I have met people in my life who I will never forget, and not for the wrong reasons. People who left a profound impression on me. People who brought out the parts of me I kept hidden so deep inside that I would never let anyone see. I have had friends who were so close to me that I genuinely could not imagine life without them.
All this I know and all this I have come to expect of people I keep in my life - or rather, the people I make an effort to keep in my life, as I have said before I won't stay where I am not wanted. I would rather have my close circle of friends that I hold dear than a wide circle of people that I know very little about. The only exception to that is the Internet where it is so often that case that our online personas become the polar opposite of our real world selves. Even I am guilty of this, I am much more outgoing online than I am in real life.
While the expectations grow, fed by our experience the bar we set for people to come into our lives gets ever higher. Not only for new friends but potential relationships too. The closer you get to people and the more intense your relationships as friends alone become the greater the expectation you place on an actual relationship. The bar for a potential boyfriend gets raised the more our friends do for us and the more we do for them the more we come to expect of others, to the point where we expect of someone we just met, the same level of trust, openness, honesty, and commitment. These expectations inevitably become unrealistic because even the people who could vault the height of the bar you have set won't want to do it from the beginning. If you expect too much too soon the thought process that follows is that you will raise that bar ever higher.
What if you are not like that though? What if you aren't the sort that continues to raise the bar but chooses to keep it at a constant height? In that scenario you are in effect the stereotypical single with great expectations and the notional path your life will take is that which eventually leads you to lower the bar bit by bit until you eventually concede some or all of your expectations. The alternative however is to set the bar high initially and once you find someone who can vault it then lower it bit by bit for them; the problem with that scenario is that you are in effect having a downhill relationship to the point where you eventually have no expectations from them whatsoever and everything just falls apart.
Ideally what you want is to be able to set the bar high and keep it there never moving it. The problem of finding someone who will go to that height from the beginning becomes a question of how you can convince someone it is worth it. Some people do this by presenting a prize that is desirable, a trophy for someone to win. That works for many people but for me that comes back to the idea of selling yourself which as I mentioned in another post makes me quite uncomfortable. I don't believe you should ever have to sell yourself to another person, if they can't see your worth for themselves then they don't deserve you.
The only other option you are left with if you want to maintain that height of the bar you set, is to bare your soul for all to see. I don't mean posting copious amounts of selfies and nudes online for the whole world to see and I don't mean having a mental breakdown on twitter or facebook. I mean being yourself without limitation. Forgetting what other people think of you and remembering that while the whole world might be watching, the opinions of most people are irrelevant. The only people whose opinions you should care about are the people you love and the people that love you - and I do mean love, not adoration or lust or feigned piety. The people who genuinely love you and care about you and want you to be happy and want you to be you. In other words the people who despite being the reason you have great expectations of others, actually have no great expectations of you.
Interplanetary Politics
It is an inevitability that mankind will populate other planets. This will most likely happen within our lifetime as manned missions to Mars have been proposed, with some intended to land within the next few decades. It is also an inescapable fact that wherever you are on Earth you are within the remit of a political power. Even countries which identify themselves as neutral in relation to international conflict are far from being apolitical. They have their own internal political landscape and divisions.
It has been established through the Antarctic Treaty that the continent of Antarctica would remain free from military activity and is considered to be politically neutral. However while this may be the case officially, in practice it is far from being apolitical either. Several countries have made claims to divisions of Antarctica and some of these have been disputed; the Argentine Government for example disputes the British claim - something which will probably sound uncannily familiar.
As we explore new horizons there are questions that need to be answered and one of the most pressing is the issue of political power within these new horizons. We have failed in many respects to establish international cooperation and worldwide agreement on fairly basic laws; this fact does not bode well for our future if we are to set forth and travel beyond this planet. The issue of who "owns" what is one that is particularly interesting as a number of people have tried at various times to claim celestial objects for themselves. The idea of "buying a star" while it may seem romantic at first raises the very real question of whether or not you can actually own it in the first place. To put a price on this question is quite easy: $50m - that is the amount Dennis Hope is said to have made selling 1 acre plots on the Moon. While you can sit and debate about whether any of those claims could ever be redeemed it does not change the fact that 50 million dollars has been made from the ambiguity of whether or not you can actually own a celestial object.
These questions can easily be dismissed as unimportant by people who assert that the act of redemption will never happen as people will never be able to travel to the Moon or have the resources on their own to make 1 acre of land habitable. However the moment mankind sets foot on Mars and establishes a colony the question of who has authority over it will be raised. However unlikely the scenario, if the colonists were to rebel would we send another mission with military capacity to reclaim the colony and "reclaim the planet", if we did whose name would such a mission even be made in?
The idea that "first come first served" or "finders keepers" should apply and allow whichever nation manages to colonise Mars first be the nation that claims it does not stand up to scrutiny either. The United States would most likely be the first nation to send a man to Mars by way of NASA's space programme, however if the idea that the first to arrive are the rightful owners is enforced then the majority of the United States population are unlawfully inhabiting a land that does not belong to them under that definition as they were not the first people to inhabit the North American continent. Likewise there are many other conflicts on Earth that stem from indigeonous populations being pushed aside and in some cases massacred to make way for second or third arrivals to lay claim to that ground. If we want to embrace that mentality too then there will likely be many wars waged as evermore powerful military forces are sent to Mars in succession by nation after nation that wish to claim it as their own.
While that battlefield may lie across space, back on Earth considerable conflict would likely arise as a result. Although Antarctica is considered neutral, if one nation were to send a military force to claim it, others would follow suit to defend their claims too. Humans are by nature territorial, which by virtue of its definition requires that territory to be marked and defined. Which brings us back to square one - which Political System should govern what lies beyond our planet?
It has been established through the Antarctic Treaty that the continent of Antarctica would remain free from military activity and is considered to be politically neutral. However while this may be the case officially, in practice it is far from being apolitical either. Several countries have made claims to divisions of Antarctica and some of these have been disputed; the Argentine Government for example disputes the British claim - something which will probably sound uncannily familiar.
As we explore new horizons there are questions that need to be answered and one of the most pressing is the issue of political power within these new horizons. We have failed in many respects to establish international cooperation and worldwide agreement on fairly basic laws; this fact does not bode well for our future if we are to set forth and travel beyond this planet. The issue of who "owns" what is one that is particularly interesting as a number of people have tried at various times to claim celestial objects for themselves. The idea of "buying a star" while it may seem romantic at first raises the very real question of whether or not you can actually own it in the first place. To put a price on this question is quite easy: $50m - that is the amount Dennis Hope is said to have made selling 1 acre plots on the Moon. While you can sit and debate about whether any of those claims could ever be redeemed it does not change the fact that 50 million dollars has been made from the ambiguity of whether or not you can actually own a celestial object.
These questions can easily be dismissed as unimportant by people who assert that the act of redemption will never happen as people will never be able to travel to the Moon or have the resources on their own to make 1 acre of land habitable. However the moment mankind sets foot on Mars and establishes a colony the question of who has authority over it will be raised. However unlikely the scenario, if the colonists were to rebel would we send another mission with military capacity to reclaim the colony and "reclaim the planet", if we did whose name would such a mission even be made in?
The idea that "first come first served" or "finders keepers" should apply and allow whichever nation manages to colonise Mars first be the nation that claims it does not stand up to scrutiny either. The United States would most likely be the first nation to send a man to Mars by way of NASA's space programme, however if the idea that the first to arrive are the rightful owners is enforced then the majority of the United States population are unlawfully inhabiting a land that does not belong to them under that definition as they were not the first people to inhabit the North American continent. Likewise there are many other conflicts on Earth that stem from indigeonous populations being pushed aside and in some cases massacred to make way for second or third arrivals to lay claim to that ground. If we want to embrace that mentality too then there will likely be many wars waged as evermore powerful military forces are sent to Mars in succession by nation after nation that wish to claim it as their own.
While that battlefield may lie across space, back on Earth considerable conflict would likely arise as a result. Although Antarctica is considered neutral, if one nation were to send a military force to claim it, others would follow suit to defend their claims too. Humans are by nature territorial, which by virtue of its definition requires that territory to be marked and defined. Which brings us back to square one - which Political System should govern what lies beyond our planet?
Before you speak
Sometimes the most interesting things we have to say are the things that we never say at all. I have written tweets, texts, and posts on here that I have thought about before sending or posting and deleted. It's the digital equivalent of opening your mouth to say something sometimes even letting the first or second word out before stopping and thinking actually I better not.
The reasons we don't say what we are thinking however are varied. Sometimes it's the feeling that we will be judged for what we are thinking and it's just easier to keep it to yourself. At other times we know what we want to say is something that the majority of people are going to disagree with to the point where we feel like we will be attacked, not just judged for what we say.
There are however the times when we don't say what we are thinking because we feel like no-one would be interested or that no-one would understand. These are the most interesting because the judgement we have for ourselves is often harsher than anything we ever direct at other people. We deny ourselves the possibility of finding someone out there who might share our views or at least understand how we feel. If we say what we are thinking and no-one is interested there is no real "penalty" for doing so. There's not really anything to lose. That doesn't stop us second guessing ourselves though.
Over-thinking is a problem that many people share. While some people have the opposite - where they say anything without thinking and have no filter whatsoever. Arguably each has its advantages and disadvantages. I'd personally say I envy those that can just say anything, if I did that I would never shut up due to the fact that I am always thinking and find it hard to switch off at all. I have seen the down side to having no filter and the trouble it can cause for people. The real question is, how do you find a balance between the two?
The reasons we don't say what we are thinking however are varied. Sometimes it's the feeling that we will be judged for what we are thinking and it's just easier to keep it to yourself. At other times we know what we want to say is something that the majority of people are going to disagree with to the point where we feel like we will be attacked, not just judged for what we say.
There are however the times when we don't say what we are thinking because we feel like no-one would be interested or that no-one would understand. These are the most interesting because the judgement we have for ourselves is often harsher than anything we ever direct at other people. We deny ourselves the possibility of finding someone out there who might share our views or at least understand how we feel. If we say what we are thinking and no-one is interested there is no real "penalty" for doing so. There's not really anything to lose. That doesn't stop us second guessing ourselves though.
Over-thinking is a problem that many people share. While some people have the opposite - where they say anything without thinking and have no filter whatsoever. Arguably each has its advantages and disadvantages. I'd personally say I envy those that can just say anything, if I did that I would never shut up due to the fact that I am always thinking and find it hard to switch off at all. I have seen the down side to having no filter and the trouble it can cause for people. The real question is, how do you find a balance between the two?
What do acorns have to do with trust?
We are not all capable of the same things and our achievements reflect that. The significance of our achievements are not always the same. For someone who has struggled with anorexia all their life, to sit and eat a three course meal is an achievement of note. For someone who has never had these problems the same action is not an achievement of note.
There is an argument that says you should not feel sad or unhappy when things go wrong because there will always be someone who has it worse than you. There is a retort that became part of a meme that says the logic in that argument is flawed; by the same logic you should never be happy because there will always be someone who has it better than you. I think both the original argument and the retort are fundamentally flawed as they both overlook a key emotion - jealousy.
At first it can seem strange to propose that when sad or unhappy you would be jealous of someone who had it worse than you but while you probably won't be jealous of their situation you will however be jealous of the fact that your circumstances when placed into context are reduced in comparison and your feelings essentially stripped of validity. In that scenario you would be jealous that your feelings are dismissed and wish they were given the same weight as the person who has it worse than you. Thereby resulting in you being jealous of them.
In the same way when you find happiness in you're life and your achievements, only to have them compared to someone who is better off than you, there is jealousy to be found when your feelings are again stripped of validity when put into context. You end up wishing your achievements were given the same weight.
While the idea of context is important the idea of individuality must not be forgotten. What is a big deal to you might not be a big deal to others and vice versa, what is not a big deal to you might be a big deal to others. This is the thought process you have to follow when you deal with the concept of trust.
I have some pretty big trust issues and there are many reasons for them. Those reasons in the grand scheme of things should not be that important to you at first, instead knowing only that they mean a lot to me should suffice. You should be patient and should I actually confide in you the whole story the last thing you should do is reduce what has been shared even if you then think that the issues that stem as an effect from the original cause are not proportionate. As the saying goes even the most mighty oak tree had to grow from a single acorn. In many ways that is how our thought patterns grow. An idea once planted takes root and with time it grows into a mighty oak - cutting down that idea and removing its effects is not as easy as removing the acorn - once the tree has already grown that is no longer possible.
There are people who have been through a lot worse than I ever have and to use our analogy above as opposed to the one oak tree I would battle with, they have entire forests of them. I hope never to be able to comprehend that fully. Their trauma however should not invalidate the feelings of myself or anyone else. Yes they have gone through worse, yes they have a lot more to contend with, and yes arguably they need a lot more help but that single tree still stands and has not faltered. Your problems do not magically disappear when someone else comes along who has more of them than you.
So do not forget individuality. What might not seem like a big deal to you can mean the world to someone else. When someone with trust issues opens up to you and shares the root cause, remember that where they are now and what has grown from it will always outweigh the initial cause.
There is an argument that says you should not feel sad or unhappy when things go wrong because there will always be someone who has it worse than you. There is a retort that became part of a meme that says the logic in that argument is flawed; by the same logic you should never be happy because there will always be someone who has it better than you. I think both the original argument and the retort are fundamentally flawed as they both overlook a key emotion - jealousy.
At first it can seem strange to propose that when sad or unhappy you would be jealous of someone who had it worse than you but while you probably won't be jealous of their situation you will however be jealous of the fact that your circumstances when placed into context are reduced in comparison and your feelings essentially stripped of validity. In that scenario you would be jealous that your feelings are dismissed and wish they were given the same weight as the person who has it worse than you. Thereby resulting in you being jealous of them.
In the same way when you find happiness in you're life and your achievements, only to have them compared to someone who is better off than you, there is jealousy to be found when your feelings are again stripped of validity when put into context. You end up wishing your achievements were given the same weight.
While the idea of context is important the idea of individuality must not be forgotten. What is a big deal to you might not be a big deal to others and vice versa, what is not a big deal to you might be a big deal to others. This is the thought process you have to follow when you deal with the concept of trust.
I have some pretty big trust issues and there are many reasons for them. Those reasons in the grand scheme of things should not be that important to you at first, instead knowing only that they mean a lot to me should suffice. You should be patient and should I actually confide in you the whole story the last thing you should do is reduce what has been shared even if you then think that the issues that stem as an effect from the original cause are not proportionate. As the saying goes even the most mighty oak tree had to grow from a single acorn. In many ways that is how our thought patterns grow. An idea once planted takes root and with time it grows into a mighty oak - cutting down that idea and removing its effects is not as easy as removing the acorn - once the tree has already grown that is no longer possible.
There are people who have been through a lot worse than I ever have and to use our analogy above as opposed to the one oak tree I would battle with, they have entire forests of them. I hope never to be able to comprehend that fully. Their trauma however should not invalidate the feelings of myself or anyone else. Yes they have gone through worse, yes they have a lot more to contend with, and yes arguably they need a lot more help but that single tree still stands and has not faltered. Your problems do not magically disappear when someone else comes along who has more of them than you.
So do not forget individuality. What might not seem like a big deal to you can mean the world to someone else. When someone with trust issues opens up to you and shares the root cause, remember that where they are now and what has grown from it will always outweigh the initial cause.
A Question of Personality
Maybe it should be a Personality Question instead. Either way, I have come up with another system for identifying personalities. To be more specific this system is focused mainly on thought patterns of individuals. I've covered personalities before in a number of posts but I think this system is a lot simpler and a bit more relatable than the ones I have covered in the past.
There are 5 questions, [Who, What, Where, When, and Why] that I think in many ways you can apply distinct mindsets to - each question paints a picture of the kind of person who would ask each of these questions. Of course you will ask many questions and you will be capable of asking all 5; I am choosing here to focus on your predominant question, the one you tend to ask most.
Who?
If you tend to ask this question a lot or questions that are an extension of it then I would say you were a very social person - or at least you have a very high social interest. You're concerned about people and their lives; who knows who, who does what, and maybe who does who if you are that way inclined. This mindset would be the most likely to follow the cult of celebrity and obsess over an idol and want to know everything about them. They are also fixated on crediting people for their work however, wanting to know who wrote a song for example and whether or not a singer has any real talent, or who is really responsible.
What?
The most common question as an extension of 'What' is the 'What If' question which tends to sum up this mindset the most. Concerned with hypothetical situations and their outcomes this mindset tends to run through scenarios and what might happen as a result. This mindset is less focused on asking who was involved or why they acted in the way they did, instead wanting to know exactly what they did and reserving judgement until they have a better understanding. Perhaps the biggest problem with this mindset is that they don't factor past records into their decisions much and instead focus on the individual action, this can lead to ignorance of track records and end up with history often repeating itself.
Where?
More interested in travelling and being on the move, less interested in being in one place for too long; I would consider this mindset to be impatient by nature. Finding it hard to focus on anything that does not pique their interest this mindset is most often found to be miles away in the moment. You want everything now and you want to know where you can get it, you'll figure out the rest later. These people I would say are those that feel the need to move closer to something in order to achieve it - like an actor who moves to Hollywood because the closer they are physically to what they want the more attainable it feels to them.
When?
Primary concern for those that ask this question is time. Everything in their life revolves around time and for them everything needs a schedule. These people are most likely among us to have a 10 year plan of things that they want to achieve or have goals they want to achieve by a certain age. "I want to be married by the time I am 30" for example. The downfall of this mindset is ultimately the sacrifices and the comrpomises they will make to achieve their goals on time. The less time they have the more desperate they will become and the more they will give up to get what they wanted. This mindset is less about patience and more about discipline and regime.
Why?
These people tend not to think about things until they happen. Quite rare they have the ability to think of nothing. They don't do well with hypothetical situations, when one is posed they are more likely to question why they would ever be in that situation rather than answer the scenario posed. These people don't like crossing bridges they haven't reached and are perhaps the most grounded of all 5. They are also those most likely to struggle with creative thinking. Their thought process is more practical based rather than imaginative. They struggle with open ended projects and need constraints to be added in order to get the job done.
Which one are you? If you haven't already guessed I would fall under "What?"
There are 5 questions, [Who, What, Where, When, and Why] that I think in many ways you can apply distinct mindsets to - each question paints a picture of the kind of person who would ask each of these questions. Of course you will ask many questions and you will be capable of asking all 5; I am choosing here to focus on your predominant question, the one you tend to ask most.
Who?
If you tend to ask this question a lot or questions that are an extension of it then I would say you were a very social person - or at least you have a very high social interest. You're concerned about people and their lives; who knows who, who does what, and maybe who does who if you are that way inclined. This mindset would be the most likely to follow the cult of celebrity and obsess over an idol and want to know everything about them. They are also fixated on crediting people for their work however, wanting to know who wrote a song for example and whether or not a singer has any real talent, or who is really responsible.
What?
The most common question as an extension of 'What' is the 'What If' question which tends to sum up this mindset the most. Concerned with hypothetical situations and their outcomes this mindset tends to run through scenarios and what might happen as a result. This mindset is less focused on asking who was involved or why they acted in the way they did, instead wanting to know exactly what they did and reserving judgement until they have a better understanding. Perhaps the biggest problem with this mindset is that they don't factor past records into their decisions much and instead focus on the individual action, this can lead to ignorance of track records and end up with history often repeating itself.
Where?
More interested in travelling and being on the move, less interested in being in one place for too long; I would consider this mindset to be impatient by nature. Finding it hard to focus on anything that does not pique their interest this mindset is most often found to be miles away in the moment. You want everything now and you want to know where you can get it, you'll figure out the rest later. These people I would say are those that feel the need to move closer to something in order to achieve it - like an actor who moves to Hollywood because the closer they are physically to what they want the more attainable it feels to them.
When?
Primary concern for those that ask this question is time. Everything in their life revolves around time and for them everything needs a schedule. These people are most likely among us to have a 10 year plan of things that they want to achieve or have goals they want to achieve by a certain age. "I want to be married by the time I am 30" for example. The downfall of this mindset is ultimately the sacrifices and the comrpomises they will make to achieve their goals on time. The less time they have the more desperate they will become and the more they will give up to get what they wanted. This mindset is less about patience and more about discipline and regime.
Why?
These people tend not to think about things until they happen. Quite rare they have the ability to think of nothing. They don't do well with hypothetical situations, when one is posed they are more likely to question why they would ever be in that situation rather than answer the scenario posed. These people don't like crossing bridges they haven't reached and are perhaps the most grounded of all 5. They are also those most likely to struggle with creative thinking. Their thought process is more practical based rather than imaginative. They struggle with open ended projects and need constraints to be added in order to get the job done.
Which one are you? If you haven't already guessed I would fall under "What?"
Valentine's Day and Death
Valentine's Day is a lot like the death of a loved one. I know what you are probably thinking - that this is going to a depressing singles' post and to an extent maybe it is but that's not the angle I am going for.
When you start out in a new relationship Romance is born. It lives and breathes and takes over. That romance doesn't last forever though and eventually couples become comfortable enough with each other to do all the things that are the antithesis of romance. There's nothing wrong with that per se and for most couples the death of romance is really something that is inevitable I think. Valentine's Day is rather like the anniversary of that death, or to be more precise a celebration of its life. Each Valentine's Day couples show each other affection through romantic gestures. These acts are really the recollection or celebration of the romance that was once shared when they got together in the first place.
Also like a death of a relative, where some people mark the anniversary every year without fail and others eventually stop marking it at all, so to do some couples decide not to do anything special for Valentine's Day at all. That in effect marks the disremembrance of romance.
This all relies of course on the assumption that romance died in the first place. For some couples it does not. For some they keep romance alive throughout their relationship. For them every day is like Valentine's Day. If we all did that there would be no need for the day itself.
I have a love hate relationship with Valentine's Day. I hate the commercialised nature of it and reduction of romantic gestures into generic products. To me romance is more than a bouquet of flowers and a box of chocolates. It does not have to be materialistic at all it needs to encompass the recipient. Doing something for them that you rarely do or have never done, that means a lot to them. Bringing them happiness and joy and showing them how much you love them - that is something you can't put a price on. I don't like the idea of buying gifts for people because inevitably how much they mean to you becomes literal in "how much did it cost = how much they mean" which I find incredibly sad.
The thing I love about Valentine's Day is that it makes people think about who they are and who they are with. Whether you are in a relationship or whether you are single you can't really pass Valentine's day without taking a moment to reflect on that. Valentine's Day is really an opportunity more than anything else. It's true the same opportunities exist every other day of the year but the date itself exists as a prompt to remind you. I don't think I could be in a relationship with someone where we both were romantic only one day a year. I don't think many relationships would last long if that was really the case. Valentine's Day is an opportunity to remember romance and to rekindle love.
When you start out in a new relationship Romance is born. It lives and breathes and takes over. That romance doesn't last forever though and eventually couples become comfortable enough with each other to do all the things that are the antithesis of romance. There's nothing wrong with that per se and for most couples the death of romance is really something that is inevitable I think. Valentine's Day is rather like the anniversary of that death, or to be more precise a celebration of its life. Each Valentine's Day couples show each other affection through romantic gestures. These acts are really the recollection or celebration of the romance that was once shared when they got together in the first place.
Also like a death of a relative, where some people mark the anniversary every year without fail and others eventually stop marking it at all, so to do some couples decide not to do anything special for Valentine's Day at all. That in effect marks the disremembrance of romance.
This all relies of course on the assumption that romance died in the first place. For some couples it does not. For some they keep romance alive throughout their relationship. For them every day is like Valentine's Day. If we all did that there would be no need for the day itself.
I have a love hate relationship with Valentine's Day. I hate the commercialised nature of it and reduction of romantic gestures into generic products. To me romance is more than a bouquet of flowers and a box of chocolates. It does not have to be materialistic at all it needs to encompass the recipient. Doing something for them that you rarely do or have never done, that means a lot to them. Bringing them happiness and joy and showing them how much you love them - that is something you can't put a price on. I don't like the idea of buying gifts for people because inevitably how much they mean to you becomes literal in "how much did it cost = how much they mean" which I find incredibly sad.
The thing I love about Valentine's Day is that it makes people think about who they are and who they are with. Whether you are in a relationship or whether you are single you can't really pass Valentine's day without taking a moment to reflect on that. Valentine's Day is really an opportunity more than anything else. It's true the same opportunities exist every other day of the year but the date itself exists as a prompt to remind you. I don't think I could be in a relationship with someone where we both were romantic only one day a year. I don't think many relationships would last long if that was really the case. Valentine's Day is an opportunity to remember romance and to rekindle love.
Selling Yourself
If you can sell anything then you will want for nothing in this life. That seems to be the reality of the commercialised society we live in. We sell ourselves every day and if you don't try hard enough you are seen as selling yourself short. Every day in every way every thing we do becomes more and more about selling ourselves.
I wrote this blog because I wanted to share my thoughts and feelings with the world. I wrote it in many ways as a diary for myself that I can look back on and see where I was at a point in time, what was on my mind and how I felt about it. I try to be open, as is reasonably possible without getting too specific or too personal in a way that would put myself or anyone else in danger. I avoid naming names where possible because I know not everyone is comfortable sharing so much with the world. There is a pressure from some people however to do more and go further. I don't want to do this. This blog was only ever a hobby. I never intended this to be a career and I don't want it to be.
The idea of selling yourself however invades every part of our lives. Job interviews are at their core your attempt to sell yourself to a potential employer quite literally for the job and salary offered. While I can understand in that situation why you would want to sell yourself the same can't be said for every part of our lives where this mentality has taken hold. Dating and trying to find someone you want to be in a relationship with for example has become the same process. You have to sell yourself to someone else and convince them that you're the one for them. Whatever happened to self worth? Whatever happened to the idea that someone else should be able to see you and want you without you having to sell yourself? Whatever happened to the idea that you are desirable, and not just something you have convinced someone else to buy?
I don't want to sell myself short, I don't want to sell myself at all. I've been through the riles of rejection and I've been through the heartache of someone wanting you then casting you aside when something better came along. I've been through the pain of unrequited love and those that used and abused that love for their own amusement and their own gain. I'm tired of giving myself to people who don't deserve it. I'd rather be alone than be hurt like that. I haven't given up on love. I know it exists and I have felt it. If giving my love to someone else has taught me anything it's that someone who truly loves me will never leave me wanting more and will never play games with me.
You should not have to haggle for a lover. You should not have to sacrifice who you are. Your faults are as much a part of you as your charms. Trying to hide them is futile, they will only surface in the end and if they aren't something that your lover can see passed then you're going to lose them. You can't rely on the idea that the more time they invest the more tolerant they will become because that's a false sense of security. The sooner they get to know the real you the sooner you find out whether they love you for who you are, or whether they loved the idea they were sold.
I wrote this blog because I wanted to share my thoughts and feelings with the world. I wrote it in many ways as a diary for myself that I can look back on and see where I was at a point in time, what was on my mind and how I felt about it. I try to be open, as is reasonably possible without getting too specific or too personal in a way that would put myself or anyone else in danger. I avoid naming names where possible because I know not everyone is comfortable sharing so much with the world. There is a pressure from some people however to do more and go further. I don't want to do this. This blog was only ever a hobby. I never intended this to be a career and I don't want it to be.
The idea of selling yourself however invades every part of our lives. Job interviews are at their core your attempt to sell yourself to a potential employer quite literally for the job and salary offered. While I can understand in that situation why you would want to sell yourself the same can't be said for every part of our lives where this mentality has taken hold. Dating and trying to find someone you want to be in a relationship with for example has become the same process. You have to sell yourself to someone else and convince them that you're the one for them. Whatever happened to self worth? Whatever happened to the idea that someone else should be able to see you and want you without you having to sell yourself? Whatever happened to the idea that you are desirable, and not just something you have convinced someone else to buy?
I don't want to sell myself short, I don't want to sell myself at all. I've been through the riles of rejection and I've been through the heartache of someone wanting you then casting you aside when something better came along. I've been through the pain of unrequited love and those that used and abused that love for their own amusement and their own gain. I'm tired of giving myself to people who don't deserve it. I'd rather be alone than be hurt like that. I haven't given up on love. I know it exists and I have felt it. If giving my love to someone else has taught me anything it's that someone who truly loves me will never leave me wanting more and will never play games with me.
You should not have to haggle for a lover. You should not have to sacrifice who you are. Your faults are as much a part of you as your charms. Trying to hide them is futile, they will only surface in the end and if they aren't something that your lover can see passed then you're going to lose them. You can't rely on the idea that the more time they invest the more tolerant they will become because that's a false sense of security. The sooner they get to know the real you the sooner you find out whether they love you for who you are, or whether they loved the idea they were sold.
Being Yourself
They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. For me it's the lowest form of creativity and a lack of individuality. Whilst I don't think this inherently an LGBT issue but rather an issue of confidence in general, I do think that there are prominent examples within the LGBT community. I have seen gay men go from being in the closet and having one personality, who then come out and transform into a completely different personality. Now on the face of it there's nothing wrong with that but the personality that results in the end is generic. I have seen this happen countless times and the reason I believe is due to self confidence - or rather the lack of it.
There is a stereotypical Gay persona that embodies a particular camp accent, over the top hand gestures, a "mince" walk, and a bitchy attitude. For some people this is genuinely their personality and I am not aiming this at them. I am aiming this at the people who take that persona and use it to express themselves. To me, this is incredibly fake. It's polished, it's air brushed and air headed. I know this personality is not "real" for most of the people who use it. I know this because that shit don't fly with me and when they are around me they act themselves. One person even explicitly said "You gotta fake it til you make it honey"
I hate this in so many ways. It's not creative - you're turning yourself into a generic copy of a stereotype for the sense that you fit in and a sense of confidence. It's not individual - the latest trends and fashions spread like diseases among these groups, accelerated by the fact that these groups are by nature very insular. They are easily led. To the point where there are one or two "Kingpins" or in the case of the camp gay stereotype, one or two Queens who set the fashion for these groups. You can hear it in the spread of language used, one Queen uses a new slang term and it spreads among the group until practically everyone is using it. There's no sense of achievement being truly earned here, and ultimately how far you will get will be limited by how "high" up the hierarchy of the group you can climb.
The reason I hate this so much is because I want to get to know the real you. I don't want to get to know a projected personality you show the world. I'm usually quite good at seeing through this and that is not limited to the example I gave above. You can try and "fake it until you make it" but at the end of the day to everyone else who doesn't succumb to this herd mentality, your falseness is transparent. You are only "adored" by these people so long as you are funny and you are entertaining. As with anything of that nature however the novely wears off. Emotional and long lasting connections with people are established through empathy and understanding. If you constantly project a fake personality to the world then you should not be surprised when you find out that people don't like "you" they liked the "idea of you".
If you are a singer and you only do covers, you won't last long. People will like you if you are good, and if you sing songs that they know and love and most importantly they are familiar with. That establishes a foundation. If you want to last in your career you need to show your own talent and creativity and start singing new and original songs. Getting people to buy into this is a lot harder but ultimately it provides greater security and establishes a connection. If you only ever sing covers, you will always be compared to the original, and there will always be others who are doing the same thing and competing with you. No-one can compete with you at being yourself.
There is a stereotypical Gay persona that embodies a particular camp accent, over the top hand gestures, a "mince" walk, and a bitchy attitude. For some people this is genuinely their personality and I am not aiming this at them. I am aiming this at the people who take that persona and use it to express themselves. To me, this is incredibly fake. It's polished, it's air brushed and air headed. I know this personality is not "real" for most of the people who use it. I know this because that shit don't fly with me and when they are around me they act themselves. One person even explicitly said "You gotta fake it til you make it honey"
I hate this in so many ways. It's not creative - you're turning yourself into a generic copy of a stereotype for the sense that you fit in and a sense of confidence. It's not individual - the latest trends and fashions spread like diseases among these groups, accelerated by the fact that these groups are by nature very insular. They are easily led. To the point where there are one or two "Kingpins" or in the case of the camp gay stereotype, one or two Queens who set the fashion for these groups. You can hear it in the spread of language used, one Queen uses a new slang term and it spreads among the group until practically everyone is using it. There's no sense of achievement being truly earned here, and ultimately how far you will get will be limited by how "high" up the hierarchy of the group you can climb.
The reason I hate this so much is because I want to get to know the real you. I don't want to get to know a projected personality you show the world. I'm usually quite good at seeing through this and that is not limited to the example I gave above. You can try and "fake it until you make it" but at the end of the day to everyone else who doesn't succumb to this herd mentality, your falseness is transparent. You are only "adored" by these people so long as you are funny and you are entertaining. As with anything of that nature however the novely wears off. Emotional and long lasting connections with people are established through empathy and understanding. If you constantly project a fake personality to the world then you should not be surprised when you find out that people don't like "you" they liked the "idea of you".
If you are a singer and you only do covers, you won't last long. People will like you if you are good, and if you sing songs that they know and love and most importantly they are familiar with. That establishes a foundation. If you want to last in your career you need to show your own talent and creativity and start singing new and original songs. Getting people to buy into this is a lot harder but ultimately it provides greater security and establishes a connection. If you only ever sing covers, you will always be compared to the original, and there will always be others who are doing the same thing and competing with you. No-one can compete with you at being yourself.
Russell T Davies hates Valentine's Day
He didn't say it in so many words but he might as well have. For those that don't know, Russell is a writer who has been behind some quite entertaining shows but also been behind controversy quite a bit. His work on Doctor Who for example was widely criticised; he was as many so often are in British culture, a "marmite" figure - i.e. you either love him or hate him.
Ruseell has been writing for a show he created called Cucumber - it's actually 3 separate interlinked shows that follow the same group of people but from different perspectives. Cucumber is the main series and Banana is basically a spin off that follows each character individually, while Tofu is more of a documentary or discussion based programme that talks about the show itself and the issues it raises, with the cast being the guests.
Cucumber is probably most likened to Queer As Folk - the original UK series, not the US version. Updated for a modern era. While it covers a lot of interesting topics the latest episode touched on something I can personally relate to - trust. I have a lot of trust issues which I have made no secret about however I think Russell completely missed the point and actually showed mistrust more than trust - and I don't accept the argument that this is what he intended because I really don't give his work that depth.
"The Henry Test" was proposed in the show as a trust exercise. The principle is quite simple, the main character says that a couple who think they are happy should take the test and they'll see for real if they are. It involves both partners swapping phones and reading the last 20 texts they sent - to anyone and everyone. There are a number of glaring issues with this which I'll get to in a minute but to take the test at face value there's not a lot that this would achieve in practice. Trust isn't about knowing for sure - if you know for sure then there is no element of trust because there is no doubt.
The problem with this test is that the idea focuses on the test itself and the outcomes but fails to recognise the implications of asking in the first place. If you asked your partner to do this you are basically admitting you don't trust them or that you doubt your trust in them. Either way regardless of what you see when you actually read the texts you have already caused damage to the relationship by asking in the first place. The problem here is that if you ask and they say no, then you will invariably feel like they are hiding something from you because they won't agree to it - despite any logical argument they have against actually doing it, you will still feel mistrust as a result. Therein lies the problem with this test, it will cause one partner or both to lose trust in the other as a result of doing it.
James asks John, and John agrees, James reads and feels reassurance when he sees there's nothing there of concern, but John feels deeply hurt and feels like James does not trust him that will lead John to lose trust in James because trust is not a one way street.
James asks John, and John refuses, James then feels like John is hiding something and mistrusts him and as a result the relationship suffers.
This all results in mistrust. The point of the test - to establish trust - is a misnomer. The reality is that if you both trust one another you would not ask either to do this and you would have no problem with them being uncomfortable with the idea. You can't follow someone every second of the day, they will see other people and talk to them and they will be alone with other people. In these situations you don't know what they say and what they do. Likewise in other forms of communication like email etc you don't normally see what is private. Trust is about accepting their right to privacy and having the belief that they won't abuse it to hide something from you like an affair.
Trust is very hard to get back once it is lost. It's a bit like an ice sculpture. It takes a long time to sculpt and it can look immaculate. As heat causes it to melt and bits fall off it is very hard to patch it back together. It becomes deformed over time and while you may be able to freeze the sculpture again you'll never be able to get it back to what it was. You can start over but that's incredibly hard to do as it means writing off all the work you put into it in the first place and starting from scratch.
I said Russell hates Valentine's Day and I'm half serious about that. The fact this aired now and the seeds it planted in peoples' minds I think would have a negative affect on most people. I am willing to bet there were a lot of breakups because of this storyline. To be honest I am in the camp that if you asked your partner to do this then you don't trust them and if you don't trust them then your relationship is doomed. I have a lot of trust issues and I am a very open person. There would be nothing on my phone personally I'd have a problem with a boyfriend seeing but if he asked me this it would make me wonder why he was asking in the first place and it would make me lose trust in him as a result. If you can't trust me then how do you expect me to trust you? If you don't trust me then I will assume there are many things you don't tell me, not because of their significance but for the simple fact that you don't feel you can be open with me.
So while you may think your trust in me is the only thing being questioned by asking me to do this, you are wrong, my trust in you would be questioned too as a result and I think a lot of people who saw this storyline and turned around and asked their partner might not have realised that. Any that did it and think their partner was completely okay about it I think would be in denial; if you're partner didn't at least admit they found it strange or that they felt like you didn't completely trust them, they would actually have something to worry about because I don't think you're being completely open about your feelings and communicating that between one another.
If you trust someone and have no reason to doubt them, then why would you do this at all?
Ruseell has been writing for a show he created called Cucumber - it's actually 3 separate interlinked shows that follow the same group of people but from different perspectives. Cucumber is the main series and Banana is basically a spin off that follows each character individually, while Tofu is more of a documentary or discussion based programme that talks about the show itself and the issues it raises, with the cast being the guests.
Cucumber is probably most likened to Queer As Folk - the original UK series, not the US version. Updated for a modern era. While it covers a lot of interesting topics the latest episode touched on something I can personally relate to - trust. I have a lot of trust issues which I have made no secret about however I think Russell completely missed the point and actually showed mistrust more than trust - and I don't accept the argument that this is what he intended because I really don't give his work that depth.
"The Henry Test" was proposed in the show as a trust exercise. The principle is quite simple, the main character says that a couple who think they are happy should take the test and they'll see for real if they are. It involves both partners swapping phones and reading the last 20 texts they sent - to anyone and everyone. There are a number of glaring issues with this which I'll get to in a minute but to take the test at face value there's not a lot that this would achieve in practice. Trust isn't about knowing for sure - if you know for sure then there is no element of trust because there is no doubt.
The problem with this test is that the idea focuses on the test itself and the outcomes but fails to recognise the implications of asking in the first place. If you asked your partner to do this you are basically admitting you don't trust them or that you doubt your trust in them. Either way regardless of what you see when you actually read the texts you have already caused damage to the relationship by asking in the first place. The problem here is that if you ask and they say no, then you will invariably feel like they are hiding something from you because they won't agree to it - despite any logical argument they have against actually doing it, you will still feel mistrust as a result. Therein lies the problem with this test, it will cause one partner or both to lose trust in the other as a result of doing it.
James asks John, and John agrees, James reads and feels reassurance when he sees there's nothing there of concern, but John feels deeply hurt and feels like James does not trust him that will lead John to lose trust in James because trust is not a one way street.
James asks John, and John refuses, James then feels like John is hiding something and mistrusts him and as a result the relationship suffers.
This all results in mistrust. The point of the test - to establish trust - is a misnomer. The reality is that if you both trust one another you would not ask either to do this and you would have no problem with them being uncomfortable with the idea. You can't follow someone every second of the day, they will see other people and talk to them and they will be alone with other people. In these situations you don't know what they say and what they do. Likewise in other forms of communication like email etc you don't normally see what is private. Trust is about accepting their right to privacy and having the belief that they won't abuse it to hide something from you like an affair.
Trust is very hard to get back once it is lost. It's a bit like an ice sculpture. It takes a long time to sculpt and it can look immaculate. As heat causes it to melt and bits fall off it is very hard to patch it back together. It becomes deformed over time and while you may be able to freeze the sculpture again you'll never be able to get it back to what it was. You can start over but that's incredibly hard to do as it means writing off all the work you put into it in the first place and starting from scratch.
I said Russell hates Valentine's Day and I'm half serious about that. The fact this aired now and the seeds it planted in peoples' minds I think would have a negative affect on most people. I am willing to bet there were a lot of breakups because of this storyline. To be honest I am in the camp that if you asked your partner to do this then you don't trust them and if you don't trust them then your relationship is doomed. I have a lot of trust issues and I am a very open person. There would be nothing on my phone personally I'd have a problem with a boyfriend seeing but if he asked me this it would make me wonder why he was asking in the first place and it would make me lose trust in him as a result. If you can't trust me then how do you expect me to trust you? If you don't trust me then I will assume there are many things you don't tell me, not because of their significance but for the simple fact that you don't feel you can be open with me.
So while you may think your trust in me is the only thing being questioned by asking me to do this, you are wrong, my trust in you would be questioned too as a result and I think a lot of people who saw this storyline and turned around and asked their partner might not have realised that. Any that did it and think their partner was completely okay about it I think would be in denial; if you're partner didn't at least admit they found it strange or that they felt like you didn't completely trust them, they would actually have something to worry about because I don't think you're being completely open about your feelings and communicating that between one another.
If you trust someone and have no reason to doubt them, then why would you do this at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)