For boys and girls, single or not. Sit down and have a read :)
I was watching an episode of "Home Improvement" (yes I still watch stuff like that) and it was dealing with Tims habit of staring at other women and how Jill didn't like it. Well that got me thinking on the subject and the broader topic in general.
The 'problem' of men looking at other women (or men) is a fairly common one in relationships and can cause some pretty major issues actually especially if the man does more than a quick glance.
There are a number of theories why men do this and one that alleviates "guilt" and makes feminists happy (re-enforcing the notion than men are helpless cave dwellers) is that back in the caveman days in order to preserve the species men needed to impregnate as many women as possible. Of course women, needed to find the one man that would stick around and protect/support her and their children. And so checking out other people is just something left over from that time period.
The "caveman days" solution to many of these common guilt associated issues is a pretty popular explanation but it's one I'm fairly tired of hearing. It may be (and it is only an explanation, it isn't fact) the root issue at play but really folks it's just human nature. Women look at men just as well only they do it far less often when in a relationship.
I prefer the notion that it is purely human nature the same that it's normal and nothing to feel sorry about to masturbate, be gay (or have mixed feelings), to not make a big deal out of age, cry, fart or any of the other dozens of normal behaviours.
But back to the topic.
Men are, by nature, far more visual than women and we tend to look at things we find attractive. It doesn't mean we find the person we're with less attractive it's just that we saw someone else who is also attractive. Women need to understand this and not flip out.
Now, men can definitely do things the wrong way by staring, commenting or doing it all the time. But the occasional glance really doesn't mean a darn thing.
Of course there is the issue of manners and being a decent person.
If you're with your wife/husband/partner OR if you're out on a date you really do need to make a conscious effort to not look at other men or women.
When I'm out with Kevin I really do try to not look at other guys, just because it's a habit to look at them. When I'm with him he is the only thing I care to look at and the only person on my mind. Now at times if a really cute guy walks by I do take a look but not so much because he's cute but because I look at everyone who comes into my field of view.
When I'm alone I look at everyone and if I see a hottie I might take a peak (everyone does) but it doesn't change the fact that all I'm doing is looking at someone attractive and it doesn't change the fact that I'm with an amazing guy and there's no reason to start acting like a horny teenager and pursue every pretty thing that moves.
One thing that does annoy me is when, in the past, I've been on dates and the guy I was with would look at every other guy in the room. Yes it's just a date and yes we're both men and thus visually oriented but the fact remains you are on a date with an individual and your attention should be on that one person.
However, at the end of it all, the occasional glance at a man or a women by a man or woman really is not a big deal and will happen from time to time. So ladies (and some men) stop over reacting and remember that he/she may be looking for a second of their life but they're with you for months and years.
And men (some women) make sure to pay attention to your actions and remember that you're with someone special and that it's rude to stare.
*Warning, potential racism ahead*
I finished reading a story where protests turned to arrests in a North Carolina school district. The debate was over the districts decision to end their diversity policy. The policy basically groups poor, rich, black, white etc kids together in their own groups but in the same district..in order to "create" an artificialy diverse school district.
Well to me that's a dumb idea and I'm glad they got rid of it.
There are two things we have to understand about race and diversity and until we learn these the problem isn't going to go away.
1. There's something called the Law of Natural Segregation, something I've personally worked on.
Basically, people want to be around similar people. Blacks want to be with blacks, the rich with rich, educated with educated and racists with racists.
Societies are formed with this fundamental aspect of human behaviour. Without it there would be far fewer cultures and in fact without it diversity wouldn't really occur. Now it doesn't apply to race alone but to everything that could possibly create a group. We, on VR, are actually a product of the LoNS. We all have similar interests and we joined a group specific website to further those interests. The NAACP is a race specific group, the Sons of Confederate Veterans is a sex specific group and the US is a citizen specific group.
The problem is people think it's wrong to belong to any group at all unless it is made up of an equal amount of diverse members. (which doesn't exist in humanity or nature anywhere)
This is where we run into the next issue we need to learn about.
2. The US has a population of 309 million people. Of those people:
65% White
15.4% Hispanic (of any race)
12.4% Black
4.4% Asian
0.8% American Indian
2% "other"
According to many the train of thought is "we should have 1/2 white, 1/2 black, 1/2 hispanic" and sorry but that just doesn't work.
Schools should reflect the society and area they are in which means some will have 90% white and other 90% black. Now yes there should be some level of diversity but not to where the school's demographics are completely foreign to the real way this country is.
And then furthermore should we enforce some lunatic notion of "total diversity" we have:
4% of the population is gay
12% are poor
51% Protestant
1.7% Jewish
0.6% Muslim
8% Left-handed
Should apply the 50/50/50 rule there as well? And if not you then leave out groups of people who's numbers can be in the millions. Now that doesn't sound very "fair" to me.
"Diversity" can be taken far to seriously. The goal should be that schools need to represent the community they're in, not the world. We may work as part of a global economy but the student lives in North Carolina, Texas, NY, TN, CA, AK, etc
And until we understand that groups are not bad and diversity includes majorities then we're never going to be a "post-race" nation.
--Xzavier
COMMENTS
That hispanic percentage seems awfully low to me. Maybe its just because I'm from the southwest. And this entry isn't racist. If people take it that way they're f-ing stupid.
Well these are just national figures. Some counties will have over 50% hispanic and others less than 1%.
As for the 'racism' you're right it isn't a racist article but I figured I'd just give a 'warning' for those who can't understand the message and are overly sensitive.
Folks in the UK, you've GOT to be kidding!
You're having a budget crisis (as is most of the Western World) so like all good people you try to find ways of cutting expenses. With an economy of $2 trillion and a government income of $820 billion the place you look at first is the Monarchy?
The price of your Queen and the entire institution costs $57.8 million and you want to cut costs there? Besides the fact that the Monarchy holds/protects/controls several billions in art, property etc you think that by saving a few million by further restricting your nations brightest symbol and one of the worlds oldest institutions is really going to help your economy?
The Monarchy costs each of you $0.94 per year...nevermind your 68.5% deficit, you bitch over a few pence?
Seriously come on. Go after something that's actually going to make a difference, not an 84 year old woman and the thousands she employees directly and indirectly.
Note to the Brits: The Monarchy is a GOOD thing for your country but out of control spending by your elected officials is a BAD thing.
The amount the Queen herself gets hasn't risen in 20 years, how about your national spending?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I know the US isn't any better but token changes to spending (which we're great at) doesn't really do a damn thing. The US has been around for 234 years now, the UK has been around for 303 years proper and 1,083 years since the founding of the Kingdom of England. The point, you should have a better understanding of common sense than those of us across the pond.
COMMENTS
I haven't heard anything about the Monarchy in the UK news and I listen to that all that time. There will be 40% cutbacks in some government departments.... but its silly if they cut back for the royals. Mind you.. there is some royalties and payments going out to minor royals such as the cousins and 2nd cousins etc..now that would be a good area to cut back on!
God save the Queen
She ain't no human being
There's no future
In England's dreaming
Gawd bless yer Gov....:)
The 4th is upon us but before you go and buy/wear that American flag tee-shirt you might want to read the US Flag Code.
It's the flag of a Sovereign nation, treat it that way.
http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagcode.htm
Here's an article I think you may find interesting. It deals with saving on gas. The tips are easy but the savings really can be massive (up to $1,000/yr+)
COMMENTS
I agree with everything but #1.
Sure, you lose $3.89 in gas every 100 miles by going 75 instead of 60 - but you lose 20 minutes every 100 miles.
Time is money - and is more valuable in many cases than the $3.89 in gas.
i'm this close to cutting and pasting this and modifying it to talk about sex vs. gas....; )
Thank you! I've been saying for years that the air conditioner in my car ruins my gas milage when driving in town. I always get told I'm full of crap when I tell someone that. Funny how I get more mpg out of my car than anyone else does though. =)
COMMENTS
-
DrCullen
09:32 Jul 26 2010
I have lost partners due to this, and I thought it was ridiculous.
I have many male friends, and they were maybe over antagonizing him, but we separated because of mounting jealousy.
I thought it was silly, to be worried about this type of thing. I chose this person over all the others, and that didn't seem to be enough.
People need more confidence, but we also need to be mindful of the implications of staring over excessively at other men/women.
You write very well, by the way, Xzavier.
PAGAN
12:40 Jul 26 2010
nicely put
DestroyingAngel
16:42 Jul 26 2010
My ex and I used to check out other chicks together when we would go out.......*eyes dart back and forth*
Was a little odd staring at a hot chick and then having that akward moment staring at eachother with raised eyebrows.