The Male Handbook Rules

Women Please Read - - The Male Handbook Rules - - You Need To Know These The Most We always hear "the rules" from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side. These are their rules! Please note... these are all numbered "1" ON PURPOSE because they are all important to them.

**disclaimer**
The views listed below do not represent me personally or what I think as an individual. I'm not a man (luckily) I just get how they think.

Spoken straight from the mouth of men:

1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down.

1. Sunday = sports. It's like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be.

1. Shopping is NOT a sport. And no, we are never going to think of it that way.

1. Crying is blackmail.

1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work! Just say it!

1. Yes, and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

1. A headache that lasts for 17 months is a problem. See a doctor.

1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days.

1. If you won't dress like the Victoria's Secret girls, don't expect us to act like soap opera guys.

1. If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us.

1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.

1. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.

1. Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.

1. Christopher Columbus did not need directions and neither do we.

1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.

1. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.

1. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.

1. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.

1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine...Really.

1. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball, the shotgun formation, or monster trucks.

1. You have enough clothes.

1. You have too many shoes and hand bags.

1. I am in shape. Round is a shape.

1. Thank you for reading this; Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight, but did you know men really don't mind that, it's like camping.

If there is a woman in ur life who seems confused as to "how to deal with men" or who is always saying "I just dont understand what men think" please send this to them. If more women knew these simple rules then maybe they wouldnt be so . . . confused.

Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com/ and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot

Do you know love like I know love?

The love that I feel is word-less
Nothing can truly explain how powerful of an experience it is
It runs deep in the earth like a bottomless well
For those fortunate enough to find it – from it they drink
Filling their life force with love nourishment
Charging their emotions energizing their soul

I found this well

Before - my love was sufficient, it at least lead me to the well
But until I drank from the depths of true loving existence
I knew not just how little I loved

Before my love made me not
Not do wrong – Not say this – Not be kind – Not understand
Not remember that I was to not do that this time
But now that I have drank from the well of true love
I know a different love
A love that knows more than - not

Now my love makes me do
Without knowing I act in a way that creates our happiness
My love now makes me see
Not even hesitating to focus I see the path to our goals
This love gives me strength
Without the conjuring of its presence I find the brawn to conquer conflict

Yes it is true - before - my love was sufficient

It made me smile and rejoice in the times void of pain
It was even at times strong enough to give me joy through the pain
While still good, sometimes it was the source of my pain

But after I drank, my love was changed.
Do you know love like I know love?
If you know love at all then it can show you how to get to the well
All wells pour from the same cup – the same ancient source of life
The love in my well is not foreign to the love you will find from yours
You need only to want more from your love to see the path to its discovery

Without disrespecting the love you were blessed to find thus far
Ask your love, are you the same kind of love that they know?
Those fortunate enough to find a love deeper then the one you find by chance
The love you find from discovery and journey not from bed or bar
Those common things might make love find you – make love stop for you to see it
But are you strong enough to find love where it lives?

Are you strong enough to seek the well at its source?

Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot

Why are we as American’s having such problems stamping out the international threat of terror?

<<>>

Could it be true that the reason why we as the offense in this battle are having such problems stamping out the international threat of terror is because offensive tactics on an unsuspecting populace result in defensive actions to protect the perception of innocence?

When a big brother takes an unsolicited swipe at his younger sister, in reflex she hits back. Regardless of how swift or how reciprocal her action is, there will be retaliation. So goeth the nature of man.
Likewise when the sister seeks her revenge on her brother, if it is sweet and effective he will have no choice, but to either accept his defeat and re-evaluate how he treats his sister or find another method of attach for which she will have no ability to defend.

The problem is – in relation to the Middle East – the true offensive and defensive forces aren't clearly defined to all involved and those same positions change depending on your perception. Many think that we reacted to the 9-11 attacks when we chose the current course of action in that region. Others think that the 9-11 attacks themselves were retaliation to a past assertion of our power in a region that didn’t solicit it.

Regardless of which came first the chicken or the war I think the root of the issue behind why we as the “American Forces” cannot find unilateral support internationally on our efforts to liberate the oppressed in the Arab Middle East isn’t because of exit strategies, or civil war determinates, or anything politically relevant in the media. I think the root is in the perception of who is in the right. . . the person that is hitting now or the person who got hit first.

***Food for Though: If the general conception of the American public is that “we are not being made aware of everything” how do you think absolute awareness would benefit the situation?
Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot

Would it be right to say, that historically religion is more rooted in society than philosophy?

<<>>


If the World's oldest religions began between 4500 and 3000 years B.C.E. But Philosophy came into the world only after 650 B.C.E. would it be right to say, that historically religion is more rooted in society than philosophy? Why?

This might sound a little weird coming from a believer in Christ but I do think that religion as we know it – ancient as it may be – is man made. Though the Creator exists and did create the world in His image the organized religions on the planet of today that follow the man made scripted cannons of late are just that . . . man. These individualistic religious creations in turn produce followers to reorganized truths orchestrated in a way that furthers the religions agendas not the Creators. Though I believe that the emotional connection one has with the Creator is real and pure, as well as one’s personal understanding of how the Creator created life, love, and faith is paramount to true clear religious perception – I think that as people began to see the true nature of the organized religious machine philosophy was then created to explain the developing discontent with society.

Being that religion was so rooted in the structure of life, as people choose to disconnect themselves with the group explanations of creation and salvation – the human model was investigated – and schools of philosophical thoughts emerged. Just as religious foundations exploded all over the world at different speeds and from different pools of culture so did philosophy. As different philosophers tackled different cultural rifts and human tendencies different philosophical models emerged.

Personally I think that as people become secure in their own religious beliefs they see the cohesiveness of self study and communal acceptance versus the modern characteristic of religion that attracts those seeking self acceptance and communal study.

***Food for Thought – Is your philosophy on life based on your experiences in society or your religious preference?
Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot

I'm happy to say I live in a noisy house

I never thought I would be happy to say I live in a noisy house
At one time I wanted peace and I was so glad for the moments they would come
The silence of having nothing to say because so much was being said so often
The quiet was like a break
A break from all that noise
The sounds of things needing to be fixed
Things broken, things being broke
The windy scream of things falling from way up high
The whining moan of things neglected, things needing to be done
Ohhhhh the silence
I would pray for the silence. Plead for the quiet
Promise to change if the noise would just go away
And then one day the silence came
On a day I did not ask for it
The quiet. The quiet. It was so loud.
Screeching down the walls like a chalkboard
Chirping in every corner, banging in every room

Silence

I begged for sounds I pleaded for noises
But for days nothing
I prayed to hear anything no matter how the sound was made
I re-played the old sounds of the house in my head
Just so I could feel like I was hearing something again
Re-played the old sounds of broken things trying to work
Re-hear the nocks from binds giving way
I would get so still just trying to listen
But not hearing sounds for so long made the noises sound so different
My perspectives had changed
Instead of just hearing what was breaking I started to hear why they were being broke
I heard not just the shattering of glass but the long strain on the weight of the stand
I heard the rip in the fabric, and also the stress of the seems giving way
Then slowly I started to hear sounds in the house again
Only now I didn't just hear the sounds of things already broken
I started to hear the sounds of things being fixed
The sounds of things slowly starting to work
The screech of gears working after being dormant so long
Replaced the silence from a thing turned off
Funny now how the drone of silence is louder than the howl of not quite smooth yet
How the screams of laughter and the driving points from the sounds of words
Are not quite as piercing as the bright sounds from silence
Funny even still just how noisy my house is now
But calming much more than once wished for silence
I never thought I would be happy to say I live in a noisy house
And that the noise gives me much more peace than the quiet

Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot

Will merging religion with culture make us more sexually moral?

<<>>


Will merging religion with culture make us more sexually moral?

It is so hard to walk into a conversation about sexual morality with the understanding that religion and cultural norms will be involved and not walk right out.

It is even harder to actually give credence to the though that any nation on earth is unified enough religiously and culturally to successfully combine the two for a "better" social - sexual outcome.

Perhaps the best discussion about sexuality in such a volatile climate as the 21st century is to be a sociological conversation not a religious one. The question is posed how best to create a work-around for the obstacles of sexual morality in society. Shouldn't the answer at least come from the same subject? The sharp decline in global sexual morality doesn't come from religious differences as much as it comes from social differences. No major religion practiced openly by the masses that I am aware of abdicates the use of personally irresponsible sexual behavior. Religion as a concept has not changed drastically in the last 2thousand years. So why is it getting so bad out there?

The thing that has changed is society. The Muslim girls of central Asia see how openly the women of the new Iraqi parliament are allowed to dress and they are confused. Protestant girls in Kentucky see how the young women at their local college go out on dates and are confused. Teenage girls in Idaho gather around to watch teenage girls on TV kissing and making out during prime time and gather around the next day at school to talk about it. All 6 different groups of females would be completely out of place if they were exiled in the other groups way of life. They wouldn't be lost religiously . . . their God would probably come with them. What would be missing is their understanding of the society that they are part of.

Shouldn't we as members of society seek to change our group norm instead of our individualistic religious doctrines if we at all want to be successful in the sexual education of our youth? Religious awareness doesn't teach you how to feel about the act of sex, only the recourse and righteousness of it. Likewise societal understanding wont teach you if you should have sex, only how society looks at those who want, have, and exude it.


***Food for thought***
Where did you get your first concept of sex? Is it different then your current religious view of sex?

Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot

The trinity of choice.

<<>>


The trinity of choice.

Poor John …Or is he? One of the richest men you will ever meet. Founded on honesty he worked his life to become wealthy. Cutting no corners, making no shady deals, here is a man who played by the rules and achieved the "American Dream." He lived singularly (thinking of self and home) not of his community. Giving no charity to church or society was a choice that he made not one imposed on him. Possibly he gave nothing back to his community because he felt that he didn't have to. Does a self made millionaire truly owe anything to anyone being that he made his wealth on his own? John made the decision to live his life the way that made him the happiest. Drinking, smoking, snorting, whether he did it aware of the consequences or not, he lived as he chose, and the ability to make the choice and accomplish his goals to the fullest made his life meaningful by his own definition. Had no religion he called his own cared not to think of what came next after death. Leaving millions to his family he died a happy young man.

Worthy Jonathan …Or is he? Jonathan seems to be the most devout person one could encounter by chance. His piety seems rooted in his core being. A willing participant in his community he is. A person who defines his community as a religious, ethnic, regional affiliation. He gives without consideration of receiving, not as if it was a predetermined path, but as if it was the only path to take. Does this make him righteous? Does this make him more religiously blessed than that of someone faced with life changing questions of faith who because of those questions choose the same path? Does he give for personal gratification, observed need, or religious obligation? Regardless he is living a life that he chooses adhering to actions that further his goal of life excellence. Mindful at all times of the "next life" Jonathan lives healthy, moderately wealthy, full of loving memories long into his 90th year.

Lost Christopher …Obvious isn't it? It seems that Christopher has doomed himself. Born with a desperate outlook on life it seems, and likewise he has forsaken hope for despair. The path of complaint seems an easier travel then the road of self-preservation to him. Searching still he turns to the finder of all – religion. Praying as he should, repenting as he is told – waiting to receive as he hopes. Unaware that his actions in mask cannot show honest for blessing. So he continues in his quest lost, bringing down anyone who gets close enough to feel the pull. But has Christopher lost his path or has the leaders of "the way" lost their sight to see people like Chris? Regardless he is lost thru the end leaving behind nothing with enough meaning to define his memory.

Should one strive to be poor like John to be worthy like Jonathan? Do you have to be worthy like Jonathan to not be lost like Christopher? Which life is the most meaningful – which is the least?Personally I think that the most meaningful life is a life that exist to achieve personal goals, but is still willing to bend and yield to the goal of life.What is the goal of life?

If life as a concept was a life all itself what would its striving goal be? I know my life seeks to constantly remind me that my ability to live exists outside of my quality of life. I wake up alive each day regardless of how easy that life will be – and my ability to make that life a little easier doesn't in any way affect the ultimate chance of me living tomorrow.

***Food for thought***
Is it more important for you to be wealthy in finances, worthy in religion, or focused in purpose?


Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com/ and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot

What came first in our minds God or doubt?

<<>>

What came first in our minds God or doubt?


Expand your mind and see the light – or – Open your eyes and see the light switch?

Does the initial belief in God spark the quest to affirm one's faith – or – Does the quest to prove Gods existence result in the positive form of spiritual faith? It is hard to take the science out of the quest to understand the true concept of God and His presence. No harder than it is to separate both journeys of faith and science. Personally I don't think there is a purposeful barrier between the two concepts.

If God does truly exist and thus created all things including the sciences that seek to validate Him…then He will be validated should He choose to be. However if there truly is no supreme God then science would inevitable uncover such a finding. If science successfully proves that there is no God, but God does in fact exist then my faith leads me to believe that He wouldn't stand for such blasphemy.

One thing that I have come to believe after my 29 years of life is that the discussion will never end until God is revealed to all. If it is emphatically proven that God does not exist there will still be some people who will choose not to believe the findings. Because faith is such a powerful substance that runs so deep to the core of a believer, it cannot be destroyed by the science of man any easier than their soul can be. Science will never prove to the believer that God does not exist, but the appearance and exercised power of a being such as the Lord would shatter the most solid embodiment of disbelief.

**If Bob comes to Earth and shows the people how he used his man made machine to create the lands and seas we call home; and can reproduce similar things given the same circumstances then it is the science of technology that is divine. Such an display of capabilities cannot be questioned by the way our species currently see things. Likewise if the Lord appeared and decided to show the world that he was almighty through miraculous displays of power then too no one could question the divine.

What seems to direct us in our choice of beliefs are emotional, personal, and often accidental. Much as some people are driven by their choices in love and passion others are driven by the same instinctual force to believe one thing over another (Buddhism over Nature-Worship/Judaism over Confucianism).

Only as we grow as responsible individuals, taking the time to understand our own thoughts and personalities can we then answer the question why we think/believe in what we do


***Food for thought***
How do you justify your answer to the question "Does God exist" when talking to a person of faith verses a person who doesn't believe?

Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com/ and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot