in response to dragonwine's long-ago asked question: "What is your personal view on gender in a sociological sense? Do you think gender, like sexuality, is fluid or not?"

I don't think it's fluid because I don't believe it exists. I think the physical sex characteristics of a body are irrelevant to the qualities, behaviors, attractions, etc., of the person living inside it.

I don't believe there is a such thing as a masculine or feminine quality (except as pertains to the body itself). Strong, weak, stoic, emotional, callous, sensitive, aggressive, submissive, repressed, expressive -- all of these are HUMAN qualities. And I find it extremely offensive when someone stereotypes them as masculine or feminine. The most commonly stereotyped quality, in my opinion, is compassion. (sometimes called 'sensitivity' or 'being pussy') The ability to feel someone else's feelings and understand their experience through that. It is stereotyped as a 'feminine' quality to the point where a person who is supposedly very wise and enlightened said that "the female is the source of genuine human compassion." I find that so. fucking. sickening! So men can't have compassion? what are they, monsters who care about no one else, doomed to selfishness forever because they made the mistake of being born into a male body? Or perhaps they are beggars, who can only come about compassion by being given it by a female. And what does this say about being female? that we are to be the source of all humans, while men give nothing? ARGH. Showing emotion is a part of compassion. Crying is often an expression of compassion for yourself or someone else, and this behavior is stereotyped as feminine. I could go on and on about every one of the qualities that is commonly stereotyped as being somehow related to genitalia. And then again, about behaviors/dress. With the exception of bras, there is no real reason for any difference in clothing due to sex. And then again, about attractions. Hello, it is not genitals that are attracted to genitals, it is a person who is attracted to a person.

This is why I am bisexual/queer. People generally come in two sexes, with the rare variation, and I am attracted to the spirit within a person. I find female, male, intersexed, and transsexual people equally attractive in the same way that I find slim and thick people equally attractive. Beauty is variety.

ETA: for a more structured explanation, read the userinfo of abolishgender. I agree with it completely.

ETA #2: in this post, by 'gender' I mean social/cultural categories, (stereotyped qualities, behaviors, dress, attractions), not physical sex characteristics (genitals, reproductive organs, hormones).

*hissss* You know what irritates me? When people come to me and try to lecture me about something that I know far more about -- something I have put hours and hours into educating myself about, while they have never done the slightest bit of research. I offer well-reasoned, well-supported arguments and they don't even read them, instead respond by going off on an absolute tangent that had nothing to do with what I said. I seriously need to stop casting pearls before swine. At least I've learned to drop it before they turn and trample me also.

( thank you PJ & Dolores! )

heh, I ran out of anger before I finished making this post but I'm making it anyway! If you're snarly today give me a hell yeah. ;-)

This is a topic that many people are deeply invested in. It tears down a ranking system, and that always causes uproar -- even from those whom it oppresses. Those whom it oppresses may not be the highest in the ranking system, but at least they aren't as 'bad' as those below them, and for those who have low self esteem, that comparison is very important. Also, there is simply a fear of the unknown -- in this case, life without a certain type of comparison.

Health cannot be accurately measured by weight. (neither can beauty, but that is another subject) Our society has a ranking system called BMI -- a number calculated by your height and weight -- that supposedly tells us how healthy we are. The more healthy, the better, as we praise supposedly 'fit' people. However, this ranking system is inherently flawed. First of all, it was created as a tool for statistical analysis -- to be able to create groups based on rough body size, for studies. It was never intended to be a measurement of health, and has not been tested for accuracy. For instance, no one has ever proven that a 5'5" woman is any more healthy at 140 pounds than she is at 120 or 160. You'd think with a chart used to diagnose people as being healthy, extensive testing would have been done at every level -- but since BMI was not intended for that purpose, it has not been.

BMI does not take into account muscle (which weighs more than fat) or frame size, and more importantly it does not take into account how active a person is or how healthily they eat. Many studies have shown that activity level has far more to do with fitness than weight does. Weight is a symptom of ill health -- it only becomes a cause of ill health in extreme cases. Increasing one's fitness will do much more for one's health than decreasing one's weight. We think we can look at a person and determine how fit they are by how thick they are -- but the fat and active are healthier than the thin and inactive.

( quotes and links )

LJ idol topic 13: "Current Events" ((if you liked/got something from this, please vote for me))

Friday I spent the day with SabR -- so much fun! We went shopping in downtown Athens and I looked at a lot of glass art, but the really lovely pieces were just too expensive and the decently priced stuff was nice but not in any of my colors. :-p So at the Native American store I picked up a green jasper egg (which had an amazing forest energy) and an opalite star for my altar, and a small thing for one of my Aquarian friends' birthday. ;-)

The strangest thing happened there -- Ashley just happened to come into the shop at the same time that we were there! For those of you who haven't been on my flist long, Ashley and SabR have negative history and pretty much hate each other. When Ashley called me over, I made awkward conversation with her (the tension between them was palpable) and then told her that I was there with SabR, which ended the conversation. I've never experienced that before and I would not care to experience it again! And it makes me wish humans were a little less civilized because I would much prefer open fighting to polite hatred. I'm not the sort of person who tries to break up a fight between adults (or equally matched children) because while it may not be the best way to resolve conflict, it's better than the alternative, in my mind. The police might not agree, heh.

Anyway, after that was over we went to see The Tree That Owns Itself (which is actually the scion of the original tree) and were disappointed at how young it was. (but I want to go back and see it again in the summer) The Magnolia across the street was HUGE and amazing, so we took more photos of that.

SabR took me to one of her favorite Mexican restaurants, which I liked (to my surprise, as I am very picky) and then we went back to her place and watched Prince of Egypt (which she had never seen! wtf!) and Knocked Up, which wasn't as bad as I had expected from everything people had said. ( ranting about the movie ) Oh, and Paul Rudd was BRILLIANT in that film. He's one of the handful of actors I wish I could meet.



( photos of SabR, me, trees, and Athens )

Recently on The L Word there was a shower scene which included normal women who varied in age, race, shape, and size. (NWS screencap) I was delighted, but when I watched the We're Getting Nowhere recap, the vloggers weren't so pleased. They made negative and disparaging comments about those women, so I responded with this comment:

I thought those women were beautiful. And I think that your not-so-positive reaction to them contradicts your previous statements about disliking the unhealthily thin trend in the media. "We don't want to see that"? Well I do! The blonde woman who threatened Helena was stunning -- mature, fit, and curvy -- and her companion was also lushly gorgeous. I'm annoyed that they had to go to prison to find these women. Apparently all normal-sized, varying in age women get sent to jail in L.A. -- perhaps for the crime of not being young, thin, and stereotypically beautiful? I'm disappointed that you seem to agree that those who are not young, thin, and stereotypically beautiful should not be on TV. Perhaps if they were, people would not have such a narrow, ridiculous idea of what 'beauty' is. Thin is merely the fashionable body shape -- it is not natural human inclination to find only thin people attractive. If we changed the fashion to thickness (as it was 100 years ago), your average person would think of thin women as unattractive. What we should be looking for is a fashion of variety -- truly believing that all people are beautiful.

Beauty is variety, not sameness. You can have your bland, airbrushed, altered, starved women. Give me the ones with flavour: the ones who don't change themselves to fit into the fashionable shape! (which includes those very few who happen to naturally have the shape which is in fashion)

( a response to my comment )

( another response -- this one apparently from a 'normal' viewer )

My now-decidedly-irritated response:
I didn't say it was about weight issues. I said it was about their expressions of disgust -- "eww" "I don't want to see that on TV" "be careful what you wish for" (paraphrased slightly). Yes their reactions were 'normal' -- that's the whole problem! This narrow concept of attractive is what is the problem. 'Attractive' is NOT AN OBJECTIVE QUALITY. It is purely subjective. It doesn't become fact because a bunch of people agree any more than the world was flat because everyone agreed on that concept. The concept of an objective beauty standard is FALSE.

Don't we all prefer something nice to look at?

Yes. Some of us have broader definitions of that than others. I personally find those women in the shower scene every bit as 'nice' to look at as the L word actresses, if not more so because they were natural. Being worked on for three hours (hair, makeup, etc) before a scene is shot and having a personal trainer and being on a restrictive, unhealthy diet is not normal or natural, and I don't find it especially attractive.

And no, I don't think TV would be bland if it had more variety! I think it would have more spice because of more DIVERSITY. Since when is something more flavorful because it is homogeneous?

most of us have at least some notion of what is generally considered attractive, and it's not what was presented in that shower scene, no matter how much some may protest that pointing it out is unfair or wrong.

What is 'generally considered' is not necessarily fact. Just because YOU thought it wasn't "particularly pleasant to see" does not mean that it wasn't. Your opinion is just that -- not objective fact for the rest of the world. You assume that everyone thinks thin is nicest and most attractive -- that this is some universally accepted and timeless idea! it isn't. It is a modern fetish. If all of the L Word main characters had the same skin tone and the shower scene ladies had a different skin tone and the vloggers reacted with disgust because of that skin tone, would that be an acceptable reaction? NO. Body shapes naturally differ the same way skin tones do, and should be treated with equal respect even if one doesn't find them equally attractive. I don't consider it 'PC' to treat every person with equal respect -- I consider it respecting one's fellow human beings.

just to make sure I am perfectly clear: I'm not asking the vloggers to like different sizes and shapes. That is their personal choice, of course. I'm simply asking that they treat all shapes and sizes with equal respect, without displaying disgust or disdain based on someone's appearance.

argh! I've gotten blocked, I strongly dislike when this happens. I have such a flood of new thoughts/feelings that I am trying to sort and express, and I took too long of a break from the expressing part and now it has all built up and bottlenecked. *growl* I've stopped reading my current nonfiction because it inspires too many MORE new thoughts! *deep breath* I suppose I'll dump a bunch of random stuff in this post and then I can get on with it all.

Private Practice ANNOYS ME with its rampant sexism and dull, unsympathetic characters. ( possible spoilers and anti-sexism ranting: on the FALSE concept of 'withholding' sex, the false concept that penis-in-vagina sex is the only 'legitimate' sex, the false concept that lack of sex is a good reason to dump a partner, and the idea that only women and children are susceptible to manipulation )

bah, this was supposed to be a post of bunches of stuff, but it is too long already. Anyway, I think I'll give Private Practice one more try and if it doesn't dump the sexism and get more interesting, I'm not watching, not even for Addison.

"Bisexuality is real" -- a statement I've seen with an accompanying colorbar in quite a few profiles. But many people don't believe that -- or, more to the point, don't believe that bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual preference. It is seen as transitory/false/fickle, because we live in an exclusionist society that declares that all people must be either/or -- gay OR straight (bad or good!). This means, for the many people who are not 100% same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, whichever feelings are: a) less strong or b) less socially acceptable (by whatever culture you're in) are therefore considered illegitimate, not real. People 'experiment' with the same sex in college and then after graduating settle into heterosexual life, but instead of allowing for the possibility that those people are bisexuals with stronger opposite-sex than same-sex feelings (or a desire to stay in the closet), they are categorized as straight. Their feelings and experiences are considered illegitimate, unreal, meaningless, because they MUST fit into one category or the other, based on whom they are currently/most recently in a relationship with. I think many people explore their bisexuality in college ((18% of college men say they've kissed another man, and 20% of college women say they've kissed another woman)) because it is (more) socially acceptable then, but later leave it behind to fit into a monosexual lifestyle because they feel they must choose one or the other.

One thing I keep seeing in tv/films which INFURIATES me is this: person discovers they have sexual/romantic feelings for the same sex, and immediately ASSUMES that they are gay, completely illegitimatizing their feelings for the opposite sex!!! (now if they mentioned a lack of feeling for the opposite sex, that would make sense, but that's never part of it!) THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!! This assumption is extremely discriminatory, either/or, us/them, exclusionist. Feelings for one sex simply mean you have feelings for that sex, they do NOT mean all feelings for the other sex are therefore invalid and fake. And the assumption always goes the same way -- one drop of queerness makes you gay! Straight has to be pure, untainted. Sounds a little prejudiced, doesn't it? but it is an assumption made across the board, by all sexualities. Assuming people are either gay or straight is just as bad as assuming that all people are straight.

It's not just in the media either -- I've seen so many people say "I've discovered I have feelings for the same sex... I think I'm gay." (because bisexual is not an option? doesn't exist?) or "I would love to be [with women], but I love the cock too much." (I'm so not kidding, that is nearly a direct quote -- what she actually said was 'gay.' (also, hello? dildos?)) Liking penis and liking vulva are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. (It's fine to like exclusively one or the other, of course, but liking both is ALSO a possibility)

Bisexuality is considered politically unimportant by some, because bisexuals blend into whichever monosexual group they fit into with their current lover -- they aren't visible. However, this is the very reason they are of utmost importance. Bisexuals bridge the gap between straight and gay -- they bring to awareness that we are all the same, we are all just people. Bisexuality makes many people uncomfortably aware of the fact that there is no strict dividing line between gay and straight -- you can be both at once. There aren't purebloods and mudbloods -- bisexuality throws out the either/or, throws out the rationale for us/them mentality. How can you discriminate if you don't know who's who? Heterosexism is essentially based on appearances, and since bisexuality makes appearances completely irrelevant, heterosexism relies on the belief that bisexuality doesn't exist.

If a heterosexist person sees two girls kissing, ze is disapproving, but if ze sees a girl and guy kissing, ze is approving. However, if that person believed in bisexuality, ze would not be able to dis/approve based on simple appearances, because that opposite-sex couple could easily both be queers. (Or, for that matter, one of the same-sex couple could actually be a 'feminine' guy and therefore marginally 'approvable') If ze was the boss of a man who had been happily married to a woman for 20 years and had four kids, ze could not assume he was straight (if ze believed in bisexuality). Or if ze had sex with someone of the opposite sex, ze could not assume that that person was straight, and knowing that the person you're sleeping with could be queer makes it a hell of a lot harder to discriminate against queers. Also, if ze believed in bisexuality and ever had ANY feelings for the same sex, ze could not dismiss those feelings as illegitimate or unimportant, and could not so easily discriminate against others who act upon those feelings.

Until bisexuality is recognized as a stable and legitimate sexual preference, discrimination against all sexualities will continue. There are other factors of course, but I believe this is a major factor.

I've made my own colorbar: feel free to use if you wish.

Bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual orientation.

<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="50%"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#E545C8" width="10%"> </td><td bgcolor="#B727EE" width="20%"> </td><td bgcolor="#6F00FF" width="40%"> </td><td bgcolor="#6933FF" width="20%"> </td><td bgcolor="#3B3BFF" width="10%"> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="5" align="center"><a href="http://belenen.livejournal.com/348769.html">Bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual orientation.</a></td></tr></tbody></table></center>

I want ALL marriage to be extralegal, like it should always have been. There should be no laws concerning marriage -- there should only be civil unions, and the rights of civil unions should be the same for any family, regardless of gender. I find it very ironic that the same people who say 'we want separation of church and state' also say 'we want gay marriage legalized.' Modern marriage is essentially a religious ceremony (yes I know the church didn't invent it, but the church has been handling it in our society for hundreds of years), and the government shouldn't get involved. The government should not be the one that tells churches to stop being exclusionist and hypocritical -- unfortunately, they have that right, just like individuals do. The problem here is not that marriage laws are flawed -- it's that they exist at all.

But even though I think the government should have nothing to do with marriage, since it already does, it needs to at least do it fairly. Civil unions only exist in 3 states and they give far less rights than marriages. So I'd vote for anything that made civil unions equal to marriage or made the legal part of marriage gender-neutral.

But regardless, I don't think that a license or a ceremony make a marriage. Marriage is when one person decides to join their life with another in a committed, spiritually-mentally-sexually intimate relationship. There are many relationships that have never had a ceremony or a legal document that I would consider marriages.

( rant on weddings )

Our fucked-up society tells men that their worth is in their penises in the same way that it tells women their worth is in how closely they match the 'ideal'. Every time I hear of it, it makes me more angry and disgusted. A man has just as much worth if his penis is small or thin or has never been in a vagina or doesn't get hard or gets soft again quickly or is surgically constructed or doesn't exist! A man doesn't need a penis to be himself! I was watching a Scrubs episode lately where J.D. has an occurrence of impotence, and I was appalled and infuriated by the way the others treated him -- with pity and contempt. And he only regained his feelings of self-worth when he was once again able to get an erection. What the hell? Does no one realize how fucking sick it is to have your self-worth be entirely dependent upon a body part?

Also, the myth that women want a man with a giant penis -- what a pile of shit! First of all, most women get most pleasure from clitoral stimulation, not penetration, and secondly, the vagina is a very elastic organ, and changes diameter to suit the occasion. The 'need' for a larger penis stems from a desire to have power (which is trained in by society -- it is not natural for a person to desire power over another).

And don't even give me that crap that it's some altruistic desire to 'please a woman' -- a penis is definitely not necessary for that. That phrase is a self-righteous euphemism. If a man wants to please a woman, he can do it regardless of the size or performance of his penis. Society says that a man's worth lies in how much he can do with his penis (and in whom he chooses to use it with); it's about who he can 'conquer' with it. That's bullshit! True sex is not about conquering, it is about mutual giving. There should be no pride and no shame associated with the penis -- it's JUST A BODY PART.

If society could teach little boys that the penis is merely a body part and has nothing to do with who they truly are (not to be ashamed of OR proud of), maybe men would be less obsessed with proving their worth through sex. And they'd be able to treat women with more respect because they wouldn't 'need' to use a woman to be who they are. And they could take pride in what matters -- being a person, being their true self -- rather than a body part which they cannot change, and shouldn't want to change.

I've said some of this before but I think it deserves its own post.

I do not believe in talking about someone behind his/her back; I consider that very disrespectful. Everything I have written about any problems with any of my friends and everything I will write, I have ALREADY TOLD THEM FIRST and usually discussed it quite thoroughly. (except I can think of one case when I did not, with Kristen. It was a very minor issue (she thought I was boring and that bothered me), but nonetheless I should have discussed it with her first.) If I have an issue with someone, I keep it to myself until I discuss it with the primary person. After that, I feel free to discuss it with whomever I want, because it is part of my life and as such the story belongs to me. Usually at that point I have worked out the issue and I include the reconciliation in my telling of the story, but I don't consider the reconciliation necessary.

So if I don't have the guts to approach the primary person about an issue I have with them, I will not discuss it at all, unless and until I have confronted the primary person. If the primary person is not a friend of mine, I do not feel that I owe them the courtesy of telling her/him FIRST, but I do believe that I owe them the courtesy of not talking behind her/his back.

I think if 'Aye', talks about 'Bee' without telling Bee FIRST, or at least simultaneously, that is extremely disrespectful to Bee and deceitful of Aye. And if Aye talks about Bee behind her/his back, without ever telling Bee her/his words, that is a sure sign that Aye doesn't believe what s/he is saying, and therefore it is most likely untrue.

The one exception is if a friend says 'I need your advice on this, I want to approach so-n-so but am not sure how.' I think when you are coming at it from an angle of intending on talking to the person and working it out, and you're just trying to get advice on HOW to approach it, that is completely different. But it should still be with only a VERY few, very trusted people, and confrontation should definitely happen afterwards.

And flipping the coin, if one of my friends talks negatively about another behind her/his back, I will mention it to them. I will not say specifics (unless speaking to the two people I have no secrets from (my soulfriends, Nimajneb and Hannah)), but I will say, "so-n-so said something about you, but I do not believe it (and/or) I do not agree with them (and/or) I want to hear your side of the story." I think for me to keep it to myself would be a breach of trust with the person talked about. To listen to someone talk negatively about my friend behind her/his back, and do nothing -- that I will not do. (obviously if the person you're talking about is not a close friend of mine, I will not get involved in the matter because that is none of my business) And if this bothers you, go ahead and unfriend me, or if you say negatives about a friend of mine without telling them first, filter me out of it. I apologize for not making this clear earlier, but it's never been an issue until lately.

If the negative-talker doesn't want the person she's speaking of to know, she shouldn't make it known. Once knowledge is in my head, it is MY knowledge and MY responsibility as to what to do with it. I can't say, 'well I didn't create this piece of knowledge and therefore it isn't my responsibility.' Knowledge is owned not by the creator but by anyone who knows it. What I know is my responsibility. If I know someone is lying to my friend (and speaking behind someone's back IS a lie of omission) and I do not tell her, I am also guilty of a lie of omission.

There's a lot I want to update about, especially Thursday, meeting SabR and Kazi and the cleansing ceremony with Ashley.

But right now I'm angry about so many things. Mainly at abusive people -- kevin, my dad, my aunt -- who try their damndest to control, use, and suck the energy out of the lives of those I love. Spouting lies, believing them, using them as a net to try to capture prey. And I admit it, I feel a little anger at my loved ones for not taking care of people whom I love -- themselves. Kick the abuser out and keep them out! They have no concept of a mutual relationship -- they just want to take from you. And if you let them, you're harming the both of you -- it's like enabling an alcoholic. They don't know what they need, and you giving them the substitute they crave just keeps them from really living.

It's never a good thing to yield to an abusive person; it's not good, it's not generous, it's not loving. There can be no real love where there is not respect -- for both self and other. There can be affection, fondness, but never true love. Love is wanting the greatest good for the both of you, and being willing to sacrifice for that (including sacrificing the relationship!). That desire can only develop in the presence of deep respect for the innate worth of both yourself and the other.

I can't stand it when people speak in double negatives just to avoid using a positive. And as a cashier, I have to swallow my snippy retort about 20 times a day.
I ask "How's your day been?" and what do I get?
"Not bad." "Can't complain." "I've had worse days." "Not too terrible."
and then sometimes I do get so irritated that I say (in a lighthearted tone of course), "So it's just been sorta terrible?" or "So if it's not bad, that would make it good, right?"
If you've had a bad day, admit it! If you've had a pretty good day, why denigrate it with two negative words instead of one positive? I promise I'm not going to think less of you for almost, sorta-kinda, half-way enjoying life!!!!! It's like we're in such a habit of negativity that positivity is too personal, we have to keep it locked up tight so it doesn't accidentally spread to others, oh no!

I don't have a problem with people being honest when they feel bad. It's the obviously happy (or at least peaceful) people who can't be arsed to speak a positive word even though they feel positive that irritates me. SHARE!

I really think it's mainly due to the media always focusing on the negative. It's become such a part of our culture that we can only understand positivity as LACK of NEGATIVITY. And how can you focus on lack of something? Every ad tells you, "you have this negative, we can take it away" -- whether that supposed negative is too much or too little of something doesn't matter, it's all the same. Every news article is about something negative, usually sensationalized far beyond truth, because truth doesn't sell, shock does. Which is why we need to throw away our TVs and stop buying magazines and learn to think for ourselves, dammit. Learn that positivity is at least as much of a force as negativity, and that we can seek it, and we can focus on it. And that when we share it, it GROWS instead of lessening.

AND let me apply that to body image. Don't say, "even though I don't look like a 'supermodel', I am beautiful" -- the qualifier implies that you are a lesser kind of beautiful. Just say, "I am beautiful." Don't say, "this quality doesn't mean that I'm unattractive" -- say "I am attractive, partially BECAUSE of this quality." My breasts are teardrop shaped, and I like them that way! in fact, I prefer their shape to the baseball shape featured in magazines. My belly is rounded -- again, I prefer it. I like the soft femininity of it. My hips are curvy, my legs are muscular and thick. I'm not beautiful in spite of these qualities, I am beautiful BECAUSE of them.

it frustrates me to deal with other people's mindsets sometimes. I don't look down on them or think ill of them for their way of thinking, but I get tongue-tied and can't express MY way and then I feel like I am betraying myself.

For instance, people who tell me that I should go back to school because "you don't want to work at wal-mart for the rest of your life." True, I don't, but the mindset behind that statement is completely abhorrent to me. The idea that my success can be measured by the amount of money that I make is disgusting. I would be perfectly happy making nothing more than $9 an hour for the rest of my life (and realizing how amazingly lucky I am to live in a country of such wealth) -- in fact, the only reason I would not want to work at Wal-mart for the rest of my life is that I am a gypsy at heart and I cannot stay in one place for too long. I NEED change of environment or I feel stale and dead. And I crave experience. I am so envious of those people who can say, oh yeah, I worked at 50 different jobs over 20 years -- they meet SO MANY people and experience so many mini-cultures. Every workplace has a mini-culture.

Back to the point: I define being successful as having an increasing ability to love and show it. I work for this kind of success: I actually study -- which I never did in school. I have to buy books before reading them because I am always underlining and starring things that resonate truth in me. I take NOTES! for goodness sake. And by my terms, I have been wildly successful in the past few years. I learned how to love completely and then let go -- twice! -- one ending positive and natural, the other negative and destructive, but both very growth-inspiring. My heart has increased in her capacity to love; a few years ago there was only room for about five people, everyone else was near the fringes, whereas NOW I have a heart so large that over 80 people fit well within her. That is amazing to me. I wish so much that I could show you each a picture of how much I love you, because I think it would surprise you. I think very few people actually know how much I love them, and I know that is partly because I am rather bad at showing it. I feel like there is a block holding me back, but I am trying to be patient with myself and have faith that when I am able, I will show it in ways that make you believe. Every little gift you offer me -- an email when I am hurting, for instance, as M-Kat and Nisha did, or two months of paidaccount time, as Rob and Peter did, or a thoughtful loving comment or a note in the mail or a mix CD or a postcard or a letter or wonderful wonderful gifts or simply using an icon I made or mentioning me in a post -- every single thing is a jewel to me, I treasure your gifts and I treasure you. I am so sorry that I don't show it properly but I am growing and healing and I will get better.

Right now, I could go to college, but to afford it, I would have to work as well. That would mean at least two years of my life (I've already had two) where I had very limited time to show any love at all, and the little time I did have would be stressed out. It's just not worth it to me -- two years of drastically decreased growth and positive effect on those I love -- it would be a terrible waste. I am not going back to college unless/until I can do it without working, at a school where I will actually learn and not just get a piece of paper to hang on my wall. I do not care about a degree, I only care about learning, and right now, I can do that much better by not going to school. (I still admire the dedication and hard work of those who DO follow that path, but it is not for me)

I have always felt that I will die early (not too early, but before 50), and that affects my outlook (it doesn't bother me -- I can't remember ever fearing death, I've always just looked forward to heaven. Now I actually appreciate the gift of life though, so I am glad it isn't sooner (in my feelings anyway)). I think of earthly life with a deadline, and there is much that I want to do before I die. Every moment needs to be lived with as much bold love as I can give, and not wasted. I still waste (too much!) time, but my major life choices center around being able to love and show it.

I've posted this twice before, I think... now it has altered slightly, and it seems like a good time to repost.

open-mindedness is NOT:
----having no opinions of your own but agreeing with everyone else's
----agreeing with whatever is most liberal at the time
----having liberal or unpopular opinions which you do not permit to change
----allowing your opinions to be swayed once in a blue moon
----forming opinions based on one point of view
----having no guidelines for what you wish to saturate your mind with

openmindedness IS:
forming opinions based on a fair assessment of several differing points of view -- and then allowing your opinions to change upon learning new, convincing information.

Thus, to be openminded you MUST:
----be willing to research several differing points of view before forming an opinion
----be willing to have an unpopular opinion
----be willing to alter your perception of reality
----believe that what is true for yourself may not be true for others

(based on these principles, this list will be altered as I think on it more. Feel free to share your own ideas)

( I have been accused of being closed-minded for not wanting to read the book 'Lolita'... )

We are all responsible for what we allow to influence us; for that reason, I do not saturate my mind with just anything.

I usually cut curvygirls-cross-posted stuff, but not today! I am ranty, hear me roar!

Recently, my breasts changed from a 34DD to a 34E -- and changed greatly in shape. They now swoop down a bit -- and I like that. I think my breasts look more womanly and voluptuous that way. Before we started this theme ("Twin Peaks" -- breasts obviously), I had no idea that it was a common thing for women to be insecure about their breasts leaning down. As I read woman after woman write about it, I started feeling insecure about my own breasts! And that is ridiculous!

Why? Because it is perfectly normal and natural for a woman's breasts to curve down! That is the way they are designed to be when fully matured -- it's far easier for them to perform thier function of feeding a baby that way. We have swallowed the lie that they are supposed to stay 'perky' (the immature teenager breast) forever! Downward-curving breasts are as womanly and natural as hips and belly and thighs and everything else! The only kind of breasts that stay 'perky' forever are silicone ones.

Like I read on the normal breasts website, we are used to seeing breasts in two ways -- lifted and rounded by a bra, under a shirt (the average woman you meet on the street), or in airbrushed, pumped-up photos (in the media). Do you know that first of all, they sometimes use clear tape to lift the breasts in the photoshoot? And then with airbrushing they make them rounder and fuller. That is NOT NORMAL. If they were really that round and full, they'd either lean down or they'd be made of silicone.

I say we LOVE our beautiful normal breasts and stop calling them 'saggy' -- that is such an ugly word. A lot of us are very voluptuous -- our breasts are going to lean down from the weight and that is normal and beautiful. We have learned to love our curvy bellies despite the media's lies that they should be flat -- let's do the same with our breasts!

I have luxuriously, gorgeously slanting breasts, and I am PROUD of them!

I firmly believe in being open about one's pain. If you are hurting, then the quickest route to healing is to admit your pain, face it, look for the root, and seek out healing. Burying it or minimizing it will only make the healing process more tedious. It bothers me when people say, "I feel like I don't have a right to talk about my pain because others hurt worse." By that logic, only the most hurting person on earth would be allowed to express her/his pain, and no one would ever know who that was -- so everyone would have to deny, minimize, ignore their pain.

Also, one person's pain is simply not comparable to another person's -- even if the situation is exactly the same, it will affect people in different ways because we are all so different. If someone walked up to me and cussed me out, insulting my looks, my intelligence, my morality, it wouldn't wound me deeply, simply because that is not a weak point for me. But if it happened to someone who was extremely sensitive about their looks or intelligence or morality, it would be devastating. The exact same action would inflict far more pain on one person than another. And all situations are that way! We can never never never understand another person fully, because we have not lived their life and we do not have their exact personality, so we can never make assumptions about how painful something may be. No one ever has a right to say, "my pain is greater than yours," or even "so-n-so's pain is greater than yours." Some wounds are by nature more destructive than others, true -- sexual abuse creates more lasting devastation than an insult, for instance -- but that does not invalidate the 'lesser' pain. Both people are deserving of equal sympathy and support. One person may need more than another, but they are worth the same, and neither should ignore her/his own pain to focus on another's. Heal yourself first so that you can see clearly to help others heal.

All of that said, there is a difference between expressing pain and merely complaining -- the difference is that expressing pain deals with a wound, whereas complaining deals with something that is not really hurtful, but instead offensive/irritating. So many times I have been irritated with a customer (where the only thing that was hurt was my pride) and SO tempted to come home and blast her/him in my journal, (and I have yeilded sometimes!) but I really believe that to do so would merely add negativity to negativity. Pain may be negative, but if your goal is healing or growth, pain is also positive. Offense/irritation are never positive, and dwelling on them simply feeds the negativity. It's the difference between picking at a scab (useless and destructive) and getting surgery (painful but productive).

Can I ask my friends a favor?

If I write/say something that seems unbalanced/dumb/irrational/selfish/negative/etc., please give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I wasn't clear enough and you misunderstood me. Even if it's just saying, "It seems to me like you are saying _____, and if that is what you meant then I think _______." But please don't just assume that I mean something that you find glaringly wrong. Compare it to my history, think about the type of person I am.

I can't STAND being misunderstood. I'd rather people know an unflattering truth about me than believe a flattering falsehood. And of course I hate when people think something negative about me that isn't true. And even if it seems obvious that I am saying "opinion1," I may in fact be clumsily saying "opinion2."

Okay, you'd think that with the gas prices people would drive a little more sensibly. But no, they're still speeding needlessly, zooming up to stoplights and then slamming on their brakes, and failing to use their blinkers BEFORE SLOWING TO MAKE A TURN (not that I thought that would change, but I had to mention it because it's my primary pet peeve).

Seriously, why do people do that? Zoom up to stoplights, I mean? It's not going to magically change because you get there fast, and the cars in front of you certainly aren't going to disappear. All you are doing is wasting gas and wearing out your brakes. I love to laugh at people who zoom up to a stoplight and are still sitting there when I pull up casually beside them. Where did that get you, exactly? oh, oh, NOWHERE! You'd think they'd learn, but no, they do it again the instant the light turns green. I'm glad to know that they're suffering for their ridiculousness, in having to buy more gas than I do and in being frustrated the entire time they're driving.

Also -- that scooting-forward thing? WTF is the point? Oh, I MUST scoot forward two feet because the person in front of me did it! That'll get us all where we're going faster!

And speeding on the highway I can totally understand. It's fun. But when I'm driving 5 miles over the limit in the SLOW LANE, get out of my fucking tailpipe and go the hell around! I will flash my brakes, and if that doesn't work, I'll slow down as much as necessary to MAKE you go around. I am perfectly willing to go 40mph just to piss you off, especially if it's night and you're blinding me.

One last thing -- for the love of everything, please remember -- blinker before brakes!!! And let's not even talk about not using the blinker at all. I will NOT let you in, I don't care if I have to come within an inch of your car. Be polite and use the blinker, I'll be polite and do my best to help you. Okay? okay.

warning: may be triggering to those recovering from an ED.

I know there are quite a few people on my flist that are on a diet. Please rest assured that this is not directed at you -- it's just that your recent posts have gotten me thinking.

I am vehemently against 'vanity' weight loss. I firmly believe that if you are trying to lose weight for ANY reason besides health, you shouldn't be doing it. Even if you are 'overweight,' you shouldn't be losing weight for the look of it.

I've read quite a few studies that show that weight is not a good measure of health. Muscle weighs more than fat, and therefore it is highly likely that an athlete would weigh a good deal more than a model of the same height, and be far healthier. Health simply cannot be measured in pounds. I personally believe that the best measure of health is how you can perform athletically -- i.e. walking a few miles without getting seriously winded. If you have plenty of energy and find it easy to walk/run/dance, then in my eyes you're healthy enough.

If you have to devote more than 45 minutes a day to exercise and/or actively restrict what you eat to 'maintain your figure' (not to mention taking diet pills or drugs!), then I think you are fighting your natural body type, and what for? If you don't get joy out of the exercise, why are you doing it? If you aren't an athlete or living in an area where you are routinely chased by lions, what's the point? I think you're just wasting life. We only get so many minutes to live, why waste them doing something you don't like and don't need to do?

I do think it's good to eat reasonably healthy and be moderately active. But you should be able to skip a day (or a few days!) of exercising every now and then, or eat a cookie if you want to.

The weightloss industry is ridiculously lucrative -- and the sad thing is, they make so much of their money off of people who are healthy enough, but still looking to lose 'those last five or ten pounds.' Wanna know why those few pounds keep coming back? Maybe because they're supposed to be there! Most women aren't supposed to have flat bellies or thin thighs or narrow hips!!! I think the percentage of women who have that natural body type is like 9% -- and that's only while they're in their teens and twenties. Women are supposed to have curvy bellies (even if it's just a slight curve) and wider hips and fuller thighs than teenagers. There is nothing shameful or unhealthy about any of that.

If you are wanting to lose weight for health reasons, I say more power to you. But don't try to pretend that you need to lose ten pounds 'for health' -- those few pounds aren't going to make a difference. They won't even make a difference in the way you view yourself -- because if you can't accept yourself as beautiful at ten pounds over what is supposed to be your 'ideal' weight, then you aren't going to be able to do it while fighting your body to keep it under where it wants to be.

My belief: Eat right, be active, and whatever form your body takes on, that is the form it was meant to have.

Pretty much the only thing that offends me (for my own sake) is when someone condescends to me about something that I KNOW I know more about. It infuriates me. I can easily admit when I know less, and I yeild to correction fairly easily from someone who knows more about the subject than I do; but if you want to condescend to me, you sure as hell better know more than I do.

( website stuff )

I just bought my first red bra! and officially boycotted 'Victoria's Secret' (read that in a snotty tone) because of their emaciated mannequins. It's not enough that they have mannequins that are far, far thinner than the average woman, no, they have to add protruding bones! BONES on a fucking MANNEQUIN. I was FURIOUS. I looked around for a helpless employee on whom to vent my wrath, but got too fed up and ended up marching out of the store. I went to Fredricks of Hollywood (who have a much wider range of colors anyway, VS only carries my size in black and nude), who will be getting my business from now on. And I plan to bad-mouth VS to anyone who will listen. Fuckers.

Phone is still off, after talking to three different people. I'm (possibly) going into an official store tomorrow. We're definitely switching phone companies, unless they do back flips to make up for all this. Maybe even then. grrr. I was missing aubkabob's voice so much that I listened to her songs a few times. Weird since we've only talked once, but still true.

I have so much I want to post about... I might just break my personal rule and post several in a row. But they won't all be as complainy as this!

And omg, I LOVE this thing that jamina1 introduced me to -- http://www.last.fm/user/belenen/ It shows everything you listen to on the computer and keeps stats! So very cool! I'm excited.