Seeking Irony

Is Black History Month still relevant?

2009-02-24T18:54:00.000-08:00

“If black people want to be seen as the same as everyone else, then why do they want a full month to encourage segregation?”

Oh, there are so many things that bothered me about this statement. It’s what fueled my sudden need to address this so called ‘issue.’ My initial thoughts were

‘Either these people don’t think that black history is important enough to celebrate for 28 days – or – they don’t think black’s contributions to their American history is deserving of any particular emphasis.’
However, I won’t let that odiousness soil the important issue. I genuinely want to address it from a critical stand point.

So, let us first clear up that no black American I have ever met has wanted to be seen just like everyone else. We want our differences to be acknowledged for our unique beauty; however, we don’t want our different skin tones and hair textures to be seen as inadequacies. If you meet a black man/woman who wants to be identical to another race, then they are probably suffering from identity issues.

Secondly, if you think that BHM only helps to segregate our culture from America then you’ve grossly misinterpreted the purpose of BHM. It was started to explore black import to American society. It was started to integrate black history into American history – for the realization black Americans had an imperative role in the development and success of our American country.

How many of you know the history and impact that black American’s had on WWI and WWII? Or how about why Rosa Parks had such a success with her stance on the bus? Until I got to college I was sure that Rosa Parks was a tired old woman, instead of young, full of life, and having a purpose! Now…if I have to pay thousands of dollars to uncover the truth and to learn about the impact my black ancestors had on the sound structure of America…then Black History Month is still relevant.

“… then why don’t we have Indian History Month, Hispanic History Month, or White History month?”

Well, these are very valid points, but I suggest before you insult someone you take my advice and follow these links: Indian Heritage History Month, Hispanic History Month, Asian Pacific American Heritage Month (in fact Black History Month came AFTER Indian Heritage History Month). For white history month…well, now I'm confused. Possibly you could be more specific. Do you mean Irish History Month? Or German History Month?

AND....Before you assume that BHM isn’t or cannot be all inclusive, simply study it. Could BHM even exist if black Americans were the only ones who thought it was important? Absolutely, not.
If you study black American history you will not only discover it’s relevance to American history, but to the entire world. Study black American history and you begin to discover many things about yourself (no matter what color) and the people you surround yourself with. You will discover how people treat one other just to preserve their privilege, how mighty of a force a like-minded motivated people can be, and issues of conformity and lessons that need to be learned in order for our country to progress. Black History is important. Black history IS American History and that’s why America celebrates it.

Finally, for those of you that responded to my question with a disheartened tone. You told me that Black History Month mattered, but was sorely unappreciated. Well, don’t let anyone forget and don’t let anyone assume it’s irrelevant because they’ve been miseducated. Remember, do not let February be the only month you educate everyone around you about black history – about American history.

(If companies use BHM as a marketing strategy, let them! There should be no outlet forbidden to educate our country.)

Thank you so much everyone who responded to my question! Someone of you thought BHM to be an absolute necessity to realize atrocities of racism, or for mere pride in your own race. Some of you thought BHM is unfair, or simply unnecessary. What ever your response was - it was appreciated. The purpose of all of this is co-learning and I hope you learn from me the same way I’ve learned from you.

Class #2 of Accelerated Churchillian Development (ACD) - #TCOT

2009-02-16T18:04:00.000-08:00

Setting a dialogue with a liberal:

Once again, Leahy begins the session with quoting Winston Churchill “If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you don't have a brain.”

I don’t think I realized that this was actually a premise for ACD. So I guess my question is…and yours should be too. “Okay, so what changes?” During the first class you mentioned that it’s lack of knowledge. Well, I have a heart and I’m more knowledgeable in America’s history and politics than most of my friends who consider themselves conservative (young and old). I would very much like to know the theory on that (so far it hasn’t been addressed in depth). Gracefully moving on…

This session was directed towards actions after engaging with “a liberal.” The focus is now creating a dialogue.

Leahy asked a member of ACD (I believe his name was Zach) to talk about his tactics with religion conversion during his LDS missions.

I think it’s fair to mention that I lived in Utah for a couple of years. I learned a lot from my practicing friends about missionaries and “purposes.” In fact, I remember being approached a few times. Once, a man held up a picture of Jesus and asked if I knew who it was. My thirteen year old ways provoked me to say “No” and they continued to show me additional pictures of baptism and such. I remember thinking ‘Do people really buy into that?’ Aside from my lack of Mormonism interest at thirteen, I think I learned a very important lesson on how NOT to approach people. So, naturally bringing up missions and missionaries made my ears perk.

Zach made a very important point about the lessons he learned “It’s not about you, it’s about giving the information.” Everyone goes on to discuss that the goal of ‘creating a dialogue with a liberal’ is to “plant a seed” so that someone else can “harvest it.” I believe this is a good goal to have, because no one wants to hear that their initial beliefs are based on false premises or less-than-solid foundations. I’m discovering (through my own personal experiences) that letting someone come to the conclusion themselves is so much more effective. You should be there to guide them, that way they feel obligated to pass the message on. Zach finishes by saying that “we don’t harvest the seed all the time…it’s not about winning.”

More members of ACD began talking about their experiences with ‘engaging a liberal.’ One member mentioned an attempt to engage that ended with quickly closed doors and another (Jimmie) talked about ME!

Leahy told the first member that there are clues very early on of “lack of open mindedness…”and that they wouldn’t be a good “conversion prospect.” He said that these encounters can be good “experience to see the processes that they go through.” Then, there was a reminder that when creating a dialogue with twitter - everyone can see the conversation and it’s even Google-able. “Twitter is a unique kind of animal.”

Then, Leahy mentioned five rules:
1 Be polite and courteous and start out with the expectation that the other side will be also
2 NEVER let a factual misstatement go unchallenged
3 Listen with sincere intensity to understand the point they are trying to make
4 Acknowledge factually correct assertions made by other side
5 Never forget arguments made in framework of higher purpose-return limited gov’t to country we all love

Leahy says that if you follow these five rules, there isn’t anything in the public record that will embarrass you or hurt “the cause.” He mentions “We’re tweeting the modern version of the federalist papers.”

Jimmie then brings up his conversation with me that took place after my last blog. Leahy quickly inserts “Oh, Tifanei! ….She is our critic...remember the rules of engagement.” Yes. Remember the rules. I’d prefer the message unfiltered, but I appreciate your alert censorship Leahy, lol. Really… I appreciate the credit you gave me.

Jimmie began to tell the class that he had a conversation with me and it left an open dialogue between the two of us. This leaves room for more conversation and a foundation for an on-going thought process. I would like to say that it did leave me thinking (I do love when my thought process is challenged.) I even talked about Jimmy’s approach with a friend later. While the conclusion I came to wasn’t parallel to his it did definitely have me respecting his opinions and adding to mine. “Inviting more conversation”

As the class got further along, the dialogue began to get for inclusive and I became more confused.

One member made this comment: “Even though it’s a Christian school most parents are liberals.” [Interesting. Jimmie this is one of the reasons I kept referring to ‘one truth’] I was distracted by this bizarre and subtle assertion that Christians should be conservative, but I still gathered what she said. I believe her point boiled down to the fact that the students become enthralled by their parent’s passions and beliefs. The only thing that crossed my mind was ‘well, duh…’ Isn’t that the point of parenting? Isn’t that why there are parenting classes? The role of a parent is to instill within your children what you believe is right. I think maybe her point should be more of ‘should we address new parents or the children when they come of age to independently and critically analyze on their own?’ You simply cannot change that the child is going to be influenced by their parents. Forever, they will look at the world through whatever screen/filter their parents influenced.

Another member made the comment “They just got out of college so…” referring to their obvious political affiliation. I found that amusing, because I am genuinely confused when I meet a peer who is conservative and I have some immediate assumptions of them that I chose not to share. Here’s why this is important to your cause “Why are these students who are obviously educated choosing to advocate for the left side?” (I challenge you not to say “because they have a heart," ha.)

Leahy moves onto the next slides and says that a great way to start dialogue is: “Why did you vote for Barack Obama?”

The first answer that Leahy says you will hear is “He’s cool.” He says that the second answer you may hear is “The country is going in the wrong direction,” and something about having a better life. Later in this discussion it is said that Obama promised that he would take care of everything and that we should hand over our money and “let government do everything.”

That is not why I voted for President Barack Obama. That message sounds like communism! I voted because I heard “The government is going to take care of business which means you need to as well. We’re doing this together.” That’s why I voted. The American people need to take a responsibility. I don’t think eliminating bigger government programs is going to convince privileged people to help the under-privileged. We SHOULD encourage more responsibility from Americans, but that can surely be done with the aid of government implemented programs.

Some people NEED these programs and can’t turn to churches or charities. Think of how charities are suffering right now with the economy. How much have you donated to your church to help them? AND(!!!) I have never donated to a church and had a say where that money was donated to, so how do you presume that is any different than the way the White House allocates funds? “Money taken from you to give to someone else” – this phrase has been beaten to death and frankly I don’t think either side has it figured out. The church certainly isn’t the answer and not regulating markets so people can take advantage of it certainly isn’t the answer either. This is an issue that definitely needs collaboration from both sides and people who are critical, analytical, and compassionate are the ones who should do so.

For the record I don’t feel that “The country owes me something.” No one should believe that anyone owes them anything that they don’t provide for others.

Another question was “What should the government be responsible for?” I always assumed the purpose of government was for it to BE the people. Why are conservative views trying to make it a separate entity? Seems to me like that is the problem.

There was also continuous reference to how large governments impose on freedom, because they determine what’s ‘good or bad.’ Is ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ eliminated with conservatism??? I don’t understand. We may shift the levels of decisions on ‘good vs bad’, but would that just mean that ignorant Joe down the street now can tell me what’s moral instead of someone we elected as President. Not sure I see too much of a fundamental difference, except maybe education levels.

A free-market is another dialogue that the ACD class encouraged to initiate with a young liberal. “Consumer demand for a product or service tells a company what they can produce that will make a profit for them.” I bet if I Googled the amount of companies that made profit from consumers that demanded something that they didn’t know was a danger to themselves and society I would be able to add another page and a half to this blog.

Another member (sometimes I didn’t understand the names or they just weren’t given) jumped in and spoke about mandatory ethanol used in school buses. She talked about being angry that it means the buses have to run to keep the ethanol from freezing. She complained that it may be an excuse to make it mandatory for her child to go to school when the weather is bad. I’m going to need someone to explain to me why eliminating carbon-dioxide emissions and global warming are conservative vs liberal arguments. If health and taking precautions to maintaining your childrens’ children’s future aren’t important then what is? Money? Is that what it’s all really supposed to boil down to? Is that truly our goal to sustain that mentality?

I guess so, another one of the comments was that “natural youthful interest is to ‘do something for the higher purpose’ and that is something that we must have gotten from the movies. Actually, the media certainly makes me want to believe the opposite. I got the idea of wanting to contribute to the well-being of other people from several different American history books.

I’m going to end this rather abruptly, because it’s gone on pretty long. I don’t have liberal views because I want to ‘level the playing field’ that American privilege has given me. I have liberal views, because I don’t think that maintaining my privilege should be at the expense of others. America may have a high ‘moral’ standard, but that doesn’t mean those standards and who created them are infallible. It simply means we should continue to look for a place to aim higher.

I spoke with a friend (Stephen L. High) about this second class and he took a moment to gather his thoughts and said “I don’t think they have it right. They (young Americans) didn’t vote for Barack Obama, because they necessarily agree with everything he said – even though they might… maybe instead of getting young people to adapt to them, they’d have better luck adapting to young people.”

This blog was in response to:
Accelerated Churchillian Development
Top Conservatives on Twitter
Michael Patrick Leahy and Ellen Paxton as instructors.

My first impressions of Accelerated Churchillian Development (ACD) - #TCOT

2009-02-03T19:44:00.000-08:00

“We lost that age group by 2-1 margin, if we don’t change that we’re going to be in big trouble.”

I didn’t get the chance to tune into the first meeting yesterday, because I didn’t receive all of the right information in time. I wasn’t the only one so I don’t think you singled me out just because I have liberal views…so, I forgive you. I’m glad you recorded it, because I learned a great deal.

The meeting started off pretty rocky and someone was incessantly breathing into their microphone throughout the entire session. Don’t worry, after a few minutes I learned to tune it out.

“Conservatism, Collaboration, Constructive dialogue, Community.” Michael P. Leahy started off introducing the principles of TCOT for ACD.

“We’re focusing on Constructive dialogue – power of ideas that will be persuasive, because most liberals are conservative and just haven’t been properly educated.” He and Ellen Paxton then illustrated the import of ACD’s first overview session.

My first opinions came rushing out through my fingertips onto the keyboard: I feel the same way about my friends who are conservative, too. I don’t necessarily think that it is liberal youths who are ignorant. It’s all of us. How can we be as experience as you if we’ve only been around half as long as you? That being said, your plan may effective for those youths whose ontological views are parallel with yours, but it won’t be true for those whose experiences are drastically differently than yours.

This first session reminded me a lot of what I would imagine Plato would teach his students. There is one truth and anyone else who is out there and believes differently is evil or too ignorant. Dialogue will help you show them the way.

Paxton and Leahy reminded everyone that “we all know the problem,” it’s ignorant youths. They continued on to caution that if their methods weren’t realized then the problem was only going to get worst, because “the culture is changing and indoctrinating this age group into liberalism or even socialism.” I agree. The culture is changing. Change for this country has always proven to be advantageous. It is especially for a black woman like myself and I hope it continues to change. So, I think it is a great thing for you to alter your rhetorical methods, because as I don’t understand the logistics of any Republicans thought process so far.

Another problem that was highlighted in during ACD was that most teachers are Liberals and are not properly educating our children. I don’t think I have to point out the fallaciousness in this argument, but I do want to point out that I don’t know any Liberal citizens who don’t want more funding for our children in order to provide these teachers with the proper resources. ACD also goes on to mention something along the lines of “Kids and teachers lack critical thinking skills”….??? Ouch! Well, I pride myself on my critical thinking skills. In fact, that’s why I am a Communication major. I don’t see any inherent connection between a skilled critical-thinker and someone with conservative political views. Especially, when you continually assert that you need to educate them on ‘the truth.’ Why do you need to critically analyze just one truth? If there is only one truth then there is no need for analysis!

I had to throw this quote was too funny not insert > “Technological companies are dominated by liberals.” I guess that explains the slow start of conference???? Lol. Okay, I’m done poking fun now…

A couple of times throughout ACD there was reference to Republican’s intellectual superiority. The first mention I believe was Leahy warning his listener’s not to show it off, because it’s not humble. Leahy said “Instead, don’t get mad that our culture has failed them. Just teach them.”

I think the greatest failure of the Republican view point is their failure to understand that it is a view point and not an intellect. It is something your experiences and your peer's experiences have helped to co-create. You fail to understand that there really isn’t ‘one truth.’ There are valid reasons for others’ positions.

ACD also went over the first impressions that Republicans often give Liberals. Some of them were angry and close-minded. I never associated any Republicans as angry. In fact, a lot more liberal democrats are a great deal more passionate in their rhetoric and come off angrier than I’ve ever seen a conservative republican. I don’t necessarily see a pattern in personality; just a sort of elitist atmosphere about the majority.

One listener mentioned that a great problem with the youth is that they rarely get a chance to have their thoughts validated; they “never had dialogue before.” You hit it right on the target with engaging with your audience. When you ask what I think, then we are now moving past your “intellectual superiority” and acknowledging that my beliefs have relevance. That my beliefs come from a reality. This will be monumental if everyone understood this.

“Do not start off by insulting a liberal” - You hit it on the nose there Leahy, lol. Like I mentioned first off…most people that call themselves Liberals are very passionate and for good reason. You cannot approach them like your realities and experiences are any better than theirs, just because it works for you. It’s arrogant and frankly doesn’t add growth for you or your public.
While, I don’t agree on much of…or any of your views, I think you have a pretty good program here. There is great content in this conference. Although, a few flaws.

May I make another suggestion? Calling someone A Liberal…sounds so derogatory. I am a liberal , but “Hi, my name is Tifanei”…comes before that. You are already on the wrong foot if you don’t understand that my political views are only a portion of my being (just as they are only a portion of you). Address your public as: Tifanei has liberal views or Tifanei associates herself with the Democratic party. It’s positive language and it will get you further.
I find it very amusing how you put me and any of my like-minded friends in a box. Maybe you should work on that too?

Thanks for allowing me to tune in. I tried to be helpful even within my critical approach. You have good content and I think that you may be progressive here, but you have a few rocks to kick out of your way first. Good Luck.

This blog was in response to:
Accelerated Churchillian Development
Top Conservatives on Twitter
Michael Patrick Leahy and Ellen Paxton as instructors.

The power of Rhetoric.

2009-01-30T11:08:00.000-08:00

Recently on twitter @Inkognegro and @MadamaAmbi have asked me to explain the power of rhetoric to them. It’s my favorite subject, so gladly! :)

“We are decision-making creatures capable of overruling our own instincts. The need for rhetoric grows on the fact that the human does not usually tolerate that which cannot be explained.” That is why we find that Pastors and Preachers are often the best rhetoricians. Our government and society is “based on probable, not certain, truths.” So politicians are well-known rhetoricians too. ‘’

Rhetoric often has a negative connotation, but a good communicator knows that it isn't a malicious term at all. Rhetoric can very superficially be defined as persuasive language, but when we look deeper into the process and the import we find that there are many components. The audience is one of the most important components. Many persuasive strategies are based on how the audience is perceived to interpret the rhetoric. If you give a speech to a class of 2nd graders with a vocabulary of a college graduate, you probably won’t connect with any member of the audience. Which also means that the audience determines the context of the rhetoric. A good rhetorician will research the audience and notice previously established beliefs of the audience. With that knowledge the rhetorician can decide the best method to communicate to their audience. Then their speech will be a “powerful lord” (thanks Socrates).

@MadamaAmbi, when we discuss feminism to people who don’t associate themselves with the word, then it's best (from a rhetorician perspective)we approach them from an angel they can relate with. We determine the best way to explain ourselves from their realities. In essence, we’ll co-construct a new reality. It’s an art.

“If there is an exigence (Bitzer’s term), and an audience who can act to solve the exigence, then there must be rhetorical strategies that will motivate the audience into action.” In reality, it can be exhausting and daunting to assess an audience and the exigence, but rhetoric is the only way to utilize those every options. And when it’s accomplished….well, just ask President Obama how his success feels!

Blagojevich on Leadership Communication

2009-01-30T10:25:00.000-08:00

Blagojevich’s actions yesterday reminded me of when I was a child. When I ate some candy that I knew I wasn’t supposed to. When my parents found out and I would deny, deny, deny even though I still had purple sugar stuck to my fingertips.

His desperate attempt to speak to the public to me looked…well, desperate. It didn’t dawn on me that other people didn’t dissect his language like I did (possibly because I’m a communication major). It didn’t dawn on me until my boyfriend said “I was beginning to feel sorry for the guy.” Oh, the power of rhetoric. I wonder did my brother and sister feel bad for me when I went and pleaded to my mother. I remember consistently telling her I had been falsely accused, because dad just had it out for me.

Anyhow, I felt compelled to listen to his final address to the press after he was thrown out. One reporter asked him “…what do you have to say to the people who still believed in you?”

Blagojevich took a moment and finally said “My father was an immigrant…”

Now, aside from the fact that it didn’t even come close to acknowledging the question, it reminded me of Giuliani’s farewell speech in 2001. He also talks about his father (much like most other people in America) being an immigrant.

Giuliani also had an interview with Barbara Walters where she asks about his divorce and his new roommate. Giuliani tells Barbara Walters that governors are normal people too. That Governors sometimes have to stay with their gay roommate, their roommate’s partner, and dog.

This sparked a long train of thought about leadership communication.

Why is it that our political leaders constantly want to tell us that they are ‘just like us?’ And why do we embrace that? I mean when it came down to it, really… none of us would have voted for Joe “The Plumber”, right?

Honestly, I’m voting for them, because I think they're more capable of running things than not only their opponent, but also ME! Anyways…this is just a random thought process. Obviously, Blagojevich’s rhetoric wasn’t all that impressive (59-0).

Blagojevich, Maybe you actually are a lot more like a good percentage of the population than you thought…unemployed.

Palin...

2008-09-04T12:53:00.000-07:00

I tried not to form an opinion before I knew any details. I tried not to solidify my opinion after I did my research. And then, I watched the National Republican Convention. PALIN!?! Seriously?!

Her views on so many issues are just inherently contradictory. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that she bases her political views on logic. My first question is "If she doesn't use logic then what does she use?"

Then I listen to her say that she is a feminist. Alright Palin, can you really call your self an active feminist and do nothing to make me or any other female feel liberated? True...you are a feminist at the very basic and superficial definition, in that women can do the same things that men do. However, just working effectively in a male manipulated society does not give you the right to claim to be some symbolism for feminist. A bulldog with lipstick? Really? Are you trying to differentiate men, women, and dogs by a tube of lipstick? Having Palin as a face of any modern feminist movement other than "I can be just as manipulative as a man," is insulting and I believe sets us back further than we were several years ago. We don't need someone else stating that some colorful oily substance is what describes a woman.

Andrea Dworkin tells us that “Men have defined the parameters of every subject. All feminist arguments, however radical in intent or consequence, are with or against assertions or premises implicit in the male system, which is made credible or authentic by the power of men to name.”

No one illustrates that more than Palin does. I was wondering just the other day, after reading this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/palin.poll/index.html?iref=newssearch

Why do men support Palin more than women do? Men love Palin, because she strives to be the women every modern man wants to marry. Independent and popping out children; all the while endorsing a system that enables men to continue putting up road blocks for women and encouraging other women to do so. I would love to elaborate on that…but I’m not finished with my main concerns just yet.

Palin tells us that her reasons for being a conservative republican are because “individual freedom and independence” are extremely important to her.

Ok? Well, Barbra Streisand puts it beautifully.

"I am also very proud to be a liberal. Why is that so terrible these days? The liberals were liberators—they fought slavery, fought for women to have the right to vote, fought against Hitler, Stalin, fought to end segregation, fought to end apartheid. Liberals put an end to child labor and they gave us the five day work week! What's to be ashamed of?"

I am in no way conservative in any of my political views so of course I disagree with some of hers. However, Palin’s arbitrary methods in differentiating what’s appropriate and what’s not, should alarm a lot more people than just myself. I was led to believe that “because that is the way God intended it,” is not a definitive type of logistics when aiding in running a country. Palin is against abortion, but for capital punishment. In short, she decides who dies; she plays God. Or at least group of randomly selected jurors does.

She is pro-life, pro-contraception, and believes in teaching abstinence only. In this mystical world, children will not have sex and there fore will not need contraception. However if they do have sex, because contraception is not taught (favored but not taught) there we will still be no need for any sort of abortions. Oh…but Palin is all for teaching the youth about safety with guns.

Since entering this political race Palin has let a few fabrications fall in place, like: her adapted views on the environment, asserting she isn’t the only VP nominee to have never met a foreign leader, claiming that she stopped the “bridge to no where,” which is at best a half truth, and unfortunately Palin has continuously denied Obama’s accomplishments and alluded fabricated political views.

At first, I was nervous because I had my mind set on voting for Obama. So, I did my research to ensure that I was making the right choice.

I DID my research. I’m not impressed and actually feel a little insulted. All of the qualified women to help Mccain’s compaign and this is what you think will change my mind? Give me and my fellow sisters more credit than that. Good luck in your endeavors Palin, but please this is not the time to mock the intelligence of America; this is not another pageant.

An Indecent Proposal

2008-08-15T13:12:00.000-07:00

This blog is in response to Katie K.'s "The Marriage Competition." The dinner was lovely and our conversations are always stimulating.
Here's my take on it.

"BUT I LIKE DIAMONDS!"

I found myself having a hard time deciding which traditions in marriage I liked and which traditions about marriage that I found impractical. Then I realized that I sound like the KJV of the bible...I can't just choose which traditions are acceptable based on my own convenience and not sound hypocritical and bitter.

I honestly believe that everything we attribute to marriage should be changed, that we should consider the fact that when the idea of marriage was instituted, many (many!) things about our society were different and even wrong or offensive.
Giving the bride away (as if I am my father's property to be given away as my new husband's property), a ring symbolizing property, a white dress, taking the man's last name (you might as well change your middle name to 'property of'), the groom throwing some piece of lingerie, I really could go on...

I remember one time I was talking to a group of men about why exchanging your father's last name for the last name of your new husbands was so offensive and their solution was "well, then don't get married." Then I was dismissed. Is that really the only option in society? What if a man took my last name? Unheard of right? Think about that...

Lastly, the idea of monogamy is outdated. I am the last person to tell anyone to cheat on their significant other. That is not my proposal. My proposal is that as a society we should all acknowledge that it is human nature to crave the attention of someone else, to fantasize about another being, it is human nature to even fantasize about someone else while your making love to your husband/wife. I saw a survey once that said that thinking about having sex with someone else was considered cheating.That's so ridiculous... you honestly think that being married for 25 years you'll never think of another person? Think about all the heartache we could alleviate if actually acknowledged this as a human characteristic. I'm not suggesting that anyone in a relationship feel unappreciated or unattractive, because their significant other is constantly trying to experiment with other things. I'm suggesting that we analyze how we actually see things as a being. I'm suggesting we alter our unrealistic expectations of what a unity of two beings actually is. I'm asserting that we should all grasp a more mature and accepting outlook on what we expect out of life, in general. We only have one.

...but katie, I'm having a really hard time with wanting to give up a designer wedding dress and a monstrous engagement ring. I guess there is no harm in buying one myself! That's my next proposal! I guess I'm off to Tiffany's to buy something special for myself that symbolizes something a lot more respectable than me being someone's property.