relationships

“Hey, we seem basically compatible. I enjoyed kissing you. What do you say about trying a three-month love contract?”

I think that the best linking weblog on line right now is Follow Me Here. Every time I visit I find a half-dozen or so excellent articles. Eliot must be a voracious reader, and his comments are insightful and thought-provoking. If you have never been to his site, go right now. Here are a few of his more recent links that I found particularly interesting:

· A few months ago - just after Sept. 11 - I wrote a little rant about parallel universes and how I deal with the concept of infinity. I never claimed that it was an original idea, or my own. But I like it. It seems like this theory, which dates back to at least 1957, has sparked some renewed interest. The Economist has a very enlightening and much more scientific explanation of a theory of infinite universes than the one I provided. If you’re as fascinated by the concept of infinity and its implications as I am, you’ll appreciate the Economist’s essay.

· The London-based eZine Spiked published an article on “the Singleton Society” last week. I’ll give you an excerpt here, but I recommend reading the whole thing.

… the age-old tension between the aspiration for self-realisation and commitment is difficult to resolve. In the past this tension could be contained through the widespread influence of the ideology of romantic love - which celebrated the value of self-realisation through an intimate encounter with another person. The synthesis of autonomy and commitment helped diffuse conflicts of interests, at least for a brief period of time.
But the ideology of romantic love could only effectively contain conflicts of interests because women were expected to renounce their desire for autonomy in favour of maintaining the relationship. Since the 1970s, this one-sided arrangement has come unstuck. At a time when women seek to develop themselves no less than men, love ceases to provide the focus for an ideology that can sustain durable commitment.

· The Crackpot Index claims to be, “A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.” It’s very funny, more so if you often find yourself trying to debunk those with seriously high levels of bunk.

Women only stay with men for security, and men only stay with women for sex. It’s a cynical view of human relationships, but researchers now say it is the driving force behind the evolution of monogamy — and women started it. By offering sex all the time, females in monogamous species disguise whether they are fertile and trick males into sticking around.

<understatement>
“The male has no cue,” says Enquist. “All he can see is the behaviour of the female.”
</understatement>

When it comes to having fun, the element of surprise may be more important than most people realise. A great link from Follow Me Here …

And in completely unrelated news, I grabbed Dave Egger’s book A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius at Target earlier today. I got a bit of a sunburn, too.

Divorce Pending for Co-Author of Time-Tested Secrets for Making Your Marriage Work
Well … just the headline should be funny enough to make you want to read the rest of the article. But! Good heavens! Did you read the ten tips? By the time I got to the third one I thought for sure it must be an April Fools’ prank. This advice is ludicrous. Trust me: These are not good rules to follow if you want to keep a man. What really worries me is that there are actually women who think this strategy might work.

1. Be an inscrutable creature of mystery.
2. Never do anything yourself that he can do for you.
3. Have sex no more than once a week.
4. Don’t stop playing hard to get.
5. Don’t speak.
6. Don’t stick to your budget.
7. Don’t initiate sex.
8. Act independent.
9. Don’t concern yourself with what he does.
10. Don’t apologize.

Brett Patrick and his new wife argued after they arrived home from their wedding, he told police. He had bruises and scratches — and icing — on his body, police said.

Two good ones stolen from Follow Me Here …:

• Researchers Show Human Genome Helpless in the Face of Chocolate
• Men Are Crazy for Women Who Are, Too

Every now and then I find a site that just screams, “Blog me!” There isn’t much to read at the site I found tonight; I guess she’s just getting started. But the premise behind reasons to kill my boyfriend is hysterical and her first post made me laugh, so …

I used to be fascinated with the passage of time. I still am, I suppose. My watch chirps at me on the hour to remind me that my time is passing. I love calendars and diaries and journals and notebooks and all things similar. (Have you noticed?!) When I was younger and not as digital, I used to write things on calendars. I always had one handy. I used to write every little thing. I pulled a few out of the closet tonight to look for something. I can tell you now, for instance, almost a decade later, that on January 31, 1991, I wrote myself a note to, “Be T.C. not C.B.” And I can sit here in August 2000 and remember that at that particular point in my life I wanted to be more like Tom Cruise and less like Charlie Brown. I can tell you that on July 25 (my half-brother Michael’s birthday) I really “broke up” with Kim Taylor. Apparently I had attempted to break up with her on the 21st, but it didn’t stick. Comically enough I started seeing a different girl named Kim on the 28th and on the 31st we watched 101 Dalmations at her house before she left for Texas for two weeks. It’s funny that I can look back at the shortest little comments - “Pizza & Molson w/Lanie & D. Bloom”, “wrote note to Liz”, “Mr. Tux w/Paula & Jenny” - and they can remind me exactly what was happening. This blog isn’t anything like that. I can’t go back to a date three weeks ago and tell you what I was doing or why I blogged something. Well. Okay. Maybe I can. Hmmm. I guess I’m just thinking out loud. You go ahead and go about your business. I’ll come back later and maybe make a point. Don’t hold your breath.

I added a new funny to the Funny Stuff I Get in My Inbox page and updated the dictionary and my about page.
[click to continue...]

Once again, Jason is scouring the ‘net to find me valuable information. This primer on Dealing With Irrational People could be very useful …

Lifted from Snoop Duck: The Love Calculator was not very nice to most of the women that popped into my head:

• Sheryl Crow - 12%
• Venus Williams - 26%
• Sylvia Gagne - 14%
• Firda Beka - 59%
• Britney Spears - 75%
• Tori Amos - 19%
• Gwen Stefani - 74%
• Madonna - 77%
• Eva Gardner - 16%

but … woo hoo! …

• Oprah Winfrey - 91%
• Also, interestingly enough:
  Eddie Vedder - 77%
• Dave Grohl - 67%
• Tom Petty - 91%

As a matter of fact, being honorable sucks. Just so you know. Dishonorable David … now that’s a cool nickname. (Way better than MuffinAss, you freak.)

I don’t like being honorable. Not. one. bit.