Please don't give up on love

A prayer for an anonymous friend..

Please don't give up on love yet. Let time pass, let the wounds heal.

Don't be so hard on yourself; don't go too much into the concept of
what happens on outside being reflection of inner defects only.. it's
all nice n spiritual n all but I think there can be times we take that
too far. We're only human, babaa, there's no need to witch-hunt each
and everything about ourselves. Heck, what characteristic has manifested
as a negative in your experience in relationship, might even have a
positive manifestation in another sphere of your life. By trying to eliminate
one, what if you end up degrading even what's good about you? We
might be better off seeking structures, being in environments that better
accommodate those characteristics of ours, that channel them
constructively.

You may have to analyze your patterns till now and change the way
you look for love. Girls with great looks do attract the worst-fitting
of the males around at first tries :P

Consider these..

• Simplify your tastes (especially when it comes to consumerism),
• Raise some bare-minimum ethical / health standards that had earlier been lowered in the interest of being progressive, non-judgemental, unconditional etc,
• Introduce some grounding parameters, like alignment with causes you're passionate about, or integrity etc in worldly life too (yes, it does matter, our worldly and personal lives aren't completely separated. Extent u decide.),
• Involve community in the search, let your close friends / folks whom you gel with, find and recommend someone, or ask them to help you evaluate someone you're considering.

But please don't give up on love. There will come a time when you'll be
ready for it again, and if you make room for it in your life, it will
be wonderful, something that will make all those trials and
tribulations worth it.

Let it slumber, but please, please don't give up on it. You deserve this. It
will happen, please let it when the time comes.

A nice poem and a not so nice critique

My critique for a very nice poem.. not so much for the poem itself but
the context in which it can be used:

> LOVE'S DEEPER COMMITMENT
>
> Let's not commit to a future together. The future is so unknown, and we are
> so fluid, and tired of pretending that we know.
>
> Our thoughts and feelings are ever-changing, uncontrollable, like a wild
> ocean of love.
>
> Our desires wax and wane; our dreams are born and die in every moment.
>
> Let's not commit to a form of love. The forms are always shifting, like the
> tides.
>
> We do not need security here. We are not seeking comfort, but Truth.
>
> Let's make a deeper commitment; one that cannot be broken or lost.
>
> To presence. To meeting in the here-and-now.
>
> To bringing all of ourselves. To knowing, and letting ourselves be known.
>
> To telling the truth, today; knowing that our truth may change tomorrow.
>
> To bowing before each other, even if our hearts are broken and tender.
>
> No promises, no guarantees.
>
> Loving takes courage! Yes!
>
> For love is a field, not a form. Let us commit to the field, remember the
> field in every moment of our precious days on this Earth.
>
> In ten years' time, we may still be together. We may have children. We may
> live together, or live apart.
>
> We may never see each other again. This may be our last day.
>
> If we are honest, we really do not know; not knowing is our Home.
>
> We may be friends, or lovers, or strangers, or family, or we may remain
> undefined, beyond narrative, our love unable to be captured in words.
>
> Here at the edge of the known, on the line that once divided sanity from
> madness, and doubt from certainty, we play, we dance, we drink tea, we
> touch each other, we cry, we laugh, we meet.
>
> We sacrifice comfort and predictability. But what we gain is astonishing:
> This tremendous sense of being alive. No longer numb to the mysteries of
> love, the mysteries of our bodies.
>
> A little raw, perhaps. A little shaky. Maybe a little disoriented, but
> perhaps this is the price of being totally free.
>
> Maybe an old part of us still seeks mommy or daddy, that Magic Person who
> will never leave, always be there, take away the loneliness repressed in
> our guts. Loving that frightened part too; bowing to that part too, but no
> longer being controlled by it.
>
> And they will ask:
> What about your future?
> What happens if you have children?
> How the hell do you define yourselves?
> Why are you afraid of commitment?
> Why do you run from security? Comfort? Future?
>
> They will say you are crazy, or you don't understand love, or you are lost,
> or you are unloving and selfish, and you will smile, and understand their
> fear, for their fear was once yours, and you cannot abandon your path now.
>
> And nobody has to walk with you. Ever.
>
> At some point, only Truth will satisfy. A living Truth, renewing itself
> each and every moment, the wild Truth of the open heart.
>
> When Love and Truth are One, when the Commitment is deeply rooted in the
> breath, we can finally face each other without resentment, and explode into
> the most melancholy sunsets, held in the most profound joy.
>
> Walking alone, together, alone

[Allright so here it comes! But first, think about this : Who is this poem for?]

It's wonderful.

But I've seen something relatively more wonderful in the companionship
rooted not in fear as this poem tries to ascribe, but in a tacit
acceptance that if it really makes no difference if there is
attraction or not, then might as well be there for each other, in a
grounded sense which honors head, heart and body. And that strategy
accounts in the difference in time: I may feel more attracted to you
this week and you may feel more attracted to me during a week next
month. Or, I might feel physically attracted to you while you feel
intellectually attracted at this time. By being abundantly there for
the other, both's needs are met even if there is a slight mismatch in
the "now".

I think the fourth dimension of time is important; and we can extend
our caring, our love over this dimension rather than restricting it
only to the three dimensions of space and neglecting time. It's great
to make a big deal about being present and in-the-now, but can we
check if we're not just doing that to run away from honoring the
fourth dimension?

And can we balance things? Why not be both present and keep that
presence finely weaved in with the past and the future? Too much
planning may be bad, but not all planning is bad. Being in-the-now may
be good, but being absolutely that only could cause trouble to you and
others whose life you're part of. It's unfair to disrupt the "now" of
others around you to make way for just your "now". Can there be a
middle path between these extremes?

This poem seems engineered to associate any actual committment with
only one feeling of fear whereas reality begs more, and the lack of
committment with only all sorts of positive things while conveniently
omitting the negatives. We can similarly use all manner of nice
wordings to associate the lack of committment with fear, scarcity and
greed (for better deals coming by that one would want to swtich to at
a moment's notice), and committment with abundance, with being alive. It's up to us which stories to weave : if one is fair then so is the other.

After all, if we're comfortable being together as well as alone, then
why not do precisely that instead of going around looking for
entanglements with other people, which seems to be the implicit thing
we're trying to enable here? Wouldn't that be indicative of a scarcity
at our end : that we need getting entangled over being in solitude?
Why not keep things simple instead of trying to justify increasing
levels of complexity with more complex narratives?

Who says it's not possible to feel alive while in a thriving committed relationship? On the contrary, there's far greater chances of that sense lasting longer and not quickly disappearing as quickly as it came.

Ultimately I'd love to see how it gets implemented in real life. For
instance, in our circles we know a couple that renegotiates and renews
their committment after a certain period of time (every month or every
year I don't know), agreeing that if anyone thinks its not working
out, simply not renewing means they're free to walk away. But during
that time period between renewals they are together and are there for
each other even if one feels less attracted. So being-in-the-present
is implemented over the long run, but the quantum of time (what we
call as "now") isn't as short as a second or a day.

Coming back to the poem, on a practical level it seems most
advantageous to people who already have something else going on and
want to keep things loose but want to not feel bad about not having
the abundance within to let the other person go and find a more
wholesome way of being. If I want to have a secret affair while being
in a steady relationship and keep lying to my main relationship-partner,
then a good way to keep my affair-partner under my control and 
on my team will be to give her this poem.
I then get to feel "in-the-present" and
enlightened and soulfull and all, while planning all my timings
smartly and lying wholescale to one partner. While I agree with the
poem's declared intent and know there are many different ways of
fulfilling it, I'm going to acknowledge its potential of being
repurposed as a very convenient affair-enabler. And anyone who
questions that, can simply be judged away as a judgemental person
since the poem, like the bible and other such texts, has already built
in verses to define itself as unquestionable.

My advice to the affair-partner would be this : Stress on the
importance of being honest with all stakeholders and not being
meticulously planning and lying to anyone (if you're open and
in-the-now, then what's there to lie about? If you have to lie your
way through, are you really being present and in-the-now?), and then
maybe this poem won't get used in the way I have alleged. And if you
don't want to do that, then please be comfortable with the reality as
it is and don't make claims about things being oh-so-wonderful and
enlightened just to fool yourself.

Lookup: A great international experiment in redifining love and
restoring the sacred in relationships while acknowleding and honoring
polygamousness where it is, by doing away with the deception game and keeping things honest: http://www.tamera.org


Addendum :
A little context to explain how this critique came about... check out this basic personal-life profile of a friend of mine who shared this poem with me : she's sleeping with someone who has another person in his life as his girlfriend, and she insists its not really a relationship. And she is intellectually in a relationship with someone (hey, I don't get it at all but that's what it is for her) who is about to get married. Both these men in her life, quite some years her senior, are people she values very highly as brilliant intellectuals; is fascinated by.

The fact that those guys are comfortable with keeping the significant women in their lives in the dark and still keeping them and my friend and God knows some more in their life in mutually isolated boxes, have no intention of changing the official status and are happy to plan things efficiently to ensure smooth operations... that they don't have the abundance within to just let this girl go and help her find something more wholesome for herself.. doesn't really hold relevance in my friend's evaluations.

What might be the situation on those females' ends who my friend knows are being kept in the dark (nevermind the inconvenient little detail that this amounts to a form of emotional abuse and that no one likes being lied to).. they're much older than my friend is and I don't think they've figured at all in her realm of consciousness. How about some unconditional love and Truth for them also? Or wait, is that only applicable to the people doing the lying and not to the people being lied to? How will she feel when in their position, at an older age, not much other options left, needing companionship and security much more than an early tweener? How would she feel if she gets to be the one kept in the dark? Well, theoretically they'll stay happy if they never find out but when they do, it's magically supposed to be their problem and will probably be chalked up to their inability to be like what is dictated by the poem, with no consideration for the real life circumstances.

So there you have it : What the original oh-so-beautiful concept is, and one example of how it gets implemented in real life. Still looking so nice? Or are things getting messy?

And in all this, somewhere I'm feeling that my friend isn't being genuine with herself; I feel like she's cageing her heart and letting her brain only call the shots, going for the short term pleasures and interpreting them as proof that things are good.. "a tremendous sense of being alive". And I worry that the associated loss of dignity, integrity and empathy can and will spill over to other realms of her life too. So the poem and things like it, I'm seeing, are a very convenient responsibility avoidance (and reality avoidance!) tool, especially for those at the benefiting ends, to keep the status quo going and use impressive language to make things look a lot fancier and nobler and fairer than they actually are.

In case you're not getting where I'm seeing the problem or are feeling I've been too judgemental, please consider this analogy: Let's invent several layers of reasonings to make one's habit of compulsively and excessively eating junk food look like it's a very healthy and noble thing to do; pretend that by doing so you're really being true to yourself, proof given by the short-term sensual pleasures you get from it and "feeling alive" while you willfully ignore any long term consequences because you're only living in the now. Make all sorts of complicated justifications and beautifications instead of just admitting and being comfortable with the simple fact that you're just indulging yourself for now. See, I don't think the indulgence is wrong. A little indulgence could be great, I'm all for it. My problem is with creating the artificial constructs to justify and propagate it beyond its natural time instead of letting it be just what it is : an indulgence. Maybe because that would bring about a sense of responsibility to end the binge and get real at some point?

Heck, in all likeliness, the present scenario is a reaction to the ruthless suppression of indulgences so far, and the over-burdening of committment on people in a hypocritical way. But we don't need to swing all the way to the extremes. I believe we have it within ourselves to find a middle path.

And do check out Tamera : If you really want to keep the polygamous nature then it's possible to go about it in a totally different and much more sustainable way.

PS: To clarify finally, I am in agreement with most of the poem itself. My critique is regarding its ham-handed application to real life that I'm seeing around me and the misery that's causing, and its use as justification for things that we'd rather not have more of in our world.

Why we have more Y guys, and how we can have more X guys

Statutory Warning: This article is bat-shit crazy and blunt as hell (after a long time am pissed off enough to write one!), and contains sexual references. Viewer discretion is advised. If you’re a teenager / young adult then you’re probably going to want to read this even more now, so by all means proceed.

Note: Apologies for not explicitly including third genders in this article. I simply do not have any werewithall to handle it. And this is a crazy article anyways. Please adjust and do internal find+replace.

This is addressed to women of my generation, and the ones following. And specially to the female teenagers who officially aren’t supposed to be reading this, but what the heck, better catch them early.

Ladies, I want you to do one experiment. Take a paper (has it ever struck you why does everybody always ask for a piece of paper as if it’s cake?). If you’d call yourself more experienced in matters of love, take a big/long paper.

Make two columns with the headers : X guys, Y guys (after some thoughts, removed other words that may have biased the experiment. Initially. :P)

By “X” I mean... Men you have met whom you could rely on, trust safely, talk to as a friend, share what’s in your heart and know that he won’t judge you or use it against you. Who are in general nice to you and nice to others and have an ability to think and care about others.

You must be recalling some names already.. Oh, wait, one more criterion. You need to have slept with them (as in: you have had sex with this kind of person) at least once. Relationship or not? Not really a concern for the purposes of this experiment. Note: it’s possible that the last filter ended up giving you a zero result. That’s ok.. it's part of the experiment. Proceed.

Next, the Y Guys. I’ll keep this simple. Everyone whom you’ve slept with who couldn’t make it to the X guys list. For whatever reason. And I’m not even going into personal likes/dislikes etc here. You keep that to yourself. Just follow the experiment’s parameters as given above.

Be honest with this, ok? This is a personal experiment.. I don’t want you to share this with me or anyone. It’s only for you. If you try to fudge things here, you’ll only be misleading yourself.

So let’s make the list. Come back to this when done.

Ok, so now for the counting. What are the counts of both columns?

If I’m understanding our world right, I believe that the Y guys column will have a higher count than the X guys column. If your case is the opposite, you know that you’re a rare one. And now forget the numbers and get rid of this paper, only remember that Y > X and remember what X stood for.

So let’s think about this. Now I know that there are as many explanations as there were names on that list, each one being a completely valid one. No objections to that.

But let’s take a step back from individual case histories and look at these counts statistically and do a (cringe!) outcomes assessment. Consider the possibility that most women like yourself have a similar Y>X outcome. And so if one ever compiled these results together across a broad sample, the outcome will remain Y>X. Now see this from the perspective of the men.

Whatever the intermediate thoughts, feelings, opinions etc, we have created a world where Y>X. Where guys who are guys that you can put your trust in, simply don’t get (here it comes) laid as often as the Y guys.

I’ll go cross-disciplinary here. I firmly believe that there is not a 100% separation between people’s personal and worldly lives. If you feel that the two are absolutely distinct, then this article has no meaning for you. But if you agree with me, then read along.

With that in mind, would you prefer it if there were more X guys in this world than Y guys? Would you want to spend your ageing years with an X guy or a Y guy, or my-my, alone? My guess is you would prefer it if there were more X guys than Y guys in this world. While not all Y guys are necessarily causing problems in this world, I see the same views towards entire communities and countries that some typical Y guys have towards women. I can’t help but notice that there is a connection. Those that are causing problems, are by my estimate more likely to be Y guys than X guys. But that’s a question for another experiment.

I’m still not sure what position sex holds in the esteem rankings for women, but I can tell you for sure that for men, sex is extremely important.

If a trend is established (and news flash, it already is) that the Y guys have a much higher chance of getting to have sex than the X guys, that forms a direct influencing factor for any young man when during the course of his life he has to decide between being an X guy or a Y guy.

And in case you’re thinking that when you get older you’ll settle with an X guy, I’d like to inform you that with the kind of pressure set up, there are very little chances many of them will remain as X guys till that time. Most will convert to Y... believe me, if you were in their place, so would you.

I can tell you about the odds stacked against the X guy. Y guys are given the “neutrality” card to do whatever they want, but X guys will get over-judged at every step. X guys are first to get boxed into the friend zone. (when you were making your list, how many guys did you think of and then have to filter out?). Of course, there’s also the positive side that when a woman does end up notching an X guy, she stays with him, she doesn’t move on to another guy any time soon. Whereas in the same time period another woman may have to work her way through several Y guys while complaining about them to the friend-zoned X guy in her life.

But in any case, we have a final outcome now of there being more Y guys in our world than X guys, I keep on hearing all kinds of women complain about the scarcity they’re facing, and I believe at least one strong influencing factor behind all this is that especially in the young adult years, X guys are simply not getting as much sex as the Y guys, for simple practical needs they’re converting over to the dark side and X numbers are on the decline.

So Ladies, I have an Impossible Mission for you, should you choose to accept it.

I don’t know what roundabout ways the thinking, the preferences etc flows on your end. But as an experiment, for any time period of your choosing, try to bang more X guys, and more often, than Y guys. 


Tips & Tricks : 
Want to avoid "complicating things" with the X guys you've already friend-zoned?
>> I'll offer you a simple a solution : X-guy exchange : pair with a female friend, and bang each other's X guys. There, it's with a stranger so no "complication" and you can feel adventurous, and you've fulfilled the terms of the experiment. All sides happy!

Side critique : "I want to avoid complicating things, so I'm going to keep a man whom I value highly and who cares for me, deprived, while freely giving the gift of sexual intercourse whenever I get in the mood or whenever they pester me long enough, to other men crossing my path whom I don't even know well enough or value highly at all. Because I am totally in control of my life, my body is my temple, I have high standards and I love myself." -- Great thinking, Genius.

===============

Addendum: Answering some Frequently Expressed Reservations:

1. "I really don't want to lose him as my friend..."
Stop fretting about not wanting to lose such a nice friend. Don’t worry, you won’t lose him as a friend.. he’s an X guy, remember? And for God’s sake don’t say you don’t want to get intimate with him because you don’t want to break his heart later. That’s the most warped logic I’ve come across. Why? Elementary, my dear Watson, for the simple reason that he’s going to be even more heart-broken if you friend-zone him! “Oh, I don’t want to break your heart so I’ll slowly bleed it to death instead”. That is soo short-sighted. Don’t worry. He’ll handle it, things may get awkward for sometime (and if you feel more troubled on your end, then seriously ask yourself, what if I also want him as more than a friend?) but you'll get back to your friendship again. Better banged once and politely let go (which you can do safely with an X guy) than never banged at all.

2. "I don't think I can handle a full fledged relationship at this point in my life..."
Helloo-o? Haven't I already made it clear that this article isn't asking anything like from you? Come again, you're worried about what the X guy will want?

Ok, ladies, here's a little secret : Every X guy you know is fully capable of being a Y guy for just a night. (But not the other way around. Because X is the source state and Y is a derivation. It's mathematical.. just take it and go along, ok) After all, how do you think men manage to weave together fantasies and masturbate?? (and another news flash : masturbation is probably the one thing X guys do more often than Y guys. Again, simple maths. Not getting laid? Masturbate. Guy's gotta live, dude.) He gets into the whole relationship angle by the time he plucks the courage to approach you, not just because it holds the promise of a wonderful life ahead (who wouldn't want a combo package of close friend and lover?), but also because he has assumed that's what you want as a compulsory precondition to having sex. He is attracted to you emotionally, intellectually and all, yes, fine, but physically as well, don't forget that crucial part. Otherwise he would have friend-zoned you by now.

If the compulsory precondition (ie, we should be in a full fledged relationship only then can we have sex) is not the case for you at this point of time in your life (note: let's not take any judgemental stance here, ok? We're all in that state every now and then, even during a long term relationship), then that's new information that you'll have to convey to him.. he does not have the telepathy to pick it up. (Because he thinks highly of you, because he respects you, and there is a prevailing social stigma around this, he hasn't considered this possibility yet. Not that's it's a bad thing, just that it hasn't been considered. Comprende?).

So the next time you want to turn down your X-guy friend who's been through hell and finally risked the friendship to ask you out, rather than reverting to the (dreaded!) "can we just be friends" response, as part of this experiment, please modify your response to : "I'm just not ready for a full fledged relationship at this point in my life. But I AM open to something just physical, if you promise complete secrecy! If you can promise to keep things just physical, not make things awkward and we remain friends, then how about it?"

Look at the flip side, from the X guy's perspective. He sees you turn his proposal down, without considering even one date where he could show you his romantic and mysterious side, and lock you forever into the friend zone. And then he sees you go sleep with a person who shouldn't have even been on your radar. And he realizes (after you're done) that you were not serious about him, you were just fulfilling your physical intimacy needs. But you did so by taking on a whole lot of risks upon yourself by banging a total stranger, like possibly getting infected with an STD, potential harassment in future, abuse, social defamation, whatever. And drastically lowered your standards too, which otherwise had been ostensibly sky-high when the X guy was asking you out. So the obvious question that arises in any sane man's mind is, "If she only wanted sex, then why didn't she just do it with me? She knew I'm attracted to her, and I wouldn't ever hurt her or harass her, I'm right here God dammit!"

Ladies, X guys convert to Y guys after they see enough instances of this, and something dies inside them and they conclude that this is just how all women are.

3. There has to be some mystery, unknown, darkness, thrill..
Valid. I'll admit, this is the most difficult one for me to tackle. But let's challenge the underlying assumption here : who says X guys are devoid of mystery / thrill? You probably only know some aspects of the man you think you know already. You do not need to physically put yourself at risk just to feel risky.. it's in the mind, and can be stimulated as per need. You can meet a person you know like a stranger, no need to actually get with a complete stranger. If he cares for others and has the balls to stand up for others then is that not thrilling or dangerous? And where is the thrill in not having ethical standards and being a coward? Any idiot can do that. Plus, have you even bothered looking around at all the negative outcomes, at the faces of the women who ended up with a seriously bad apple? Have you ever asked them if in hindsight did they think it was worth it, or would they have enjoyed life a lot more with a slightly different way of wanting mystery? Hence the impossible mission proposed : it's an experiment; a totally new thing, we have no idea how things might turn out, we're totally stepping into the unknown. Women who have gotten the choice, have been banging the same kinds of Y guys (with seriously the exact same moves, same lines, same strategies) since over a generation now. It might have been novel at some point but by now this is all old stuff. Go on, try something new for a change!

4: "I have had it with relationships and would rather be single from now on":
Not to be impolite.. oh heck, let me be impolite : I'm sorry dear, but..

1. if you chose to get screwed over by an assortment of Y guys,
2. all the time never bothering to give any X guy a real chance because of not feeling "drawn" enough towards any of them,
3. while not learning anything from the fact that you've been getting "drawn" to only the wrong people so far,
4. and without considering there might be some faulty programming at your end possibly owing to a lifetime exposure to totally misleading concepts of romance, values, my-love-will-transform-him traps etc,
5. and then if you give up on the wonder and potential of having a life partner entirely,
6. then you're only fooling yourself.
7. Because you tested the fakes and based on that experience, gave up on the originals without really trying them. (yes yes I'll finally get judgemental about X and Y now, Let's call one real and the other fake. Finally.)

It's like trying out a ridiculously priced nicely packaged organic product at a supermarket like Reliance Fresh or Dorabjee's, then finding out that it's actually not organic, and based on that experience, declaring that there's no such thing. The real genuine organic products might not even come in attractive packaging, and might not even be on your supermarket's shelves because of the inherent market mechanisms at play. It might take some time and effort to find them. And the crucial factors here too will be trust and reliability, long term knowledge, reviews by others you trust; not how attractive it looks or if its being pushed onto you with aggressive advertising that targets stimulating your subconscious (ooh I'm loving this analogy) and is giving you unrealistic promises. And even there, the searching isn't easy.. there's a chance that still things won't work out. And then you have to learn from that experience and try again. But for God's sake don't go around claiming that you've tried it all : there's a good chance you haven't.

So, this can actually work to an advantage : If you've resolved to be single but aren't so sure about celibacy, then how about this : have one night stands and casual relationships with X guys! You've resolved that you don't want anything long term, right? So communicate that properly but by all means please proceed with the experiment!

Besides, the "I want to be single" phase is just that : a phase, possibly co-inciding with a big change/leap in career or location that you might want to focus on at the time. We've all been through that, and I feel even when in long-running relationships people need these times. But please go ahead and ask your nearest X guy or other female friends if that phase lasts forever. Even being extremely happy with the work you're doing and how your life is going, will at one point lead you to want to share that happiness with someone special. That's just the way we are, and it's a wonderful thing.

=============

So ladies, for the good of all, or even just as an Experiment, please leave those fetishes and those awkward feelings behind. You’ll get over it, and if things go well, you might end up with something amazing in your life: a perfect blend of best friend and romantic partner. So go thee forth and have sex with all the X guys you can find, and let’s create a really strong incentive for having more X guys in this world!

The decline of empathy

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/07/25/our-disembodied-selves-and-the-decline-of-empathy/

Haven't you noticed it too, in your college or workplace? If empathy is indeed what makes civilization, then clearly we're on the path of destroying it right now.

night and day

Sharing this coz I'm feeling like this right now... (with genders suitably interpolated, note)

"The Look" by Sara Teasdale
 

Strephon kissed me in the spring,

 Robin in the fall, 

But Colin only looked at me 

And never kissed at all. 

Strephon's kiss was lost in jest, 

Robin's lost in play, 

But the kiss in Colin's eyes 

Haunts me night and day.

- From: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/19419

Public's tolerance of eve teasing leads to rapes. But what leads to eve teasing?

The Justice J S Verma committee, which was formed to suggest ways to make rape laws stronger in India, submitted its report. A key suggestion in the report was to begin treating eve-teasing/stalking as serious non-tolerable sexual offences.

How would you react if you see a woman being 'eve-teased'?

My comment on that:
there was a time when child marriage was treated as natural. It took great efforts to drive in that it's not supposed to be tolerated; and now in many places if not all, it's not tolerated. Same thing needs to happen with eveteasing also : even if it seems "natural" to many, we will have to collectively educate ourselves and the next generation that it's NOT natural and it's not supposed to be tolerated. This is good: It shifts the focus from the victims to the aggressors. We have to target a whole generation of men and make it clear that "ab yeh nahin chelga"

See the conversation on facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151457730694257&set=a.412535254256.195409.389272039256&type=1

Analogy : education and love

Advice to educators: The assumption that fancy methods, classroom management techniques, more worksheets, high technology, scientific tracking, attention-grabbing stories, rhymes, charts and toys will help you to teach an objective better to a class..

is as flawed and as short-sighted...

as the thinking that using expensive gifts, pick-up lines, mind games, flamboyance, false promises and pretences can get a person to fall in love with you.

In both cases they will respond only if they themselves inherently wanted to, regardless of the efforts you put in. At best you'll only get a partner pretending love for the sake of the money, or a class pretending to learn for the sake of the marks. At worst you'll only end up giving false hopes of a great future and set them up for a big disappointment.

 

 -----

A friend asked me to elaborate upon this. I shared my recent video. Then he asked to elaborate upon it more. So I wrote him this:

Well, it's as I shared in the post. Children are human beings first. The International convention on human rights is supposed to be applied to all human beings. The magic number of 18 (and the assumption that below that, these rights don't apply) is a lie. We are not supposed to hold any human being against their will, no matter how convinced we are that it's for their own good. If any compromise on this stand is to be made for practical reasons, then only parents/family reserve this right. Outsourcing it leads to human rights violations aka the present state of pedagogy.

The 9-year-olds in my class, every last one of them, was capable of learning everything we wanted of them at their own pace. They were all capable of learning non-linearly (like mastering years worth of learning in a few weeks when they really want to - everything on this planet except the education system is non-linear!), there was no need of worrying if one of them can't master adding double-digit numbers right now.  But I held them against their will and tried forcing things on them, in whichever way. That had a net negative effect on them. I witnessed the spark of genius being extinguished in front of my eyes. It harms the natural tendency of the child to like something, pursue it and master it themselves. The outcome of this forced schooling is everything that we find wrong in the people around us today. Most of what we pass off as normal just because everyone else is doing it, is actually abnormal and unnatural, and everyone is suffering.
Adding a moral science subject or one on democracy is bullshit if we're violating their rights and practising dictatorship on them at the same time.

Maa Baap ka Ehsaan

Warning: If this article seems offensive, please be assured that it only means that it is having the intended effect on the people it intended to have an effect on.


We come across a lot of stories and advice on the immeasurable, un-repayable debt we owe to our parents.
A favorite is the story of the giving tree. The brat comes along and takes the fruits, branches and finally chops the whole trunk off and the whole time our dear tree is supposedly just happily giving of itself for the sake of the brat. The author of that bogus tear-jerker ought to get sued for taking undue advantage of the fact that trees can't talk. Just because they can't talk, it's suddenly o.k. to imagine that they're oh-so-giving-and-sacrificial. My Ass.
Anyways, this story then gets magically metamorphosed into telling us that our parents are just like the tree. (actually, wouldn't it be so awesome if they couldn't yell or move around...). Forget about the lessons in sustainability that they didn't teach their kid. (Like, plant 10 more trees for every one you chop, you blathering idiot)

I'd like to punch a few holes into this "we-are-indebted" philosophy.
Now, it would seem rude to directly point fingers at my parents and state that they haven't done any ehsaan (aka favors) on me. So let me take it a generation forward.
Suppose that I have a baby and I am raising it as its parent.
During the whole time that I'm caring for her, feeding her, loving her, nurturing her... for even one single second am I going to think that I am doing some major Ehsaan on the baby?
Suppose that she's adopted.
Even then, should I be thinking for even one second that I'm doing the baby an enormous, unpayable, immeasurable favor?

Illness, modern medicine, and my mom

My mom was obese all her life after her last pregnancy. (for no fault of hers, I might add. The fact of having twins, life routine, health problems all contributed.) She had a whole series of chronic illnesses the whole way - knee problems, ankle swellings, hernia, thyroid, tension... She took painkillers and medicines all along, nearly every day. Being first generation migrants of small town to big city (of poor upbringing to prosperity), my parents had no reason to doubt the marvels of modern medicine. She did take homeopathy as well but her intake of regular medicines, especially painkillers, carried on.

After she passed away at the bitter end of a 3-year long battle with ovarian cancer, at one point I came across studies that showed that all the various painkillers and drugs she'd had to take regularly, in addition to the coffee she was addicted to, had carcinogenic material in them and contributed to a cancer risk if consumed regularly. Plus the fact that chemotherapy practically destroys the body's defenses and sets up the patient for even faster degeneration should a cancerous tumour return (which in my mom's case, it did, with a vengeance).

I can't really express how much that hurt, knowing that what we had accepted to heal her ended up killing her at the age of 51, that too in a way I wouldn't recommend even for an enemy. Dying is one thing, but to see the most important person in your life get slowly and utterly decimated, to see her essence as a human being get taken away... no one should have to go through that.

Since then I've pretty much lost faith in conventional medicine, do my best to avoid taking any pills. For now, if I ever come at a phase where I have to choose between a natural death and chemotherapy, I'll choose death. Homeopathy rocks too, but I prefer ways which don't involve putting stuff into my body. Instead I've found its better to embrace and go through whatever lows come - the feeling of wellness when we get out on the other side is really awesome.

Over the past 3 years I've been through a couple of bouts of severe illness and prolonged depression and found myself recovering much better if I let it take its time. illnesses were resolved by merely fasting and giving the body's digestive system a break. Once a bout of high fever that had lasted 3 days escalated to a point where I was literally knocked out, and after a brief second of unconsciousness (I actually thought this was it and I'm going to die!), all my sweat glands opened up like a dam had just broken and my body immediately stabilized and in a few hours I was walking and driving as if nothing had happened!

Edit: If you intake addictive substances on a daily basis, like smoking, alcohol, drugs, coffee, tea, soft drinks etc then the above paragraph has no meaning for you. I'm free of all of that and that's how natural methods worked for me. They're not going to work for you so don't risk it.

Depression... that's a tougher cookie, but I've found that by immersing myself into the lives of others, by doing everything I can to help another human being, by literally living for the sake of others, I've been happier, healthier, more creative and successful in spite of the depression. There are tragedies in all our lives and it's silly and kind of insensitive to wish we could erase them (I cherish even those worst experiences as they've taught me how to be more human) - we just have to learn to multi-task, have a broadband connection inside our head and live our lives fully at the same time.

At the same time, always keep in mind that there are others with much worse problems than yours and if they can deal with it then so can you. Finding a role model like that and keeping on referencing to them works wonders. Oh, and crying your heart out like a baby HELPS like anything - it's nature's very own anti-depressant, let it happen, people! (advice to men especially!)

And what if we just don't have the time or space to take a day off and let ourselves heal naturally? Well, I left that kind of lifestyle behind a long time ago. Take the time, chill out / blow out! One day of down-time today will give you several years in return later. You only get one life. 500 years from now no one's going to bother whether you met all your deadlines or not, whether you met all of "society's expectations" or not. But if you live fully and allow yourself to do something amazing - there's your chance for immortality!

Complicated behavior of women, or a symptom of a sick society?

Wanted to express something about … oh, cut the intros and let’s jump in.
Lots of talk all over the place about women being inherently crazy, proverbs about “don’t try to understand women”, about no one can tell how a woman’s mind works, etc etc.

Bullshit. If we can tell the chemical composition of the atmosphere of a distant planet just by looking at it and paying attention to detail, in this case too if you really go into the matter, analyze everything closely and pay close attention then you can begin to understand the fairer sex as well. I’m not saying anything about prediction or manipulation – My focus is to really understand someone, why they are the way they are, why they do what they do.

Irrational behavior of women is not because they're "wired this way". It's not "in their nature". Gentlemen and ladies, get this false myth out of your system.

It's just one more symptom of the sick, horrible state of our society and the way it treats its women. This includes the way its members, including women, treat each other.
As is the nature of disorders and symptoms, the receivers of irrational and torturing behavior that women are known to put people through (“emotional atyachaar”) are usually not the ones whose actions caused it. It takes a long time for the hurt to set in and disturb things, in some cases it spans entire generations. (alright, men behave badly too. But women are the mistreated ones here, as a result they exhibit this more.) So it is an inbuilt feature of this system to :
1. get women hurt by men or women,
2. then have them hurt men or women who are not at fault (and this little slice of the whole chain is what gets picked up and made an issue or mockery of in our media) and hence propogate the chain.
So if we really want to put an end to this madness, we’re going to have to put an end to ours. Men, you have to stop treating women like objects and property. A person is a person. Accept that and move on. Stop connecting your male ego with whether or not a woman is under your control.

Stop the obsession with Loyalty
Loyalty should be to a cause, not to any person. Because people can change. This applies to relationships too. Why this obsession with loyalty? From what I see, the only thing the loyalty concept does is make the guy lazy and retarded and lost most of his good traits out of a comfortable sense of security, and trap the woman with a guy whose quality drops meteorically. And then they sit and cry about “he’s no longer the loving, caring person he used to be”. In some cases this leads to seeking out extra-marital love. When that gets caught, everyone wants to blame the cheater, the traitor, the betrayer, the unfaithful. But hello, was the cheated spouse even worth being loyal to?
This even happens on the macro level – organizations and countries, once sure of full loyalty of their people, then inevitably go and do the most hideous of things with impunity because of this notion of security that loyalty gives them. Anyone who dares to question the actions of the people at the top, is then branded a “traitor”, dis-loyal to the whole institution. In families and communities, this obsession with loyalty leads to honor killings, domestic violence (nothing "domestic" about it, FYI) and a whole array of mental torture and emotional blackmail. This is my perspective : It is the same false notion of being loyal to fallible human beings that dooms relationships, organizations, whole nations.

This invites a lot of flak from people who don’t really get the difference between loyalty and commitment. So the obvious rebuke here would be “Oh, so you’ll abandon your commitment? Where is the honor, the ethics in that?”

People, there’s a HUGE difference between loyalty and commitment. Stop mixing the two. Stop justifying loyalty in the name of commitment.

Dictionary meanings:
Loyalty: Giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution

Commitment: A binding exchange of promises
Get the difference? In a commitment, both parties need to remain true to their promises. Both parties are accountable. If one fails to live up to the commitment, the other is empowered to walk away. There is accountability. Loyalty puts the whole burden on one person while making no room for accountability from the other.

Wow, loyalty Vs Commitment is a topic in itself! Will have to branch out here. (will update this line with a link when its ready)

To put it in short, a committed wife would leave an abusive or in any way unworthy husband. A loyal wife would keep suffering in silence. A committed person would identify and act proactively to remove the problems afflicting her. A loyal person would keep turning a blind eye, get afflicted by the problems and let them manifest themselves in her irrational, illogical and damaging behavior. By glorifying loyalty, we are insulting all the independent thinkers and doers out there, and paving the way for really screwed up mentalities across the board.

So, coming back to the subject of this post… MEN, if you want an end to all the crazy behavior and emotional atyachaar, we’re all going to have to start treating women like human beings, we’re going to have to put an end to OUR crazy behavior.

Update: Watch this guy's TED Talk to know precisely what is wrong with the man-box that men around the world have boxed themselves in: http://www.ted.com/speakers/tony_porter.html

This isn’t going to be easy or quick; it might take a whole generation for the damage to wear off. But let’s try to give our kids and their kids a better life. No one deserves to be subjected to this contorted, soul-destroying treatment that we today generalize by telling the women that “it’s a man’s world” and telling the men that “women are complicated”. We’re both getting hurt, let’s stop this.

Tip: To get informed about Nature Vs Nurture, Watch: The first part of the movie “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward”

friendship Vs love in a venn diagram

Hoping that one day we can understand one another.

"Move On!!"

There are times in life when some people you know may not like to be held accountable for their mistakes; and they do not like to apologize for them either. They think doing so will weaken them.

When you show them their errors, bring out the truth that they didn't know earlier,
And ask them to resolve the problem, undo their mistakes, clear out their prejudices and apologize to the people they have wronged so there are no more hard feelings,

They tell you to "move on" or "get lost" or "get a life" or worst of all - ignore you completely - and go back into their tiny little shells.

How are you supposed to explain to them that it's them who's not moving on, by clinging on to a wrong belief, a prejudice, by hiding in the shadows and refusing to face the light?

How can you convey to them that the true path of moving forward is to uncover the truth and acknowledge it?

How can you remind them that fate is never kind to those who had no honor or accountability?

How can you explain them that the true measure of strength is to stand up and be accountable for everything you do, instead of dodging and telling the wronged person to "move on" or "get lost" ?

How can you warn them that what goes around comes around? That if they keep this up, someday someone they care for may develop the same misconceptions about them, ruin what was good and pure and then order them to "move on" ?

If you never really cared about these people, if they meant absolutely nothing to you, it wouldn't really matter. But what if you do care? What if they are like family to you? What if they mean the world to you? What if you don't want them to have to endure the same trauma they have mistakenly put someone else through? What if you want them to become better people instead of regressing?

Aren't we social beings? Aren't we supposed to look out for each other? Is it wrong to care for your own?
No, it's not. It's what makes us human.
So why do they admonish the one who tries to help them come around, who is trying to show them the truth?

http://theiowarepublican.com

I know it's not considered nice to tell people what they don't want to hear,
But I also know this : There is a difference between what someone wants, and what he/she needs.
If you can look beyond the wants and perceive the needs, you have a chance to really help someone.

Wants will keep changing with time, don't worry about it. Keep giving them what they need, what everybody needs - the truth. Hopefully, one day they'll learn to listen, respond, and then you can truly Move On.

Modern, sophisticated, enslaved

This article is dedicated to our modern-day sophisticated women, mainly all those who actually or secretly like posters like this one:


Sorry about that, but hey, I couldn't say no ;) Anyways, back to the bashing...
At this juncture, I'd like to give due regards to the fairer sex - the ladies. They have single-handedly dumped the world into one big trash can with their incessant shopping and materialistic desires. Research has shown that women today prefer shopping to sex. So complete hedonist waste is now better than a natural, nourishing act. (Oh, grow up, your parents practiced this a 100 times before they could concieve you) You don't really find this (wo)man-made preference preceding natural instincts that alarming, right?