Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Hoo boy, plenty to write about today.
We'll try to keep it fairly short, though some sports items are involved, so I might lose some of my readers partway through.
First things first though, I came across this article on Netscape. Basically it's a study that goes on o state that men are more inclined to cheat, since it's "spreads the love" (not an actual quote form the story), and we're more likely to have many children that way. Women are more likely to go after rich men, because they're more than likely able to provide for their own offspring.
I agree with this, actually. I also agree with the Doctor who felt that any guy who uses this study as proof that he should be allowed to be promiscuous outside of his marriage is an a**hole. Ok, she didn't put it that way, but seeing my family hurt by this first-hand, I can tell you that the justification is pure crap. I'm not saying that monogomy is for everyone. It just isn't. But then, marriage isn't for everyone either. Are the two synonymous? I would like to think so, but I'm not naive enough to think so. You have to do what works best for your marriage. In an ideal situation, that would be two people who love each other, are commited to each other, and retain a monogomous relationship. However, some marriages work best under something akin to an "open-(door) policy". Replace door with whatever you'd like.
IS that cheating? No, not necessarily. If you and your spouse have both come to a mutual agreement BEFORE you got married that this is how it would be fore you, than so be it. As long as the marriage itself is one of support and love (in all of it's various forms) and understanding.
If you enter into a relationship under the auspices of being monogomous however, and one person strays, well.....it is what it is. And no beating of chests, and stupid statements like "I'm a man, and I NEED to cheat to spread my seed,and it's part of who I am" is going to make it right in the eyes of the one you married. To think so is to think entirely of yourself, and nothing of the feelings or the well-being of the one that you committed your life to.
I'll admit that as a man, even though married, I'll get a tingle for another girl I see on Tv, or walking by or whatever. That would be the caveman instincts doing their job. I feel the desire building from time to time. And it's not a bad thing, any more than my wife finding Johnny Depp or Vin Diesel, or some other Don Juan hot. (2 way street, you know. )
But what makes you a human being, and NOT some drooling monkey is that you have the ability to reason and you have control over your own actions. If you cannot be responisble for yourself, nor to show the will power to control your own emotions, then you have failed to become human. Keep in mind, I am talking about the habitual cheaters. I have room in my graces for a moment of weakness, though handled on a case-by-case basis. But even that being said, cheating once can cause some devestatingly hurt feelings, not to mentin the scary possibility of some STD's. And once you've cheated, you're more likely to cheat again, so it's a slippery slope.
Anyway, my point being is that while the base instincts to populate the world maywell still be within our genetic make-up, we have evolved to the point where we should be able to move beyond that. We are no longer primates...we've evolved beyond that, and should be able to take control (and responibility) of our own actions. And I don't think there's enough of that going around these days.
Anyway, enough preaching at the pulpit today.
The Chicago Bears hired a new Qb coach to mentor our young and impresionable new QB. To my mortification, it's Whiskey Wade Wilson. Never quie the public drunk that Tommy Kramer was, I am still resigned to the fact that Rex grossman will be the next to turn up on the DUI list. Course, Jim McMahon was known to hoist a few in his time as well, so maybe it won't be all bad. I'll just have a hard time living down the fact that one of my least favorite Viking players of old is in charge of developing the Bears of the future. I know a few co-workers already waiting to start in on it.
In other sports news, the Local 9 signed Jose Offerman to a mino league deal, with the idea that he'll be a left-handed batter off the bench, and occasional utility guy, capable of playing at 1st, 2nd,a nd even a little outfield. My own personal hope is that he kows how to bunt,a nd shows some of his new teammates how to successfully move the runners over. Fat chance of that happening, but I can hope. If he comes in and contributes, great. But I don;t see alot of poeple heading into the Twins pro shops to snarf up Jose Offerman jerseys.
I am resisting the temptation to head over to CNNSI.com (link not provided, for fear that I might not resist peeking), since they ahve a sneak preview of THE ISSUE. Apparently there is body painting, which was a huge hit a few years ago. You've seen it elsewhere, I am sure. (A recent modelling show had it for their first episode.) Noone has done it as well as it was done in Sports Illustrated though. And nowhere did you want a bucket of water more. (Turpentine might work too, but doesn't work well with human skin.....) Should I find you examples? hmm........ To link or not to link. Well, that decided THAT, I suppose.
Ah well. Another day logged into the abyss of the internet.
Much much more arriving in later dys.
We'll try to keep it fairly short, though some sports items are involved, so I might lose some of my readers partway through.
First things first though, I came across this article on Netscape. Basically it's a study that goes on o state that men are more inclined to cheat, since it's "spreads the love" (not an actual quote form the story), and we're more likely to have many children that way. Women are more likely to go after rich men, because they're more than likely able to provide for their own offspring.
I agree with this, actually. I also agree with the Doctor who felt that any guy who uses this study as proof that he should be allowed to be promiscuous outside of his marriage is an a**hole. Ok, she didn't put it that way, but seeing my family hurt by this first-hand, I can tell you that the justification is pure crap. I'm not saying that monogomy is for everyone. It just isn't. But then, marriage isn't for everyone either. Are the two synonymous? I would like to think so, but I'm not naive enough to think so. You have to do what works best for your marriage. In an ideal situation, that would be two people who love each other, are commited to each other, and retain a monogomous relationship. However, some marriages work best under something akin to an "open-(door) policy". Replace door with whatever you'd like.
IS that cheating? No, not necessarily. If you and your spouse have both come to a mutual agreement BEFORE you got married that this is how it would be fore you, than so be it. As long as the marriage itself is one of support and love (in all of it's various forms) and understanding.
If you enter into a relationship under the auspices of being monogomous however, and one person strays, well.....it is what it is. And no beating of chests, and stupid statements like "I'm a man, and I NEED to cheat to spread my seed,and it's part of who I am" is going to make it right in the eyes of the one you married. To think so is to think entirely of yourself, and nothing of the feelings or the well-being of the one that you committed your life to.
I'll admit that as a man, even though married, I'll get a tingle for another girl I see on Tv, or walking by or whatever. That would be the caveman instincts doing their job. I feel the desire building from time to time. And it's not a bad thing, any more than my wife finding Johnny Depp or Vin Diesel, or some other Don Juan hot. (2 way street, you know. )
But what makes you a human being, and NOT some drooling monkey is that you have the ability to reason and you have control over your own actions. If you cannot be responisble for yourself, nor to show the will power to control your own emotions, then you have failed to become human. Keep in mind, I am talking about the habitual cheaters. I have room in my graces for a moment of weakness, though handled on a case-by-case basis. But even that being said, cheating once can cause some devestatingly hurt feelings, not to mentin the scary possibility of some STD's. And once you've cheated, you're more likely to cheat again, so it's a slippery slope.
Anyway, my point being is that while the base instincts to populate the world maywell still be within our genetic make-up, we have evolved to the point where we should be able to move beyond that. We are no longer primates...we've evolved beyond that, and should be able to take control (and responibility) of our own actions. And I don't think there's enough of that going around these days.
Anyway, enough preaching at the pulpit today.
The Chicago Bears hired a new Qb coach to mentor our young and impresionable new QB. To my mortification, it's Whiskey Wade Wilson. Never quie the public drunk that Tommy Kramer was, I am still resigned to the fact that Rex grossman will be the next to turn up on the DUI list. Course, Jim McMahon was known to hoist a few in his time as well, so maybe it won't be all bad. I'll just have a hard time living down the fact that one of my least favorite Viking players of old is in charge of developing the Bears of the future. I know a few co-workers already waiting to start in on it.
In other sports news, the Local 9 signed Jose Offerman to a mino league deal, with the idea that he'll be a left-handed batter off the bench, and occasional utility guy, capable of playing at 1st, 2nd,a nd even a little outfield. My own personal hope is that he kows how to bunt,a nd shows some of his new teammates how to successfully move the runners over. Fat chance of that happening, but I can hope. If he comes in and contributes, great. But I don;t see alot of poeple heading into the Twins pro shops to snarf up Jose Offerman jerseys.
I am resisting the temptation to head over to CNNSI.com (link not provided, for fear that I might not resist peeking), since they ahve a sneak preview of THE ISSUE. Apparently there is body painting, which was a huge hit a few years ago. You've seen it elsewhere, I am sure. (A recent modelling show had it for their first episode.) Noone has done it as well as it was done in Sports Illustrated though. And nowhere did you want a bucket of water more. (Turpentine might work too, but doesn't work well with human skin.....) Should I find you examples? hmm........ To link or not to link. Well, that decided THAT, I suppose.
Ah well. Another day logged into the abyss of the internet.
Much much more arriving in later dys.
Comments:
Post a Comment
