Things that make me mad (when dealing with females)

Today I wanted to write a special post for all of my unmarried female readers about some of the things girls often seem to do which really piss me off. I hope the two of you enjoy it. And if I come across sounding a tad bitter, it's only because I probably am.

1. I want to start off by identifying some things that are creepy and some things that aren't:

Creepy: a stranger asking you for your home address while breathing heavily. 

Not Creepy: a stranger asking you for your number because he'd like to take you out.

Creepy: an unknown person sniffs your hair and sighs, then begins to give you a backrub.

Not Creepy: an unknown person tells you that you look pretty today.

Creepy: you catch a guy staring down your shirt, again breathing heavily.

Not Creepy: you catch a guy glancing over at you from time to time.

Creepy: a guy who looks and acts like a sex offender.

Not Creepy: everyone else.

There are many more I could give, I'm sure, but you get the point. Someone taking a genuine interest in you and getting to know you should never be creepy (unless he looks like a sex offender, in which case I sympathize). Unfortunately, many guys (myself included) have been intimidated out of such things by the horror stories told by their female acquaintances. In fact, in an attempt to figure out if asking a stranger for her number is creepy, I've questioned a number of girls on the subject, almost all with similar responses- "Depends on the guy and how he does it." Which is so helpful, especially when a request for further explanation is met with many an "I don't know." This discourages many normal males from ever making the attempt, for fear of doing it "wrong" and therefore "creepy".

My point is, ladies, please relax. I've even had girls give me a weird look for holding the door for them (seriously... if chivalry is dead, I think women are the ones that killed it). Don't be so judgmental. It's not easy to walk up to a perfect stranger and ask for a phone number, so don't put a guy down for doing it. My dad always talks about how in his day, that was just how it was done. My grandpa actually made first contact with my grandma by looking up her number in the phone book and calling her out of the blue (with some help from his friend... funny story actually). I realize you have to be careful in this day and age, but it peeves me when females assume the worst about a fella.

Good example from my life: Recently I sat near a pretty girl at a certain religious function. I'd never spoken to her before, other than a casual introduction when I sat down. As time passed, I had an idea to break the ice. I drew a tic-tac-toe table on my iPad, added an X, and slid it across the bench to her. I was terrified that she'd give me a weird look and ignore it, or laugh uncomfortably and look away. But she didn't. She looked down, laughed, drew an O, and passed it back. We played for the rest of the meeting, and it was really fun. We chatted a little more afterward, and now I'll feel comfortable asking for her number next time I see her. That's how it should be.

2. Girls that are so "nice" that they're actually mean. This one's quick. Basically, I don't need your charity. If you aren't interested, don't lead me on. Don't drag things out, and don't make up stupid excuses for why you can't hang out tonight, but you'd definitely love to later, so go ahead and keep trying, Garrett. That isn't nice. I (and every single male I've ever spoken with about it) would rather be told as early as possible if you aren't interested.

3. Similarly, girls who won't make it clear that they are interested. See, it's usually pretty easy to tell if a guy is interested. A) He'll ask you on a date. B) He'll try to take you out again. C) He'll keep trying to contact you in some form or another. D) He'll act interested. Girls for some reason don't like to be quite as clear. I think you want us to go all Sherlock Holmes on it and make a deduction or something. Often they'll keep suggesting you go out, or give us some of the clues, but not enough to move things forward and we just end up confused. For example I have a friend right now who's very interested in a certain girl. If she gave him the go-ahead, he'd lock it down right now. They've now been out 3+ times (I can't remember) and are still in contact, with plans to go out again, but whenever they go out she displays about as much affection or obvious interest as your average tree. This leaves him continually perplexed, especially when she continues to request that they go out again. I've been in the exact same situation before, and it isn't pleasant.

4. This one ties in to pretty much everything: Communication. Talking. Speaking. Writing. Signing, if necessary. Whatever form you use, please don't abandon it. This is easily the most frustrating thing for me, because it could solve so many problems for me. Here's a classic scenario: Guy takes girl out. They have fun. Both want to go out again. They go out several more times, having fun, becoming affectionate, all in all moving forward. After 4-6 dates the girl suddenly stops texting back or answering calls. If he's lucky, she might give him one response (usually a cold, heartless, impersonal text) saying that she doesn't think it'll work out, or a transparent and weak excuse for why she can't do anything every single time he tries. "What happened?" he might ask, but she'll never speak to him again, leaving the poor chap  devastatingly confused and wondering if it was something he did (this scenario is extremely realistic and has happened to me and friends of mine more times than I could count).

Don't get me wrong, I understand that it won't work out every time. It just won't, even if it starts out well. BUT PLEASE DON'T JUST DISAPPEAR WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION. I don't care if it's something simple, like, "I'm just starting to feel like we aren't going to be compatible with each other." That isn't great, but it's better than nothing. If there's another guy in the equation, say something like, "There's another guy in the equation." If it's something I did, tell me what it was that bothered you. At the very least this helps me learn so I don't do it again the next time. It's really quite easy. Whatever you do, just don't disappear.

And that's only one facet of communication. There are many to choose from, because communication is key. Say how you feel, say what you want, and ask questions.

Anyway, this is too long already, but those are probably the main ones. Every one of these items has happened multiple times, so it seems to be a trend. My wise roommate Colton, of course, will only ever write these kind of things when he's in a relationship so he doesn't sound like a bitter, lonely man. That's probably a good idea, but it was on my mind, so if I sound like a bitter, lonely man, so be it. At least I'm not a creep.

The Great Marriage Debate

This is a little bit different post today. Not so much of a rant or a rave, but something I've been thinking about which I feel needed to be said.

If you're an American, chances are you're pretty aware about one of the hugest debates currently going on in this country- that of traditional marriage vs. gay marriage. This particular topic is really pretty annoying to try and follow, mainly because most of the opinions offered on both sides are generally fairly misguided and uninformed. The problem that most people have with this issue is that they completely don't understand it. They don't understand the real issue that everyone is arguing about- either they claim it's either a moral issue, or it's about everyone having equal rights, or any number of other points of view.

Please understand that, while I of course do support a certain view, this is not intended to be an unfairly biased or unrealistic rant. This is simply me stating the way I see things, trying to use as much objective logic as possible, in an attempt to explain this side of the issue in a way which hopefully will make sense to people on both ends of the spectrum. I doubt I'll convince anyone to change their mind, but maybe I can explain why it's perfectly possible for someone to support traditional marriage without being hateful, bigoted, or any other negative things we've been accused of.

So first off, let's figure out exactly what the issue at hand is. Is it about rights? Maybe, but not necessarily. If you really look at it, the issue is more about creating a right that doesn't currently exist. As of now, every adult in the United States currently has the right to get married. Every single one. Every male has the opportunity to legally bind himself to a woman, and likewise, every woman to a man. The reason everyone has this right is because that is the legal definition of a marriage- the joining of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The definition of marriage, as it currently exists and has since the beginning of our government, is not the joining of two people who love each other.

Please don't misunderstand- this is not my argument. We can all see it's a fairly weak one. I'm simply stating the facts as they exist. This is the definition of marriage as recognized by our government. And if marriage was purely a legal institution, I'm sure it would be relatively easy to change that definition to allow for homosexual marriages to exist as well.

However...

This is where religion starts to play a factor. In many religions, including my own (I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), the legal aspect of marriage is secondary to the theological aspect. These religions see marriage as it currently exists as an institution of God, and not just of man. In fact, in my religion, for example, the marriage ceremony is among the most sacred and important acts we can experience during our lifetimes. We see it in the same mold as baptism, a necessary step we have to take during our journey back to God. And, like baptism, it needs to be done correctly. It is absolutely a fundamental religious ceremony to us. And while not all other faiths hold it in quite the same light we do, it is still, to them, an important part of their beliefs, often performed by religious authority rather than civic.

So now we can start to see where the conflict arises. See, asking someone who holds these core beliefs to change their definition of marriage is literally asking them to change their very theology. This is the heart of the debate, the way I see it. It ceases to be an issue of whether or not you accept someone else's lifestyle and becomes a challenge to the very tenets we hold dear. The government, in accepting a new definition of marriage, would ostensibly be rejecting our beliefs about the sacredness of marriage as it currently stands, making it no longer an acceptable way to see things. This is the reason we resist. It isn't because we hate anyone (of course, I can't speak for everyone, but certainly the majority), or hold ourselves above anyone, but simply because there just isn't any gray area. It becomes, for us, an actual loss of religious freedom- like we're being told what we have to believe, something our ancestors came to this country to escape. 

So if the definition of marriage is changed to include homosexuals, any institution who refuses to perform such marriages based on their beliefs will essentially be breaking the law. And even if there is some provision that legally allows for it, socially they'd be considered a discriminatory organization and would become the target of many a lobbyist or "civil rights" demonstration, with the high probability of an eventual lawsuit declaring any such discrimination to be "unconstitutional". Disagree with that if you will, but it will happen, and already does in many cases. I won't get into examples, but there are plenty.

In my mind, there is a fairly simple solution which, unless I'm way off, ought to keep some level of happiness on each side. It isn't perfect, I doubt any perfect solution exists, but with a little bit of compromise I think it should work. Rather than reworking the definition of marriage, why don't we create something new for homosexual unions? Why don't we make something that is legally more or less identical to marriage, but leaves the religious aspect out of it completely? With marriage, clergy have the power to wed, but maybe this new institution could only be obtained from the government. That way, no religion will feel forced into changing their beliefs about marriage (because it would stay the same), but homosexuals would have the union they want, complete with all the benefits of marriage.

I don't think we can come up with any solution unless we understand the real problem- whether or not we change the definition of marriage. It realistically shouldn't be about hate, or equality, or anything else. All of that just muddies the water. I don't know what the future will hold for the gay marriage issue, but I sincerely hope something reasonable can be figured out. Our country is too great of a place to be this divided.

I'm sure I could go on, but I think I've said just about everything I wanted to. It's a tough issue, but I'm really tired of hearing that I'm a bigot, or a hateful person, for supporting the things I believe with all my heart. I'm not. But I will do whatever I can to protect the things I love in a sensible, reasonable manner. I only hope others can do the same.

Note: Notice I didn't include anything about beliefs one the morality of homosexuality in this. While I'm sure that plays some factor for many people, I personally don't think it's the most valid of arguments, because it's completely subject to a person's views, even among religions. My hope is to at least make this side of the issue understandable to anyone who reads it, whether they be atheist, Christian, Jewish, Conservative, Liberal, etc. I hope I succeeded.

Drivers (for lack of a better term)

I consider myself a pretty calm guy. I don't get upset too easily. If you argue with me, it's unlikely to get heated. But there is one thing that will set me right off- the absolute stupidity of certain people, who, for some reason, have been issued legal driver's licenses. It's really kind of amazing that I can get so upset over such (usually) insignificant things. But, seriously. Sometimes there are people who just don't deserve to be on the road.


Now I'd better start with a disclaimer of sorts, because of course I am not a perfect driver. I have made mistakes, and, as is the human condition, am much more forgiving toward myself than I am toward other drivers. I do consider myself a pretty decent driver, however, having never caused an accident or even been issued a ticket for a traffic violation (not because I'm slow, but because I have a system I stick to that works wonders). Regardless, I have had my fair share of stupid maneuvers on the road. So I'm not here to rant about when people make mistakes. Because it happens occasionally to the best of us. What makes me mad is when people are consistently stupid or inconsiderate, without any apparent reason. So here are some examples of a few of the things that really get me going:


1. Driving below the speed limit when the person behind you is obviously trying to speed things up. Of course, I can't really fault anyone for driving the speed limit (though it can sure bug me sometimes). It's legal, it's safe, and it's acceptable, so I have to concede that. Not acceptable: driving below the speed limit when there is nothing compelling you to do so (such as bad weather/road conditions) for a consistent period of time. There is never a reason you should do this. EVER. Why would anyone want to get somewhere slower than they can? This is especially annoying when A) you are in the left lane, or B) there is no way for a person wishing to drive the speed limit to pass you (especially if there is no way because you are matching the speed of a driver in the other lane, creating a road block... this is probably my number one pet peeve of driving. Infuriating.) Often when someone is driving below the speed limit in front of me I will move pretty close to them in a classic "tailgate" as a signal that they need to speed up or change lanes. Sometimes people take the hint. Some don't. If you can't, please don't ever drive anywhere near me, because you'll become my enemy and I don't need those.


2. Tailgating me until I move out of the way for you to pass (like a considerate person would), then slowing down when I move back. This also applies if someone passes me using another lane. Driving should not be a game of leapfrog. If you want to go faster than me, then go faster than me. If you don't, then stay behind me. Pay a little bit of attention to what's going on around you and work with it.


3. Not using a blinker to signal a lane change. This one absolutely baffles me. I mean, really? You don't have enough time or energy to slightly move your hand to flick a lever? Even if doing so could possibly prevent a completely avoidable collision? This goes beyond laziness to me- I consider it pure stupidity. It doesn't hurt anything to turn on your signal, and it doesn't even cost any effort. Some of my closest shaves on the freeway have involved changing lanes into the same spot as another car whose driver A) wasn't looking around to see if anyone was signalling an upcoming lane change into the spot they're moving to, and B) didn't have their signal on to tell me of their intentions. I've racked my brain over and over but still can't come up with any reason why someone shouldn't signal before changing lanes.

Conveniently located inches away from your hand.

4. Merging on to the freeway at a significantly lower speed than the cars in the lane you're merging into. This is annoying both for cars on the freeway already and anyone behind you trying to merge as well, because it forces them to do the same thing.


5. Not moving out of the left lane when I'm obviously going much faster than you. 


6. Idaho drivers (ha).

If you see this, prepare to slow down.

I'm sure there are many other things I could think of, but those are the main ones that come to mind. If you're going to drive, all I ask is that you learn how. Nothing more. Please?

I Rant and Rave about the Death Penalty

Alright well I suppose it's about time I publish my first post on here. I don't even remember when I created this thing, but it was a while ago and I haven't even done anything with it yet. But here it goes. This first entry was inspired by someone's post on Facebook who was disagreeing with the idea of the death penalty, and it got me thinking. Normally I'm not one to engage in political debate, but I figured if there's anywhere I can write whatever the heck I want to, this is it. Of course, this is not intended to be inflammatory, I just felt like writing down some of my thoughts. I'm sure I have many good friends who disagree with me, and that's absolutely fine, but we're all entitled to our own opinion right? Right (and keep in mind, this is an unresearched, completely biased "rant"). So without further ado...

People who say the death penalty is somehow old-fashioned, unfair, overly cruel, or inhumane, or whatever similar description they may use, to me don't seem to have a good understanding of why it exists. Though, admittedly, it's easy to see why they might think that. I mean, who are we, as imperfect humans, to decide that someone else no longer deserves to live? Where do we get the right to play God with someone's future? And I'm sure there are many other arguments which are very valid and make a lot of logical sense.

However...

In order to really understand why the death penalty has a useful role to play in our society, we need to first talk about the mechanics of laws, justice, consequences, or punishment. First of all, we all know and (at least most of us) agree that there is a need for laws. It's pretty easy to see that the state of things would dissolve pretty quickly if there wasn't anything there as sort of a guideline for permissable behavior. And in order for a law to be at all effective or meaningful, there needs to be some sort of consequence for breaking it. In fact, it's pretty fair to say that a law isn't a law without a punishment attached. This is all pretty simple stuff.

Now what we really have to remember about a punishment is that in an ideal society, it would never have to be used. The punishment is not created because anybody wants to enact it, but is created as a deterrent for unlawful behavior. And in order for it to be just, it needs to be at least on somewhat the same level as the crime. For example, because speeding is a relatively minor crime, the punishment is also relatively minor (of course, it becomes more severe the faster you were going, because the crime becomes more severe as well). Because of that, we see a lot of people speeding. That's human nature- if we aren't too scared of the consequences of an action, we're ok with pushing the limits if it might be convenient for us. And if we're caught, we know exactly what's going to happen to us. We know the risk, and make our decision based on that.

With more severe crimes, it's still the case that the punishment isn't there because someone high up gets off on putting people in jail. Everyone would rather (with perhaps the small exception of those employed by the Justice Department) the prisons stayed empty. The original reason we build the prisons is essentially to have a standing threat to those who might break the law. And I'm sure it works fairly well- I'd imagine there are countless crimes that would happen if those contemplating them weren't afraid of going to prison (though obviously it isn't perfect... some might argue that prison isn't what it used to be, and therefore it strikes less fear into the hearts of some. That's a whole other topic though).

Ok. So how does this all relate to the death penalty? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. The death penalty does not exist in order to kill criminals. Let me repeat that: THE DEATH PENALTY DOES NOT EXIST TO KILL CRIMINALS. We aren't trying to rid the earth of its scum; in fact, in the ideal society (as mentioned before) we would never, ever have to use it. The purpose of having such a severe consequence in the picture is to act as a deterrent for such severe crimes. It's to scare people from committing murder, rape, etc. A strong punishment like that might be just enough to make a person pause and consider before they act, for the sake of self-preservation. But people obviously still manage to get over that, it seems, because people are still being executed. The important thing to remember here, however, is that they acted knowing full well the potential consequences of their actions. In other words, the only ones who really choose to keep the death penalty around are the ones who have earned it by making certain choices. No one is killing them mercilessly- they are choosing to kill themselves, just as surely as someone making the decision to jump off a skyscraper would. You lose the ability to choose as soon as you've stepped off the edge, and they lose the ability to choose as soon as they commit a crime worthy of such a consequence.

So, to recap, we need punishments in order to have laws, and we need to enforce them in order to give them any meaning. The more we want to prevent people from breaking a law, the stronger the consequence we name. So the death penalty is not something a cruel and controlling government has enacted to get rid of criminals or "teach them a lesson". It's there to prevent heinous crime, not to somehow repair a situation, because obviously it doesn't do that. If we get rid of it, we may get rid of that moment of hesitation that could save the life of an innocent person. And that's not a society I want to live in.