Have you ever lost the hunger? You seem like someone who consumes everything and delights in it all. But have you ever lost it, for even a period of time? If so, how did you get it back? Is the hunger of discovery and experience something that can be taught or practiced without being born with it?

I lose the hunger all the time. Right now, for instance. August left my body sore and my soul polluted. I’m spiritually exhausted, and the strength it takes to recover borrows from the hunger.

It’s not all that unpleasant. It’s not much of anything really, a sort of constant state of anhedonia. Nothing tastes. Nothing touches. Words come out of me, but I don’t recognize them. I’m just here, making a bunch of gestures and signs, interacting with a world I can’t feel.

It’s okay, though. I’ve done this many times. I’m comfortable with the ebb and flow of my emotional well-being. It’s a delicate sine wave, the amplitude and frequency of which I’ve learned to observe from a distance without needing to control it in the moment.

I have enough perspective to recognize the balance. I know better than to course correct with chemicals or consumerism. I don’t wanna fuck up my curve, because I know the hunger comes back.

It’s not up to me, but it always comes back. The trick is in giving up that control, in fully accepting that it’s not up to me, in knowing that nothing is or ever was up to me in the first place, and that it’s all gonna be okay, even if it’s not.

I’ll let you know when I’m hungry again.

I was having a chat with a dear old friend today about the legalisation of drugs. While I am pro-legalisation, he doesn’t believe ANY drugs (even cannabis) should be legalised. His reasons are as follows:During the 1920s or whatever when alcohol was made illegal, it was so completely illogical that people (read: dodgy gangsters and shit) immediately set up complex systems to smuggle and create it. When alcohol was again legalised, the framework for organised crime was in place; just not any actual crime- and it was through this that both drug and arm smuggling became a much bigger issue. His point is that, when you then legalise cocaine/ heroin/ meth/ pot, the people that make these drugs or smuggle them into the country aren’t going to suddenly turn straight and start being legal drug dealers- they’re going to start shit like arms smuggling and people smuggling, which fucks shit up a whole lot worse than a little bit of mind fuckery.

I was just wondering whether you think this is a legitimate issue with the legalisation of drugs, or just some shielded conservative bullshit to hide his own issues?
Thx bby.
xxx

Wow. You actually write with an Australian accent. I can almost hear this guy mansplaining his dumbfuck anti-legalization argument to you over schooners at the pub. I fucking love that.

Unfortunately, the only thing your dear old friend understands less than criminality is basic fucking economics.

First of all, he’s wrong about his underlying premise. As black markets shift from grey to white, the organizations involved really do turn straight and go legal. It proved true after America’s prohibition experiment, and it’s proving true again as we slowly decriminalize marijuana across the western world. Dodgy gangsters are more than happy to become legitimate businessmen. (As if there’s really much of a difference to begin with.)

Secondly, your friend is confusing the criminal underworld’s various command hierarchies with its supply chain logistics. Black markets aren’t a zero-sum game, and the “framework” for organized crime isn’t a rigid thing. It’s not as though with fewer drugs to smuggle, suddenly there’s more room in the cargo hold for guns and Eastern European women. That’s just not how it works.

Your friend is also forgetting the other side of the criminal equation: An obscene amount of law enforcement resources are wasted on the drug war. If those same resources were suddenly freed up to deal with illicit arms dealers and human traffickers, the world would be a much better place.

I’m sorry, but your friend is completely full of shit. Please tell him I said so. His only valid point is that prohibition is illogical. Whether it’s alcohol or any other kind of drug, prohibition in a supposedly free society is nothing more than a grotesque means of social control, and it’s ultimately doomed to fail.

I’m no Mensa material, but I’m smart; not hot, but pretty and fit; well-educated (medicine graduate next year) and open-minded (thanks to traveling, mostly). I am also a yoga teacher and know 4 languages. Now, I’m no ideal and I’m not looking for an ideal man either; neither do I want a copy of myself. I just want somebody equal, a partner. My grandma has recently told me that, with my brains and confidence, I probably scare men away, and I should lower my expectations (and pretend to be less smart and versatile, basically). Is she right? Is it that men I’d consider equal are not interested in women like me because they can, as a rule, “do better”? Thanks.

Listen up, everyone: STOP LISTENING TO DATING ADVICE FROM YOUR GRANDPARENTS. Yes, they love you very much, and you love them too. No doubt they are adorable and wise and they have your best interests at heart, but that doesn’t mean they have the slightest clue what it’s like for those of us trying to find a life partner in this century.

Everything your grandmother told you was wrong. You don’t scare men away. You scare boys away, (and that’s a good thing). If your expectations really are just to find an equal, then they are perfectly reasonable, and you shouldn’t lower them. Don’t pretend to be less smart or versatile. That’s insane. (Sure, playing dumb can come in handy every once in a while, but it’s not something you do with a man you respect.)

A man who is your equal by definition won’t be preoccupied with “doing better” than you. I think you may be in a mindset where you believe there is a certain tier of men that are your equal, that it’s something you can identify based on a list of skills and accomplishments. That’s your real problem. You’re looking for a guy who looks good on paper.

I get that you’re a box checker. It’s obvious that’s your style, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but try not to define your equal by matching up resumes. That kind of dating profile mathematics is an exercise in pure frustration.

There’s always been a guy in my life who I am completely obsessed with and/or devastated by. It’s the same formula each time: great sex, he’s aloof and emotionally reserved, I agonize over his text messages. I feel like shit during the entire thing, but I crave his attention/validation so much, contact with him is like a high. What is wrong w/ me and how do I fix it?

You just listed what’s wrong with you. Congratulations. You’ve correctly identified your dysfunctional pattern of behavior, and that’s the first step towards fixing it.

The second step is giving it a name. Some folks like to call what you’ve got a “love addiction.” I prefer the term “crush junkie,” because it’s not actual love, nor is it an actual addiction.

The third step is breaking the pattern. This is where things get difficult, because it’s entirely up to you to change your behavior. Stop obsessing over guys. Stop giving them the power to devastate you. Sure, that’s easier said than done, but it’s a lot easier to do when you start recognizing that your boy-crazy bullshit — all the attention seeking behavior and desperate need for validation — it’s all just a substitute for having actual self-respect and self-worth.

Find your own internal source of validation, and let it be independent of any relationship. It’s not an easy thing to do, but it’s necessary for you to stay emotional healthy, and it will help you to consciously choose not to let yourself get wrapped up in the experience of infatuation.

You can still enjoy the early romantic stages of a relationship, but when you can resist the urge to obsess over a guy because you know in your heart you don’t need his validation, you’ll also find that you won’t feel like shit anymore.

So what you’re really saying about Israel is that it’s the rook protecting the king, the United States/West from harm and blame, and the Palestinians are being exploited for the sake of continuing instability in the middle east to ensure western dominance. Or am I misunderstanding something?

America isn’t the king. America is the player. The king is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and as the rook, Israel isn’t so much protecting the king as it is left vulnerable to attack while the king uses the rook for shade.

Since you guys seem so interested in exploring this chess metaphor, the opposing king is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The opposing player is either China or Russia, depending on the move. (Although some would say at this point, America is also playing against itself.)

The queen is Iraq, although it could also be Egypt, depending on the game. (Egypt used to be the queen until Sadat was assassinated. After that, diplomatic relations shifted, and Iraq became the queen. Hell, under Nasser, Egypt was the opposing queen.) The opposing queen is currently the Assad regime in Syria, and the opposing castled rook equivalent would be Hezbollah.

Both sides use Palestinians as pawns. America uses the State of Palestine as a pawn, and the opposing side uses Hamas as a pawn. Either way, pawns are meant for sacrificing, and the Palestinian people suffer.

Oh, and the game isn’t about western dominance. The game is about global energy policy. In a word, oil. Everything else is public relations.

Is falling in love all about timing? Should it be the perfect timing like when both sides need to bound to someone and that hot smart partner you just met suddenly becomes a pure love?

Yes. Falling in love is equal parts chemistry and timing, but that’s not much of an insight. Hell, the entire fucking universe is equal parts chemistry and timing.

Still, don’t get too wrapped up in notions like “perfect timing” or “pure love.” That’s fairy-tale thinking, and it’s not how the world works.

Sure, serendipity exists, and it’s wonderful when it happens, but resist the urge to equate that kind of thing with magical ideas like destiny or fate rather than just the dumb fucking luck that it is.