It looks like the management at OkCupid was successful at what they wanted to do: Kill out all journal activity on this site. Supposedly it "distracted" people from what they (management) wanted them to be doing.

My stays here are shorter every day. Why? Well, mostly because all I liked doing here is spend time around reading journals and replying to them. I wonder if the people who just wanted to use this as a dating place are feeling "better" or "more successful" now that all the other people who liked journals are pretty much gone? The place feels so deserted and unfriendly when people aren't talking to each other out in the open.

I suppose all the action is now happening behind closed doors in private messages. Though, considering the kind of journal posts I used to read about "charming" messages sent around just makes me feel a little crept out by the idea.

Meh, I really liked the idea behind OkCupid, I made a couple of good friends, too. Too bad it feels reduced... from a network of interesting individuals, to individual pages that just scream "look at me"...

Perhaps I should just delete my profile already. It isn't just that I am not in need of a date currently, but that OkCupid has never (at least for me) been useful at finding a date. :P But old habits die hard, I am still fond of the "golden" days when I used to spend hours a day in this site. So entertaining, and telling about human nature. Oh well, things change, time to move on, perhaps.

And it was as she yelled these words into my ear that I knew this was going to be an interesting night.

There is a time for deep philosophical discussions about social influences, and there is a time for drinking and dancing until you drop. Let's just say, I never imagined myself doing the former in the largest discotheque of Israel.

Roughly a month ago I had gathered with a few friends to go out and party at the UltraSound, supposedly Israel's largest disco, with capacity for three thousand people (that seems no exaggeration, I easily saw over a thousand the first time I was there). Some old acquaintances had gathered, but there were also a few new faces. Amongst them a very beautiful blonde german girl.

Beautiful, sexy women intrigue me. Part of me is convinced they are just air-heads which aren't worthy of the attention they get, while the rest wonders if the stereotype really holds. Mostly, I don't have those kind of women amongst my friends, so I just let them hover in nearby. At least they serve as pretty decoration.

Imagine my surprise when this beautiful, sexy woman starts complaining to me about how Israeli women dress. I had already heard the whispers of surprise and masked disgust from the other women in the group when we arrived to the place. I could tell they couldn't believe how short were the... ahem, shorts that most women wore. So when my company starts complaining about "why all women are dressed like bitches", I am more surprised of her bringing up the topic to me, than about her opinion.

Carrying on a conversation in a crowded discotheque with music blasting from all corners is not the easiest thing I've done before, but with carefully planned, well placed ear-yelling, it can be done.

In short, she was pretty upset at women dressing "so sexually", to the point where they seem to be little more than "sex objects." To that, I could only explain that it is a cultural thing. If people were raised in a nudist colony, they wouldn't think anything strange about being naked. It is that same reasoning why Israeli girls don't think twice about dressing "like any other female", regardless of how much skin is shown.

And here is where she changes her complaints to talk about herself (which lead to the aforementioned phrase in the title). Apparently this female was pretty mad at having to dress so sexy, that there's little left to the imagination of others. That in order to fit in, she felt she had to sexualise herself.

I wasn't going to argue with her there, she was completely right. Though, I thought to myself, it would be a terrible loss for all of mankind if women were to start hiding their beauty from others. I fully agreed with her, except that, rather than have women revert to hiding their beautiful curves, I would have preferred if men would start dressing more sexy. The idea of fashion for men are baggy pants, huge hoodies, and pretty much everything that you can put on top of yourself to hide your bulging tummy. Contrast this to female fashion, where any ounce of extra fat is going to be disproportionally exposed if you follow the latest trends. Something is not quite fair here, isn't it?

I understand that we don't want male and female fashion being the same, but I feel like the current status quo is too biased towards men.

Though, maybe, with enough understanding of the social norms that bind us, we may one day be freed from them. And that is the purpose of this journal entry. Simply to give others something to think about, something that you might have already accepted as normal, but which might not be the optimal choice when placed under logical scrutiny.

So, a few days ago I found out that my friend's boyfriend has been dating multiple women at a time over the last few years. He used the nefarious "one mate per city" method to keep them separated, but one of her exes did her research job and managed to contact my friend to tell her about it (through me, which is how I know the story).

This normally wouldn't surprise me too much. It isn't the first time I heard of "cheating-bastards" (as I affectionately call them), just a couple of weeks ago another of my friends caught her boyfriend cheating with somebody else. However, this was slightly different, because the guy in question didn't strike me at all as a player, he actually seemed like a decent, normal, even kind of innocent, type of guy. I used to be friends with him (in fact, I introduced them to each other, and they started going out the next day).

These recent events got me thinking on just how often men cheat. It's almost like it is impossible for them to remain faithful to a single partner. Speaking with my best friend about these thoughts, she remarked that women tend to be pretty unfaithful too; they are just much more skilled at hiding it.

So that got me thinking about some social psychology theories that state that humans aren't really meant to be monogamous at all, we are just trying to coerce ourselves into it due to social standards (which were established by the religions we all love to hate nowadays). Many people who practice polyamory have used similar statements, along the lines that humans aren't meant to be monogamous anyway.

I could start talking about how, maybe, the only real winners here are people who are in open relationships / polyamory, and how everybody else who attempts monogamy is just deluding themselves. But as my best friend put it, that kind of statement would just make it look like I am looking for excuses to cheat.

Perhaps, it is true that the majority of people just can't resist temptation. Due to hormones, lust, and/or lack of self-control. We are expected to be above our instincts (for instance, we should refrain from giving in to violent impulses), it is supposed to be what tells us apart from animals. Or is it just presumptuous to try and make such a separation? Maybe we are just animals pretending to be better than that, but unwilling to admit when we fail at it.

Granted, I know that some people are good at being monogamous. People who have good control over their emotions, people who know how to overcome their impulses. But I feel like this is a vast minority, low enough that there's no point in trying to present them as the norm.

If so, it naturally follows that for the majority of people, there will be much cheating, backstabbing, and unfaithful relationships throughout their lives, unless they accept the nature of the beast (and stop demanding a closed, monogamous relationship), or they both reach a level of self-control in which temptation is a thing of the past.

I wonder which of the two is more likely to be easier. I just know that, for the time being, and for the time to come, change is unlikely, and I'll continue to see most couples around me suffer through these things. Such a warming thought, isn't it?

Just a pointless entry (as far as my entries go) to remark on the fact that yesterday I bumped into the profile of a lady with whom I had 99% match, out of ~700 common questions.

We also had 12% enemy, which seems very strange. How can the enemy rating be so high when the match rating is 99%? Maybe we broke OkCupid's algorithm. For the record, it didn't seem we were that compatible from what I read in her profile, but it also didn't seem like we would naturally detest each another or anything :P

Maybe this is yet another sign from fate telling me I should move to Canada... hmm

This is a subject I've been thinking about in the few past weeks. Have you ever noticed the range of effect that society has on what we consider "normal"? Social norms are all those things expected from those who are part of society, you could say they are what constitute normal, expected behaviour. However, these "normal" behaviours may seem very inconsistent or unnatural when analysed from an external point of view.

This became painfully obvious to me while reading Slashdot some weeks ago, and I came across this comment:

You know what. I personally think it does say a lot by our society that it's acceptable to slaughter adolescent animals simply because we think they taste well, but if you let one of them lick your naked body it's somehow animal abuse even if the creature in question suffers no ill effects.

[...]

As it happens, I'm not actually a zoophiliac. Merely a vegan who finds it a bit twisted that we seem to consider it worse to let an animal have sex with you than it would be to kill it.

And if there was any room left for doubt, consider then one of the replies that followed:

Think of it this way:

Carefully touch a bull's testicles and derive some pleasure from it: People will flip out at what a horrible crime it is.

Take a sharp knife, slice open the scrotum, remove the testicles, bread them and saute them and call them rocky mountain oysters and eat them. People will give you money for them.

And this is but the tip of the iceberg. Social norms can make entirely unreasonable things become completely acceptable. In the US circumcision is largely an acceptable practice, but to most of the rest of world, it is just mutilation. In other parts of the world it is seen as acceptable to stone women to death for being "tempting". For something less shocking, a lot of people see smoking as completely acceptable/cool, despite the heavy publicity against it: "Cancer? Impotence? Killing everybody near you slowly? Who cares, it looks damn cool and I enjoy my nicotine fix!"

I recall recently reading a comment from someone condemning men who trim/shave themselves, saying "it is acceptable for women to want to look younger. But why the hell would men want to be seen as boys?" In retrospective, I am pretty sure that someone must have complained that women shaving themselves is actually trying to look prepubescent (hey, you should have body hair if you reached puberty!) and should be condemned for appealing to paedophilia. I don't think that line of logic would get much support today, yet it is entirely logical.

The extent to which social norms dictates what should be normal is such that anybody who dares goes against them is usually labelled an outcast, a misfit or just plain crazy (unless they manage to gather a large enough group of supporters, in which case they get labelled a "fringe group" or minority).

Is there a point to mentioning all this, though? Well, perhaps it will give you something to think about, perhaps it'll make you a bit more tolerant of others. After all, it isn't always wrong to not comply with the norms, it is just "different", but definitely not innately wrong (at least from a logical/natural point of view).

In my favourite series of books, the author teases us with an alternate universe in which the nation of focus lives under a very simple precept: "love as thou wilt." 

It isn't so different from Christianity, I'd dare say it was directly inspired by it. But what if Jesus's legacy hadn't been such a complicated set of beliefs and rules (not surprisingly, this isn't his fault, but that of his followers), but rather a very simple, inspired phrase asking us to be honest to our feelings, to love life and ourselves without reservations?

Often my friends, or myself, are faced with difficult romantic situations where someone is going to get hurt. Sometimes we do our best to avoid following our heart's desires because we fear the consequences. Whenever I go through these stories, it makes me wonder how different it'd be if... not just us, but everybody around us, would learn to accept the way we feel and the passions that consume us.

It took humanity a few centuries to get over the taboo of enjoying sex (I'd dare say we aren't completely through with that yet). How much longer will it take for us to get over the taboo of being honest to our feelings?

Should it really be so surprising and shocking when you develop feelings for another? Even when they (or you) are committed to someone else? What if the feeling is mutual? Why do we impose so many restrictions upon love? You may be physically bound to someone else, but if your heart already belongs to another, why make a big hassle of it? We know love is mostly blind. Is that reason enough to put a leash on our feelings and force ourselves to fit in to expectations?

There are those who fear this freedom. They believe the world would succumb to anarchy, chaos. That somehow, emotions without control would destroy us. I do not really agree. Love, in its purest form, seeks to harm nobody. The harm comes from feelings of insecurity, jealousy, anger, none of which really belong to a loving relationship.

Perhaps, until we learn to dominate the dark side of our emotions, we can't let our love flourish freely. But then, who can guarantee that the reason our dark side is so strong isn't exactly because we've been keeping our loves, our passions, on a leash?

If love heals, then what happens when you repress it?

I've always been keenly aware that despite how much anti-smoking propaganda we have, there seems to always be a part of the younger populace that will still go for it. What if it kills you? What if it causes cancer and/or impotence? You only live once anyway, and it's socially seen as absolutely cool.

On a book I recently finished, it was mentioned that tobacco is amongst the substances that will give you the worst taste. And I am not talking about kissing, I am talking about oral sex. If the sexual education curriculum would teach young adolescents that smoking would give them a bitter taste, and most likely discourage their partners from performing oral on them, would that be a much better way to prevent people from going into smoking?

Maybe, maybe not. Other substances on the list of "gives you a bitter, awful taste" are caffeine, booze and cocaine... two of which are unlikely to be easily given up for the sake of a tastier sexual life.

Just a thought for the day.

The gods and goddesses are personifications of the powers of nature; or perhaps one should say, of super-nature, the powers which govern and bring forth the life of our world, both manifest and hidden. In other words, we live upon a plane of forms, superior to which is a plane of forces, upon which the gods move, because by personifying those forces to ourselves as gods we can establish a relationship with them.

This quote, from Doreen Valiente, neatly sums up a concept which I just haven't given too much thought to in the past: that of "what is God." I found the excerpt so wise and insightful that I was immediately compelled to store it somewhere for future reference.

And thus, it was done.

Because attempting to navigate my journal in chronological order makes as much sense as reading a book out of order, I decided to write a small index for it (mostly because my profile no longer has links to all the important entries).

Though it's beyond me who would ever use this, I suppose it helps to keep things in order around here.

General

Friendship (May 2008)
Lots of people often mention how important friendship is, but do they really follow their words through?

My Profile (long version) (February 2009)
The previous version of my profile, pretty long (and it reveals some things that my current profile does not)

Comments on my 'personality awards' (April 2008)
As title states (I left comments for badges that I no longer have since they are still valid)

Love / Dating

My (stolen) view on what love is. (March 2008)
A summary of my view of love, from the psychological point of view of Walter Riso

It looks like it's time for a date... (November 2008)
Musings on the most popular subject in OkC: dating.

(My) Dating guidelines and deal-breakers.
A summary of the previous post, since, as usual, it was way too long.

Love as thou wilt (August 2010)
What it'd be like if we could love freely, without reserve, without social constraints?

The nature of the beast (June 2011)
Temptation, cheating, unfaithfulness. These are all such common traits among humans that it makes me wonder if it's even worth it trying to overcome such basic instincts.

Religion / Spirituality

Spirituality: Another alternative to 42. (May 2008)
An extensive summary of my religious belief system, that which I call Spirituality.

A summary of my religion, spirituality. (May 2008)
A summary of the previous post, since, as usual, it was way too long.

Why I believe in what I believe. (May 2008)
Because the previous post got too many comments asking for proof, this post was required (which ironically got no replies xD)

The Modern Dark Ages (August 2009)
Thoughts regarding how today it is science which is blocking the spiritual progress of people.

Musings on faith and 42. (September 2009)
Some musings regarding the importance of faith in order to create a personal reality for each of us.

A definition of God. (January 2010)
A short excerpt from a book which wisely sums up the nature of gods.

Psychology

Having a personality mask for every occasion (August 2009)
Being yourself is not so easy when it involves a different self based on the occasion.

10 Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature (August 2009)
A Psychology Today article which feels like flaming material. Behaviour Psychology is rather messy.

Social Norms: where normal parts ways with natural (November 2010)
Some musings about the extent of control that society has over what is considered normal. Logic and natural behaviour need not apply!

"Everyone knows what my ass looks like!" (December 2011)
Some musings about the current state of culturally enforced fashion trends.

Misc

Damn addictive site. (March 2008)
My first post! Easy to guess, huh?

On beauty and bias (March 2008)
Another rant on how my appreciation for beauty is getting on the way of making friends.

Best reason to stop smoking? (July 2010)
Better sexual education leads to healthier lifestyles, who would have thought?

Fare Thee Well, Journals. (January 2012)
Most likely the epilogue to my stay in this site. Is it truly the end?

Recently I finished re-reading the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, so I was in a bit of a philosophical mood today at lunch.

In particular, I was wondering about the importance of faith in our lives. One thing that I became very aware of during my years of spiritual research is that faith was a fundamental part of the experience.

Why is the nature of the universe hidden just beyond what our senses can perceive? Why is there a need of faith to understand the nature of the soul, when it would had been a lot simpler to just have proof of it, thus eliminating every doubt and putting to rest every sceptic against the undeniable truth?

I used to think it was because the journey is as important as the destination. If at some point "the ultimate truth" became proven, people would simply be taught it, and no one would delve into the wondrous journey of the soul that it takes to arrive to the natural conclusions on your own. Much in the same way that Buddhist masters speak in riddles and send their pupils to experience the world; so must we learn by doing in order that not just our questions will be answered, but much more else will be learned along the way which is equally valuable.

However, today I had a moment of epiphany as an alternate answer struck my consciousness: the reason we need faith is in order for the truth to become more personal. Think about it... when something is proven, it becomes a sort of "universal" proof, regardless of what you, I, or anybody else has to say. This is, of course, the way science wants the world to be: a reality independent of the observer.

However, there is a slight problem with this approach: the truth becomes impersonal. It is something that simply is, and as such holds little relevance to one other than how it is imposed against our will (if at all). When there is no proof, the default position is one of doubt and curiosity. The questioner must embark in a search, part philosophical, part spiritual, to formulate and come to terms with his own answer. And in doing so, the truth that is ultimately found is no longer cold, factual and distant: it becomes personal in nature.

We can summarize this with an example. What use would it be if we could somehow prove that life is beautiful? What good it does to grow up knowing that life is beautiful if we didn't actually live ourselves to the point of learning on our own accord that it is? This is why it is important to have faith, or rather, to not have proof, as proof would take away the whole charm of doing our own research and arriving at the answer.

Finally... 42 was stated to be the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything in the Hitchhiker's series. However, such an answer makes no sense without context; without the question. The ultimate question was later revealed to be "what do you get if you multiple six by nine?" which makes no sense since 6x9 is 54, not 42. This was supposed to be yet another joke, an statement that the universe, in the end, really makes no sense.

However, it was later remarked that six times nine actually is forty-two, if you use base thirteen for the numbers. Douglas's opinion on the matter could probably be best summarized as "an insignificant coincidence that has no bearing on the grand scheme of the universe." However, spiritual minded people don't believe in such a thing as insignificant coincidences. Indeed, 42 and its accompanying question draws a very clever analogy of the real nature of life, the universe and everything: it seems to make no sense at all, unless you look at it from a new perspective not yet thought of, from which suddenly it makes perfect sense.

That we can make sense out of chaos must certainly be a sign of intelligence and enlightenment. Though some philosophers might argue the opposite: it takes a great lack of intelligence to see order where there is none.

Well, with philosophy you are quite doomed to never really know for sure.