Love is patient

If there is one of England’s playwrights who really intrigues me, it is one William Shakespeare. And if there is one of Shakespeare’s plays which really intrigues me, it is “Romeo and Juliet.” And if there is one act in “Romeo and Juliet” which really intrigues me, it is that act in which Romeo, in the space of one evening, bewails the languishing love between himself and his beloved, is coerced into attending a social affair, meets Juliet, forgets entirely any and all past relationships, speaks at least four complete sentences to his newfound love, is then betrothed, and marries his dream come true the next day.

Nonetheless, I have always been somewhat curious as to what would have happened to Romeo and Juliet had they not met their untimely ends. Would a day-long infatuation have sufficed to hold them to a lifelong commitment? Or would Juliet soon be saying, “Oh, Romeo . . . wherefore art thou, Romeo? Thou art always at the bar . . .”

But, of course, if even the Bard didn’t know that, our own humble selves couldn’t be expected to, either.

And it looks like we don’t. At certain times at PennState, it would seem that the most appropriate motto for the school would be either, “Hello. I love you. Won’t you tell me your name? And your major?” or, “My heart I offer to you, darling, promptly and until I find someone better.” It’s a manhunt. It’s a meat market. It’s a thousand fish jumping from a thousand fishbowls into one big ocean. And there are an awful lot of starfish in the sea.

Although all this excitement and frenzied frolicking may be understandable, it is not particularly admirable, either. Many will tell of the consequences—the pain, the hurt, the lengthy trail marked by innumerable “ex-”s. All too often, the discovery is made that, in fact, “love hurts.”

But true love isn’t supposed to be like that. Love comforts—it does not sting. Those of us who think otherwise may find that we are describing some emotions which aren’t really love at all. Love is action—an adequate estimation and supply of another’s need. The “love” we find in such scenarios as “Romeo and Juliet” is mere emotion or romance—the butterflies inside. This is the reason it springs up so quickly. It’s also the reason why it so suddenly withers.

The problem with love is that it takes so much time. Not only do we have to work at love and invest a lot of time in relationships, but we have to wait for results, some of which take a long time coming. Love is no vending machine—it is not interested in instant gratification. So, we get sick of waiting, tired of the effort, and impatient for satisfaction. And then the jig’s up—we’ve lost sight of what love is really all about. Of course, we already know all of this. We know that love is selfless, caring, and giving, that trust takes time and that waiting requires patience. We have known nothing else. And yet, when our desires get the best of us—when the future and past become dim nothingness compared to the all-engulfing present—we free ourselves from prudence, basking only in emotion. And then we wonder why the inevitable occurs.

Perhaps this is cynical, and necessarily, it’s incomplete. I can claim no mastery over the mystery of misery into which lovestruck souls inevitably sink. But there is more to relationships than romance, more to love than attraction, more to dedication than infatuation. Patience, it would seem, is not primarily about us but about saving those whom we would otherwise hurt.

If only I could remember that myself.  Love is patient. Indeed, at times, patience is love.

Ex-Prom Date Now Zombie

In current news, my old prom date makes one hell of a cute zombie.

Old/embarrassing prom picture

I really think death is becoming of her. (Is that a real saying???)

I didn't know love had an expiration date.

I didn't know love had an expiration date.

I saw a post on WordPress that had that very line in it. The first rebuttal (butt haha) that came to my mind was...

Love is like milk, you have to drink it up before it goes sour.

I guess it's lame to like your own thoughts, but I was proud of that sentiment. I've heard so many love is likes but I really like that one.

Anyways, I am in a more random mood than usual and wanted to share.

TTFN

The difference between men and women is bathrooms.

I was commenting on this post about a girl's list of what she would do if she was a guy. It made me think of the differences I've noticed between men and women. I think a lot of them actually can be shown in the different in public bathroom etiquette haha.

For men:

The bathroom is utilitarian. We only go in there because we have to. If we are going in there we would rather it be empty.

For women:

It seems like the bathroom is used for so many different things. Although I obviously don't really know what goes on in there I have to assume from secondhand information that it is quite a social place. In the two womens bathrooms I've been in (one because it was turned unisex and the other to clean)  both actually had couches and/or a seat. This blew my mind. It goes against everything in male bathroom customs. As a man I can think of no reason in which I would like to sit on a couch and relax in a bathroom. Plus anything in a men's room you don't want to actually touch much less sit on.

For men:

There is to be no talking in bathrooms. No eye contact. No looking at anything but the patch of wall in front of you.

For women:

It seems like women go to the bathroom for the purpose of talking. I guess it makes sense. Women are the more social of the two I guess. But it still seem pretty alien to me.

I'm sure there are plenty of other difference but those ones came to mind and I thought I might as well post this. It would be interesting to hear a woman's perspective on this.

F'd up Friday's

I thought this Friday I would show you some fucked up things that everyone should learn about in their lives.

1. Mike the headless chicken

In September 10, 1945, farmer Lloyd Olsen of Fruita, Colorado had his mother-in-law around for supper and was sent out to the yard by his wife to bring back a chicken. Olsen chose a five-and-a-half-month-old cockerel named Mike. The axe missed the jugular vein, leaving one ear and most of the brain stem intact.

Despite Olsen's botched handiwork, Mike was still able to balance on a perch and walk clumsily; he even attempted to preen and crow, although he could do neither. After the bird did not die, a surprised Mr. Olsen decided to continue to care permanently for Mike, feeding him a mixture of milk and water via an eyedropper; he was also fed small grains of corn.

When used to his new and unusual center of mass, Mike could easily get himself to the highest perches without falling. His crowing, though, was less impressive and consisted of a gurgling sound made in his throat, leaving him unable to crow at dawn. Mike also spent his time preening and attempting to peck for food with his neck.

2. Phineas P. Gage

An American railroad construction foreman now remembered for his incredible survival of an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his brain's left frontal lobe, and for that injury's reported effects on his personality and behavior—effects so profound that friends saw him as "no longer Gage."

Long called "the American Crowbar Case"—once termed "the case which more than all others is calculated to excite our wonder, impair the value of prognosis, and even to subvert our physiological doctrines"  Phineas Gage influenced 19th-century discussion about the brain, particularly debate on cerebral localization, and was perhaps the first case suggesting that damage to specific regions of the brain might affect personality and behavior.

Gage is a fixture in the curricula of neurology, psychology and related disciplines, and is frequently mentioned in books and academic papers; he also has a minor place in popular culture. Relative to this celebrity, the body of known fact about the case is remarkably small, which has allowed it to be cited, over the years, in support of various theories of the brain and mind wholly contradictory to one another. A survey of published accounts has found that even modern scientific presentations of Gage are usually greatly distorted—exaggerating and even directly contradicting the established facts.

3. The cove

The Cove is a 2009 American documentary film that describes the annual killing of dolphins in a National Park at Taiji, Wakayama, in Japan from an ocean conservationists point of view. The film highlights the fact that the number of dolphins killed in the Taiji dolphin hunting drive is several times greater than the number of whales killed in the Antarctic, and reports that 23,000 dolphins and porpoises are killed in Japan every year in the country's whaling industry. The migrating dolphins are herded into a hidden cove where they are netted and killed by means of spears and knives over the side of small fishing boats.

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan's most recent progress report 1,569 cetaceans in Taiji were killed during the 2007 season, including methods other than drive hunting. The Ministry claims that only 1,239 cetaceans were killed by drive hunting, and that a total of 13,080 cetaceans were killed throughout Japan in 2007.

The film was directed by former National Geographic photographer Louie Psihoyos. Portions were filmed secretly during 2007 using underwater microphones and high-definition cameras disguised as rocks.