So I met this girl on Tinder. Lives 13 miles away from me, seemed like she had a sense of humor, and I swear on a scale of 1 - 10 she was a 12. The curves, the looks, the bust, the back, oh so juicy and enamoring. So, I did my usual thing, check her out. Well, not really my usual thing, more like I'm interested and I didn't learn much about them from their profile. Also, to be fair she didn't make it hard to find her online. She has her IG on her profile, and from the IG you can find her full name, which isn't even close to a common first or last name, and a link to her blog on The Odyssey. So, being the person I am I decide to check out her blog, which can be found at the link at the bottom of the page. First article I read drew me in with the title, Signs It's Time To Let Someone go, being something I can relate to. Despite the minor typos, it was a decent piece of writing. However, it also used a, well to be honest I thought it was shitty, metaphor, at least I thought it was a metaphor, that is the type of stuff you write when you think you're being incredibly deep. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that the literary device, and a lot of her blog, is satirical, but the way it was written suggests otherwise. Furthermore, if you're going to use a literary device to make fun of people that think they're deep, at least make it more moronic so people know it's a joke. Anyways, this was the first sign that I was wrong. Further reading led me to realize, THIS GIRL IS A BIBLE TOTER. Not you're average bible toter either, I'm talking she grew up on the choir, goes to confession every week and will even mention that time she thought of some dudes dick, or wanted to hit someone, or said fuck.
Now before I go on, I'm just going to state my stance and my qualifications.
I AM A HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR. I HAVE NO FUCKING QUALIFICATIONS. I WILL PROBABLY STATE STANCES WITHOUT CITING ANY RESOURCE THAT I COULD'VE EASILY LOOKED AT FOR 5 SECONDS ON GOOGLE. SOME OF THE INFORMATION I STATE WILL BE FROM MEMORY AND WOULDN'T HAVE NEEDED SOME ARTICLE. I AM NO BARD, I DO THINK THAT I CAN WRITE DECENT ENOUGH BUT MY OPINION ISN'T A PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IT IS AN OPINION. I LEAN TOWARDS LIBERALISM, BUT ALSO I BELIEVE IN EVERYTHING BALANCES OUT IN THE END, SO THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A WRONG DECISION. I AM A HIPPY. I REVERE ANCIENT CULTURES. AND MOST OF ALL, I KNOW SOME SHIT ABOUT RELIGION TOO, I HAD TO LEARN IT FOR 7 YEARS AND THE LAST 4 OF THEM I ACTUALLY LEARNED ABOUT IT.
Ok, and now the total shitting on but not meant to be mean or aggressive just in the mood to sport criticism begins, and if anyone has any negative, or even positive, criticism for me I would love to hear it, because the negative is more important so you know what to work on. First off, her poetry. Maybe it's that I prefer a different style, but I found it to be dull. Judging from the three poems I skimmed on her blog thingie, she prefers simplistic rhyme schemes with variation in rhythm. Her first poem for example, She Deserves. The pattern was easy to discern, because it was an aabbcc...zz. The rhythm? It started off with each line ranging from 7-10 syllables on average, but then started alternating between short and long lines, relative to each other. As for the content? Let me put it this way, it seemed dripping with pretentious notions, and struck me as fanciful. Maybe that's because I'm a bitter old man in the body of an 18 year old, but I found it pretentious due to it striking me as the type of shit I heard girls say all of my 11th grade year in AP Lang. I can't describe it well, but some of it is the cheap rhymes she used, some is the diction, and most of all when I read it to myself that's the first thought that came to my mind. As for Fanciful, to save time I'm going to define fanciful, over imaginative and unrealistic. In She Deserves it talks about what this girl thinks a girl deserves in a relationship. While personally I agree with it, I find it unrealistic because it's something impossible. It expresses a sea of entitlement, the same type of entitlement that's made me grow to dislike my brother's girlfriend. To always be treated like you're the reason to live, always be put first, to be uplifted on a daily basis, and always have the person's time. That, that doesn't sound fair. If I was in a relationship like that, hopefully never will be, and I was the one receiving that treatment, I'd end it. It's not their fault that they're like that, but me staying also isn't fair to them. It's a perfect situation scenario she describes, and one that being a cynical asswipe that prefers being realistic if he can I can't even finish reading in one go. If I had a girl, I'd try to make her my queen, but she's not always going to come first. I have prior commitments. I'm always going to be more committed to my brother, to my family, to the people that I met, bonded with, and been loyal to long before I met her, of course implying they're loyal to me as well. Unlike my brother, who I respect for willingly being another person's bitch and staying because he's too nice, but also have lost a little respect for because he's unwilling to be alone, physically or emotionally, I am willing to say no to someone I've fallen in love with. I'm willing to take a stand for myself when I think I should, where he's the type to step out of the way and say go ahead and be that way as he thinks to himself he wishes they'd change. And that's also what the writing struck me to be saying, that a girl should always be treated well even if she asks to get smacked across the face, or bitched out. In my world, like deserves like. I'll try to be there for someone in their shittiest time ever, but if they aren't going to act mature about it then I'm not going to keep taking it. If someone thinks that them being in a bad mood is an excuse to treat you like shit, well fuck then I guess I'm in a bad mood too cause getting pissed is treating them like shit. Ok well, I'm spending too much time on one topic, and would definitely reviewed the other two poems but I want to finish my 2 or 3 other rants and get this posted.
Lets review an article she wrote, You Deserved Hell. This is going to be short, it's only a few paragraphs and not much to critique. I'll jump straight to her second paragraph. In this she states
"When we are little, we are taught the difference between right and wrong. No matter their denomination or religion, our parents and role models instill in us our moral values." I greatly disagree. You know what values my dad conveyed to me? That hispanics and blacks are lesser beings, that religions that don't follow "the one true god" are lesser faiths, that someone that doesn't believe in god shouldn't have morals because you can't have morals without god. You know what else he did? He taught me how to be a piece of shit to someone, he made fun of me on a daily basis and made some of the most fucked up statements. Did I follow in his footsteps, did he instill anything in me? Hell, No. By the time I started becoming self aware I was disgusted with him, some of which is he changed when he was in the hospital. I don't take after my dad or my mom. My mom is one of the most selfish beings I know, and my dad? Well my dad thought it was ok to use scare tactics, skewed information, and unfair advantages to convince people to agree with him. Does that really sound moral? No, I learned how to treat someone like a human being taking after the golden rule, treat someone how you'd want to be treated. And I also had to learn like a sociopath, based off of reactions from others. Now as for us deserving to be in hell. Let's for this scenario I believe in the concept of heaven and hell. Well before that I'll state that I see the world divided into planes, not realms, different planes overlap and heaven and hell aren't separate planes, they're the afterlife, the next life, etc etc some references to hinduism and reincarnation. Back to the scenario though, if heaven and hell did exist, there's no proof in their existence, but there is judgement in actions. Personally, I believe that there is always either a benevolent or malevolent intent behind an action, but in the end doesn't the person that performs the action benefit from as much as they suffer for it? It's all about what matters more, yes, but I'm going to quote Newton, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." While that is about physics, saying you hit the ground with 25 pounds of force then you also receive 25 pounds of force, it is also the best way to describe this concept. Nothing ever comes for free. You steal something right? Unless you're some crazy ass sociopath, you're minds going to keep telling you what you did was fine, even though you know it was wrong. You're going to be stuck with guilt, even if it's something as small as gum. Let me take it to a larger scale, you kill someone. Has anyone ever wondered why soldiers become psychos, or alcoholics, or both? It's guilt, that's all that it comes down to. If you don't receive punishment from someone else, you're going to end up punishing yourself. There is a balance that must be maintained, and every price is fair as well as every reward. No, I don't think we deserve hell, because we give ourselves hell or receive hell already, Life Is Hell.
Ok Ok, that was a lot longer than I thought it would be, and the next one may be too. Abortion. Her article, Planned Parenthood: Women's Rights or Infanticide, speaks enough for itself with its title. It obviously shows that she sees abortion as infanticide. I personally haven't been able to ask her this yet, but I really wonder if she's interviewed or discussed with anyone that's had an abortion, how they felt about it, if they regret it, etc etc. I'm sure people do regret it, I know my brother did, I know I did and it wasn't even my own child it was my brother's. But also, I knew I didn't have any say in it. Her major discussion points are that abortions are funded by people that want to strip fetuses for cells to use, that being pro-life is in fact being pro-life and not pro-birth, and children are never mistakes. While I agree with the final one, the first two I don't. I'm a very cheap person, if I can save a buck I'll try to save a buck, even though lately I haven't been conscious of my spending because I have more money than usual. That extends to waste. Abortion clinics mean jobs, mean careers, mean a service that if performed by someone that isn't a professional there's a considerably higher amount of risk in it. I doubt any woman would want to shove a coathanger up their coochie and hope she's not giving birth at most 9 months later. With funding being taken away from abortion clinics, they need to be able to sustain themselves. Also, and this I'm not sure of, I'm sure that they need you to sign a release of genetic material to give them permission to sell the fetus, or even give it away to research. Stem Cell research is a thing, and it's led to amazing advances. There's people growing hearts in labs that can be used in transplants, there's people that are having their lives saved by babies that weren't born. I'd imagine that you can generate multiple hearts from one fetus, multiple livers, multiples of any organs. There's even stuff about skin grafts, which is more life saving. Too much skin damage can cause you unable to be in the sun, to go swimming, to do a lot of stuff. Heart troubles? Well without lab grown hearts or a transplant, I'm pretty sure you can have artificial ones installed. Regardless, there's nothing worse than dying because you spent so much time waiting on someone to be generous, or die. My dad spent years before my uncle was put on leave and able to give him a kidney. He spent years going to dialysis everyday, having complications every month, having to be more used to sleeping in a hospital bed than his own, having to wait on other people to visit you because you can't even get out of the bed to take a piss. Stem cells save lives, and they help people live them as well. There's something called necessary cost, if there was a famine you would have to let some people die so others can live. If you're at war, you can't expect to send platoons of men out and every single one of them returns. If someone's going to die, don't let that death be for nothing. Now let's move onto the pro-life stance. I do think that it is more a pro-birth movement. Before I go on I will state that personally I would never want to have my child aborted if I was lucky enough to have the opportunity for one, I would probably vomit if it happened, but I'm also not going to make whoever unlucky girl got knocked up go through with it just because I don't like the idea of taking away opportunity from someone else. Has this girl ever gotten pregnant, not saying I have, and I find it unlikely based off of her being a bible toter. Besides the fact that some clinics require women to receive counseling pre and post abortion, it's a trial to be pregnant. Girls get disgusted with themselves, they go even crazier than they already are because of the hormone imbalances. And what if it's a junkie that can't get clean, that's kid is going to be addicted to smack. Or they can't support it, or can't take care of it. The girl says that a child is robbed of food, education, and housing by not being given the chance to get it. Think about it for a sec. Some 15 year old gets knocked up by her boyfriend, the boyfriend is a deadbeat and the girl gets kicked out by her rents. She can't get an abortion either, so she's forced to take care of it. Some would say that girl could always give it up for adoption, but what if it's not adopted. That girl is stuck homeless, or practically homeless, with a baby in her. She gives birth to the baby and she's stuck with a bill if she goes to the hospital, so she might give birth in a fucking alley. Now I realize this is a really extreme situation, but if every pregnancy came about with a good situation, then abortion would be unreasonable and honestly cruel. And this scenario is realistic, and can happen. This girl raises the kid, somehow she finds a job as a minor to support the baby and herself with, and some nice family member or friend, possibly an aunt that went through the same ordeal that she did, takes her in. This girl can be robbed of her education, of her life, of her potential. There's always a consequence for your actions, but to me an abortion entails so much guilt, especially on a young girl, that it might be worse for some than going through with the pregnancy. An abortion you have to live with for the rest of your life, a pregnancy you can recover from when your last kid turns 18 and some people end up making their life alongside that kid. Back to the scenario though, this girl spend her late teens raising a kid and working hours at a shit wage so that kid can have the life she couldn't. But, because she has to support two people, and probably ends up having to pay some type of rent or dues to whoever she's staying with, she spends more time working than watching her kid. There's a reason gangs target children for membership. Abortions are a service for low income people, as well as Anti Premarital Children families. If you're from a family with a decent amount of income, there's also a better chance that you're going to receive support, there's going to be more caretakers available, more money to spare, and probably more family to take you in. If a kid grows up poor, and unsupervised, when he sees this guy that's always wearing the newest kicks, has a rolex and they ain't even 21 yet, seems like they enjoy life and always have money for new and nice things, he's going to want to do whatever the fuck that guy does. I have one friend that grew up in New York, he didn't even finish high school because he was making the money that his teachers made in a month, in one week. He ended up supporting his mom. Now, couldn't you say he was robbed by circumstance? I can, and would. And that's what it's boiled down to, circumstance. A well to do family, even if they're the most religious family in three states, I would imagine would take care of the kid, make sure he or she receives that support as well as the mother, and grow to accept their daughter is a harlot. A family that has both parents working at minimum wage, being held over by welfare, they might not be as welcoming to another mouth to feed, or be able to support another mouth to feed, or not be able to take care of another mouth to feed. Circumstance.
Okay, this is probably one of the longest posts I've ever made and it's about to get longer because I have two more paragraphs of negative criticism with some possible positive criticism. It's a good thing this one will be short though, I think. Slut Empowerment, yep yep yep. It's a real thing, and no I don't really agree with it, but I don't disagree with it. She disagrees with the idea of it, the idea that "outright promiscuity does not evoke power." Well I think it does, take my brother for example. If a girl puts out there's a higher chance that she'll be pursued because niggas be thirsty these days. They don't have to be attractive, they don't have to be interesting, they just have to be willing to do shit beneath the sheets. A definition of power, as used in this sense, is the ability to influence other's choices. That is exactly what happens with promiscuity. I'll admit it, if I see a girl that walks around in spandex daily and will openly talk about their sex life I'm instantly more attracted to them, and I'm not even pursuant of shredding my v-card. And then she talks on rape's relation to how a person dresses, well it's contradictory. She initially states that a girl that walks alone in risque clothing is at just as much risk as a girl that walks alone in modest clothing. But then follows up with that a girl wearing jack shit gets more attention, well doesn't that put her more at risk? Even then, I remember hearing or reading or something that rapes occur more often at home or with someone you're familiar with. I doubt it's that easy to rape a girl in a back alley, in public, even at night. And if I'm going to rape someone, yes another fucked up scenario, I'm definitely not going to do it in public, I'm going to slip something in their drink. If for some dumbass reason I did do it in public, why would I even look once at a girl that's wearing a trenchcoat, or a pair of cargoes with a sweater on, there's nothing to attract you to them, I'm going to go for the chick wearing spandex and a spaghetti strap that shows off her tits as well as her navel. That's all I'm going to say on the subject though because I still have ONE MORE PARAGRAPH.
Halloween, a very sensitive subject with religious people. Her article, 5 Ways A Christian Should Celebrate Halloween, struck me as bigoted and close minded. Honoring her Grandmother for shouting at kids to "begone" in french while holding a bible in the window as an opener, just why. I have my own reasons to dislike Halloween, but hers again I find to be a little absurd. She states that Halloween is derived from All Saints Day for Catholics, and from paganism in other cultures, and she's kinda right. She's right with the latter, and partially with the former. Halloween was originally referred to as All Hallows Eve, because Saints are Hallowed, and is also part of a three day festival, known as the Day of the Dead in South America. There's other Christian holidays that were originally derived from paganism and other cultures. Christmas isn't the actual day that Jesus was born, and it's roots are in Norse mythology. Santa used to have a demon assistant for punishing children that misbehaved. But people don't protest Christmas based on its roots now do they, cause I feel like technically welcoming a demon into your home to fuck with your kids is pretty blasphemous. And then her "5 Ways A Christian Should Celebrate Halloween", they're actually 5 reasons why a Christian shouldn't celebrate Halloween. Her first reason, some of the costumes, saying that even though they're viewed as imaginary, they also hold presence in satanic rituals and influence people in negative ways. Lets go over a few, Witches, Ghosts, Mermaids, and Zombies, that's actually most of them. Witches have roots in Wickens, women that were persecuted for their beliefs and practiced being one with nature. They also have roots in drug use, mostly unintentional. A common theory on the Salem Witch Trials was that they were the result of mold that grew on rye bread that produced LSD. You know why witches are associated with brooms? Because back then women got beat around a lot, and poisonous plants such as hemlock and nightshade are also powerful deliriants when taken and dosed properly. For those that don't know, there's three classes of hallucinogens. Psychedelics; shrooms, LSD, THC etc, they produce hallucinations based off of the mental state and the environment, Dissociatives; Ketamine, PCP, DXM etc, they produce hallucinations that you create and also out of body experiences, and Deliriants; Benedryl, hemlock, nighshade etc, they produce hallucinations that you will believe are real. The way a "witch" used her poisonous plants? She made them into a paste and put them on a broomstick, then shoved it up her vagina and then had sex with her husband. It would make her mad, and possibly made her husband think she was possessed as well and he'd be tripping nuts too. Witches don't have evil roots, and I feel like there's no satanic ritual to summon a witch, or her soul, or anything related to them. Ghosts, oh don't even get me started even though I have. Besides that ghosts can as easily be benevolent as malevolent, what association do they have with satanic rituals? Halloween is to honor the spirits, on the Day of the Dead people build shrines to their dead including their favorite foods and you can't even eat it later. Even more, the only interactions I've ever heard of going on with ghosts is Ouija boards and mediums. Not drawing a pentagram on the ground, and chanting something in latin until you feel a breeze. Then Mermaids, they have no association with Satan at all, but they do have roots as monsters. They also have lores about being benevolent. They have no place in the list regardless based off of her explanation. Finally, Zombies, fuck no. Zombies have roots in Voo Doo, where a shaman would blow poison in your face to knock you out and when you wake up convince you that they brought you back to life as a servant. Them being violent brain eaters and products of nefarious necromancy didn't show up until later years. If you apply the logic she used for who a holiday belongs to, as in which one is the actual celebration, to myths and legends, then you'd see that none of these creatures have any relationship with satanism. And then the next reason, which I don't really disagree with much if you go with her logic but I don't like her standing on Druids, that's expressed in reason three and five as well. She paints them as people that worshiped evil and use force to achieve a means. Druids are best known as religious leaders, and held high standing in society. There also isn't much information on druids due to them practicing oral tradition. They're like wickens in that they were at one with nature. Where in history are they shown to be people that summoned demons, and threatened people for donations in the same way a Mafioso would. Like I said earlier, I'm a hippy, and I take personal offense from her insulting druids in such an ignorant manner, because those are also my roots. I know that I have some druid in me, or at the least a Celt that followed a druid. And I want to honor those roots, not saying I'm going to start praying to nature and what not, adopt a life like that of a druid, but I'm saying I'm not going to enjoy reading such disrespect that has no foothold either. It's like when I was making jokes in 10th grade about black people being afraid of fire and not knowing how to swim. It's blathering ignorance. Why I don't like Halloween though? It's simple, it's fucking offensive. I couldn't give two shits about how it applies to religions, but culture is another thing. I feel like you can misappropriate a religion, but that's an extension of culture. It's honestly disgusting the way people misappropriate culture and don't realize how offensive it can be. From Native American costumes, to Samurai Armor, to even a pirate, a lot of costumes that people don are insensitive to the cultures they represent.
Well I guess that's it, if you actually read through all of this long ass post I would love to congratulate you personally because it's a lot of ranting and droning. I also lost my train of thought a lot so please excuse if I change direction a lot or don't finish an argument, or produced a weak one. I put in I think an hour and a half because I have nothing better to do, and I started this at like 1:30 A.M. All in all I'd like to have a conversation with this girl though. I just need to feel interested to be attracted to a girl, and her closeted opinions intrigue me. Despite the fact that I intend to send it to the girl, well I'll admit it, one of the biggest things that intrigue me is breaking a person. Or more appropriately, breaking their world. Not saying I want to be their guide and source of knowledge or information and opinions, but if someone's close minded I want to open that mind, if they're a snob I want to make them fall in love with me because I'm what a snob wouldn't even be okay sharing a room with. Most of all though, I enjoy the concept of corruption, even though I don't look at what I do as corruption, others do. I look at what I do as eye opening and on some levels liberating, a lot of people get restricted by social pressure and their perception of right or wrong and morality, and sometimes that perception can be really distorted, even though I'm in no right to determine that. Ignorance is my kryptonite and enlightenment is the only available cure. It'd be interesting to talk to the girl just to find the root of her opinions, so I can further develop my own. And yes, I realize I was bring judgemental about religious people.
http://theodysseyonline.com/author/aminibonane
