RSS

The “My Husband Doesn’t Need to See Your Boobs” Debate

It’s summertime. There’s lots of people half naked or mostly naked on a gorgeous beach somewhere or partying in the dusk with friends and loved ones. There’s going to be lots of legs, abs, butts, and chests all over social media in the coming months. And that’s normal. Again, it’s summertime.

If we were anything like European countries, we’d have naked people all over the place on beaches and social media, but we’re not like European countries. We’re a country of sexually repressed people who over-sexualizes men and women because seeing a naked body is, and has always been, taboo. Naked bodies are natural. People naked are natural. And yet, we’re not even talking about nakedness, we’re talking about nearly nakedness, about people in short shorts or spaghetti strap tanks because it’s hot outside. We’re talking about shirtless men and bikini clad women because it’s the beach and so on.

And some are offended because once in a while, their significant other will scroll down his Facebook feed and come across a picture of a female friend in barely nothing with shapely shoulders, deep collarbones, flat abs, and oh yeah, breasts covered with a bikini. And they will wonder if all of a sudden, their husbands and boyfriends are starting to imagine female friends in lingerie.

*sighs*

There was a blog post written in 2014 by a married woman titled, “My Husband Doesn’t Need to See Your Boobs”. Since it’s been taken off her website, it can be found here on the Internet Archive at: https://web.archive.org/web/20140612150401/http://applesandbandaidsblog.com/2014/06/11/my-husband-doesnt-need-to-see-your-boobs/

Lauren, the author, talks about how pictures of women in bikinis on the internet is a stumbling block in her marriage. Her own words below.

“I’m not writing to chastise you for posting your bikini pics from your lake outing…But I am writing to share the perspective of a woman who is fighting for her marriage. And for that reason, I want to tell you that I don’t need my husband to see your boobs…Anyways, what I’m saying is I don’t fault you…But I want to tell you that it’s a stumbling block in our marriage…Mostly I’m looking at your legs asking myself, How are there seriously people without cellulite????…And then I continue scrolling through my feed until something else seems interesting…I doubt my husband is so lucky. Actually, I know it’s next to impossible to take in images like those and erase them from his mind. Because our men are much less emotional and are much more visual. And as quickly as I can forget your picture, it is filed away in his mind, ready to be pulled back out whenever he so chooses…Again, I am not faulting you. And by no means am I faulting him. This man of mine diverts his eyes from whatever questionable images flash on the screen before him. But sometimes the temptation is too much…After Memorial Day, I noticed so much skin on social media that I half-yelled a warning to him as I ran out the door one morning. It’s summertime, honey! Beware the beach pics and half nude girls on Instagram! And like that, he was in solitary confinement from all virtual community for the next two days…Protecting his eyes, protecting his heart…I know you don’t mean anything by it. But I need to share one more thing with you…When your bare shoulders and stretchmark-less bellies and tanned legs pop up, I not only worry if my husband will linger over your picture. I worry how he will compare me to you…As I wrap myself into his arms at night, I wonder if he is seeing you there instead of my mess of a body left over from pregnancy. I wonder if he thinks I’m lazy and that I don’t take good care of myself. I wonder if he wishes I looked more like you than who I really am…And then the insecurity monster comes back to bite at our relationship again…me, begging for affirmation, and him tiring from saying the same thing over and over…Can I say it one more time? I’m not judging youBut would you, could you, keep your boobs out of my marriage? You can have your memories, and we can have our sacred hearts…”

 

I understand this. Insecurity and jealousy is a monster that rears its ugly head from time to time. I’ve been a victim to it. And I’ve allowed it to drive people around me crazy, but no more! There has to be a point in time when you shut out the criticizing voices in your head and demand, “enough is enough!” But unfortunately, some of us never reach that point. Some of us are still wondering if our husbands and boyfriends are thinking about someone else while they’re with us. And all their “I love yous” and all their “I’m committed” will mean nothing because we are afraid. We are afraid because we don’t love ourselves enough and because we don’t find ourselves worthy of our own love, we question the love that others have for us.

While I understand Lauren’s feelings, it’s also this type of perception that propels things like rape culture. It’s people saying, “Women, you need to cover up. Your shoulders are showing. Your pants are too tight. I can see your belly. You’re asking a man to rape you.” WTF? No, we’re not. A woman in a tank top because it’s hot outside isn’t asking for a man to come along and rape her. That’s not why she’s wearing a tank top. It’s damn hot outside and that’s why she wears a tank top.

I’ve always believed that you can never control another person. You can try, to no avail and much frustrations to both parties, but the only real thing you can control is your reaction to people and to situations. If people on social media in a small amount of clothing bothers you, then get off the computer and do something else. If you think your husband is staring at some female friend’s boobs on social media, then stop thinking! Even if your husband was looking at a picture of a female friend on his Facebook feed, it does not mean that he’s going to start comparing the two of you and start thinking about wanting to get with her instead. He chose you. That’s gotta mean more than your insecurities because you don’t like yourself enough. And yes, you don’t like yourself enough and that’s the real problem here. The problem isn’t your husband coming across pictures of female friends having fun at the beach in bikinis, but that you’re not ok with yourself. And having your husband reaffirm your worthiness, reaffirm your desirability, and even reaffirming his love for you isn’t going to be enough until you can learn to love yourself.

So stop comparing. Your husband isn’t comparing, only you are. So what if you think his female friends are attractive with perfect bodies? He might not even see them that way at all. One might be that annoying girl who always posts political things that he’d like to unfriend, but some of her posts might actually make sense once in a blue moon so he keeps her around. Another might be an old friend from high school that he doesn’t even talk to, but she was manager of their 20th high school reunion so she contacted him and he just never thought of unfriending her. Another might be someone who is close to one of his immediate family members like his sister or his mother so he keeps them around just in case they can’t get a hold of his sister or his mother. Whatever the reasons for him having female friends are, he has female friends and that’s ok. It doesn’t mean he’s constantly thinking about them naked or keeping them in his spank bank for private and intimate moments. It really doesn’t have to mean anything at all.

Telling him he can’t have female friends is trying to control him. Telling other females that they need to cover up is trying to control them. It’s also insulting to your husband that he’s so base, he can’t control himself when a picture of a decent looking woman pops up on his feed. It’s rape culture all over again.

Instead of worrying about how much hotter his female friends are, take a step back from your husband and think about yourself. Think about the things you like about yourself and the things you don’t like. Then try to connect the things you don’t like about yourself to the things you think he’s doing or thinking. You don’t like that you have cellulite. This one friend of his is always so tan with tone legs. So you think he’s finding her legs attractive and not yours because you don’t like your legs. But this is all just you over thinking! This is just all in your head! But you punish him for your own dislikes about yourself. Just because you don’t like your cellulite laden legs, you make a comment on how he shouldn’t be looking at female legs on the internet. He stays off the internet for two days just to make you happy because he loves you. Why does he have to suffer because you can’t love yourself? He shouldn’t and he doesn’t have to. Time and time again, he will choose you over anything and anyone else because he’s already chosen you. Let that sink in and then stop punishing him because you don’t feel good about yourself.

Lauren, like many other women, like myself, really need to get a grip on how we view ourselves and our self worth. We’ve got to stop blaming everyone else for not loving us enough or wanting to love us as how we are because we don’t love ourselves. It’s definitely going to be a work in progress, but it’s an easy start. All it takes is for you to do something nice for yourself. And nice doesn’t mean eating a piece of chocolate cake when you’re worried about your weight. Nice is a manicure. A foot massage. Anything as simple as putting on makeup or taking a shower. Do things that make you feel good about yourself. All in all, just take some time for yourself. Boyfriends and husbands are great, but you need alone time and so do they. Each one of you need time to just relax and be alone because it’s only in being alone that you can enjoy your own company and realize that you are not incomplete.

Good luck to you all.
Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 18, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Am I Beautiful?

“Outer beauty pleases the EYE. Inner beauty captivates the HEART.”
― Mandy Hale

Being in love is a wonderful thing. It really is, except when it’s not. Society tells us that we have to look a certain way as women, and men should look a certain way as well although most women are more lax in their standards of men than men are in their standards of women. To many women, love doesn’t care about looks. Love doesn’t group attractiveness on body image or body size. To many men, love cares about looks. Love groups attractiveness on body image or body size. While this isn’t true for most people, it is for some and those some are the ones I’m writing this for.

Imagine a relationship where your boyfriend or girlfriend never tells you that you’re attractive to them. Imagine a relationship where you never hear the words, “you’re beautiful” or “you’re handsome”, by the one you love. How hurt would you feel? At this point, you’d even take, “you’re pretty” or “you’re cute”, but you don’t get any of those words from the person who tells you every day that they love you. What is wrong with this picture? Do they really love you? Do they even love you at all? Is there nothing about you that they find attractive? Is there nothing about you that they find beautiful?

The Little Mermaid teaches us that you just have to look pretty, be skinny, and be young to have “true love”. Unfortunately, to Disney, true love is defined as an obsession with a beautiful stranger in which one changes their self in order to have three days of trying to pursue and seduce that stranger into kissing them (or in modern terms, seduce that stranger into bed). Ariel, pretty, young, and skinny redhead that she is, gives up her voice to grow legs and chase after prince Eric, a guy that she is “in love with” all because he’s “so handsome”.

What if Eric was a wife beater? What if Eric wasn’t so charming even if he was handsome? Would Ariel still have traded her voice for a pair of legs then? Probably so. When you’re that young, Ariel is portrayed as being 16, love is based purely on looks. For a lot of people, they never grew out of that teenage stage where love is based purely on looks.

Let’s pretend for a moment that Ariel is 100 pounds. And let’s pretend that Ursula is 300 pounds. Now, going by weight alone, men can say that they’re happy with a woman that is anywhere in between that scale of above 100 and below 300 pounds. But, are they really? Would a lot of men choose Ursula? Sure, she’s got extra tentacles, but she’s fat. Let’s not candy coat it. She’s not aesthetically attractive at all. She’s trying too hard with way too much makeup in order to make up for her size. Ariel, however, is pretty and skinny. She’s attractive because she’s small and looks aesthetically pleasing to the eye. She doesn’t have to wear a lot of makeup and everyone loves a redhead. Almost all men would prefer Ariel over Ursula.

Now. Switch the two of them around. What if Ariel was the fat, ugly, 300 pound mermaid? And what if Ursula was a 100 pound, attractive, redheaded half octopus sea creature? Most men would now prefer Ursula over Ariel. Why is that? Is body size and looks that important when you’re in love? Sadly, it is when it shouldn’t be.

What is beautiful should be the person you fall in love with, no matter how they look like or no matter their shortcomings. Of course everyone wants to be beautiful and handsome to the one they love. It’s a shame that sometimes, the one they love can’t see what is beautiful about them. It’s not their looks. It’s not their body size or their weight or their height. It’s who they are as a person that’s beautiful.

I hope that everyone who reads this will appreciate the one they love and tell them that they’re attracted to them. Say it in words they can understand and words they need to hear: “you are beautiful to me” or “you are handsome to me”. If you’re not attracted to the person you’re with or you can’t tell them that, if you can’t find one single thing about them that is beautiful, then you don’t deserve them.

littlemermaidlooksmatter littlemermaidlooksmatter2

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 27, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Witch is Really a Movie Filled With Child Pornography

The Witch is the new Fifty Shades of Grey. By that, I’m really saying that the movie The Witch is the most pretentious, God-awful piece of crap Hollywood is trying to pass off as an actual film worth watching. The Blair Witch Project was more entertaining by a gazillion miles with kids running around in the woods with a camera. It’s stupidity like this and the salivating ass kissing reviews like this one (http://mashable.com/2016/02/16/the-witch-review/#SrK.Gh__Eiqi) that makes this country full of fucking idiots controlled by popular hype with no substance whatsoever.

Let me spoil the movie The Witch for you. Warning, spoilers below!!!
*
*
*
*
*
NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS WORTHLESS MOVIE!!!

Nothing fucking happens. Period. And what does happen is so dark and blurry that you’re straining your eyes trying to make out shadows on a black background.

Oh, an an infant gets fondled once you actually realize that a grown naked woman is rubbing her hands over the baby’s stomach, the baby’s legs, and rubbing down between the baby’s legs, but the camera angle is shot so close from the top of the kid’s head looking down to his feet, that it would take you several minutes trying to figure out what the fuck is going on since its shot in complete darkness with some far off campfire flames for lighting. So child pornography is now mainstream thanks to bullshit films like this which prey on how stupid people are in compromising their morals when it comes to entertainment. At least the naked twelve year old was older than INFANT, but we don’t get to see the implications of sexual child abuse when the baby brother enters the witch’s tent and comes out naked.

Now that I think about it, this movie glorifies child pornography and sexual abuse from underage Thomassen to her younger brother who is twelve to her infant brother that was abducted in the blink of an eye, literally the blink of an eye while she plays peek-a-boo with the kid.

You’ve got to wonder about all the people who thinks this movie was so fucking amazing, and you’ve got to wonder about their acceptance of child pornography which seems to be the ONLY theme in this movie. (Thomassen gets naked at the end along with other naked young girls around a campfire who are portrayed as having sex with an invisible being which carries them off into the sky while the sex is going on.)

Seriously, what the fuck, Hollywood?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 1, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Random Thoughts and People

I’m utterly fascinated by human beings because I can’t understand them. What makes them tick? Why do they act the way they do? It’s the little things that I find myself contemplating over for days on end. How is that possible? Are you kidding me? No, seriously? Why that instead of this? The questions are endless.

For a while now, I’ve been thinking about a certain person I used to be friends with some three odd years ago, but I don’t talk to her anymore and I have no real desire to talk to her again. It’s one of those things where I thought I was right and she didn’t really care and so we stopped being friends and I’m holding on to the principle of not being weak and not giving in and not going back to her and saying hi. While there’s actually no real desire to reconnect, I’ve just been thinking about how good of friends we used to be. We were such good friends, or so I thought we were good friends. However, I’m a horribly bad friend who is extremely jealous and emotional which normally drives people crazy because I am crazy. Yet, from time to time, I think about doing something nice for her because people should always have something nice be done for them. And my reasoning goes like this: that whatever good we do in this world, it doesn’t have to come back to us from that specific person, that perhaps in times when we’re in need, there will be some good done for us as well. So with that reasoning, I’m finally going to swallow all this pride I had about this girl and do something nice for her, even though I won’t even say hi. And that’s it. Just a nice thing for someone I used to know.

Speaking of which, there’s someone else who could benefit from something nice, so I’ll do something nice for her as well. There isn’t enough good done without strings attached. Both girls have no way of contacting me, so even if they wanted to say thanks, I’m taking that option away from them. I’m a horrible person like that. Three years go by and I do something nice in which they can’t even write me a letter to say thanks. I wonder if that’s kindness or just me being pushy and throwing glitter on people and letting them sparkle with my glitter. I guess I’m not so nice if I look at it that way. But I really don’t have time to talk to them, let alone write back and say, you’re welcome, and I’m even less inclined to be friends again. I’m really not the socially nice person who wants a ton of friends. But the bottom line is, a good thing is done, twice, and that’s what counts. Or at least that’s what I hope counts.

I have always been a strange one which doesn’t make much sense. Take the weather for example. It’s springtime, or getting close to there. Flowers are blooming. People are laughing and birds are singing. Babies are being born. Me? I’m kinda just here staring at all the bright and adorable commotion without a clue as to how I should be behaving. Does spring make people more cheery? Is it the decor of endless flowers blossoming or perhaps the image of cute bunnies hopping all over the place that makes people walk around with hearts over their heads? I don’t know what it is about spring that people think is so perfect and amazing. It’s wet. It’s damp. There’s plenty of worms everywhere. There’s a ton of insects. It’s not exactly the best season we have, in my opinion.

Or take love and attraction for another example. I don’t look at people and think, “he’s hot. I want to sleep with him.” And it doesn’t even have to be a real person. It could be the scantily clad male models of some romance novel that a friend of mine posts with the caption, “yummy”. I don’t look at that image and think, “yeah, I’d like a guy like that in my bed”. Quite frankly, I don’t understand the pictures although I can presume they’re like the female versions where males pass hot chicks around to all their friends saying, “who wouldn’t want a piece of that?” Um, not me. I don’t want a piece of some half naked muscled guy or some half naked sexy girl. But most of my friends are into that sort of thing which makes me wonder, what is wrong with me? Shouldn’t I go gaga over some man candy all the girls are passing around? Shouldn’t I find that person attractive? Unfortunately, I find a honey badger attacking lions more interesting or a Microsoft Hololens commercial more entertaining than I would some pretty much naked person smiling at me. Now that is creepy. Some pretty much naked person smiling. It’s definitely creepy and makes me want to grab a knife to defend myself.

Why are my thoughts so abnormal?

I’ve never cared for normal things like drinking, smoking, drugs, or sex. I’ve been almost drunk once. It was in New York. I was quite certain my goal was alcohol poisoning because I had this absurd idea that I had an unnaturally high tolerance to drugs and alcohol. I downed two bottles of vodka, went to the bar with friends and had 4 shots, a drink, drank pretty much everyone’s drinks at the table while they were off dancing and playing pool (there was a good eight or ten people there), and had more drinks before two guy friends escorted me back to the hostel where we all were staying. Tipsy was the word. I managed to walk straight with some effort, climbed 6 flights of stairs with no problem, and went to sleep off the alcohol. I don’t think I was drunk. Or I pretended not to be drunk. My pretending was pretty good as I did well walking and climbing stairs without help. Did I really have a high tolerance to alcohol? I don’t know. I did realize it was a foolish idea and a foolish experiment to try and drink until I passed out. What would that have achieved? I was lucky to not end up in the hospital as I’ve never had alcohol before that. I still don’t drink now.

But why do I have these irrational thoughts? It doesn’t make sense, does it? Most people don’t think, “oh, I’m highly tolerant of alcohol” when they’ve never had a sip of alcohol in their life. They also don’t try to prove their theories with irresponsible madness which could’ve gotten them killed. But I do that. And in a way, it kind of feels like walking around in a body for the first time, trying to test out the limits of what can and can’t be done and how much a human body can take. But I’m human, so shouldn’t I feel and think more like the person instead of feeling and thinking like I’m only inside a person?

I once came across this bony bump on my elbow and intrigued, I went around feeling everyone’s elbows in my family, much to their hand motions of desperately trying to shoo me away. It was just a weird and fascinating find, like I never knew it existed and so, I had to know if everyone else had it too. Of course, it was probably just me never paying much attention to all the bones in my body, but for a long day, people looked at me like I was psychotic while I grinned like the Cheshire cat having come across a new toy to play with in Wonderland. And it’s things like this, moments like this, that makes me feel more foreign and disconnected to humanity and humans than I am at being a part of them, at being one of them.

Well, I am only human, albeit, a really odd and awkward one.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 19, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

The Next American President And Where I Fit Into All of This

I was never a Republican. I was always a Democrat, thinking, Democrats are for the people, that’s why they called themselves Democrats. It’s a bad word relation that unless I knew what they were and what they stood for, I was just simply going on word familiarity.

What I learned about politics came from family and friends and their expressed opinions and views about the presidential and congressional debates. Stuff I don’t really care too much about so I take everyone at their word for it. My family and friends aren’t idiots. They know what they’re talking about. Facebook memes just helps to push their view points across.

According to EnkiVillage’s 10 Differences Between Democrats and Republicans (http://www.enkivillage.com/differences-between-democrats-and-republicans.html), my personal viewpoint is Democratic for numbers 3,5,6,7, and 9. That means that my viewpoint is Republican for numbers 1,2,4,8, and 10. If I’m split down the middle, does that make me an Independent party?

In Salon’s Trump’s America VS. Hillary’s America: The Most Shocking Contrasts Between the Democratic and Republican Debates (http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/trumps_america_vs_hillarys_america_the_most_shocking_contrasts_between_the_democratic_republican_debates/), the article ends with these two scenarios:

Republican America is a dystopian hellscape in which evil, violent foreigners are trying to kill us in our beds while rapacious jackbooted government thugs try to wrestle our guns from our cold, dead fingers and Planned Parenthood sociopaths are committing mayhem on children and selling the body parts. And that’s just for starters.

Democratic America is a very powerful nation struggling with a declining middle class and economic insecurity at the hands of the ultra-rich, requiring some energetic government intervention to mitigate income inequality, solve the looming crisis of climate change and manage global crises without plunging the nation into more wars. They also must hold off that anarchistic opposition which sees the world as a dystopian hellscape and that may be the greatest challenge of all.

A little over a year from now voters are going to decide which country they want to live in. Let’s hope they choose wisely. The rest of us are going to have to live in it too.

Wait. Why does Republican America have to be a dystopian hell while Democratic America is a very powerful nation? Right off the bat, I know what political viewpoint this writer is. This writer is Democratic. But they’re wrong about Republican America. Planned Parenthood sociopaths committing mayhem on children and selling body parts can’t be what Republicans are for especially since #2 in EnkiVillage’s article had Republicans opposing abortions. Planned Parenthood is all for abortions. So where did Democratics who favor abortions try to make it seem like Republicans support something they don’t?

Marie Claire’s There’s a Long History of Republicans Supporting Planned Parenthood — Why Is No One Talking About It? (http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a16149/planned-parenthood-republicans/) does a quick rundown of Republicans supporting Planned Parenthood. In fact, Planned Parenthood was started by a Republican, back in the days when Republicans did support Planned Parenthood. Note that abortions weren’t legal back in those days and Planned Parenthood was mainly for family planning, for contraception uses and for education. In 1973, Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. In 1976, Republican’s adopted the anti-abortion stance and since the 1980’s, overwhelmingly Republicans have been trying to shut down federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon enacted the Title X Family Planning Program as part of the Public Health Services Act.The purpose of the bill was never to use federal funding for abortions. It was meant to be used for family planning and preventive care as well as the provision of contraception, education, and counseling to families with low income who typically couldn’t afford these services.

According to OPA, Title X operates by granting funds to a network of community-based clinics that provide contraceptive services, related counseling, and other preventive health services. Typical grantees include State and local health departments, tribal organizations, hospitals, university health centers, independent clinics, community health centers, faith-based organizations, and various public and private nonprofit entities.

The services provided by Title X grantees include family planning and provision of contraception, education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), education about preventing STDs and HIV and counseling for affected patients, referrals to other health care resources, pregnancy diagnosis, and pregnancy counseling.

By preventing unintended pregnancies, Title X reduces the number of abortions in the United States.[7] Since its inception, Title X has not provided funds for programs that use abortion as a family planning method.[3][8][9]

Title X grantees and sub-recipients must be in full compliance with Section 1008 of the Title X statute and 42 CFR 59.5(a)(5), which prohibit abortion as a method of family planning. Grantees and sub-recipients must have written policies that clearly indicate that none of the funds will be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. Additional guidance on this topic can be found in the July 3, 2000, Federal Register Notice entitled Provision of Abortion-Related Services in Family Planning Services Projects, which is available at 65 Fed. Reg. 41281, and the final rule entitled Standards of Compliance for Abortion-Related Services in Family Planning Services Projects, which is available at 65 Fed. Reg. 41270.

Planned Parenthood started out as such an organization, providing family services to people of low income or no income. That was an admirable thing, to provide care, education, counseling, and contraception to people who couldn’t otherwise afford it. But with the legalization of abortion in 1973, Planned Parenthood took a turn that Republicans weren’t comfortable with. Instead, it became the nation’s biggest provider of abortions. Federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives isn’t allowed, by law, to be used for abortions. Many people say that federal funding for Planned Parenthood allows nonfederal money to be used for abortions and Republicans understand this, which is why they’re trying to shut federal funding for Planned Parenthood down.

On February 2, 2016, the US House failed to override President Obama’s veto of H.R.3762 which would have prohibited Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal Medicaid funds for one year. (https://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/roll-call-votes/h53-114.2016)

So who is allowing Planned Parenthood sociopaths to commit mayhem on children and sell the body parts now? Democrats.

Salon’s quote of, “evil, violent foreigners are trying to kill us in our beds while rapacious jackbooted government thugs try to wrestle our guns from our cold, dead fingers” is absurd. Trump has repeatedly and often savagely stated his views on foreigners. He wants to build a wall between the United States and Mexico to keep illegals out. Not only that, but Trump pretty much detests all other nationalities and races that doesn’t equal white. While that’s a bit extreme, republicans have had a long stance on people being able to own guns to defend themselves while Democrats are in favor of taking away our guns through gun control.

Al Hoffman, a top GOP donor and “conservative Republican” was quoted in Huffington Post saying, “I believe the Republican Party faces irrelevancy if we as a party don’t gain a little rational nexus as far as gun control is concerned. I personally believe President Obama is right on the issue of gun control…We really ought to follow what the American public wants and there’s a clear consensus that they’re in favor of stricter gun control,” he said.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/al-hoffman-republican_n_3094804.html)

The American public wants stricter gun laws, laws that would prevent people from obtaining a weapon legally to protect themselves. Sure, it’s tragic with all the mass shootings and with corrupt cops killing people, but America’s solution is to take guns away from people? That makes a lot of sense, because everyone knows that bad people will always find ways to get guns. Let’s just totally ignore the fact that some shootings are from people allowed to carry guns like cops. Remind me when unarmed men aren’t shot to death by police brutality.

I was in a small town in Georgia called Lincolnton for a few years back in 2008. I was talking to local law enforcement about the rate of murders that occurred there. There was none. There were no murders. They told me that every person in that town owned a gun. Of course they still had their share of drugs and drug dealers and crazy people, but no one tried to kill anyone and there were no break-ins into someone’s house because everyone knew that they all owned guns.

When it’s public knowledge that everyone has a weapon and can use that weapon, how many people will risk their lives to get killed? The reason why people die from things like mass shootings is because there isn’t enough guns. If people can shoot back and defend themselves against some armed person who starts shooting, less people will have to die because they can all defend themselves.

Obviously, it worked for that small town. Would it work on a bigger town? A city? I don’t know, but I do know that taking away someone’s second amendment and taking away their ability to protect themselves is a big mistake. It’s the first in breaking down the men and women in this country’s reliance on themselves and forcing them to be totally dependent on the federal government for protection.

On The Issue’s Republican Party on Gun Control (http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/republican_party_gun_control.htm) states the Republican Party Platform on the topics of Gun Control:

Right to obtain and store ammunition without registration

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

Open more public land to hunting

Republicans and President Bush strongly support an individual right to own guns, which is explicitly protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Our Party honors the great American tradition of hunting and we applaud efforts by the Bush Administration to make more public lands available to hunters, to increase access to hunting clinics and safety programs for children and adults, and to improve opportunities for hunting for Americans with disabilities. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 74 , Sep 1, 2004

No frivolous gun lawsuits, no gun licensing

We believe the 2nd Amendment and all the rights guaranteed by it should enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense. We applaud those seeking to stop frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers which is a transparent attempt to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights. We oppose federal licensing of lawabiding gun owners & national gun registration as a violation of the 2nd Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 74 , Sep 1, 2004

Will protect right to bear arms

We defend the constitutional right to bear arms. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens. Through programs like Project Exile, we will hold criminals individually accountable for their actions by strong enforcement of federal and state firearm laws, especially when guns are used in violent or drug-related crimes. Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention , Aug 12, 2000

On The Issue’s Democratic Party On Gun Control Party Platform states (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm):

Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements–like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole–so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few. Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole

We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do. Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 , Jul 10, 2004

Strengthen gun control to reduce violence

Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime. Source: 2000 Democratic National Platform as adopted by the DNC , Aug 15, 2000

Gun control has no effect on murder rates. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia has had bans on guns. The numbers before and after aren’t of any significance, save Australia who saw a small spike in murders after the ban, and then numbers returned to normal. (http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/)

Like I said, people who want guns to hurt others will always find a way to get them.

I recently learned that Democrats want to give tax cuts to the middle class. While that’s admirable, there’s a misconception that the Republicans want to give tax cuts to the wealthy. That’s not true. Republicans want a flat rate tax. Compared to the Democratic tax cuts, that means that the wealthy will no longer be taxed as heavily because the tax rate will be a flat rate for all. Now, most people mistaken that as the Republicans wanting to increase the wealth of the wealthy. No. Republicans want to make it fair. The wealthy make money just like everyone else. It’s unfair to tax them more because they make more money.

In America, there’s this envy in which people who are capable of earning a higher income shouldn’t be allowed so much money. People who don’t make enough money should just be given free money. But the distribution of wealth in America goes like this: taxes from the rich gives excess money to pay for federal programs to support those in need. A flat tax rate would indeed cut back taxes on the rich, but it will not increase taxes on the middle class since the tax rate will be a flat rate. Ballotpedia does a better job at explaining current Presidential candidates and their stance on taxes. Note that this is income tax.

(https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_taxes)

Hillary Clinton

According to a study conducted by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “Clinton’s tax plan would raise taxes on the 1 percent by an average of $78,000 per person while keeping taxes for the rest of Americans largely the same.” In addition, her “plan would generate $1 trillion in additional revenue for the government over the first decade and an additional $2 trillion over the next 20 years. Yet three-quarters of those additional funds will come from the top 1 percent of earners. … The top 1 percent — those who earn more than $732,000 a year — would see their taxes increase by an average of $78,284 in 2017… The top 0.1 percent, or those with incomes of over $3.8 million, would see their taxes increase by an average of $519,741. The bottom 20 percent of earners, or those making $23,000 or less, would see their taxes go up by $4 a year in 2017. The middle quintile, or those making $80,000 to $142,000, would see their taxes go up by $44 a year. And the top 20 percent, who make $209,000 or more, would see an average tax hike of $4,527.”[2]

Bernie Sanders

Sanders released a tax proposal as part of an effort to explain how he would pay for his Medicare-for-all, single-payer healthcare plan. Sanders said the plan would cost $1.38 trillion per year—a figure that has been criticized as low[7][8]— and that it would be paid for with a 6.2 percent income-based healthcare premium paid by employers, which is expected to raise $630 billion per year. Sanders’ proposal also called for a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, which is expected to raise $210 billion a year. The plan also would raise income tax rates on households making $250,000 and above. Under Sanders’ plan, rates would rise to 37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000; 43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million; and 48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. The current highest income tax rate is 39.6 percent. Sanders would also raise taxes on capital gains and dividends for households making over $250,000, which would raise $92 billion per year. Limits on deductions for households making over $250,000 would raise $15 billion per year, and increases to the estate tax—focused specifically on people making more than $250,000 a year or inheriting estates larger than $3.5 million—would yield $21 billion a year. Sanders also said that $310 billion a year would be raised by eliminating several tax breaks that subsidize healthcare, which would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer healthcare system. Currently, health insurance benefits are exempt from both income and payroll taxes, and some economists believe that, eventually, employer spending on health would translate into higher wages and salaries. Minus what would be needed to pay the 6.2 percent tax, Sanders believes that there would be $310 billion a year in new income and payroll taxes, on average over the next 10 years.[9][10][11][12]<

Ted Cruz

On October 28, 2015, Ted Cruz unveiled his tax plan. He proposed a 10 percent flat tax on all individual income from wages. He also proposed elimination of the payroll tax and the corporate income tax, to be replaced by a 16 percent Business flat tax. Cruz said that social security and medicare will remain fully funded, despite elimination of the payroll tax, which funds those programs. Cruz’s plan also included a Universal Savings Account, which would allow every American to save up to $25,000 annually on a tax-deferred basis for any purpose. Cruz also promised no estate tax, alternative minimum tax or ObamaCare taxes, and would do away with taxes on profits earned abroad.[17] An analysis by the Tax Foundation, a group that supports lower tax rates, said the senator’s reforms would “represent a significant shift from the current tax code.” The group estimated Cruz’s proposals would increase the deficit by as much as $3.6 trillion over the next 10 years, but that figure drops to a $768 billion deficit when including possible economic growth.[18] The libertarian Cato Institute said Cruz’s corporate business activity tax is essentially a value-added tax. The proposal is similar to a sales tax, since it’s assumed that businesses will pass the cost of paying it onto consumers. “He says he wants a ‘business flat tax,’ but what he’s really proposing is a value-added tax,” Cato said.[19][20]

John Kasich

Kasich unveiled “The Kasich Action Plan” on October 15, 2015. The proposal called for reducing the number of tax brackets to three from seven; lowering the top individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to 28 percent; and capping the long-term capital gains tax rate at 15 percent, helping those in the highest income tax bracket. Kasich’s plan also included a drop in the top business tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent. The proposal would also eliminate the estate tax; double the research and development tax credit for small businesses; and increase by 10 percent the earned income tax credit, which designed to help lower-income taxpayers. Kaisch said he would also balance the budget in eight years by freezing most spending except for the military.[24][25]

In the run up to the launch of his campaign to run for president on July 21, 2015, Kasich had said that he has been exploring a flat tax. [26][27]

Marco Rubio

Rubio introduced his tax overhaul plan on March 4, 2015 as a Senate bill. It was cosponsored with U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). The proposal would reduce the number of brackets from seven to three: 15%, 25%, and 35% and eliminate all exemptions and deductions, except for a charitable contribution deduction and a reformed home mortgage interest deduction. Instead, taxpayers would receive a personal tax credit that phases out for higher-income Americans. The plan would cuts corporate tax rates for all businesses to no higher than 25%, and end federal taxation of business investment by allowing for immediate expensing. Rubio also proposed shifting to a territorial tax system, ending the double-taxation of profits earned abroad for both businesses and individuals. The plan would also eliminate the double-taxation on saving and investment income and would provide a transition period during which the nation would move to a 0% tax rate on dividends and capital gains. Rubio would also eliminate the estate tax. The plan would provide a new child tax credit of up to $2,500, which phases out for wealthier Americans and would offer a limited 25% non-refundable tax credit to any business that offers between four and twelve weeks of paid leave to workers with qualifying family or medical issues, such as, a newborn child in need of care, an elderly parent with declining health, a personal health crisis, or a spouse’s deployment.[33][34][35]

Donald Trump

Trump unveiled his tax policy on September 28, 2015. According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump’s platform would remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25,000 and couples earning less than $50,000, reduce the highest individual income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, and cut corporate taxes to no higher than 15 percent.[39]During September 2015, the Center for Tax Justice claimed Trump’s tax plan would reduce tax revenues by $9 trillion over 10 years. the Tax Foundation similarly estimated his plan would cost $10 trillion over the same time period. Trump’s campaign maintained that the plan was designed to be “revenue neutral.”[40]

Wait. Donald Trump wants to remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25k and couples earning less than $50k per year? Huh? How come no one is talking about this? Everyone is talking about lowering income taxes for the middle class. Everyone is talking about how the rich will get richer due to Republican tax cuts for the rich, but how come no one is talking about how Donald Trump wants to remove the income tax for everyone earning less than $25k per year as an individual or $50k per year as a couple?

Donald Trump proposes to remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25,000 and couples earning less than $50,000 per year.

There. I said it. And I just learned about it.

So what if his highest tax bracket goes from the current 39.6% to 25% for taxing income on the wealthy? Trump is not taxing anyone within those parameters of his tax plan which brings the current record of federal taxes for $25k to have the first $20k taxed at 10% and the remaining $5k taxed at 20% (https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/General-Tax-Tips/What-is-My-Tax-Bracket-/INF26080.html). For a couple, that would be 10% of taxes on $20k and the remaining $30k taxed at 20%.

But wait! The wealthy gets a 14.6% decrease in income taxes?

Considering that the income taxes of the wealthy is used for the federal budget to have money to pay for things, that’s bad, right? Well, in a society of envy and greed where no taxes for the poor and less taxes for the rich means that there’s less money to spend on things like social programs, it’s a complete and utter abomination (for a lack of a better word) to pretty much force the wealthy to take their money and spend it however the government wants it, which is distributing it to the poor, which will never be enough free money for the middle class or the poor to catch up to the wealthy.

I find it funny now that there are self righteous people who complain about how their taxes goes to pay for things like federal prisons so they are entitled to determine what prisoners can and cannot do or what prisoners can and cannot have on commissary (prisoners pay for food on commissary), or how they want everyone on food stamps to be able to only buy rice and potatoes when the rich doesn’t say anything, who also pays more taxes so the middle class can complain and whine. Imagine if the wealthy class said, “we want to limit what kind of food the middle class and the poor can eat, what kind of food is served in public schools, and how the middle class and the poor should spend their tax returns because our money pays for them and the services they use.” At least the wealthy has enough class to not dictate how someone else should live off the money that they pay in taxes to the federal government.

There is never enough of this envy that the middle class feels they should punish the rich and also punish the poor for. They believe they’re the victims of all this unfair taxation done to unfairly punish them. This pity stance is what most people have believed about the middle class and will go to lengths to help the middle class out of their misery, which is exactly what the middle class wants. We’ve been tricked that the middle class is so poor, we should all help the middle class become rich by ignoring the actual poor people and homeless people and people in need in our country. Thankfully, most middle class people (I hope most) are not playing victims and are not trying to dictate what the federal government does with their tax money and not trying to enforce this perversion of how other people should live who receive federal funding of some sort or any sort.

Investopedia’s Parties For Taxes: Republicans VS. Democrats (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/us-parties-republican-democrat-taxes.asp) states:<

Political Ideology: Republican
“We believe government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions,” the Republicans state their case plainly on the Republican National Convention web site. That is, Republicans believe government should spend money only to enforce contracts, maintain basic infrastructure and national security, and protect citizens against criminals.

The literature of the House Republican Conference goes on to illuminate the role of the government and how tax policies affect individuals: “The money the government spends does not belong to the government; it belongs to the taxpayers who earned it. Republicans believe Americans deserve to keep more of their own money to save and invest for the future, and low tax policies help drive a strong and healthy economy.”

Tax relief is the Republican route to growing the economy. A Republican government would reduce taxes for businesses to allow businesses to grow and thus hire more employees. Republicans also seek to limit income taxes for individuals so that people can hold on to more disposable income, which they can then spend, save or invest.

Political Ideology: Democrat
The tax policy for the Democratic Party calls for raising certain taxes to provide money for government spending, which in turn generates business. The party platform asserts that government spending provides “good jobs and will help the economy today.”

Many Democrats are adherents to Keynesian economics, or aggregate demand, which holds that when the government funds programs, those programs pump new money into the economy. Keynesians believe that prices tend to stay relatively stable and therefore any kind of spending, whether by consumers or the government, will grow the economy. (Check out Giants Of Finance: John Maynard Keynes, to learn more about Keynes’ theories.)

Like the Republicans, Democrats believe the government should subsidize vital services that keep cities, states and the country running: infrastructure such as road and bridge maintenance and repairs for schools. Democrats also call for tax cuts for the middle class. But who benefits most under each platform? The conventional wisdom is that corporations and the wealthy will benefit more with a Republican tax policy while small businesses and middle-class households will benefit from a Democratic tax policy.

Conventional wisdom isn’t actually conventional in this sense. While many people side with Democrats to gather benefits aimed at small businesses and the middle class, the Republican party’s stance isn’t to benefit corporations and the wealthy. It’s to make everyone responsible for their own success, which many people don’t like and will not like because they’re so used to being told they’re special enough that the government will support them. This mentality doesn’t apply to normal people who actually are responsible adults, who strive for success, who can budget and invest their money, but this mentality applies to a group consciousness that we really don’t have to work hard for anything because the federal government will help us.

There are people on welfare who needs the support of that particular program. Then there are other people on welfare who abuse the program and is simply on because it’s free money. While government assistance is indeed a good thing, sometimes, it doesn’t get to the people who actually need the programs because of the people who abuse the programs. I’m not for abolishing federal programs and aid, but I am for people being responsible and taking responsibility for themselves.

Education should be key. People need to be educated.

Salon’s article states, “Democratic America is a very powerful nation struggling with a declining middle class and economic insecurity at the hands of the ultra-rich, requiring some energetic government intervention to mitigate income inequality…

Inequality isn’t what people want. The middle class wants to be the rich class, ridiculing and governing the poor. The lbgt movement wants special rights which allows them to infringe upon the rights of others with no backlash. Democrats want common core math. I think that really says it all for me. Common core math is the most insidious confusion ever injected into America. Sure, it makes sense…if laws and rules and theories didn’t apply and you did math however you wanted which isn’t called math anymore. It’s now simply called, making things up.

Sure, Donald Trump is unfiltered and racist and not the brightest crayon in the Crayola box, but he can still color. Whatever color he is, he lays it on thick. And how many of us aren’t racist or prejudice against someone or something or many things or many people? I for one, am racist against cannibals. I don’t know if they only eat certain people or if they’re going to try and eat me so if I meet one, I am running far, far away if that’s an option. If not, I am not becoming food so I might have to kill them before they kill me. It’s logical reasoning although extreme and hopefully unrealistic. The point is, we don’t like everything and everyone. And I do not know of one person that doesn’t judge anyone based on how they look. Not a single person. What we see first is the outside. And most of us sum up people we meet immediately by how they look before we start to judge them on how they carry themselves and how their character is. While most of us have the ability to not voice our thoughts out loud, Donald Trump doesn’t have that filter so he voices his thoughts out loud. Like, really loud.

So while Trump is an outwardly jerk of what kind of jerks we really are, I commend him in being honest to himself at whatever moment he decides to be himself. There’s a freedom and liberty in being yourself, using Trump as an example, in which we should never be ourselves. Whether in public or in private, we should never really be ourselves.

I’m starting to understand this great love for Donald Trump that everyone has which isn’t easily summed up as insanity. Trump has won 12 states so far: New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Nevada, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

I can easily see Trump becoming the next president. And if that’s so, we might get walls put up soon, but we’ll all have our guns and keep whatever wages we make as long as it’s under $25k an individual or $50k per couple. You win some, you lose some. You can’t win it all, but Trump is certainly winning.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 8, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Liebster Award Nomination

liebster-award

I’ve been nominated by my awesome friend, Jen Ponce for the Liebster award. The Liebster Award is a way to give blogs more exposure and a greater audience. It’s passed from blogger to blogger and it’s a cool way to find new blogs to follow. So let’s talk a bit about the amazing Jen.

Jennifer Ponce does more than write incredible works of horror (like her fantastic thrillers, The Bazaar and Bug Queen, to name a few). She’s also an advocate for victims of sexual abuse, helping to bring awareness to sexual and domestic violence and even won the Dove’s Prevention Advocate of the Year Award.She’s an avid reader, intense crochet powerhouse, and a wonderful mother and wife while keeping her long tresses in an array of beautiful styles. You can check out her website here: Jenniferponce.com.

And now, onward to her ten questions!

1. What do you think about mistakes? Both in your art and in life?

Mistakes are one of those things that happens no matter how careful you are, no matter how many times you have read the same words, trying to thoroughly edit your story. In life, mistakes cause us stress and trouble; mistakes as easy and simple as misunderstanding what someone said or misinterpreting what was said. As a writer and a reader, mistakes are one of those things that can help hinder the reader and have them misunderstand or misinterpret what was said. However, I do believe that mistakes don’t make everything terribly awful in our art or in life. Of course a reader will pick up mistakes while reading a book. Will that reader put down that book because there’s a typo or a creative use that seems insignificant? Of course not. The reader will see the mistake, recognize it for what it is, and continue reading because the book is good. As with life, that’s what we do too. We see mistakes, acknowledge them, and continue moving forward because life is good.

2. Do you play video games and, if so, what’s your favorite? If you don’t play, what types of games do you like?

I most definitely play video games! Favorite game of all time that I could repeatedly play: Breath of Fire III. Other high favorites that I love to play: Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy 7, and any of the Mario Bros.

3. What kind of character would you be in a horror movie? The screamer? The cool one? The first to get murdered? The bad guy?

I would most definitely be the first one to get murdered. I’m like the most forgetful, trustworthy, idiot there ever was. Yeah, it’s a zombie apocalypse, but I would most likely open the door and leave it open because I’ve forgotten there’s blood-thirsty zombies outside. Luckily, I have an amazing boyfriend who would do anything to keep me alive, until I become a zombie. Then his motives are questionable. *lol*

But really, I would like to think of myself as the bad guy. I’m pretty unconventional in my way of thinking. I’m always yelling about ghost movies and how people who die don’t come back as ghosts to terrorize the ghosts that killed them and are now trying to kill their family, friends, loved ones, etc, etc. I’d be one pissed off super ghost that would chase and torture and torment the ghost or whatever creepy thing killed my character. My train of thought normally goes along the lines of, Yeah, so you want to kill me and everyone I know? That’s cool. But let me tell you what happens after you’ve freed me from the confines of this mortal body. I will chase you, capture you, imprison you, and torture you for all of eternity because that is how much rage I have for you having irrational rage against me and my loved ones for no damn reason at all. Let’s play cat and mouse forever after and you are the mouse. So yeah, I’d like to think of myself as first to die because then, I can prevent all other unnecessary deaths.

4. What are your favorite types of stories?

I love all stories, favoring fantasy most. Give me a good dragon novel or a good coming of age children’s story about a rebellious teen who finds their way in the world by saving a completely different world. I like books with substance, with meanings and lessons to be learned. I don’t care for excessive sex or gore as plot fillers. I like an actual plot and I like seeing character development: how a character changed and grew and overcame.

5. What’s your favorite fairy tale and what makes it so?

I’m pretty obsessed with fairy tales. I’m a huge fan of the Grimm brothers, of Andrew Lang, of even Disney, which has basis in myths, legends, and fairy tales. I don’t think I have a particular favorite, but if I had to choose, it would be a tie between two stories: East of the Sun and West of the Moon and One Eye, Two Eyes, Three Eyes. East of the Sun and West of the Moon tells about a girl who is betrothed to an enchanted bear whom she didn’t trust and betrayed and had to travel on a journey far, far away in order to get him back. One Eye, Two Eyes, Three Eyes is very similar to Cinderella, except that there’s a witch and each girl has one eye, two eyes, and three eyes. It’s such an interesting read that anyone who doesn’t know that story should go Google it and read it. Actually, I’ll link those stories.

6. Do you like books that make you cry or ones that make you laugh and why?

I like both, actually. I laugh and cry so much when I read that to someone viewing far away, I seem mad, but it’s quite refreshing to be so affected by a story that you do cry and you do laugh. If I do either of those things, it means that the author has done an excellent job at immersing me into that storybook world.

7. You’ve just stumbled upon a portal to another world. What would that world be like and what would happen to you there?

Oh, goodness! I don’t know, really. The possibilities are endless! I’d like to think I survive the new world, but I may not. I used to travel worlds, in my mind, and the way I traveled to them was through portals. I imagined all worlds to be very much like our own, in that there are humans whether magic users, shifters, weres, or any number of other humanly human creatures. It would be a similar world with a bit of magic. There has always got to be magic. And I, being the main character that I am, would always find myself rescuing some poisoned king or fighting an army of winged vampire creatures. I would save that world, or the small part I was in, and go on to live there forever because a way home cannot be found.

8. Dragon or unicorn?

I cannot choose! I am in love with both!

9. Would you rather make a lot of money doing what you hate or make a pittance doing what you love?

If I hate something, I wouldn’t be doing it so it would have to be something I love for barely any wage at all.

10. If you ever got arrested, what would it be for?

I’d join Robin Hood’s gang of Merry Men (and Women!) and rob the rich to give to the poor.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 3, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Being in Love is Like Being an Assassin

I have this unhealthy habit of comparing myself to others in worse case scenarios.

Keera used to tell me about how she’d grow up to be an assassin and she’d make a ton of money being paid to kill people. We were young and stupid with no future except for the foolish made up adventures in our heads. She’d talk about how easy it was to just point the weapon and shoot, that it didn’t matter whose life was at the other end of that gun. After all, we didn’t like people, so it was the perfect job for the both of us.

Oh, sure, I’d be the perfect assassin! I’d get on a plane to Paris, sight see for the day, head on over to some location I had scouted ahead of time, watch the target in my scope and take my time to pull the trigger, eventually, pulling the trigger. Then I’d pack up and go home. I was never going to get married. I was never going to be burdened down with family or attachments. And I was never going to care about the person I just killed…or so I thought. Reality was much different.

I didn’t know how to hold a gun, let alone, shoot it. I’m deathly afraid of zombies, so any dead person isn’t ideal to me. There was this weird fantasy that I could be that kind of person, that I could easily just hide myself away and deal with the circumstances. The fantasy was that I could make myself into anything, even a terrible monster, because I was capable of being just like everyone else.

Being in love is like being an assassin. Worse case scenario, I’d get cheated on by the one I love, with someone I knew or have known, and they’d live happily ever after while I get to be brave and deal with the broken pieces of my heart. I’ve never been cheated on so this is simply an irrational fantasy in my head.

There’s this idea and this thought that if so and so’s relationship with this person ended up like that, then perhaps my relationship with that person would end up like that too. And what hurts worse than being betrayed by the one you love? It’s an experience I know all too well, but only from writing and from reading books. I imagine myself to be able to handle that kind of pain, to be brave and not give a damn about the past, and most importantly, to move on. So what if some guy I saw myself being with for the rest of my life broke my heart? Pfft. I’d heal. I’m an independent woman. I don’t need a man to rule over me.

There’s all these empowering thoughts, all these encouraging words, but I still have this worse case scenario fantasy in my head because my mind wants me to acknowledge that I am tougher than my circumstances, that I am going to be perfectly fine. I can handle pretty much anything. I am a badass woman. Hear me roar.

That’s not always the case. Worse case scenario for anything and everything is that the ones you love could be no more. It’s easier to deal with rejection than to deal with death. Death leaves an empty hole as it takes away a part of you that was attached to someone or something (a pet, for example).

What I’m doing is semi healthy and semi disturbed. My habit of continuously putting myself into these fake situations is two fold: I can prepare for the worse that happens and work through stressful and what could be mind debilitating problems while I’m still rational and calm, or I can masochistically torture myself with false illusions that never were, never are, and never will be which can indeed cripple my sense of self over time. Hm, to weigh the scales, which is which and is it worth it creating imaginary problems to test out my ability to handle such imaginary problems? Such a hard dilemma.

Being in love and being an assassin isn’t actually similar in any way. I really can’t compare because I’ve never been an assassin, but being in love is something that doesn’t need complications from misconceived ideas of what love is and what love isn’t. To be in love is wonderful and one should just enjoy it for what it is: love.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 25, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,