Show: 
 
[-]
A new study finds a correlation between sex and thoughts of submissiveness to some North American women. A report in the Edmonton Journal, July 25, 2005 issue, told of a study performed by Canadian Psychologists on 250-300 North American women, college student age. In this study women were shown several strings of letters together at very quick intervals on a computer screen, some made up words, and some didn't. For example, the screen might look like the following:

s f y s o d
e o i o p i
x r n p r s
y c k e a h
e y r n e
e d s

The letters would flash across the screen with barely any time for them to register in the subjects' minds. Researchers then found that women would recognize words in a paring like "sexual" and "submit" rather than a pair that might have "sexual" and "dishes" in them. One however, has to ask, is this really indicative about how females view sex?

One has to be careful with correlational studies. Anyone that's taken psych 104/105, sociology 100, or even psych 30, will know that a correlational study, even if results are quite high, can mean very little at all in the grand scheme of things. From a philisophical stand point, even a correlational test with 100% findings, can still mean absolutely nothing. Simply, it can be a pure coincidence. Even if the test is repeated with the same results. Correlational studies do not prove a cause and effect relationship. This reminded me of a study done in Finland not too long ago, that quizzed students age 15+ about sex, and their sexual experience and then quizzed them on their cellular phone use. The correlation found here, was that a greater amount of cellular phone use led to greater sexual activity by teens, because the teens were using the phones to contact each other more, and, like the cliched and humorous Pay As You Go commericals, the general idea was that more contact due to cellular phones led more teens to "hook up" and that ended up with sexual activity. Cellular phones lead to dancing and dancing to touching, as People for Pure Living might say. Now the obvious flaw from the start here is that the explanation was coined first, before the correlational study took place. Remember, I said earlier that a correlational study does not show a cause and effect relationship. In this study they were attempting to explain something because of something else, rather than seeing if there is indeed a correlation between these things, period, and then attempting to explain what the correlation is, which is generally how a correlational study should go. The other thing left out here was the fact that other variables that could lead to increase teen contact were left out, like computers, internet, and how about general note passing? The idea here was th at students couldn't normally say what they wanted to say to each other to initiate sexual contact, but when given text messaging, could easily type, "I want to get funky with you, my 16 year old friend, from your friend, 17 year old." We all know, there's many other mediums that this can take place on. This message board, or any message board, e-mail, MSN, or a message sent with one of your good friends a la purple monkey dishwasher method could easily yeild the same results. The other problem with this study is that, while ignoring other variables that could lead to the same results, the researchers also attempted to fit two other explanations into the mix, without having any sort of scientific study to prove that those were true, mainly that increased contact between teens lead to more sexual encounters, and that teens could not normally say what they wanted to initiate contact with each other unless done by some sort of other medium like text messaging or e-mail. Now to some people it may seem like obvious stuff that an increase in contact between people is going to yield more sexual results in some cases, but it does require a scientific study or research to prove this point. It can't simply be taken a posteriori, or, to be something that we already know for sure as general knowledge.

Now what does this have to do with the sex and submissiveness test? Well the test has some fatal flaws as well. First of all, the sample selection of subjects was college students who volunteered to be subjects in research. Immediately ignored here is a few variables:
-Many age groups and other socioeconomic groups were ignored. 300 college aged girls focuses on a very specific age group, social group, and economic group of north america.
-These girls volunteered to take part in the study. Maybe this is already a sign of submissiveness?
-Other cultures were ignored entirely. How about, for example, a culture that was a generally matriarchal (women-ruled) society? Or how about a generally gender equal society? Given that the roll of men and women are different, there are some cultures that, although giving very specific roles to both men and women, do not make a distinction between these roles, i.e. one role would not be more important or distinguished than the other. Everyone just does what they need to do to get along. This is completely ignored.
-In many universities, like the U of A, first year students are given a chance to up their grade by participating in 4th year or grad student research projects. In many cases, first year students are the only ones that would be allowed to participate in these projects. First year psycology (or university in that matter) students are generally 17-19 years of age. This further limits the demographic represented.

As you can see, the test doesn't serve to analyze itself against some tough questions, for example, what if 18 year old 1st year college students in this certain socioeconomic demographic are simply submissive, or find sex submissive, wheras a 21 year old college going female has already grown out of that belief, or anyone outside the demographic doesn't link sex to submissiveness, and perhaps never has? What if words that imply submissiveness or sexuality simply stand out more because of their shock value, which is why students might indeed comprehend "rape" and "naked" quicker than "oven" or "watch" because the first two deal with reactions or brain functions more instintual and basic rather than reflective? And what of males? Perhaps a frighteningly large, perhaps even a larger rate of males link sex to submissiveness?

Generally what this study does poorly, is ignore many other factors and confused variables here that might lead to a link between sexuality and submissiveness in females, while the demographic and sample group is so small, that it really doesn't serve to validate the entire argument that "females link sex to submissiveness" rather "females age 17-19 in first year college that volunteer for research projects, and are generally well off because they can afford to go to college, as well, are from a specific social group in north america that values college as an important lifestyle choice, somewhat link sex to submissiveness in a specific correlational study."

From a sociological commentary point of view, I think it's safe to say that, if there is a correlation, it's most likely do to sociological factors. For example, used in the Journal's report was the cliche, "not tonight honey, I have a headache." If this is such a cliche, then we're automatically telling a generation of females that sex is pain/causes pain, and is forced on a woman by a man. Tell people something enough, and they may start to believe it, and if people believe that's the way the world is supposed to work, they will naturally fall into those perscribed roles as in a self fulfilling prophecy. It's only recently that other factors, like telivision shows such as Sex and the City, have shown that females can take what's been a classic Male role in our society regarding sex. The idea that women have sex for their own pleasure, and can be pleasure seekers themselves has long been a social moray. Women that used to like to have sex for fun were called Sluts, while guys that did the same were known as "playboys" and later "players" and it was seen as a good thing, whereas in women it was seen as a bad thing. Only recently has the tables turned, where it's more acceptable for a woman to freely enjoy her sexuality, where as a player for a man is becoming almost a derogetory term, as if they are the male "sluts." However, if you look around you, this is still only probably a 50/50 or even less distribution of new acceptable sexual revolution type thinking, wheras if you look around you, some people are probably still calling the woman who I only know as "the blonde chick from Sex and the City who sleeps with every guy she meets" a total Slut, and are congratulating their male friends on a job well done scoring that last touchdown and then humping the entire cheer team right on the field.

Generally I feel that in the future, with the current trend, sex will become more acceptable not just for females, but for everyone, where sex will become a general degenerate activity, and people will go "what used to happen to our values?" and so many interracial couples will exist that eventually barring gene mutation we will become one very similar looking species known by Bad Religion as "the grey race." I'd like to see the correlational study for that one. Think this is a little wacky? Well I failed to ignore one factor in my own correlational musings here; the sensationalist and sometimes factually distorted way of representing things in the media. The journal published this article on the front page of their health & body section with a provocative picture of a young couple, the woman sitting up with no shirt on, the outline of her breasts visable, undone low riding pants and messed hair, her partner laying on the bed, still clothed, smiling up at her. The strange image, however, does not indicate any sense of submissiveness in its representation, however almost indicates a calm artistic view of what looks to be love, maybe not even sex. But the article still recieved a blurb on the front page of the Journal to draw readers in, and towards that section. Now to ask the basic question, "Is there a link between female sexuality and submissiveness?" And then to perform a study on it, is not done generally by high paid, high credential researchers in laboratories who are paid to study this kind of thing. Instead it's generally done, as I've said before, by 4th year students or graduate students working on a thesis. They research basic social and psychological questions like these to simply earn their degree or thesis. It's generally a small scale study. 300 college students could easily all come from the university of alberta over 1 year (2 semesters) of psychology 104 classes. A very limited demographic indeed. The test may be fairly simple, due to the fact it must be easy and not too terribly time consuming for the sake of the subjects who volunteered, and for the sake of time in achieving results. No one wants to be working on their thesis for 10 years. Try more like 2. The other thing is generally what I've mentioned above is taken into account by the researcher and published in the analysis of the study for the defense of their thesis. Done generally to say, "I failed to take into account these things in my study, but we are one step closer to showing this correlation, since I did show a relation taking into account the very basic fundamentals of the idea." It's accepted that not everything was taken into account when working on the study, because that would simply take too long, be extremely difficult to do, to simply earn a degree. Think of your thesis as the large final exam to finish out your degree. Would you expect to have to fly to several different parts of the country, interviewing thousands of people from all walks of life, in all ages and economic groups, and spending years designing the perfect test, performing several other tests just to ensure that your design in even the most basic of testing methods isn't flawed? It would be a tremendous waste of funds and resources. The newspaper doesn't give this background, because it would be a tremendous waste of paper to print all of that. To include that a lot of papers exist to make money, not simply report the news, would be stupid, and then saying that a newspaper article writer also simply has to go out and find something interesting to report on to make some headlines and sell some copies, and however they do this is generally accepted, isn't going to be something you're informed of either. But that's the way it goes generally. So what you end up with is a short article with a large provocative picture on some student's 4th year research project among others that probably will never be read, except for other 4th year students working on a similar project. The news has a perogative to report poorly done correlational studies like that, without indicating all the confounding variables, or even saying that it was done by some 4th year student just trying to earn his/her degree. Because no one wants to read the study that's the size of a thesis (up to or more than 200 pages of this kind of figuring). In fact for most of you this was already way too much to read. Some of you will undoubtedly reply with "that's way to (yeah you'll probably spell that wrong) fucken (you'll probably spell that wrong too) long to read." because lets face it, you're a chump who'd rather watch a short porno and jerk off than learn something. And I don't have to worry about insulting you here, because you'll never read it. For the rest of you, consider yourself at least better informed on news reporting tactics and correlational studies that somehow reveal a wealth of information about stuff we already knew.
 
Comments (0) | Report | Top
+1 
this
+0
 


[-]
The Mod's Perspective
Comments (0)
05:48pm | Jun 11, '05 | Public | Life
There are 392,547 users registered on this site. Sometimes there can be up to 12,000 or more online at once. If we were a city, we'd have enough people to be Miami, or Halifax. We have more users than Victoria, Regina or Saskatoon has residence.

In Miami, there's the Miami-Dade police force, that keeps the peace. Here we have the Nexopia Moderators. And if you think it's a lovely, glorified and easy position it's not.

The moderator spends a lot of his or her time making sure that people who actually want to post in a specific forum are free from verbal abuse, whether that be name calling of a sexual or racial nature, or otherwise. We're the cops and the judge all in one because then we have to come up with an appropriate punishment for the crime. That punishment isn't arbitrary either. It is scrutinized by other moderators and the administration. We play parole officers and judges again when users state their case to us, and we decide to let them come back to the forum. Sometimes users swear at us, call us names, and use derogatory terms towards us, sometimes even racist. And we have to accept that. It's part of the job.

We as mods also play garbage men. Imagine if Miami had no garbage service and the garbage piled up on the road until you couldn't get to where you needed to go. Well we as mods clean up garbage posts and threads so that the people who use certain forums can easily find what they want to talk about, instead of wading through pages of spam, or reading posts about things totally unrelated.

We break up fights. We keep people safe from being verbally attacked. We make it easy for people who like to use the forums to talk about what they want to talk about, and express their opinion without hurting anyone or being hurt themselves. And we do it all for free. We don't always like doing it. But we are always there for the users, who are like citizens, to make the site experience enjoyable. So think about that the next time you think that being a mod might be a privalege. It's a duty that carries a lot of responsibilities, and doesn't come with perks. The only perk? Knowing that you're making a different and allowing those many users to enjoy the site that they love. That is what makes the job rewarding.
 
Comments (0) | Report | Top
+1 
this
+0
 


[-]
Complete Canon Presents:
Comments (1)
12:21am | Apr 03, '05 | Public
The Complete Canon[/color][/size]
Presents:
The Formidable Directors Of Our Time[/color][/size]

Contemporary film directors and their art.
By Ryan Williams

Film emerged at the turn of the 20th century. However, now in the 21st century it's time to explore who exactly is continuing the art of movie making and not simply just producing for the sake of money. This particular publication will explore current contemporary avante guard directors and future prospects in the art.

1. Francis Ford Coppola - This director, obviously notable for releasing the godfather trilogy did more than just be the only director currently contemporary and living to be on the sights and sounds top 10 list; albeit for something he made in 1972. He became more experimental with releases like Natural Born Killers, in which he comissioned Trent Reznor to score the entire movie. The film, unlike the Godfather, included many different directorial styles, and aesthetic images. Such as the sitcom telivision styled scene starring Rodney Dangerfield as the perverted father, or the driving scenes which were obviously purposely filmed against a backdrop to pay homage to the 50's hollywood aesthetic. Coppola was schooled in film school, and learned most of the different aesthetic techniques from different periods, pioneering directors and cultures in film. This allowed him a large base of information to draw upon when crafting his own art.

2. Martin Scorcese - You might remember Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or Bringing Out the Dead. Then again you might remember SharkTale, in which Scorcese actually did the voice for the greasy puffer fish character. Funny how in the movie, Robert Deniro is the boss of Martin, whereas in real life Martin gave Robert a start in acting in Taxi Driver at the young age of 26. Along with a young Cybil Sheapard, a long haired Harvy Keitel, Al Brooks, and an "eleventeen year old" Jody Foster, Scorcese pioneered a new genere of film, as well an aesthetic feature that was all his own. His movies pushed the boundries of violence, sex, and swearing. Obviously a fan of realism in film, he cranked out hit after hit, while shocking critics and audiences alike. In his later years, he has become less violent, perhaps watered down, but his films still haven't lost their film-noir esque aesthetic. Bringing Out The Dead, released in 1999, did not center around violence, however it most certainly was as nearly a rerelease of taxi driver as they come. Instead of a taxi driver, it's an ambulance driver. He saves someone but ultimately the person he makes life better for is himself. And it all takes place in a dirtier than dirty new york underbelly. Usually it's horrible for an artist to repeat himself, but when you're Martin Scorcese, you don't make a bad film. You might make a film that not everyone enjoyes, true enough. But that's not the point of art is it? That's hollywood film as a product, not film as an art.

3. Quentin Tarantino - This man studied both Scorcese's and Coppola's work to create a new type of film making, that has proved to be very popular. It's true, Tarantino has seemed to lean more towards the gore side of production. Much blood has been spilled in Tarantino films. But the stories are always very original and told in an orignal way. Scenes are in mismatched order; aesthetic focuses change. However, there are some things that are always a part of Tarantino's work.
a) he's always in his own film
b) plenty of rockabilly dress, old musclecars, surf music, guns and swords
c) a strange affinity for violence and humor mated together. For example how many of you laughed when marvin got shot in the face in pulp fiction?
Tarantino's latest work, Kill Bill, almost pays homage to his former movies and influences. Imagine the "Fox Force 5" pilot as kill bill, in pulp fiction, and imagine that samurai sword that bruce willis kills one of the perverts with made it's way into another almost comic-book type tale with aesthetics borrowed from scorcese, akira kurosowa, and others. Not only did Tarantino have the opportunity to learn from his directors but he actually had the opportunity to work with some of them as well. He has a notable writing credit for the screenplay of Natural Born Killers, as well many of the movies he directed he also wrote. Most people don't realize that when they're watching the movies, up until kill bill, that there was a distinct japanese influence in his directing. Not only that, but he actually assited in filmography in several Japanese productions.

4. Sophia Copolla - The protoge and daughter of the amazing Francis Ford Copolla, probably wrote and directed one of the most notable films in the last 30 years, Lost In Translation. The film, starring Bill Murray, pays a direct homage to Ozu's early works, specifically tokyo story in the way the story is told, captured and filmed. Sophia first became a household name with her debut film The Virgin Suicides. The film was a favorite of many troubled teen girls, but she would follow in her father's footsteps until finally she surpassed some of his works with her own critically acclaimed Lost In Translation. The film lost oscars to Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings, however, anyone that knows anything about film, knows the total farce of the situation. Titanic, Lord Of The Rings, etc. may be epic films, but a bunch of computer animation can never replace originality, and a perfect form. Look for big things from Sophia in the future.

5. George Lucas - Try to imagine the genre of space and sci fi film without George Lucas. It's true, some of the Star Wars chapters weren't the best, but Lucas redefined action and space movies. Not to mention the great adventure that led to lara croft being so popular; Indiana Jones. Lucas also just about singlehandedly pioneered the teen movie craze by featuring a young richard dryfuss, ron howard, and harrison ford in American Grafitti. Mr. Ford drove a black '55 chevy, which was actually the same car used two years prior in two lane blacktop, a b movie that incorporated ingmar bergman-esque metafilm aesthetics featuring James Taylor and Warren Oates. If you ever wanted to hear an adult contemporary folk singer call someone a "motherfucker," the movie is worth it's weight. I'm sure Lucas saw the movie, saw the car, recognized the ingmar bergman reference, and snatched the car up for his teenage romp film. It's been said that Lucas is the largest rip off artist in all of film; that attending film school in berkeley, and watching such films as Leni Rheifenstahl's triumph of the will, and John Ford's Rio Grande and other westerns. Back then much was going on in the film industry. Lucas started his career in the mid 60's. By that time both Ford and John Wayne had made 100 films. However, throughout the 30's films were much shorter.

6. Wes Craven - I know what you're thinking; the director of the scream trilogy? Yes, in fact Craven almost pioneered the silly yet thrilling genre of "the big boobed teenage girl gets stabbed" horror film. Craven started directing horror films in 1971, probably the most recognizable in his early career would be nightmare on elm street, which came out in 1984. Amazingly Wes Craven has a masters in psychology and literature, so he should know a thing or two about the human mind and what scares it. Not a student of film in the least, but sometimes that's a good thing. Not only did Wes work with master Kiyoshi Kurosowa in the Japanese horror segment, but they had a film turned down by mirimax for production, because apparently it was too similar to the ring, which got first choice.

7. Sam Raimi - Speaking of the ring, the Japanese makers of that movie also released The Grudge, remade in the USA as a Raimi production. Sam will always be infamous as the director of the Evil Dead series of movies, but after going from silly horror, started making films of epic proportions when he directed Spiderman and Spiderman 2, also Spiderman 3 which is slated for a 2007 release.

8. Kevin Smith - Originally the spiderman script was written by Kevin Smith. However Smith never crossed Raimi's path. As you might know from the DVD release "An Evening With Kevin Smith," you would know that his script was subsequently turned down. Kevin started for the love of the art, not to make money in hollywood. His first film was shot after he had taken out several credit cards and maxed them out. Clerks, a longstanding underground favorite is completely in black and white, while mallrats, and chasing amy established the careers of Ben Affleck and Jason Lee, among others. Smith doesn't get much directorial work, he's more of a producer or writer, but when he has the chance to sit in the chair, he's produced some of the best film-as-art creations of all time.

These days it's not easy to find a director that does it purely for the art or was schooled in aesthetic technique. The above directors rarely stray from their inspired technique, and truly make films as an expression of themselves, which is difficult to say of most moviemakers these days. Remember, there will always be more, and if you find one you like, make it part of your Canon.
 
Comments (1) | Report | Top

[-]
yeah so
Comments (0)
07:05am | Nov 03, '04 | Public
all the real good entries are in my livejournal
 
Comments (0) | Report | Top

[-]
Canada Day for Canadians?
Comments (0)
08:33pm | Jul 01, '04 | Public | News
Today is July 1st. In the city of Edmonton alone, citizens will take in no less than 16 different major events to commemorate the birthday of our country. Six of those alone are expensive-to-put-on fireworks shows.

But I think it's time to ask ourselves what are we really celebrating? How about the lowsest voter turn out in over 100 years? How about the fact that over 1/3 of people who did vote changed their minds at the last minute; proving that silly scare tactics by media and campaigns actually work on the weak minds of 22% of our population.

Canada day is meant to commemorate the ways in which we became a free country; free to choose, free to select our leaders, to decide what's best for us as citizens. I feel like this right should have been taken away from us this year, due to our poor political behaviour. It's clear now that most of the people of this country are either frightened or apathetic to the point that they can't take a second to do a little research and participate to the full extent that our political system provides.

Let me use an example here. Many people were said to have voted liberal due to being frightened by the provincial conservatives policy on healthcare. They were scared that perhaps the federal liberals would take the same policies and destroy public healthcare in Canada; a feature of our country that makes us one of the best in the world. However, a lot of people may have voted on a whim, hearing this in a brief 10 second clip of news, or perhaps even from a friend, never actually picking up a news paper or reading thoroughly political party literature that was being distributed. As a result, these people have been found horribly wrong after the fact. It seems that a report in the July 1st Edmonton Journal shows that Alberta's healthcare system is second to none in the country, and that Klein's reforms would mean several millions more to our healthcare system.

Now I am not speaking from a liberal or conservative standpoint. I am not stating here that I'm for or against any liberal, conservative, or even kleins policies on healthcare or any other issue. I'm not saying that people who did vote either voted right or wrong; simply that they voted poorly. That many did not exersize the proper right to vote that we have in this country, and those who did, did not invest proper time or energy in becoming educated about the election.

I ask myself why people of this country are so afraid to take a risk or a chance? It's no secret that many news services stated that Ontario voted liberal because they were afraid of the conservatives. How can you be afraid of a political party? If you were involved you'd know that it's YOU who has the say in what happens to this country, no matter who is in power, it's supposed to be the citizens that decide, no matter what the representation. But I believe our apathetic, ignorant or easily-frightened and swayed public has forgotten this. That it's us who are in command of this country, and that's what makes it so great, and that's what we celebrate every July 1st.

But when it all comes down to it, a country is only as good as it's citizens are. And right now I'm fairly disappointed with ours, which gives me little reason to support our country right now, and little reason to praise Canada (or at least Canadians) this Canada Day.
 
Comments (0) | Report | Top
+1 
this
+0
 


[-]
Growing Up
Comments (0)
05:49pm | Jun 13, '04 | Public | Life
I'm typing this at 11:32 am on a sunday at work. My office Job. The Job I have to wear a suit to. I worry about people catching me online not because I might be reprimanded by a systems administrator and lose my computer account (boohoo high school) but that I could lose my job.

My credit card came in the mail the other day, and I used it to pay for repairs to my car, so I could get the air miles. I had to take my car in rather than work on it myself because "I simply don't have the time" to work on it myself.

I get up early on my day off because I have many errands to run.

I stay in on a saturday night because I want to be rested up for an important event the next day.

I have an ex girlfriend that seems more like an ex wife. When we broke up we had to split up things we bought together.

These are indeed the signs of growing up. I'm going to the bank to make bill payments. I'm going in to Tip Top to have my dress pants alterations finished. About the only thing I haven't done is picked up my kids from swimming lessons and hockey tournaments (no kids yet - I think).

I also recently quit my job teaching swimming. This job encouraged me to act younger than I was. I used to watch cartoons and collect hotwheels probably until I was about 19. Actually, that's not true; sometimes I still do watch cartoons and purchase hotwheels. But now the toy cars I order are "collectables" that come out of a quarterly catalogue, and shouldn't be removed from their box lest they lose their value.

Relationships have turned quite a bit different as well. For a long time it was; you liked someone, you asked them out, you were going out. They didn't like you, they told you so, you didn't continue to spend time with them. Now it's stipulations, rules of the game, people affraid to go on a date because they're afraid to commit, they've been hurt before, you remind them of a past relationship, etc, etc. It used to be; you either like me or don't like me. Now it's "I can't kiss you because I'm afraid you'll call me the next day, and I can't commit because you're the kind of person I might want to date one day."

So what do I do to shed this feeling that I'm just growing up all too fast. No longer am I at that naive new to the world of responsibility and dating phase where everything is the best or worst I've ever felt. Now things are "wasn't that bad" or "could have been better." So we as adults find new ways to continue to experience life in as many ways as possible.

When I'm old I'm going to think back to when I was 21. I'm not going to think about wearing a suit, in an office, with a credit card. I'm going to think about the time I sawed the muffler off my car, the time we stole flowers from a graveyard to give to my friend's girlfriend, or the time we packed the van and drove to vegas for a weekend without booking a hotel room. I'm going to think about how we were chickenfighting in the parking lot of brewsters and I fell flat on my face. I'm going to think about the time we got high on Dawn's front lawn and went into her garage only to make up the concept of "box boy" and then fooled our friend who wasn't there with us that there was an actual person we knew named box boy. I'm going to attempt to remember every girl whose breast I was forced to grab by one of my stronger and stupider male friends.

It's exciting to grow up, take on more responsibility, and become societally the definition of adult. But that's not your life. Your life are all those things I mentioned that happen between the times in the suit, in the office, in the bank. You may have to grow up for these things, but for all the times in between, stay as young as you like. Fuckers.
 
Comments (0) | Report | Top
+1 
this
+0
 


[-]
The Complete Canon
Comments (0)
04:20am | May 08, '04 | Public
The Complete Canon[/size][/color]
Issue 1: May 7, 2004

About The Canon[/u]
A Canon, in most senses of the term, is "a criterion." In the sense of films, literary works and music, I'm sure you can assume how the term is applied. Think of The Criterion Collection of films on DVD. It is somewhat become a term to say; this is an unwritten law that these works must be viewed as they are the absolute creme de la creme of work in this specific area. My Canon is somewhat different. These are works that are my favorites (although not everything that is a favorite of mine is on here) that I feel in some way that there definately should be a canon law saying "you must watch this or you must listen to this because you'll be better for it." All these works I think are especially important in some way, and I've listed the reasons that they are. I've been enlightened by all of them. Now, I tried to leave off really obvious ones. You should, of course, listen to Nirvana, watch Kubrick and read Dickens. But none of these things really hold much personal value to me. Like I said, some of these may be classics, some may be obscure, but they all have personal value in that I'd probably list them in my top 10 in each genre. So read, watch, listen, and enjoy! It should be noted that this Canon will be amended from time to time as I take in new stuff, and become resentful of old stuff. These lists are also based on the idea of auterism therefore other works from the artists mentioned should be explored. I can't guarantee they'll all be good, however. Although the lists are numbered, this does not imply a ranking.

List of Terms/Background Information[/color][/u]
There are a few terms you're going to need to know to understand the Canon.
Jump The Shark[/b]: Something "Jumps the Shark" when it has reached its maximum potential. Once something, like a telivision show, has Jumped the Shark, it declines steadily thereafter.
Aesthetic[/b]: How something looks, in film language, the way something is put together. Angles of shots, and sequences (eg montage vs. long takes) are all part of the directorial aesthetic of a film.
Auterism[/b]: The author of a film is generally seen as the director. Auterism is judging an author by the works they make in their career. This can also be true for books, and audio recordings too.
American Hollywood System[/b]: The American film industry is generally about making movies for profit rather than having them contain any artistic merit. This actually started in the 40's when the major film studios (The big 5 and the little 3) used horizontal integration to control the means of production and drive small production companies and small venues out of business. Even if you made a smaller budget art film there was no where to have it shown. Anti trust laws broke this up in the 50's, around the time Film Nior begain. However, the generally mentality still exists. Warner Brothers is amalgamated with the Coca Cola corporation. Like Alfred P. Sloan said in the 30's about GM, "We're not in this business to make cars, We're in this business to make money."

Films[/size][/color]

The art of film began when the Lumiere brothers first invented their 50 second combination camera and projector in the late 1800's. From that point on it became not just a form of entertainment, a product or a media source, but an institution. Most of these films are examples of film as an art or source of entertainment, not as a product of a distinctly American Hollywood system that generally exists to profit from films, therefore films are created as a product, rather than art.

1.High Fidelity: 2000, Stephen Frears Director[/i]
Based on a novel by Nick Hornby, this film explores the realm of canonism. Relationship success is measured by how well you get along, which is based on "what you like" not "what you are like." It's brilliantly funny with much of the humor supplied by Jack Black, and the story is melencholy yet with resolve. Frears also Directed Cusack in The Grifters in 1990. Strangely enough the book is set in England, as Hornby is an English writer. In addition to this Frears is an Englishman himself. However, unfortunately High Fidelity has been Americanized probably to increase sales. This is something that luckily wasn't done in About A Boy, also written by Hornby. However, what was lost in translation from the book to the film was inconsequential. The book does seem to become quite long winded, and it seems that although the film had the setting moved to Chicago, and our character's name was Rob Gordon as opposed to Rob Fleming, this has very little bearing on the film's general message and story. It actually flows much nicer due to the evil Hollywood editing process.

2.Bringing Out The Dead: 1999, Martin Scorsese Director[/i]
Although Raging Bull, and Taxi Driver, are absolutely stunning movies, this Scorsese film seems to have a much more subtle tone to it. It still has the classic Scorsese characteristics. There is the lone main character (In this case Nick Cage) battling with internal struggles and is set in the dark New York underbelly. However, unlike Scorsese's other movies which usually result in the main character's eventual self destruction, Cage finds salvation and resolution to his problems and internal struggle with the daughter of a patient, played by Patricia Arquette who is ironically Cage's wife.

3.Natural Born Killers: 1994, Oliver Stone Director[/i]
With a writing credit by Quentin Tarantino, this movie exemplifies some of the major problems with American society. In a not so straightforward way it makes commentary on the media, specifically telivision, as a desensitization and sensationalization tool. The fact that we come to identify with and justify our protagonists' actions and the fact that they are two serial killers shows that we are also all basically evil deep down. This film uses a lot of technical exploration in the way some of the scenes are laid out and shot, and a soundtrack entirely by Trent Reznor flows with the scenery perfectly.

4.Lost In Translation: 2003, Sofia Coppola Director[/i]
Sofia Coppola is an example of a second wave of Hollywood avante garde film directors. These are directors that have studied a great deal on film as an art. Her father, Francis Ford Coppola, at the inception of The Godfather was considered to be part of the first generation of these film school saavy directors. It's obvious that Sofia has learned a lot from her father. I would go so far as to say this is her first real film, and done spectacularly. Although 1999's The Virgin Suicides did recieve some attention, I see it as more the warm up or practice video, perhaps a failed attempt at what Lost In Translation had become. Sofia writes, produces and directs her movies herself. Why is this movie important though? The story is sweet, albeit somewhat uneventful. What's funny is that although this is an American movie, about Americans in Japan, this movie is aesthetically quite Japanese. Bill Murray deals with an internal struggle about adapting to a changing world while he is somewhat left behind. As well, a lot of unconventional angled shots are used. These are both reminiscent of Yasujiro Ozu's 1953 feature Tokyo Monogatari or more commonly known as Tokyo Story. Although this film uses a lot of the same cues, it's not a blatant rip off, merely influenced by the Ozu aesthetic. This solidifies this film as more than just a product, but a work of art, and ensures that Sofia Coppola is known as an actual film director, not just a hollywood director who can get shots and have them assembled in something making enough sense to be shown on a big screen for $11.00 at the local Ciniplex.

5.Bullitt: 1968, Peter Yates Director[/i]
Although the genre of Cop movies may have started somewhere back in the film noir era, modern police movies started here. We have a middle aged police detective, pushing the boundries of what's acceptable. There is also the standard and quite small backstory of a love interest, and the struggle between solving the case and putting your life in grave danger. Although Grand Prix with James Garner was made a year before, it's been widely accepted that the first real car chase, between Steve's 1968 Mustang GT and the infamous Dodge Charger R/T was and is the original cop car chase. And it's still the best.

6.The Great Escape: 1963, John Sturges Director[/i]
Mr.Sturges is the pinnacle of Hollywood directing as a product. However, in doing this he ripped off a lot of really culturally great films. First, he remade Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai as The Magnificent Seven. This movie also starred McQueen. Ironically, Kurosawa's 1954 feature, which was regarded as the first Samauri movie, was filmed with a western aesthetic, and Kurosawa was heavily influenced by western films. After this, Sturges directed The Great Escape, although not admitted this is almost certainly somewhat of a remake of Jean Renoir's 1937 feature La Grande Illusion. Although in Sturges' film, the story turns from French officers in a German POW camp to R.A.F. officers in a German POW camp. Although Sturges may have been a copy cat, this film contains many spectacularly shot scenes, Such as McQueen jumping a fence of razor wire on an old BMW German army motorcycle. This film is also loaded with olde tyme stars. In addition to McQueen; Garner, Bronson and Coburn are also fixtures in this film. The movie is insanely long, but the story is excellent.

7.Ronin: 1998, John Frankenheimer Director[/i]
I am a firm believer that Robert De Niro should recieve a lifetime achievement award. Beside him should be Frankenheimer. If you are familiar with John's work, you will know that in 1967 he directed Grand Prix. Before this movie, car chases and driving scenes were generally filmed in front of a screen. During the filming of Grand Prix, Frankenheimer pioneered camera mounts that made filming driving sequences live-action possible. Unfortunately this seems like almost a lost art. Just about every driving movie made nowadays includes some sort of computer animated or assisted sequence. Ronin was filmed in the original Frankenheimer tradition, with all the driving, stunts and chase sequences filmed without the assistance of computers. And they're among the most amazing ever captured. Unfortunately this was his last film, with the exception of Reindeer Games With Ben Affleck in 2000, before his death in July of 2002.

8.Crash: 1996, David Cronenberg Director[/i]
A classic Cronenberg film if there ever was one. The general sexual obsession and perversion with the touch of every day societal convenience is present here, just like in Videodrome. Although I like James Woods better than anyone in Crash; I much like the story of Crash better. For anyone who has ever been in an accident the sheer horror does leave you feeling as twisted as your vehicle. The film says a lot about life and society, with the tag saying "Love in the dying moments of the twentieth century." It indicates how in north america we typically make inatimate objects become sentimental and part of our lives, like our vehicles complete our identity.This also explores the psychological realm of transferrence, as something horrific is turned sexual. The scenes are filmed in that eerie S&M perverted aesthetic that Cronenberg loves to use, and I think the more subtle and less extreme story is easier to grasp by the masses than perhaps Videodrome or Sex, Lies, and Videotape. I also like that the film is distinctly Canadian. Elias Koteas even stars. If I didn't know better I might also think that this was an Atom Egoyan film, what with the mediated and perverse sexual relationships, and of course, star of The Adjuster, Koteas.

9.The Godfather: 1972, Francis Ford Coppola Director[/i]
Probably Coppola's best film aside from Apocalypse Now, and definately deserving of an acadamy award. Coppola started directing in 1960, and is still going strong today, with his latest film Megalopolis due out this year. This film basically changed the face of Hollywood movies, which is why Coppola is considered one of Hollywood's best directors. The story is absolutely amazing, and Coppola is a master at setting up shots to elict the maximum emotion for the audience. This film is obviously a must see, even if you're not into that whole Mob/Gangster mentality.

10.Trainspotting: 1996, Danny Boyle Director[/i]
Choose a house, Choose a car, Choose dental insurance, Choose this movie. This movie, lets face it, is what made Ewan McGregor a star, and rightfully so. His performance as a recovering heroin addict is deeply moving, yet comedic at the same time. I'm not sure what exactly I like about this film, but it's always been one of my favorites and is still strangely compelling as a flick completely about drugs, more than its more modern counterparts like Go (a movie about ecstacy use) could ever be. Boyle had to be aesthetically experimental, pulling together a lot of different shots and scenes in disarray to tell the story from McGregor's point of view. I also like the fact that the story seems to be told in an uneventful manor. The work of the director here is not really known until you read Irving's original novel and see exactly what convaluted chaos Boyle had to deal with when putting this film together.

11.Velvet Goldmine: 1998, Todd Haynes Director[/i]
Long before Moulin Rouge made Ewan McGregor a singing paris playwrite, he was a 1984 trailer park glam punk-rock band frontman. For anyone who is obsessed with dear McGregor, his penis makes an apperance in this movie. But of course, that's not why I like it. Some of the numbers are a lot better and more energetic than in other music-type movies like Hard Core Logo, and the movie is aesthetically disjointed as to show the general unfocused and confusing life of a young newly made rich rockstar.

12.Fight Club: 1999, David Fincher Director[/i]
This movie is not so much as important because of any directorial aesthetic. That's not to say that Fincher isn't any sort of a good director. You might remember him working with Brad Pitt in the 1995 feature Se7en, another movie with a soundtrack by Trent Reznor. Fincher uses a lot of dark and dirty settings in his films and is fond of selecting scripts with a somewhat predictable twist at the end. However, the story is important because of it's stunning adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's book of the same title. This is in addition to Edward Norton's brilliant performance as "the narrator" the real life Tyler Durden. This movie jumps the shark for all other movies after it that deal with a mentally ill person and a plot twist around it. Perhaps Identity is one exception to the rule. I still cannot believe that 2004's Twisted starring Ashley Judd was released. Once the Schitzophrenic Multiple Personality disorder motif has been done once, it really can't be done again. The thing here is that all of Palahniuk's books read very formulaeic, exactly how this movie turns out, is the same sort of semi-predictable twist you'll find in Invisible Monsters. This formula works really well on the big screen.

13.The Cable Guy: 1996, Ben Stiller Director[/i]
I know what you're thinking, "Ben Stiller?" Yes, very much, indeed so. Stiller has directed 6 feature films (Zoolander is one of the more prominent ones) and two TV series. Although Reality Bites might be qualified by most critics as the most artful of all of these generally lacking films. But lets face it, The Cable Guy does what it's supposed to do. I believe it's Jim Carrey's best film to date. Of course, I haven't seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. This movie is generally creepy, and although it's Carrey as the star, you definately form an understanding with Matthew Broderick because Carrey is just so damned creepy! It's definately not his usual role. I find this film quite funny, albeit in an extremely dark sense. There is no special aesthetic here, but you can definitely see Stiller's personality shine through here.

14.High Strung: 1994, Robert Nygard Director[/i]
Steve Oedekirk plays Thane Furrows, a writer of children's books who is generally unhappy with his life. The entire movie takes place within his apartment, where he spends from the time he gets up to almost the time he goes to bed simply ranting about things he hates. As Oedekirk is a comic, I wouldn't be surprised if much of this is simply a comedic routine. This movie could be a stage show, or indeed a monologue at a comedy club. It's still hilarious and something you generally don't see in any film anymore. Jim Carrey stars as satan in this movie. Although this seems like a generally nothing/nobody film, Oedekirk is actually quite prominent and busy in hollywood. He's credited with writing several films including Patch Adams, Ace Ventura, Ace Ventura 2, The Nutty Professor, The Nutty Professor 2, Jimmy Neutron and most notably he wrote, and produced Bruce Almighty.

15.Le Mans: 1971, Lee H. Katzin Director[/i]
Although this film cost $10,000,000 to make in 1971, and included Steve McQueen, at heart this is not merely a big budgeted international success or the pinnacle of racing movies. The story and film aesthetic borrow much from the Bressonian direction style in the 50's, and it should. The film is made in virtually the same setting and context, dealing with the same issues as much of Bresson's films do. So we've established that from a directorial and content standpoint, the film holds credit. However, lets not rule out that it is still the pinnacle of racing films, and likely will always be. Frankenheimer once said of Grand Prix That "a movie like [Grand Prix] could never be made again. It would simply be too expensive." This is true. Grand Prix was made in 1967, and by 1971 it was almost too expensive to afford the cars to make the movies with. Frankenheimer had actually purchased an entire field of Jr. Formula 1 cars. Of course it's an important movie, because it can never be done again in any sort of the same capacity. McQueen actually sacrificed his payroll in order for the filmmakers to have enough money to complete the feature. Another fact; John Sturges actually started production on the film with McQueen. He left the film after he and McQueen had a large disagreement about the general form of the movie. Sturges wanted dialogue, McQueen wanted a documentary. As a result, there are very few lines at all in the movie, and much of the dialogue is not important to the plot. This goes hand in hand with Bressonian aesthetic. The movie is exciting, fast paced, and interesting, and will continue to be the foremost racing film, possibly for eternity.

16.Citizen Kane: 1941, Orson Welles Director[/i]
Welles was an absolutely amazing individual. He was an author, writer, director and actor, and he excelled in every single occupation. Citizen Kane has been labelled somewhat as a stuffy film for those who want to feel culturally in the know. Well maybe that's true, but much of what makes this film important would be lost on people just trying to feel important, and I'm sure it would come out quite boring. For one Welles selects a story that has much to say politically and societally. At this time the U.S. had a great deal of problems with the new anti-trust laws, especially since a lot of large conglamorates did exist. Kane even sort of becomes the Howard Hughes figure, a great deal of time before anyone like Hughes existed. Once again the media itself is challenged as Kane owns a newspaper conglamorate. In addition to this, the film becomes a benchmark in directorial aesthetic. It combines cues of previous German Expressionist, meanwhile, it introduces an entirely new aesthetic used in Hollywood films even now. We even see one scene (when Kane is running for office) straight out of Leni Riefenstahl's 1934 documentary of the Nazi Party's Nuremberg rallies; Triumph of the Will. It is an absolute essential, a classic, and should not be missed out on.


coming soon...The Complete Canon of Music
 
Comments (0) | Report | Top

[-]
Message Boards...
Comments (0)
02:04am | Jan 02, '04 | Public | Life
I've gotten so used to typing "..." after everything that it almost comes instinctively when I'm writing an essay. I was once speaking to a friend in my WRITE 298 class about those three little dots, and we associated them with message board use.

The novelty kind of wore off after a while, but then today I thought about it again. Why do we use these little dots so often?

These dots are typically used as a connector...to tie or link two things together. In other forms they are used to leave something unfinished...

...so what does that mean?

We can link our behaviour on message boards to the way we would talk in real life. If you speak properly most of the time, then it's likely you'll post using all the grammer you'd use in a real life situation. If you tend to use things like "lol" or "ur" instead of "you are" then ur probably likely to use slang in real life. And yes, if you're a raging dick to people, then you're likely somewhat caustic in real life.

But what about the dots?

Well drawing on the last theory, these dots are indicitive of our speech patterns in society. These dots actually imply we are a group that talks mostly in incomplete sentences or thoughts. Most of our sentence structure when we speak lack a subject or predicate and is often fragmented. Also, most of what we say to each other is irrelevent and pointless.

Much like this article, or about 3/4 of the threads up in this joint.

So this leaves one question...

Are we indeed now a society of neanderthals incapable of forming a complete thought?

I wish I had an answer but I didn't think that far ahead...
 
Comments (0) | Report | Top
+1 
this
+0
 


[-]
Capatalism Stole Our Virginity
Comments (0)
11:54pm | Dec 23, '03 | Public | Life
Our order of "Raging Ravioli Bites" showed up just a little later than we expected. The sauce was wrong. We flag down the server and she goes to change it. No one really likes chipotle anyway. A familiar song comes on over the small black speakers strategically located around the resteraunt. Iced tea is sipped and the conversation continues.

"I don't get how all those people can go to the same clubs week after week, listen to the same music, and wear the same things. Of course, they probably look at us the same way."

We're different because we're dressed in black; a boy wearing a Grade baseball tee and a chain wallet, a girl with a tattoo accross her back.

The people in our genre are just as judgemental of them as they are of us. A choch and a punk may be different, but in many ways they're the same. This leads me to question exactly what drives us to join specific groups? What makes us who we are? And are we really us? Is there really a me? Are we as individual as we claim to be? Or are we just disposable?

I've read draco's horribly insulting yet insightful commentary on all of us lemmings here at nexus. However, it was more than just a comment on one little website with 30,000 users. It's a comment on our society as a whole. I laughed when I read the praises of users. Can they really consider themselves to be any different or discluded from the blanket that draco's covering?

If one article can summarize us; if we can be defined by going, "am I option A or B? Do I listen to music C or D? Do I consider myself part of group E or F?" Then there is reason to think that perhaps something is horribly wrong with society.

Have you ever purchased one of those modifiers model cars? One that comes with two sets of wheels, extra spoilers and stuff? So you get it out of the package and mess around with the extra little parts until you have built a "custom" car. But really how "custom" is it? Little do you know that another 250,000 of the same kits were sold over north america. All with the same colored Eclipse that could either use Axis or Konig wheels, the Stillen or the Bomex body kit. Well is this example indicitive of us as humans? Is it that once we decide whether or not we are part of a specific group, there's the stores we can shop, and the clothes we wear, and the clubs we go to, and that defines who we are?

Of course humans are more complex than that, and there are several factors that determine a personality or an outward perception, but for the most part can we say this is true? So you choose to be in a certain group, and your friends are of that group, and you can only shop in buffalo or paradox without being judged by them. You can only go to rum jungle or the standard without being judged by them. If they ever saw you wearing a slayer t-shirt they'd crap their pants.

This gives us insight to what may be driving these conditions.

Capatalism
The good ol' fashion american way is to make money above all else. If the market knows that one teenie little shirt will be the next big thing, it might come out in two colors. You have so few options to begin with that it's hard to simply dress individually, as the market pushes you to go one way or another. The propaganda (marketing) provided by the companies selling the product tell you that "you are cool and popular if you use our product, wear our clothing, among your genre." And that "you are uncool and unpopular if you are not wearing this stuff." It doesn't matter who you are. Prep, skater, choch, etc. A business is a business. It's meant to make money. If they're taking advantage of creating an entire generation of clones, then so be it. If every punk dyes their hair back, even as a rebellious statement against every chochy girl dying her hair blonde, it's still conforming to some degree. If there's an anti-pop black hair dye that keeps hitting the pages of Alternative Press with statements like "stand out from the crowd of bitches with blonde highlights," they're really just creating a bunch of people who think they're standing out from the crowd. What about the crowd of people with black hair?

Human Nature
Communism failed because it was based on the fact that people were good and decent and would never be greedy or cruel or intolerant. But people are greedy and intolerant and judgemental. No one likes to be judged of course, and by conforming, this eliminates that facet. If someone is the same as you, how can they judge you without judging themselves?

Nature of Groups
People like to be a part of a group. Why? It's no mystery that some people are leaders and some people are followers. Some people don't like to really think for themselves. There's a reason our world isn't a state of anarchy. There's always structured governements, faces of oppression, people in power, and people who are relatively powerless. Of course many of us choose to ingore this fact or do nothing about it. We can transfer this pattern of society in to even our own social relationships. We decide we want to be a part of a group, or we decide we want to lead. There are some people that decide what trends to set, where to go, how to act, but there are also many that follow. As much as the leader was the trendsetter, when everyone follows that automatically nullifies their individuality. It matters not whether they are the instigator. They are now just another prep, goth, skid, etc.

So one question remains, is it too late to save ourselves from this pit? Do we even want to? I suppose if you're having fun, and you feel that you contribute something to society that only you and no one else can, then that's all that matters. But can we all say that we effect people's lives? That if we just disappeared no one would miss us? I think that's the integral problem related to our disposable capatalistic generation. Do we indeed matter at all? I think that's a question we need to ask ourselves. If you want to change the world, change yourself first, then the rest will follow.
 
Comments (0) | Report | Top
+1 
this
+0
 


[-]
You Know That Love is Not Enough
Comments (0)
08:15am | Dec 18, '03 | Public | Life
This article is somewhat in response to the article on "all we need is love to survive."

Imagine you're at a skate park and you're watching a guy on a bike attempt a smith grind on a fun box. He rides up to it, does a bunny hop and inevitably falls out half way. Time and time again he lands on his back. He's not wearing a helmet, and he's getting pretty scraped up, but he just keeps attempting it. Over and over again. He seems pretty happy about it too. Then there's another guy who figures out tricks almost instantly without getting hurt, but he rarely does them after he's figured them out. Then there's one guy that tries to go for the flip-whip right out of the box, almost does it but lands on his head and has to be taken to the hospital. There's a guy who also tries the smith grind but when he falls, it looks like it hurts a lot more to him, and he can't do it again for a really long time.

In the world of love, there are guys and girls, and they each represent one of these riders. Each one is different in their approach and what they can handle. Nobody can be summed up in a generalization. All girls are either fridged or sluts, all guys are non committal and just want sex. These are stereotypes, likely developed from people who continue to run into bad relationships. True the stereotype is portrayed on television, in movies, etc. and perhaps that perpetuates it. A boy can be taught to be non-committal when he's a man by receiving the message that it's the appropriate way to act from countless television shows and movies. Now, for the sake of this article, let's throw these stereotypes aside. Let's imagine that there is a man, and a woman. Men aren't driven by sex, and Women aren't weepy beings constantly looking for the one. Men aren't cheating jerks, and Women aren't heartless sluts. So now are we even? Okay let’s begin.

I've found out that no matter who you are, or what you do, your life is somewhat determined. I suppose I could call myself a pessimistic incompatabalist in metaphysical terms. Imagine you're 4 and your parents get divorced. You have now learned at 4 years old that it's okay to leave instead of working out your problems. Maybe you'll never have a normal relationship, because after all, there isn't a relationship that doesn't go through ups and downs. So let's accept that there are some people who just can't have a stable and long lasting relationship with anyone. It doesn't matter if they fall in love, or how much they love the other person. There is an outside or inside force placed solely on one individual that will inevitably end all their relationships, despite of what the other person in the relationship does. This can even include those people who have been burnt before and are hesitant to commit, or have been subjected to a stereotype so much so that they can't commit. Any outside or intrinsic force that determines someone to not be able to be in a relationship, no matter how much they love the person.

So what about the rest of us? The people who recognize that relationships go through ups and downs. We have it in ourselves to make a relationship work no matter what's thrown in it. As long as we love the person that's all that matters right?

Except...

Each of us has our own values. Some of us value security, and some of us value happiness. Some of us value loyalty, and some of us value passion and excitement. At some point in our lives we either were instilled with these values or we decided upon them. Love is below personal values believe it or not. If you value loyalty and security, and your partner values excitement and happiness, and they aren't receiving as much from you as needed, good bye and good luck. It doesn't matter how much they love you. People have needs, and sometimes in the hierarchy values are above love. So once your values match and you're both capable of lasting love, that's it right?

Well...

Personality. How do you deal with arguments? Are you a person of routine or spontaneity? Do you deal with conflict easily or are you fairly relaxed about whatever happens? Mismatched personalities can lead to conflict, and sometimes too much conflict just outweighs love. Personality compatibility is difficult. Sometimes opposites attract, and sometimes it's like personalities that stay together forever. So you have the right kinds of personalities, and you can love and be loved, and the values are all kosher. We're in it for the long haul right?

Uhh surrre...

Compatibility. Let's say your values match, and you’re capable of love. Now you have likes and dislikes. Preferences. And for those of you that know High Fidelity, you know that according to Rob, Dick and Barry, that it's not what you are like, but what you like that counts. Having things in common means that you'll always have something to talk about. Always have places to go together. Being able to play the same music in the car, go to the same hangout spots, enjoying the same activities. Couples also need to have independent interests sometimes to keep them grounded and allow themselves to stay individuals. These things are important to some. Some people can still make a relationship work despite these things. However, a mismatch can lead to splitsville if the differences are enough. Love has been thwarted again.

So have we cleared the tower? I guess now we're free of any major snags, but you never know what will happen. Sometimes one fight can end it all. Sometimes an old flame can damage a relationship beyond repair. One infidelity or the wrong words or a crummy Christmas gift. There's so much that outweighs love.

John Lennon said all you need is love, and then he was shot. Proof positive that so much can destroy it and that you need way more before love for any relationship to work.

I've been that guy who tried the back flip and killed himself. I thought all I needed was a little air...a little love to go for the big one, the long haul, maybe find "the one" but I was wrong. But as in bmx, you learn by crashing, and in love, you learn by getting hurt just as much. So keep on riding, and keep on loving, and one day you'll get all these things right. Unless you're in the first category of course, because then you'll never be able to love anyone. Sorry. Tough luck.
 
Comments (0) | Report | Top
+1 
this
+0
 


Hits 35,682,908,239 | Users 1,713,406
Home | About | Help | Contact Admin | Advertise | Plus 
 
©2012 Nexopia.com Inc. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Safety