Religion, politics, sex .. and other taboo subjects

Then you're hanging out with the wrong men. I only date guys who are sapiosexual. I don't answer men on OK Cupid who only comment on my looks. (I actually block them so they can't gaze upon my beauty anymore.) And right now, today, I got messaged by 2 men who actually mentioned my interests instead of just my looks! True, this rarely happens, but most men on OKC are wankers. I reckon most of the good ones with a bit of brains and decency are already partnered, or married, or gay.

But one of these 2 guys actually asked me if I thought men could ever be attracted to a woman's mind, instead of just her looks and how she feels. Because he is sapiosexual, but he didn't know if women would believe him that a man even could be that.

To illustrate this...and a friend said that thing about how my upbringing primed me to receive these messages from the environment, but jeebus effing cripes they are just EVERYWHERE, yeesh!...

There was an article on Facebook about two side by side magazines, "A Girl's Life" and "A Boy's Life" (Here is the article: http://www.kveller.com/this-one-photo-shows-everything-thats-wrong-with-girls-vs-boys-magazines/ ) and the main point is...the boy's magazine talks about career choices, actually DOING THINGS...the girl's magazine is covered with "how to be pretty" headlines. It's a damn stupid thing to be upset about at the age of 37, when you're a woman who loves making art and doing taxes and building things. But the part of me I feel least in control of is how I look. So I'm not going to bend myself out of shape trying, spending money I don't have to attain a standard I can't meet, when I really like myself a lot on the inside.

I just don't expect anyone else to. And I often have a hard time understanding why anyone around me likes me at all...which then leads me to questioning whether they really do.

I'm trying to undo the knots on 36 years of endlessly repeated and reinforced messages from not just "the media" telling me how girls are supposed to be or whatever, but the patterns and behaviors of everyone around me pretty much my whole life. I hit bumps in that road sometimes. But I'm still in the game.
 
I think I've swung more the other way: I think I'm pretty awesome so I have a hard time understanding people who don't like me. As in, there is either something wrong with them, as people, or they just don't understand what they are missing, because dayam I am fun.

I did struggle with my looks for quite a while. I got boobs just about the time that I was assaulted, so it was an easy leap to "woman's body = pain". I'm also one of those ladies who just have... a lot. I got a lot of boob, a lot of butt, my thighs think the phrase "thigh gap" is a joke. I'm not overweight, technically- I'm just kinda round. When I was younger it was a freaking curse: I hid in baggy shirts and sports bras because I was pretty sure I'd go to hell if anything jiggled.

Now though, I appreciate it. I love my curves. Like, seriously, in my private heart of hearts, I think I'm damn hot. I can pull off the slutty librarian look like nobody's business. I like how my curves look under the covers, I like how my clothes fit over them, and that if a partner slaps my ass it jiggles. I like my hair that can never decide if it's red or brown. However, it feels kind of terrible to say those things. I can feel like I am pretty freaking amazing on the inside, but telling someone "I think I am attractive" or "I think I am a neat person" feels so wrong. And someone else telling me "you are beautiful" makes me feel gross. I can call me beautiful: other people can't.

I am a self-opinion hypocrite :p
 
But the part of me I feel least in control of is how I look. So I'm not going to bend myself out of shape trying, spending money I don't have to attain a standard I can't meet, when I really like myself a lot on the inside.

This is just ... fascinating... to me, because I've always felt like how I looked was the one thing I DID have control over. I can't change my crazy family. I can't magically not have anxiety (well, there is Lexapro, ;)), I can't change myself into the perfect normal person... But I can damn well look good while I wander around all dysfunctional!

I've always wondered how much of my borderline obsession with exercise/makeup/shoes/etc comes from feeling some need to "make up for" my messy insides. If I had confidence in myself and my worth, would I stop caring what I look like? If I become well-adjusted some day, will I decide to just wear sneakers everywhere and eat all the chocolate?
 
This is just ... fascinating... to me, because I've always felt like how I looked was the one thing I DID have control over. I can't change my crazy family. I can't magically not have anxiety (well, there is Lexapro, ;)), I can't change myself into the perfect normal person... But I can damn well look good while I wander around all dysfunctional!

I've always wondered how much of my borderline obsession with exercise/makeup/shoes/etc comes from feeling some need to "make up for" my messy insides. If I had confidence in myself and my worth, would I stop caring what I look like? If I become well-adjusted some day, will I decide to just wear sneakers everywhere and eat all the chocolate?

LOL...I don't know! It doesn't help when once in a while the inside of my head becomes a battleground, but MOST of the time, it's not.

I don't necessarily slop out on my appearance, but it's all quirky stuff to show off character, not to look textbook pretty. Like...nerdy things. I have round glasses. I wear Tripp pants and shirts with either my obscure musical interests, or Dr. Who stuff. I'm obsessed with knee length weird socks. I'm cool. In that, "totally gets the reference" and the kind of girl you take to ComicCon way. In all fairness, this is probably what made me approachable for Zen. If I was some kind of runway model type, he probably wouldn't have talked to me...so there is that!

I just feel like the world around me is full of expectations about arbitrary human value, the talk you hear about "10's" and "leagues" and stuff. If you're a woman, you need to be pretty. That's more important than anything, and if you're not doing it well, you're not worth much. Mustn't "let yourself go."

If I put on makeup, though, I can wear it about long enough to take some photos...my face will feel like I've slathered grease all over it and it makes me squicky. Or the powder will cling to any little bit of dry skin or the hairs of my eyebrows or something. The lipstick dries up and either looks like crud, or wears off and leaves a weird ring around my outer lips. I touch my eyes and smear my eyeliner because I'm not used to wearing makeup. Like seriously, I fail so hard at doing the makeup thing. And if I Google my problems and try to figure out how girls manage to do this stuff, it's all like, "well, you need to buy more expensive product, and not let it get too old, so buy it often, and you need at least four DIFFERENT products, for like each bit of your face, and you have to scrub and exfoliate and tone and moisturize and mask and treat and prime and pluck and buff and..." I'm like are you even serious right now, with this? Who has the money, and who has the time?!?

Oh, and if that weren't enough, you need a gym membership. And yoga, you should do yoga, too. And drink wheatgrass! All of the hot women do that. Yes. Oh, and my feet are simply atrocious, like I should be paying someone just to do intensive work on my feet, I have (brace yourself for the horror) CALLUSES on them. Like, I actually walk on them or something, it's crazy. And I would simply HAVE to get breast implants, and maybe a few other surgeries. Because even if I put in all of the other effort...there are still a few things that wouldn't be right...

I mean I look at the world of pretty women and it's completely foreign to me. And I could put in all the effort in the world and unless I was willing to go under the knife, I still wouldn't be even close to looking "the right way." And then...even then...I've got just what, a couple of decades of "youth" if I fight age kicking and screaming with everything I've got.

So screw it. What's the point?
 
Back to politics.

At work a couple of days ago, a few of my co-workers were all sorts of worked up about some new environmental threat.

I'll pause to say that they're more Left than Right, but still rural-Midwest smalltown quasi-redneck: pro-labor, pro-gun, not into "free trade" ideology (because import tariffs protect farmers). They're reasonably intelligent, but tend to get their "news" from viral emails & Facebook.

The environmental danger is a particular chemical, naturally occurring. I managed to locate one of theemails, that says in part
I've been seeing on the internet stories about Subway Sandwich shop using a chemical called DHMO (dihygroden monoxide) in their bread that is supposed to be and industrial solvent used in fire retardant materials and is waste from nuclear power plants, it is supposed to be toxic.
And "toxic" ain't the half of it -- here's a massive "informational" squawk:
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:
  • is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
  • contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
  • may cause severe burns.
  • contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
  • accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
  • may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
  • has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
  • as an industrial solvent and coolant.
  • in nuclear power plants.
  • in the production of styrofoam.
  • as a fire retardant.
  • in many forms of cruel animal research.
  • in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
  • as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.
After a few minutes, I stepped in to set them straight. They got a bit peevish with me, tried to argue chemistry (which I remember pretty well), & held firm on a modified "if it's on the Internet, it MUST be true!" stance.

And that's why I'm beginning to believe that Donald Trump will be our next POTUS.

:mad:
 
Great googly moogly.
Our science classes have failed us.
 
And that's why I'm beginning to believe that Donald Trump will be our next POTUS.

:mad:

He won't win. It's all about the swing states now and he needs all 11 to win. Hillary only needs 2. It doesn't matter what people in any of the red or blue states are doing or saying at this point. The swings states will decide the outcome of this election. If you watch polls at all, keep your eye on the polls in the battleground states, not the general polls.
 
*sigh*

So ya'll know this whole thing makes me want to hide under my bed, hands over my ears, eyes squeezed shut, "LALALALALALA" like none of this is happening, right?

I wasn't gonna watch the debates. I was not.

Then I read this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...mansplaining-olympics/?utm_term=.56f34e9b6e8b

Which is goddamn hilarious...and thought *sigh*...well...ok. I guess maybe I ought. I mean, it can't actually be that bad right?

Oh, but it can! haha yes, boys and girls, it can.

At this point, there is only one possible response to the whole...Trump...thing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYPPfXGCBoY

...and I will now paste that link on Facebook in every single thread where Trump is mentioned. Period.

Look, Hillary isn't great, in my opinion, I don't think she's trustworthy, but then I don't think that MOST politicians are. I've got trust issues, alright? I'll cop to that. But are we even serious right now that some folks actually think Trump might be a good idea? Might work out alright? Should I really buy warmer clothes in preparation for the Great Canada Exodus? Who is gonna have to build a wall again? What?
 
The conservative The Detroit News yesterday:

"Today this newspaper does something it has never done in its 143-year history: endorse someone other than the Republican candidate in a presidential contest."

Watch the video
 
The conservative The Detroit News yesterday:

"Today this newspaper does something it has never done in its 143-year history: endorse someone other than the Republican candidate in a presidential contest."

Watch the video
Likewise with the Arizona Republic and the Cincinnati Enquirer. (Yeah, it's a big enough thing to happen that even we Europeans notice it. ;))

You can also count USA Today, who never endorsed any presidential candidate before, but now for the first time ever gives a clear (anti-)endorsement: "Do Not Vote For Trump".

I'm sensing a clear pattern here, and you bet I'm glad about it. All of a sudden, a breeze of common sense seems to reappear that's been sorely missing in the last months... I've said a good while ago that I'd be hoping to see something like "Republicans For Clinton" emerge as a reaction to the toupeed troll, from those Reps who aren't in what has come to be called the "basket of deplorables"... and it looks like it's finally happening, thank goodness.
 
I think that the scary part, from a lot of conservatives that I hear talking, is this...

They strongly believe that Trump's candidacy is only a ploy, a trick, to make people vote for Hillary who otherwise wouldn't. I think more Americans than ever are deeply suspicious and cynical that the whole game is rigged.

Honestly? I agree that this is not the year for a protest vote. I am not happy about it, but I'm voting for Hillary. I literally feel very "anything but Trump." Anyone or anything that will keep him from winning this, gets my vote.

If the third party candidate were someone stronger than Gary Johnson, someone I was enthusiastically behind, or who had louder and stronger support behind him, then I might vote third. If for instance, Bernie were running third party. But no. And I am actually glad, because as I said when he didn't get the nomination, if he did run third, it would probably ensure a Trump win by splitting the left vote too much.
 
I have an uncle who accused Trump of being a Hillary plant...until Trump got the nomination. Now he supports him fully, as do all the Republicans I know. Some of them just vote Republican no matter what, but some actually believe Donald Trump will be good for the country. Donald Trump.

Today I hear that Pence compared Trump to Reagan. I remember watching in horror as he swept the election in 1980.

Usually I vote for a third party candidate. I did vote for Clinton's second term. I did not vote for Gore. I did vote for Kerry as a vote against Bush. I voted for Obama because Palin. I didn't vote for Obama the second time. Maybe Hillary does not need my vote, but I'm probably going to hold my nose and vote for her anyway.

I do have a dilemma though. The day after the debate in which I saw Trump make a complete fool of himself, I asked MK who she thought won. She said Trump :confused::rolleyes::eek: I don't think she's the toxic kind of Republican. I think she's more of an Authoritarian Follower type. Either way I am having trouble respecting her now.
 
I read today that Trump's goal for the debate was not to try to look presidential but to emphasise his "brand". That is, to come across as NOT a politician nor part of the whole washington world but as a straight talking, take charge, businessman ready to ignore the usual rules to get things done. At the same time reinforcing his branding of Clinton as a career politician who will perpetuate the status quo.

If you look at it from an angle and squint you can kind of see why his followers claim he did well.

Leetah
 
I do have a dilemma though. The day after the debate in which I saw Trump make a complete fool of himself, I asked MK who she thought won. She said Trump :confused::rolleyes::eek: I don't think she's the toxic kind of Republican. I think she's more of an Authoritarian Follower type. Either way I am having trouble respecting her now.

That would be a complete boner killer for me, dude.
 
All of a sudden, a breeze of common sense seems to reappear that's been sorely missing in the last months.

He's never had much of a real chance, so there's not a sudden breeze. Trump offers sensational media fodder and the press has been making hay of it. The polls have always shown Hillary to be in the lead.
 
Now he supports him fully, as do all the Republicans I know. Some of them just vote Republican no matter what, but some actually believe Donald Trump will be good for the country. Donald Trump.

To add to the anecdotal "evidence," I know a lot of life long Republicans who are voting for the third party this time. Trump has never had full party support - yet one more reason that he doesn't stand a real chance.
 
Can Trump Win? Here Are All The Key Polls

Truly, I wish it was a slam-dunk, but alas. And as Mister Law-&-Order has already promised riots would occur if he didn't receive the nomination, I don't see reason to believe things will be peaceful, win OR lose -- that die's already cast.

My emphasis:
If the election were held today, Real Clear Politics' average of state polls without any "tossup" states included gives Clinton 188 electoral votes and Trump 165 — an over 80-vote fall for Clinton since August, when the polls showed her easily earning the required 270 electoral votes, and an 11-vote improvement for Trump.
As of Sep. 26, RCP's general election average for a four-candidate race—which includes Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein—shows Clinton maintaining a narrow 2.2% advantage (43.6 – 41.4).
Trump leads by 4 points in the LA Times/USC tracking poll, which includes a "bloc of disaffected [Trump] voters" pollsters say have been ignored by other surveys.

Bloomberg shows the two candidates tied at 46% each.
As of Sep. 21 in Florida, RCP's poll average finds the two candidates in a virtual dead heat.

As of Sep. 23, Trump maintains a lead over Clinton in Ohio, where she once held a 5-point advantage by average.

In August, Clinton held what seemed to be an imposing 9-point lead in Pennsylvania. That advantage has now shrunk to less than 2 points.

Over the last month, Trump has managed to flip North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado (which once seemed out of reach) in his favor. He has pulled away in Georgia, Iowa, and Missouri, all of which were tight in August. He has also narrowed the gap dramatically in Maine and Minnesota.
 
Back
Top