I'm back.

Hi to all those who have been so kind to provide feedback on this site. I took a little diversion recently and so have been away from this. The diversion was so extensive, that for some reason, my user account got seperated from my blogs.

I wrote to the good people at Google and then, as if by magic, my blogs came back. So I'm back, too.

I want to continue my explorations on the subject of how anorexia responds to friendship. But first, I will whet your appetite with something to consider: support networks as a basis for mate selection.

I know, I know. Pretty deep, man. But after a recent trip to Vietnam, I'm convinced that Western Civilization needs to rethink the family unit again.

Consider this then: In America, we rarely eat dinner at the table together as a family. Dad is working late, one of the kids is with her friends, the other is pounding away at homework, and the little one is the only kid to show up at the dinner table. Who has time to eat at the table together? And don't forget that fast food thing.

When I was in Vietnam, I stayed with a couple of families. Eating together was a regular, scheduled event. They discussed family stuff all the time. Everyone knew what everyone else was doing. No one was excluded from the dinner table.

This brings me to my next point: intimacy. While I was there, I observed families and friends talking together in large groups. There were several conversations going on at once. And this could go on for hours. Vietnamese families spend a lot of time together, talking together, doing things together, living together. Yes, they have their time apart, but they spend a lot of their time together.

A family that spends that much time together is a huge resource when it comes to mate selection. Imagine the kind of referrals you could get in a family like that. Now compare that with our electronic dating services on the internet. That's like comparing a picnic with a creep show.

In the American version, kids are raised, mostly apart from the parents with nannies becoming the norm for the upper middle class. Parents haven't got much time for their kids, and thus no clue about their disposition. When the kids are young adults, they don't have rapport with the other kids, or the parents, so when they start looking for a mate, they are essentially lost. Who do they talk to? How do they get referrals?

On the other hand, imagine the Vietnamese family unit. They spend so much time together, each kid has a pretty good idea of what the other kids like, who they're thinking about and who they're seeing. Each kid has a group of friends they hang out with. If a young adult is dating someone who is not being true when it's expected, that news will get back to the family fast. That assumes, of course, that talking about it is not prohibited.

Understand that this is not to say that their system is perfect, but it appears to be much better than ours in terms of socialization. They place a priority on the family and the results are fairly obvious in terms of mate selection and success. Their divorce rates are lower than ours. And Asian-American marriages have shown lower divorce rates, too.

As an anorexic, I really wanted to get away from the families with their constant talking, especially when I couldn't speak the language. But when they spoke English to me, they were enthusiastic, and they wanted to know more. Everywhere I walked, young people wanted to say "hello". They wanted to speak English with me. They always smiled and they laughed at my jokes, too.

I was glad to be there and plan to go again.

Mr. Scott

Friend Finder

Contrast that experience at Yahoo! with the FriendFinder family of sites. They let you know who you're writing to. You can tell if they've paid or not. They have friend networks that you can set up. It's really geared towards being available, not guessing as at Yahoo.

I've actually had a few dates from their sites and I much prefer their attitude. Their model is even being reproduced at other locations, like LA/OC Weekly Personals. The website is highly refined and designed to give you feedback.

One other thing, Match.com has the same attitude as Yahoo, only worse. The guy who runs Match also owns sex.com, the domain name. So if you want avoid supporting a man who promotes porn, avoid Match.com.

Well, I think I've done enough damage for a day. See you whenever.

Mr. Scott

Internet Dating

I've been working the Yahoo Personals site for some months now and I'd like to point out some problems for those who would consider it:

1. You don't know if you're writing to someone taking a free ride or someone who is paying for the right to reply.
2. After writing more than a hundred emails, I have received few if any replies.
3. Most replies are simple "thanks, but *no* thanks.
4. A read of their "success stories" indicates that they are really full of it. *No one* finds their true love in a matter of weeks or months all the while getting winks galore. I haven't gotten a single wink. God only knows why. After all, winks are free.

So I just wanted to put this out there for fair warning. If you're looking for an easier time finding someone, yes, Yahoo can do it through the power of the internet. But it won't be *much* easier.

Perhaps I need a coach. I've had people review my profile and I've gotten positive responses. Can I possibly look too needy on my profile? Should I drop the word "vegetarian" from it? I imagine that many of the women simply run when they see that word. But come on, I don't bite. After all I'm a vegetarian, not a humanitarian.

Here is a link to my profile. Your feedback is welcome.


Mr. Scott

A friend in need is a friend indeed

Some people have characterized me as an introvert. This characterization is not unfounded since I tend to isolate. As some may have noted about my previous post, I appear to be making a big deal about this situation with my new friend. She made a statement that suggests more of a desire for friendship than for a relationship. But I couldn't tell which. That is a question for her the next time I talk with her.

To one who has a wide range of choices, such a situation is not really a big deal since that kind of person would move on. To one who tends to isolate, the previous post speaks of the dependence one can create on a stranger. Every opportunity lost seems huge. Any time spent with someone *has* to pay off with a relationship.

That is what social and sexual anorexia looks like. After years of doing nothing, doing nothing and doing nothing, the stakes are huge. To a social anorexic, it's a love hate thing, literally. We want the contact and the closeness, but we fear it because deep down inside, we believe that we are unlovable.

Over the last several months, I have postulated that the only way out is for friendship. Let me explain...

A relationship between two people with no outside friends or communication is a closed system. It happens quite frequently here in America and it's heavily promoted. Closed systems create huge avenues for abuse of self and others since the abuse remains hidden. This also generates revenue for companies that support addictions, from alchohol to pornography. What is repressed becomes obssessed, and eventually expressed through acting out.

A person intent on creating an imtimate, committed relationship without a support network of a circle of friends will become so dependent on the other, he/she will do anything to maintain that relationship. And when they are not getting their needs met, they will be compromised, unable to express their real needs for fear of losing the relationship. For that is all they have. And when they can't meet their real needs, they cope with that loss through addiction.

Everyone has a need for validation. We get that need met through social interaction, usually with friends. When we are with friends, we can be as we are with no hidden agendas for sex, romance or physical intimacy. We are free to come and go as we please as long as the rules in the friendship are explicit. Take away the transparency, throw in some dominance and control, and the chances for intimacy in friendship fade.

Friendship fills that most basic need: socialization. It is through socialization that we can even begin to prepare for a committed relationship beyond friendship. Through a circle of friends, we can test our world without fear of being judged because our friends know we're bouncing our ideas and thoughts off them. They want to explore the range of human thought with us, too.

I have theorized that to the extent we are avaiable to our circle of friends, the more we look as if we are available for a committed relationship and the more we see people who are available. Our consciousness can embrace the vision of a close, committed relationship. Without that support network, our fears would block out those who are available from our vision. For me, the most frightening situation is to be in a closed system relationship completely dependent upon my mate for all my social needs. That is way too much power for anyone.

It is also a huge burden that many people wish to avoid since they would prefer to get their own needs met. There are some who gladly take it up on the notion that they could have more control over their mate, a grandiose notion if you ask me. Healthy people will avoid that kind of power because they know that essentially, they are becoming a caregiver for an adult who has not grown up inside. They know that with power comes responsibility and that kind of power is dangerous. And they don't want anyone to be that dependent on them.

So an anorexic who is single but has no circle of friends will not look *available* to anyone. His/her fear has repressed the social needs and the anorexic looks needless to prevent anyone from getting close. it's as if they are wearing two shirts. One shirt says "love me because I need love too." And on top of that one, they were another shirt that says "I"m not available."

I've noticed from personal experience that the quality of people I'm attracted to has increased over time as I make time for my friends and family. I can't say that there is a strong correlation, but there is enough going on to show a trend. The more time I spend with my friends, the more available I appear to others.

And so it is that I will be spending more time with my friends. Not with the single purpose of making myself available for a committed relationship with the opposite sex, but with the aim of satisfying a very real need: socialization.

If a committed relationship comes out of the experience, then so be it. Creating something so beautiful is far beyond my control and best left in the hands of a higher power. I will simply have to have faith that it will all work out.

For in the end, faith is all we have.

Mr. Scott

Dating and Altruism

Recently, I met someone I really liked. I have a strong mental and physical attraction to her. When we met, we really hit it off and it seemed that romance was in the air. Last night, we exchanged emails instead of talking on the phone because she was sick. The emails were going good until I ran across this line:

I have faith that you will find a good woman who appreciates your qualities someday.

So I find these vexing questions in my mind. Has she already decided that I will never be more than a friend? Or has she figured that I would never select her as a mate?

When women decide that a man will never be more than a friend, they face what must be a very difficult circumstance, no doubt. They have to tell someone they like a lot, that there is nothing but great conversation ahead.

On the other hand, I know from my own experience, that my own sexuality has been repressed to the point that women often presume that I just want to be friends when at times, nothing could be further from the truth. Often, I've seen how women can interpret this part of my character as rejection. In reality, this is my expression of fear of intimacy.

So back to my new friend and her statement. How should I interpret this? And how do I raise the question without being labeled as the bad guy? I prefer to be explicit in my terms. Yet at the same time, I could be accused of wanting a guarantee of a relationship when really, I just want to know if I have a chance. I'm a loner, I'm getting older and I need to do the footwork to increase my odds. And hanging around with women who aren't interested benefits no one, unless friendship is all that I want. And there have been cases where I think "yep, she's very nice, but there is no way I could see myself as mate with her."

Sure enough, when I reviewed her profile again on the dating website where she found me, she says she is looking for penpals nothing more. Yet our first meeting smacks of romance. We had a great time and shared mutual interests, small personal successes and failures, and some hopes and dreams.

I've seen this before and the term "surrogate spouse" comes to mind. For those less informed, a surrogate spouse is someone who gets all the benefits of a relationship without sex. Not that sex is all I ever wanted, all people need physical contact, it is in our genes as a requirement. Even surrogate spouses get romance, but it never leads anywhere. It is implied, hanging in the air like some fog from another world, obscuring one's real intent from the other and from themselves.

From all appearances, it looks like a relationship. People who see us together see us as "an item", yet the reality is that we will never be more than friends (usually in her mind, usually without telling me). I've actually had a co-worker with whom I had a purely platonic relationship with, and several visitors commented that they could swear that we were married based on the arguments we had. I knew it was platonic because I raised the question several times to be sure. Once I was sure, I let it go.

So lets say I pop the question: do you see me as a friend or a date? The potential outcomes are limitless. The number of diversions from the real answer could be greater. Yet ultimately, it's about "saving face" or "I didn't want to hurt your feelings." If it's about *my* feelings, then I have to disagree. Women, being the compassionate souls that they can be, would rather not face the pain of the recipient as they make their intentions known. They'd rather just let the question fade. "I won't return his calls." "I'll just be friendly and hope that I can keep him as a friend until he finds someone he really likes." That works great until you find someone *you* really like first. Haha. (I know, I have issues to work out here.)

Sure. Don't return my calls. So while you're feeling better about yourself because you haven't hurt my feelings by not returning my calls, I've been thinking about you for three days, maybe a week.

"Let's just be friends without telling him. Maybe he'll get it without me ever having to face the pain of seeing the expression on his face if I told him that what he wants lies elsewhere." If we never broach the subject, I will have spent days, weeks, maybe even months wondering if it will ever be.

On the other hand, if she is embarrassed to express her attraction to me as a potential mate, our silence could be equally damaging. Hopes and dreams unexpressed can lead to the greatest sorrow due to misinterpretation. If she never tells me how she really feels about me, that she would hope that I would stick with her, ultimately through marriage and beyond, then I, being a repressed soul, would miss that hint and interpret her actions as rejection, too.

So I've seen the results from both sides, not knowing how to solve the problem. This, my friend, is a problem for the higher power. My only hope at this point is to set aside any presumptions, all resentments and fears that I might have about such a situation and pray for an answer. If I have resentment about being a surrogate spouse, then I have to take action to avoid that situation and make the terms explicit by asking for what I want and leaving if that is not going to happen. There is actually a fear that I might get what I want with all the committments and attachments that could bring, so there is something I could gain by my own silence, too.

The hardest part in all of this is the uncertainty. But uncertainty is what puts the joy into our successes. For if certainty was all there ever was, then life would be a bore.

So why would a woman want me as a surrogate spouse? Convenience? Because I let it happen? And how do I say "Thanks, but I have plenty of friends" without looking like the bad guy? Often this is because they want male attention without the intimacy or committment that involves. This too, is an expression of the fear of intimacy. For once a relationship becomes sexual, the stakes are much higher and we really have to be brave and say what we really want or suffer the consequences of silence.

It is not just me for two people dance together. I see that from this situation, I will have to take my own action, to change myself without fear of her reaction, and without the need to control her response. Perhaps that is the lesson I need to learn here: ask for what you want and let the response be enough.

So I ask for gods will and the power to carry that out. Whatever the outcome may be.


Mr. Scott

A change of pace

After four years of working with my last company, my last day was yesterday as a regular employee. It was a great four years of working with people I really enjoy. Sadly, as a non-profit corporation, they have a hard time paying market wages for the same work. On the other hand, they are a lot more relaxed than a for profit company.

The rub is that the personal relaxation was being blotted out by the economic stress of not making enough money. So today, I'm free of that and planning on working for another company in a week or so. At the new company, I will be paid substantially more, yet still have many of the same kinds of projects at hand.

So I'm taking a vacation for a week between jobs. And even on this morning, a Saturday, no less, I'm up early, with my mind racing over the possibilities of the new job. Better pay, longer commute, a straight 40 hour week. Hopefully this will mean more time for me.

With the last job, I was working the day job, working over time, doing side work and trying to fit my life into what was left. I really just want to pay my bills on a 40 hour week.

Is that really too much to ask for?

Ken Lay Goes to Trial

Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, the masterminds of Enron, are finally going to trial and it starts today. Their company collapsed in December of 2001, wiping out nearly $60 Billion (that's with a capital B) in market capital. That's the amount of money investors would have collected had they sold their stock before the collapse. But at the last shareholder conference call before the collapse, Lay confidently told everyone they were going to hit their numbers. The reality is, had investors tried to collect, it would have been like a run on a bank with no money.

It seems that the people in Houston are still smarting from the demise of Enron. The people of Houston are upset that their solid reputation as an energy state has been besmirched by the scandal. There is serious discussion about moving the trial to a different city in the hopes of providing a "fair" trial. Gosh, I thought they were supposed to have a right of trial by peers, not by complete strangers in another town that are not quite as familiar with Enron. When the questionaires by the potential jurors are examined we find language suggesting that Ken Lay would lie to his mother if that would further his case.

Hmmm. Perhaps this might be the reason we need the corporate culture to subject themselves to another questionaire. You know, the one developed by Bob Hare to identify executives in control of billions of dollars in assets, but can be diagnosed as sub-clinical psychopaths. This could save us a lot of money and grief. I'm sure some lawyer will figure a way out of it. Then the lawyer should take the test, too. How about Bush?

One interesting comment from a Seattle Times article notes that "not one lawyer has been charged", alluding to the advice given by lawyers that helped to setup the complicated network of off-the-books loans between companies in the Enron empire. I guess the lawyers are looking out for their brothers on this one.

But by far the most interesting aspect to this whole case is the timing. The trial is expected to last 4 months. That would put us in May and would leave the trial fresh in the minds of voters when the November elections come around. Due to the complexity of the case, I would expect the jurors to deliberate for weeks, unless...their anger come out blazing for guilty verdicts and prison time.

And here's another interesting nugget. Remember Tom DeLay and his little fracas? The poor guy can't be speaker of the House anymore (thank God!). Well, it gets more interesting. One of the men associated with that scandal also happens to be associated with the Enron collapse. Meet Jack Abramoff. Apparently, some of the expenses incurred by DeLay while traveling abroad were charged on a credit card issued to Abramoff. This man helped to engineer the Republican Majority we have sitting in Congress right now.

There are some who say that it's normal for a ruling party to lose seats in Congress during a mid-term election. Bush is making white noise about how positive things are in his speeches so that Republicans in Congress can have something to defend when they face their constituents back home. Word has it that he plans to be very general without discussing major policy initatives in his State of the Union address. If this trial airs out the dirty laundry the way I think it will, it will push them over the edge - of losing their majority in Congress. And not by a small margin. No wonder they're in such a hurry to appoint justices to the Supreme Court.

Now the press is starting to look at the relationship between Karl Rove and Abramoff. It seems that the vast majority of the phone numbers, addresses and email addresses captured through illegal eavesdropping have lead to dead ends or innocent Americans. Perhaps they weren't looking for terrorists at all. Or worse, perhaps the term "terrorists" includes political opponents.

Check out the Q&A in the last link between reporters and Scott McClellan, the White House spokesperson. When pressed about the connection between Karl Rove and Jack Abramoff, he evades the question like Sugar Ray Leonard evading punches. Notice how he places the burden on the press to provide their own answers. Now just watch the Freedom of Information Act requests fly!

I think now the president is getting closer to ground zero. Not New York ground zero. But the point where he was prior to the day that he sat in an elementary school reading to school children while planes were crashing. Many may remember how the press made fun of his gramatical errors. Some made light of the fact that Congress was slow to pass his legislation if at all. Some even uttered the phrase "lame duck". Funny how few would listen to him before 9/11.

Maybe what the president needs is a good shot of dopamine so that he'll have the idea that he can stop trying to get things done. Who knows, with our luck, he might just spend more time at the ranch having informal meetings with Rove and Abramoff, while taking in the sights of protestors down the road.

Mr. Scott

Comedy is good for the heart

One of my hobbies is standup comedy. So when I saw this article on Science Daily, I was *heartened*. I've been fascinated by comedy since I was a small kid. I can even remember the first joke I ever learned. And I also remember holding an audience of several adults at the school's open house with me and my little puppet.

But my first experience of doing comedy as a public performance came when I played a bit part in a junior high school play. The two central characters of the play were Felicity, who was always happy, and Dolores, who was always sad. They were the princesses of a kingdom and I was the hypnotist brought in to convince Dolores that she was really very happy. It didn't work for Dolores, but I had never seen an entire auditorium erupt in laughter over something I did.

At some point around the same period of my life, I took a class in improvisation. I saw how we could create jokes and stories out of nothing but goofing around. We weren't quite as advanced as "Who's Line Is It, Anyway?", but we had buckets of fun.

Then, my desire to do comedy went into hiding for one reason or another, until recently. It had been mumble-mumble years ago since I had done any perfomance art when I found an ad for a local improvisation class. I put it in my Palm Pilot to call them and each time the reminder came up, I kept putting it off for another week.

And then finally one night, I called. "Hi, my name is Scott and I'd like to learn more about your improvisation class. I have some acting experience from long ago and I'd really like to just have fun. I have no interest in becoming an actor."

"Oh, that's great! We're looking for people like you!", he said. So I went.

By the end of that first evening, I was hoarse from laughing so hard, and my cheek muscles were sore from grinning all night. Now that is a ringing endorsement. I was hooked. So for the next couple of years, I would go there every Wednesday night and learn how to think on my feet, stay sincere to the scene and how to set up the other guys on stage so that they could say something funny. Yeah, I learned how to play straight.

And then I hit another turn. Someone in the group announced that they were going to teach standup comedy. The rest of the story is history for another blog.

Mr. Scott