these workers are more likely than other subgroups to have lower salaries that put them below the proposed new threshold
It’s not really a surprise that the proposed changes would have such an effect. It’s no surprise, since those left behind by the erosion of protections in place 40 years ago are disproportionally female, black, Hispanic, young and less educated. These are precisely the groups who were largely excluded from the salaried job marketplace “When Affirmative Action Was White,” as the the title of Ira Katznelson’s book puts it. And they are precisely the groups who have formed Obama’s electoral base. Older white males—the conservative beneficiaries of America’s welfare state in its most robust form—will no doubt scream bloody murder when this is pointed out to them, by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or some other blowhard, who of course “doesn’t see race” anywhere. And that should be the surest sign of all to Obama that it’s exactly the right thing for him to do.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
JOURNAL: I AM NOT ENOUGH....
When you have low self-esteem, when you follow the path of your choices and actions and your thinking and beliefs behind it and get right down to the starting point, it likely says ‘I don’t believe I’m good enough’.
In feeling this way, you just can’t believe that you’re a person of value, that you’re worthy of a better relationship, that you deserve to have your boundaries respected or to be able to vocalise your concerns or opinions.
When you don’t have good self-esteem it’s because in having conditional love for yourself, you try to get people (and sometimes objects and substances) to create feelings in you that you don’t feel yourself. You make external sources the solution to your internal problems, after all, if you don’t like and love you, why would you believe that you could entrust yourself with the responsibility of you?
If the only thing you’ve ever known is to not feel good enough, it’s hard to imagine even an entire day where you can genuinely like and love you. You’d be subconsciously waiting for the other shoe to drop.
You’re seeing other people’s actions (or lack there of) and your experiences as being directly linked to your worth.
Low self-esteem is like a special language and in your mental translation book, when you look up what certain things mean, you keep getting back the same meaning:
Not interested in me = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Won’t leave their partner = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Won’t change into the person I want = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Wants to do things differently to me = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Won’t develop empathy = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Does something that annoys me (and possibly others) = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Relationship didn’t work out = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Can only get it up to porn = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Has different values = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
You get the idea.
And maybe that’s the crux of the matter: When you have low self-esteem, you see your experiences and the world around you as an extension of how you feel about you.People do what they do, not because they’re independent individual entities, but because of something in you that brings about their actions and thinking, and life happens, shit happens even, not because there are a gazillion other reasons or factors that could have brought it about, but because of something in you.
I’m fundamentally the same person and while I have good self-esteem, I still have to actively work on managing the little boy within me
In feeling this way, you just can’t believe that you’re a person of value, that you’re worthy of a better relationship, that you deserve to have your boundaries respected or to be able to vocalise your concerns or opinions.
When you don’t have good self-esteem it’s because in having conditional love for yourself, you try to get people (and sometimes objects and substances) to create feelings in you that you don’t feel yourself. You make external sources the solution to your internal problems, after all, if you don’t like and love you, why would you believe that you could entrust yourself with the responsibility of you?
If the only thing you’ve ever known is to not feel good enough, it’s hard to imagine even an entire day where you can genuinely like and love you. You’d be subconsciously waiting for the other shoe to drop.
You’re seeing other people’s actions (or lack there of) and your experiences as being directly linked to your worth.
Low self-esteem is like a special language and in your mental translation book, when you look up what certain things mean, you keep getting back the same meaning:
Not interested in me = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Won’t leave their partner = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Won’t change into the person I want = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Wants to do things differently to me = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Won’t develop empathy = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Does something that annoys me (and possibly others) = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Relationship didn’t work out = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Can only get it up to porn = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
Has different values = Something wrong with me = I’m not good enough
You get the idea.
And maybe that’s the crux of the matter: When you have low self-esteem, you see your experiences and the world around you as an extension of how you feel about you.People do what they do, not because they’re independent individual entities, but because of something in you that brings about their actions and thinking, and life happens, shit happens even, not because there are a gazillion other reasons or factors that could have brought it about, but because of something in you.
I’m fundamentally the same person and while I have good self-esteem, I still have to actively work on managing the little boy within me
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
PERSONAL: LET'S BE EACH OTHER CHRISTMAS' S GIFT
To the one who is meant for me:
I have no idea what you look like. I have no idea if you’re a blonde or a brunette, tall or short, have blue eyes or brown, or if you’re Catholic or Jewish. As of right now, I know nothing about you other than the fact you’re going to make me the happiest man in the world. I just haven’t met you yet.
I could have already seen you, but right now I would have no idea it’s you. I could see you every week or bump into you around town every now and then and I still would have no idea that it’s you. If I have seen you, seeing you how I do now compared to seeing you when I realize that you’re the one will be like two completely separate images. When the day comes that I truly see you, it will change my life. Even if we know each other now, I don’t know you as the woman I’m going to spend the rest of my life with. So, in that regard, I just haven’t met you yet.
You could be the blonde-haired, bright-eyed beauty that always seem to catch my eye. You could be the dark-haired, brown-eyed girl that I always seem to actually date. For all I know, you could have red hair, with freckles all along your body, and I wouldn’t know any different right now. I just haven’t met you yet.
You could be on the taller side, so that when I’m looking straight ahead at you, I see you staring back at me. You could be on the shorter side, so that when you go to kiss me you have to rise up on your toes, ever so slightly. I just haven’t met you yet. You could be the uber-athletic kind of chick that shares the same competitive fire I have. You could also be the most uncoordinated human being I’ve ever seen, but you will look so cute trying. I just haven’t met you yet. But for all of the things I don’t know about you right now, which are a lot, there are plenty of things that I already do know about you — even if I have never laid eyes on you in my life; even if I haven’t met you yet.
You love to cuddle. Whether it’s because it helps you fall asleep, or because you’re cold, or because you just like being in my arms. You’ll probably like sleeping on the left side of the bed, too, and you’re definitely going to be a blanket hog. You sing in the car… and in the shower… and to yourself… and especially whenever you think I’m not around. And I love it. You may be embarrassed by it, whether you’re talented or tone-deaf, or you may own it, whether you’re talented or tone-deaf, but I think you’re adorable, regardless.
You love a good night in. Not because we’re “boring,” or because we’re part of “that generation,” but because you understand that a night in — whatever that entails — is much more common (and often better) than a lavish night out. We enjoy each other’s company, so if we want to de-stress and unwind together, we do it. You love to dance. Whether it’s enjoying a slow dance whenever the mood strikes you, or if it’s attempting to flail your body in the form of something that looks like dance moves (i.e. Exactly what I do on the dance floor), you love to dance — whatever that definition may be.
My family will adore you. I don’t bring many girls around my family — partially because there haven’t many situations serious enough to bring them around, and partially because of my fear that they will scare the hell out of them — but I will want you to meet them; they will want to meet you; and they will love you just as much as I do.
You will be an incredible mother. And we will be incredible parents. Whether our child(ren) sleep(s) through the night or goes through three-hour napping intervals, we will be each other’s teammates to get through it. We will worry on the first day of school; we will cheer on the sidelines at sporting events; we will study with them; we will watch them grow and give them a better life than we had, even if the ones we had were pretty good.
You will never have me questioning my love for you. Even if I still have the shortness of breath and excitement in me whenever I see you, I will never wonder what you’re thinking about because you know you can — and do — talk to me. I will never have to worry about you meeting someone else because I know you’ll want only me. You will never have to worry about me meeting someone else because you’ll know I only want you.
I may not have met you yet, but I know an awful lot about you. I know you’re out there and I know I’ll love you. I don’t know when I’m going to meet you, but I know it will be worth the wait. If it’s tomorrow, I would have waited so long, and you’d be worth every hour of the wait; if I don’t meet you until years from now, I will continue to go through every day waiting for it to be the one when I meet you.
I am the worst person at waiting for things, especially things that I’m looking forward to; time always seems to pass like each grain of sand is moseying through the funnel of an hourglass. When I was a kid, I couldn’t sleep on Christmas Eve because every second felt like an hour and it never felt like the sun would actually rise and that it would be Christmas Day. But I’ve gotten through many Christmas Eves and I’ve experienced many Christmas Days.I know you’re out there; I know you’re worth the wait; and I know that you’re probably looking for me to. I know I love you, I just haven’t met you yet
Seeing as how I don’t know who you are yet still plan to make you my wife, I thought I’d give you a heads up and list some of my wants and desires. Some of these are literal while others are merely products of wishing I knew who (and where) you are.
I want our meeting to come from the story books and lovers’ films—your smile melting my world and holding my breath hostage. That day will be the day my life can begin.
I want to hold your hand softly and squeeze it ever so slightly as we walk among the falling leaves, our common infatuation growing with each step we take.
I want my heart to be filled for you—each moment I share with you being a moment I could never live without. Those moments will be the ones we smile and reminisce over when we’re old and gray.
I want to show you that a man can treat you the way you deserve, lifting and supporting you in reverence and respect as you should’ve been your entire life.
I want to surprise you by bending to one knee in the fresh snow; my hands lightly grasping a shining diamond perfectly fitted for your lovely little finger. And while the words may falter and catch in my throat, you’ll see the look in my eyes that tells you I want you to be mine forever.
I want to write you the loveliest vows, hold your hand and kiss your lips as the minister blesses our union. That day will be the day my life forever gains a purpose.
I want to gently wake you up on Saturday mornings and make love to you as the sun’s rays try their best to sneak into our bedroom. We won’t be bothered with notions of disturbance but rather become lost within our pleasure, within our satisfactions, within our love.
I want us to be equals and partners, leaning against one another when times are rough and making decisions as one instead of one reigning over the other. In life, in love we will be side by side.
I want to disappear with you into a foreign land once a year, our taste for adventure and roaming the globe satisfied within the company of each other as we experience new cultures together.
I want to cook for you when you’ve had to work late and are worn to the bone. We’ll sit in the soft light and I’ll listen as you share the frustrations of your day with me.
I want to watch over when you when you get sick, preparing your medicines and massaging away your aches and pains.
I want to show you off to all my friends and have them grow green with envy as they realize they’ll never have a woman like mine. With you on my arm, I could never lose.
I want to ravish you on a warm spring night, our fevered looks and flirting touches no longer able to restrain our deep desire for one another. On these nights, our sweat will mingle and our breaths will quicken but in each other, we will have found the fleeting beauty of love.
I want to be the father you’ve always dreamed of for our children—strong and firm yet smiling, loving and accepting.
I want look at you after many years of marriage and still know that you’re all I’ll ever want or need and that you and you alone, fulfill me in all the ways a wife can satisfy a husband.
I want to grow old with you, our skin softening and our eyes fading. We’ll hold hands and take that same leave laced walk we took in the beginning, our hands still clasped together, the love between us as vital as ever.
I want to love you a day past forever. When our existence has expired and we are but a memory to the children and grandchildren we’ve left behind, I’ll still love you.
I want you—and I want you for forever.
I have no idea what you look like. I have no idea if you’re a blonde or a brunette, tall or short, have blue eyes or brown, or if you’re Catholic or Jewish. As of right now, I know nothing about you other than the fact you’re going to make me the happiest man in the world. I just haven’t met you yet.
I could have already seen you, but right now I would have no idea it’s you. I could see you every week or bump into you around town every now and then and I still would have no idea that it’s you. If I have seen you, seeing you how I do now compared to seeing you when I realize that you’re the one will be like two completely separate images. When the day comes that I truly see you, it will change my life. Even if we know each other now, I don’t know you as the woman I’m going to spend the rest of my life with. So, in that regard, I just haven’t met you yet.
You could be the blonde-haired, bright-eyed beauty that always seem to catch my eye. You could be the dark-haired, brown-eyed girl that I always seem to actually date. For all I know, you could have red hair, with freckles all along your body, and I wouldn’t know any different right now. I just haven’t met you yet.
You could be on the taller side, so that when I’m looking straight ahead at you, I see you staring back at me. You could be on the shorter side, so that when you go to kiss me you have to rise up on your toes, ever so slightly. I just haven’t met you yet. You could be the uber-athletic kind of chick that shares the same competitive fire I have. You could also be the most uncoordinated human being I’ve ever seen, but you will look so cute trying. I just haven’t met you yet. But for all of the things I don’t know about you right now, which are a lot, there are plenty of things that I already do know about you — even if I have never laid eyes on you in my life; even if I haven’t met you yet.
You love to cuddle. Whether it’s because it helps you fall asleep, or because you’re cold, or because you just like being in my arms. You’ll probably like sleeping on the left side of the bed, too, and you’re definitely going to be a blanket hog. You sing in the car… and in the shower… and to yourself… and especially whenever you think I’m not around. And I love it. You may be embarrassed by it, whether you’re talented or tone-deaf, or you may own it, whether you’re talented or tone-deaf, but I think you’re adorable, regardless.
You love a good night in. Not because we’re “boring,” or because we’re part of “that generation,” but because you understand that a night in — whatever that entails — is much more common (and often better) than a lavish night out. We enjoy each other’s company, so if we want to de-stress and unwind together, we do it. You love to dance. Whether it’s enjoying a slow dance whenever the mood strikes you, or if it’s attempting to flail your body in the form of something that looks like dance moves (i.e. Exactly what I do on the dance floor), you love to dance — whatever that definition may be.
My family will adore you. I don’t bring many girls around my family — partially because there haven’t many situations serious enough to bring them around, and partially because of my fear that they will scare the hell out of them — but I will want you to meet them; they will want to meet you; and they will love you just as much as I do.
You will be an incredible mother. And we will be incredible parents. Whether our child(ren) sleep(s) through the night or goes through three-hour napping intervals, we will be each other’s teammates to get through it. We will worry on the first day of school; we will cheer on the sidelines at sporting events; we will study with them; we will watch them grow and give them a better life than we had, even if the ones we had were pretty good.
You will never have me questioning my love for you. Even if I still have the shortness of breath and excitement in me whenever I see you, I will never wonder what you’re thinking about because you know you can — and do — talk to me. I will never have to worry about you meeting someone else because I know you’ll want only me. You will never have to worry about me meeting someone else because you’ll know I only want you.
I may not have met you yet, but I know an awful lot about you. I know you’re out there and I know I’ll love you. I don’t know when I’m going to meet you, but I know it will be worth the wait. If it’s tomorrow, I would have waited so long, and you’d be worth every hour of the wait; if I don’t meet you until years from now, I will continue to go through every day waiting for it to be the one when I meet you.
I am the worst person at waiting for things, especially things that I’m looking forward to; time always seems to pass like each grain of sand is moseying through the funnel of an hourglass. When I was a kid, I couldn’t sleep on Christmas Eve because every second felt like an hour and it never felt like the sun would actually rise and that it would be Christmas Day. But I’ve gotten through many Christmas Eves and I’ve experienced many Christmas Days.I know you’re out there; I know you’re worth the wait; and I know that you’re probably looking for me to. I know I love you, I just haven’t met you yet
Seeing as how I don’t know who you are yet still plan to make you my wife, I thought I’d give you a heads up and list some of my wants and desires. Some of these are literal while others are merely products of wishing I knew who (and where) you are.
I want our meeting to come from the story books and lovers’ films—your smile melting my world and holding my breath hostage. That day will be the day my life can begin.
I want to hold your hand softly and squeeze it ever so slightly as we walk among the falling leaves, our common infatuation growing with each step we take.
I want my heart to be filled for you—each moment I share with you being a moment I could never live without. Those moments will be the ones we smile and reminisce over when we’re old and gray.
I want to show you that a man can treat you the way you deserve, lifting and supporting you in reverence and respect as you should’ve been your entire life.
I want to surprise you by bending to one knee in the fresh snow; my hands lightly grasping a shining diamond perfectly fitted for your lovely little finger. And while the words may falter and catch in my throat, you’ll see the look in my eyes that tells you I want you to be mine forever.
I want to write you the loveliest vows, hold your hand and kiss your lips as the minister blesses our union. That day will be the day my life forever gains a purpose.
I want to gently wake you up on Saturday mornings and make love to you as the sun’s rays try their best to sneak into our bedroom. We won’t be bothered with notions of disturbance but rather become lost within our pleasure, within our satisfactions, within our love.
I want us to be equals and partners, leaning against one another when times are rough and making decisions as one instead of one reigning over the other. In life, in love we will be side by side.
I want to disappear with you into a foreign land once a year, our taste for adventure and roaming the globe satisfied within the company of each other as we experience new cultures together.
I want to cook for you when you’ve had to work late and are worn to the bone. We’ll sit in the soft light and I’ll listen as you share the frustrations of your day with me.
I want to watch over when you when you get sick, preparing your medicines and massaging away your aches and pains.
I want to show you off to all my friends and have them grow green with envy as they realize they’ll never have a woman like mine. With you on my arm, I could never lose.
I want to ravish you on a warm spring night, our fevered looks and flirting touches no longer able to restrain our deep desire for one another. On these nights, our sweat will mingle and our breaths will quicken but in each other, we will have found the fleeting beauty of love.
I want to be the father you’ve always dreamed of for our children—strong and firm yet smiling, loving and accepting.
I want look at you after many years of marriage and still know that you’re all I’ll ever want or need and that you and you alone, fulfill me in all the ways a wife can satisfy a husband.
I want to grow old with you, our skin softening and our eyes fading. We’ll hold hands and take that same leave laced walk we took in the beginning, our hands still clasped together, the love between us as vital as ever.
I want to love you a day past forever. When our existence has expired and we are but a memory to the children and grandchildren we’ve left behind, I’ll still love you.
I want you—and I want you for forever.
THOUGHTS: OUR SOULS ARE CONNECTED
As I look back on my life, I began to see my life as some kind of play or movie. Of course, I thought of myself as the central character but I also decided which other people would be main characters right now. I looked at supporting characters, which right now would be extended family, People who were once a big part of my life but now aren’t or those people who I have never met in person but either inspired or horrified me by the things they did or said. I thought of how certain musicians, authors and historical figures have had a huge impact on my thoughts, beliefs and values. As I kept thinking, I almost felt like the idea was getting too big for my head to hold. The sheer number of lives that have touched mine is amazing. I know I have impacted many of them as well – both for good and bad (but hopefully more good than bad). I even thought about how many people I may have greatly influenced without even realizing it.
So here I would like to take a moment to say thank you to EVERYONE who has had a part in my life. You have helped make me who I am and as imperfect as I still am, I like the person I’m growing into. I miss many of you who I don’t see or speak to regularly anymore. Never think I quit loving or caring about you. Some of you I hope to grow to know better, because I feel that there is something in my soul that recognizes something in yours. Some I have walked away from intentionally, but that doesn’t mean our relationship wasn’t important to me, just that for one reason or another I needed to grow elsewhere for a while. In the end, I like to think that even over distance and time, our memories and souls keep us connected.
So here I would like to take a moment to say thank you to EVERYONE who has had a part in my life. You have helped make me who I am and as imperfect as I still am, I like the person I’m growing into. I miss many of you who I don’t see or speak to regularly anymore. Never think I quit loving or caring about you. Some of you I hope to grow to know better, because I feel that there is something in my soul that recognizes something in yours. Some I have walked away from intentionally, but that doesn’t mean our relationship wasn’t important to me, just that for one reason or another I needed to grow elsewhere for a while. In the end, I like to think that even over distance and time, our memories and souls keep us connected.
LOVE; LET ME KISS YOU
What was a kiss, really? At that moment, there was nothing else I would rather have been doing. A kiss was more than just brushing lips with another. I hadn't accounted for the way she filled my personal space, bringing a feeling of intimacy from the utter rarity that I would let anyone so close, and not just to my mouth. We weren't touching, but I could feel her as an almost tangible presence from my shoulders all the way down to my shins. I hadn't expected that I would feel her warm breath sliding gently across my skin, that in breathing we would be sharing our air.
My lips became suddenly sensitized. They didn't respond in any remarkable way when I ate, drank, brushed my teeth, but now, now they felt the kiss before it even came. Actual contact was just that much more. They were just lips, but I became acutely aware of the person behind them. We no longer shared breath, but everything we had between us, powerful enough that it left no room for air. Our parted mouths lingered in quiet, innocent communion before her puckered closed, bringing mine with his to the accompaniment of a soft, moist sound that struck some deep, instinctive chord within me. Cool, empty air once again intruded between us. My lips parted again immediately thereafter as if to rewind, the abandonment creating a sudden vacuum I was pulled forth to fill, but alas, my kiss had technically come to an end.
It didn't feel like it. As bereft as I felt with the loss of her lips against mine, I still felt her. Though that decreased the sensation, it took its sweet time in fading away completely. It was like a string stretching between us, growing thinner as the distance grew until it finally lost its cohesive tension despite all its efforts.
My timesense told me only a few seconds had passed. How was that possible? There was a lot more to this whole kissing thing than I'd thought if it had even the power of time dilation. I'd already been proven wrong in finding that it was more than just a brushing of lips; it was a full body affair.
My lips became suddenly sensitized. They didn't respond in any remarkable way when I ate, drank, brushed my teeth, but now, now they felt the kiss before it even came. Actual contact was just that much more. They were just lips, but I became acutely aware of the person behind them. We no longer shared breath, but everything we had between us, powerful enough that it left no room for air. Our parted mouths lingered in quiet, innocent communion before her puckered closed, bringing mine with his to the accompaniment of a soft, moist sound that struck some deep, instinctive chord within me. Cool, empty air once again intruded between us. My lips parted again immediately thereafter as if to rewind, the abandonment creating a sudden vacuum I was pulled forth to fill, but alas, my kiss had technically come to an end.
It didn't feel like it. As bereft as I felt with the loss of her lips against mine, I still felt her. Though that decreased the sensation, it took its sweet time in fading away completely. It was like a string stretching between us, growing thinner as the distance grew until it finally lost its cohesive tension despite all its efforts.
My timesense told me only a few seconds had passed. How was that possible? There was a lot more to this whole kissing thing than I'd thought if it had even the power of time dilation. I'd already been proven wrong in finding that it was more than just a brushing of lips; it was a full body affair.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)