Who needs to be a masochist when your kitty is a sadist?

In Pulp Fiction, Mia (Uma Thurman) says she has a theory that when it comes to important subjects, people can only answer two ways. Which way they answer tells you what kind of person they are. Her example of this is that there are only two kinds of people in the world: Beatles people and Elvis people.

Okay, only a loosely related intro into my talk about the complementary (or lack there of) relationship between masochism and sadism. Let's start with a simple Wikipedia definition:

Sadism refers to the infliction of pain or humiliation upon or by another person. Masochism refers to gratification in the infliction of pain or humiliation upon oneself.

So, logically speaking, you would assume that Masochists would search for Sadist mates and vice versa. I mean, logically, you would assume someone interested in inflicting pain would seek out one who enjoys pain. But according to social psychologist, Erich Fromm, when these two types get together it results in a weak and shallow bond. This is where I become conflicted. Part of me feels that people need to find someone who fills their holes and completes/compliments them. I mean, two hot headed individuals will have lots of trouble working things out. On the other hand, I've read psychological studies that say that couples with the most similarities have relationships that tend to last the longest.

But maybe the problem is that Sadism is not really the opposite of Masochism. Maybe the Masochist only finds pleasure in the pain when they inflict it on themselves and not when Sadists inflict pain on them. Perhaps, Masochists find the real gratification not in the pain but in the control over their own body. This would conclude that Masochists and Sadists are not complementary but are actually a poor match. I would say a relationship between these two would be beneficial to the Sadist but cause the Masochist the opposite of gratification. They would feel helpless instead of that feeling of control they were searching for in self infliction.

Of course, to be fair, I should finish explaining Mia's theory. She says: "Beatles people can like Elvis, and Elvis people can like Beatles but nobody likes them both equally. Somewhere you have to make a choice." I completely agree; nothing is ever as simple as black and white. We may tend to have both masochistic and sadist tendencies but can we ever have them equally? Perhaps that is the real question.

Food for thought

What Is Love?

When I graduated from college I was very depressed because I had to finally come to terms with the fact that I never lived the typical college experience. You know what I mean; ask anyone who went to the same school for four years. The dorm where you could walk down the hall and hang out in other people's rooms. The parties and the crazy occurrences. I wasn't made to experience those sorts of things. I wanted to go to school to learn. I wanted to minimize my costs by going to community college. I wanted to avoid all that immature behavior. Maybe I grew up too fast but I was the atypical college student. I thought I missed out.

I was over joyed this week to finally come to the realization that I had my own "college experience." It may have only been in the first couple years of my college career, but I had it, as different as it was. I had my two girls and our frequent parties. We had the random alcohol, the random people, the random hookups, and the random falling through electrical barbwire fences. Coming to this conclusion allowed me to finally be satisfied with my past; that maybe it wasn't typical but at least I was normal/lucky enough to have my own great "college time."

But today a new depression has plagued me. Even if I had it, it's over, never to be repeated. I never wanted to be one of those people who thought high school/college was the best years of our lives. But what if it really was? What if there is nothing left to look forward to? Sure there are always new adventures but somehow I think life jades us so much that we loose the magic that once resided in these times. In growing up we've lost a sense of our innocence that allowed us to fully enjoy those precious moments.

I think Haddaway had the right idea when they said: "Oh I don't know, Why you're not fair, I give you my love, But you don't care. So what is right and what is wrong, gimmie a sign. What is love?" Do any of us really understand what Love is? I know I love my friends and some of my family (the ones who are truly worth my love). But what about romantic love? How do we know if we've ever really experienced that? Or is it so existential that it's impossible to ever really know. Maybe that's what scares me more. My ex boyfriend told me he loved me then he broke up with me. After that he still tells me her loves me but also that he pitied me during our entire relationship. Is that really love? Does it make me too naive to want to think that the two cannot coexist? My friend's boyfriend said he loved her then he left her to go away to college then he broke up with her. Did he ever really love her? When did he stop? Did he stop? How does that really work? I guess that's the million dollar question. Shouldn't real love make you want to do whatever it takes to be with that person? Make geographical, emotional, and any other type of leaps necessary to be close to that person?

I'd like to think that I've experienced that kind of love in the past but I'm one of the many who has simply fallen out of love. I guess I believe that this happens but how do you know when you're in love again? I have come to the point where I am so used to saying "I love you" at the end of a conversation that I fear I can no longer tell the difference between habit and the real emotion. This is what is so hard about growing up; finally being intelligent enough to tell the difference. To be able to analyze your own actions enough to notice what is real and what is contrived out of need to fill a hole. Being intelligent only makes you realize how much you don't really understand . I think that might be the epitome of an oxymoron.

I sit here and try to think why love and fear are synonymous and I realize it is because, for better or for worse, we build it up to be the end all. "All you need is love" is what the Beatles taught us. So if we too quickly subscribe to love and it is not enough we are left dejected. "What is love? Baby, don't hurt me no more." We know how easy love turns into pain and rejection and if we are too quick to engage in it we will be left in utter ruins. Maybe life is meant to teach us the ultimate economic creed that the risk equals reward. But this concept is too philosophical for my already troubled mind.

Honestly, I don't have the answers, any answers, to anything. 4+ years in college and I still have no answers. But but maybe the point of college was to develop more questions. Food for thought.

Going along with my last blog, I suppose this one is kind of about hypocrisy. In actuality, I think it is a case of lying. Not purposeful, mean spirited lying. Subconscious, "kidding yourself" kind of lying.

Let me start with the men. Men spend their lives ogling models in magazines. They are turned on by the rail thin ladies in print ads and movies. And yet, anytime their out on a date, they bitch about how the girl only orders a salad. Talk about unrealistic standards. They want us to be super skinny AND eat heartily like them. When girls mention Weight Watchers, Adkins, or any other diet, men grimace and act like they are being ridiculous. But when we can't fit into that size -1 jeans, we know they are glancing at that skinny girl across the room.

But guys are not the only ones with conflicting standards. Oh yes, we women do it, too. I did some research online as to the top traits women said they looked for in a man. the 3 that were most popular were intelligence, sense of humor, and sensitivity. Perhaps this is a case of social desirability bias. I mean, honestly, is this really what women are looking for or is it just what they this they are supposed to say?

It goes back to the saying "nice guys finish last." Girls say they want nice, sweet, sensitive men, but yet they always go for bad boys. Look at Hollywood movies; it often works out that way.

Han Solo: You like me because I'm a scoundrel. There aren't enough scoundrels in your life.
Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

We all know Princess Leia fell for Han Solo because he was hansom, charismatic, and a cocky bad boy. Ok, so yeah, I just pulled out a Star Wars reference to prove my point, so what. You know it's true.

Men like thin girls; women like assholes. Can't we just admit this to the world and stop with all the bull shit. I mean who doesn't want a Han Solo or a Gisele Bundchen in their lives. I know I want both! But then again, this is not a personal ad.

Food for thought.

Hypocrisy, Democracy

So the title of this blog could work for a million and one topics; sorry to be so general. But who here DOESN'T hate hypocrisy? As far as I'm aware, hypocrisy annoys everyone. Apparently, democracy annoys everyone too because everyone seems to be fighting about it. So after the election I was elated. The US had progressed to having a African American president , and that is very exciting to me. Monumental, in fact. When Obama was announced, I was flooded with texts, e-mails, and Facebook communications. People all over the Internet, uniting in this memorable day in US History. I thought, wow, young people of the country are finally getting together and this is GREAT. But the next two days I found myself to be very mistaken. Everyone was fighting on the quad, in class, and even in choir. The McCain supporters said Obama supporters were sore winners, rubbing it in people's faces. The Obama supporters said McCain supporters were sore losers, threatening to go to move out of the country and all. I was devastated. Sure my candidate won, but all I really wanted was some unity. I don't remember it being this bad last time even with the multiple Bush fiasco. But maybe I was just too young.

Of course, none of this has to do hypocrisy, so I should hurry and get to my point before I digress further. I was looking through Facebook and found an old/ex friend, Peter*, had a joined a group called R.I.P. America. This is kid is known for his right-wing values, guns, racist/homophobic tendencies, and an overall love for "America." So, how does someone like that, join a group talking about how America is dead. Isn't THAT anti-American? I'm sure most Kerry/Gore supporters remember getting told they were anti-American for saying they hated Bush and what he did to this country. But yet, this McCain supporting group states:

"The US has died, because of Barack Obama. Our new president went to a white hating church for a decade! GREAT!! We just have to wait 4 years for a republican."

If that isn't anti-American, I don't know what is. So how can people like Peter spend their whole lives boasting about being such a great supporter of America, and yet as soon as things don't go their way they turn their backs. Typical.

I hope everyone understands that I don't think EVERY McCain or Obama supporter is acting this way. In fact, most are not and that's GREAT! It just saddens me that some people are still fighting, acting ignorant, or overall being close minded.

We are at a pivotal point in our Country's future. Why don't we get together and make the best of it. Honestly, like the band War said: "The color of your skin don't matter to me, As long as we can live in harmony. Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends..."

Okay, this is going to be a quick one (or a "quiche" one if you're George W. *joke*) but since it's Election Day I thought I'd say a few words. The voting process is a complex mix of standing in line, hanging chads, and, in the past 2 elections, disappointments. This country prides itself on the democratic process that gives every man (and later women) the right to vote. We get up early, search to find our polling center, go through a game of 20 questions to prove our identity, and then go behind a black curtain to cast our anonymous ballot. Okay, so the key word there was anonymous. What happened to the anonymity of the voting system? I log onto my Facebook (starting yesterday) and all I see is tons of Facebook statuses shouting at me that John Doe "is the 1,428,251st person to donate their status to get out the vote for [insert your candidate here] today. Donate yours: http://causes.com/election/" Now I'm not saying that it's wrong to tell your friends who you're voting for but I find it a little odd that you have NO opinion on the matter in everyday conversation but now you are pimping out your status on Facebook to promote your (new?) political beliefes. Seriously? Maybe I don't want to know what all my friends on Facebook are voting. Is anyone else worried this might unfairly affect other peoples decisions.?
I mean, it's one thing to make your status "I just voted, you should too" or even "Go Obama/McCain/Nader." But no, that wouldn't be pushy enough. Instead, everyone is signing up for a FB app that automatically updates their status 20 zillion times a day to remind the rest of us who you voted for. So now, when I pull up my news feed, I miss the important status of "Janie just had her baby girl!"* because everyone else has clogged the feed up with their nonsense.
Now I think ecounragement to vote is great, but does anyone here believe that Alice is going to turn on her FB and see that you voted for McCain and say "Oh my, I should do that too. I never thought of that. I must go right now."
Trust me I'm really, truely, honestly excited that so many young people are going out to vote. I just wish people wouldn't blast it all over my wall. You're making me feel bad for voting for..........oh you are not getting it out of me that easy. LOL

Happy Election Day everyone!

*Janie did not acctually have a baby. In fact I don't even know anyone named Janie, it was just a ficticous example to get my point across.

Conflict of Interest

Some people tell me I start drama. i don start drama, I cause conflict; there is a big difference. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not speaking of unnecessary conflict just for the sake of argument. I am writing about speaking out against the majority when others stay silent. Yes, I agree it's difficult but I'm not about what's easy. Someone has to stand up for the little guy.

In the past 6 months I have had a major change in my attitude. I was sick of letting people get away with saying horrible things just because I was too scared to "make waves." So yes, this causes conflict, but I think it is important to stand up for what you believe in. Causing conflict stirs things up and reminds people there are 2 sides to an issue.

Here is my Real Life Example

My International marketing teacher asked the class if we thought American Businesses exploit their workers in foreign markets. The 6 or so students who actually voiced their opinion all answered "no." Here is a simplified list of their main points:

• The only goal/function of businesses is to make money so who can blame them
• Why should we treat foreign employees better? Foreign countries wouldn't do the same for us.
• American businesses are treating their foreign employees better than the other (local) businesses so how is that exploitation.
• Why would the employees choose to work for American businesses if they weren't being treated well.
• The cost of living is less in these countries. Sure, we pay them $0.02 a day but that buys more for them then it does here.

I was one of two students who took a dissimilar approach. To make matters worse, my teacher then decided to tell the class his opinion. This, of course, was that we were not exploiting workers.

But I digress from my point. Although I was definitely the minority in that class, I was more concerned with the 80% of the class that was the silent majority. I'm sure most of them had no opinion so they jumped on the bandwagon of my teacher, but what about the few who agreed with me but were too shy to speak? What about the non-business/consumers whose voices didn't get the chance to be heard? So, yes, I created conflict in that class to stand up for what I thought was right. But I'd rather cause conflict then let one opinion be the only thing persuading the undecided. Even if I just made one person think twice about the subject, then I feel like the conflict was valid. At this point, that's all I can really hope for.

*On a Side Note*
This example is not drama. Drama is dragging me into a "he said/she said" fight involving a plethora of people. These debates do not involve intelligent facts but rather un-credible evidence to to try desperately to prove a pointless point. I left small town life to get away from drama. I cam to NYC to embrace the conflict of diversity.

But if you disagree with my blog, please leave me a comment. I'd love the conflict.

Between the Lines

So I got two comments in one day about how I haven't had a new blog in a while. Honestly, I was thinking no one was reading, but who knew. So I've had this one in my notebook for about a week now but never got around to typing it up (we all know who to blame for that one..lol). So here it is:

Between the Lines

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you."

Does that lyric bother anybody else? I mean, Carly is talking to a vain person telling him she is not talking about him. Does anyone else see the catch 22?

days, I got in trouble with my excessive I've been thinking a lot about "reading between the lines." One time, back in my pre-facebookMyspace blogs. This kid I knew read the poems I posted and assumed/believed they were about him. He didn't ask me, he just decided I was still in love with him and he cut off contact with me. If he had taken a college level literature analysis class he would have learned that the writer and the speaker of a poem are not always the same. I know what you are thinking: "so were the poems about him?" They were a complex mix of emotions put into the only format that work, poetry. It would be ridiculous to say that the poems were about him, but I will say feelings he evoked from me did add to the mood and tone of the poems. But my friend saw what he wanted and stubbornly believed his interpretation was the only one that mattered.

So who's to blame? As easy as it would be to blame him, I think he problem is more broad.

He didn't believe me when I told him the truth: that I no longer had feelings for him. He didn't believe me because people rarely tell the truth anymore. People are not straight forward. Instead, they force us to read into their every word, hunting for subtle hints.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes the search for little meanings behind someones phrases can be a fun challenge; a mystery that makes life interesting. But overall, I think it just causes problems.

For example, my last boyfriend broke up with me because I was very up front with my feelings towards people. Even now, 3 months later, he is still being cryptic and inconsistent with his words.

So why does it have to be like this? I'm not saying you have to go up to your crush and say "I love you and worship you and I want to sleep with you every night." Obviously that's a little too blunt and I know most people are too shy for that. But, at the same time, if someone asks you a question, be honest instead of giving a political, cryptic answer. And on that same accord, you have to trust that what people tell you is the truth or else we'll never get anywhere.

Oh, and just to clarify, this blog is about you. You, yes you, no, not you, you over there.