We're all in this together

What difference can I make, just little old me? There are so many good things we could do that would only be effective if all or most of us did them – reducing car and plane use or meat consumption for environmental reasons, voting in elections, letting other people off the train before you try to get on, queueing, calling people out on racism, sexism, ableism, etc. What’s the point in doing these things if it’s just you doing them? You’re just a drop in the ocean.

If you’re nodding right now, what exactly do you think the ocean is made of?

There is no other way to achieve these things, other than for individuals to do them. If the only person you can influence is you, then the only thing you can do is to do these things yourself. Otherwise they are impossible. And that’s clearly not right, because they’d happen if everybody did them!

In some cases of course, you can influence other people too. It would be the topic of a different post to say how and when that should happen – no-one likes an evangelist, but some issues have to be worth fighting or campaigning for (politely, of course). But even if you can’t influence anyone, you can still do your bit. The clue is in the phrase; it’s your bit; no-one else can do that for you, so at the very least you should take care of that.

The problem, I think, is a total lack of a sense of collective responsibility. When it comes to patriotism, or supporting a team, we are all in favour of having a collective identity as a group – of being one component part of a larger body with its own voice and its own views. But as soon as it comes to something more substantial than just cheering – or sadly perhaps more often to booing others – we suddenly don’t understand the idea of being part of a group any more. As soon as it comes down to responsibility, we become nothing more than isolated individuals, denying our connections to others almost entirely. This makes no sense.

The notion of collective responsibility is crucial. For one thing, the very idea of democracy is founded on it. The people of a country elect their representatives. That is the people as a whole do so. That only happens because individual people go to the ballot box. How else could it happen? Are we so arrogant that if our individual contribution can’t be statistically significant, we deem it not worth making? “Give me ten votes, or a hundred, then I’ll do it. I have to be orders of magnitude more significant than everyone else, or I'm not even going to bother”. Seriously?

Imagine this: If you were a tourist at some really popular destination, somewhere you knew had a constant stream of visitors, and they had an attraction where each person had to lay a single brick as part of building a massive wall, would you join in? I think most people would, especially once the first few bricks were laid, and the results were beginning to show. In fact, I think most people would love being part of something like that. We have it in us to be collectively constructive, but we switch this skill off when it comes to social responsibility.

It’s time we did better on this. In fact, particularly where the environment is concerned, it’s past time. If we get onto this straight away, we can limit the damage somewhat, but by most estimates, that’s the best we can do. Where social progress is concerned, we are at least moving in the right direction in many respects now. Social media has played a real part in letting us see that many individual contributions make a real collective that can cause real change. Like the bricks in the wall, we have something visible and tangible to give us hope.

The challenge is in finding ways to visualise what we can achieve as a collective for the spheres in which we do much less well – voter turn-out and the environment in particular. If people can feel the bricks and see the wall (so to speak), it might be easier to join the dots between individual action and collective action. If individuals could see their own contributions in this kind of way, there might be less temptation to say that you can do nothing.

This does, of course, increase your sense of responsibility. But along with that burden comes power, control over our shared future (which is your own future, remember – this all works both ways), and a feeling of being part of something important. Perhaps, to re-appropriate a slogan from the current government (they weren't using it right anyway), we really are all in this together.

If a blog post falls on deaf ears, does it make a sound?

This post is obviously pertinent to bloggers, but I hope not just bloggers. There’s a lot to be said too about social media, the online information age in general, and about writing (diaries, opinion pieces, whatever).

The question is: Is it worth writing something that no-one will ever read? If the answer is “yes”, the next question is: Is it worth posting something online that no-one will ever read? I'm saying “yes” to both questions.

The first question is the easy one. It’s a piece of advice beloved of agony aunts, therapists, motivational speakers, life coaches, and really anyone who dispenses advice, that if something is really troubling you, you should write about it, then destroy what you have written. If you are angry with someone, write a letter telling them how you feel, then burn the letter. If you are struggling with an issue from your past, write about it, then shred the paper. The act of getting the badness out of your system, like pus from a wound, and then throwing it away so that you can move on, is remarkably cleansing. It might not work for everyone in every case, but it certainly can work, and that makes it worth a shot.

So it is worth writing something that no-one will ever read. Keepers of secret diaries know this too. There’s worthwhile catharsis to be had. But in the age of social media, when so much of the lives of so many of us are lived online, what of the temptation to post your thoughts or your diary entry on a blog? Or to put them on twitter or facebook, or a personal website? This seems less widely acceptable. A lot of people do it, but I’d be willing to bet a lot of people think it’s narcissistic and pointless. There’s probably some overlap between those two lots of people.

I think there’s something beneficial to the modern person in posting their thoughts online, even if no-one reads them, and even if the writer knows that. Part of who we are is expressive, and this expression doesn't need an audience, or at least it shouldn't. That sounds pretentious, but I think it makes sense to most people. Think about some similar examples: You might wear clothes you like, even if no-one sees you wearing them. You might get a tattoo that’s in a place where it’s always covered up. You might tidy your flat, even if no-one’s coming round. You might sing a song you like, even if no-one’s listening, and you’re not practising for a time when they are. All these things are expressive of your personality or how you’re feeling, and doing them is as much a part of you as the colour of your eyes, the way you stand, or what makes you laugh.

Now that so much of our lives has moved online, it’s not surprising that that expressive dimension is to be found there too. It’s the perfect place for it, with the internet’s instant communication, ready links to images, audio and video, and the ability to edit and re-edit almost anything you want. It’s not narcissistic to be who you are, and part of that is always going to be expressive in some way. The online world, and social media and blogging in particular, are the perfect venue for that expression, so it’s natural to find it there. The act of expressing, even to an audience that only ever exists in potential, is the act of being you.

A final caveat though: If you don’t accept that expression online doesn't need an audience, then for you, it probably won’t be true that it doesn't. If you believe you need the attention of others on everything you do in order to validate it, then you will continue to need that attention. The cathartic and expressive benefits of blogging or similar are only available to those who do it for themselves, not for the audience. If there is an audience, and you reach them and inspire or comfort them, of course it’s ok to take pride in that. It’s also ok to think about who you might be offending before you post. However, as soon as you are a slave to your audience, and value your contribution to the world only in terms of the number of people who see that contribution, or how loudly or vehemently they comment on it, then you have lost the main benefit of communicating it in the first place.

Of course, all of this could be a desperate bid to console myself that if no-one reads this, it hasn't been a waste of my evening typing it. You are completely free to think that. But if you do, remember that a) you read this far, so it hasn't been totally wasted on you; and b) I feel better for having written and posted it, so I really don’t have to care what you think.

Put away childish things?

Kids’ stuff is pretty fashionable right now. In clothes there’s fun prints and pop socks (even with sandals, shock horror!); in entertainment, all the classic children’s TV is being re-made (The Magic Roundabout, the Clangers); and even in food, we have cupcakes and cake pops absolutely EVERYWHERE. Is there anything wrong with all this?

Some people are highly suspicious of it all, and I can sort of see why. There’s two main criticisms I've heard around the place (can’t remember where; they’re just, you know, in the air): 1) It’s just escapism because the country has been in recession for years, and we shouldn't give in to it, but instead should face up to the harsh realities of our lives, and 2) It’s feeding into some latent paedophilia, and that’s obviously horrific, so we shouldn't go there. I’ll deal with number 2 first, because now I’ve mentioned the “p” word, no-one will be calm enough to think about number 1 until 2 is done with.

This is most often a worry with things like “school disco” events at clubs, or very sexualised clothing that’s also somehow childlike. And maybe in some of those cases, people complaining about this are on to something. Adult school discos are meat-markets, and that’s inappropriate. But that doesn’t mean the objection applies across the board, and that eating a cupcake, or wearing a dress with kittens on it, or whatever, is in any way suspect. And in any case, there’s something of victim-blaming about suggesting that the problem is with the person wearing particular clothes, or eating particular food. You can bet they’re not doing it with the aim of seducing a paedophile. If someone finds them attractive on grounds of childlikeness, then that person is the one with the problem, not their target.

The reason they’re probably wearing / eating whatever it is, far from a warped attempt at sexiness, is because it’s fun. And I think it’s because it’s fun that you see cupcakes on sale at burlesque nights, and sexy clothes that are also cutesy. We’re combining multiple types of fun, some of which are adult, and some of which are childish. There are bad ways of associating those two things, so it’s not unproblematic, but by and large it’s the people making the associations who have the problem. So I think school disco bad, cupcakes absolutely fine, other stuff perhaps somewhere in the middle. But we can debate about whether the stuff in the middle crosses a line without getting hysterical and tarring everything with the same horrific brush, because some of it is definitely innocent.

Fun brings me to issue number 1 – that people only like this stuff because it’s escapist, and we should all live in the real world. It might be right that it’s largely escapist. People who say this are on to something I think, when they point out that it’s no coincidence all this has become fashionable during times of hardship. Where they’re wrong though, is in thinking there’s anything wrong with that. Escapism is an essential ingredient in a healthy life. Without it we’d have a lot less art, a lot fewer dreams, and a much duller world. Of course it can all go too far – if you’re sitting around watching The Magic Roundabout in your pants all day because it’s easier than dealing with your job, friends and family, then you’re overdoing the escaping. But then, if you’re doing that, you probably need help rather than condemnation. We all use things to help us escape – alcohol, holidays, a good film, sex, a trashy magazine, a gym session – and it’s just as well too, or we’d all go mad.

So both arguments come back to fun. I see no reason why children should have all of it. We shouldn’t shoulder our adult martyrdom and refuse all joy. Some of what made us happy as kids still can, and provided it doesn’t interfere with other aspects of our lives, I don’t see the harm in indulging that. Children are people, adults are people, we’re going to have some stuff in common, including some fairly basic things that make us happy. We have to give up on some of those things, or at least rein them in substantially, when we grow up, but that’s because they get in the way of other responsibilities we now have. You can’t spend all day on the swings when you have a mortgage to pay.

But who went from that to saying that “grown-ups don’t go on the swings”, huh? Fools. If it makes you happy, you have the time, and it’s not hurting anyone (don’t take small kids’ turn in the playground), go on the swings! Why not? Put away childish things to the time in your schedule when you can afford to indulge them by all means, but don’t bury them entirely if they still bring you joy. There’s no reason kids should have all the fun.

Baby, baby….baby, baby…so many babies!

It is widely accepted that there are too many of us (see e.g. these images, this article, and this website). There aren't enough resources for us all to have a decent quality of life even if we could manage the resources we have optimally, and we are a long way from knowing how to do that. And it’s getting worse. There are of course people who deny this for various reasons, but I'm interested in why even those who do believe it continue to have babies. Many, many babies. They’re everywhere; just log in to any social media site and scroll. Most days they even outnumber cats, and cats own the internet.

I think the reason is that people like stories. We like being part of stories, and we tell ourselves that our story is taking a particular form we know and love, even if that requires a little self-deception. Everyone’s favourite story is a fairy tale with a happy ending. You might not think it, but just because you aren't a princess-in-a-tower-prince-charming-on-his-white-horse kind of person, it doesn't mean you don’t like fairy tales.

The thing about fairy tales is that they are folk stories, and thus pretty formulaic. The basic formula for a life story goes: grow up, overcome adversity, be an amazingly popular and charismatic party animal, find A Steady Job and settle down with The Right Person, marry them, have 2.4 children, invest in a cottage with roses round the door (or a semi with space for a BBQ in the garden), raise children to live the same life as you with certain minor improvements (a bit more money, etc.) Most people would add a hatchback in the drive, a family dog, annual holidays in the sun, and a flat screen TV. Anyone who doesn't add those things is clearly An Individual, a bit of a maverick, but basically still ok because they have the main chapters of the story intact; they have only changed the details.

In many respects we all delude ourselves into thinking we are following the script better than we are. We pretend some waster is The Right Person, we pretend our jobs are steadier than they are; we've all done these things to advance to the next chapter as soon as we can. We’re chasing the happy ending.

The trouble is, the world doesn't fit. We haven’t the space or the resources left in this world for fairy tales. We’re heading for something more like dystopian sci-fi. As resources run out, people will fight over them. As people from different cultures are forced to share space more and more closely, they will fight over it. It’s already happening. As the climate warms, the crops fail, our tribes become more divided and suspicious of outsiders, old diseases run rampant, and we lose our faith in doctors, politicians, and one another, we will fight. We’re defending the story. Did you ever snap at a friend for suggesting that your current partner wasn't The Right Person to be settling down with? Nothing makes us more edgy and makes us turn on one another quite like the defensiveness of pretending that the story is unfolding just fine when it clearly is not.

The only future our world has space and materials to support, the only future those endless babies have to look forward to when they grow up, is one where they have to fight for everything. If you starve rats, then throw them in a steep-sided barrel from which they can’t escape, with only a few scraps of food, they will tear each other to shreds for those scraps, then start eating one another. That seething mass of desperate rats in a barrel is the future if our current story is allowed to play out.

We are well-practised in self-deception. We are just too good at defensive denial. But we do know the truth; we write and read about it in the papers all the time. We just don’t let the knowledge touch us, so we live according to the lie, not the truth we know. If we lived according to what we know, rather than the fantasy, there would be a lot fewer babies.

This dystopian hell might not happen to this generation. All the babies currently gracing Instagram might get to live out their parents’ lives again, producing more babies, and more dreams of marriages and semi-detached houses and family cars. It might not even happen to the next generation. The world is too complex a system to predict with any exactness. But unless something changes dramatically, it will happen relatively soon.

The biggest ray of hope in all this I think is not carbon storage technologies, or one-child policies, good as these things may be if handled appropriately. It’s diversification in the stories we tell ourselves. It is becoming more and more acceptable to diverge from the standard fairy tale; to not marry, to change careers as often as you want, and most importantly, to remain child-free. The more choice people have to mould their own story, the more opportunities there are to make genuine choices based on what the world can offer you, and what you really want, rather than slavish adherence to the same old story. This will not only bring population down by making family life only one option among many, it will increase the tolerance of difference we need in a crowded world.

It’s time to ditch the standard fairy tale. All except the ideal of a happy ending, of course.

I feel pretty

Why do people like wearing clothes that they like? Sounds like that’s answered its own question – because they like them – but some people don’t seem to understand that.

A while ago a friend of mine said that she would happily buy a new dress even if she didn't have anywhere to wear it to. She would be happy just wearing it alone in her flat. Most people found this weird. I think it makes perfect sense (if you like clothes. Clearly not everybody will or should feel the same way).

I think this is basically the same as someone buying a painting. You hang it in your flat, and you don’t have to wait for other people to come round and see it before you start appreciating having it. You might enjoy showing it off if you’re that sort of person and it’s that sort of painting, but there’s no reason you have to. Most people don’t find this nearly so hard to understand, so why don’t they think the same about clothes?

The common idea seems to be that people who care about what they wear dress the way they do in order to get attention. Normally people mean sexual attention, but they can also just mean general “look at me!” attention. But that can’t be right. Women in particular often get a lot of attention that they don’t enjoy at all (again, mostly sexual) for what they wear, but continue to dress the same ways. For many people (although of course not all) the kind of attention their clothing brings them is a real cost. There has to be a benefit to outweigh this and make them keep dressing up. In fact I often think that if I had an invisibility cloak, one of the first things I would do is go shopping and buy some of the clothes I never wear because it would attract attention I would hate, but which I actually think I would look and feel good in. I can’t be entirely alone in that thought.

Clothing choices are partly expressive of who you are and how you feel (or at the very least of your taste in clothes) but that doesn't mean those expressions need an audience (or at least not always). I swear when I stub my toe, even if no-one’s there. It’s expressive and it makes me feel better. Everyone knows it’s fun to dance when no-ones watching. It’s expressive and it makes you feel better. Having a painting hung on your wall, even if no-one else sees it, if you are the sort of person who is into art, is expressive and makes you feel better. So it makes perfect sense that wearing an outfit that you like is also expressive and makes you feel better, regardless of whether anyone sees you wearing it.

This might not be true if no-one ever saw you. But that’s pretty hard to imagine. You probably wouldn't do any of the things in that last paragraph either, because if you never met other people, you probably wouldn't even know what swearing or dancing or paintings were!

Sometimes you might wear clothes to get a particular kind of attention. The same is true of swearing, dancing, or hanging paintings on your wall. Any of them might be explicitly meant to say something to people in general, or someone in particular. The point is just that they need not. It makes perfect sense to enjoy wearing a nice outfit on your own.

There are various consequences of accepting this. One is that if you are going to be at home on your own all day and would rather dress up than dress down, you can, and that’s not weird. Another is that if someone says you’re only dressing a certain way to get attention, and that’s not true, you can say so and have every right to be believed. Another is that if you get unwanted attention, you have every right to be annoyed. They don’t get to say you were asking for it, because the main reason for wearing what you do is just that you like it, and the fact that they happen to be there is irrelevant at best. A final happy consequence is that you don’t need an excuse to buy a new outfit, other than that you like it. No more “I have nowhere to wear it”. So what? Unless you are spending the rest of your like as a nudist, you have somewhere to wear it.

Wearing things you like can make you feel good. It’s not for everyone. Some people couldn't care less what they wear, some would rather wear nothing at all whenever that’s comfortable and legal, and others spend most of their time somewhere that there’s a uniform code. That’s all well and good, but for people who do make choices about what to wear, wearing things you like can make you feel more relaxed, more complete, more attractive (even if there’s no-one around you actually want to attract), and just more like yourself. There’s no reason to stop wanting that just because no-one else can see you. You don’t cease to exist when you are by yourself, so your taste in clothes doesn't need to either.

Just walk on by

What should you do when you see someone you find attractive in the street or on a train?

a) Compliment them and try to strike up conversation

b) Shout sexually explicit obscenities

c) Just walk on by.

It’s c), folks. The answer is always c).

But what about a) you ask? Why is a) not ok? Because it’s creepy. If you are talking to them because you find them attractive, they will obviously know that, and that will come across as creepy, no matter how uncreepy you are trying to be. Think you deserve a medal for not resorting to b)? Think again.

The problem with these kinds of approaches is that they try to create a sexually-charged situation in a totally inappropriate context. You have no idea why that person is out today; they may be visiting a sick relative, or appearing in court, but more likely they’re just going to work, or getting some shopping. In any case, these are not sexual scenarios. Having someone else’s sexual attraction imposed on them when they’re just trying to go about their day is intrusive and dehumanising.

Why dehumanising? Because they’re being treated as an attractive thing, rather than as a person who is in the middle of a life of their own, with tasks to perform, and other things and people to think about. You going and charging into the middle of that and effectively saying “STOP EVERYTHING! THERE ARE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO USE YOU FOR!” is insisting that their ongoing human life is worth less than your fleeting desire.

You don’t have a right to a piece of someone just because they are out in public. Appearing in public is not consent. It isn't a flirtatious act. It isn't a bid for attention. Thinking any of these things considers the person you are looking at only in terms of how they might fit in to your story, completely disregarding the fact that they have one of their own. The world isn't a meat counter always open for you to grab a free lunch. Or even to walk in and drool over for a bit while talking about how much you’d like a free lunch before walking out again. Still not ok.

But how will anyone ever have sex then, or get into a relationship? Well, meet people in contexts where they want to be met. Try going to a singles night, or speed dating. Sexually-charged situations, much like actual sex, have to be mutually created by two (or I guess more) people, not imposed by one person on another. Meet someone you know is looking, then read the signs from there. And genuinely read them; don’t assume that any vague degree of politeness is a come-on. It isn't. You can’t make things true just by wanting them to be. There is no point at all if it isn't mutual, because if it isn't mutual, it isn't sexual.

But what if that person was “the one”, the best partner ever, and you passed them by? Well really, I'm not sure anyone over the age of about 17 should be believing in “the one”. But anyway, consider how effective these random approaches are really likely to be. You’ll get to know people through work, mutual friends, all the usual stuff. These are the ways most people meet partners. The key is that these things involve meeting someone, not just picking them out based on their appearance. How often have you found that someone you liked the look of was impossible to get on with? And how often have you found that someone who wasn't particularly attractive to begin with became really attractive once you got to know them? Given that these two things happen all the time, it basically tells you nothing at all about compatibility if someone just happens to catch your eye. It’s just as likely that you’d be perfect with the other person you just walked past without even noticing. Which is admittedly to say not very likely at all.

But isn't it just a compliment; something that will make them feel good? Well, for some people that probably is true. The problem is that if they don’t like it, it could really ruin their day, whereas if they would have liked it and you kept silent, their day has gone on entirely as usual so they've lost nothing. Be honest, you aren't really complimenting them out of the goodness of your heart anyway, but for what you hope you can get out of it. There’s also an issue that they maybe shouldn't be flattered by something which diminishes their value as a human being at the expense of just being considered more physically attractive, but that’s way more contentious so I’ll leave that point alone here.

Of course there’s no harm in noticing that someone is attractive. It’s not the sort of thing you can help. Just don’t let them know that you've noticed, just in case (and it is quite likely) that they’d really rather you didn't. No catcalling, no compliment, no attempted friendly chat, no obvious looking up and down. Just keep on walking.

Pretty hot, or just pretty?

In the last few months I have heard many things described as “just not sexy”, or “not sexy enough”, or words to that effect. These things include clothing, body shape, body hair, how someone smiles, particular styles of dance, how a particular person dances, and, perhaps most bizarrely of all, university subject choices. In none of these cases is sexiness the only relevant measure, and in some cases it isn't relevant at all. I'm bored of sexiness.

Not bored of sex, I should point out. Just bored of everything being measured in terms of how sexy it is, as though that’s all anything exists for. Often, “sexy” or “hot” are just used as general terms of praise. I think that’s what was happening with the university subject choices example. The fact that these things are now our favourite way of saying we like something is an annoying symptom, but it isn't the main problem. The main problem comes when we actually want to rate something’s (or someone’s) attractiveness.

I'm not talking about attractiveness as a dating prospect, or anything like that, just the kind of aesthetic judgements you’d make of a painting, or a view from a window. Our only way of liking the look of something now seems to be wanting to shag it. In many cases that raises practical difficulties, but it’s also pretty damn disturbing.

We all know that things can be pretty, or beautiful, or cute, or whatever else, without being sexy, or we wouldn't apply these adjectives to children and animals. So why, as soon as it’s something that it’s not actually illegal and messed up to fancy, do we revert straight back to using “sexy” and “hot” as our only ways of saying that something looks nice? And even when sexiness isn't the only thing, why is it still the main thing? I've heard “beautiful, but not sexy” used as a criticism (of a dancer in this case). Why is everything else subordinate to sexiness?

The problem with this, and probably part of the cause of it, is the immense pressure to be sexy all the time. There are loads of other things people might want to convey through their clothes, their movements, their choices, their expressions. Loads of things other than sexiness. If we lose all of that, the world becomes very boring. And sexiness becomes very boring too, because it’s everywhere all of the time, and constantly striving for it yourself and assessing it in others makes it a chore. And that’s a huge loss because of course, in the right circumstances, sexiness is really important for most people.

Currently, women are suffering the most from this constant pressure to be sexy. Consider professional dress, for example. The smartest suit you can imagine for a woman is probably at least a bit sexy. It probably goes with make-up, and maybe even heels. Something plainer will be taken less seriously in most professions. Consider fitness, for another example. You don’t get fit for the sake of your health, but for how sexy you’ll look in your sexy new outfit at some sexy event. This all entrenches objectification of women even further into a culture where it’s already pretty deeply embedded. The message is that women exist only to provide sexiness. Fail at that, and you are neither use nor ornament.

But men are catching up. The fitness example I just gave for women certainly applies to a large extent to men too, and the professional attire example might as well in a lot of jobs. This is not good equality. Men used to have a chance to be judged on attributes other than their sexiness, but no more! Why get an education (unless it makes women fancy you)? Why get a good job (unless the salary will attract hot women)? It’s fine to prioritise finding a relationship in your life, but good relationships aren't exclusively made and maintained by sexiness, as anyone over the age of about twenty is surely aware.

The solution of course is not to stop talking about sex, or attraction. Just don’t be afraid to expand your vocabulary a bit. Compliments will often ring truer, and judgements be more honest, if they respect what a person, or style, or performance, is setting out to convey. That might be sexiness, but even if it is, it probably isn't just sexiness in most cases. Life is richer than that, and it’s time our talk reflected that fact, or that richness will be lost.

Too many wrongs beat one "Mister Right"

We've heard it all before: You’re supposed to wait for Mister (or Ms) Right. You’ll know when you meet The One, your Soulmate. There’s a Prince Charming or fairytale princess, or a Knight on a white charger out there, someone for everyone, your other half. True love turns up when you least expect it, and you’ll just know that this is the first day of the rest of your life…

Let’s try that again.

We've heard it all before: You’ll never find someone if you don’t put a bit of effort in. You need to get out and meet people. He/she has let you down again? Talk it out. You could do a lot worse. Relationships take work; you didn't expect it to be all plain sailing did you? Oh, you’re on your own again; poor you! Plenty more fish in the sea. Got to get back on the horse. Have you considered lowering your standards? You are a bit high maintenance. We all just want you to settle down and be happy.

Well, what are we supposed to do here? Are we saving ourselves for the best, or settling for what we can get? Is it better to risk being left on the shelf, or being stuck in an unhappy relationship? Well, hopefully we are starting to realise that being stuck in a loveless marriage for the rest of your life, just for the sake of being paired off neatly by the age of thirty, is hopelessly old-fashioned. Divorce rates are rising, they tell us, and that can only be a good thing if it means fewer people condemned to that kind of future.

It looks like the looking-for-Mister-Right picture is the culprit in the old-fashioned way of doing things. It is the belief that there is one soulmate out there for each of us that has shaped our search for permanent relationships. But have we really let this picture go? It seems that we are still ambitious – if anything even more so that we used to be. We aspire to true happiness like never before, in relationships as in everything else. It’s just that we expect to have to work a bit harder and look for a bit longer to get there. The only error we have really accepted is that we were too ambitious in expecting to find the perfect partner so early in life. We still have a romantic side.

But at the same time, we have a cynical side. Part of us thinks that there really is no such thing as the perfect relationship. When things get rocky with a current partner, it’s a judgement call, not whether we are really happy with them, but whether we are likely to be able to find someone else with whom we are happier. If not, we tend to think we should stay put and count ourselves lucky.

There’s an up-side to this. Relationships really do take work, and leaving at the first hint of a disagreement, rather than talking about it to try and understand each other’s points of view, seems to be jumping ship too soon. No-one will ever understand you perfectly, or agree with you about everything. However, trying to be too forgiving and compromising over everything can just mean that no-one ends up happy. In the worst case it can result in tolerance of abuse.

That judgement call over whether to stay or go will always be tough, but it can be made somewhat easier by dropping the insistence that being with anyone at all is better than being alone. If we really believe that there is a Mister or Ms Right out there, we have to accept that finding them will take wading through a fair few wrong'uns. And / or that some people will never find the right person at all. If we don’t believe there is any such One, then there will only ever be right or wrong for now, and we can still expect people to change partners every now and again. And / or that some people will choose to be single long-term or permanently.

In any event, we can expect break-ups, new relationships, and periods of being single, in various proportions depending on personal tastes, to be the norm for almost everybody. If that really is what would best facilitate happiness, we need to make being single, and breaking up, more socially acceptable. We still punish people for being single and “not settled yet”, and that makes no sense by our very own lights! Either we think they haven’t found the right person yet, but we know that can take a lot of work, or we think that different people make the best partner for different phases of life, and being single is best for others. In neither case should we be pushing people into little cottages with roses round the door, and a tandem parked by the picket fence, just because they've reached some arbitrary age called Time To Settle Down.

In general we seem to have agreed – and good thing too – that it’s better to leave relationships when they go horribly wrong than to stay with someone who seemed perfect at first glance. Too many wrongs beat one “Mister Right”. Now we just need our other attitudes to catch up. In particular, we need to accept singledom, breakups, and new relationships (as “unsettled” as they may be) as just part of our society. These are not things to punish people for, and the temptation to do so is a result of a hopelessly outdated view of relationships that we have already explicitly and happily abandoned.

Fast food, slow sorrows

We live in a culture of instant gratification. We want our food prepared fast, we eat it fast, and then we’re done. We treat sex the same way. We have no place for preparation, anticipation, indulgence. Why? Because we’re busy people. We’re in a hurry. We don’t have time. But for all that, when it comes to other people’s misery, we suddenly seem to have all the time in the world to wallow. Whether it’s the news, or your favourite soap opera, the average person will spend plenty of time indulging the tragic feels. I suggest we swap this round, and spend more time on stuff that’s actually fun, whenever we can reasonably do so.

We have undergone something of a revolution in the pace of living, and it’s often pointed out that things like cooking and eating a nice meal, or spending time with loved-ones, are the casualties. The loss of these things has left a gap in our emotional lives that we’re always looking to fill. Some people fill it with religion, some have affairs, some develop addictions, but I think one thing we all do, one way or another, is seek out intense emotional stimulation.

You can see it in our attitude to current affairs. I'm not saying we shouldn't watch the news; it’s really important to be informed about what’s going on around you. But the reaction in social and other media to stories that particularly engage our sense of tragedy is almost gleeful in its sheer ferocity. We take to twitter, and do the verbal equivalent of throwing ourselves on the floor tearing our hair and beating our chests. It’s not that tragedy should be minimized or ignored, or that feeling for distant strangers is wrong, but we seem to get more excited at opportunities to do so than is quite sane.

Another place this comes across is in the TV and films we like to watch. There has always been tragedy in art, and it has often been beautiful, and interesting, and provocative, and important. But now, much of it is simply gruelling. It’s like someone turned the misery dial to eleven with no regard for subtlety, plotlines, characters. You want feels? We’ll give you feels. Have a good old wallow in that, and you’ll definitely know you’re alive.

Can we do better? Can we fill this emotional gap some other way than by seeking out the strongest emotional stimulus we can find, and drowning ourselves in it? I hope so. It’s probably quite difficult in practice, but in theory it’s quite simple: Just fill the gap with the stuff we lost when it was created in the first place. Re-learn the taste of food, and the feel of your lover’s skin. Satisfying your basic bodily desires is not a necessary task to be accomplished so that you can get on with your life. These things are life. They have the power to move us more deeply than anything else if we only let them.

I think we all sort of recognise that there’s something better about spending time cooking a meal with loved-ones than watching a soap on TV. That’s why we have phrases like “quality time”. But my point isn't just that it would be better for you and the people around you, so it’s worth putting in the effort (although that’s true). It’s that we really have quite literally forgotten how to enjoy the simple things. We need to spend time focussing on simple pleasurable bodily sensations, almost like an act of meditation, to try and get this skill back. And not only feeling them bodily, but crucially, letting them move us emotionally. They should. Simple as they are, things like eating and making love are the biggest and most important things we will ever do.

Not everyone has this luxury. Some are mired in their own sorrows, not wallowing in other people’s. Others don’t have time for TV or the news or reading, so it’s not so much that they are filling the gap with the wrong things, as that they have no time to fill it at all. These people have my sympathy, and I'm afraid I have no easy solution for them. But I think most of us really do have the time, and our lives are not so bad that this is impossible.

By all means keep your so-called higher pleasures – your art and literature – they are not the problem. Rid your life of anything that you indulge in purely to provoke an emotional reaction, even though that reaction is misery. I promise you won’t get bored if you fill the gap with simple pleasures. Rediscover preparation, anticipation and indulgence in the simplest and most basic aspects of life, and you will quite possibly never be bored again.

Blood is thicker than water?

There’s nothing like Christmas for getting us thinking about our duties to our families. You know the ones I mean, even if you are fortunate enough that none of your own family falls in this category – the ones you force yourself to spend time with and be civil to, while never ever enjoying it. But do we have to do it?

A lot of people, especially at this time of year, spend time with relatives who make them feel miserable, angry, worthless, guilty, ashamed, frustrated…you can continue this list yourself well enough if you’re one of them. You know how it feels for you. There’s a sense that you have a duty to be there, and yet, if you weren't, all parties concerned would be having a much better time. Add in the dreading in advance and the recovering afterwards, and this takes a serious chunk out of time you could otherwise be spending not feeling like crap. Time is precious, so it’s worth evaluating why we think this torment is a worthwhile way to spend it.

They say that blood is thicker than water, that you should always stick by your family, but is that right? Why do people think we should do this? The “blood is thicker than water” line seems to just be about family for its own sake. You owe them something just because you are related. But how on earth does that work? I share more DNA with a fruit fly than with a honey bee (apparently), but does that mean I should spend more time around fruit flies, or show them more respect or affection? It just doesn't seem relevant.

Much more plausible is the argument that you owe them something for what they have done for you in the past. Of course, not all family members have done anything good for you at all, so this argument won’t even get off the ground regarding them. Of the ones that have, there are at least two questions: First, have you already done as much for them as they have for you? Second, have they done you enough harm to outweigh the good they have done you? This stuff isn't measurable, so unfortunately there’s really no way of answering these questions, but if being around these family members makes you miserable, the chances are there’s a reason for that, and that reason may well be harm that they've done you. It needn't be big stuff you can point to, but constant sniping, undermining, guilt-tripping, or whatever is real psychological harm. Ok, it probably won’t kill you, but it’s certainly not nice.

Another powerful reason that people probably do this is self-flagellation and martyrdom. Other people believe that sticking by your family no matter what is some kind of great virtue, so if you’re seen to be doing that, check out what a good person you are! And the fact you don’t enjoy it only enhances the effect. The more time you spend feeling hounded and miserable and yet fighting on out of a sense of duty, the more admirable you seem to become.

But why do these other people think you’re so admirable? Presumably for one of the same reasons you might have – either because family is important just because it’s family, or because you owe them for past good stuff they've done for you. But we've just seen that neither of those is a great argument. So these people are admiring you for all the wrong reasons. If you want their admiration, go out and help an old lady across the road or something.

And in fact that brings me to my final point: what do you do with the spare time and emotional energy if you choose to say “no” to the horrific family reunion? Well you could devote it to friends. Friendships are important, and they need nurturing to survive. You and your friends chose each other for a reason (remember you can’t choose your family, as the saying goes) so don’t lose sight of that. The same goes for partners (the best of friends).

Alternatively you could spend the time and energy on strangers. Since there are only so many old ladies in the world who need helping across roads, volunteer for a charity. Or donate some money, or food, or blankets. Your family might be anything from pains in the arse to nasty pieces of work, but some people’s families are genuinely abusive, and those people often end up on the street. A helping hand for them is probably a better use of your time than listening to great aunty Sue telling you why you’ll never amount to anything for the umpteenth time.

Or finally, you might spend that time and energy on yourself. Looking after yourself is no sin; it’s your life to live the best you can, and you can’t do that very well if you’re stressed and tired all the time. Sometimes the best way of taking care of yourself is taking yourself away from family. You might genuinely be better off without each other, and no mystical sense that blood with similar DNA floating around in it is magically sacred should get in the way of that.

You Give Me Road Rage

This is a rant about the evils of cars and driving.

There are multiple reasons that driving is an immoral way to travel, and at least two of them would each be sufficient reason on their own to never get behind the wheel. The first is the environmental cost, and the second is the risk to life. The environmental cost is pretty well documented; everybody knows it, but no-one appears to care, so I’ll focus on the risk to life.

By risk to life, I mean the chances of killing or seriously injuring someone when you are on the road. The risk of this may be tiny as long as you are not a particularly reckless driver, but killing someone is such a huge cost, that even a tiny risk is well worth avoiding if you reasonably can. And most people reasonably can. In most locations, public transport, walking and cycling are all realistic options for most journeys. It is not about having no other option, but about what is more convenient.

Doesn't that sit awkwardly with anyone? More convenience, versus the risk of someone being killed. And the chances are highest that that someone would be one of the people you drive around most regularly, and so one of the people you care about most. I would think that, however small the chances are, provided they are not infinitesimal (and they are not), there is no way it’s ok to choose convenience over safety.

But you’re a good driver, you think. Even if you’re right (and almost everyone vastly overestimates themselves), so what? Let’s try an analogy:

Say you are a really good typist, and you know it. You’re known for miles around for your fast and accurate typing. Then one day, someone kidnaps your family, and sends you a ransom demand. Actually, more of a ransom challenge, if that’s a thing. They offer a chauffeur-driven car direct to their secret lair, where they will challenge you to a typing test. If you pass the test, your family are released unharmed, and you are all driven straight home.

Fantastic, you think! The thing I'm best at is all I have to do. But then you start to think about having to test your skill under this immense pressure, with your family’s lives depending on your abilities, nerve and concentration. You’re not superhuman; you could always make a mistake. You've made mistakes occasionally before, although fortunately they've never really had any consequences. You are a really really good typist, but it’s a complex skill. If anything went wrong, you would feel that you had killed your own family, and would have to live with that for the rest of your life.

But what’s this? There’s a P.S. to the ransom note. There’s an alternative.

You could get the bus to the secret lair, then your family will be released unharmed, and you can all get the bus home. Buses are only once an hour, so you’re a bit restricted in when you can travel, and it takes about ten minutes longer to get there, and the bus stop is a five minute walk from your house. A chauffeur-driven car does seem more convenient. Is it worth it, if that convenience carries with it the requirement that you wager the lives of the people you care most about on your skill at typing?

Surely, even if you’re an amazing typist, you just get on the bus? If you don’t, how dare you?! How dare you be arrogant enough to wager the lives of others on just how great you think you are at some practical skill at which everyone is necessarily fallible?! But that is just what drivers do every day: wager the lives of others on just how great they think they are at a practical skill at which everyone is necessarily fallible.

You’ll say this is a false analogy, and you’re right. For one thing, most people are not great at driving; they are merely ok, and many are worse than that. For another thing, this analogy doesn't even begin to capture all the innocent passers-by whose lives you potentially endanger when you drive. It’s your loved-ones you are most likely to harm, but it could be practically anyone. All of them with lives and loves and friends and families and plans.

The thing about death (and certain types of injury) is that there’s no going back and making it right, no healing, no recovery. One tiny slip of concentration (and we all have hundreds of those every day) and the worst could happen. You might die yourself of course. Or you might have to live with the consequences of your actions for many decades to come. But it was worth it. Because of convenience. Tell that to the bereaved.

#YesMeansYes

In a previous post, I made a vague promise to write a post on sexual consent, so here, in my second hashtag-titled blog post (look at me blending seamlessly into the modern world) is that post.

Now seems to be the time, given a recent flurry about consent in the media (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29503973 and http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-being-coerced-into-having-anal-sex-researchers-say-with-persuasion-normalised-9671395.html), in particular the notion of affirmative consent (saying “yes” rather than just not saying “no” to put it in simple terms), e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/yes-means-yes-california-sexual-consent.

I'm certainly interested in all the various problems posed by affirmative consent (What exactly counts as establishing it? Isn't it still one person’s word against another’s in many cases of assault? Is this level of intervention in people’s private lives too much, given that this seems to regulate how people consent, not only to insist that they do? And so on, doubtless indefinitely). But what I want to write about here is one major reason that the idea behind it is a step in the right direction.

The naïve view of consent says that if you want to do something, you consent, and if you don’t want to do it, you don’t. But even putting aside the problem of what counts as consenting or as refusing, I don’t think it’s that simple. And the main reason it’s not that simple is power.

Sex is often about power. Some people love that and deliberately play on it, others don’t but find it hard to avoid. It’s often the case that at any given time, one partner has some power over the other. I'm not saying that that’s inevitable, or that it’s good or bad in itself, just that it’s very often the case.

When someone with power suggests sex, or a particular sex act, to someone without power, it may be very difficult for the relatively powerless party to say “no”, or otherwise express refusal.

The idea behind affirmative consent, as I understand it, is that if someone cannot bring themselves to say “no”, their partner can’t just carry on anyway. Of course it is still possible to feel pressured into saying “yes”, but keeping silent (withholding consent) is much easier than speaking out (refusing consent) for a relatively powerless partner.

There are lots of reasons that someone might not be able to bring themselves to explicitly refuse consent, including not wanting to be a disappointment to their partner, feeling like they ought to want this because it’s what someone normal would want, fearing that if they say “no” their partner will suggest something else that they are even less keen to do, feeling that they owe their partner this in return for something, fearing that the partner will leave them if they don’t do what they want.

In some situations, the power imbalance may not be temporary, but a permanent feature of that relationship, where one partner always dominates. In that case, there may be worse reasons for the powerless partner not being able to bring themselves to refuse consent, including feeling that their desires are not important, that they have no right to a say, or fearing that if they say “no” their partner might carry on anyway and there is nothing they could do to stop them. In that last case, allowing it to happen might make you miserable, but refusing and having it happen anyway would make you a rape victim – I know which I’d rather be.

There is a particular problem here with sexual habits that play on the imbalance of power. As I said above, there’s nothing inherently wrong with these things, but it is important to realise that they can trap people. If someone agrees to try being submissive just to see what it’s like, they make themselves the powerless party, and once that has happened it can be difficult to backtrack. All the safewords in the world won’t save you if you can’t bring yourself to say them because you don’t believe you deserve the right. Powerlessness can get under your skin faster than anything.

That last part might sound like a specific criticism of the BDSM community, but it’s not. People who know what they like are totally entitled to enjoy it with willing others. The point is more about trying out something new, whether that’s a new sexual practice or a new partner. That is the time when consent is required, and the time when power imbalances are most likely to make it difficult to withhold.

Affirmative consent is a blunt instrument. It may be so blunt that it doesn't do the job, as we currently conceive of it. However, its heart is in the right place. As an idea, it exists to protect those who want to say “no”, but can’t bring themselves to speak. They aren't weak people, or stupid people, or in any way strange or abnormal. They are just people who currently don’t have the balance of power in a sexual relationship with them, and that is something that could happen to anyone, so this should matter to us all.

Even from the other side – the side of the person with the power – this is important. You want to know whether someone actually wants to do what you are offering, not just for them to say that they do. (If not, you are a sex offender in all but name). So establishing real and genuine consent is essential for both parties. Any initiative that tries to help with that is to be applauded. So if you have concerns about the notion of affirmative consent as it’s currently being employed, voice those concerns in a way that could help make it better, or offer an alternative. Don’t dismiss and deride the whole idea, because this is something that should matter to every decent person. Let’s at least start a conversation.

If you had been through what I've been through...

This is a post about privilege, suffering, and inverse snobbery.

Our society despises privilege (although we are all privileged to some extent), praises those who have suffered (although any sane person would avoid suffering at all costs), and because of these two things engages in inverse snobbery.

The term “inverse snobbery” is normally applied to those who criticise those of a higher social class or income bracket just for their membership of that class. No-one likes posh people after all. Unfair as I think this is, I'm thinking of a different kind of inverse snobbery here: the attitude of those who have suffered hardship (or who think they have) toward those who (they think) have led an easier life. And this is just as unfair, and even crazier than the more usual kind of inverse snobbery.

There’s a sensible origin to some of this madness. People who have suffered something (racism, sexism, starvation, violence, homelessness, anything really) may rightly believe that they have a perspective on that suffering that those who haven’t undergone it don’t have. Don’t tell someone who has suffered one of these things what it is like, or how they should feel about it, if you haven’t suffered it yourself. That is fair enough. But the sentiment needn't extend as far as having no right to an opinion about that kind of suffering, or to not being entitled to act to stop it.

For example, I have never been punched in the face. But I think that being punched in the face is bad, and I think I'm entitled to have and express that opinion. I also think I am entitled to step in and stop someone else getting punched in the face without being told that it’s none of my business because I just don’t understand what it’s like. Worse, I don’t expect to be treated like there’s something essential missing from my character until I have suffered this widespread ill.

Think this sort of thing doesn't happen? It does; keep a look out and you’ll find it. The most extreme example I have seen is someone defending their use of an abusive comment of a sexual nature. I won’t quote it. It was nasty. Someone else rightly criticised this, only to be told that they could stay out of it until they had been sexually abused themselves, like the speaker of the offensive comment. Not only is that ridiculous, it’s dangerous. It basically says “I am allowed to be abusive because I have been abused, and you haven’t the right to stop me because you haven’t been”. Now obviously not everyone who has suffered in any way goes on to inflict suffering on others, but there is some danger in letting only those people have a say in how suffering is dished out in the future.

Where does this crazy attitude come from? It seems like those who have suffered take a pride in it, and want to look down on those who haven’t. Perhaps, as with the class or money-driven inverse snobbery, envy has something to do with it. But there seems to be more to it. It’s like we have this social idea that the strongest swords are forged in fire. If you have been though something terrible, you really will be a better person in all sorts of ways than someone who has had a relatively easy life. I don’t buy it. You might be more capable in some ways because of it, and less capable in others, but people vary hugely in these respects anyway. Everything that happens to a person, good and bad, shapes their character. Emphasizing the positive transformative effects of suffering ignores both the negative transformative effects of suffering, and the transformative effects (positive and negative) of good experiences.

By requiring others to have suffered in order to have an opinion or a right to intervene in an issue where that suffering is concerned, you are basically wishing suffering on others. Nice of you. The danger in this being so pervasive is that those who feel their lives have been really easy in all respects become almost envious of those who have some tale of suffering to tell. They start to feel that they are worthless because they haven’t been through at least some kind of hell. And anything that can make people feel something that insane is obviously something that has gone far too far.

So stop it.

Someone who has lived a relatively easy life still has every right to their opinions about suffering, as long as they are not trying to dictate how you should feel about it. They are also not in any way less of a person. Your suffering may have made you stronger, without them being weak for the lack of it. That’s totally consistent. So start wishing for less suffering in the world, not more.

#icebucketchallenge

An unusually topical post this one, but it raises some bigger issues beyond the momentary craze. I’ll begin with a personal confession, which is also a relatively unusual thing for this blog: I haven’t watched a single ice bucket challenge. And I don’t live under a rock or anything. I'm on the internet all the time, and I've seen dozens of different links every day for the last forever (or however long this thing has been going on now). So why? Well read on.

I can’t take away from the whole idea in terms of what it has achieved. A lot of money has been raised for a worthy cause and that is a good thing. But is this how we do it? Is this how human kindness to other humans works now? I think there’s something a bit disturbing about the ice bucket challenge and the extent to which it’s taken off.  In order to alleviate suffering, apparently someone else has to suffer, because other people find that amusing. That being the most successful basis for charity says something about us. And it’s not something good.

I've never liked watching people put themselves through challenges, ordeals etc. and although a bit of cold water is pretty minor as ordeals go, it is still someone doing something unpleasant to themselves as a public spectacle. I think most people would get the feeling I'm talking about if you made it something that was much more of an ordeal, like people whipping themselves on camera. It’s not the extent of the suffering and discomfort, it’s the choice to needlessly go through it, and it’s the fact that people are enjoying watching others do so.

Let’s look at the choice to go through it first (I’ll come to the audience’s response in a bit). I imagine that people going into the ice bucket challenge fall somewhere on a spectrum from dreading it but doing it under peer pressure, to looking forward to it because it’s an opportunity to show off. Wherever you fall on that spectrum, the reason to do it (and the reason I expect some people will say they actually end up enjoying it) seems to be overcoming the challenge. So it’s the fact that it’s unpleasant but that you go through it anyway that makes you feel braver, like you've achieved something, and like you've made a sacrifice for a greater good.

These are all admirable things to feel, and they are completely necessary in some experiences of suffering. If you jump into a lake to save someone from drowning, you will get all of these things from the suffering it costs you. But that is totally different because the suffering is directly necessary. In the case of the ice bucket challenge, it is utterly needless. In a world already packed full of needless suffering, adding to it even a jot seems like madness. If you really want to suffer to help someone else, volunteer with a charity to do actual work on the ground somewhere. (I realise that won’t work for ALS research unless you happen to be a highly specialised scientist, but there are plenty of other charities, e.g. homeless charities, where practically anyone can make a difference).

Why don’t people put their suffering/minor discomfort to better use in these ways? Because their mates wouldn't gather round to laugh at them. It wouldn't be a spectacle. I'm not going to condemn the arrogance there; I think most people like being centre of attention in a positive way sometimes, and that doesn't seem inherently bad. It’s what they become centre of attention for that I'm arguing against. So let’s come to why people choose to watch and enjoy someone – often someone they know and care about – chucking freezing cold water over their head.

The most common reaction I have heard from audiences is laughter. I don’t get it. That doesn't make it bad; there are lots of jokes I don’t think are funny that aren't thereby some kind of travesty. No-one made me the humour police. But the reason I don’t find it funny makes me find it a bit disturbing that others do. No-one laughed (quite rightly) when this puppy got dunked: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sick-ice-bucket-challenge-thugs-4095774 I realise it’s crucially different that the puppy has no choice and doesn't understand why it’s happening, but I'm not sure why those things should make it funnier when it’s a person. Go back to the analogy with whipping: Is someone whipping themselves funnier than someone whipping a puppy? No; they’re just nasty in different ways. This is way down on the scale of suffering, but I don’t see why it isn't in principle the same.

At first I was only mildly uncomfortable with this. I would rather not watch the videos than watch them, and others disagree. But as the campaign has snowballed, it has become progressively more disturbing. The public apparently has an insatiable thirst for this kind of stuff. I don’t think that paints a very good picture of us as a society. It’s a relatively minor thing in itself. So minor that the huge amount of money raised probably makes it worth it. But if we are the kind of people who like this so much, what else would we enjoy? Who are we that this is our idea of entertainment, and our most effective route to encouraging charity?

So if you have an urge to take on a bracing challenge and feel the warm glow of helping others, then good for you. Go out and challenge yourself by actually helping people, not by doing something trivial and needless. And if you want to make your mates laugh, also good for you. Tell them a funny joke. And if you want to watch something funny on YouTube, find a cat video or something. Stop watching ice bucket challenges. You’re getting hooked on the suffering of others, and however minor that suffering, that just isn't healthy.