Talking to breasts

For those of you who may not be sure what the title of this post refers to, I thought I had add a picture to clarify. For those of you who were pretty sure, its for aesthetic value. Credit for photograph to some dude's MySpace page who obviously trawls the Internet for such pictures.

Much has been made about where exactly a guy lets his eyes rest when talking to a woman. It seems that women tend to take issue to men who look them a few inches below the face.

Before I say anything more, I will say this. Women who like to show off their cleavage don't have the right to get offended by this. I mean, we men didn't ask you to show it off (whether we like it or not is a different matter altogether) and we are only looking, not touching, and if you hadn't been showing it, we probably wouldn't be looking either. And if you really are all that offended, then why are you showing it off in the first place? I mean, expecting us to not look at an intentionally exposed cleavage is akin to asking a lion to eat grass, not meat.

Another thing. This does NOT, categorically does NOT mean that all men stare. There are some who are gay. Or those who generally don't look at anything (the sorts who walk in to walls and manholes). No, seriously, there are some who just don't care enough to look. Also, just because someone is staring does not necessarily mean that he is doing it in some creepy perverse digusting way which includes vivid mental undressing and such. So please don't put us all in the same boat with that leering arsehole that you saw slobbering in the bus the other day. I dislike them as much as you do.

So I was saying... you hear with your ears, not your face. So in terms of the sound waves travelling, it doesn't matter whether we look at a face or breasts or wherever else, as long as we are not changing the relative positions of the speaking mouth and the listening ear. The argument "Pay attention to me, not my breasts" is hollow I think, since well, your breasts are a part of you, and just because they are being looked at does not mean that everything else is relegated to oblivion. You know, how you go to a museum and see some painting or sculpture or whatever else and start waxing bullshit about it to your friend(s), who mind you, is NOT in the painting or in the sculpture, which is where your eyes are focused for the most part. But that surely does not mean that you are not paying attention to your friend!

The museum makes me think also of aesthetics. Aesthetic appreciation, maybe thats all it is? You know, consider the possibility at least... It is a very real possibility too.

But more than museum, think of the example of going shopping for say, a new dress, or a pair of shoes, or whatever else you women want to buy. Of course, you have taken at least one friend along to help you make those extremely difficult life changing earth shattering decisions - such as, which shade of pink? Anyway, so then, when you are rolling through the aisles and shuffling through the racks and shelves, where do you look, at your friend or the goodies? And does that reduce the importance of your friend's opinion, the mere fact that you are looking at the enamouring display in front of you?

What is wrong in talking to body parts other than the face anyway? I mean, why should you let the face hog all the glory? I know for certain that I won't mind it if some woman talked to this or that part of mine, though it will cause me to wonder why she is doing it. With women, its difficult to tell why they do the things they do, since I sometimes think women aren't sure themselves. However, ladies, when we do it, its quite simple enough. Take it as a compliment. And unless told otherwise, leave it at that.

The nature of the past

So there are the tenses - past, present and future. There is the idea of the linear movement of time, and things before now - this very moment - are collectively called the past. But what exactly is the past for each one of us, as an individual? I am not talking about collective histories, merely individual pasts.

Is it the entirety of what transpired? Or is it merely what our brains record AND remember of it? Or is it only that which we remember, even if more was recorded? Is it only that which others remember about our past, depending on what we tell them about it? Is the past unchanging, since technically, it should be? Or does it change, as does our memory of it and our association with our own actions from our past? Do things in the present affect things from the past?

If your boy/girlfriend who you love and care for happened to die unfortunately in a horrible accident, it will probably have a profound effect on your memories of the person. A lot of bad times would be forgotten and almost all the time formerly spent with the now deceased would turn in to one long joy ride that was rudely cut short by the demise. And if the same boy/girlfriend you love and care for happened to meet someone else instead and dumped you consequently, I suppose the effects will be quite substantial again, only in a quite different strain. Many good times will be forgotten and the bad ones magnified, and the former object of affection will be turned in to something akin to a veritable monster, a heartless slimeball.

How often do we actively, consciously change our own memory of the past to fit it in with our present, or even the future? To avoid pangs of guilt, to smooth over glaring contradictions in our own personalities, to forget unpleasantness, to sidestep potential depression, or any of the many other reasons that can be thought of?

So all this fiddling with the past, does it mean we are being un-true to ourselves? Is being untrue that big a deal anyway? Or is truth sacrificable at the altar of happiness? And if even the past can be full of holes, where does one find wholesomeness in life?