#88: The Tie that Binds Animals and Humans

I think the reason a lot of people are against the animal rights movement, or maybe they just don't care about it, is because the extremists ruin it for everyone. While PETA is great at sending undercover spies into places suspected of being cruel to animals and coming up with some great evidence to either shut them down or ruin their reputation, they are extremists. Their agenda is to turn everyone into vegans who never use animals for any purpose, even common practical purposes that are not cruel to animals. They view animals as being 100% equals to people. While this is a great notion, and I commend anyone who lives his/her life this way, it's not reasonable, and it's definitely not realistic. The truth is, animals have been living side-by-side with humans since humans first showed up on this planet. I know some people think I'm some crazy animal advocate, and I am, but I'm more reasonable than I think some people realize.

People and animals can have a mutually beneficial relationship. People can own horses and use them on their farms or for horse-back riding and even in competitions. Horses usually enjoy this, as long as they're allowed to run around in fields for most of their lives and are only kept in their stalls during the night. Usually horses love to be ridden and let out to run around with their owners. I mean I hate using the word owner. To me, it's "Pet Mommy." I mean I don't like the idea of capturing and trading animals for money, because that's generally what I consider to be animal exploitation, since living beings should never be "owned" by someone else. But in this day and age, it's kind of difficult to not do this, since that's our form of trade, and if you want to be a horse mommy, then you have to shell out some money for one. Otherwise, how are you going to get one - go steal a wild horse from its natural habitat? I think this is pretty much unavoidable these days. The same goes for cats and dogs. Anyway, the point is, as long as you're treating animals fairly and giving them enough room to roam free and giving them plenty of love and attention, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Here's something I do have a problem with: Keeping animals locked up in tiny cages and tanks in your home. This is why I hate pet stores. They capture innocent snakes, rabbits, fish, etc. and sell them for their own benefit. The animals don't have a choice. They are forced into this and are kept in tiny cages and tanks their whole lives. Animals live much shorter lives in captivity, on average, and tons of people take in exotic animals and don't understand exactly how to properly take care of them. My cousin's old roommate took in a baby Ball Python. When I met him, he was already dead, because she didn't keep his tank warm enough. WTF. This is something that happens all too often. But cats and dogs are a different story. They were bred to need families to take care of them. For the most part, they usually can't survive in the wild. And they need loving parents who take care of them, give them lots of space to run around and play, and give them lots of love and attention, just like the horses I mentioned. But seriously, guys, don't give pet stores your money. Pet stores should be put out of business. All they do is exploit animals. Buy your pets from shelters. You'll save a life. Buy your pet food and toys from your vet. The vet is more likely to know what type of food is best for your pet anyway. If you want to read more about this, read my note "Dodger Logic #54: Animal Tips, If You Will."

Something else I hate: I've told you guys this before. I hate when animals are exploited in any kind of way, such as those stupid pony Mary-Go-Round things at pumpkin patches and fairs. Also I hate the set-ups with "giant rats" in cages and "giant pythons" in tanks at fairs. I hate bull-riding, because those bulls are constantly hit with whips and forcibly angered. I hate circuses, because those animals are hit with whips, forced to do their masters' bidding, and live in cages their whole lives. I hate animal testing, as an animal gets absolutely no benefit from this and has no choice in the matter. It just has to sit there and be injected with toxins that make their eyes swell up and their hair fall out, or they have a cream rubbed on them that makes their skin itchy. And then, when these "scientists" are done with them, they dispose of them. I'm against the fur and hide industry, because instead of using hide from animals that have already been killed for their meat, they use perfectly good animals and simply kill them and remove their hide and move on with their lives. In my mind, in this day and age, where there are all kinds of things we can use for clothing, there is no reason to kill an animal for the soul purpose of its hide. Yes, killing an animal and taking all it has to give is a fantastic way to go about it, if you ask me. Eat the animal's meat, and then use its hide for clothing. That's great. I think animals should be used for all they're worth if they are to be used at all, but that's not how the fur and hide industry works. These animals are born to be tortured and die, and they have no say in it. All of these things should be illegal.

Yes, I eat meat. I love meat. And I believe that it's ok to eat meat, as long as you eat animals that were treated right in life and in death. That means eating wild caught fish, as well as free-range chicken and eggs that were never pumped full of chemicals or hormones and were fed an all-vegetarian diet. That means eating animals that came from farm or that you hunt yourself and NOT giving your business to the mass meat production industry. (If you want to learn more about this, read my note "Dodger Logic #16: Don't Be a Vegetarian; Instead, Change the System.") Here's the thing. Snakes eat frogs. Cheetahs eat gazelles. Bears eat fish. It's natural to eat meat that comes from animals below you on the food chain. All sorts of animals do it. We are animals, and we are naturally made to be omnivores, which means we eat both plants and meat. It's the reason we have canine teeth, advanced stomachs and digestive systems, and appendixes (which used to function in aiding the digestion of raw meat.) As long as we do it the right way and don't overeat certain animals or destroy any habitats with our eating patterns, I don't see anything wrong with eating some meat.

That being said, a lot of environmentalists are against hunting. Now, hunting purely for sport is aboslutely wrong and should be illegal. That include fishing just to play "Catch and Release." But as for hunting for food, I only get if you are against this if you're a vegetarian, pesketarian, vegan, etc. But if you eat meat, then there is absolutely no reason to be against hunting for food. On the contrary, it is much better to do this than to fuel the mass meat production industry. If you hunt an animal and kill it fast with a bullet, you know it died quickly and wasn't tortured to death. Also, you know that animal lived a full, free life without torture or being confined to a tiny living space its whole life. Hunting is under-valued and overly-criticized. Hunt away, my friends! - As long as you're hunting for food, not fun.

There is a way to live alongside animals and have a mutual beneficial relationship with them. When I shout animal rights from the rooftops, I don't mean that we should altogether leave animals alone. Yes, that would be great, but that's not realistic, and it's not really necessary. I have 2 dogs, and I love them to death. They seem to love me too, and they are super spoiled. They have plenty of room to run free and get plenty of food and attention. They are well-taken care of. That's how you have a mutually beneficial relationship with an animal.

 See? Humans and animals are definitely tied together!

 These are too funny.

#87: 10 Egyptian Plagues Explained Scientifcally

I am currently watching "The Reaping," in which Hilary Swank plays the main character, Katherine, who is a former ordained minister who no longer believes in God, Satan, or any part of Christianity. Her new job and mission is to debunk any phenomenon that anyone has chalked up to be a "miracle." In the town of Haven, the lake in town has turned red, and throughout the movie, 9 more biblical plagues seem to occur afterward, and Katherine shows up to investigate. **SPOILER ALERT** Even though, in the end, it turns out the plagues are real, and God and Satan turn out to be real, Katherine has a line in the movie that I think is brilliant and captures the idea that everything has a scientific explanation, even if you don't know it. (I'm not saying there aren't things out there that can't be explained by the human mind. But I am saying that there is an explanation out there for everything, whether the human brain can comprehend it or not.) My point is, there seem to be a lot of "miracles" that supposedly occurred in biblical times, and the following quote from "The Reaping" just goes to show that there are explanations for seemingly miraculous phenomena:

"In 1400 B.C., a group of nervous Egyptians saw the Nile turn red. But what they thought was blood was actually an algal bloom, which killed the fish, which prior to that had been living off the eggs of frogs. Those uneaten eggs turned into record numbers of baby frogs, who subsequently fled to the land and died. Their little rotting frog bodies attracted lice and flies. The lice carried the bluetongue Virus, which killed 70% of Egypt's livestock. The flies carried Glanders, a bacterial infection, which, in humans, causes boils. Soon afterward, the Nile River Valley was hit with a three-day sandstorm, otherwise known as the "Plague of Darkness." During the sandstorm, intense heat can combine with an approaching cold front to create not only hail, but also electrical storms, which would have looked to the ancient Egyptians like "fire from the sky." The subsequent wind would have blown the Ethiopian locust population off course and right into downtown Cairo. Hail is wet; locusts leave droppings. Spread both on grain, and you have got Mycotoxins. Dinner time in ancient Egypt meant the first-born child got the biggest portion, which in this case, meant he ate the most toxins, so he died. Ten plagues. Ten scientific explanations."

I'm not saying this is what actually happened to the ancient Egyptians, but it is a pretty rockin' potential explanation. I'm also not saying the story of the plagues in the Bible is or is not explanable by the human mind. I just thought I'd share this and show you guys how it can sometimes pay off to look into the science of things, rather than look at things through eyes blinded by faith. It might open your mind to new perspectives, even if you still decide to believe in your faith. Don't always assume something is miraculous. Then again, you should also never dismiss anything as unmiraculous, because you never know what is out there.

Also, I'm going to take this opportunity to bring up how the Butterfly Effect is explained in this explanation of the biblical plagues. An algal bloom kills the fish who previously kept frog populations in check. In this case, an algal bloom killed off an entire species in this particular habitat, which in turn, caused a spiraling effect of an insane number of frogs. This massive outbreak of frogs had to have had an effect on the populations of whatever these particular frogs ate. Also, what came from all of this? Disease. This disease killed all kinds of livestock and made the Egyptians ill and killed off some of them. No one knows how that algal bloom occurred. It could have been natural or caused by human interaction with the environment. Who knows? But the point is, a lot of crap can happen when an ecosystem is disrupted, so let's try not to disrupt any ecosystems through our actions!

By the way, I read on one website how the algal bloom supposedly occurred. Between 1500 and 1650 B.C., a volcano erupted in Greece. The subsequent ash landed all over the place, including in Cairo and the Nile River. (This ash has been tested and is proven to have come from this particular volcano.) The plagues supposedly occurred between 1400 and 1550 B.C., so this fits perfectly with the eruption of this volcano. The ash from this volcano changed the pH of the Nile River, allowing the algae to bloom. BOOM. There's your explanation for how the algae "miraculously" started blooming there. Another myth potentially busted, but this time, there's actual scientific tests that prove that this theory is quite possibly correct. Also, this myth-buster has a fair timeline for further potential proof. It's pretty cool to think about. But I'm just glad humans weren't the reason for this disaster. Usually when you hear about a Butterfly Effect of events that destroyed entire ecoystems, humans are the initial cause. Ha.

One explanation that I found online, however, had a slightly different explanation than Katherine's explanation in "The Reaping." According to the author of this web page, the "Plague of Darkness" came from the volcanic ash, which also is what caused the hail and red lightning (or "fire in the sky") due to chemicals from the ash. Also, this author explains that the locusts came around due to the dampness of the area, to which locusts are attracted. Also, the explanation of the death of the first born is more understandable through this author, as he/she explains that the first-born was "king" in families, because he was the one who would head the family after the death of his father. Not only would the first-born eat first, but in times of famine, sometimes he would be the only one to eat. Since the locusts ate pretty much everything in sight, these were definitely times of famine. Boy, this sure was an ironic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation - to eat or not to eat; that is the question! If you eat, you die. If you don't eat, you die. Well, sh*t.

Here is another theory I found online: Instead of the first-born children being killed, it was the first crop that was killed, and something was lost in translation when the Bible was written and translated into English from Hebrew and all kinds of other previous languages in which the Bible was written before it made it to English. This is an interesting theory and is neat to think about. I don't necessarily think it has any merit, but it's pretty cool to think about. I mean, supposedly God told Moses to tell all of the Israelites to put lamb's blood over their front doors, and this would cause the angel of death to pass over their house. I don't know where in the world that would come from if they really meant the first crop died and not actual children.

Now I read all kinds of criticisms of the above theories, and the best criticism is this: Why in the world hasn't something like this ever occurred in other days and times? I mean, most of the time the earth has been around has not been recorded, but since we started keeping records, why haven't we recorded something insane like this occurring in other instances? I mean we've seen such algal blooms in other places, but they haven't had quite such a major Domino Effect on the ecosystem living there. Or have we? That's for other people to give me information on. As I'm standing here, I can't think of anything. But that's not to say that there wasn't something coincidentally special and unique about this particular algal bloom in this particular ecosystem that made it uncharacteristically disastrous. Furthermore, why haven't we heard of anything happening during this exact same time in the surrounding areas of Egypt, such as Greece, for instance, since that's where that particular volcano supposedly erupted. Surely, these surrounding countries would have seen a lot of similar disasters as the ancient Egyptians, right? Sure. But this one I actually have an answer to. The only people in that area back in this day and age that had written records were the Egyptians. So even if something did happen in the surrounding countries, which I'm sure did, we wouldn't have any record of it.

Here is probably the best criticism: The frog eggs survived in the polluted water and turned into frogs, but the frogs couldn't live in the polluted water, so they fled the water and ended up on land. How could these frogs survive babyhood in polluted water but couldn't survive the water in adulthood? Well, this is just speculation from my Environmental Science background, but there are a lot of toxins that affect animals in their adult states but not in their larval states. That's just a speculative theory. I haven't put any research into that answer, so that's a decent criticism.

Here's another one: How do we know the Red Tide is the algal bloom that occurred, and is it toxic? Also, is it able to live and grow in that region of the world? Answer: We don't know if that was the exist algal bloom that is supposedly the initial cause of these plagues. There are all kinds of algae that contain different colored pigments, including the color red, and can turn water red. However, it is commonly believed that the Red Tide is what did this, and yes, the Red Tide has occurred in many places at many times and not done as much damage, but that only depends on concentration. The Red Tide is only toxic to fish at high concentrations. As for whether or not the Red Tide could grow here, the Red Tide usually shows up in the Atlantic area, so it makes sense that it would potentially show up in Egypt, which is extremely close to the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, the growth of the Red Tide is, at least in the second theory, is attributed to the pH level change that came from volcanic ash after the volcanic eruption. This is really what the Red Tide growth depends on in order to grow, rather than geography - the pH level change.

Here's an interesting criticism: One guy asked, "How do you explain how Moses knew which plagues were coming before they came and warned the Pharaoh of them?" Simple. Anyone who doesn't buy this story will tell you that part of the story was just a story. Either it was added in to add to the moral of the story, or someone added that in there to show the power of God and enhance the reader's belief in him. Or, I have another explanation for this for those of you who believe in God and the Bible below.

Ok, now I'm going to blow your minds. What if God does exist, and he used the laws of the earth that he created to cause these plagues? This means that it's possible that God told Moses these plagues were going to happen, and then he made them happen through the laws of the earth. This scientific explanation could probably more readily be used to exemplify God's power, rather than to debunk his existence. I'm not saying what I believe, but any of this could be used for the argument of both beliefs - the one where God exists and the one where he doesn't. Anyway, that brings us to the question of why God would do such a thing. I mean, think about it. Who was he against? The pharaoh. Why? Because he enslaved his Egyptian people. Who did God punish with the plagues? The Israelites who were enslaved! How does that make any sense? Why would he punish the innocent victims in order to teach the evil dictator a lesson? That just makes no sense and is cruel. And to children, no less! Yes, he told Moses to tell the Israelites to put lamb's blood over their doors, and that would make the angel of death pass over their houses, but to my knowledge, some Israelites didn't do this, which means their children were killed based on the parents' decision. That's not fair! And even if he gave the Israelites this chance to save their first-born, why would it be necessary in the first place? Why didn't he just send this plague, and all of the plagues for that matter, to the Pharaoh? Why did any of it have to affect the innocent Israelites? I could go on and on about how the stories of the Bible seem to show a ruthless, cruel God, rather than a merciful one. Check out my previous note "Dodger Logic #21: Metaphors and Inconsistencies (Oh, dear. What Am I Getting Myself Into?)" for more examples of this.

What is really cool about this story is that it is scientifically possible, and scientists have actually concluded that the 10 plagues of Egypt did, in fact, actually happen. That's what's so cool! And now we have a scientific explanation as to how it happened. And think about it. The fact that these plagues actually did occur is potential proof that the Bible is true, since it has an accurate record of at least one event in history. However, anyone could argue that that came from ancient Egyptian written records that were used to write that Bible story, and that humans enhanced the story of this event for their own personal agenda and added it into the Bible as they were writing it. I don't care what you guys choose to believe, but this is some cool stuff to think about.

This is what the algal bloom of these theories looks like. It's called the Red Tide, and the algae that causes this are actually a kind of phytoplankton called Dinoflaggelates. Now, these guys are only toxic to fish in high concentrations, so it's possible that this is, indeed, the algal bloom that occurred back then, but it is also likely that it is a different algal bloom that occurred, but this seems to be the one a lot of theorists point to. However, there are many algal species that can turn the water red, as lots of algae contains different pigments for different colors, including red.

This is just one example of an awesome-looking electrical storm. Is this the "fire from the sky?"

#86: The Dreaded "Friend Zone"

A friend of mine just posted something interesting on Facebook, and I feel like it summed up exactly what I've wanted to tell guys ever since I started liking them. There's this thing that guys call the "Friend Zone." I'm sure everyone has heard of it. It's when a guy wants to date a girl, but she has already decided that he is just going to be her friend and nothing more. Yes, we all know this happens a lot. I feel like it happens a lot for girls who want to date guys too, but we never seem to hear about that - maybe because women, while plagued with drama, aren't the complainers of the world. Generally speaking, those are men. I don't know what it is. Anyway, I've heard countless men and boys in my life complain about girls friend-zoning them. They always love to use that pesky verbage about how they are great guys, but girls never seem to want to date them, and instead, the girls end up running off into the sunset with some jerk who eventually hurts them. I can hear the violins playing in the background as I type. I don't think guys quite understand how annoying it is to hear a guy complain about this - and for many reasons.

First off, it is RAPE CULTURE to feel entitled to a girl's affection. Just because you think you're a good guy doesn't mean a girl is obligated to date you. There are all kinds of factors that make people attracted to each other, that make people want to date each other, and that ultimately give people enough chemistry to make a relationship work. Some of these things have to do with who you are as a person versus who she is, your interests versus hers, your lifestyle versus hers, where you are in your life versus where she is in hers, etc. Believe it or not, when choosing a mate, women look into more than just whether or not the guy is "nice." There are all kinds of qualities we look for! Maybe you're nice, but maybe you work a job that requires you to travel often, and that's just not something she's into. Maybe you're nice, but maybe you associate yourself with really sketchy friends, and that's a turn-off for her. You could be really nice, but if you smell funny, you lack motivation to get your education and a career, you can never pay your bills on time, you aren't healthy and don't take care of your body, then certain women are not going to be attracted to you! Everyone has good and bad qualities. One of your good qualities might be that you're nice and you have the capacity to love another person without bounds. However, there are all kinds of bad qualities that you could have that would be a deal-breaker for some women. And you DO have flaws. Don't pretend like you don't.

Timing is also a huge deal when it comes to dating. Maybe you went after your crush right after she got out of a relationship, and that's why she friend-zoned you - because she wasn't ready for a relationship. Now, say there's a guy she meets 2 months after this happens, and she feels more ready for a relationship. If they click, she might end up dating this guy. So it would be extremely jerky of you to run around telling people something like "Well, when I tried to go out with her, she was 'not ready for another relationship,' but then Prince Charming comes along, and all of a sudden she's ready." Just stop. Timing is a huge thing. Maybe the timing was just wrong for you. And sometimes your female friend just needs a friend. Sometimes she's at a point in her life when she just needs someone to be there for her, listen to her, and be a shoulder for her to cry on. If you can't be a friend to someone of the opposite sex without complaining that she doesn't want something more with you, then maybe you don't have the mental capacity to be a boyfriend to someone either.

I'm going to also throw out there that it has been my experience that guys who complain about being friend-zoned and claim to be the "nice guys" are usually, in fact, the jerks. They claim up and down and all around that they are great, and that they've been done wrong simply because one girl didn't happen to want to date them. That, my friends, is a jerk quality. Feeling entitled is a jerk quality. Feeling like women should bow at your feet is a jerk quality. Being a whiner and complaining all the time about not feeling wanted is a jerk quality, or maybe not a jerk quality, but at the very least, it's not attractive. If you often find yourself complaining about girls not wanting to date you and friend-zoning you, maybe it's time to re-evaluate yourself, because it's possible you are not the "nice guy" you think you are and claim to be.

We are not broken up into "nice" and "not nice" categories. Most people, if not everyone, have good and bad qualities. That guy your crush ran off with, who you say will only hurt her in the end, could be a great guy just like you! Maybe she did end up choosing someone great. Maybe they end up breaking up in the end. Maybe they end up having a fall-out. That doesn't mean he's a jerk, even if she says he is. You have no clue what happened to break them up or how either of them took things in the end. If you heard both sides, you might realize that guy really was a decent guy, and maybe he was good for your crush for awhile, but in the end, it just wasn't a forever deal. By the way, if it didn't work out between your crush and the guy she went for, leaving you in the "Friend Zone," that doesn't mean that she is, again, obligated to turn around and date you! Some people just aren't suited for other people, and some people simply don't prefer other people.

Yes, I directed this to men, but the same can be said for women too. I just happen to be a woman writing about my own perspective, and it just so happens that I really don't even think I've ever heard another woman complain about being friend-zoned ever in my life, so I directed this to men. Anyway, here are some things anyone, men and women, can take from this: 1. Stop feeling entitled, 2. Stop whining, 3. You might want to re-evaluate yourself and see if you have some qualities that people of the opposite sex might not be attracted to - hopefully things that you can work on and change if need be, and 4. Don't blame someone for not personally prefering you. I'm sure there are some people you don't personally prefer too. I mean, it's not like you're attracted to every single person of the opposite sex, hands down. So don't expect other people to be like that toward you. Also, I think you guys should know that complaining about being that nice guy who no girl wants and is always put into the "Friend Zone" is a HUGE turn-off for women. I know I roll my eyes at every guy who ever tells me that, and I automatically take him off my list of potential mates, because I deem him an entitled whiner. The bottom line is: Keep your head up, and try not to get yourself down if someone rejects you. It's not the end of the world, and chances are, that rejection will lead you straight to the person who will stick with you for the rest of your life. So really, you should thank the people who reject you, because they're paving your way straight to your future husband or wife.

Credits: Thanks to my friend, Vinny, for posting a Facebook status that encompassed this concept exactly the way I've wanted to explain things to guys my whole life - except in a much more concise version! Also, guys, let me just tell you - the fact that I'm not dating this guy, even though he seems to understand women pretty well, has nothing to do with me friend-zoning him! So don't even throw that one out there.

 That's the problem with guys. Lots of them are just nice to get into a girl's pants. That's not fair. Women are more attracted to guys who are primarily interested in being our friends and are nice to us just because they're nice. THAT is what a real "nice guy" is.

For comic relief.

This is the problem. Yes, that girl doesn't seem pleasant. Obviously, she did some mean, immature things to this guy when he made his efforts for her. But just because you do all these things for someone doesn't obligate that person to date you! If she doesn't like you like that, then she doesn't like you like that! Also, this guy doesn't seem like a hero to me. He seems more like a stalker who is too ridiculous to take a hint.

#85: Will the Real Terrorist Please Stand Up?

I saw a video online that I thought was brilliant, and I want to bring it to light here. Please don't pin me as a terrorist against my own country or call me a traitor for saying this. That is not my intention at all. I'm just trying to bring a few things to light, since Americans like to think we are faultless and kings of the world and can do no wrong. Among these people who believe this, a lot are Christians. And sad to say, a lot of Christians think they are the dominant religion and don't even believe they can live alongside people of other religions. I'm not saying this is, by any means, all Christians or all Americans. But I think far too many of these people exist to just put it on the backburner and not realize what's going on or discuss it.

So here's the video I want to discuss: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=427180640761529&set=vb.100004087890982&type=2&theater. It's very short, so go ahead and check it out before you continue reading this. It's about how Muslims view Americans and vice versa. Yes, it was wrong for al-Qaeda to attack the United States on September 11, 2001. But that was one terrorist group of people who called themselves Islamics but are, in actuality, an extremist group branched off of Islam. Yes, there are a lot of crazy things that Allah calls for in the holy books of Islam, the Quran and Hadith. However, God calls for a lot of crazy things in the Bible. Just like Christians pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, so do Islamics in their holy books. All 3 books call for murder and other atrocious acts in various chapters. However, that doesn't mean that people follow those parts. For instance, a lot of the craziness in the Bible is found in the Old Testament, which most Christians completely dismiss after the crucifixion and re-birth of Jesus. Furthermore, think about the Westboro Baptist Church. That is definitely an extremist group in the Christian religion, and almost no Christians in the United States believe they are legit. Most people think they're crazy. It was the same with Timothy McVeigh, who bombed an entire building of people in the name of "God." Anyone who commits acts of terrorism for any particular religion is considered an extremist group, or maybe you might feel more comfortable calling it a "cult." And yes, there seem to be a lot of extremist groups/cults in the Middle East. That certainly is true. However, couldn't it be possible that it seems like there are more of them in the Middle East, simply because that has been the buzz of this past decade and a half, since the attacks of 9/11/2001 occurred? This is meant to suggest that there may be a whole lot of other extremist groups/cults in other religions, but we just don't hear about it as much. And that may be true, or it may not be. But here's another possibility. Maybe some of these guys in the Middle East aren't really terrorist groups or extremists. Maybe they're just retaliating against what the United States has done to hurt them previously.

Let's take a look at why Osama bin Laden ordered al-Qaeda to unleash an attack on the United States. He claimed that his motives were:
1. U.S. support of Israel.
2. U.S. support for "attacks against Muslims" in Somalia.
3. U.S. support of Russian "atrocities against Muslims" in Chechnya.
4. U.S. support of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.
5. U.S. support of Indian "oppression against Muslims" in Kashmir.
6. The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
7. The sanctions against Iraq.

Isn't this interesting? Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were retaliating against the U.S. for what we had already done to Muslims in the past. The U.S. had already contributed to the oppression, attacks, killings, torture, etc. of Muslims in other countries. It seems like these people were simply pushed to the point where they figured they needed to retaliate, may the reason be simply for revenge, or may it be to stop what was happening and make a change for the betterment of their country, race, religion, and ethnic group. Now, I'm not saying what they did is excusable. I'm not saying it's ok, nor am I saying it wasn't absolutely nuts. I'm just saying they didn't do it simply for fun or in the name of "Allah." They did it, because they had a beef with the United States, and rightly so. Obviously, war is never right, even though it's sometimes necessary, and killing civilians is never right. That being said, let's look at just that.

Do you how many people were killed in the attacks of 9/11/2001? Almost 3,000 people died that day - civilians, firefighters, cops, men, women, and children. In retaliation to those attacks, President George W. Bush initiated a war against Afghanistan on the premise that they were harboring terrorists that were never found. Then Bush changed the game. He changed his mind and said we needed to attack Iraq, because they were harboring weapons of mass destruction. It was silly, since the U.S. harbors more weapons of mass destruction than any other country in the world, and if we're allowed to have them, then why can't anyone else? It was also silly, since we never found such weapons! We went on a wild goose chase for nothing, and then Bush turned it into yet something else, just so he wouldn't look stupid. When we didn't find weapons, he decided we needed to continue on in Iraq in pursuit of the country's dictator, Suddam Hussein, who needed to be murdered, because he was a terrible dictator who was indecent to his civilians. Indeed, he was. But did that give us the right to invade someone else's country and murder someone? No! I mean, come on. They might have thought our president wasn't a good one, but they didn't go on a wild goose chase looking for him, trying to murder him! I mean come on, who gave us the right to deem someone else a terrible leader and worthy of death? I mean, yeah, the guy was crazy, but this is another country's own dynamic. Invading it just caused more craziness, war, and death. Nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11/2001 attacks, but do you know how many people U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan? More than 15,000. Do you know how many people U.S. troops killed in Iraq? More than 500,000. These are civilians we're talking about! Peope just like you and me - men, women, and children. And U.S. troops killed them for no reason, just because they were "trying to destroy the Taliban and Saddam Hussein." Did you know that U.S. troops killed more Iraqi civilians in this one attack than Saddam Hussein killed in his entire 24-year reign over Iraq. So...we were supposedly in Iraq to kill the man who was killing Iraqi civilians. We were supposedly trying to SAVE these Iraqi civilians by doing so, yet we caused more damage than Hussein was causing! What kind of sense does that make? And there's the idea that a lot of people have that Bush's real motive in the Middle East was to recover their oil.

So many Americans believe what we did was not an act of terrorism, but what al-Qaeda did was. However, look at it from the perspective of civilians in the Middle East. They are ashamed of al-Qaeda for what they did to the United States, because they were representing the Islamic religion, and what they did was wrong. However, they also believe that the U.S. invasion of their countries was an act of terrorism - and it was just that. We invaded without being invited, and we bombed innocent civilians, killing way more than we were saving, which was supposed to be our intent. So why do we think we're heroes? Why do we not see ourselves for what we really are? Yes, when we invaded the Middle East, we did it in retaliation to the attacks of 9/11/2001. But let me remind you that those attacks were committed in retaliation to what al-Qaeda believed the U.S. had done against Afghanistan.

If you have misunderstood anything I've said thus far, please don't misunderstand this. I"m not pardoning what bin Laden or al-Qaeda did. There is no excuse for blatant attacks or murder. I'm just trying to bring to light that the United States as a whole is pretty hypocritical. We are allowed to do things that other countries are not allowed to do, but we aren't considered terrorists. Instead, we regard ourselves as heroes, even though we are doing the exact same thing as our enemies. So my point here is, sometimes it's the white superpowers who are the real terrorists. And sometimes things aren't what they seem, so don't listen to what all the news channels tell you. And you can question your president. You don't have to follow everything he tells you like you're his pet. Just look at things for what they are. The rest of the world sees us as crazy terrorists, so why do we see ourselves as super heroes? Killing is wrong, so why is it ok for us to do it? War is wrong, so why is it ok when we initiate it? Take things for face value. Most people just think al-Qaeda bombed the United States, but they have no idea why. There is always a reason! This reason was not an excuse for them to do what they did, but we are not guiltless here! We have done some very wrong things, and every time we do something wrong, we cause more issues with other countries around us. Someone has to stop. Retaliation is wrong. If no one ever makes that strive to stop, then it will never end, and more people will die. Don't we want to live in a happy world where everyone is allies with everyone? I mean that is probably impossible, and you may view us stopping the war with the Middle East as impossile too, simply because if we stop, then we're sitting ducks, but maybe that's why we should've never started this in the first place. I'm very on edge with what I believe is the right approach here, or what we should've done to begin with, but what I do know is that we are not faultless, and we need to stop pretending we are and preaching to our school children that we are the good guys.

Here's what you can take from this: 1. Don't meddle in other people's countries. My mom always taught me to mind my own business, and I have found that she was right. 2. Don't penalyze other people for doing something that you consider yourself a hero for doing. That's just hypocritical and wrong. 3. Teach what is really going on here. Don't just teach people your one-sided opinion, and that's it. 4. We, as a country, could use a whole lot more humility nationally. 5. What Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda did was wrong, but what we have done is wrong too. So who are the real terrorists, if bin Laden and al-Qaeda were only trying to fight against what the U.S. was doing to them? Maybe the answer is still them, since they ultimately bombed a bunch of civilians. Maybe the answer is the United States, because ultimately, we started a lot of crap against Muslims in the first place, which led to the 9/11/2001 attacks. Or maybe it's both al-Qaeda and the United States, since we have both committed the same heinous acts. I don't care what you're outlook is, as long as you realize the United States is not faultless. White superpowers are some of the most dangerous terrorists. And we need to leave other people's countries alone.

Everyone always seems to point fault at Muslims for everything. And when they do something that white people have previously done, there's a huge stink about Muslims doing it, while white people get off free for the same offense.

#84: The "New Skinny" is Healthy, Not Fat

A friend posted an article on Facebook the other day, which I thought was actually really good. Here it is if you want to check it out: http://thoughtcatalog.com/carolyn-hall/2014/04/6-things-i-dont-understand-about-the-fat-acceptance-movement/. It is about the "Fat Acceptance Movement," as the author so beautifully puts it. So apparently there are some misunderstandings about what's going on in society today when it comes to accepting heavier, "healthier" body types. And I think this article did a great job of illuminating that, although I think the author doesn't exactly realize the point I'm going to make here, so I hope this makes everyone understand, including the people who agree with this article, and the people who believe that it's totally fine to be obese and happy, because you should be happy being who you are.

The article explains that the movement that's been going around lately about accepting and loving who you are, no matter what, is a "Fat Acceptance Movement." Here are the 6 things that the article highlights as making no sense: 1. America is extremely accepting of fat, 2. "Body positivity" should include health, 3. "Health at every size" seems physically impossible, 4. People are allowed to not be attracted to certain body types, 5. Food addiction is a real medical problem, and 6. Childhood obesity is something we shouldn't be accepting of. I think this article perfectly highlights how people should not be spreading around that it's ok to be obese, in the sense that people shouldn't worry about it and eat whatever they want and be lazy. I mean child obesity is at an all-time high, and it is never a good thing, because you're setting your kid up for an unhealthy lifestyle. Growing up, I was never taught to eat healthy or exercise daily, and look where I am. I've had weight issues my whole life and have tried (and often failed) at a healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, the truth is you can't really be healthy past a certain weight or below a certain weight. That's one thing I don't think this article mentions. Just like there is a stigma against people being obese, there is also a stigma against people who are so underweight that they are malnourished. Neither is healthy, and therefore, neither should be pushed and widely accepted in the sense that we teach our kids that it's perfectly ok, and that health doesn't matter. And, of course, I must agree that people should be allowed to not be attracted to certain body types. That is definitely true. Lots of people say thick is beautiful, and that thin is not, which is apart of this "Fat Acceptance Movement," but I think it's just as wrong to say thin is not beautiful as it is to say thick is not beautiful.

So even though I thoroughly agree with this article, I must throw out there the REAL agenda here, which I think many people are completely missing, including the author of the article. Lots of people, whether you agree with it or not, think its a "Fat Acceptance Movement." However, I don't think that's the real intent of the people who started this. First off, I think people are just trying to say that, if you see an obese person, still be friends with that person and love that person and treat that person nicely. Don't discriminate against him/her, just because he/she is obese. That's just wrong. I think a lot of kids in school are discriminated against based on weight, and that's definitely not ok. But the real meaning of this "movement" is something quite a bit different than how people are taking it. I believe the people who started all of this are just trying to explain that healthy does not equal skinny as a bone. Remember, up until recently, that has been the standard. That's how a lot of our super models of today look. This standard has caused girls and women to starve themselves, make themselves throw up their food, have dangerous operations to change the natural way they look, and hate themselves for naturally being a little thicker, having more curves or hips, and being a little more "disproportionate" than the standard. So I think this "movement" is just an attempt to reverse this. I don't think the originators of this "movement" were trying to say we should all be fat, or that it's ok to be obese. I think they're just trying to say you should love yourself for the way you were born, and for the things you can't change about yourself. If you have a larger butt than most people, love those curves! You can't change it, and you shouldn't feel compelled to do so. Yes, "body positivity" should definitely include health. That is for SURE. But you can be healthy and still be a little thicker or have bigger hips than most of your peers. You don't have to be stick thin to be healthy. As a matter of fact, that is generally a less healthy body type than someone who has a little meat on their bones. However, as long as both body types are healthy, they should be considered acceptable. That brings me to the point that, no, every body type is not necessarily healthy. There is a point where you have gotten too skinny or too fat to be healthy. That's why people die every day from Anorexia and from being too overweight.

Number 3 in the article is really good too. Yes, you are most definitely allowed to be attracted to whatever body type you prefer. If you like thinner girls, go for thinner girls! If you like big boobs, by all means, find yourself a curvier girlfriend. But I think what the creators of this "movement" are trying to say is that there shouldn't be one single body image that everyone likes, and that you shouldn't like any of the others. You see, when I was growing up in middle school and early high school, all the skinny girls had boyfriends, and the thicker girls with curves (not necessarily fat girls, just curvier ones) were left untouched. Why is that? Because young boys have, or at least had when I was growing up, this idea that they should have skinny girlfriends. And you know how kids are. They are worried about their reputations and want to be seen as one of the "cool kids" at school, so they won't do anything to tarnish that. So if they have the idea that curvy is bad, and that super thin is good, then they won't even come close to that curvier girl in school, who may even be healthier than the skinny girls, and who may be a really great person. So I think the point of the "movement" about loving all body types is that you shouldn't dismiss a person as being a potential mate just because she is a little heavier than other girls, and that body types other than "stick thin" are worth a shot at being investigated and tried out just as much as the "stick thin" body type is, and that people should try it out and not worry about the petty stuff, aka girls who are not perfectly thin. I think a major part of this "movement" is trying to get young boys to stop discriminating against girls who might not be bone thin like a lot of the "popular girls" in school, thus hopefully eliminating cliques in school based on weight. Also, the idea is to encourage young girls to love themselves for the way they look and the things they can't change about themselves.

Lastly, food addiction is definitely a medical problem, and child obesity is as well. Neither of these is healthy and should definitely not be acceptable when it comes to teaching people about it. It's definitely something we should fight against in order to raise a healthier America.

So here's the point I'm trying to get at. Don't take this "movement" to mean that you can eat whatever you want and be lazy and not have a care in the world about your health, and that that's totally ok. Health is something people worry about, and rightfully so. So try to maintain a healthy lifestyle as best as you can. However, on the flip side, how you live your life is no one else's business. So do what you want to do, as long as you understand and accept the risks involved. Furthermore, don't discriminate against people who are thicker than you, overweight, obese, underweight, or whatever. Treat them as other human beings just like yourself, and let them do what they do. Stay out of other people's business, and just make friends with whoever, no matter what size anyone is. And young boys should realize that thicker girls are worth a shot. They're healthy and can be attractive as well as thinner girls. And young girls need to accept themselves for who they are and the things they can't change. But if you want to change something about yourself and it's within the realm of possibility, like losing a few pounds (as long as you have some pounds to lose,) go for it! Just make sure you're doing it in a healthy way, and that it is a healthy change for yourself (like don't try to lose weight if you're already underweight.) Let's stop calling this the "Fat Acceptance Agenda" and start calling it the "Accept the Things You Can't Change About Yourself, Feel Free to Change the Things You Can Change About Yourself in a Healthy Way, and Keep Your Nose in Your Own Business Movement." That sounds much better to me.

Also, if you want more of an idea of why this is a healthy movement, rather than a "Fat Acceptance Movement," check out this new song that is all over the radio that I really like. It's about accepting your body as it is, the way you were born, even if you're naturally curvier, because men generally like more curves anyway. And check out the girl who sings it. She's not fat at all! She is a little curvy and absolutely beautiful and appears healthy. Here's the link to her music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk.

THIS is what the "movement" is: Healthy is the new skinny. Notice this doesn't say "Fat is the new skinny." And also notice that there are several different body types depicted as "beautiful" in this picture.

Check out these 3 different body types. They range from thinner to heavier, but they are all beautiful, and they all appear healthy to me!

I think we can all agree this woman is beautiful and definitely appears to be healthy. She has been my idol for years.

For some comic relief.

#83: That Cow Could Be My Uncle

 So I just read this article called "The Cultural Ecology of India's Sacred Cattle" by Marvin Harris. I found it mildly interesting, so I'm going to relay some information about here. However, all I know about this matter is what I read in this article, and that triggered a response from me, so I figured I'd write down my thoughts on it here. However, I don't wish to research the topic further, so I just want you guys to know to take this note with a grain of salt. I am not particularly read up on this topic, but based on what I read in this article, a few critiques of it, and a response to the critiques from the author, I have an opinion...of course!

Ahimsa is a tradition in India that means "not to injure." In this case, it pertains to laws prohibiting the harming, killing, and consuming of cows, based on the premise that cows are sacred and could potentially be the reincarnated version of humans. While this is a great practice in theory, it could be causing a lot of problems, and even accomplishing the exact opposite of the intent. For instance, refraining from eating cows has been known to cause protein deficiencies in lower class citizens in India, which is bad enough. Also, the author mentions the "mismanagement" of animals in India. Indians use cows and buffalo for hard labor, and Harris suggests it would be more productive for the economy if they were to utilize machinery such as tractors for their farming purposes, rather than animals. However, one critic disputed this with previous personal experience. She spent time in India, and said she met a middle class farmer who decided to use a tractor rather than animals, but he reverted back to using his animals, because he contended that they were more reliable than the tractor. So who knows if Harris has a point in that respect. But he definitely has a point when he says that India's economy would benefit from utilizing cows for more than what they use them for, which is mainly milk and hard labor. They could definitely use them for a lot more, and thus, boost their economy.

But here's the real kicker. My main concern here is the mistreatment of cattle and buffalo, which is a direct result of this tradition of Ahimsa as it relates to sacred cows in India. First, farmers give more food to their animals that yield them more profit, and thus, are more valuable to them. This means the “less valuable” animals receive less nourishment and are neglected. Second, when their animals become too old to be of any use, farmers have no need for them anymore. Because of laws requiring that cattle be kept alive and not harmed or eaten, farmers keep them around and essentially starve them to death. Why would they waste money on food for them when they yield no profit for the farmers? If the farmers do not do that, then some of them set the old cattle loose to die. Since animals who have been kept in captivity their whole lives usually can not survive in the wild, they are bound to die. As an environmentalist, I must say this was the most disturbing part of this article. It seems as if the tradition of Ahimsa is great in theory, but it seems to be accomplishing the exact opposite of its intent, thus showing a backfire rather than an accomplishment.

I am not one to judge another culture’s traditions, beliefs, or values. However, I believe if the people of India realized exactly what is happening, it is my prediction that they would probably agree the tradition of Ahimsa in respect to sacred cows should be modified. Not only could it save their sacred cows from being essentially tortured, but it is possible that their economy could see a rise if they were to “properly manage,” as Harris might say, their animals. They might, then, see a change in the health of their citizens, and they may even see a higher efficiency of their economy. And, of course, we would see fewer cases of cows being tortured.

This is just my opinion based on this one article I read, its critiques, and a response to the critiques by the author. I don't know enough about it to make a really formulated opinion on the matter, but I really just wanted to inform everyone on this, because I thought it was moderately interesting and very disturbing. If anyone has more information on the matter, you're very welcome to comment and tell me about it.

Sacred cow of India all dressed up. Poor little guy doesn't even know what's going on.

#82: The Reality of Suicide & Mental Illness

With all the buzz, and especially criticism, of Robin Williams's death, this is something that needs to be said. I understand that a lot of people have never had a mental disease, namely severe depression. If you've never had it, there's really no way for you to understand it. I realize that. But that's exactly it. People who criticize a suicidal mind need to realize just that - that it's something they couldn't possibly understand if they've never been in that place themselves. Read this, and maybe you'll understand it a bit more and humble yourselves.

I've heard a lot of crap about Robin Williams since he committed suicide. I've heard way too much criticism about a man who, until recently, everyone admired and adored. He made us laugh. He gave us a lot of really great movies that we can watch until we ourselves die. He gave us brilliance. So what has changed everyone's view of him? He made a personal choice. Yes, he was rich. Yes, he was successful and famous. Yes, I'm sure he had a lot of "stuff." But that just goes to show you money does not equal happiness. Depression does not discriminate. Just because you're rich and famous doesn't mean you're invincible. And, from what I've seen of the drug scene in Hollywood, being famous is a very stressful job. Did you guys know Robin Williams had been battling drug use and alcoholism his whole life? I heard he had recently relapsed before he died, but that could've been jibber jabber. What I do know is that he had recently been diagnosed with a lethal disease called Parkinson's. He had been given a death sentence. He knew he was going to wither away and die a painful and disturbing death. He would have, in his mind, become a burden to his loved ones, and then he would die. His life was pretty much over when he was diagnosed with Parkinson's. Yes, he may have been able to give more, but at the point of his diagnosis, I think he had just been through enough in his life. He was in his 60s, he had lived a pretty full life, and he had accomplished A LOT. He probably felt like he had given all he had to give, and he surely had given a lot.

Nevermind that. The point is that severe depression is a mental disease just like any other disease, except it affects the brain, the mind, the self-esteem, and the soul. It's painful in a completely different way than other diseases. It affects your self worth. Severe depression breaks you down until you feel like you have nothing left to give to anyone. And what hurts the most about it is that you feel like you're a burden on your family. You feel like everyone would be better off without you - like you'd be doing everyone else a favor if you somehow weren't there anymore. THAT is why suicide is not selfish. On the contrary, it's like the complete opposite. Someone who commits suicide thinks he/she is doing a selfless act. You get to the point where you feel like you can't take anymore and that your family and friends shouldn't have to suffer on your behalf, so you destroy what you feel like is causing their pain - yourself. Robin Williams was trying to do that. He was trying to keep his family and friends from having to take care of him and watch him wither away and die. He wasn't trying to be selfish. I swear, hearing ignorant people who just have no clue about clinical depression call someone who has just died "selfish" is the saddest and most disrespectful thing I can think of. What do you think Robin Williams's family thinks about hearing people call their son, husband, father, and friend "selfish?" Have you all completely lost your sense of empathy? This family has just lost someone very important to them.

Yes, suicide is very sad. It's sad that someone had to go out like that - in sadness and depression. It's sad when someone shortens his/her life and doesn't get the full effect of living. (However, Robin Williams was old enough to have lived a full life, and with all that he accomplished, I'd say he did just that.) It's sad when loved ones are left behind with questions. "Why did he think we'd be better off without him?" "Could we have done something to save him?" "Did I play a part in his unhappiness?" Yes, that is very sad and haunting. But Robin Williams made a personal decision. He didn't want to live anymore, so who is to say he shouldn't be allowed to quit? If that's really what he wanted, then he should have been allowed to do it in peace. We all have the right to live, and we all have the right to die. No one knows what Robin Williams was thinking, or what he was going through. Everyone is battling demons that no one else could possibly understand. But he made a choice for his own personal life - a choice that he should have been allowed to make.

So why didn't Robin Williams get help? Why didn't he talk to a psychiatrist and get some meds? Well, maybe he did. I don't know. Not every kind of medicine works for everyone. Besides that, medicine isn't a cure-all end-all. You have to use it right. When I had severe depression, my doctor gave me a pill and told me "This is not a happy pill. It will not work if you don't make it work. This is a tool. I'm giving you a screwdriver, but you have to turn it on the screw in order to make it work." Maybe Robin Williams tried but just didn't have it in him. Or maybe he was just like many others battling depression. Maybe he was afraid of exactly what he has received - judgement. Maybe he was afraid to seem weak. Maybe he feared discrimination and isolation. Afterall, he was very much in the public eye. These are the things that haunt tons of people who don't seek help for severe depression. Isn't that sad? They feel this way because of all this constant judgement that goes around when something like this happens. Instead of judging them, what would happen if everyone offered support, love, help, compassion, patience, tolerance, and open-mindedness? Then maybe people with depression would be more likely to seek help, instead of turning to such drastic measures such as suicide.

Think about what you're saying when you say it. Think about who it could hurt. No, I didn't know Robin Williams personally. But I've personally been in his place before, as I have previously battled severe depression. If it weren't for my mom's intervention, I could've ended up like him. Also, I've had 3 family members commit suicide in the past. It's not something to joke about, and it's not something to readily criticize. Think about who is around you when you tell people you think suicide is selfish. You may have no clue who you're offending. And I can tell you, I want to rip off the head of any and every person who has ever tried to tell me suicide is selfish.

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. You can believe suicide is selfish if you want, even if you've never been in that place and could never possibly understand it. Believe what you want. But collectively, everyone needs to stop pretending like you have the right to judge how someone else lives their life or dies. No one can judge what they don't know or understand. How about we take all this negative energy from judging and, instead, use that energy to educate ourselves on the matter? And have some damn empathy - if not for him, then at least for his family. The man JUST died.

I'm not giving the depressed a way out here. I'm not letting you all off the hook. I still think you should take care of yourself and your loved ones if you can, because there is always another way. You can always decide to become happy and move on. With some help, you can do anything. Depression is very real. It takes lives, just like any other disease. It's not a joke, and it's not to be taken lightly. If you or a loved one has shown signs of depression, get some help NOW. Don't wait. To get started, you can go to this website: http://www.therefuge-ahealingplace.com/lp/depression-treatment?mm_campaign=A2E530639621994F7182B3D66DD5EFF1&keyword=%2Bdepression%20%2Bhelp&mm_utm_source=Google&mm_utm_campaign=Depression_Tier_2_Broad_HCVR&ad_type=Depression&_kk=%2Bdepression%20%2Bhelp_kt=c3d13c89-6fd4-48a6-bd1b-401378d07048&utm_term=%2Bdepression%20%2Bhelp&gclid=CKLFqeCfqMACFSbl7Aod_h4AiQ. You can get confidential help from their hotline, (855) 451-0970. And if anyone ever needs to talk, I'm always available.

 Let this be my memorial to Robin Williams. R.I.P.

 Mental illness does not discriminate. One in 4 Americans has a mental illness.

Zelda Williams, Robin Williams's only daughter, posted this after Mr. Williams's death.

Zelda Williams also posted this after her father's death. I think it says it all.

#81: Does True Love Wait, or Does True Love Show that Love?

In Christian churches, and I'm sure in churches, temples, mosques, etc. of many other religions, people are taught that they are supposed to wait until marriage to have sex. To do so before marriage is unclean and a sin. Some churches even teach that you will go to Hell if you have sex before marriage, although from my experiences in church, I've never been told something that extreme. This is definitely a noble notion in theory, in my opinion. However, what is the reality of it? The whole point of it is to keep yourself clean for your future spouse. That's great, but what if you don't see that as significant? What if your spouse doesn't see it as significant? What if having sex before marriage doesn't make you feel unclean? What if you have sex with one person before marriage and you end up marrying that person? Is it ok to have sex before marriage if you are sure you're in love with that person and will marry them someday? (Set aside the simple fact that lots of people think that about their boyfriend/girlfriend, and they don't end up marrying that person in the future afterall.) Here's my thing. Saving yourself for marriage is not really realistic in this day and age, and it may not even be necessary, as in it may be pointless. By this, I mean this may be an archaic practice, maybe even rightfully so. And also, teaching children to wait til marriage may be sending them the wrong message, even scarring them for life and tainting their idea of sex.

First off, think about what marriage is. It's a paper certificate. Yes, it symbolizes a lifetime of love, loyalty, friendship, intimacy, honesty, patience, and tolerance. It signifies your relationship with your spouse. It definitely means a lot to a lot of people. However, some peope realize that you can have all those things without a piece of paper that says so. I think marriage is good for some people, but other people don't need it. I have 2 friends who have been together for over 10 years, and they don't plan on getting married, but they have made a commitment to each other to be together for the rest of their lives. And I'm sure they have sex. No one doubts that, and so far, I haven't seen anyone condemn them for it. They love each other and are devoted to each other. My aunt and uncle are the same way. I think they've been together for more than 20 years and aren't married. You know what's funny? Both these couples have 2 of the best relationships I've ever seen, and they're not married on paper. Hmmm... Anyway, I'm not here to analyze what makes a relationship a good one or bad one. I just want to share with everyone the idea that marriage is not necessary. It's totally fine if you want to do it. I'm probably going to do it one day. But you don't have to get married if you don't want to. Does that mean you have to remain a virgin your whole life and never share that love and intimacy with your boyfriend/girlfriend? NO WAY! That's preposterous. I don't think I personally know anyone who would believe that. Here are the points of having sex: 1. Intimacy with your partner, 2. Having fun with your partner, and 3. Reproduction. If you want to reproduce but don't want to get married for whatever reason, who cares? As long as you stay together and raise that child together as a family, go ahead! It's your life and your decision, and just because you're not married doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to do that. It also doesn't mean you should be forced to get married if you want to reproduce. (That being said, I don't think people should go around breeding willy nilly when they aren't old enough and haven't built a home and aren't ready for it, just because I said it's totally cool for people to have kids out of wedlock.) My point is this: It's ok if you don't want to have sex with just anyone. I'm not prepared to say I think it's ok to have sex for pleasure with just anyone. But if you're in love, you can share that intimacy with your partner before you marry him/her. And even if you don't end up marrying that person, it's ok if you have sex with someone you're in love with. As long you're safe and mature and understand what you're doing, it's ok as long as you're ok with it. Don't abstain from giving yourself to the person you love, just because society or the church tells you it's wrong. Love is never wrong, and sex is a physical way of showing that love to your partner. Sex is supposed to be beautiful when it's with someone you love. Some people will tell you it's only for reproduction purposes, but if that's so, then why is sex so much fun? Why does it feel so good? People do it for fun and intimacy with their partners all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with enjoying it, as it is meant to be enjoyed. It's ok to have sex if you're not intending on reproducing. And it's ok to have sex with the intention of reproducing, even if you're not married. Do what you want to do with your life, and don't let anyone judge you for it. If you believe any of this is wrong and don't want to do it for your own reasons, then don't do it, and don't let anyone judge you for feeling that it is wrong for your own moral values. But if you want to do any of this, then do it, and don't feel bad about it or take anyone else's judgements of you into account. Everyone has a right to having their own personal beliefs and values, and everyone has a right to do whatever they want with their own life, preferably without judgement from others.

Here's something else that is interesting. When I was growing up in the church as a child, I was taught that sex was dirty. Yes, I was told that it was ok as long as it was done in wedlock. However, it gave me the idea that sex was wrong, and that' the way I looked at it. As a teenager, I wanted to rebel against my parents, society's laws and rules, and especially the church I had grown up in. Most teens go through that kind of stage - where they want to do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to. That's when teens find themselves, make mistakes, and mature. So since I had been told sex was wrong, that made me curious about it, so I wanted to try it, even though I didn't have any hormonal feelings that made me crave sex. I was simply curious, since everyone had made such a big deal out of it my whole life. You see, making sex such a big deal makes lots of teens curious about it. That can actually be dangerous, since a lot of teens aren't safe when they have sex, as a lot of teens really don't know what they're doing. So teaching children that sex is dirty or that they should wait til marriage to have sex can backfire on you. That's why I encourage everyone to stop sticking with these unrealistic teachings. It works with some people, but not with the majority of people. All too often, the opposite is what people end up doing. That's why I encourage people to educate their kids on sex, instead of teaching them things that they're inevitably not going to listen to 99.9% of the time. So teach your kids about sex, so they won't run off and find out about it themselves. Educate them about safe sex, and teach them that it's better to save it for someone they love. Don't fill their minds with these unattainable goals. (Again, for some people, these are attainable goals. I know someone who is my age and is still a virgin, because she wants to wait til marriage. However, she is one in a million.) Be there for your kids when they are curious about sex. If you answer their questions, they won't be so curious and won't run off and get the answers out there in the real world by whatever means necessary, which is what most teens do when they're curious. I mean it's normal to be curious when you're growing up. You're interested in the world and want to learn. That's a good thing! It's a sign of a healthy brain actually. Anyway, yes, I went through this stage, as tons of teens do. And I wasn't scarred by my church's teachings about sex, but I read an article about someone who had to go through intense sexual therapy due to her experience in the church. Her church taught her that it was wrong to have sex out of wedlock, so being a virgin became her identity and her pride. So when she got married, she felt guilty about having sex with her husband, because she felt dirty and was sad she was no longer a virgin. This put a road block between her and her husband, as they couldn't have sex. So she had to go to therapy to fix the problem. I don't have to tell you that sex, physical attraction, chemistry, and intimacy are extremely important in a relationship, and the lack of these can cause break-ups and divorces. So this is a really big deal! Not everyone reacts the way this woman did, but the point is, some people do. Also, this woman mentioned that she and her husband rushed into marriage and got married too young, because they were in a hurry to share that intimacy with one another. That is something worth mentioning. Everyone knows the younger you get married, and the less time you've been together befor eyou get married, the less likely your marriage is to last. Here is the article if you want to read it in full: http://thoughtcatalog.com/samantha-pugsley/2014/08/i-waited-until-my-wedding-night-to-lose-my-virginity-and-i-wish-i-hadnt/.

So here's another thing I didn't mention in the introduction. What if you wait to have sex til you're married? You think you did the right thing, but something went tragically wrong. You and your spouse don't match up in bed. I'm going to give you an account of a couple I know. (They are no longer a couple actually, but they used to be.) Now there were a lot of things that happened behind closed doors, besides what I'm about to tell you. However, here is an example of the point I'm trying to get across to you. I know these 2 people who used to be married. We will call the husband Jimmy and the wife Sasha. Jimmy would've had sex 3 times a day if Sasha would've let him. Sasha only wanted sex every now and then. Her sex drive was nowhere near as high as Jimmy's. They didn't enjoy sex together all the time, because they didn't match up sexually. But that was just the beginning of their sexual problems. Since Jimmy wanted sex so often, Sasha felt like a piece of meat, so that made her resent Jimmy and not want to ever have sex with him. Since Sasha's sex drive was so much lower than Jimmy's, Jimmy didn't get as much sex as he felt like he needed and deserved, so he felt unattractive and unwanted with Sasha's constant rejection. They ended up divorcing later. Believe it or not, sex is a huge part of a relationship. You have to be sexually compatible in order to have a good sex life, and thus a good marriage. That's not to say that sex is the only important part of relationships. I'm not saying that at all. But it is a significant part of relationships. Bad sex lives can absolutely cause break-ups and divorces. Guess what is a great way to find out if you're sexually compatible with your partner before you make a lifetime commitment to him/her: have sex before marriage! There's the same to be said about living together. You never really know a person until you live with him/her, so that's why I, personally, believe you should live with a person before marrying him/her. That way, you know your lifestyles are compatible and you can live together before you pay all that money to make a lifetime commitment to that person. Lots of Christians will tell you that, if you truly love each other and you waited to have sex til marriage, God will bless your marriage and keep you together. I know a ton of Christian marriages that have ended! Just because you waited to have sex before marriage doesn't mean you will not get a divorce or live an unhappy life with the wrong person. Some Christians will also tell you that, if you wait to sex have til you're married, you will definitely love the sex, because you'll have nothing to compare it to. This is total bull. The first time I had sex, I knew I didn't like it. I liked the guy I did it with, but the sexual chemistry wasn't right. I felt nothing for him in that way after I had sex with him. I had nothing to compare him to, but I knew something wasn't right. I didn't feel bad about having sex before marriage, so that wasn't it. I just didn't have fun with him sexually. I didn't feel like he matched up with me in that way, and he didn't give me that tingly feeling I knew I was supposed to get. What if I had married that guy before I had realized that we didn't match up sexually? Look, as a human being with instincts, just like any other animal, you will know when the sex isn't good or you don't match up sexually with your partner, whether you have something else to compare it to or not. If you gamble that you're going to enjoy sex with your spouse before you even try it, and you wait to have sex before marriage, then you're gambling the future of your marriage. For some people, things work out. For some people, things don't work out. The best we can do is try to take every step we can to make sure things will work out. And we can do this by making for certain that we're with the right person in every single way.

I'm not saying anyone should do something they're uncomfortable with. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. If you would feel more comfortable with test driving the car before you buy it, then do it. If you are uncomfortable with having sex before marriage, and you have made a commitment to your god that you won't do it, and you're doing it for your own personal beliefs and not anyone else's, then don't have sex before marriage. Just make sure that you're doing what YOU want to do. Make sure you do what you do for your own self (or for your god, if that's what you believe.) Do YOU. Don't make life choices based on what your church congregation, pastor, or parents want from you. Do what makes you comfortable. If you have fallen in love and want to show your boyfriend/girlfriend that you love them in a physical way, then do it, and don't feel bad about it. Don't let anyone judge you for your own personal life choices, and don't let anyone make you feel guilty about it. And don't judge other people for their own personal choices. If you believe in something, live by example, instead of judging other people. Afterall, everyone has a right to live for themselves, by their own personal standards, everyone has a right to their own personal beliefs, and everyone has a right to peace without outside judgement and scrutiny.

Also, I'd like to throw out here that, if you wanted to wait til marriage to have sex, and you wanted that for your own self, but you didn't wait, then don't beat yourself up over it. We all make mistakes. You are not going to go to Hell over one silly mistake you made. You will be ok. Just keep pushing on and moving forward, and try to get back to your beliefs and morals. Just because you have "soiled" your virginity doesn't mean you can't go back and do it all over again. You can always go back and wait to have sex until marriage from this point forward. Nothing could ever condemn you to an eternity of torture, just based on that one insignificant mistake, and anyone who truly loves you will still love you even after you've made your mistakes. The best advice I can give you is to keep moving forward and don't beat yourself up over your past. It's never to late to do what's right, no matter what you believe is right.