I want to address this article later: Genetic Difference Found in Wild vs. Tame Animals
It's fascinating, and I don't want to forget about it.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Monday, June 08, 2009
Oh, Evolution, what will we do with you?
Here's what I don't understand:
If we can witness adaptation and change in species over time, why is that not proof of evolution?
I mean, I understand that evolution means more than adaptation and change of a species, it means the rise of a new species from an old one, off-shooting successfully. But don't we have proof of this everywhere through genetics? We can see the relationships of all these animals to one another, how closely they're related, how closely the genetic code of all mammals are related. The individual mutated genes that cause the differences in two species. How is this not adequate scientific proof to support Evolution indisputably as a process which caused the diversification of life in the past, and continues to cause it in the present and future?
Is it simply that none of us were present at the beginning of time to witness the first single celled organism divide into two different single celled organisms? Is that what's holding us up? I'm just not sure I understand what the controversy is here. It only makes sense that adaptation of populations in different environments would produce different species of the same animal over time. We can SEE that in modern populations. As far as I'm concerned, evolution is proved by the selective breeding we engage in with domestic animals.
It isn't that I don't recognize the religious implications of Evolution. I distinctly remember sitting in my confirmation class in my small town church when someone asked our priest the question of what the church thought/what we were supposed to believe. And I remember our priest saying "Look, as long as you believe that God made the world, then that's all that matters." It isn't about the how specifically. It isn't about the step by step, day by day account. It's about the act of creation. I don't see how THAT can conflict with the theory of Evolution--maybe the big bang theory, although that too could be considered God's Hand, but not Evolution. Evolution explains the diversification of life, it doesn't dispute or disprove God.
So. What's the problem?
I wish I had a science council in my pocket that I could pull out and ask these questions to. Quick Reference Body of Scientific Intellectuals.
Wouldn't that be nice? Or wait--maybe that's what the Internet is for.
If we can witness adaptation and change in species over time, why is that not proof of evolution?
I mean, I understand that evolution means more than adaptation and change of a species, it means the rise of a new species from an old one, off-shooting successfully. But don't we have proof of this everywhere through genetics? We can see the relationships of all these animals to one another, how closely they're related, how closely the genetic code of all mammals are related. The individual mutated genes that cause the differences in two species. How is this not adequate scientific proof to support Evolution indisputably as a process which caused the diversification of life in the past, and continues to cause it in the present and future?
Is it simply that none of us were present at the beginning of time to witness the first single celled organism divide into two different single celled organisms? Is that what's holding us up? I'm just not sure I understand what the controversy is here. It only makes sense that adaptation of populations in different environments would produce different species of the same animal over time. We can SEE that in modern populations. As far as I'm concerned, evolution is proved by the selective breeding we engage in with domestic animals.
It isn't that I don't recognize the religious implications of Evolution. I distinctly remember sitting in my confirmation class in my small town church when someone asked our priest the question of what the church thought/what we were supposed to believe. And I remember our priest saying "Look, as long as you believe that God made the world, then that's all that matters." It isn't about the how specifically. It isn't about the step by step, day by day account. It's about the act of creation. I don't see how THAT can conflict with the theory of Evolution--maybe the big bang theory, although that too could be considered God's Hand, but not Evolution. Evolution explains the diversification of life, it doesn't dispute or disprove God.
So. What's the problem?
I wish I had a science council in my pocket that I could pull out and ask these questions to. Quick Reference Body of Scientific Intellectuals.
Wouldn't that be nice? Or wait--maybe that's what the Internet is for.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Multiverse as Religious Urge?
I'm just not sure what do with this article: What if there is only one Universe?
I mean, okay, I understand, to an extent, what this guy is saying. He's saying since we can't see or observe these other potential universes, we should be focusing on the one we can, and forget all this hypothetical guesswork about how things work outside of the physical world which we're operating under.
Or at least, I think that's what he's saying.
He also says, "This, I would claim, should be enough; anything beyond that is more a religious urge for transcendence than science."
And that's where I'm going to stop and just...
Whoa.
That seems almost... anti-science. Anti-human!
I mean, sure we can focus on the world we live in, and for that matter, with that same logic, maybe we should be focusing just on earth, and say the heck with space and the rest of the galaxy. Except that someone, somewhere, said hey-- see those points of light? What if I could see them better? But yeah, those points of light really don't have any affect on us. They really don't impinge on our "universe" so why should we bother looking more closely at them? Why did we send a couple of robots to Mars to see what's there? Who cares what's on another planet that we can't even see with our naked eyes outside of a shiny spot that's pretty much indistinguishable from a star?
But here's where I think he's got it wrong, continuing along with the same metaphor: We can choose not to look at the stars, but that doesn't mean the stars don't exist. And why is looking at the idea of other universes religious transcendence, but looking outside ourselves at the stars isn't?
Since when has science ever championed ignorance? And why does science have to choose as a whole to focus only on the one universe which we can see and feel and touch and comprehend? Why shouldn't people keep probing and looking and coming up with theories, and building bigger telescopes to see farther and better than we ever have before? What does it hurt, scientifically, to explore ALL these options? Because it means we have to relabel some laws? Categorize things as "True within our known universe" vs. "True for all possible universes"? Is that too much work? I mean, I'm totally baffled here. Why is this an issue?
So. What if there is only one universe? Then some people in science are going to look kind of silly. But, so did a lot of people who thought the world was flat. And the people who thought the Earth was the center of the galaxy. So what? How does it hurt us? What if there ISN'T only one Universe? What if Time IS variable? Should we ignore the possibility for convenience?
This guy's argument-- or at least that last line-- seems kind of specious at best. But I'm not a scientist, I guess. Certainly I'm no physicist. My realm is definitely the biological and behavioral, as opposed to the math based sciences. But it seems to me that the best decision science can make is to explore both options until one or the other is disproved. I kind of thought that's what the whole point of science was. Isn't that part of the scientific method? Create a null-hypothesis (the opposite of what you want to show is true) and prove it false?
In the interest of being overly dramatic:
I can't see Gravity.
Maybe I'll decide to ignore that next.
I mean, okay, I understand, to an extent, what this guy is saying. He's saying since we can't see or observe these other potential universes, we should be focusing on the one we can, and forget all this hypothetical guesswork about how things work outside of the physical world which we're operating under.
Or at least, I think that's what he's saying.
He also says, "This, I would claim, should be enough; anything beyond that is more a religious urge for transcendence than science."
And that's where I'm going to stop and just...
Whoa.
That seems almost... anti-science. Anti-human!
I mean, sure we can focus on the world we live in, and for that matter, with that same logic, maybe we should be focusing just on earth, and say the heck with space and the rest of the galaxy. Except that someone, somewhere, said hey-- see those points of light? What if I could see them better? But yeah, those points of light really don't have any affect on us. They really don't impinge on our "universe" so why should we bother looking more closely at them? Why did we send a couple of robots to Mars to see what's there? Who cares what's on another planet that we can't even see with our naked eyes outside of a shiny spot that's pretty much indistinguishable from a star?
But here's where I think he's got it wrong, continuing along with the same metaphor: We can choose not to look at the stars, but that doesn't mean the stars don't exist. And why is looking at the idea of other universes religious transcendence, but looking outside ourselves at the stars isn't?
Since when has science ever championed ignorance? And why does science have to choose as a whole to focus only on the one universe which we can see and feel and touch and comprehend? Why shouldn't people keep probing and looking and coming up with theories, and building bigger telescopes to see farther and better than we ever have before? What does it hurt, scientifically, to explore ALL these options? Because it means we have to relabel some laws? Categorize things as "True within our known universe" vs. "True for all possible universes"? Is that too much work? I mean, I'm totally baffled here. Why is this an issue?
So. What if there is only one universe? Then some people in science are going to look kind of silly. But, so did a lot of people who thought the world was flat. And the people who thought the Earth was the center of the galaxy. So what? How does it hurt us? What if there ISN'T only one Universe? What if Time IS variable? Should we ignore the possibility for convenience?
This guy's argument-- or at least that last line-- seems kind of specious at best. But I'm not a scientist, I guess. Certainly I'm no physicist. My realm is definitely the biological and behavioral, as opposed to the math based sciences. But it seems to me that the best decision science can make is to explore both options until one or the other is disproved. I kind of thought that's what the whole point of science was. Isn't that part of the scientific method? Create a null-hypothesis (the opposite of what you want to show is true) and prove it false?
In the interest of being overly dramatic:
I can't see Gravity.
Maybe I'll decide to ignore that next.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
The Mystery of Human Friendship
Huh.
This article attracted my attention today: Be your best friend if you'll be mine: Alliance Hypothesis for Human Friendship
Basically, it says that the mutual altruism model doesn't explain human behavior at all, when it comes to friendships and an Alliance based model makes a lot more sense. They compare it to nations who build alliances with other nations, just in case there's a conflict later (which kind of is a weird comparison, because that's still a human-friendship-relationship, and so it's comparing human friendship to human friendship, but whatever). It says, also, that the most valuable friends are the friends who have fewer other "alliances" or friends, because they can be counted upon more readily to support us in the instance of a conflict, whereas someone with lots of other strong relationships may not be able to support us totally, since their attention and time is divided.
I think that this kind of explains the single vs. married chasm**. Single people seem to have more single friends, and married people seem to be more interested in cultivating "couple" friends. But if this is about alliances, then for a single person, this makes a lot of sense-- you can't count on one half of a married party to ally with you. They always have an obligation to their mate that supersedes you, as a single entity. I would say that the only time this doesn't apply is when a single person is equally good friends with both halves of the couple in question, but traditionally, that doesn't seem to happen all that often. For example, My husband and I have several friends who are single and friends with both of us, but I have a lot more single friends who have no relationship with him at all. That being said, I would say that those single friends who are friends with both of us would divide in a conflict along gender lines, and as strong as those relationships are, they're not equally friends with both of us. The relationships are perhaps just MORE equal than others.
So. There you have it. All that drifting apart that occurs (or we're worried will occur) between single friends and their newly married buddies-- that's completely in line with the model. It's a natural consequence when we look at friendships with an Alliance based model. Mutual Altruism wouldn't really explain that either-- because whether you're married or single, the exchange of friendship services shouldn't really change that much, but Marriage is a swearing of allegiance, causing friends to fall in line as well. Now you're not only obligated in alliance to your friend, but also their spouse, in conflict. But your friend's first obligation will always be to their spouse, even if previously it was to their single friend.
Anyway, all of this is supposition without any real research backing it-- just my limited experience with human relationships and the world. But I think it's fascinating to think about, and even more interesting that this article doesn't touch on the single vs. married conflict, even though it seems kind of obvious to me.
**Disclaimer: By no means do I mean to say that by getting married, a person must eschew their single friends, or that a single person doesn't have married friends, and vice versa. It just seems to me that this is a popular trope of society and popular culture, if perhaps exaggerated. (Is trope the right word there? I'm leaving it anyway, because I feel like it applies.)
This article attracted my attention today: Be your best friend if you'll be mine: Alliance Hypothesis for Human Friendship
Basically, it says that the mutual altruism model doesn't explain human behavior at all, when it comes to friendships and an Alliance based model makes a lot more sense. They compare it to nations who build alliances with other nations, just in case there's a conflict later (which kind of is a weird comparison, because that's still a human-friendship-relationship, and so it's comparing human friendship to human friendship, but whatever). It says, also, that the most valuable friends are the friends who have fewer other "alliances" or friends, because they can be counted upon more readily to support us in the instance of a conflict, whereas someone with lots of other strong relationships may not be able to support us totally, since their attention and time is divided.
I think that this kind of explains the single vs. married chasm**. Single people seem to have more single friends, and married people seem to be more interested in cultivating "couple" friends. But if this is about alliances, then for a single person, this makes a lot of sense-- you can't count on one half of a married party to ally with you. They always have an obligation to their mate that supersedes you, as a single entity. I would say that the only time this doesn't apply is when a single person is equally good friends with both halves of the couple in question, but traditionally, that doesn't seem to happen all that often. For example, My husband and I have several friends who are single and friends with both of us, but I have a lot more single friends who have no relationship with him at all. That being said, I would say that those single friends who are friends with both of us would divide in a conflict along gender lines, and as strong as those relationships are, they're not equally friends with both of us. The relationships are perhaps just MORE equal than others.
So. There you have it. All that drifting apart that occurs (or we're worried will occur) between single friends and their newly married buddies-- that's completely in line with the model. It's a natural consequence when we look at friendships with an Alliance based model. Mutual Altruism wouldn't really explain that either-- because whether you're married or single, the exchange of friendship services shouldn't really change that much, but Marriage is a swearing of allegiance, causing friends to fall in line as well. Now you're not only obligated in alliance to your friend, but also their spouse, in conflict. But your friend's first obligation will always be to their spouse, even if previously it was to their single friend.
Anyway, all of this is supposition without any real research backing it-- just my limited experience with human relationships and the world. But I think it's fascinating to think about, and even more interesting that this article doesn't touch on the single vs. married conflict, even though it seems kind of obvious to me.
**Disclaimer: By no means do I mean to say that by getting married, a person must eschew their single friends, or that a single person doesn't have married friends, and vice versa. It just seems to me that this is a popular trope of society and popular culture, if perhaps exaggerated. (Is trope the right word there? I'm leaving it anyway, because I feel like it applies.)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Character Love
I don't really want to get into the habit of discussing my process on this blog. Or really anything about my projects in any kind of detail. Part of this is paranoia, and part of it is just that I've never really been able to talk about things that have not yet been written without feeling like I was losing some part of that creative spark that drives me.
But, I can't really help myself from saying this much:
I am absolutely head over heels in love with my characters. Every blasted one of them. It doesn't matter if they're my protagonist, or my antagonist. If they're my primary or my secondary, or my tertiary. I love them. I love especially my menfolk. I love slipping into their heads and looking at the world through their eyes. I love following them as they come to revelations about themselves-- little or big. I love my characters, and every step that brings them closer to life.
I love my characters, and it's that love that drives me to write.
But, I can't really help myself from saying this much:
I am absolutely head over heels in love with my characters. Every blasted one of them. It doesn't matter if they're my protagonist, or my antagonist. If they're my primary or my secondary, or my tertiary. I love them. I love especially my menfolk. I love slipping into their heads and looking at the world through their eyes. I love following them as they come to revelations about themselves-- little or big. I love my characters, and every step that brings them closer to life.
I love my characters, and it's that love that drives me to write.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
I'm going to pretend I'm not embarrassed.
I'm a sucker for comic books.
I love the art. I love the story telling. I love the combination of art and story telling. I love that they use art to tell a story just as much as they use dialogue and narration. And I love bulked up superheroes, flawed and perfect. I love that we've taken the richness of classical myth, and recreated it for our modern world in a way that people who would never otherwise pick up a book on the topic can find meaning. The reinvention of myth and even the reinvention of what it means to be a hero. I love it all.
Lately, I've been taken in by the relaunch of Marvel's Thor title. It started innocently enough. I've always been fascinated by mythology (Pantheons, and the cultures that worshipped them were always my favorite part of history classes). I took a class on Norse Mythology in college, in fact. My husband comes from (among other things) a Scandinavian background. It's impossible to ignore the influence of the Scandinavian people, and their heritage when you live in North Dakota for any extended period of time-- but I'm pretty sure my love for Norse Myths, and Thor in particular, came before I fell into that Midwestern (and I say it lovingly) black hole.
The Thor title in its previous incarnation (588 issues? really?) never attracted my attention, though. For one thing, it wasn't until my teens that I cultivated any real independent taste for comic books that wasn't influenced by my older brother, and for another, it's a little bit hard to jump into those titles when they're on issue 500 and counting, and you have no idea what the heck is going on (in my opinion, this is the number one problem with the big titles, today. Superman, Spiderman, X-men, Avengers-- you almost have to know the entire history, as well as read every other title in the universe to have a context for the story in the issue you picked up off the rack, but that's another post altogether). I was, however, totally blown away by Ultimate Thor-- that is, Thor as he appeared within the Ultimates 1 & 2 titles (3 was a catastrophe that I've been trying to repress). The idea of turning Thor into a hippy conservationist using his powers to try to save the planet, ecologically, while boozing it up with his fellow activists was so alarmingly different, so incredibly unique a take, that I couldn't resist. Who can say no to a thundergod smoting a whaling ship with a bolt of lightning? Not only that, but this incarnation of Thor didn't feel at all compelled to speak awkwardly in the third person with outdated language! I was hooked!
So naturally, in my casual stroll through the graphic novels section of the bookstore (way, way, way too much manga, far too few traditional comic books), when I happened across volume one of this new title in trade paperback form back in August, I had to pick it up. Why not, I thought? I had a long train ride ahead of me to go visit my sister, and some reading material was in order. But once I read the first couple of pages, that was it. Marvel had me. Again. Just when I had given up on them because of that horrible Ultimates 3 fiasco. Here was a Thor I could respect! And (more importantly) a story that treated him as more than a musclebound oaf.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware that Norse Mythology itself paints Thor as something much less than the brightest crayon in the box, but let's face it-- the Norse Myths don't really give any of their gods a lot of depth. These are one dimensional characters. Whether that's because we don't have all the stories, or because the people who worshipped these gods didn't need anything more than that, I don't know. Maybe the other aspects of these dieties were so well known they didn't need to be included in the stories. Either way, creative writers shouldn't feel caged by these defining attributes. Taking apart and putting back together mythology in new ways is exactly what Marvel and DC peddle. And they do it, for the most part, incredibly well. Liberties should be taken, especially if the character is meant to stand alone, as the protagonist in a story, rather than a member of the supporting cast.
So, I read on. And finishing volume one, began anticipating volume two. And I waited. and I waited. One issue a month, 6 issues to a respectable sized trade edition, taking into account the fact that no comic book company is capable of delivering issues on time, especially not Marvel, and 10 months later, Volume Two was in my hands.
Now, here is where I get a little bit critical. And this is the whole reason I wanted to write this post and put it up here. Not because I want to advertise to the whole world my love for comic books (it really doesn't do a lot for my professional image, I'm sure), but because this second volume of Thor is the perfect example of a story that could learn a lesson from the writerly adage drilled into me from the first time I sat down in a creative writing class, and I'm sure you've heard it:
Show, don't tell.
Now, one could argue that being a comic book, reliant on art for part of its story telling, they're always SHOWING, and not telling, but I totally disagree, especially in this case. The story is good! Don't get me wrong, but after I read it I sat back and sighed. The execution is flawed. As a writer, and a reader, I wanted so much more. And not in the "yes! I want to keep reading!" way, but in the "Wow, why didn't they SHOW me that, instead of just telling me?" way. This book was full of missed opportunities for great moments! Everything was there for the moments to happen-- but then at the last minute, it seemed like the writer decided to take the easy way out. Instead of showing me the gods floundering about awkwardly in this new situation they've found themselves in, I have the characters just telling me. Over and Over again. Instead of letting me deduce the manipulations and mayhem Loki is engaging in, it's all spelled out for me. The reveals are too obvious, and the manipulations less than subtle. They could have done SO MUCH MORE with this story arc, with these issues, but they didn't.
Now, I'm not unsucked in. I'm absolutely going to be waiting with anticipation for volume 3 (and four, and five, and...) but I'm definitely hoping that in the next set of issues I have a little bit less telling going on. Show me the stuff that's happening, and let me draw conclusions myself.
Maybe I'm a little bit too hard on it-- in their defense, when a person has to wait 2 months for the next issue, they probably don't really remember everything in detail from the last one, so maybe they have to be more obvious so that you can follow the arc. But at the same time, I feel like that's a weak excuse, because if you do your job right as a writer, the reader is going to remember! Especially if they're used to the system.
So.
this is a really long post.
But I think that's okay, since I'm pretty sure I'm the only person reading at the moment.
I love the art. I love the story telling. I love the combination of art and story telling. I love that they use art to tell a story just as much as they use dialogue and narration. And I love bulked up superheroes, flawed and perfect. I love that we've taken the richness of classical myth, and recreated it for our modern world in a way that people who would never otherwise pick up a book on the topic can find meaning. The reinvention of myth and even the reinvention of what it means to be a hero. I love it all.
Lately, I've been taken in by the relaunch of Marvel's Thor title. It started innocently enough. I've always been fascinated by mythology (Pantheons, and the cultures that worshipped them were always my favorite part of history classes). I took a class on Norse Mythology in college, in fact. My husband comes from (among other things) a Scandinavian background. It's impossible to ignore the influence of the Scandinavian people, and their heritage when you live in North Dakota for any extended period of time-- but I'm pretty sure my love for Norse Myths, and Thor in particular, came before I fell into that Midwestern (and I say it lovingly) black hole.
The Thor title in its previous incarnation (588 issues? really?) never attracted my attention, though. For one thing, it wasn't until my teens that I cultivated any real independent taste for comic books that wasn't influenced by my older brother, and for another, it's a little bit hard to jump into those titles when they're on issue 500 and counting, and you have no idea what the heck is going on (in my opinion, this is the number one problem with the big titles, today. Superman, Spiderman, X-men, Avengers-- you almost have to know the entire history, as well as read every other title in the universe to have a context for the story in the issue you picked up off the rack, but that's another post altogether). I was, however, totally blown away by Ultimate Thor-- that is, Thor as he appeared within the Ultimates 1 & 2 titles (3 was a catastrophe that I've been trying to repress). The idea of turning Thor into a hippy conservationist using his powers to try to save the planet, ecologically, while boozing it up with his fellow activists was so alarmingly different, so incredibly unique a take, that I couldn't resist. Who can say no to a thundergod smoting a whaling ship with a bolt of lightning? Not only that, but this incarnation of Thor didn't feel at all compelled to speak awkwardly in the third person with outdated language! I was hooked!
So naturally, in my casual stroll through the graphic novels section of the bookstore (way, way, way too much manga, far too few traditional comic books), when I happened across volume one of this new title in trade paperback form back in August, I had to pick it up. Why not, I thought? I had a long train ride ahead of me to go visit my sister, and some reading material was in order. But once I read the first couple of pages, that was it. Marvel had me. Again. Just when I had given up on them because of that horrible Ultimates 3 fiasco. Here was a Thor I could respect! And (more importantly) a story that treated him as more than a musclebound oaf.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware that Norse Mythology itself paints Thor as something much less than the brightest crayon in the box, but let's face it-- the Norse Myths don't really give any of their gods a lot of depth. These are one dimensional characters. Whether that's because we don't have all the stories, or because the people who worshipped these gods didn't need anything more than that, I don't know. Maybe the other aspects of these dieties were so well known they didn't need to be included in the stories. Either way, creative writers shouldn't feel caged by these defining attributes. Taking apart and putting back together mythology in new ways is exactly what Marvel and DC peddle. And they do it, for the most part, incredibly well. Liberties should be taken, especially if the character is meant to stand alone, as the protagonist in a story, rather than a member of the supporting cast.
So, I read on. And finishing volume one, began anticipating volume two. And I waited. and I waited. One issue a month, 6 issues to a respectable sized trade edition, taking into account the fact that no comic book company is capable of delivering issues on time, especially not Marvel, and 10 months later, Volume Two was in my hands.
Now, here is where I get a little bit critical. And this is the whole reason I wanted to write this post and put it up here. Not because I want to advertise to the whole world my love for comic books (it really doesn't do a lot for my professional image, I'm sure), but because this second volume of Thor is the perfect example of a story that could learn a lesson from the writerly adage drilled into me from the first time I sat down in a creative writing class, and I'm sure you've heard it:
Show, don't tell.
Now, one could argue that being a comic book, reliant on art for part of its story telling, they're always SHOWING, and not telling, but I totally disagree, especially in this case. The story is good! Don't get me wrong, but after I read it I sat back and sighed. The execution is flawed. As a writer, and a reader, I wanted so much more. And not in the "yes! I want to keep reading!" way, but in the "Wow, why didn't they SHOW me that, instead of just telling me?" way. This book was full of missed opportunities for great moments! Everything was there for the moments to happen-- but then at the last minute, it seemed like the writer decided to take the easy way out. Instead of showing me the gods floundering about awkwardly in this new situation they've found themselves in, I have the characters just telling me. Over and Over again. Instead of letting me deduce the manipulations and mayhem Loki is engaging in, it's all spelled out for me. The reveals are too obvious, and the manipulations less than subtle. They could have done SO MUCH MORE with this story arc, with these issues, but they didn't.
Now, I'm not unsucked in. I'm absolutely going to be waiting with anticipation for volume 3 (and four, and five, and...) but I'm definitely hoping that in the next set of issues I have a little bit less telling going on. Show me the stuff that's happening, and let me draw conclusions myself.
Maybe I'm a little bit too hard on it-- in their defense, when a person has to wait 2 months for the next issue, they probably don't really remember everything in detail from the last one, so maybe they have to be more obvious so that you can follow the arc. But at the same time, I feel like that's a weak excuse, because if you do your job right as a writer, the reader is going to remember! Especially if they're used to the system.
So.
this is a really long post.
But I think that's okay, since I'm pretty sure I'm the only person reading at the moment.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Australian Priorities
Okay, okay. This article made me chuckle. From the title Wealth and brains last, but where's the love? and the introduction of the article, my first impulse was to say "well, good for them!" I was kind of starting to think that the whole of Australia might be on to something, because they started me off with:
"It's not often beauty, brains and wealth finish last, especially in the bedroom. But when it comes to finding a sexual partner in Australia, the top priority for most men and women is finding a partner who loves and cares for them."
Then I got to the bottom and realized the importance of that language use-- it's entirely self-centered. They aren't looking for Love, they're looking for someone who loves them.
To be fair, the question seemed to be focused just on a sexual partner, not on a mate. But still, interesting, if not really all that surprising. Sex in itself can be an incredibly selfish act, but it stands to reason that if the person you're having sex with cares about you, they're going to be a better lover. At least, that's the way I'm interpreting this. Which really makes the findings just as self-serving as everywhere else.
Sorry, Australia, you're just like the rest of us after all.
The results of this phone survey though, can really be extrapolated to the difference between men and women across the globe, and human relationships, as well as sexual relationships, and I'll give them to you here, just because I'm fascinated by the simplicity of it.
The article states:
Man, am I glad I'm married.
"It's not often beauty, brains and wealth finish last, especially in the bedroom. But when it comes to finding a sexual partner in Australia, the top priority for most men and women is finding a partner who loves and cares for them."
Then I got to the bottom and realized the importance of that language use-- it's entirely self-centered. They aren't looking for Love, they're looking for someone who loves them.
To be fair, the question seemed to be focused just on a sexual partner, not on a mate. But still, interesting, if not really all that surprising. Sex in itself can be an incredibly selfish act, but it stands to reason that if the person you're having sex with cares about you, they're going to be a better lover. At least, that's the way I'm interpreting this. Which really makes the findings just as self-serving as everywhere else.
Sorry, Australia, you're just like the rest of us after all.
The results of this phone survey though, can really be extrapolated to the difference between men and women across the globe, and human relationships, as well as sexual relationships, and I'll give them to you here, just because I'm fascinated by the simplicity of it.
The article states:
TOP 3 QUALITIES FOR A SEX PARTNER:
WOMEN
1. Cares about you
2. Enjoys sex
3. Fun to be with
MEN
1: Enjoys sex
2: Fun to be with
3: Cares about you
Man, am I glad I'm married.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)