It's 5:30 in the morning, I'm awake, I'm not joking. As I write this, there's this interminable drilling noise outside. I have no clue as to how whoever is responsible for the construction is allowed to get away with it? How can anyone be allowed to disrupt the slumber of a whole set of hipsters, yuppies, and Hasidic Jews all at once? As I lay in bed for the past hour, I stared at the lines in my ceiling created by the light beams penetrating through my blinds, I began to think....
For one, I cannot believe my girlfriend who happens to be staying over tonight is able to sleep through this. I guess since she has to get up early for work, she's able to do unimaginable things in times of necessity - kind of like how you hear people can lift cars if someone were trapped under one. I start to listen to her snoring, which I never really have before. It's very subdued and rhythmic and rather endearing. I begin to wonder about what she's dreaming about? And how at this very moment, there's some really bizarre images going through her head. Is she having fantasies about killing me as I look at her so lovingly? Hmmm. I then go back to just listening to her snore and think how if I were Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, it's moments like these Robin Williams would tell me to appreciate. But I digress....
As the noise continues, I recall how I had a girlfriend in college who would often stay with me in my crummy apartment. There used to be trees by that apartment that would be occupied by crows every night. They would make scream endlessly, and I remember how she too could sleep right through the deafening chirping. On many occasions I was seconds away from waking her so that we could move to her dorm room and away from the crows - but I never did. I always let her sleep. I kind of wish now she knew how many nights I let her sleep, maybe she would despise me slightly less than she surely does? But I digress...
I then start to think about John McCain (I'm serious). I start to think how interesting it is how you can admire a man for the sacrifices he's made, and yet disagree with him so vehemently politically. I then think about how he has a son in Iraq who he never uses as a political ploy, and how he should be commended for that, and how I can't say the democratic contenders would do the same were they to have children in Iraq. But I digress...
I start to think about my uncle who recently passed away, and how angry I am that he did. How angry I am that my mother once had 9 brothers and now has 4, and the agony that comes with that loss. I'm so angry that so many people I love have to go through so much pain, including my pregnant cousin, who's handled her father's passing with more grace and courage than I could ever hope for. I think about the countless paintings he drew that currently occupy his basement, and how I'm an artistic hack in comparison. But I'm so glad he was an artist, because art serves to augment posterity. But I digress...
I think about how happiness is always very temporary. I was happy today because life overall isn't bad. I'm not going to some stupid job, I'm working on my movie, I have great family and friends, but those feelings of happiness slowly subside as I realize that most of my happiness has nothing to do with things I've done and can all be attributed back to the family I was born into. I won the lottery before I came out the womb, and I had nothing to do with it, and the only reason I'm not some Nepali refugee is because of the luck of the draw, and that's it. Life is totally arbitrary, and this makes me think about religion, and how I know this part is bound to offend people, but it's 5:56 am and I don't care - religion, like life, is totally arbitrary. 99% of the people who follow a certain religion do so because of the family they were born into, and who drilled that religion into their head from birth, and come on, you can't honestly dispute that? If at some point society didn't stop telling us Santa Claus existed, we'd all still believe in him too. But I digress...
It's now passed 6 am and the noise continues. Before the noise woke me up, I was dreaming about how I found out this guy I knew in high school had just been divorced for the second time. It now occurs to me that this person may very well be divorced twice in reality, hmmm. But I digress...
I'm now thinking that were I to count the amount of times I've used the word "I" or some variation of it in this blog, I would be embarrassed. I think about how obnoxious it is that I write these things and ask people to read them. But now I think just saying what I just did is equally if not more obnoxious because I'm trying to deflect responsibility from myself, meaning, I'm somehow convincing myself that admitting I'm being narcissistic somehow makes it's okay. Maybe I should just stop writing these...
Monday, May 11, 2009
Formula 409
Yesterday I was bored, so I decided to read the back label of my Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner. I decided that if I were going to read the back of my Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner, I needed a soundtrack to go along with it. Quickly, I became vexed, for I didn't know what the adequate musical accompaniment was to reading the back label of my Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner? Eventually, I settled on Sarah McLachlan's Surfacing Album - I was happy that I made a decision. Once McLachlan's angelic-Canadian voice exuded from my speakers, I began to wonder why I even possessed Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner? Numbers tend to stress me out, so I was surprised I didn't own a spray of Fantastik or Febreeze or some other cleaning product that didn't contain multiple digits in the name. I was wasting time analyzing this, so I convinced myself it must've been my mother who had purchased it for me - numbers don't stress my mother out as much as they do me. The first thing the label said was, "It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." I couldn't help but notice that the "F" in the word "Federal" was capitalized. This seemed grammatically incorrect, and once again, I got stressed out. I then realized that perhaps the F was capitalized to make a point - that no matter what state I was in, I could conceivably be imprisoned were I to use the Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner in an irresponsible manner (though I wondered if the same held true for Puerto Rico and Guam; or did the citizens of Puerto Rico and Guam have free reign to utilize the Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner in whatever way they chose?). I then began to wonder if anyone in the world had ever been arrested for using Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner incorrectly? And if not, what would happen were I to be the first? Would I be ridiculed or admired for being the Rosa Parks of people being incarcerated for using a cleaning product in a manner other than the way described on the label? I decided I would be ridiculed, and that from now on, I would always use Formula 409 All-purpose Cleaner in a responsible and ethical fashion. The next piece of information to strike me was that on heavily-soiled areas, I was to let the Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner stand for 10 minutes before cleaning. I had not been doing this in the past, and so I began to develop feelings of inadequacy. But something in McLachlan's voice told me to keep going, that everything was going to be alright, that I should wipe the tears, that I should keep reading, and that's just what I did! Unfortunately, my exhilaration was quickly stymied when I read "store out of reach of small children." Until I read those words, I had always stored the Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner in the cabinet below my bathroom sink, i.e. in a place extremely accessible to small children. What was my placement of the Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner saying about me? Was it a symbol of my commitment issues and fear of reproduction? I began to become depressed, and so I went to my fridge and got a beer so I could start drowning my sorrows. As I peered at the beer bottle, I realized that only a few states gave people 5 cents for recycling. I felt stupid for falsely assuming all states gave people 5 cents for recycling, but I couldn't let myself get distracted with this new-found information - that was for a different time and place. I went back to the Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner, and read "refill only with this product." I was obviously dumbfounded and confused by these words. Dumfounded because I had never thought about refilling a cleaning product, and confused because I didn't know how? How was I to refill the spray can without buying another spray can? But then, as if discovering The Flux Capacitor (what makes time travel possible) I realized that they must sell giant containers of Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner at Costco - much like the giant cans of laundry degerant my mother had purchased for me before I moved - good old mom! Till this juncture, my reading of the Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner label had been educational yet melancholy, but now I was invigorated, and my joy was palpable. The next time I was at Costco, I was going to buy a giant container of Fantastik (not Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner, because remember - numbers stress me out). I would then pour the Fantastic into the empty spray can of Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner. This would serve a dual function - not only would I be helping the environment, I would also be pulling one over all the people who believed in their heart of hearts that I possessed Formula 409 All-Purpose Cleaner, when in actuality, I really possessed Fantastik...I'm such a sneaky devil! Of course, none of these people would be children, because from now on, the spray can will never be accessible to them.
Me
Sometimes I sit alone, and I think of how so few grasp the true scope of my genius. I wish I could make everyone as smart as me, but I'm so intellectually superior to everyone that my dream of equality is ostensibly unobtainable. Other times, I peer interminably into the mirror and become heartbroken by my unparalleled beauty. And then I ponder, why do all women not fall in-love by the mere sight of my flawless golden complexion? But the answer is all too obvious: they do. However, they simply cannot allow themselves to be in the presence of such greatness. If I had the choice between donating my kidney to save someone's life, or donating my personality so the same person could feel the glory of possessing such wit and charm for a single, solitary day, I'd do neither - for I try not to associate with those with health problems. Other times, after I've scolded the employees of my corner Starbucks for botching the consistency of the foam in my grande cappuccino, I begin to feel remorse, for it’s not they who should be held accountable for being burdened with such a lack of talent and good looks. They should only be held accountable for being poor and uneducated. I know, I know, I'm too modest, but as with my perfectly-sculpted-calves, modesty is one of my many virtues. I recall a time after I had finished making love to a young Swedish girl, or perhaps she was Swiss, oh it doesn't matter, the point is: she was female, and thus inferior to me in almost every regard (except knitting). I'm not certain if she reached an orgasm, but I've never been one to judge my sexual prowess upon a mythological ability to make a woman climax. Soon after, I told her she was overweight and that I did not want to see her again, and that if I even caught sight of her in my peripheral, I would mock her till she cried. Last I heard, she became anorexic, and was living with a tribe of Navajos on a strict diet of almonds and pomegranate juice. I've never felt hurt by her lack of gratitude for me turning her life around - I'm not in it for the adulation. I do not fear death, for I believe that when I reach the heavenly gates, God will tell me to take over the reigns as I am as close to his spitting image as he's ever conceived, and thus; none of the minions in heaven will even notice he's been replaced. Were I to come across a young child that had a new-born sibling, I would pay extra attention to that child, knowing that the other adults were focusing their concentration on the new-born. Honesty is the best policy, and I would tell this child that he will be virtually worthless from here on end, and that if his parents ever get divorced, it will be entirely his fault, and that he's better off stealing money from his mother's purse and running-off to go turn tricks in Tijuana. I love kids!
The Two Fiances
Here’s the scenario:
You have two friends, both of whom you hold in equal regard and both of who are getting married. Friend #1’s fiancé is absolutely average in physical appearance. Were you to see her on the street you would walk right past her. However, despite her physical mediocrity, she has a heart of gold and an overall winning personality - you genuinely enjoy her company.
Friend # 2’s fiancé, for a lack of a better word (and if there were a better word, I’d do my best to find it) is a complete bitch. She’s the type of person who lacks intelligence and charisma in all possible definitions. However, (and I’m sure you can tell where I’m going with this) she is stunning. She’s arguably the most attractive female on the planet. Were you to see her on the street, you’d stop to pleasure yourself.
Lastly, in terms of sexual acumen and dexterity, both fiancés are on par with one another. Oh, we do have to make one assumption which is that fiancé # 2 is significantly younger than fiancé # 1. Sorry ladies, but in GENERAL, younger women tend to be more physically attractive. Now I’m sorry that older men GENERALLY tend to be more attractive than younger men, but in the words of Bill Maher “women made it that way by still wanting to fuck Sean Connery, so shut up about it.”
Here’s the question:
With the knowledge of the two fiancés provided above, which of your friends do you feel has made the better decision?
In order to answer this question, a serious of factors indispensable to a successful union need to be examined and evaluated. So, let’s begin…
CONVERSATION:
As I get older, I’ve begun to hold greater value on the importance of intelligent conversation. Being able to have a stimulating discussion on a variety of subjects shouldn’t be taken for granted. What does one say to a girl in the 19-23 year old range, “hey, how about that Rihanna, isn’t she something?” In addition, it’s unlikely you and fiancé # 2 will ever see eye-to-eye on things. By the time she begins becoming a Facebook Fan of the first liberal Cambodian midget running for president, you would’ve turned into an evil Republican who’s now contributing a quarter of his salary to the Bobby Jindal campaign. WINNER: Fiancé # 1
Envy:
Unfortunately, fiancé # 1 can’t compete in this category. Men who are close to you as well as strangers will be envious of you if you’re with a female of great beauty. They might not tell you this outright, but they are. Perhaps more importantly, other females will now find you more attractive, including the ones who rejected you in the past (which in my case is an alarmingly high number). No one’s going to be jealous of you because your fiancé is kind and fun. She has to be in order to compensate for not being attractive, and everyone knows it. Maybe that sounds misogynistic but it’s not. Men have the same relationship to money, i.e. we wouldn’t be so obsessed with making cash if it didn’t drastically augment our chances of sex, or as Dave Chappelle said, “if a man could have sex in a cardboard box, he wouldn’t have a house.” WINNER: Fiancé # 2
Children:
If part of your plan is to spawn, I would think fiancé # 1 has got to be the better choice. First of all, adolescence is arduous enough without everyone making MILF comments every 5 seconds. Second, as stated earlier, fiancé # 2 is rather obtuse. The point being, your kids are probably going to grow up to be idiotic-underachievers (trust me, I’m a teacher, your kids are not nearly as smart as you’d like to think they are) anyway, so why increase that likelihood by giving them an imbecile for a mother? Third, once childbirth wrecks havoc upon fiancé # 2’s figure, she’s sure to descend into a state of post-partum depression, and then you have a whole other set of problems on your hands, you feel me? WINNER: Fiancé # 1
Love:
Which one of these respective women are going to love you more? I think most people would be quick to assume that fiancé # 1 would be the victor here, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Who’s to say a really hot girl is any less capable of loving you than one of lesser physical beauty? The truth is, in time, regardless of their disposition and appearance, both women will hate you equally. WINNER: None
I could probably go on like this interminably (believe me, I really could) and there would still be no solid answer. The reason for this is because what’s most important depends on the individual. If it were up to me, I’d probably choose fiancé # 1 (but I could be totally lying about that), but that’s not the point. The point is that people shouldn’t be judged for what they value.
The best analogy I can make is the comparison between LA and NY. If one were to create a list between the pros of living in LA vs. NY, I’m sure the items on the NY list would outnumber LA’s by 2 to 1. In fact, the LA list might only have one item on it – weather. LA has perfect weather, and to many people (myself included) that holds as much weight as 20 positives on the NY list (as a sidebar, I’d like to bitch-slap all the people who say they love NY because they love having 4 seasons. NY doesn’t have 4 seasons, it has two: hot and cold. But I digress...) So yes, fiancé # 1 might have more positive qualities in comparison to fiancé # 2, but to many men, the value of aesthetic takes precedent above all else, and that should be okay.
You have two friends, both of whom you hold in equal regard and both of who are getting married. Friend #1’s fiancé is absolutely average in physical appearance. Were you to see her on the street you would walk right past her. However, despite her physical mediocrity, she has a heart of gold and an overall winning personality - you genuinely enjoy her company.
Friend # 2’s fiancé, for a lack of a better word (and if there were a better word, I’d do my best to find it) is a complete bitch. She’s the type of person who lacks intelligence and charisma in all possible definitions. However, (and I’m sure you can tell where I’m going with this) she is stunning. She’s arguably the most attractive female on the planet. Were you to see her on the street, you’d stop to pleasure yourself.
Lastly, in terms of sexual acumen and dexterity, both fiancés are on par with one another. Oh, we do have to make one assumption which is that fiancé # 2 is significantly younger than fiancé # 1. Sorry ladies, but in GENERAL, younger women tend to be more physically attractive. Now I’m sorry that older men GENERALLY tend to be more attractive than younger men, but in the words of Bill Maher “women made it that way by still wanting to fuck Sean Connery, so shut up about it.”
Here’s the question:
With the knowledge of the two fiancés provided above, which of your friends do you feel has made the better decision?
In order to answer this question, a serious of factors indispensable to a successful union need to be examined and evaluated. So, let’s begin…
CONVERSATION:
As I get older, I’ve begun to hold greater value on the importance of intelligent conversation. Being able to have a stimulating discussion on a variety of subjects shouldn’t be taken for granted. What does one say to a girl in the 19-23 year old range, “hey, how about that Rihanna, isn’t she something?” In addition, it’s unlikely you and fiancé # 2 will ever see eye-to-eye on things. By the time she begins becoming a Facebook Fan of the first liberal Cambodian midget running for president, you would’ve turned into an evil Republican who’s now contributing a quarter of his salary to the Bobby Jindal campaign. WINNER: Fiancé # 1
Envy:
Unfortunately, fiancé # 1 can’t compete in this category. Men who are close to you as well as strangers will be envious of you if you’re with a female of great beauty. They might not tell you this outright, but they are. Perhaps more importantly, other females will now find you more attractive, including the ones who rejected you in the past (which in my case is an alarmingly high number). No one’s going to be jealous of you because your fiancé is kind and fun. She has to be in order to compensate for not being attractive, and everyone knows it. Maybe that sounds misogynistic but it’s not. Men have the same relationship to money, i.e. we wouldn’t be so obsessed with making cash if it didn’t drastically augment our chances of sex, or as Dave Chappelle said, “if a man could have sex in a cardboard box, he wouldn’t have a house.” WINNER: Fiancé # 2
Children:
If part of your plan is to spawn, I would think fiancé # 1 has got to be the better choice. First of all, adolescence is arduous enough without everyone making MILF comments every 5 seconds. Second, as stated earlier, fiancé # 2 is rather obtuse. The point being, your kids are probably going to grow up to be idiotic-underachievers (trust me, I’m a teacher, your kids are not nearly as smart as you’d like to think they are) anyway, so why increase that likelihood by giving them an imbecile for a mother? Third, once childbirth wrecks havoc upon fiancé # 2’s figure, she’s sure to descend into a state of post-partum depression, and then you have a whole other set of problems on your hands, you feel me? WINNER: Fiancé # 1
Love:
Which one of these respective women are going to love you more? I think most people would be quick to assume that fiancé # 1 would be the victor here, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Who’s to say a really hot girl is any less capable of loving you than one of lesser physical beauty? The truth is, in time, regardless of their disposition and appearance, both women will hate you equally. WINNER: None
I could probably go on like this interminably (believe me, I really could) and there would still be no solid answer. The reason for this is because what’s most important depends on the individual. If it were up to me, I’d probably choose fiancé # 1 (but I could be totally lying about that), but that’s not the point. The point is that people shouldn’t be judged for what they value.
The best analogy I can make is the comparison between LA and NY. If one were to create a list between the pros of living in LA vs. NY, I’m sure the items on the NY list would outnumber LA’s by 2 to 1. In fact, the LA list might only have one item on it – weather. LA has perfect weather, and to many people (myself included) that holds as much weight as 20 positives on the NY list (as a sidebar, I’d like to bitch-slap all the people who say they love NY because they love having 4 seasons. NY doesn’t have 4 seasons, it has two: hot and cold. But I digress...) So yes, fiancé # 1 might have more positive qualities in comparison to fiancé # 2, but to many men, the value of aesthetic takes precedent above all else, and that should be okay.
LDR's
I've noticed that regardless of what a given topic is, my opinion often aligns with the minority. But hey, it's the people in the minority that change the world...at least that's what we in the minority tell ourselves so we don’t feel like such losers.
One of my oldest friends recently told me that out of all the theories/philosophies we've exchanged over the years, he finds my views on the long-distance relationship (LDR) the most controversial and least understood by the masses (the "masses" in this case being the three people who actually read this blog). And so, I will now attempt to use this forum as a means to clarify my position. My position is simply this - when it comes to LDR's, well, I'm a fan. Before I proceed any further, let me say that I'm well-aware that no woman will ever agree with my views on this subject - I understand and accept that. In addition, very few men will agree with my views...bunch of traitors!
If I had a penny for every time I've heard someone say they won't engage in a LDR because it's too hard, I'd have close to 30 cents. The thing is, all of those people are right. LDR's are hard, but if done correctly, they can be gloooorious! Now I'm sure you're asking, "But why Neil? Why do you support LDR's with such vigor and fervor?" I'm glad you asked...
There are a number of reasons I'm a proponent of the LDR, but if I had to pick the #1 reason, it would be because it keeps things new. By not seeing each other everyday and stressing each other out everyday, there's a heightened level of excitement the times you do see each other. There's still a sense of that "new relationship" feel. Some may argue that there are other means by which "newness" can be injected into a relationship such as role-playing. Maybe tactics such as role-playing work for some people, but I feel role-playing would just stress me out. I postulate role-playing would merely serve to augment my already high level of inadequacy. Rather than being aroused, I'd just ask myself "why the hell is my chick dressed in a nurses outfit?" More importantly, I would know the truth, that the role-playing was just that, role playing, not something real.
Now you're probably asking, "But Neil, doesn't a long-distance relationship lend itself to cheating?" My rebuttal is that the LDR is actually a great test for loyalty and trust. If a couple can stay faithful to each other while being far-apart, is that not a testament to the strength of their relationship? Maybe couples who live together are less-likely to cheat but that's only because, well, they live together and there's a greater likelihood of getting caught. Conversely, maybe a couple who live together (or in close proximity) are more likely to cheat because they're so bored with one another, either way, it's a bad scene. Granted, loneliness is a bitch and it drives people to do bad things. That's why it's imperative that you still see each other as often as possible. As I perceive myself as an expert in this field, my research shows that a couple should wait no more than 2 1/2 weeks before seeing each other. Anything more and you're running a high risk of infidelity.
Now of course monetary restrictions often dictate how often a couple engaging in an LDR see one another. That's why it's also vital that the actual distance between a couple not be too drastic. However, what's considered "long" depends on the individuals. For me, a relationship that has more than a 250 mile buffer zone is arduous to maintain. However, I have a friend who's in a relationship with a girl oversees, and he's the most faithful person I know. So, how a couple wants to conduct their LDR is subjective to them.
Understandably, you're now rhetorically asking "But Neil, is 'newness' really enough to justify an LDR?" And you're right, it's not. But there are other significant reasons for one. Most notably: freedom. George Bush may be an idiot, but he's right about one thing, freedom's important! Not having to check in and essentially ask permission to do whatever you want can be quite liberating. If you're the type of person who values freedom, you know how much time and energy can be exerted untangling your web of lies every weekend.
Not sold yet? What more can I offer you? Well, let's see, if you're in an LDR, you're also far less likely to quarrel. This is because you both know that your time together is finite, and that it shouldn't be squandered by arguing. Also, having an LDR is like having a built-in mini-vacation in your life. It doesn't matter where your partner lives, it's always nice to get away.
As I conclude, I don't fool myself in thinking that anyone's going to agree with me. I just hope that if you're going to persecute me and my scientologist brothers and sisters, at least know where we stand. I'm also aware that if you want to get married anytime soon, everything I said is void, and that yes, you should probably live close to one another.
If you've never been in an LDR but want to experiment, remember what Spiderman said, "with great power, comes great responsibility." Meaning, be a good person. Just because your partner (expressions like "partner" are so gay) is far away, be loyal, loving, understanding, and don't become complacent. These have been my words...do with them as you wish.
One of my oldest friends recently told me that out of all the theories/philosophies we've exchanged over the years, he finds my views on the long-distance relationship (LDR) the most controversial and least understood by the masses (the "masses" in this case being the three people who actually read this blog). And so, I will now attempt to use this forum as a means to clarify my position. My position is simply this - when it comes to LDR's, well, I'm a fan. Before I proceed any further, let me say that I'm well-aware that no woman will ever agree with my views on this subject - I understand and accept that. In addition, very few men will agree with my views...bunch of traitors!
If I had a penny for every time I've heard someone say they won't engage in a LDR because it's too hard, I'd have close to 30 cents. The thing is, all of those people are right. LDR's are hard, but if done correctly, they can be gloooorious! Now I'm sure you're asking, "But why Neil? Why do you support LDR's with such vigor and fervor?" I'm glad you asked...
There are a number of reasons I'm a proponent of the LDR, but if I had to pick the #1 reason, it would be because it keeps things new. By not seeing each other everyday and stressing each other out everyday, there's a heightened level of excitement the times you do see each other. There's still a sense of that "new relationship" feel. Some may argue that there are other means by which "newness" can be injected into a relationship such as role-playing. Maybe tactics such as role-playing work for some people, but I feel role-playing would just stress me out. I postulate role-playing would merely serve to augment my already high level of inadequacy. Rather than being aroused, I'd just ask myself "why the hell is my chick dressed in a nurses outfit?" More importantly, I would know the truth, that the role-playing was just that, role playing, not something real.
Now you're probably asking, "But Neil, doesn't a long-distance relationship lend itself to cheating?" My rebuttal is that the LDR is actually a great test for loyalty and trust. If a couple can stay faithful to each other while being far-apart, is that not a testament to the strength of their relationship? Maybe couples who live together are less-likely to cheat but that's only because, well, they live together and there's a greater likelihood of getting caught. Conversely, maybe a couple who live together (or in close proximity) are more likely to cheat because they're so bored with one another, either way, it's a bad scene. Granted, loneliness is a bitch and it drives people to do bad things. That's why it's imperative that you still see each other as often as possible. As I perceive myself as an expert in this field, my research shows that a couple should wait no more than 2 1/2 weeks before seeing each other. Anything more and you're running a high risk of infidelity.
Now of course monetary restrictions often dictate how often a couple engaging in an LDR see one another. That's why it's also vital that the actual distance between a couple not be too drastic. However, what's considered "long" depends on the individuals. For me, a relationship that has more than a 250 mile buffer zone is arduous to maintain. However, I have a friend who's in a relationship with a girl oversees, and he's the most faithful person I know. So, how a couple wants to conduct their LDR is subjective to them.
Understandably, you're now rhetorically asking "But Neil, is 'newness' really enough to justify an LDR?" And you're right, it's not. But there are other significant reasons for one. Most notably: freedom. George Bush may be an idiot, but he's right about one thing, freedom's important! Not having to check in and essentially ask permission to do whatever you want can be quite liberating. If you're the type of person who values freedom, you know how much time and energy can be exerted untangling your web of lies every weekend.
Not sold yet? What more can I offer you? Well, let's see, if you're in an LDR, you're also far less likely to quarrel. This is because you both know that your time together is finite, and that it shouldn't be squandered by arguing. Also, having an LDR is like having a built-in mini-vacation in your life. It doesn't matter where your partner lives, it's always nice to get away.
As I conclude, I don't fool myself in thinking that anyone's going to agree with me. I just hope that if you're going to persecute me and my scientologist brothers and sisters, at least know where we stand. I'm also aware that if you want to get married anytime soon, everything I said is void, and that yes, you should probably live close to one another.
If you've never been in an LDR but want to experiment, remember what Spiderman said, "with great power, comes great responsibility." Meaning, be a good person. Just because your partner (expressions like "partner" are so gay) is far away, be loyal, loving, understanding, and don't become complacent. These have been my words...do with them as you wish.
Enemies
In under a year, I will be 30. As I approach the commencement of my fourth decade, I find myself consumed with a bizarre amalgamation of emotions: dread for the arrival of next June, coupled with eager anticipation for it. Similar to the columniation of High School and college, I routinely ask the cliché of "where did the time go?" However, there is an additional mantra I find myself repeating as I reach the forthcoming milestone, and that mantra is this: I need to defeat my archenemy!
Before I delve into the aforementioned mantra, I must quote the essayist Chuck Klosterman. In his book, IV, Klosterman states, "What you need is (a) one quality nemesis and (b) one archenemy. These are the two most important mechanisms in any human's life...they are the catalysts for why we do everything." Klosterman goes on to detail the distinctions between a nemesis and an archenemy, but for the sake of this blog, I just want to focus on whether it's true that everyone needs an enemy? After some thorough introspection, I've concluded that the answer is a solid yes!
Some of you who know me, know who my archenemy is, but I won't mention his name, in fear that he will be notified that I'm strategically plotting his downfall. However, only after reading Klosterman's essay, have I realized that everything I do is either a direct or indirect result of this person's existence. Some may view that as pathetic, and those "some" may be right, nevertheless; it is what is.
This Tuesday I am set to embark on what is certain to be a brief and failure-ridden teaching career. In the myriad of vocations I've had in my life, I've yet to be terminated, but I truly believe that streak is about to come to its inevitable conclusion. I've spent the last two days in school meetings, and have yet to have an experienced teacher pass an opportunity to remind me of the difficulties I'm about to face. Thus, I cannot help but wonder why I ever got into the teaching profession to begin with? For one, I hate authority (which would explain why I've quit so many jobs) and yet my boss will be a principal, and principals are only principals for the sole purpose of enforcing their authority. Second, I pretty much dislike children more than everyone I know, and yet almost every minute of my day will be spent in their consistently chaotic presence. Third, I despise waking-up early, and yet I'll have to be at work each day by 8:20am. I could continue the litany of ironies, but you get the idea.
So when people ask me why I've decided to be a teacher, I don't lie, I tell them I'm doing it for the summers off and the steady (though minimal) paycheck. And though those answers are accurate, they're not the truth in totality. Meaning, the reason I'm so obsessed with having my summers off is not because I'm a slacker (which I am), but because I want to focus that time on my film career. Most of you reading this probably know I'm a want-to-be filmmaker; but what many may not know is that my aspirations of being an auteur are not a function of a love for the medium. Rather, my true goal of being a filmmaker is to use celluloid as a tool to destroy my archenemy.
In all honesty, it wasn't always this way. In my younger years, I wanted to make movies out of a passion and a love for film. But if my archenemy had never entered my life, my dream would've subsided years ago. So the point is this: as much as I despise my archenemy, the reality is, his existence gives the motivation for mine. But now the quandary becomes - what do I do with myself, if and when I defeat my archenemy? I can't just make-up another archenemy. An archenemy is an entity which must come about naturally. So, I now I find myself in a very perplexing situation - I'm still driven to succeed by the fact that I've yet to defeat my archenemy, and yet I fear that once his life crumbles...so will mine.
My best guess is that my life won't crumble, and that I will be happy when my archenemy is brought to his knees. However, that happiness will only last a finite amount of time. And when that time ends, I'll just be confused because I won't know what to do with myself. I'll just be a guy floundering in the banality of life. I'll just be a guy hoping that one day he's lucky enough to once again have someone who does him so wrong...
Before I delve into the aforementioned mantra, I must quote the essayist Chuck Klosterman. In his book, IV, Klosterman states, "What you need is (a) one quality nemesis and (b) one archenemy. These are the two most important mechanisms in any human's life...they are the catalysts for why we do everything." Klosterman goes on to detail the distinctions between a nemesis and an archenemy, but for the sake of this blog, I just want to focus on whether it's true that everyone needs an enemy? After some thorough introspection, I've concluded that the answer is a solid yes!
Some of you who know me, know who my archenemy is, but I won't mention his name, in fear that he will be notified that I'm strategically plotting his downfall. However, only after reading Klosterman's essay, have I realized that everything I do is either a direct or indirect result of this person's existence. Some may view that as pathetic, and those "some" may be right, nevertheless; it is what is.
This Tuesday I am set to embark on what is certain to be a brief and failure-ridden teaching career. In the myriad of vocations I've had in my life, I've yet to be terminated, but I truly believe that streak is about to come to its inevitable conclusion. I've spent the last two days in school meetings, and have yet to have an experienced teacher pass an opportunity to remind me of the difficulties I'm about to face. Thus, I cannot help but wonder why I ever got into the teaching profession to begin with? For one, I hate authority (which would explain why I've quit so many jobs) and yet my boss will be a principal, and principals are only principals for the sole purpose of enforcing their authority. Second, I pretty much dislike children more than everyone I know, and yet almost every minute of my day will be spent in their consistently chaotic presence. Third, I despise waking-up early, and yet I'll have to be at work each day by 8:20am. I could continue the litany of ironies, but you get the idea.
So when people ask me why I've decided to be a teacher, I don't lie, I tell them I'm doing it for the summers off and the steady (though minimal) paycheck. And though those answers are accurate, they're not the truth in totality. Meaning, the reason I'm so obsessed with having my summers off is not because I'm a slacker (which I am), but because I want to focus that time on my film career. Most of you reading this probably know I'm a want-to-be filmmaker; but what many may not know is that my aspirations of being an auteur are not a function of a love for the medium. Rather, my true goal of being a filmmaker is to use celluloid as a tool to destroy my archenemy.
In all honesty, it wasn't always this way. In my younger years, I wanted to make movies out of a passion and a love for film. But if my archenemy had never entered my life, my dream would've subsided years ago. So the point is this: as much as I despise my archenemy, the reality is, his existence gives the motivation for mine. But now the quandary becomes - what do I do with myself, if and when I defeat my archenemy? I can't just make-up another archenemy. An archenemy is an entity which must come about naturally. So, I now I find myself in a very perplexing situation - I'm still driven to succeed by the fact that I've yet to defeat my archenemy, and yet I fear that once his life crumbles...so will mine.
My best guess is that my life won't crumble, and that I will be happy when my archenemy is brought to his knees. However, that happiness will only last a finite amount of time. And when that time ends, I'll just be confused because I won't know what to do with myself. I'll just be a guy floundering in the banality of life. I'll just be a guy hoping that one day he's lucky enough to once again have someone who does him so wrong...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)