Why

The great, unshakeable and unending question… Why?

Why did she do it?
Why would she do it?
Why did she do it to him?
Why did she do it when she said she loved him?

Why, why… WHY? Why would she cheat?

This wasn’t an easy question to answer. The answer wasn’t glaringly obvious.

She deeply loved the man she cheated on. The fact is she didn’t know how much she loved him until she saw the effects of her actions on his heart and the pain in his eyes.

So back to the question at hand. Why…

– Background (not excuses):

Shortly before her fall, she discovered her husband cheated on her. She was loyal, trusting and in love for the entirety of her long marriage. She thought she was happy.

In retrospect… it was an unhealthy marriage.

She was devastated and crushed by the deep betrayal inflicted by her now ex-husband. She grudgingly picked up the pieces of her emaciated life, took a chance and began talking to other singles.

She was astounded to find that not only did she receive attention from men… she received a lot of it.

Attention from men her age.
Attention from older men.
And…
Attention from younger men; which was frankly bewildering.

Why was this so surprising?

The answer was simple. Her insecurities were so apparent that she couldn’t see three tiny, insignificant steps in front of her without tripping over each and every one.

But she relished the attention.
She went out. She had fun.

She did not want another heartbreak. She wasn’t ready for any type of relationship.
She decided the best thing to do is find a “fuck buddy.”
Yes… a fuck buddy.

Someone she’d have fun with where no feelings were involved.

She had no feelings. She didn’t want… feelings.
Feelings shattered, drowned and suffocated her.

She was very good at one thing – flirting.
She was an expert at it. She could turn any comment into the biggest sexual innuendo.
She knew this and she liked it.
She flirted throughout her marriage and it wasn’t a problem.
So she flirted with anyone. With anyone but him… at first.

She justified flirting by saying that if intent behind it didn’t exist, it wasn’t a problem. Others disagreed.

Him (the man she cheated with) –

He intimidated her. She didn’t know why but she was intimidated, yet somewhat captivated.
It wasn’t his looks or his supposed success.

She never found out what it was about him. But there had been… something.

He tried to lure her out. To meet him. She resisted, but the flirting and the tepid tension continued. She knew she was on dangerous ground but she stumbled her way through their conversations.

Whenever the conversation turned to sex, she at first participated. But she quickly found herself against someone she couldn’t take on, so she tried to steered it away.
Eventually she succeeded in reducing the sex talk. Yet she felt manipulated with every word he spoke.

She began believing he simply needed a friend.
He disagreed. He told her again and again that he was an “asshole.”
She agreed yet continued to be captivated and continued to push for a simple friendship.

• When people tell you they are assholes, believe them. This is a lesson she learned the hard way. –

He finally convinced her to meet. She did. Nothing happened. They simply talked. He seemed to like her. She felt indifferent. He was just another guy and not as intimidating as she first thought.

And there it was. She was right all along… he WAS a nice guy after all.

The friendship continued; the “friendship” – as she saw it.

How wrong she was…

They spoke often and he backed off. No more sex talk. She felt no pressure and somewhat safe.
Deep down she didn’t believe it, but she convinced herself he was only a friend.

Things changed when he began questioning to whom she was talking and why. He began making unreasonable demands on her time, using the “friendship” as a bargaining tool.

“IF you truly care like you say, you’ll call me now.” Ignore that it may have been three a.m.
“I am having a mental breakdown, I need you.” Ignore that she was on a date with someone.
“You said you’d be here for me, why aren’t you now.” Ignore that she may have been in a doctor’s office.

She felt compelled to call or run to him. After all, it’s what supporting friends do. Friends are there for each other. No matter what.

The man she loved (the man she cheated on) –

It began as simple fun. Someone to talk to.
No pressure. No expectations.
Someone to make her forget her home life; her heartache.
Someone who made her smile.
Someone who was willing to simply talk to her and not have expectations of her.

And then she met this man in person…

He was sweet.
He was nice.
It was pressure free.

When they said goodbye, she received a hug that fractured all her defenses. It touched her soul.
He hugged her. He simply hugged her and held her tight. And she melted.

She got in her car and burst into tears. Uncontrollable, unending tears.

She realized his hug felt like “home.”
THIS terrified her.

This wasn’t supposed to happen.
She wasn’t supposed to have feelings.
She wanted fun.
She wanted a fuck buddy.

Didn’t she?

Him (the man she cheated with) –

The emotional, yet tumultuous connection she felt with him continued. He pulled her in and pushed her away but throughout it all she stayed.

She pushed away and he pulled her back; she stayed.

She believed she was a “friend.” Her warped mind believed this was a friendship.

The man she loved (the man she cheated on) –

The more they spoke and spent time together, she more she liked him. He despised the other man (her “friend”) for the way he treated her and asked her to sever all connections with him.

She listened for a while and had no contact with the other man. After all, “he” had pushed her away. It was easy to stay away.

But then he came back.

She still believed she could have a normal, typical friendship with “him.”
She couldn’t comprehend why “the man she loved” didn’t understand that theirs was a simple friendship.

Why couldn’t she have her friend and her relationship?

Him (the man she cheated with) –

In the end it didn’t matter. He came back again and she allowed it. Eventually she gave in and met him more… intimately…

Her –

… and cheated on the man she truly loved.

Yes she was emotionally attached, but she felt no connection to the man she cheated with. Not the kind she felt with the man she loved. Not at all.

Yet she cheated on him.
On the man she wanted.
On the man she loved.
On the man she was falling for.

So…

Why? –

Why did she cheat on the man she was falling in love with?
Why did she cheat with a man she had no feelings for?

Perhaps the answers are foolish, laughable, senseless but here they are:

She felt a lack of emotional support and reciprocation from the man she loved.
She craved affection; that’s all she wanted – affection. He was giving it, just not enough of it.
It wasn’t his fault.

She lacked confidence and that led to her looking for validation through the other man. It wasn’t real validation, but an unsatisfying and temporary feeling. A feeling of what? She didn’t know. Just a feeling…

HER perception of this situation:

She didn’t believe someone could fall for her.
She didn’t believe the man she loved truly loved her back.
And most of all: she couldn’t comprehend what he saw in her or why?

She was no one.
She was nothing.
She wasn’t pretty.
She wasn’t smart.

What did he want? And why did he want it?

She constantly waited for the other shoe to drop.

The man she loved was going to eventually leave.
He was going to eventually hurt her.
He was going to eventually break her heart.
He was going to eventually shatter her.
Shatter her in a way where there were no pieces left to pick up and glue back together.

After all, her husband had. Why would this “stranger” not do the very same thing?

She buried her own feelings, and began to believe her own head.
She knew better. She had a favorite expression – “head fucking.”

Most of the time she could easily distinguish between the “real” and “imagined.” But feelings are sometimes difficult to decipher.

It wasn’t thrilling for her.
She had no feelings for the other man. She didn’t want him.
She wanted it in fact, to end. So when he’d push her away, she felt relief because perhaps, this time, he would be gone for good. Maybe this time, he wouldn’t pull her back.

She didn’t have the strength to tell him to fuck off as she’d been asked to do. She should have. She was an adult, not a child.

Why didn’t she have it in her to do this? To end the head games?

She didn’t know why. She believed she was needed. Needed to be a true friend in this man’s fucked up life. She developed a false emotional attachment to this man that she didn’t want.

She was stupid and naive.

The Man She Loved (the man she cheated on) –

It wasn’t until she saw the hurt in his eyes and felt the pain he felt in his heart that she realized the devastating depth of the consequences of her actions.

She hurt the most beautiful soul she met.
The person who, she later realized, had real feelings for her.

And again…

Why?

She felt empty.
She didn’t FEEL loved.
She didn’t see his love.
She needed affection.
She thought he would hurt her first.
She was scared, weak and spineless.

The decision to abuse his trust was thoughtless. She couldn’t or wouldn’t communicate with the one person who loved her.

Cheating was a result of her own, internal fractures. It was an attempt to satiate her insecurities; her self-doubt which was temporarily and falsely validated by seeing the other man.

It wasn’t the man she loved. He did nothing wrong. He did everything right; perhaps not enough of it.

The fault lies with her and her alone. She is aware of this and prays every day that the man she loves will eventually forgive her.

He was… he is enough; he is perfect in every way.

The flaws lie within her.

______________________

Love isn’t iron clad but fluid.

People who love each other, often hurt each other the most.

Love comes with affection, but they can be separate. Society has gone to great lengths to define and paint a pretty picture of “soul mates.” That is a great concept, but humans are flawed.

Cheating was a result of a lack of openness and understanding of the man she loved. She lacked something within herself that she thought she could fulfill outside of her relationship.

If only she could have been brave enough to communicate with the man she loved. If only she had been wise enough to ask for more openness and affection.

Now she is in an almost impossible situation. To prove to the man she loves that she will never do this again. She means it… she doesn’t know how to make him see it.

She isn’t giving up. She will prove to him that she is worth another chance. A chance she will not waste or take for granted.

She IS the woman he thought she was. That she will give him her all. She just wants the chance to prove it.

The Good Fight – Fighting Against Systematic Bullying

As some of you know, we have been in a legal fight with The Vanguard School in Colorado Springs for a couple of years now. Our 8 year old autistic son was expelled due to his disability. Today we found out that his federal case is a great precedent to parents and other attorneys.

At the COPAA** Conference in Philadelphia this year, attorneys from Maine made a presentation of the 40 most important federal district court decisions in the field in 2015. They listed our son’s case, Smith v. Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, 2015 WL 4979771 (D. Colo. Aug. 20, 2015) as number 22.

Yay! Fighting for your kid and not letting yourself be bullied by a school district DOES make a difference.

We also discovered that Robert’s case was cited by a federal court in San Diego, to overturn an ALJ’s decision that refused to uphold the “stay put” placement of a child in the school set forth in the child’s IEP.

This is a great victory for the parents and the child, not unlike the victory we achieved. Hopefully other school districts throughout the country will get the clue that they cannot continue to violate the stay-put clause.

Don’t be a victim of systematic bullying by school districts.

**The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates is a national American advocacy association of parents of children with disabilities, their attorneys, advocates, and others who support the educational and civil rights of children with disabilities.

 

Are You a Synesthete

Four percent of the population, when seeing number five, also see color red. Or hear a C-sharp when seeing blue. Or even associate orange with Tuesdays. And among artists, the number goes to 20-25 percent! This neurologically-based condition is called synesthesia, in which people involuntarily link one sensory percept to another. The colors, sounds, numbers, etc. differ among people (for example, you might see five in red, while someone else sees it in orange), but the association never varies within a person (that is, if five for you is red, it will always be red). There is a surprising overall agreement among synesthetes, however.

The primary perspective of the cause of synesthesia is a mutation that causes defective pruning between areas of the brain that are ordinarily connected only sparsely. Therefore areas that are disconnected within a human brain retain certain connections in synesthetes, which causes unusual associations. The location of gene expression leads to two different types of synesthetes: If the gene is expressed in the fusiform gyrus, the brain area concerned with perception, a perceptual synesthesia results, in which people will actually perceive, for instance, a number five colored in red. If, however, the gene is expressed in the angular gyrus, the brain area involved in processing concepts, a conceptual synesthesia results, in which people will not physically see the color red when presented with a number five, but will nevertheless experience an association between the two concepts.

I must admit, I am a conceptual synesthete (but only for certain numbers). Two is a nice light cream color; three is bright green; four is beige with a bit of light brown; five is definitely blood red; seven is ice blue. Eight wants to be something, but it’s difficult… Nine is dark, almost black. I don’t physically see colors, but when numbers are colored in something other than my associations, it causes some distress. I also paint and am very sensitive to colors and sounds in general.

I also believe that even though perceptual synesthesia may be relatively rare, it does not mean that a subtler cross-sensory undercurrent is nonexistent. I would not be surprised if many creative individuals were conceptual synesthetes. They may not necessarily physically perceive the connections between the percepts, but nevertheless may exhibit the facility in linking seemingly unrelated realms in order to highlight a hidden deep similarity. For example, in a sample of normal university students, those who had higher scores on the remote associates task (which requires finding a common word that can be combined with each of the three problem words to form a common compound or a phrase: e.g., ‘shine, beam, struck;’ solution — ‘moon’) showed stronger associations between colors and pure tones than people with lower scores on the same test. Similarly, synesthetes outperformed controls on the remote associates test. In addition, examination of poetry of Poe, Swinburne, Shelley, Blake, and Keats revealed that they all employed synesthetic usage in their poetry. These findings indicate that cross-sensory linkages may be associated with creative thinking.

I would be glad to hear from synesthetes, as well as from individuals involved in creative pursuits. What are your experiences? How do you perceive the world? How do your experiences affect your daily life?

by Darya L. Zabelina M. S vis Psychology Today

Are You a Fundamentalist Christian by Amber Davis

Top Ten Signs You’re a Fundamentalist Christian

10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 – You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!

6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”

3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.

2 – You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian

 

© Copyright 2016. Amber Davis

Stand Up and Fight

Have You Met Me?

Trees Have Social Networks, Too – By SALLY McGRANE

via The New York Times

HÜMMEL, Germany — IN the deep stillness of a forest in winter, the sound of footsteps on a carpet of leaves died away. Peter Wohlleben had found what he was looking for: a pair of towering beeches. “These trees are friends,” he said, craning his neck to look at the leafless crowns, black against a gray sky. “You see how the thick branches point away from each other? That’s so they don’t block their buddy’s light.”

Before moving on to an elderly beech to show how trees, like people, wrinkle as they age, he added, “Sometimes, pairs like this are so interconnected at the roots that when one tree dies, the other one dies, too.”

….

After the publication in May of Mr. Wohlleben’s book, a surprise hit titled “The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate — Discoveries From a Secret World,” the German forest is back in the spotlight. Since it first topped best-seller lists last year, Mr. Wohlleben has been spending more time on the media trail and less on the forest variety, making the case for a popular reimagination of trees, which, he says, contemporary society tends to look at as “organic robots” designed to produce oxygen and wood.

“With his book, he changed the way I look at the forest forever,” Markus Lanz, a popular talk show host, said in an email. “Every time I walk through a beautiful woods, I think about it.”

Though duly impressed with Mr. Wohlleben’s ability to capture the public’s attention, some German biologists question his use of words, like “talk” rather than the more standard “communicate,” to describe what goes on between trees in the forest.

…

Reading up on the behavior of trees — a topic he learned little about in forestry school — he found that, in nature, trees operate less like individuals and more as communal beings. Working together in networks and sharing resources, they increase their resistance.

By artificially spacing out trees, the plantation forests that make up most of Germany’s woods ensure that trees get more sunlight and grow faster. But, naturalists say, creating too much space between trees can disconnect them from their networks, stymieing some of their inborn resilience mechanisms.

Intrigued, Mr. Wohlleben began investigating alternate approaches to forestry. Visiting a handful of private forests in Switzerland and Germany, he was impressed. “They had really thick, old trees,” he said. “They treated their forest much more lovingly, and the wood they produced was more valuable. In one forest, they said, when they wanted to buy a car, they cut two trees. For us, at the time, two trees would buy you a pizza.”

Back in the Eifel in 2002, Mr. Wohlleben set aside a section of “burial woods,” where people could bury cremated loved ones under 200-year-old trees with a plaque bearing their names, bringing in revenue without harvesting any wood. The project was financially successful. But, Mr. Wohlleben said, his bosses were unhappy with his unorthodox activities. He wanted to go further — for example, replacing heavy logging machinery, which damages forest soil, with horses — but could not get permission.

After a decade of struggling with his higher-ups, he decided to quit. “I consulted with my family first,” said Mr. Wohlleben, who is married and has two children. Though it meant giving up the ironclad security of employment as a German civil servant, “I just thought, ‘I cannot do this the rest of my life.’”

The family planned to emigrate to Sweden. But it turned out that Mr. Wohlleben had won over the forest’s municipal owners.

So, 10 years ago, the municipality took a chance. It ended its contract with the state forestry administration, and hired Mr. Wohlleben directly. He brought in horses, eliminated insecticides and began experimenting with letting the woods grow wilder. Within two years, the forest went from loss to profit, in part by eliminating expensive machinery and chemicals.

Despite his successes, in 2009 Mr. Wohlleben started having panic attacks. “I kept thinking, ‘Ah! You only have 20 years, and you still have to accomplish this, and this, and that.’” He began therapy, to treat burnout and depression. It helped. “I learned to be happy about what I’ve done so far,” he said. “With a forest, you have to think in terms of 200 or 300 years. I learned to accept that I can’t do everything. Nobody can.”

He wanted to write “The Hidden Life of Trees” to show laypeople how great trees are.

Stopping to consider a tree that rose up straight then curved like a question mark, Mr. Wohlleben said, however, that it was the untrained perspective of visitors he took on forest tours years ago to which he owed much insight.

“For a forester, this tree is ugly, because it is crooked, which means you can’t get very much money for the wood,” he said. “It really surprised me, walking through the forest, when people called a tree like this one beautiful. They said, ‘My life hasn’t always run in a straight line, either.’ And I began to see things with new eyes.”

Where I Stand

In case you are wondering where I stand today… yes you, you know who you are…

Your obstacles feed my tenacity. You have strengthened my resolve in ways you can’t even imagine.

No, I am not done. You haven’t even tired me a little.

… not today, not tomorrow… NEVER.

Is this clear enough for you?

Better yet… do you think I’m kidding?

 

Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road? – via Gary Storts

So why did the chicken cross the road?

SARAH PALIN: The chicken crossed the road because, gosh-darn it, he’s a maverick!

BARACK OBAMA: Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period.

JOHN McCAIN: My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road?

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or against us. There is no middle ground here.

DICK CHENEY: Where’s my gun?

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.

AL GORE: I invented the chicken…. and the road.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white?

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems.

OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I’m going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

ANDERSON COOPER: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he’s guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer’s Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.

DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.

DONALD TRUMP: We should build a wall so the chicken can’t cross the road.

BARBARA WALTERS: Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2014, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2014. This new platform is much more stable and will never reboot.

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

 

Thank You Dr. Piper (Oklahoma Wesleyan University)

I am not a religious person; I border on atheism but the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University is spot on in this letter to his students.

This isn’t about religion, but about learning that the world does not revolve around you.

Well said sir! I wish more had the courage to speak the truth as you have.

http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-is-not-a-day-care-its-a-university/

This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!

November 23, 2015

Dr. Everett Piper, President

Oklahoma Wesleyan University

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I’m not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.

So here’s my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warnings” before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.

This is not a day care. This is a university!