Connecting Space

There are times while standing in some line that the person behind me is way too close. I mean, they are standing right next to me. I might move a bit, to give myself a little space, but then they move a bit, too, and they are still right on top me! I feel like giving them a stiff elbow, or stepping on their toes, or turning and sneezing into their face.

Conversely, there are times when someone behind me in line is way far away, like 8 feet back there. Then I am, like, yo! Do I have cooties or something? Do I stink today? Why are you so far back there? Can you not trust yourself standing near me?

Then there is space in a relationship, which has less to do with physical space and more to do with emotional and mental space, although the two usually go hand-in-hand. Now, I haven’t been in a relationship in over a decade, but I have dated during that time, and can draw on the before-time as well as recent escapades to talk about space in a relationship.

Most of the woman I have dated have not lived nearby; they have lived across town. Usually 40 to 45 minutes away, without traffic. None closer than 30 minutes. I assure you this was completely unintentional. I would much prefer to date someone closer. It just never worked out that way. Mayhap you could argue I was lackadaisical about dating those women because of the distance, in which case space did play some role. Or more like travel time to cross that space.

If I am “just dating” someone then I  expect there to be space. If that dating becomes a relationship, then I expect less space, i.e. more closeness.  If I like you then I like you, and I want you around. If I start to say “I need more space” then clearly I don’t like you as much. Don’t confuse this with me engaging in an activity by myself. The two loner activities I do is read and play a computer game. The woman with whom I have a relationship is welcome to read next to me, or play the game, too. The question is, do I do those things to as simple hobbies, or do I use it as a means of pushing her away? The latter would mean I need more space; that is, I don’t like you as much.

Someone recently said to me, “everyone craves human connection.” Aside from hermits, I guess. But maybe hermits just suppress or ignore that craving. How much connection is enough? What type of connection? What if you don’t get enough human connection? Is that when you go out drinking and attempt to connect with anyone,  until you wake up the following morning next to someone who you don’t want anyone to know you woke up next to?

Some people might need human connection so much that they can never really be on their own. I know people like that. Do they force relationships just to satisfy that craving? Do they end up with someone they really are not compatible with, but ignore the red flags for the sake of human connection? Sure they do, and they typically pay the price later but then solve it by immediately finding another relationship

It isn’t really about craving human connection, since it would seem we all crave it, it is about how well you tolerate a lack of human connection, and what you would do to satisfy that craving the longer you go without.

 

 

 

 

Do You Want To Play A Game?

This is how the game works. A man and woman meet. For the game to be in play the man and woman must assume their traditional parts. The man pursues the woman with the intent of having sex. The woman plays hard to get. Even if the woman is not hard to get, she has pretend to be to play the game.

For the man it is not about finding things he likes, it is about disqualifications. He can accept ugly, but not too ugly. He can accept fat, but not too fat. She can be old, not too old-looking. He can accept annoying, but not too annoying. It boils down to what he is willing to tolerate in order to get some. If a man continues to talk to a woman then he wants to have sex with her, he still may find a reason to bail.

For the woman it is about finding things she likes. She likes the way he talks to her. She likes his smile. She likes the way he dresses. If a woman continues to talk to a man then she is looking for a reason that might sway her to yes; course, she could just be passing the time and the man has no shot in hell.

The man needs to be assertive but not too aggressive. He needs to be confident, but not cocky. He needs to be funny, but not a goofball. He needs to flirt, but not be creepy.

The woman … well, she doesn’t really need to be anything. If she has attracted a man’s attention then she need only decide.

Here are variations on the game:

When a woman thinks more like a man. If so, there isn’t much of game. She makes it happen instead of waiting. Men hate this because without a game they are on the sideline. Men like this because … score!

When a woman isn’t really in the game but acts like she is. The man will keep working it on the off chance she decides to get in the game.

When a man isn’t playing the game. Really, it can happen. Some men are just not in the game. He might talk to women. Might be friendly. Maybe make some jokes. But he will not be assertive, and flirting will be light if any at all. The only time a man who doesn’t play can get some is when he encounters a woman who takes the role of the man, as long as she doesn’t disqualify him.

 

Now, get out there and play!

 

 

 

 

Crazy Is As Crazy Does

I was reading Angie’s post about the correlation between a crazy partner and hot sex, and how much crazy one would tolerate for the hot sex. My first thought was, “I need more hot sex.” My second thought was, “I need to find some crazies and check out the sex so can I speak authoritatively on the subject.” Several minutes later, after sobering back into reality, I decided to give some left-brained thought to the crazies and hot sex, as long it doesn’t know what my right-brain is doing!

First off, we are talking about a relationship with said crazy, right? Many guys will take a one night stand of hot sex with an out-the-window bat-shit crazy woman. In fact, lots of guys will take a couple weeks of that action. Right up until he begins to sniff “relationship.” So, I will assume we are talking about a relationship and not just tossing the dirty leg with some nutcase.

 

When I say relationship I mean your family and friends know your partner has got the crazy. If no one knows then that it is more like asking how long will someone have an affair with a crazy just for the hot monkey-sex? Right up until someone finds out, that’s how long.

What do we mean by hot sex? Well, we mean no holes barred, she is totally into it, pushing your boundaries, over the top sex. No one says no. No one complains. No one questions. No one judges. You don’t even tell your closest friend half of what you do. Whatever the two of you are doing she is totally into it, and you never, ever doubt it.

Of course, I am stalling. Because, of course, the answer depends. It depends on the guy. The longer a man can tolerate crazy in a relationship just for the hot sex, then the more self-centered that man is, then the more that man sees the woman as a prop.

Let’s be clear on tolerate. Some men like the crazy, so they are not tolerating it, they are attracted to it. The drama and the hysterics are like the candle to the moth. But who are we fooling? They look for the crazy because they are looking for the hot sex that might come along with it. Would they really stick it out with the crazy if that is all there was?

But the answer still depends and so I can only truly answer for myself. I would not be in a relationship just for the sex, but I do like a bit-o-crazy. Baggage and some drama, in other words emotion, are things everyone has. I would rather it be expressed out in the open. Yes, please.

 

 

 

A Street By Any Other Name

I attended the SMU-Texas A&M football game and more importantly I attended The Boulevard, SMU’s submission to the world of tailgating. My son is learning to drive and as he was doing some driving on Saturday he asked for a reminder of what it was called when someone is following too closely. Tailgating. In classic American language tradition we have a single word that has two completely different meanings.

 As with The Grove at Ole Miss, there are no real tailgates at The Boulevard. You have a grassy commons area with tent tops every few feet. The Boulevard seemed more like a state fair atmosphere, with several retail/commercial tents hawking products and services. A detraction, in my opinion. You can separate The Boulevard into two parts: the student section, and the family section.

The family section is your more traditional tailgate setting. Older alumni mixing with the young’uns, and visiting fans mooching for what they can. You got your grills, and TV’s, and food trays. All in all a relatively wholesome area.

To the north, and I noticed with less tree coverage and so less shade, is the student section. To be more precise you might call it the Greek section, as fraternities and sororities have their own tent tops. A multi-ring circus, so to speak. Here you have pounding music, and preppy guys (yes, in case you are unaware, 80’s preppy is in for male college students), and girls who seem dressed for an evening at a cocktail lounge. Lots of dresses and skirts, riding up as they jump around to some rap song. No one really dances anymore. They either jump around in unison, or do a line-dance. In unison appears to be the common thread. Occasionally someone will show off their choreographed dance moves and then you get mostly spectating.

In the student section my 17 year old daughter was appropriately put off by the raucous display, and my 16 year old son appropriately bugged-eyed.

Tailgating was originally conceived as a means of distraction while you wait for the football game. What you have at The Boulevard is tailgating accompanied by the distraction of a football game.

Giving the IT Finger

Hierarchy of Blame

Depending on what you support (or use) you may not have this same list of folks to blame for problems with your system.

User Error

Is there any subset of humans more troublesome than users? They are either ignorant, stupid, or both. You know how whenever you call a help line (which makes YOU the user) they always start with the most fundamental of questions? That is because the first to blame for your problems is you. Some users are so good at being wrong that the only way to set them straight is to look over their shoulder as they recreate their “problem.” If something goes wrong then the first finger is pointed at the user.

Security

If you can’t do something in the system then it must be because you don’t have the proper access; access that most certainly should have been figured out and applied to your account well before you ever wanted to use it. The security team will try to confuse you with whatever nomenclature applies to your system: permission lists, query trees, security search records, row level security, component interfaces, web libraries, yada, yada, yada. They are like magicians, distracting you while they do some “magic.” Once you get past the triage that is the help desk then the second finger is pointed at security.

Working As Designed

You may not like how it works. You may not agree with how it works. You may be confused and bewildered by how it works. That is how it works. Get over it already. The third finger is the middle finger. Brought to you by the designers of your system.

Production Support

There are folks who are responsible for knowing how everything works. They test. They design. They develop. They troubleshoot. They document. They educate. Sometimes they suck at it.  You know where to put that fourth finger.

DBA’s (or equivalent know-it-alls with access to everything)

You notify the DBA’s of a problem and they will immediately forward it to someone else. You know that old comic Family Circus? With the ghost-like “Not Me” who breaks things and screws things up? “Not Me” is who the kids blame when the parents ask who did something. “Not Me” is what the DBA’s say. Only after the problem has been redirected multiple times will the DBA’s take a serious look at it. Fifth finger pointed.

You have a problem? Is it legitimate? No worries, just sit back and let the hierarchy of blame runs its course. Enjoy the ride.

 

 

 

 

A Mad Lib

Before proceeding please create selections for these items, so they may be inserted into the story as you read:

Name of Bar/Club. Activity. Body Part. Piece of Clothing. Part of town. Food. Dollar Amount. Sex Act 1. Sex Act 2.

A Man. A Woman. And what the parakeet saw.

The man and his friends go to ((name of bar/club)) for some drinking and ((activity)). The man and the woman make googly-eyes with each other. They meet and sit together. The man spills a hurricane right on her ((body part)). To make amends the man offers the woman his ((piece of clothing)). They stand-up and trade clothing on the spot. Over the next several hours the man and woman occasionally trade clothing. Management threatens eviction if the man and woman do not cease. They trade clothing again. They are kicked out.

The man and woman walk the ((part of town)) and eventually try to reenter where they were evicted. But the bouncers recognize them because the man is wearing a very distinctive shirt and hat. The man and women go to get some ((food)). While there some guy professes his admiration for the man’s very distinctive shirt. The man sell his shirt for ((dollar amount)) and the guy’s shirt. The man loses his hat and with his different shirt the man and woman are able to reenter.

The woman leaves with her friend but not before the man and woman enjoy ((sex act 1)) on a street corner. The man returns to his friends and later meets another woman. The place closes at 5am and the man and the other woman stand out front on the curb and enjoy ((sex act 2)).

The end.

Subprime Mortgage Blame Game

When reading The Big Short, by Michael Lewis, you must not get bogged down in the complexity of the investments. As you will learn in the book pretty much no one understood the mortgage-based investments that would eventually lead to the so-called Great Recession. All you need to understand is that Wall Street thought it had another the-house-always-wins investment security, and that a handful of people foresaw the folly in this and bet against it.

It is often assumed that players in a market (both buyers and sellers) will behave rationally, which should not be confused with behaving intelligently or logically. Rationality can be a relative, subjective term; it is often a matter of opinion. A rational person will almost always choose what they see as best for them, with the result being they get something they want as long as any recognized negative consequences are not realized in the short-term. Get what you want now, worry about the later consequences later. To put it more bluntly, people are selfish and greedy.

On the ground floor there were borrowers agreeing to loans they could not afford, and lenders offering loans they knew would default. Intelligent? No. Logical? No. Selfish and greedy? Most definitely. People with horrendous credit histories and income at or near poverty level were getting home/equity loans where the interest rate ballooned after four years, and even some where the interest rolled back into the loan principle for four years. Borrowers agreed to these outrageous conditions because all they saw was the immediate money. Lenders offered the loans because investment houses demanded more and more loans that could be bundled and sold. Again, immediate money.

Next on this assembly line are the rating agencies. Rating agencies are supposed to review an investment security, assess the risks, and label it as triple-A, double-A, etc. A rating of triple-A is supposed to be low risk. In fact, Wall Street considers triple-A to be virtually guaranteed. The rating agencies had no idea what were in these mortgage-based securities (neither did just about all of Wall Street). The agencies were given a batch to rate and generally (and essentially arbitrarily) rated 80% as triple-A, based on no research whatsoever. The remaining 20% were then bundled with other mortgages and resubmitted where 80% would then be rated a triple-A! This was plain and simple laziness.

There are plenty of directions in which fingers can be pointed. The fact remains that lenders are allowed to make any loans they want, however bad they might be, and borrowers are allowed to accept any loan that is offered, however unlikely they can afford it, and investment firms are allowed to bundle the mortgages and sell them, but rating agencies should never have rated investment securities that the agency did not research and completely understand. The rating agencies are the primary culprits.

Were the rating agencies selfish and greedy? Insomuch that laziness is a product of selfishness and greed, yes. If mortgage-based securities were too complex and lacked sufficient data for proper research then the rating agencies should have refused to rate them. Everyone else played the system, even those who bet the system would collapse, but the rating agencies enabled the system, dooming it to collapse.