You're only beautiful when your mouth is closed

I don't understand why some (probably a lot of) people have an aversion to relationship-related communication. Is it taboo? Is it because people are insecure or afraid? Are they trying to avoid embarrassing/infuriating/insulting their partner? It just doesn't make sense. Wouldn't you rather KNOW exactly how your partner feels, rather than steep and stew and guess? Manifesting a metaphorical iron curtain is a lose-lose situation. Essentially you choose to be ignorant of your partner; you would rather not know their feelings/thoughts in a given situation, and you prevent them from knowing yours. Granted, if you've been with your partner for a long time, chances are you can make a fairly educated guess about what's going through their brain. But even if your partner is well-read, remaining incommunicado is not going to alleviate any tension or stress.

Example. Suppose you're at the bar, it's shortly after one, the crowd is beginning to dwindle, and you're liberally past half-cut. You haven't had any luck with the sex(es) of preference, and you're growing weary, ready to call it a night. Suddenly a familiar acquaintance spots you as they're exiting the bar. They tell their friends to leave without them. You spend the next twenty minutes catching up over gin and tonics. Your acquaintance suddenly becomes extremely flirtatious, and tells you they've always had a bit of a thing for you (which may or may not be true). You tell them the same (which is true). They take you back to their place, and after twenty-four minutes of awkward, but eventually rewarding sex, you both fall asleep.

In the morning you are left with a selection of scenarios that fall generally into these two categories:

A) Wake up, fool around a little more, and tell your acquaintance it was nice seeing them again while nervously trying to gauge whether they're interested in a sequel. Unable to observe any subtle or overt hints, you leave, scolding yourself for somehow losing your spine and scrotum between the bedroom door and your shoes. Future encounters with the acquaintance are awkward, and you wonder whether you could have had something more meaningful.

B) Wake up, fool around a little more, and ask your acquaintance what their intentions are, or were. Depending on their response you tell them you just wanted to fool around too, or are interested in something a little more. In either case, you leave content knowing where they stand.

Because this is a familiar acquaintance you can't just leave while they're sleeping. You actually like and respect this person as a friend, so there is no C). But I want you to think about option A) for a second. You had the confidence, though it was alcohol-induced, to have sex with a person with whom you're familiar--though certainly not familiar enough to read their romantic intentions--yet know little about, and NOT have the confidence (or some other lack) to exchange a few words. If you don't realize how RIDICULOUS that sounds, then you're destined to become a divorce statistic. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if poor communication is the primary reason why the divorce rate in North America is above fifty percent.

A quote from an existing female:

"Even if a guy hooks up with me because we're both drunk, I would rather know that he just wanted to hook up with me than be misled, or have him not say anything at all. Maybe I just wanted sex too. It makes things less awkward. You'll know if he ever wanted to pursue you, or if you can pursue him."

Obviously there are some people out there who value clear communication, even when it comes to one-night stands.

An example of effective communication in a casual relationship:

A friend of mine hooked up with an acquaintance a few times before she went traveling. When she returned, she eventually saw and hooked up with him again. Instead of looking for a romantic or dating relationship, she made it clear to the fellow that she wasn't looking for a boyfriend. She just wanted something casual--for the innocent, a casual relationship involves generous quantities of sexual activity and an aversion to emotional attachment. The fellow said he was fine with a casual relationship, too. Eventually she decided she was ready for a boyfriend and broke things off with the fuck buddy. Of course, he wasn't too pleased, but they both knew it would end and she made that clear to him.

This is a great example because she didn't leave the guy guessing. She knew what she wanted and in order to make things work between them she needed to tell him what her intentions were. Instead of pulling the cheap slut card and breaking off all contact with him, she talked to him like an adult when she decided it was over. Simple.

Communication is important in all relationships. If someone rubs your clit too hard, you NEED to tell them, because they'll just keep doing it. If someone bites your dick too hard, you NEED to tell them, because they'll just keep doing it. If you don't like someone's pretentiousness, assholeness, untidiness, sarcasm, excessive flatulence, etc., you NEED to tell them. Of course this doesn't mean you should be an asshole yourself. When you want to talk about something that bothers you, do it in a respectful way. Tell the other person why you dislike their irking action(s) and that you'd appreciate it if they'd stop, or at least change. If you come off as confrontational, you aren't going to get satisfying results. Of course, being explicit isn't ALWAYS necessary; one can get one's point across in other ways, usually via subtle cues. Though, explicitly stating your thoughts/feelings is usually the most effective and efficient form of communication.

Fear leads to ignorance. If you're going to let it dictate your political and existential self, at least don't let it determine your social life.

We can and we must do better

"An unexamined life is not worth living." -- Socrates, motherfucker

Wonder is one the greatest capacities of a human being. In infancy it is ubiquitous. Everything is novel. Everything must be understood. Wonder wanes as one gets older. A new drive becomes constant near the beginning of adolescence: ignorance. One doesn't want to know about the Holocaust; one doesn't want to know how to solve inverse functions; one doesn't want to learn about Shakespeare; one just wants to suck and gorge on every instantly gratifying consumable one can get one's hands on. Wonder doesn't disappear completely; there is always some interest that provokes one to ask questions, even if it's as banal as, "I wonder what's on." For some, there is a resurgence of wonder once they complete high school. The complexities of life begin to open up, and many unknown unknowns become apparent.

I was talking with a friend on MSN the other night. She was comparing our thought processes. She said I'm 'all about knowing facts' (single quotes designate near 100% accuracy, but not quite), while she liked 'to figure stuff out for [her]self.' Before I had a chance to interject and defend that her assessment wasn't entirely accurate, she added that doesn't 'want to know all the facts and reasons.'

The other day I also chanced upon a clip of a radio talk show, with comedian Jim Gaffigan as a guest. Apparently Gaffigan had made some jokes about religion on the air and a Christian woman called in to express her disdain. The quote of interest here is, "You don't talk about religion or politics."

Reflecting on both of these statements I became very disheartened. How could a person WILLFULLY CHOOOSE to be ignorant? I'm familiar with the phrase ignorance is bliss, but do people really follow it? It would seem so. What's even more discouraging is that the friend I'm referring to attends post-secondary education. I just can't wrap my head around it. I want to grab them and shake them and yell, "What is wrong with you!" When you forfeit wonder you forfeit knowledge, reason. When you willfully surrender those things, you surrender what distinguishes you from all other life on this planet. When you choose to be ignorant...you reduce yourself to an animal, one who consumes to preserve oneself and nothing more. I'm not talking about particular cases (although choosing to be ignorant in isolated incidences can hardly be deemed admirable, either), I'm talking about large scale things. You don't talk about religion or politics? What the fuck! Should I volunteer myself to be an inmate of the Bamboo Gulag, too? The rage I get when I think that someone could be so complacent in their sheepish stupor.....

The powers that be have done a magnificent job if they have convinced people that choosing to be ignorant is a desirable option. How do you beat that? How do you convince someone to stop swallowing what they're being fed? It just seems so futile. How do you spark wonder in people who have willfully given it up?

How do you convince someone to be human?

P.S. Related viewing: "Network". This film touches on some of the ideas I talked about, and apart from being a great film, its message is still extremely relevant and accurate.

Flowers on a first date

A girl I used to date (we'll call her "PowerLips28"), but now with whom I am just friends, recently went on a date with a male human (as far as I know) and received flowers. This was the first date she went on with the fellow. My discovery of this piquing morsel got me into a heated debate with her about the follies of giving someone flowers on a first date. Her, as well of a good friend of hers, thought was that such a gesture was sweet, and nice because it was unexpected. Apart from validating the ease with which certain women (not all) are pleased, as well as their capricious valuation of material things that serve little to no practical function, it prompted me to poll other female friends of mine to see if there was a consensus, or whether they would agree with the true and virtuous side (i.e., my side).

Two said their feelings are tentative: if it was a modest bouquet then they would be pleased, but if the suitor went overboard then they would be freaked out.

One said it would be a nice gesture, but felt the person who gave them would be clingy and easily whippable.

One said she would not be pleased because such a gesture is too cliched and formal.

Admittedly, not a lot of responses (yet), but enough to balance the field with the two lovelorn saps. An interesting note about this question, the girls who I polled gave relatively lengthy and detailed answers, and I didn't even ask for thorough justification. Just goes to show how certain women read into trivial acts.

My argument sides with the latter two girls.

Giving flowers on a first date is certainly cliched, especially if they are roses. It shows one's inexperience in the world of dating. The person who gives flowers is the person who believes in soulmates, fate, destiny, and a bevy of other stereotypical, quixotic bullshit that they've gorged from TV, film, literature, and Cosmo (societal poison), instead of from actual lived experience. As such, the person will be looking for a serious relationship, and will insist on becoming serious sooner rather than later. They also have dependency issues, and need a romantic partner to feel complete.

This misguided gesture also broadcasts to the receiver, "I don't have enough game/charm to win you over on my own merits, so I will augment my shortcomings with a trite gift that will be discarded within a week." Spending more money than is required on someone you know little about is NOT thoughtful. You shouldn't have to sacrifice your personal wealth in order to make someone like you.

The most telling part of PowerLips28's episode is that she won't be going on a second date with the fellow who gave her flowers because there was no connection. They didn't click, mesh, coagulate, fuck, anything. The flowers did nothing. Yes she thought that they were "nice", but it did not affect her perception of the guy. Mike's point is proven.

Are we bad scientists?

It's funny how humans assert their knowledge of the world. We seamlessly use subjective terms such as "like" and "dislike" alongside objective designators such as "good" and "bad". To help those a little wet behind the ears, something that is subjective is something that is experienced or expressed by an agent (a person, or other rational being). Subjective things include thoughts, feelings, emotions, sense perceptions, and so on. Objective things are those that would exist regardless of whether an agent would be there to perceive them. [Edit: According to my own definitions, it would seem "good" and "bad" would also be classified as subjective things. My original intent was to make a note of how the words "good" and "bad" are used in an objective manner; i.e., that something is objectively "good" or "bad", which is of course ridiculous.] This would include things such as gravity, time, matter, and so on. The problem for humans is that there seems to be an incompatibility between subjectivity and objectivity: we evaluate our lives from both perspectives, but how can some things be simply opinion, and others brute fact? Would the necessity of the former not undermine the latter? Let me explain.

Because we are humans, our experience of life is inherently subjective: all information gathered about our experience is interpreted, consciously or unconsciously. It is not possible to have pure sense perceptions (except, perhaps, in infancy). When one looks at a painting, one is aware that it is a painting, what the forms in the painting are. Touch is linked to knowledge of the stimulus or perceived stimulus. Because all sense perceptions are interpreted, they cannot be objective. Interpretations form associations with objects that would not exist if there were no agents to form them. This is a fact. But wait a minute: how am I able to posit this statement as fact? Would that not preclude its objectivity? And as a I human am I not limited to a subjective perspective?

Before I try to answer those questions, I want to make it clear that just because humans are trapped in a subjective perspective, that does not mean there is no objective reality. Gravity would exist if there were no agents to perceive it. It is a force. It influences mass, animate or inanimate. Astronomical observations of distant galaxies, stars, etc. show that those bodies have mass have been interacting with each other for several millions, if not billions, of years. Such an interaction does not require human perception. It could be argued that other rational beings in different parts of the universe could have witnessed these interactions, but since the existence of extraterrestrial life is not known (or at least acknowledged. Read: The Disclosure Project) I cannot make that assumption.

It is easy to question the validity or truthfulness of any of the statements I have made, given that I have admitted a subjective perspective; however, subjectivity does not completely undermine truth. I can say that I exist because I have permanence through time. When I sleep in my bedroom by myself, no other agent is perceiving me (that I am aware of), and yet I will still exist when I regain consciousness. Thus, I exist regardless of whether I am being perceived, and this statement is therefore true.

I can say that human experience is inherently subjective for the same reason. Interpretation adds meaning to an object that would not exist without the agent that gives it. There is just no way of avoiding it.

So perhaps subjectivity and objectivity are compatible. We are unable to escape interpretation, but that doesn't mean our interpretations can't be truthful.