I know. I was giddy when our second-round pick came up and Sweed was still on the board. So was Early Doucet. So was Kelly. Heck, if you want a return man so badly, so was DeSean Jackson. I disagree that the second round is too early to pick up a return WR-- when you've got a potent weapon returning kicks, it changes the whole game (i.e., Hester). Better field position: how is this not an all-around good thing? And God knows our special teams are hurting right now.
So imagine how much I screamed at the TV when Royal was picked. Granted, size isn't everything: look at Steve Smith (CAR). But when you are desperately needing a big-play threat and the 3 of the top 5 WRs are still on the board?
Sigh. Maybe next year Shanahan will no longer be omnipotent in Bowlen's eyes after another losing season.
Not to be vulgar, but I've read of porn stars who have "no-kissing" clauses in their contracts, so at least something is intimate and special for their real-life boyfriends.
This of course is not to say that the man who wrote in has a porn star for a girlfriend; only that Amy is probably right on that at some point his girlfriend realized that sex is a great way to keep guys around, but she sees lip-to-lip contact as more intimate and is frightened by this.
As for the second letter, it really amazes me the lengths to which some people will go to justify another's behavior. Letting a few mistakes override many good times is unhealthy; so is letting a few good times override many bad times. The trick is to look at the situation objectively and weigh all the evidence equally. Therapy helps with this; so do close friends; so do pastors; so do advice columnists.
It seems fairly clear to me that the negative replies-- including the original complainant-- are being naive and caricaturing the situation into a black/white never/always proposition.
A man may honestly struggle with his sexual attraction to a woman whose appearance changes (i.e., time, kids, weight, accident, etc.) without this affecting his deeper love for her and regard for her person. To deny this seems to equate deeper love as nothing more than sexual desire.
Also, it is asking a square peg to fit a round hole if one wants any "real man" or "real love" to be able to ignore some physical aspect which years of conditioning have rendered unpalatable (I'm not talking about "I'd prefer you have X"; I'm talking about "I've always strongly disliked X, which you now have"). Even women, who are incredibly better at overlooking the physical when it comes to sexual attraction, usually cannot do this without struggle of some sort. In men, for whom both evolutionary and cultural wiring renders sexual attraction inextricable from physical attraction, this lofty height is only attainable by a few saints.
As far as the woman goes, I've always wondered why it is considered necessarily anti-feminist to alter one's appearance. It is usually argued that this somehow denigrates one's selfhood. But isn't this judging and defining yourself based on your looks... which is precisely the problem feminism speaks out against? It seems to me much more feminist (i.e., empowering and supportive of womanhood) to say that my body is not my self, for good or bad, and I can change my body without changing my self.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation