Fundamentally, I'm not an anarchist; if any part of me every were to be labeled such, you might call me a social anarchist. I tend to enjoy disrupting traditions, reconstructing our seeming institutions. Yet, once again, I'm not against dressing up, wearing a suit, what have you (so long as the females, males, and everyone in-between in the group get an equal choice between suit or dress); I like tradition well enough - in a purely historical and constantly analyzed frame of mind.

But I'm not a governmental anarchist. I'm a big government socialist. Not a communist; my ideal government is a Socialist Republic. So, through and through, I cannot endorse http://lightyear2000.tumblr.com/. But I picked up some pretty awesome pictures from it:

A boy is not a boy is a girl is not a girl.

Aaaaaand, just for fun:
 

I suppose I haven't done a thorough (nor, often enough, coherant) personal entry in a while.

If you want to know a fundamental aspect of me (that, actually, I don't really talk about often), I consider how one acts (all the time) to be the embodiment of their sentiments. In other words, practice what you preach. If you wouldn't say it in front of the person, what in the world makes you think it alright to say it when they're not around? Or, to use a familiar example, – if you're being monogamous and it's not an open relationship – you shouldn't be thinking/fantasizing about other people when dating or married to someone else. I am in no way a supporter of, "You can look, but you can't touch."

And, as I've mentioned on here in probably plentiful heaps, I am not a supporter of physical attractiveness. It's basically wired into us genetically, yes, but – like, for example, choosing to have sex or not – it's still a choice as to what decisions you make surrounding the subject. Simply, such a system (and the way we've made how we react in society to it and the way we talk about it and the way we treat it have truly have made it a system) that excludes others I can never give approval to. I have played with the idea (in part because I've noticed that our actual obsessions about attractiveness tend to be unhealthy and also very narrow, thereby skipping over many aspects that I don't understand why they don't receive more attention – read here for full understanding) of every person pursuing the totality of their own personal tastes in attractiveness (since, – arguably – in a society that treats attractiveness in a healthy and nonjudgmental way, the diversity of everyone's tastes would be wide enough that there couldn't possibly be significant overlap when comparing person to person) since the theory would be that the result is everyone gets covered somewhere in being considered attractive. However, if I'm being honest, everyone wouldn't. That's the entire reason behind my protest to begin with. And, even if everyone wasn't, if there's only someone in Asia who would find someone in North America attractive (let's assume near worst case here) and neither person moves, that person in North America will still overwhelmingly likely die alone.

The fact of the matter is that there will consistently be people who are cheated out of this system because they didn't fit the bill in requirements that they had absolutely no control over – their genetics.

So, knowing all this about me, I'm having dinner with my friend Chelsea and my cousin Dominique earlier today. I forget at what point the conversation changed but I remember Chelsea or Dods asking me if I'll shave.

For those who don't know me in real life, I provide photographic evidence of my hairiness:

I've never shaved. I started growing facial hair around 4th or 5th grade, and I've never dissuaded the little guys. As you might imagine, my beard didn't exactly grow in perfectly. It came in patches (which, looking back, looked pretty damn ridiculous – more so than now – back in the day). Not trimming it means I have over-confidant strands that try to stick out by being longer than the rest.

As you might imagine, I've had people try to convince me to get rid of the food collector. Every time I go back home – guess what my mom and aunt talk about? My friends (as Chelsea and Dodi might have given you clue to)? You bet. People I've just met (though I actually tend to get the affirmative from people I just met more often)? Oh, definitely.

Some people even just downright amuse me (and infuriate me intellectually). Some people, believe it or not, actually get angry at me. Like, visibly frustrated as if they're talking to an ignorant, stubborn individual (forgive my over-self-confidence). I've seen that type of frustration and determination before. It's generally the reaction that my dad gets when I happened to not iron a shirt. "Why have you disobeyed society's rules?!?!" It's the frustration of someone who is doing something simply because they've been told to and don't seem to have the will-power to remotely question it (or, at least, allow others to autonomously deal with the situation in the way they choose and not simply accept the fact that the other person's decision isn't going to effect them anyway). I'm not saying that everyone reacts that way. But some do.

No, most people, I'd say, tell me to shave (or at least trim) out of a sincere desire to see the best for me or because they earnestly believe in the notion of shaving. I don't view them as being intellectually retarded (I am using retarded by its definition, not as a swipe at the mentally disabled/retarded), at the very least.

Now, let me explain why I refuse to shave. As I said at the beginning of this, I feel that all your actions (private and public) should reflect your beliefs. As you might imagine, I take to heart Gandhi's words, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." So, I partially will not shave because, for that minority out there that literally have their entire world view challenged when they encounter the ferocity of my androgens, they inspire my perilous fight every time they visibly become utterly uncomfortable. I feel it's every living individual's duty to challenge them and better them.

The other reason goes back to my other continuous fight – attractiveness. Apparently, I'd be really attractive if I'd just shaved. I've been so told many times, often in an attempt to convince me to shave (apparently my very public stance about physical attractiveness somehow doesn't invalidate this as an argument point in people's minds). In fact, this was the stressed part in Chelsea and Dods argument. I seem to not "realize the opportunities that are open to [me] at the moment." Apparently there's a very attractive girl that's within my reaches if only I'd just shave (to quote Chelsea, were the girl gay, she'd totally go after her). Also she seems to be intelligent according to the two (a better selling point, in my humble opinion, than the previous one). And, considering that I've been single for the past three years (roughly), what's not to like about this situation? All it would take is a simple shaving. 5 minutes of my time for a badly done job.

However, I refuse to accept or endorse this system. I don't like it. Not one bit. And I don't want to support it. Others may believe in it – fine, they certainly have every right to. But don't make me do so. Because, as I've said, someone gets cut out of this system. And, frankly, that's all I need to know. That's all that governs my life; there's no way you will ever make headway with me if someone else is getting disadvantaged. I'm a humanistic Catholic; I promise you, all further arguments are useless on me if the integrity and respect of each individual is not kept in mind. It honestly gets no more complicated than that.

And if principle isn't enough to sway you, then consider this. You want a companion that will care more about you than just what you look like? Take both Emma and Laura, if you will. Laura hated my beard and Emma tried (though not too hard, nicely enough) to convince me to shave too. Both dated me in spite of the beard anyway. Know what that tells me? Despite my position and my unwillingness to budge on it, they still were invested or interested in me enough to put that aside. Sure, it can be scratchy and, therefore, unpleasant. That's a reasonable argument. However, part of also why I keep it is to weed out where the attention is being placed in my relationships. I could safely shave with either Emma or Laura, were I still dating either, without worrying about such a minimal change being a maker or breaker for the relationship.

Now, honestly, I'm flattered that someone apparently would be willing to consider to date me (tells you how much attention I usually get, don't it?). I was thoroughly amused by Chelsea and Dodi's pleading. But, in the end, I still stand where I've stood in the past. I'm not willing to sell out to this pathetic system or lower my standards just because I'm lonely. If someone can get me an argument, fine. But no one has been able to convince me in the 7 some years I've had these opinions.

And, if you're unable to still get behind the appearance argument, consider this. The beard is not dirty. Hell, I don't have dry skin around my chin, so it's not like there's even dandruff. Basically, the fuss is just being made over unkempt hair. If we apply this to the top of my head and pretended I didn't have a beard, it's the equivalent of someone not wanting to date me just because I don't comb my hair. I can be successful, a good student, kind, considerate, funny, etc. But I don't comb my hair.

Yeah, I really want to date her too.

 

[note: I should mention that this is all under the very tentative knowledge I've been given of the girl. She may not actually be interested in me and it's just my cousin and friend getting all in a twixt and jumping the gun. However, if she is interested in me and simply will not go forward with that due to my beard, I honestly think that's shallow. I don't generally like slinging insults but, if I'm being honest, that's what it boils down to. However, given my overall lack of concrete knowledge here, who knows where things actually stand]

I really need to do another archaic word of the day. It's been far too long since the last, yes?

 

So, as I imparted to Kari yesterday, it kinda pisses me off that there is a such a limited, narrow, and slanted view of what is attractive in terms of how women look (because, if we're being brutally honest, I'm far closer to straight than I am to being gay and so can speak more authoritatively on that end of the spectrum).

Granted, I still find physical attractiveness to be a sorry form of evaluation for people, pointless, and a cruelly unfair system that aids to many of the debilitating aspects of our society that erodes self-confidence and certainty in self-image (hyperbolic? I'd hardly say so).

That being said – I'm not going to convince many (if any) other people to my line of thinking. And, if that's the case (as I said above), it really pisses me off that there's such a limited view of what is considered attractive when it comes to women.

It may just be me, but there is a complete wealth of diversity and multitude of differing body types when it comes to girls (like I said, I'm a poorer judge when it comes to guys, so it's mostly ignorance talking there) that it absolutely amazes me that our society tries so harshly to smash it into some ridiculous notion of a singular mold. I mean...why would you want to limit yourself?

However, as I said above, there's a limited view of what is considered attractive. Obviously, attractive doesn't mean only physically attractive (and by physically attractive I mean traits that can only be derived through genes). There are many personal and cultural choices that a person can make that can make them attractive or not attractive to a person (such as choice of clothes or whether they wear glasses or not).

So, that being said, understand that the rest of this discussion in this post covers on some things which are just a matter of opinion and others of it are just inexcusable pickiness and stupidity. Also understand that while I'll focus on my out-of-what-is-usually-considered-the-norm attractions, I generally fall within the mainstream as well. Which is all fine and dandy. I get why we might flock to certain ideas of attractiveness and generally will agree. It's our seeming inability to venture away from these or even admit that the ones I'm going to list are perfectly applicable candidates as well that bothers me.

 

The first that drives me insane is our society's complete inability to recognize curves. I wanna scream every time some idiot mislabels someone as being "too fat" just because her body actually has a shape which differs from a stalk of celery. Obesity and curves are not the same thing. The latter, you dumbnut, happens to be the natural shape a woman's body takes. Not all, obviously, but please stop telling all to achieve that of a pole.

That being said – fat isn't a bad thing. Being chubby can be equally attractive. Criticize the muffin top, if you will, but chubby girls tend to be more cuddly and are tons more fun to hug.

Also, what's with the Only Huge Boobs Please thing? They get big enough and they start to no longer look human. Alright, alright, I'm being facetious by now; but, seriously, small breasts aren't a bad thing. They are quite the opposite often enough. Diversity, people!

Now, this next pet peeve of mine, admittedly, is mostly a preference thing. I can't honestly chastise people here in good conscience. Obviously some may just honestly disagree with me. But I've never been able to understand the makeup thing. If I wanted to be cocky and snide, I might say it's because I'm a fan of natural beauty and don't understand wanting to cover it up, but that would most clearly be just me being a smartass, and I could easily disassemble such an argument. That said – I still don't understand makeup. In 99.9% of the cases I've seen (and I'm mostly meaning towards the beautifying stuff, anyway (like lipstick, etc.); not movie makeup, for example), the individual looks utterly better just without makeup. But, then again, I've always had what my mother has called pathetically simplistic and boring tastes. A girl with no makeup, hair done up in a simple ponytail (with no other "trimmings"), and wearing jeans and a hoodie is a thousand times more attractive to me than one "dressed up" (say, a dress). Then again, I'm also a fan of adrogynous girls and what others might call "plain looking", for two other vaguely related examples.

I was slightly horrified, admittedly, yesterday when Vikki and Bailey started freaking out over Alys having a figure and going to go shopping with her; I've always found her to be attractive, unrevealing dressing style and all. Yeah, I said it; granted, it partially doesn't matter because this will likely never make it back to Alys and so she won't be able to glare at me like she tends to. But still. Regardless of where the majority lies, those are my tastes. I'm sure there are others out there that agree.

Also, arms with hair on them. Are they really so bad? At first I was kinda indifferent. Now a days, I lean a little more in favor of. It seems like whenever hair and female get put in the same sentence people recoil (I can mentally see my parents doing so right now) – but I don't get it. It can be just as cute or pretty as hair on one's head can be, I think.

I remember last Winter Break my mom asked me if I had seen any girls at college yet that I find attractive. Normally I either ignore her or say something along the lines of, "Why? It's only an illusion anyway." This time, however, I decide I'll humor her. So, I respond, "No, not really. I've kinda been into more masculine women lately." My parents reactions? They gawk and go, "What???" Now, granted, I probably meant more physically feminine women with a masculine gender, but (as I've said here many times now) butch women are pretty fantastic as well. My main point here is that there are, in the mainstream, a lack of women with a more masculine demeanor (either in only their gender or physically or some combination of both). I mean, if we're being totally technical, playing video games is still generally considered a masculine trait (as in it's considered socially acceptable when done by males and often not considered acceptable when done by females), which instantly makes gamer girls technically more masculine than most of their fellow female peers. But clearly most of us wouldn't instinctually label video games as being all that masculine (leastwise, I don't). I mean in areas that are more universally thought of as masculine, there is a lack of females which possess that. The only category (again, I'm talking mainstream, so (for example) the butch/femme lesbian culture doesn't really count, not to mention (to the best of my ignorant knowledge) I believe that culture is slowly fading away) for such a phenomenon is the old tomboy stereotype – and that's pretty limited. How about a girl that wears a lot of "guy" clothes (such as suits, etc.) but isn't all that athletic? However, if we could break stereotypes so easily in people's minds, I'd be a much happier person and quite busy in the world.

 

And I'm sure there are a million others I could think of. I didn't mentioned, for example, braces or glasses in part because our society is moving closer to finding them acceptable on a really mainstream level, even finding them cute. Anyone see Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs? It says something that the fact that the main character's love interest is a nerd, equipped with glasses, can go over our heads because we've become so used to the idea and also – well, she's a nerd! And it's a children movie that did well at the theatres. Think of how this may affect future generations of kids who saw the movie? Granted, I'm not going to assume that all such taunts and aversions to glasses will end because of this movie (my father once told me he would never have dated anyone else with glasses because he was so self-conscience about his own as a kid); but it's progress.

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, love your "imperfections" and "blemishes".

You never know who could be admiring them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and also rail against the stupidity of society. But I guess that's kinda the undercurrent of this entire Xanga, now isn't it?

It's far too early in the summer (I might say that it actually shouldn't be summer at all) for me to feel this tired, this worn.

 

 

We were watching Lord of the Rings today, the family and I, and there came the scene where Faramir is interrogating Sméagol. While I hate the changes, for the most part, that they made to Faramir's character (there really wasn't any resolution or accurate message to be drawn from the whole thing; they mistreat Sméagol and then we're supposed to hate him when he betrays them; uhh...what?), it's an excellent scene when Sméagol is lying on the floor in the corner, going back and forth between his two personalities.

Now, I like the more twisted and depressing, we know this. But it really is this wonderful scene of his trust and strength just breaking down, him succumbing to the corruption around him.

 

And yet, at this pivotal scene, at multiple times during it's short run (meaning there was a handful of comments being inserted), all I hear from some of the family members is, "God, is he ugly," and similar comments. My favorite part is when they're laughing while he's sobbing.

Now, I've never been much of one to harp too much over fictional characters; I'll be brutally honest - I don't understand crying when Dumbledor dies. I mean, he's awesome and all...but I don't get it.

 

But a complete lack of an emotional connection with a character? Well, we all know as a matter of living that that just doesn't happen for most people.

Yet I know the reason for their disconnect. Every five seconds I had to hear some comment about how ugly he is or some other remark.

Because apparently conscious creatures don't deserve attention or respect or understanding if they have an ugly mug.

Save the dog because it's cute but let's ignore the starving man on the street because he hasn't had a bath in a few days and probably isn't looking the best.

 

We so easily put first our own comforts and desires before bothering to consider that of others.

It's pathetic.

So, a friend of mine posted some pictures recently of her trying on different clothes; I happened to notice because I'm stalker-ish (new Xanga ish site, perhaps?), as you all know (it's a peer-to-peer service, so I'm allowed that, to an extent; in fact, I'm practically invited to be so). And, well, it caught my eye, to use the old circumlocution.

Which, you know, in its own ways, is problematic for me. As you all know (or certainly should by now: I've spatted off at the mouth about the notion well enough times (it's good to see my old dry, hyperbolic sense of humor back)), I'm quite opposed to the notion of physical beauty. For a variety of reasons, number one being that it's not worked for and betrays the importance of character regularly, I try to exclude it in my daily judgments and perceptions. Impossible, of course, and difficult to do, I admit this.

But, if we're to run a route of difference in making sense why this picture caught my attention, I usually find more run-of-the-mill clothing attractive-enhancing (jeans, sweats, hoodies, tennis/gym shoes). And, of course, she wasn't trying on jeans, for I don't know many people who find a desire to take pictures of themselves trying on denim.

Even if we exclude the fact I try to ignore physical attractiveness, if it isn't the clothes making the pictures stick out, it can't be just her because then there wouldn't be a difference between these pictures and any others of her.

And then, looking more at the "bigger picture" (awful pun half-intended), it's a little more than that. It's the way she looks, how she barely makes actual eye contact in the mirror. I've been using this word a lot lately, but it so fittingly works for pictures (this interest in graphics and their representations is bound to run me trouble later down the road) - it's iconic. Just by virtue of the way she holds herself, the facial expressions - it says so much more than other things can really capture (forgive the pitifully inadequate description, in spite of its coincidence).

While only a relatively small portion of a representation of the personality, it adds an intriguing aspect to this already intriguing girl.

And I'm tempted to comment something like, "Oh my..." or "Damn..." But then what is the secondary response? To be honest, Beautiful runs already across a certain, particular concept. And that's not what I'm getting at. Because while, trust me, her picture stopped me well enough in my tracks for a long enough linger to constitute a potent force, it isn't the way her genes just happened to luckily turn out that caught my attention. And yet it's something so blatantly particular of her. You'd be hard pressed to find someone able to invoke similar expressions and stance (quite as you'd be hard pressed to find something else like her); it invokes, in its own way, her personality - and clearly this personality is distinctive enough to stop me just based on the way she was holding her body, the way she actually looked back at the picture. It's a big part of why I want to get to know her better.

So I just find myself thinking, it's a shame we don't have adequate words for so starkingly complex sublimity.

Whenever you're feeling down about your body image, just remember that the most attractive features of it are two balls of fat hanging from your chest.

At what age did you feel like you were most physically attractive?
Considering I'm only 20, I imagineI have some years left before I go downward. However, others have said I "sabatage" any good looks I might have, which is fine by me. So, in total, I have no technical clue, nor may I ever.

I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too!

(Thanks to escapist for the pic.)

This doesn't seem even remotely difficult to me.

 

We should start a campaign against those with piercings. Or those who choose to wear all black. And those with high cholesterol.

One of the things I try to keep in mind when I write my public minded entries (in other words, generally, those which aren't directly about myself) is what voice I use. No one wants to listen to someone yell at them (completely understandably). Should I choose a more sympathetic tone? Couch the post in "we" pronouns rather than talk, visibly, from my point of view? Or should I not even use my words - just a picture to make the point; I'll let the rest of you take what you will from it.

I always thought that there were certain topics and ideas that we as a society (or, at the very least, we as a generation) had already discussed and settled. Example? Racism. We've been through that argument, all of our schools taught us it's evil. If you are a rational and non-past-bound individual, this is not an issue. We may discuss the slighter nuances of it, but I shouldn't find, one day, the majority of people engaged in the discussion of whether those of Japanese descent are inferior to those of Greek descent. It just shouldn't happen. Really.

Well, Xanga seems content on proving me otherwise. Now - when I'm talking about something I believe in, I get passionate. I admit this. My favorite thing I've written on here (with the exception of my last post) is that Mommy Dearest post I did a bit back about my mom. Logical and calculated, it backs up the points it makes while imbued by enough appropriate and justified anger. Now, I'm not advocating for anger, I assure you. But I do think it's appropriate to get passionate about what you feel strongly in. So long as you can back the reasoning, mind you.

However, as I said before - does that get people to listen? Even if justified, if I'm trying to get others to see something, will I make them listen in my passion about the subject? Or is there something I'm missing. Someone "rec"ed this Xanga entry that I then happened to read: http://manstration.xanga.com/716572761/take-a-good-look-at-yourselves/. While there are a lot of things I like about it, you may notice one continual theme through out it. It points out our flaws. We. You. Ironic.

One of the things they tell you in advertising (even advertising about civil rights, etc.) is to make it about those watching. Seems a little off, in a way. I should talk about you to get you to do something for them? And, it seems, it doesn't even matter which arguments you use. As far as it goes, if people don't already have an investment in the subject and it isn't about them, they're not likely to care.

A week ago I came across a "brilliantly" titled entry called Since When is Being Overweight Being "Real"?

To be honest, I'm old school (and by old school, I mean largely influenced by the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s that so dominates our society to this day). I expect that I simply have to state the wrongs that a certain people suffer and I'm going to be able to motivate people. Change things? Start making the problem aware so that other caring people converge together to get a large enough movement to change things.

As far as I can understand, the arguments of the before mentioned Xanga entry is that obese people don't deserve the same respect as others because

• It's unhealthy
• That being obese should be normalized is a travesty worth a busted blood vessel
• There's no reason to be obese and therefore any explanation there after is an excuse

Well, for one, a lot of health concerns are valid when it comes to being obese. There are those who are very actively fit, qualify as healthy as far as stats go - and still are massively overweight. I remember reading an article where a person constantly exercised yet didn't decrease in size - and was called a fat ass as they rode pass a restaurant on their bicycle.

Alright, fine, you seem to think it unhealthy? I ask you if there would be the same type of outcry for someone who happened to be thin and yet have high cholesterol. Would we, as complete strangers to this person, demand that they become more healthy because their unhealthy habits disgust us?

To be honest? I think the complaint stems from the fact that for many it just comes from that they don't like the visual. It doesn't agree with them - so change it. And yet - once again to be honest, I cannot how a personal choice like weight (for those who just don't exercise and happen to weigh a lot) seems to give you the idea that you can tell a person whether or not they should be it. Once again from some article I read, the writer had been getting stuff for a party and another woman just walked up to her and started putting the stuff back on the shelf from her hands, saying, "This stuff really isn't good for you." What?? Where do you think you get the right? Why do you get the specialized freedom to usurp my own autonomy in this pluralistic society?

Alright, once again, I probably haven't convinced you. So let me put it this way - would you take personal action towards another person and treat them differently for having piercings or for the way they dress? It may be a generational thing for me, but I grew up with that. Wearing all black or having a tattoo was a normal thing for me - though just a generation back, they would find it unacceptable. They would have treated the person differently. Far too many conversations I've had to have with my mother over not thinking of a boy as utter dirt for simply having long hair; oh, what a crime, no? I would like to think that most of us would find that ridiculous just for what clothing a person wears.

So how is that so different than the obesity of another person? Well, the thing that made the difference for those before mentioned groups was that the number of people who also did that or didn't mind it or found people with those traits appealing became more visible, more in number.

And, believe it or not, there are those who find "big women" attractive.

Is that still not enough to convince you why these ideas and behaviors toward the obese should be dropped? How about the effect it has on people, on our way of thinking?

I'm sure you've heard it before - we place too much on appearance (which is really far more complex than just what we weigh), etc. etc. blah blah blah. I'll save you it.

Instead, I'll introduce my sister Natasha. Natasha is 13-years-old. She's in eighth grade. She's got the usual worries - school, our mother, doing your daily tasks. Natasha also thinks she's fat; you see, she has large legs.

She spent most of this summer using my laptop's camera so she could take photos of herself for Facebook, making sure she got the right one just to make sure she has the right one. She wants to wear make up to beautify herself. She's been asked out by two boys just last year. And she happens to think she's ugly.

Have a sibling or someone you care about that you'd do anything for? Imagine my emotions as she's telling me she feels she's overweight.

Honestly, I think the issue goes further than just weight, as I've said and explained many times on here, but is it so bad that someone who you might not find attractive be thought of as alright? Hell, maybe even attractive?

Because the right thing would be to just not care. Instead, we demand to say that being overweight is ugly. But then it goes beyond that, into what we joke about and how we think and what our pop culture centers around and so much, much more. Or is Natasha's visions of how important her self worth is tied to her being photogenic not enough to convince you. For as superficial as my mom is, she always said Natasha was beautiful.

And I could end it there. But notice how the focus is away from the subject? It's on the girl who actually happens to not be obese. It allows you to sympathize because it doesn't cross the line of what so many seem to not want to hear.

And I'd like to say it's just the posters who happen to put forth these ideas, but I look down the comments and see far too many agreements.

Why is it so difficult for us to hear about people who we have no tie to, no need to defend, and still find that we should?
I should not have to listen to people trivialize rape.
I should not have to defend the equality of the female sex to the male sex.
I should not have to listen to people call anorexics selfish.
I should not have to do the same for those who self-injure.

These are things that should be second nature to us people! Call it being politically correct, call it being sensitive, I don't care. It's not something I should have to defend. There are so many bigger issues to fight. When is the last time you've been taught in school (in your health class, for starters) about self-injury? When is the last time you heard of a teacher stopping a student for saying a self-harm joke?

Those are the battles we should be fighting. I should not be having to deal with finding a comment on Facebook saying that they think that "cutters" do it for attention. To be honest, that type of ignorance shocks me because even when I made self-injury jokes back in 7th grade, no one had to explain to me the gravety or seriousness of that situation. When I noticed that 10 or so people below in the thread agreed with him - it scared me.

I mean, is it just me? Hearing something like that angers me. Such apathy infuriates me.

So what voice does it take to grab someone's attention? Is indignant preaching grating? How about a personal story from my perspective about someone I know and the pain it caused me? Is reason and logical points enough? Or does it have to relate back to you; "what does it do for you"?

Despite my own tone in this piece, I honestly don't know. But I can only operate under what's wrong. I honestly don't know how else to try to rally people without feeling dirty in the end (and if I have to coach a human rights concept in terms of advertising, I will feel just absolutely filthy). There are a good many passionate enough people on Xanga and (I'd imagine) the world; I'll let them make their own decisions. I pray that's enough.