"I've got a PhD in horribleness"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/16/iraq-shoe-thrower-visited_n_158458.html

Remember the reporter who threw the shoes at President Bush in Iraq?  You know, the one who called him a dog.  He also stated that it was for the widows and orphans and people killed in Iraq.  This portion of his statement was mysteriously absent from almost every mainstream media report.  Shocking. 

Well, his trial was initially held up because he was too injured to go to court.  He had been beaten severely, one of his eyes was ruptured, and he was in no state to go to trial.  He had initially had 2 visitors who confirmed his poor physical condition and multiple beatings. 

Well now it's been over a month since anyone has seen him, and no one knows where he's even being held, nor has there been any kind of trial.  Who wants to bet we're never going to hear or see from him again? 

It's funny that when initially reporting on the topic, a pundit on fox news had remarked that if Saddam Hussein were still in power, he probably would have been executed.  It's good to see how drastically things have changed.

I had a discussion the other day regarding the nature of religion from a philosophical standpoint.  Religion in this case was defined as a belief that something was wrong with the world, or humanity, and that a solution is required.  The solution was defined as the religious ultimate.

That is to say for example that for catholics the problem with humanity is sin, and christ is the solution, therefore christ is the religious ultimate.  The religious ultimate does not have to be a deity, and can instead be a concept or ideal such as inner peace. 

What I find interesting about this is that back when I labeled myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, I would sometimes be presented with the argument that Atheism is a religion as well, which I found to be profoundly stupid.  It would in fact, and I know this seems out of character, profoundly piss me off.

However under the philosophical definition, it is indeed a religion.  Atheism is the belief that what is wrong with the world is religion (which I more or less agree with), and the religious ultimate in this case would be a rejection of organized religion, and irrational denial of the possibility of god.

Atheism is a belief just as much as any other faith in that there is no more evidence supporting the non existence of god than there is supporting the existence.  Therefore any kind of rational objective person has to come to the conclusion that while one may seem more or less likely than the other, ultimately they are equally possible and implausible. 

Over the last year I've found that my view on relationships has changed dramatically.  I've never been too naive when it comes to dating, I expect that there will always be problems, people will always disagree, they will usually cheat, and the relationship will eventually end when one or more person moves on.

But after a decade of experience ranging from mediocre to horrible I've come to some conclusions.  The first is that I really don't want a relationship.  I want all the positive elements of a relationship such as love, sex, cuddles, and companionship, but ultimately those qualities are overshadowed by the negative aspects of relationships.  However I also don't want to have sex with someone I don't respect and care about, nor am I particularly skilled at picking up random chicks, even if I could get over my aversion to sleeping with the mentally handicapped.

What it comes down to essentially is that I'm not happy in a relationship, but I'm not happy being completely alone either.  Say what you want about being happy with yourself and by yourself, I still want someone to touch my penis once in a while, or let me dress them up and put a leash on them while I call them a whore and rub my cock in their face.  You know, depending on my mood.

Relationships are about power and control.  Whether that's the intent behind them is besides the point, that's what they usually degenerate into.  You want someone to fuck just you, be attracted to just you, and have feelings for just you.  Whether you try to achieve these goals by being incredible, by being abusive, or through passive aggressive guilt trips it's all the same.  It's an attempt to control something that can't be controlled.

You may find a partner who will resist their baser impulses and only have sex with you, though statistically that's less likely than them cheating.  As far as them not WANTING to fuck other people there's nothing you can do, as everyone wants to fuck more than one person, and if you do only want to fuck one person, there's probably something wrong with you.  Either way it's not something anyone else can control, or that you can control in anyone else.

More importantly, whether you are in a standard relationship, or an open relationship where you're together but sex with other people is allowed, you can't control whether the other person has feelings for anyone else.  This is what people generally want to control the most, and it is also the aspect of a relationship people have the least amount of control over.  Even if someone can love you forever, the idea that they could never love anyone else, or shouldn't love anyone else is patently ridiculous.

But we try.  We try to control these things despite the fact that we have no control over them and this is wear our pain comes from.  We get frustrated, we get jealous, we get hurt, and we hurt others all over this notion that everyone should pair up and breed until they die, which is what we're taught growing up, and which like most things most of us never question.

So why do it?  Why is it even necessary?  The way I see it, I love women, or at least the women I know.  People in general I find to be about as interesting and useful as packing peanuts.  They're just there to make it seem like there's a lot more humanity out there than there actually is.

I want the women I love to be happy, as happy as they can possibly be while they're on this earth, and that includes not trying to cage them, to control them, to prevent them from living their lives as fully as possible.  I want them to experience love with as many people as possible, both physically and emotionally.  I want them to be able to turn to many people for love, for help, for advice, and for sex.  And I want to be available to the women I love to provide any or all of these things, just as I expect them to feel about me and treat me the same way.

Why control when we can love?  Why restrict life when we can fully experience it?  Why try to reduce the happiness of the people you love rather than increasing it as much as possible?  In simpler terms, why can't everyone just get along?  Preferably naked with plenty of lube. 

It's not even an issue of which is preferable.  It's not an issue of which brings the most happiness and security.  It's an issue of the whole concept of control being illusory, so why pursue it at all?  It makes no more sense than any of the other illusions people cling to in order to find happiness when there is so much happiness to be found without having to make shit up.

So let's all be free.  Let's all be friends, let's all love each other, and let's all have hot sticky crazy awesome sex with as many of the people we love and respect as we can, sometimes all at once.  Why limit the experiences of others, why limit our own, when there's so many people out there to see, to love, and to fuck. 

No more for me.  I am very happy with my life now.  I'm happy with my friends,  I'm happy with my sex, I'm happy with my love, and I'm happy with the potential to find more and in the potential for those I'm with to find more as well.  I like having the freedom, and I like not worrying about the freedom of others, and I like the idea that the people I love can grow to love each other, and possibly have pillow fights in their underwear.

We only have one life, and then we're gone forever.  Let's spend it doing what we love, and what do people love more than freedom, loving, being loved, and having hot dirty sex?