So I'm walking home from school--always an exciting activity as I never know if I'll be honked at, asked if I'm on the "road to nowhere," or kissed by a homeless man. That's right--no one can say my life isn't eventful.

I pass a bus station every day, and many times an elderly Mexican man with a cowboy hat has been sitting at the bus stop. He's taken to smiling at me and I smile back because hey, I see the guy a few times a week as I pass by and my mother raised me to be polite. Today, though, today was like no other day. As I approach he smiles and I smile back. But then he raises his hands and says something. I pull my earphone out and he reaches out as if he wants to shake my hand. Not sensing any danger I grasp his hand to shake it, and he pulls it to him--what happened next couldn't be predicted by anyone.

He kissed my arm. That's right. Right there on the crook of my elbow. Just planted one on me. I still can't understand what he's saying, but I make out what sounds like "you're beautiful, you're beautiful" over and over again. Shocked, I bust out a thank you and he reaches up with his free hand--the other one still grasping the hand he pulled towards him to kiss my elbow--and pulls my head down so he can kiss my cheek. Then he kisses my hand once before I disentangle myself, still saying thank you, and walking away.

Now here's the thing: I have a fantasy--one of many actually. But in this particular fantasy a cowboy sees me walking down the street in L.V. and is so overcome with love/lust for me that he grabs me and kisses me before sweeping me off my feet and making the sweet loves to me. It's a fantasy, sure, but I've always felt it was a good one so far as fantasies go.

As evidenced by the story above, a man, in a cowboy hat, has seen me walking down the street and been so overcome with something for me that he has grabbed me and kissed me. That man was an elderly, most likely homeless, man with few teeth remaining. He was also several inches shorter than me--which only adds the oddity that he managed to get anywhere near my cheek for kiss number two.

Is the universe mocking me?!?!

Either, fate sent me a message to bolster my spirits and remind me of my astounding awesomeness through slightly unconventional means OR the universe has mocked me mercilessly and proven beyond all scientific certainty that my cowboy fantasy is not only a fantasy, but laughable and punishable by homeless kissing.

I don't know which it is, but I know I'm going to assume it's a message of hope. The other option is simply too disturbing and disheartening to consider.

No matter what it means, however, I'm claiming the title of Rockstar. I think I've earned it.

I give you "The Truth About Why Men Cheat" from msn.com. Here are a few reasons why I love this article: 1) It lists the following behaviors as if they are unique to men. 2) It offers the poor wives tips on how to prevent the cheating behavior. 3) It offers a universal truth broken down into 6 easy statistics so that you too can have a healthy, happy marriage.

First let's look at the reasons men cheat--the truth, if you will.

Emotional Dissatisfaction--now there's a surprise. Can you believe that men are capable of being emotionally dissatisfied and will cheat because of it? I was shocked. The point of the article was that cheating is rarely about sex because apparently the authors missed Psych 101 or a really helpful girl power website. Men are people. I never knew. My favorite part is that all I, as a (figurative) wife, have to do to keep my man happy is create an air "of thoughtfulness and appreciation and he will reciprocate." Obviously all emotional issues can be dealt with this way. Thank you msn.com

Cheating men report feeling guilt during the affair--I'm not sure how this plays into the "why" part of the title. The author is mostly informing the readers, again, that men are *gasp* people and you can't expect cheating only from the scumbags. But you can be a proactive wife and help him deal with the feelings he compartmentalized so that your husband, who is such a good man, doesn't stray.

77% of men who cheat have a friend who cheated--this one's a shocker folks! It's a good thing people never engage in morally reprehensible behaviors their friends do because the friends normalize it. I mean, can you imagine what our world would be like if this behavioral pattern existed outside of cheating? There could racism and sexism and bullying and gang rapes and lynch mobs and...wait a minute. And wifies, you aren't allowed to simply ban your husband from hanging out with his friend but you can build your social live around happily married couples--cause Mr. and Mrs. Suzie Sunshine don't make anyone feel the need to stab their eye out with a nearby utensil. I really feel like my marriage is going to be in better shape because of this advice.

Cheating men met the other woman at work--oh my gosh. Men cheat with people they work with?! Did you know this? I had no idea. Did you know that sometimes women *shh don't tell* cheat with men they work with too? But I mean, now that I know I can just ride my Harley into his work and pistol-whip the bitch. Oh, that's not an appropriate solution. I'm sorry.

Only 12% of men reported that their mistress was more attractive than their wife--well I don't know about you, but I know that would make me feel so much better if I was one of those wives. Because it's all about competition right ladies? Of course, if you fill his emotional needs but get ugly then he'll be one of the 12% instead of the eighty-eight. You just can't win.

Men rarely have sex with women the first night they meet them--so your husband takes the time to get to know this woman, to really understand her and share what he's feeling, and then he boffs her socks off. You, therefore, have time. Watch for the signs. You can see him sharing emotionally with a woman long before he shares his penis with her vagina. (I'm sorry, that was wholly inappropriate.)

So here's what we've learned ladies, ready? Men are people. Men have emotions. If your husband finds you cold, unsupportive, ugly, distracted, hurtful, mean, too tough, too needy, too anything or not enough of something he will cheat on you. You won't be able to tell if he's a cheater because cheaters are good people too. Wait, that means men AND people that cheat are actually people? With all the depth and character and complication of real people? It's just too much. I need to lie down.

Okay, I'm back. Thankfully, we have learned through msn.com that there are ways to cut the cheating off at the pass. Buy this book and follow these simple steps because obviously if your marriage is rocky enough for cheating to be a possibility you'll be totally capable and willing to genuinely adapt and make use of the advice this book offers.

I don't know why I do this to myself. Probably because I was sick of talking about politics and I thought for sure a little harmless fluff article would get my mind off of bigger issues. Now I'm just more pissed off. Why are all the dumb people relationship advice columnists?

http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articlerb.aspx?cp-documentid=11290632&page=1

Why I'm Voting for Obama and You Should Too: Part Deux

My last post has received a lot of action on Facebook so I feel it's time to offer clarification. While I do vote based on issues such as abortion and gay marriage those are not my only reasons for voting. Nor do I cease investigating candidates because of their stances on these issues. My calling out those people who do vote solely on those issues was for two reasons: 1) to vocalize the difference between standing for something and zealotry and 2) to engage in a thought experiment expressing why such zealotry is wrong.

This is the important part so everybody listen:

I do not lose sleep at night over abortion or the possibility of it being made illegal. I am aware of its complexity legally speaking. Abortion laws have suffered mightily in the past eight years, however, so to say that it is a non-issue is as fallacious as to say it is the only issue.

I do not think that Obama will reconstruct the country in four years either through gay marriage or any other social policy. I do think that the next President will have a significant impact on our policies and our economy, however, so to vote without considering how the candidate will handle the economy, education, health care, or equality seems a bit narrow-minded and I hate it when I'm narrow-minded.

The biggest arguments I see against Obama, excusing the silly ones like terrorism or racism, seem to be that he is a socialist and will force his socialist views on everyone and he is just like every other politician and won't change anything. Let's deal with socialism first.

Socialism is a highly charged term in our country that has been used since the cold war to frighten people into protecting Capitalism. Obama has no plans that anyone has heard him say or reported on to take the wealth of the rich and redistribute it to the poor. He does have plans to offer tax breaks to those who make less money instead of those that make more money. This is not redistribution of wealth, this is maintaining of wealth. Trickle down economics doesn't work. It didn't work under Regan and it isn't working now--the housing market collapse shows that. The poor and middle class will borrow attempting to live the American Dream, but when you tax them disproportionately to the rich they cannot sustain their viability in the economy. Offering tax breaks to those who make less than $250,000 a year makes the most sense--unless you make over $250,000 a year or believe (falsely) that you will soon. I don't want someone else's money, I want my money because I have less money to give away. This isn't a socialist take over of the economy. Healthcare receives the same treatment. I know those of you who are doctors or work in the healthcare industry have a much wiser and more educated view on this, but I do know that we are the only country of our size and development lacking in universal healthcare. England, France, and Canada all seem to make a go of it without losing their freedoms or rights. I'm just saying.

As to the charge that Obama is just like every other politician--full of empty rhetoric. I feel this was the greatest achievement of the Republican campaigning. The people that believe the terrorist stuff are the people that would vote Republican anyway, but many, many people who heard Obama speak and were moved by his words changed their minds once the empty rhetoric idea was bandied about. Everything is rhetoric--we all can agree on that. But not all rhetoric is empty; that's an important distinction. Obama's rhetoric, therefore, is not empty because it's "only" rhetoric; this was the same ploy used against evolution because it was "only" a theory. Obama has discussed issues, like race, in ways no politician to date has. No one that I have read speeches from or seen clips from has spoken so clearly and honestly about their beliefs as Obama. Yes, he is a politician; yes he is running a campaign. Concessions have been and had to be made because he has to persuade people who are uneducated and thoughtless. A great many of the people that vote do so based on ads they see on t.v. and soundbites on the evening news. When catering to that reality--a reality that must be accepted and dealt with if he wants to win, and he must win if he wants to affect change--his tactics had to adjust themselves. There is no real way to predict his presidency aside from the knowledge we have that he is intelligent--that's all we can know for sure. He appears to also be a moral, free-thinking individual willing to listen to advisers. He may affect no real change, and he may change a lot. But I do think we have reason to believe he will not make any decisions hastily without considering the consequences, because of his religion, or because he can't understand the complexities of the situation. That's a lot more than we can say for some past Presidents and I firmly believe he will make better decisions for this country and for me then will John McCain.

As a side note, Obama has also received criticism for some of the programs he wants to fund in the government, and I think it is erroneous to believe he will institute these programs without finding proper funding through balancing. Adding or revising programs does not negate revisiting old ones and streamlining.

I fervently wish with every ounce of my being that Obama wins in 15 days. I also have no understanding, how the media and the American people can fault Obama for being too cold. When Bush was elected he was seen as an "everyman." His C average in school kept him from being elitist--something that education is bound to create apparently--and now we find more comfort in man with a renowned temper than we do someone who is capable of keeping a clear head as it were.

There are so many things about this Presidential election that make me insane.

I've done a lot of thinking on people who "vote on the issues" because as much as I've been angered over the years at people who vote republican because they are pro-life I vote democrat because I'm pro-choice. I'm angry at people who vote republican because they favor a ban on gay marriage, but I vote democrat because I am pro gay marriage. I feel a little better about my decisions because I also agree with Obama's economic, educational, and health care policies as well, but I would have voted for him regardless based on the aforementioned "issues." To some degree that makes me as biased as those who vote strictly republican for the opposite reasons.

I feel I am justified where they are not, of course, because I think I am right. They think they are right. In many things we are even and I am as fanatical as they are. But it is precisely this thought about my voting and political preferences that save me from zealotry I would argue. I know why I think what I do. I don't vote because my values are shared or not shared or because I feel one man is more my type of "family" man than the other. I vote because one party stands for equality and the other party seeks to deny it.

And, in the end, that's what these two issues do. For those that view abortion as murder I can understand their passion in seeking to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but for 90% of the country their stances on this issue have nothing to do with honestly believing it is murder. Most would want exceptions to any anti-abortion law for rape, incest, or the mother's health. To all of those people I say, you will never be able to properly legislate in cases of rape and incest so you mustn't legislate at all. Consider the difficulty we have deciding if a woman is raped or not already and think about the impossibility of achieving an abortion if that had to be proved before the abortion could take place. And, while you might never chose one for yourself is it really a thing to deny someone else? How do we know her story, her reasoning, or her circumstances? If you believe it to be murder in the most severe sense, as much as I disagree with you, I realize the futility of attempting to change your mind.

For gay marriage, however, there is no argument. Millions of marriages in this country are an afront to all that is decent in civilization. People marry for money, safety, and sexual chemistry. Spouses and children are beaten, raped, and ignored. Children get married and divorce. Marriage is not a sacred union; it never has been. Even if it were, it's sacred existence lies only within the hearts of the partners and those who respect their vows. Homosexual marriage, even if you disagree with the lifestyle, in no way affects your life, existence, or set of beliefs. Denying recognition of marriage on a governmental level is an inequality of the most offensive sort. To say you disagree with the lifestyle is not enough; open marriages, false marriages, and abusive marriages are all tolerated. Those who are strictly religious do not campaign to deny drug users marriage even though that lifestyle might be as offensive as homosexuality. The arguments used against homosexual marriage are the same arguments, sometimes word for word, that were used against bi-racial marriage. This is a just sticking point, I believe, in the same way blatant racism would be. It is not enough to turn the decision over to the states; we fought a civil war because slavery was wrong. You shouldn't have to move to another state to find acceptance and equality; those things should be mandated because our country is supposed to worship, at the end of the day, the holy dollar above all else including religion. Legalization of gay marriage would in no way affect churches or religious institutions to deny homosexuals the right to marry. This is a federal matter and I have to ask: what is it about homosexuals getting married that is so offensive? If you are bigoted beyond the point of reason then, like the pro-lifers who believe the fetus is a living, breathing, independent human being, I realize futility in arguing with you.

I vote because of these reasons and I suppose, in many ways, this makes me much like those I often bad mouth. But I vote on these issues because I believe in freedom of choice and lifestyle. Neither of these two issues will raise the crime rate, hurt the economy, or affect the masses in any discernable way; all they do is provide equality and freedom for those that need it. And so I ask, as we approach election day, if you find yourself voting based solely on one or both of these issues, why do you do it? Have you answered that question for yourself? It isn't zealotry to draw a line in the sand and stand by it. But it is if you don't know why you stand by it.

I just watched Wuthering Heights. It was a risk. I assessed it and I took it, and now I'm sorry. I hate the story of Wuthering Heights you understand; while I understand the appeal of Heathcliff generally he annoys me and disgusts me with his hate. Catherine isn't much better as she's C-R-A-Z-Y. I spell it out to make sure we're on the same page here.

But netflix being the devil, I saw the 1970 version starring Timothy Dalton and I thought to myself, "self--if anyone can make Heathcliff hot it's Timothy Dalton." I wasn't wholly wrong; young Timothy Dalton strutting around doing a lot of brooding and passionate kissing isn't a bad thing, but when said passionate kissing is preceded or followed by a slap to the face I pretty much lose interest. There's nothing wrong with the rough and tumble, sometimes rough is nice, but rough doesn't include a slap to the face. And frankly, I don't care how "passionate" you are--if yours is the sort of love that requires you to slap me, toss me to the ground or, you know, ruin my life, then perhaps it isn't the sort of love one should pursue.

Which brings me to a side point--the old cliché, love is enough? I hate that silliness. In fact the only thing I hate more than that is "love means never having to say you're sorry." The second one is just dumb, and the first one--doesn't it depend entirely on what sort of love you have? If you've got Superman love, or Spartan love, hell, even if all you've got is Dracula love--love might be enough. In all of those cases you're safety overrules all other concerns, but if you've got Heathcliff love, or Phantom love, or Darth Vader love? Honey, your love best be coming with a security guard and some sort of his-crazy-may-kill-you warning device. Love is only enough in those situations to get your dumb ass in trouble; it most certainly is not enough to pull you back out again.

Perhaps that's why I hate love (oh! don't tell anyone!). I don't hate love, but I do hate "love." The crap that's fed to us from birth about one spiritual partner who is going to make us complete, make us whole, save us from our lives and ourselves and everything else. Crap people. That's crap. I'm not being cynical here, just telling you an unfortunate truth. But it's a truth that a) keeps us from finding true love and b) causes us to think that all love was created equal. This is how you get young kids in destructive relationships (exhibit a: Heathcliff and Catherine) who think that because it hurts to be apart they should obviously be together. Said kids never take a look at their relationship to realize that when they are together it's a bit like an atom bomb--not good for them, not good for the environment, not good for the radiation exposure of those around them.

But we think it's love. We think that because we want something emotionally it must be necessary to our happiness; we don't act that way about plastic toys after the age of ten, so why the hell do we act that way about love? Keep in mind I'm not talking about real, honest to goodness, healthy love here people. The kind where you bring out the best in each other and are always happier when you are together than when you are apart (even when you kind of want to punch the other person in the face). I'm talking about the constructed idea of love. The idea of someone who saves you, or fixes you, or, basically, does anything to you. Really, all you get to do is love me. Ask anyone who has dated a crazy, nobody can fix that crazy but themself.

And that brings me full circle back to Wuthering Heights. You see, in this particular adaptation they tried to make the play that what Heathcliff and Catherine had was such true, undying love that nothing could separate them except themselves and once they wanted each other they would always be together--even in death. You know what I think really goes on here? They're addicted to each other like crack cocaine and now they can spend an eternity being high, crashing down, and wondering when they got so ugly.

I'm not being cynical here people. I'm not saying I don't want to be loved. I'm saying my love best not come with a slap in the face, a noose around my neck, or a trachea cut off by the dark side. I feel that any relationship coming to us with those strings attached doesn't deserve to be lauded as "true" love and we would all be happier, less crazy people if we could accept that.

I know, it makes me boring. But it also makes me not the friend that calls you during a mental breakdown because her obviously crazy, obviously unstable boyfriend went crazy and unstable on her. There are bonuses to my philosophy.

I'm on Superman overload. First I watched Superman 1. Then I watched Superman 2. Now I'm putting in Superman Returns. It's not healthy, but it's all I've got right now.

Having just finished Superman 2, however, I'm brought back to the same problem that disturbs me time and time again. Why oh why can't Superman and Lois be together? In the comic books this isn't a problem, but the movie presents a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer. More than that, though, is the problem with the kiss at the end of the second movie. Working off the original and not the Richard Donner cut (which is, incidentally, much better) Clark Kent kisses Lois and takes away her memory of their relationship and her discovery of his secret identity.

This presents problems on a multitude of levels. The most important of which is that Superman doesn't rob memories. Batman might; Batman engages in any number of ethically dubious activities, but Superman is the guy that doesn't lie or kill. He's so upstanding, in fact, that it sometimes causes more problems then it solves.

But his taking of Lois' memory without her permission consists of a mental rape in my opinion. You can argue it's for her own good, that he does it out of love, or even necessity, but it doesn't change the fact that he is controlling her mind against her will. That's not something morally upright friends do to each other. Plus, while Superman lives a complicated existence, we're not talking about a keeper of the universe's secrets here. What's actually at stake? Lois' happiness? Her peace of mind? He knows she won't tell. She isn't in possession of some truly earth shattering information and she isn't unstable enough for it to be an issue. No, what appears to be going on is that they can't be together, it's hurting her, and he doesn't like that.

Well too damned bad. Who is he to decide what pain she lives with and what pain she forgets? Who is he to decide whether or not she will ever get over him? It's so...so...high-handed of him. In many ways it reeks of patriarchal bullshit. No, I'm not turning this into some sort of Superman is a patriarch rant (I would hope we all know me better than that) but you have to admit this idea of poor little Lois won't ever get over Superman, but Superman is strong enough to handle it for both of them is very weak-little-womanesque. Yes, he's Superman and so we all assume he is stronger in general, mentally and physically, than normal humans, but actually, in the entire mythos of Superman, he isn't any more mentally capable than a normal human being. His strength comes from his parents and his character, just like the rest of us. The thrill of Lois Lane was that she was as strong, in personality anyway, as he was. By letting him kiss her and take away her memory she's robbed of that. She's immediately reduced to a plucky girl whose so darn cute getting herself in trouble over and over again. That's not Lois Lane, or it shouldn't be.

And that's not Superman. I feel that much of the Lois/Superman relationship has been severely abused over the years. Mostly in the movies--this last one's chief offense was casting Kate Bosworth in the part who looks like she's about to break in half at any given moment--the relationship has always been presented with a sense that Superman pined after Lois and Lois only loved Superman for his power not for who he was. I find that incredibly unacceptable.

And, for the record, Superman does not ejaculate with the force of a nuclear missile. The man has super strength--at no point in the history of ejaculating has a man's ability to lift weights affected the force with which he expels seminal fluid. There is the minor issue of him crushing Lois, but considering human males abilities not to smother women smaller than them (usually) I think he'll be okay. That whole idea is such a teenage boy fantasy.

And why do men fantasize about such things as more powerful ejaculates anyway? Obviously I still don't understand as much about the male psyche as I thought.