Random Thoughts II

• I just heard of a great new place where you can go tanning for free. It's called outside.

• Remember when you used to be able to go outside at night and see the stars? I hope they're still out there. 

• It seems to me that often the people who want to teach abstinence only are also the people who believe that Jesus was immaculately conceived.  Not quite 100% effective, is it?

• Why is it fun to pet kitties, but it's work to give people massages?

• Is the neighborhood ice cream truck EXACTLY the same as the creepy van full of candy we warn children about?

• You will totally get in trouble for looking up a girls dress, unless she's dancing. Then it's practically encouraged. 

• Don't make vocal noises while in a public restroom.  It's unnecessary.  The only noises should be coming from your pelvis.

• Hey Guy with Big Truck.  Places that aren't parking spots aren't parking spots.

• Use the bannister.  Dick.

• Hey ladies, every man you've ever encountered has looked, is looking, or will soon be looking at your boobs.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.

• Smokey the Bear needs to stop pressuring me.  Bitch, I have a job, and I don't really like to travel.  Are you telling me that out of seven billion people on the planet, you can't find ONE other person to prevent forest fires?  What am I supposed to do?!  Run around the forest slapping matches and lighters out of people's hands!?  That's assault, dude!  I will get ARRESTED for that shit.  Besides, there's a lot of acres of forest out there, and I don't see how I'm supposed to cover all of it on foot.  I'd need an ATV of some kind, and I'm telling you right now, I'm not paying for that out of pocket.  That's something YOU are going to need to provide.  And I'm going to need some kind of gasoline allowance, especially with prices these days.  Oh yeah, and I'm not liable for fires started by lightning.  That's bullshit.  Lightning does what it wants, and I'm telling you right now, I'm not jumping in front of a lightning bolt just to protect the forest.  Not that I don't like the forest and all, but you've seen how uppity and belligerent lightning gets, and it seriously gets like that ALL THE TIME.  I have sensitive skin, and I'm not looking to get it all dried out by third degree burns.  So why don't you and your little bear friends take your One Man Forest Fire Fighting plan to someone else, because I'm not down with your crazy.  I haven't the time, the energy, or the legal immunity necessary to complete the task as you've laid it out to me in our many correspondences.  Get off my ass already, because seriously, dude, it's not happening.  .....anyway, stay safe out there campers.

You Have to Have Gay Sex...

....if you're going to be gay.

Okay, maybe I jumped the gun a little.  Sorry, it's my first time, and I'm nervous.  Seriously, this never happens to me.

So, I've been thinking.  We as people identify ourselves as many things.  Race, religion, political beliefs, and even hobbies.  (I'm a gamer, and I pretend to be a basketball player, mountain biker, and writer.)  But it seems one of the things we identify most with is our sexuality.  It's very core to who we are as people, not only whether we identify with the feminine or the masculine, but also which group we find ourselves sexually attracted to.

I am a heterosexual.  (It's not a choice, I was born this way.)  I find myself attracted to women, and I've mentioned at least once on this blog that boobs are the greatest thing ever.  Couldn't explain it to you though.  It's just the way I am, deep down into the core of my being.  I love women.

However, it was a long time before I had my first full out sexual encounter with a woman.  (No, I'm not going to tell you how long.  No, I'm not going to tell you who it was.)  Up until that point, I had still considered myself a heterosexual.  But should I have?

As children, we are pretty much asexual.  We don't really understand the concept, and we haven't really begun to develop those kinds of feelings for the opposite (or same) sex.  As I progressed through puberty, into Junior High and High School, I started noticing girls, and having those desirous and sexual feelings about them.  But how could I possibly consider myself as heterosexual without actually having had sex with any of them?

Consider this: I've often thought about being a stunt driver.  I like cars, I like stunts, and I like to think I might have a bit of a knack for it.  However, I have never done stunts in a car.  No one would ever refer to me as a stunt driver.  Why?  Well, because I'm not.  Thinking about something does not that thing make.

I've thought about being in the Olympics.  But it would be ludicrous to call me an Olympian.  (Especially considering how fat I am.)  I've thought about being a filmmaker.  But I don't have any films that I've created.  (Yeah, not even that one from college.  I lost it.)  I've thought about being a superhero.  Yeah, I don't think I need to continue.  (I am a superhero though, so fuck you guys.)

I bring this up because of a religious idea I heard recently: "It alright for you to be gay, as long as you don't act upon your impulses."  Basically, be as gay as you want, just don't do any gay things, namely having man on man sex.  (Or woman on woman.  Hot.)

How exactly does one be something, without doing the things inherent to what that is?  You can go ahead and be a painter, you just can't use a brush to place paint on a canvas in the way you want.  Got it.  Oh wait.

I have some serious issues with this.  One is the idea that you can tell someone they can be something, but in the same breath tell them they can't do the activities associated with that something.  "You can be a boxer if you want Timmy, you just can't train, or fight anyone."  "Sure Reginald, you can be an astronaut, as long as you don't go to space."  It's disingenuous at best and downright emotional abuse at worst.  Fuck that shit.

Another is the concept of defining who we are by our thoughts alone.  I don't want to be arrested for assault just because I thought about punching some guy in the face for being a dick.  That's some serious 1984 shit there, and I am having none of that.

But my ultimate question here is why are we allowed to identify our sexuality based purely on our thoughts and feelings, not on our actions like is done with everyone else?  Is there anything else like this?  Or is this just a random exception to the rule?  Because unless we have good reason for feeling this way, maybe we should take a deeper look at it.

Anyway, doin' it and homos and whatnot.    ....yeah.

Hey! It's Not Your Story

So, we had the Academy Awards just recently.  It's something I only pay attention to whimsically as a footnote of pop culture.  I don't really put a lot of stock into the awards.  After all, every year, my wife and I craft our own little statuettes out of modelling clay and give them to the movies we like, so those bastards can go to hell.

Okay, not really.

These awards have no influence on my opinion of the movies.  It's really just a self-congratulatory pat on the back from the movie industry.  As far as I'm concerned, it exists as an interesting spectacle, and makes for some fun trivia for movie buffs, nothing more.

I am, however, curious as to what criteria are exactly taken into account when doling out these awards.  The Best Picture award in particular stymies me.  Most of the time, it ends up being a film I've not seen, and almost the entirety of the rest of the time, I disagree with the decision.

My personal opinions of the films themselves aside, there is one thing in particular that bothers me in regards to these, and similar, awards.  Hell, it doesn't even have to be an award.  I just don't like the idea of people receiving credit for the work of someone else.

Let me explain.  This year, Argo won Best Picture.  I've not seen the movie myself, but by all accounts it's a quality film.  Here's my problem: it's not their story.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm sure everyone involved with the movie worked very hard.  And clearly, they did a good job, based on the box office earnings, and, oh yeah, that award thing.  But again, it's simply not their story.

The story of Argo was already done once before in the form of a television movie back in 1981.  The story was also told in 2000 in a book.  I have also not read the book or seen the television movie, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits, but I have a feeling that the 2012 Argo is probably the best one.  You know, because of the awards and the money, again.

So, why shouldn't it have won, you might ask?  If it was the best version of that story, and it was best film of the year, then it seems to have earned that award, right?  Maybe.  But what is to stop anyone from doing that again?

In 2002, Chicago won Best Picture.  But Chicago was a play from 1926.  They made it a film in 1927.  The first musical Broadway production was in 1975, and then a bunch of times after that.  It's clearly a well established and well liked story.  So some people come along in 2002, make a "better" version, and win the Academy Award.

So, all someone has to do is take that same story, do it a little better, and they too, can win Best Picture.  I mean, if you can re-do a story that has won Best Picture, and make it better, there is no WAY it can lose.  Well, unless it's up against a bunch of other movies that are remakes of previous Best Picture winners.

Les Miserables is an even worse example.  It was first published in 1862.  In the 1900's alone it was a movie (1935), a radio adaptation (1937), another film (1958), a musical (1980), yet another film (1998), a TV miniseries (2000), and then even another film just recently in 2012, the one that was nominated for Best Picture.  With that much background, that much material to draw from, and with a story so beloved by such a large group of people, you'd damn well better be able to create a successful movie.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe these people have earned these accolades, these awards, this popularity, even if it is gained by standing on the shoulders of those who came before them.  After all, there's an awful lot of work put into making these movies, and I don't want to take anything away from them.

But something feels wrong about lauding these people for redoing something that someone else already did.  I think people have an under appreciation for original work.  I think that both creators and readers/watchers have gotten lazier and lazier in their approach to new things.  The people creating don't want to take the time, or the risk, of creating something original.  And the people that are watching, don't want to have to think.  They just want to be force fed something easy and familiar.

Perhaps we should take some more risks, start thinking a little bit more, and stop giving awards for repetition and mediocrity.