Thursday, April 24, 2014

Corrupting the Youth

Dear readers,
                Sometimes, I need to ask, “Are adults stupid?” and then I have to reply, “Yes, we sometimes are.”  We might call stupidity something “childish” or “things teenagers do,” but adults can be the worse. Is it in a child’s nature to hate? Is it in a child’s nature to insult? No, when a child says something bad or inappropriate, we teach them that it is so. They don’t know what is bad and what isn’t. A child might learn to swear from another child, but eventually it traces back to an adult. Adults are the ones who it is okay to swear in the first place. Adults are the ones who make movies or write books with inappropriate content. Adults are the ones who post horrible stuff on the internet. Adults are the ones that make advertising saying we can’t be satisfied with the good things we have. Children are not capable of this stuff unless we teach them and give them the power. So yes, we are incredibly stupid.
                The funny thing is that we fight for the right to corrupt children. Does a child think about sex? Definitely not before puberty, but we teach them about it in elementary school. If they are not taught, then they are “sheltered” as if it’s a bad thing. Those who fight to censor inappropriate content are labeled against “free speech.” Censorship does have its place. It helps protect the integrity of an innocent human mind as they grow to become strong and stable. You wouldn’t give toxic water to a growing flower in your garden. You want to give the best water to make the flower the best it can be. Likewise, children should be given the stories of virtues so that they can grow to be the best men or women they can be. Sometimes when a plant is weak, you give it a crutch so it can recover and grow strong. If crows come to eat the flower, then you, the gardener should come out and scare away the crows. If a flower is more precious to you than a child, then you have been severely corrupted and not fit to raise one.
                Would you wish to teach yourself hatred?  What good has it done for you? It only causes pain. The only thing beneficial to hate is evil itself. Would you teach yourself to talk disrespectfully? That is probably the first thing we do unconsciously. We teach children that when we want to be taken seriously and to listen to what we say, we need to yell or be angry. After all, that’s what parents do when they scold their children.  Is it any surprise that when we argue, that is the tone we adopt? I realized this as I talked to my mother. If I argue with my lovely significant other, I try to stay calm and simply converse. However, when my mother called, she took on a lecturing tone about something she did not like and my voice followed along the tone she established. So yes, we teach disrespect to others and we are stupid.
                So let us throw away our stupidity. Let us stop breeding the evils in our world. We only make it worse. This is why we need positive role models. We need virtue to be highlighted and praised, not condemned. If we do this, we can make a better world than what we have today.

N.D. Moharo

Friday, April 18, 2014

Theory: Cheating on Spouses

I don't have my intended topic ready today so I am just going to write some observations I thought about last night.  Sorry that it might be a little unorganized and not well-written. I hope it makes sense.

First off, I think cheating on your spouse is horrible and a huge disrespect. Now I have heard that some people have tried analyzing the psychology of the having an affair. I think some of the psychology needs to be set aside and examine the biology. So this is my biological theory and sex is still the driving force.

Consider the purpose of sex, or rather let us refer to it as its proper name, the act of reproduction. Put aside all psychological preconceptions and focus on how the body is designed. Yes, it is pleasurable, but if it wasn't, no one would reproduce because sex would be a chore that doesn't work often. Just the idea sounds weird if we were not wired to do it. Yes, the act of sex makes us more intimate to our spouse, but intimacy is for ultimately so the parents stay together to raise the child. Really, every organ system in the body has/had a purpose, and reproduction is the purpose of the reproductive system. That is it's design and purpose. Everything that results is for the reproduction.

Why did I need to establish that? Because to understand my theory, we need to understand how the body thinks about itself, not how our mind thinks about the body. Now think about something that I am starting to consider to be a modern convention and since then, an increase of affairs. What I am thinking about is not birth control but the refusal of sex.

Ponder it. If the purpose of the sex organs is to reproduce, and the spouse is refusing to have sex when the counterpart wants it, the body will seek another suitable partner. I have heard some people say they have the affair but still "love" their spouses. I have not heard if the spouse is refusing sex in these cases, but I am thinking that is the case.

The reason for this theory is because I was watching a TV show where the spouse could be heard to be refusing to have sex. I consider this to be a more modern notion based on the more recent focus on "individual rights," especially after Roe v Wade. Since that court case, there has been a large social concept that "women can do what they want with their body." This idea, when applied in the married life, is actually fundamentally against the idea of traditional marriage. I recall learning that the old idea of sex being referred to as the "marriage debt," which meant the body of the husband belonged to the wife and the body of the wife belonged to the husband. Marriage was when they freely gave up their rights to their spouse. After all, "everything I am is yours." So refusing to have sex when your spouse wants it is an act of violation of the marriage vow.

I haven't done too much research on the subject, but I can at least trace the idea to the 1st century. In the Bible, a letter from Paul, I believe it was to the Corinthians since they had most of the stuff pertaining to sex, he actually describes the marriage debt as I did. So since Christianity was the basis for many social values in Europe, that would include that idea, though it might be he was saying it was how the body worked anyways.

The idea is not limited to Christian developed countries. My lovely better half pointed out when I talked to her about the subject that Asia has those concerns too. The sexless marriages are the ones that will end in divorce or affairs.

Consider this: If what I said is accurate about the body and society, when is the only time after a traditional marriage where one cannot have sex with his or her spouse? When the spouse is dead. At that point, the body is still wired for reproduction, as well as longing for the other effects, and so seeks a new partner to have intercourse with. So that might explain why it is possible to still love your spouse while sleeping with another. However, keep it up, and your mind won't be able to do it. Eventually, if one is refusing sex, meaning she or he is willingly withholding, then the psychological will eventually try and get you to split and be with the one you have been becoming more intimate with.

Now what about polygamy or concubines? Is it related somehow or is it an entirely different case? While the "dead" example might not apply, the idea of sex still does. Even with polygamy, the man tends to have a favorite wife (thinking about the story for the Taj Mahal). Also, since the spouses, though one more than the others, are still having intercourse somewhat regularly, the body does not care.

So let's be careful with what I think you should take out of this. If you're married then the recommendation to have sex isn't a problem, but most likely healthy for your marriage. If you are not married, then I will argue against intercourse. I must agree with my significant other that sex before marriage is a bad idea. While some relationships can last, more based on the acts after sex than the actual act, it is not guaranteed nor likely. She told me that she would worry if I was with her only because I wanted her body as opposed to her and I told her I was afraid that would be the case too. If you have sex before we have the commitment, then there is no guarantee we will stay together, just like one of her friends. So keep sex for marriage and do it to keep the marriage healthy for both the husband and wife.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Starting a Relationship

Dear Readers,
                I’m sure many of you, at one time or another, have been concerned with dating. I had troubles myself, and if I had to try again, probably would have difficulty. Alas, I hope I don’t need to ever worry about that again since I care very much for the woman I am with. It was because of this woman that I began to ponder the idealisms we are exposed to when it comes to relationships.
                If you ask around, some people will probably say it is best to get to know someone before you begin dating. There’s this idealism that it is best to become friends and then date. However, I know some guys have difficulty overcoming the fear of asking a girl out. When they try this recommended approach, there’s an added fear of losing the friendship he had built if he is rejected. I feel like this fear can be amended, and the question that popped into my head was, “If your intention from the start was to eventually ask her out, did you have a real friendship?” In other words, do you really have anything to lose besides getting hurt?
                I’ve tried the recommended approach myself, and it rarely ends well for me. I have a few theories on why this may be the case. The first is that I am fairly impatient, and waiting for the “right time” can make me sick and unable to eat. The impatience can also lead to stalking, and with social media like Facebook, it’s very easy to makes things worse. You can go from the guy with good intentions to the guy creeping her out because you haven’t communicated that you liked her in person.
                My theory is an idea of level balance. If you are interested in dating but she isn’t, there’s an imbalance which leads to an unhealthy relationship. This is very important to realize. If a man meets a woman and is immediately interested in dating, the recommended approach mentioned earlier cannot work unless she is interested at the same time. If the primary motive for one is to date, then that needs to be the primary motive of the other as well. When I asked my friends about their experience, I found the reason why the process of becoming friends and then dating worked because the man did not start with an idea that he would date her. One friend did say he thought his girlfriend was the type he would like, but he had already decided that it would not happen. Hence, friendship became the primary motive for their relationship, and it eventually grew into a romantic one.
                Realize I am not saying that if the primary intention is to date, that the relationship will not work. My recommendation is that if that is the primary intention, in which you mean friendship to help you obtain that goal, you should simply be honest and express it clearly. To hold that friendship was only a means to an end is dishonest and not real. Friendship is a path, not a means. While you may hold things in common, it is best to establish in your head from the beginning if you can date or not. Once that is fixed, you can begin a real friendship that could change, but at least you will be on the same level.

N.D. Moharo

Friday, April 4, 2014

This week, I don't have a post to share. I have a topic, but I haven't organized it yet. After I finish, I also want to proofread it to make sure it makes sense. As a result, I'm going to need more time before I can post it. Hopefully it will be done by next week. If you want to think about it, it's going to be on "Starting a Relationship" and analyzing if an ideal we seem to have is realistic.