Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category


He’s not that into you— or maybe he’s just an A-hole.

I know this book has been out there for quite sometime, but with the movie coming out and all I thought I’d add my 2 cents.

This book is stupid and it sucks. I don’t even know if I can name all the reasons why, but I’ll start with this obvious one: it makes it seem like its the women’s own shortcomings that are the problem. I feel like the overall theme of the book is “He doesn’t think you’re good enough, but some dude will eventually… go find that asshole!” Empowering, isn’t it!

Why the hell are you telling women to sit around wondering “duh is he that into me?” like some poor dipshit when she really ought to be thinking “Am I getting what I want out of this relationship? Am I happy? Is he treating me how I want to be treated?” If you’re picking up this book, then chances are you aren’t getting what you want… and THAT is the important thing, ladies.

There reasons men do the things they do are countless and varied. Some of them have absolutely nothing to do with the women they are dating. And some guys are just dicks.

I have one more comment to add to this silly drivel that is marketed to women who have low self esteem: Do you even remember how that episode of Sex & the City ended? Miranda’s date says he wants to go home instead of get coffee with her after dinner, to which she replies “It’s ok, you can admit it! You’re just not that into me!” And then it turns out he just had really bad diarrhea from the Indian food they just ate.

Anything that overgeneralizes is probably bullshit. Including “He’s just not that into you”.


Love and the Lengths We Go to Hold onto It

So I must admit, I am guilty of some major slackerism. But as I explain, I am a major procrastinator. I procrastinate procrastination and this blog is not exempt from this habit I have, good, bad, or for worse. Will it be my undoing…who knows? Now to the point…

I just read an essay for my Japanese Modern Lit Class and I think it raised some interesting points about one my favorite subjects: LOVE…

Kitamura Tokoku describes loves as “the key that unlocks humanity.” He goes further saying, “Love is the miracle that inscribes itself indelibly on the human heart, never to be erased.” I agree with this statement. After falling in love, it seemed like a whole new world or dimension was unlocked for me. I saw beauty in the world especially when I was with beloved. The world seemed dim when I was not with him. My love was the source of an undeniable and very addictive high. I was a wretched fiend without it and I pursued it relentlessly trying to get my next fix. I can say nine months after it is over that I am still a recovering love addict. It seems that Tokoku and I are in agreement when he adds, “Love gives life to the person and brings to life also the world about him/her.”

This leads to another point Tokoku makes, “After s/he has experienced love does a man or woman really become a person. Only after s/he has sacrificed him or herself to love, does he see himself as s/he really is: love becomes a clear mirror reflecting self.”

Yes, it was in love that I saw the best and worse of myself. It’s the worse aspect that was drawn out of me that I lament the most. But it is only in seeing the worse of myself that I am truly growing to be in touch with myself. Through it, I have uncovered the building blocks to construct a much stronger and resilient me. But to what lengths did I go to get high after high, fix after fix??? I neglected myself, jeopardized my relationships with others, abandoned my home, my sanctuary. To what lengths have you gone to get your high or keep your love relationship going?

When times were good I felt on top of the world…impenetrable to its troubles and when times were on the decline I felt that the loss of my love would surely mean he would take my sanity with it if one day he woke up and called it quits.

Now reflecting over my love or should I call it an infatuation or dangerous obsession???… I now see what Tokuko explains, “Love begins with one’s falling in love with one’s own idea: the object of this love is but a phantom.” I ponder to what degree was I in love with this person or some day-dream I had conjured up over the course of my first eighteen years of life exposed to love letters, romantic gestures, and Hollywood “and they lived happily ever after” nonsense? Once the honeymoon phase of the relationship is over and the veil is torn, you truly see the person for who he or she really is…good, bad, ugly, and indifferent. To realize that the person who I thought I loved with every fiber of my being did not exist was too much to bear. It’s not to say he did not exist in the flesh because he did, but the man that stood before me seemed like a sad case of stolen identity of my true beloved. Once the rose colored lenses I wore were torn from my face and stomped to the ground, I did not want to believe or accept the reality I saw before my eyes. I tried desperately to make this impostor my love “object”. Where is he? Where is the man that I invested almost two years getting to know? How unfair was I? What delusions I had conjured in my mind?!!! It took me many disappointments, fights, sleepless nights, and salty tears to realize my mistake and to grow to accept my “beloved” that lie next to me in the flesh. However the realization that my efforts to alter who was before me to fit this falsehood I had constructed in my mind was futile …it may have come to late.

This leads to me to one last thought sparked by Tokuku’s thoughts, “Woman is a creature of feeling; she very often loves because she is loved. Her proper place is to receive love rather than to give it.” I wonder to what extent my passion would have been ignited if I did not experience his love in return, if my love had been unrequited? To what extent was I in love with the idea of being loved and receiving his love? Perhaps I received my answer when his love was no longer mine and I continued to love him anyway, but felt starved for something else. To what extent did I desire to love myself as he loved and adored me? Perhaps what I was seeking all along was self-love, acceptance of self, an encounter with my own humanity? He just took me to that place…


The “No Unicorns” Religion

I really want to write about the New York Times article I just read on the atheist bus movement in London and now around the world.  I’ve been trying to think of something clever to say about it, like using the evidence of their organization around one man, Richard Dawkins (pastor?  prophet?), as proof that there is an Atheist religion.  But the first hit off my Google search for “atheist religion” led me to some British atheist’s blog and his very persuasive argument against the possibility of an atheist religion.  Apparently that would be akin to saying that if I don’t believe in unicorns, I must belong to the “No unicorns” religion.  Touche, Mr. Barnett.  I will forgo all attempts to accuse you of being religious.

I could talk instead about how the advertisements that these atheist groups are running in London self-defeatingly proclaim “There’s probably no god.  Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” rather than saying “There is no god” (emphases mine).  Dawkins, of course, would rather have it say the latter, but – and I’m not sure if I buy this – apparently advertisement regulations prohibit the ads from saying that there absolutely is no god, hence the “probably”.  Here’s something I can pick on.  Why bother selling a product that you can’t promise will work?  Pascal once made an argument for people like that  – commonly called agnostics (or, according to my philosophy professor, cautious atheists) – and its called Pascal’s Wager.  Wikipedia link here.  Pascal makes a reasonable argument for belief in God based on probability, essentially saying that no matter how improbable it is that God exists, it is still more rational to wager that God exists.  I’m sure the theologically-inclined could take issue with some of the suggestions implicit in the Wager, but the point is still made.  Nevertheless, I admire Richard Dawkins and company for standing up for their beliefs and attempting to stick it to the Man.  Or His shadow, anyway, since in their book the Man probably doesn’t exist.  Nor unicorns, for that matter.

LazyBrains RSS


Complaints, Compliments, and Inquiries may be directed to:

Enter your email address to get our lazy thoughts delivered right to your inbox!

Join 1 other follower

Lazy Tweets

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.