Danielle Routh

A healthy dose of skepticism and a whole lotta Coke.

[danielle-routh]

Please Go Down With This Ship

The phandom is toxic.

There, I said it.

When I refer to “phan,” I don’t mean the people who watch Dan and Phil’s videos, follow them on Twitter and Instagram, and are general fans of the duo. No, I mean the people to whom “phan” means something far more.

Shipping Dan and Phil in a relationship without confirmation. Gushing in the video comment sections about everything but the video’s content. Making “gay moments” video compilations. Drawing erotic fanart. Writing explicit fanfiction. (Possessing the audacity to make sure that Dan and Phil are aware of these creations.) Harassing—yes, harassing—Dan and Phil about their relationship and saying they would be so cute together and why aren’t you two just dating already and why won’t you tell us more?

This is more than a callout post, so keep scrolling.

If you’re reading this post, you’re most likely aware that on June 13, 2019, Daniel Howell uploaded a video titled “Basically I’m Gay” in which, with characteristic humor and heart, he discussed his sexuality and confirmed his relationship with Phil Lester.

He also, however, took the time to address certain members of the phan community with the following:

“We can’t force people to disclose [their sexuality]…there are so many reasons someone might not be open about it…Aggressively speculating or trying to out someone is really bad. They might not be gay, in which case we’re harassing someone and probably stereotyping, and if they are, there’s gonna be a reason why they haven’t talked about it.”

Aggressively speculating.

I wonder to whom that could refer.

Putting aside the negative effects of fetishizing male friendship (which is an entirely different topic for an entirely different post), I want every single person who’s ever shipped Dan and Phil together in a romantic relationship to stop, really stop, and consider their actions.

Is this normal?

Is this healthy?

Is this beneficial?

I genuinely want to know how we arrived at a place in society where looking at two male friends, deciding they must be gay, and creating fanfiction and fanart about this supposed relationship was not only deemed acceptable but also encouraged and praised by millions of people doing the same thing.

What if hundreds of strangers were so invested in your sex life that they pestered you for details? That’d be weird, right? So what made it okay to not only assume that Dan and Phil were gay but also essentially bully them for lurid details about their relationship?

That’s not normal.

That’s not healthy.

That’s not beneficial.

Dan is gay (for lack of a better term), and he is in a romantic relationship with Phil. Dan confirmed this in a video of his own making and his own choice in his own timing. That’s normal, and that’s how it should be. Any prior speculation on the part of phans is just perversion, plain and simple.  

As someone who’s read their fair share of fanfiction, I understand just how fucked up it can be—and I don’t use that word lightly. I’ve seen all kinds of ships, from incest to noncon to genderswaps to anything a sick little mind can dream up.

But when this cavalier attitude toward sex seeps into reality? When it affects real people who are already struggling with their sexuality and just want to live their own lives without the virtual equivalent of stalkers whose noses are pressed to the windows? When you can no longer differentiate between fantasy and reality?

That’s messed up. And it’s why I say the phan community is toxic.

Honestly, I’m scared of how these people—you people—will react to “Basically I’m Gay.” Will the fanfiction diminish or flourish? Will the fanart tame itself or grow more outlandish? Will phans back off or demand even more from Dan and Phil regarding their relationship?

I don’t know. But I do know this: as Dan stated in his video, someone else’s sexuality is none of your business. Whether or not they choose to come out or stay closeted is none of your business. How they live their life is none of your business.

Just because someone is famous doesn’t give you the right or the privilege to treat them as characters in your own little fantasy world. They’re people, just like you. Treat them as such.

And for heaven’s sake, leave Dan and Phil alone. 

[coutureicons]

[danielle-routh]

“Wants Mom to know she looks cool and doesn’t plan on changing” is a big mood. 

[tenaflyviper]

Please keep me out of your discourse. 

I don’t want to be linked in it without my knowledge or consent.  I don’t want to be part of it, I don’t want to know about it, I don’t want to hear about it (especially not when I’m likely being given a biased side of a story).  There are many things in the past that I don’t feel the same about, and things I could have expressed my concern with much better.

Frankly, a great many of you would be doing yourselves a favor to move away from wasting time on discourse.  I know sometimes people are being hurt–I understand that.  But take a step back, and try to look at yourself from an objective point of view, because chances are, you probably don’t look much better than the people whose minds you’re not likely to change anyway.  Besides that, not everyone whose values differ from your own is a “bad” person in the first place.

[danielle-routh]

I’m firmly of the belief that discourse easily harms much more than it helps. People don’t want to listen; they want to argue, and even if you’re on the “right side,” which is an iffy categorization in and of itself, it’s exhausting. I still plan on posting essays and such that could be loosely categorized as discourse, but I’m done (and have been for a while) going down the rabbit hole every single day and subjecting myself to what’s deemed okay and what isn’t. I’m much happier now than when I was constantly trying to keep up with the elite of Tumblr.

[faqueers]

[danielle-routh]

Dead. I am dead. Oh, paranoid Christian parents. Whatever will we do with you?

[discourse-throwaway-account]

I guess what bothers me about the representation thing is that people really only focus on one thing, when in reality people are a bit more complex than that.

Like for me. I was a black kid, but I was also a disabled kid, and that aspect of me affected my life more than anything. I can safely say that back in the 1990s there were a lot more black figures to look up to than disabled ones.

Oddly, Superman was one of my favorite heroes growing up, particularly his DCAU counterpart, because of the fact that he was physically different from most people and had to take that into account, just like I did. I mean… I wasn’t like immune to gunshots or anything. But the fact that you were different and had to live differently as a result.

I guess what I’m trying to get at is that kids can find themselves in any sort of character, depending on their circumstances. If anything, I think that maybe some should be thinking about the inverse–how like more privileged children can see themselves in Black Panther maybe? Not entirely familiar with BP outside of him being like super rich and being the head of his own country.

Basically it feels like people argue about representation for kids as if the only way a kid (or anyone else for that matter) can only resonate with a person if they share some sort of physical, visual similarity.

I guess what I’m looking for is less representation and more… resonance.

Hmm… resonance. Has a nice ring to it.

[danielle-routh]

Good perspective on the danger of reducing multifaceted characters to one trait for the sake of “representation.”

[voidprimer]

[danielle-routh]

Genius.

[square-enix]

my dad noticed i was stressed so he 3d printed me a little wooden elephant

[fierceawakening]

this is Good

[memewhore]

[madame-du-beaucaire-deactivated]

Marie Antoinette in a full ball gown and towering coiffure.

This is one of those rare times i will try to paint an actual person. Looks pretty close,germanic nose,high hairline the oval face,pouty bigger lower lip and pointed chin she was known for and those big eyes.  I missed painting my 18th century costume designs so much. Hope it lasts for a little while this time.

@keyhollow @abbysucks @tenaflyviper @coolmanfromthepast @lastsonlost

I always like given you guys a heads up when a new one is finished i really want you to see. I’m quite pleased with this one which is rare believe me.

[danielle-routh]

Was her ship hat based on a picture book, perchance?

[danielle-routh]

The Three Stages of Listening to the Beatles

Stage 1: “I like the Beatles. Their music is pretty good.”

Stage 2: “The Beatles are for people who don’t know what ~real~ music is.”

Stage 3: “Anyone who thinks the Beatles are overrated is an idiot.”

[danielle-routh]

Hate Your Own Sin

(In which the author expresses her opinion concerning how Caitlyn Jenner has been received by the majority of Christians.)

I almost wrote a much a different article last week addressing the Caitlyn Jenner hullabaloo, one that was egged on by too many negative and hateful comments in response to other articles. Today, however, I was listening to an old Carman song and the following lyrics struck me:

 “And here’s the spin: love nothing but God; hate nothing but sin.”

 Ah, the old Christian hate-a-roo. Hate the sin; love the sinner. We’re adroit in this area, aren’t we? We sadly or smugly comment (from a safe distance, of course) how the world is going to hell in a hand-basket and lament all the factors in this Dantenian voyage, of which the most notable recently is the transition of Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner. A few days ago, one couldn’t stroll through Facebook or Twitter without seeing that infamous Vogue cover. Accompanying this cover, of course, was a barrage of comments from the usual suspects: left, right, Christian, unaffiliated, what have you.

 I didn’t like what I was seeing from the Christians.

 The content was, to be blunt, not worthy of the title these commenters wield.

 A few of the adjectives hurled were “wrong,” “sick,” “confused,” and “disgusting.” Worse than this still were the ones who expended ten words claiming that they loved Caitlyn and then espoused a thousand damning the sin of transgenderism (hint: that’s not love), all protected under the almighty umbrella of personal belief. On the whole, Christians agreed that, though we should love Caitlyn as a person (and some didn’t make it that far), we were certainly justified in condemning her lifestyle.

 Cue Matrix meme. What if I told you, a Christian, that it’s not your place to hate someone else’s sin?

 Paul was translucent on this issue when he wrote to the Corinthians: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside” (1 Cor. 5:12-13).

 And then we’re flabbergasted when others say we’re hateful.

 We have no right to judge the lifestyles of those who aren’t a part of the church. They’re not held to our standard, so why would we measure them by it? If I compare a foot to a meter, the foot will fall short every time. Would I then be justified in declaring that the foot is inferior and should satisfy the meter’s measure in order to be better? In order to be more like it? Such a comparison would be an unfair test to the foot. He’ll lose every time while the meter grows more smug in its superior lifestyle.

 Are we, as Christians, worthy of the name of Christ when we hold others to our standards, standards that they may not even understand?

 I am not saying that we should kowtow before the Kardashian Shrine and boot our convictions out the door. I am saying that we need to find the balance between holding firmly to our standards for ourselves and treating those who don’t adhere to our standards in the manner that Christ would have treated them—that is, with true love and acceptance, not a “love” that is slapped on as an afterthought so we can’t be labeled as bigots.

 Christ didn’t label. He simply loved, and He understood the sway that sin holds in each and every life. When the sinful woman was brought before him in John 8, he didn’t hurl insults. He didn’t offer a false love under the name of Christianity. Instead, he looked to the root of the problem and spoke words that should jar us from our complacent self-satisfaction even today: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” Sin is the absence of righteousness, and it is our place as the redeemed of Christ to hate it. It is not, however, our place to hate those who are completely unaware of the laws they transgress. We need to love the sinner. More importantly, we need to remember that we are sinners as well. We are to be perfect as God is perfect, but while we inhabit this earth, we are not infallible. That title belongs to Christ alone.

 The Jenner rumpus seems to be subsiding somewhat, but another issue is sure to arise with similar ramifications. Before you cast your first stone, I charge you, as a fellow Christian and fellow member of the church: hate your own sin. God will care for those who follow a different standard.

[danielle-routh]

The Ontological Argument (Anselm of Canterbury)

Of the three classical arguments for the existence of God, the forerunner is the ontological argument, proposed by the theologian and philosopher Anselm of Canterbury; however, this argument is not effective in its effort to prove God’s existence. In this paper, I will present Anselm’s arguments, consider objections volleyed against his argument, and explain why his argument fails.

           Anselm’s argument for the existence of God (so termed “ontological” because it deals with the nature of beings) is that God exists, and Anselm’s premises for this argument are as follows. First, we cannot think of any being that is greater than God, and if we can think of God, then clearly he exists in our minds as a thought, if nothing more. However, if a being were truly the greatest being of all (the “being than which none greater is possible,” as Anselm puts it), then it would exist not only in our minds but also in the physical world as well. For example, a friend in reality standing next to me is a greater being than the idea of the same friend in my head because the friend in the physical world has existential qualities. Therefore, God, since he is the greatest being we can possibly imagine, must exist outside of our minds as a real being. Anselm’s second premise is that since God is the “being than which none greater is possible,” we cannot even imagine him in a state of non-existence. It is, according to Anselm, impossible for us to think that God does not exist because he is the greatest being that exists; thus, it would be absurd for us to believe that the greatest being does not, in fact, exist. Essentially, the greatest being that could exist must, naturally, exist. After proffering these two premises, Anselm considers the existence of God to be proven.

           Many objections have, of course, been made against the ontological argument, though many of them may be dismissed easily, as shown by the philosopher William L. Rowe. Rowe deals with three common objections made against Anselm’s argument and shows each is not valid.

           The first objection is that Anselm’s argument could be applied to other beings that are greater than God but of which we are merely unaware. Could there not exist another greater being about which we simply do not know? Rowe dismisses this objection by explaining that the definition of “great” is static and that one thing that is the greatest of its kind could be surpassed by something else of a different kind; for example, it is hard to compare the greatest island in the world to the greatest being in the world, for the two entities contain different properties.

           The second objection is that the predicate of a being’s existence does not necessarily make that being greater, especially if the existence of that being has not been definitively proven. In other words, why would God’s existence outside of our minds make him greater when we are not certain that he exists at all? Rowe dismisses this objection, however, by saying that qualities can be ascribed to beings even if the existence of a being has not been proven. I can, for example, say with certainty that Gandalf is a wizard, even though I am quite aware that Gandalf does not truly exist outside of the fictional realm of Middle Earth.

           The third objection accepts the greatness of God as a being but poses a question: when does greatness as a quality end? Is there not always the possibility of another greater being? What we might know or accept of God could certainly be great, but what if there is another being greater than he? Rowe dismisses this objection by saying that we, as humans with finite understanding, are simply unable to comprehend the full scale of greatness; as a result, this objection is a concern that is foolish to ponder because we will never have a definite answer.

           Thus, we find that three objections made against the ontological argument have failed. It would appear, then, that the argument has succeeded. However, Rowe offers his own objection against the ontological argument, an objection that entails a simple premise: the ontological argument is circular. According to Rowe, the argument is invalid because the premises of the argument are too similar to the argument’s conclusion.

           What does the ontological argument attempt to prove? It attempts to prove the existence of God. How does this argument support itself? It assumes first of all that God exists in our minds and therefore must exist in the physical world as well. Rowe is correct in his objection: the premises of the argument are too similar to what the argument attempts to prove and is, therefore, circular. A proponent of the ontological argument might protest that there is a difference between God’s existence in our minds as opposed to his existence in the physical world. Even so, assuming that God already exists in our minds for the sake of jumpstarting the argument is a rather large assumption to make. What does it mean for an idea to exist in reality, and how does this further Anselm’s argument? The argument assumes that God, if he exists, would be a necessary being, but this does not necessarily prove his existence. The ontological argument, then, unsteadily supports itself by assuming what it wants to prove. It is circular and is thus invalid, rendering it an ineffective argument for the existence of God.

           According to Anselm, God’s existence can be proven via the ontological argument. However, by examining the premises of the ontological argument and the objections made against it (particularly the objection of circularity), we have seen how this particular argument fails to prove the existence of God via logical certainty.

[danielle-routh]

The Argument for Cartesian Skepticism

(In which the author outlines Descartes' argument, explains its premises, refutes objections, and hopes to broaden minds and her grade in PHIL 115.) 

We exist, or so we think. How can we be sure that we are living beings, and thatwe are not merely dreaming or being deceived into believing that we exist? In this paper, I will present Descartes’ argument for skepticism, defend its premises, and address objections made against the argument.

           Descartes’ argument for skepticism, more commonly known as Cartesian skepticism, is as follows. Proof of an external being is derived from absolute certainty that such a being exists, and if any doubt concerning this being remains, then certainty has not been achieved and the being’s existence has not been proven. Since we cannot be fully certain that external beings exist, we therefore cannot prove that they exist (Descartes 186). There are two primary tenets of Cartesian skepticism upon which this argument rests. The first tenet is that knowledge is true belief that is justified and certain, a definition that is borrowed from Platonic philosophy (Schmidly 2). In other words, we may only “know” something if it is true, if it is a belief that we hold, if we have a good reason for believing it, and if it is certain. The second tenet is that certainty requires the absence of any reason for doubt, with no exceptions. According to Descartes, we cannot be certain about anything until all doubt has been dispelled, and this is the foundation of his argument, for it is impossible for all doubt concerning the existence of external beings to be dispelled; therefore, we cannot be certain that we external beings exist and are not merely illusions of our minds. Descartes himself offers two possible illusions under which we could be operating: first, we could merely be dreaming that external beings exist (Descartes 185); second, a demon could be deceiving us to think that external beings exist (Descartes 186).

           These two illusions, then, are the premises to the argument of Cartesian skepticism. How can we be certain that we are not operating under either? Let us examine Descartes’ two illusions, the first of which is that we could be dreaming that external beings exist. How can we be certain that we are not dreaming and that we are awake? Dreams certainly feel real, until we wake up the next morning; therefore, there is no way to prove with certainty that we are not dreaming at this very moment. We might pinch ourselves, but could we not do so in a dream and achieve the same results, without waking up? We may have reasonable doubt as to whether or not we are in a dream, but we cannot be certain; thus, we cannot prove the existence of external beings. The second of Descartes’ illusions is that a demon might be deceiving us into merely thinking that external beings exist and are living normal lives, when in reality the case is not as such. As with the first illusion, we can have reasonable doubt concerning this illusion. Do demons actually exist? If we are aware that a demon is controlling us, does that foil his plan? The result, however, comes back to the question of certainty. We cannot be certain that a demon is not controlling us, for both our doubt of the demon’s existence and our thinking that we have outwitted the demon would be exactly what such a nefarious creature would want us to think, if such a situation were occurring. Once again, we cannot be certain, and thus we cannot prove external existence. Descartes’ main point in proffering these examples of possible illusions is proving that, ultimately, we host various doubts as to whether or not we actually exist as external beings outside our minds, and as long as any amount of doubt is present, certainty cannot be achieved. When certainty cannot be achieved, knowledge cannot be gained.

           Some objections, of course, have been volleyed against Cartesian skepticism. The first is that we can, in fact, be certain that we are not dreaming, for the properties of dreams are dissimilar to the properties of “real life” (Schmidly 3). For example, we might fly in a dream, but we cannot fly in real life. This objection, however, is problematic. Hypothetically, we could be involved in a prolonged dream that is “normal,” in which we have a certain set of actions that we consider within the limits of human ability, and we would still be unaware that we were dreaming. The crux of the matter is that it is impossible to prove with certainty that we are not dreaming, for we lack a barometer against which we could measure the properties of a dream against the properties of reality. The second objection against Cartesian skepticism, purported by G.E. Moore, is that knowledge does not require certainty; that is, some doubt may be allowed, since it is improbable that we will ever prove something to be beyond all doubt (Moore 237). This objection presents the idea that our external world beliefs are not certain but are beyond a reasonable doubt. This objection, however, is incompatible with Cartesian philosophy, for knowledge requires absolute certainty. We may be fairly sure, but is this sufficient reason to believe? Moreover, is it a good reason to believe something? I could be fairly sure, according to my own internal belief, that the sky is green, but this does not make it so objectively. Certainty is a necessary tenet of knowledge according to Descartes; thus, this objection does not stand.

           By examining the argument of Cartesian skepticism, its premises, and its corresponding objections, we have seen how our lack of certainty results in our inability to prove our existence as external world beings. Where, then, does this leave us, certain of our internal beliefs and uncertain of external beliefs, in relation to the world? That question, however, is another argument for another time.

[danielle-routh]

She Has A Great Personality

In which the author talks incessantly about Disney films, expresses her thoughts of this phrase, chides the general public, and hopes to lift the spirits of readers everywhere.

I am a Disney fanatic. Beauty and the Beast is my go-to answer if someone asks me which movie is my favorite, but I love them all. My sisters and I grew up on all the old Disney Classics—on VHS tapes, to boot; no extra features for us—and we can sing the songs and quote the characters like nobody’s business. Frozen? Please. Olaf’s cute, but cute doesn’t cut it. Give me the courage of Mulan, fighting to save her country and proving her individual honor; the determination of Oliver, kicking it on the streets with new pals while looking for a home; and the despair of the Beast, a disquieted contradiction of self-hatred and sweet love for the brilliant Belle. Now would be an appropriate time to fall to my knees and shake my fist at the sky, crying for the injustice of it all in a grand show of melodrama, but I’ll refrain.

            One of my all-time favorites is The Emperor’s New Groove. Now, this wasn’t a staple of my childhood; if I remember correctly, we owned it after I was in high school. Still, my sisters and I love to watch it together on a summer night when we’re all home from school, imitating voices, humming along, and laughing at our favorite parts. One of the scenes that has always stuck in my mind is when Emperor Kuzco reviews the line of ladies selected as possibilities for his queen. Kuzco, in his pre-change-of-heart fashion, doesn’t give the matter much thought, commenting as he moves down the line, “Hate your hair…not likely…yikes…and, let me guess, you have a great personality.” It’s a funny part of the movie, and it’s verbal irony at its best: superficially, the words “great personality” seem like a compliment, but we the audience know, due to societal context, that the term is merely a code for the fact that she doesn’t have anything going for her besides her personality, making her undesirable.

            The “great personality” epithet. Funny when it’s applied to others, not so much when we’re the ones in question. Personally, I’ve never been a recipient of this phrase (at least to my knowledge—knock on wood), but the idea of it bothers me nonetheless. Personality, according to Mr. Webster, is a combination of qualities that forms a person’s distinctive character. I like the sound of distinctive character—what’s wrong with it? What’s wrong with complimenting the things that make us unique, and when did the mention of these individual characteristics on the whole become an insult?

            “She’s got a great personality.” It can be an insult in two ways, one intentional and the other less so. When I think of the intentional insult, I picture a group of guys sniggering about some girl and deriding her physical qualities, only to wrap up the slam session with, “But I hear she’s got a great personality!” Cue hysterical laughter. The unintentional, on the other hand, is your typical compliment-when-there’s-nothing-to-compliment. In this scenario, I picture some well-meaning aunts chatting anxiously about some poor chit, worrying over her marriageability and concluding with a hopeful “Well, she does have a wonderful personality.” And don’t be fooled by all my feminine pronouns: I’ve heard girls on multiple occasions explain a certain boy to their friends in which the best thing about him they can dig up is “Well, he’s really nice, and he’s got a good personality.” To society, the joke’s funnier when it’s about a girl, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect the other gender as well.

            I can just picture Jesse hemming and hawing about describing David to Samuel. “Oh, David…well, he’s a shepherd, out in the fields with sheep all day…no, he’s not really like his brothers, all handsome and strong, but, you know, he’s got a great personality!” Even if that’s not exactly how it happened, we do know that God had to tell Samuel not to judge by appearances but rather by the heart of a person. Shouldn’t we do the same? God tells us to imitate him, to be righteous as he is righteous—and yet we not only judge by appearances but mock that which is truly important. Such actions cannot honor God and certainly do not emulate how he views us. The heart of a person is what they are at the core, their mannerisms and qualities and beliefs and dreams. Why do we discount all this? Why do we make fun? A pretty or handsome face may be aesthetically pleasing and socially acceptable to compliment, but charm and beauty are both deceptive and fleeting. It’s the heart that matters; it’s the personality that truly shows a person’s character. So rally up, those of you with wonderful personalities. Take back the phrase and extract its irony. People of good character deserve praise, not detriment, and the joke is not on you, but rather on those who think a good personality isn’t good enough. You’ve got a great personality, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

[danielle-routh]

Get Out & Do Something

I've been on summer vacation for almost a month now, and while I've been fairly active outside, I'm finding myself watching too much television/too many movies and spending too much time online for my liking. I had grandiose plans for this summer; I don't want it to turn into nothing but mindless entertainment (that might be a cliche; I don't particularly feel like checking) and then feeling remorseful when the summer is over and nothing interesting has happened. 

Therefore, I've come up with the anterior list. None of these are particularly specific to me, so perhaps you'll find yourself compelled to try your hand at a few of the items. 

1. Talk to God or read his Word. Doesn't really need a lot of explanation, except that of late I find myself slipping into the mindset of your typical church kid: the feeling of knowing the Bible so well that I don't need to read it as much any more. That's definitely not true, and if I can't discipline myself to keep up with devotions in the summer, then I'm really in trouble when school starts again.

2. Bake something. Last week I made a carrot cake that my family devoured in a little more than twenty-four hours, so it's safe to say that consumption of said baked goods is not a problem. My family is in somewhat of a transition to healthier foods, so from-scratch goodies fit in quite nicely; plus, we always seem to have an abundance of fruit in our household. 

3. Read. As a friend of mine pointed out recently, the amount of books I own but have not yet read is absurd; yet, I find myself checking out books from the library instead of reading those on my shelf. Maybe the ones from the library seem more exciting; regardless, it's a good time to begin chipping away at my collection. 

4. Write a poem/short story/novel. The addition of "novel" is somewhat in jest, but at the same time, why not? I still have almost three months of vacation left. Anyway, now's a good time to actually begin work on the ideas that crop up during the semester when I'm too busy to devote much time to them. 

5. Do something outside. Camps not included, I think I went swimming three times last summer. That's just pathetic. I've been running at fairly regular intervals this summer with a friend (the accountability is quite helpful), and even when the heat really hits, I'd like to do more outside. I sit enough during the school year. 

6. Clean something. Cleaning is somewhat cathartical for me, but regardless of whether one likes it or not, it's necessary and helps out the other members of one's family. If nothing else, it means you can later be lazy in a clean house as opposed to a wrecked one. 

7. Draw or paint. Though these are the bane of my artistic expression, they're still fun from time to time. I think it's the act itself that I like rather than the finished project, mostly because I have no sense of composition whatever. Maybe I'll regress to finger-painting. 

8. Get crafty. I actually had a plan to make some cute decorations for my dorm next semester (things were pretty sparse last year), but so far, nothing has come of those plans. Whenever I roll around to them, Pinterest is at the ready with fantastic ideas that I'll probably botch in some way. 

9. Invite someone to hang out. For some reason, contacting others to make plans just doesn't occur to me very often. Maybe I just get caught up in a little routine of staying at home, but as the saying goes, doing nothing with a friend is more fun than doing nothing alone. 

10. Look up volunteering opportunities. Another one that doesn't really warrant explanation. If I have an abundance of time on my hands (and I currently do until I procure employment), then I can be using that time for something more productive than browsing or whatnot. "Be the change you want to see in the world," and all that. 

11. Work out. Do you even lift?

12. Make or find some music. Learn a new song, write an even newer song, or just look up new bands. I recommend NoiseTrade for finding music; it's a 100% safe site that lets you download full albums from mostly up-and-coming artists; you'll find a well-known one on there from time to time. 

All that is merely to iterate the title: get out and do something. Don't let the summer slip away in nothing but memes and movies, although those are nice in moderate doses. At the risk of sounding cheesy, make the summer memorable for more than Netflix. Netflix is always there; the summer isn't. Choose pastimes accordingly. 

-DR

[danielle-routh]

Forever Alone Is Not A Disease (And Other Calamities)

(In which the author expounds upon why romantic relationships need to be taken seriously.)

I sincerely doubt that everyone who makes a joke about being single or forever alone is desperate. I very sincerely doubt that most who sit down and type something about the single life think, verbatim, “Man, oh man, this is going to be the time that someone notices me and my life.”

  Nah. It doesn’t work like that. Some people are desperate, and I won’t deny that. But most of it is habit. We get into a habit of making jokes like this because it’s the norm. We have to somehow compensate for the fact that we don’t have a boyfriend or girlfriend, because that lack makes us bad somehow, right? We’re not in a romantic relationship, so we’re somehow inferior. Being in a relationship would, somehow, magically ameliorate this situation and make us cooler, better, more mature.

  I’m not buying it, especially since a lot of these conversations or posts come from kids in high school or even college (contrary to popular belief, a high school diploma does not grant you maturity) who are not even close to being ready for the responsibility that accompanies a solid relationship. These people want companionship, not commitment. They want benefits, not dedication. Because – and you can take it from someone who’s experienced it firsthand – once they find out what a real, responsible, serious relationship is like, it’s not all the fun that it’s cracked up to be. It’s not movies and novels and Beyonce songs. It’s work and commitment and (I can’t stress this enough) responsibility.

  It’s kind of like your job, really. When you start out that first day, things are pretty fun. You’re still in the unknown and the stress hasn’t set it because it’s new and fresh. But after you go in day after day, doing what often feels like the same thing, over and over again, it’s not so fun any more. You can find joy within your work, but it takes effort to get there and achieve that place where joy is constancy.

  C.S. Lewis said in The Great Divorce (which, coincidentally, has nothing to do with marriage) that those who truly desire joy will always find it. However, that doesn’t mean it’ll just spring out of a bush and bowl you over. Lewis was referring to finding joy within a relationship with God, and the principle remains the same for relationships of a romantic nature. If you desire joy in its purest form – I’m not talking sensual ecstasy here, because that’s an entirely different topic – within a serious relationship, you’ll find it. But just as finding joy with God takes effort and work, so does finding continual joy within a relationship. Real love is not hearts and roses and gifts. It’s not hugs and kisses and sex. Real love is what lays down its own interests, desires, and life itself because it cares about someone else more. Dear reader, please do not jump the gun here. It’s easy to feel this way at first. Infatuation is a powerful thing, and is something that is often left unaccounted. But infatuation is not love, and love is not a feeling; it is action (please appreciate my resistance of referencing Boston here). But once that feeling fades, and the annoying trifles set in, and you notice that mole, and you find out they hate Ke$ha, and they talk too much, and you really just can’t understand why the other person in the relationship can’t just behave decently toward you for once, you’re left with a question. And it’s a gigantic question that needs to be considered well before the relationship begins.

  “Am I willing to exert the discipline, commitment, responsibility, and dedication that this relationship will require after the feeling fades away?”

  I can tell you right now that if the answer is no (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), then friendzone that sucker* and do some growing before you start seeking out a relationship. It is, to be cliché, a painful truth to realize that you just may not be ready for a serious relationship, especially when everyone around you has a significant other.

  Forget them. Forget the guy or girl you’ve watched from afar for two months, admiring their impeccable taste in music or fashion or what have you. Relationships have to begin with you, or they’ll be ending with you and a basketcase of heartbreak. What I see in myself and others around my age is a desire for companionship so strong that it blinds you to what you’re actually capable of giving in a relationship. But I’ll be blunt: if you go into a relationship thinking about what you are going to get out of it and how happy you’ll be and how cool you’ll finally look, then do the other person a favor and get over yourself.

  I know, I know. That’s no fun. We’re young, wild, and free. Who needs commitment? Burn the system to the ground! Wait a minute, joy = fun, right? Can someone define “diligence”? I never did my vocabulary homework… That all sounds like marriage! I don’t want marriage!

  I kid. The only serious point in the previous paragraph is the idea that relationships exist only for the idea of fun. This is where the idea of casual dating irks me quite a bit. If you want a relationship because you want fun, then that only ranks slightly above wanting a relationship for physical benefits. It’s immature, it’s stupid, and it’s unfair to the other person. Because what happens when something isn’t fun any more?

  Right. We ditch it and move on. We go to the next game, the next movie, the next book, the next friend, the next cute guy/girl. Well, listen up, because I’m more than happy to falcon-punch this idea in the face. People are not objects created for your amusement. You can’t abandon them once they’re not fun any more. You know what that turns into? Divorce and broken homes, and before some smart-aleck brings it up, you and I both know we don’t have to experience that to know that it’s true. Some things are provable by observation alone.

  If you’ve made it this far, there’s a good chance I’ve offended you. That wasn’t my intention. It was also not my intention to come across as some high-and-mighty Pharisee who is so much better and wiser than you. This little essay arose out of things I’ve either observed or learned from myself – things that I’m tired of seeing people ignore and then wonder why things didn’t work out. The point of all this is that relationships are a lot more serious than we pretend they are, no matter what movies show us or songs tell us. In my honest opinion, nobody in high school is ready for a relationship and less than half of those in college are. Dating has become so commonplace that I think we’ve forgotten what it’s supposed to lead to. If you’re not willing to put in effort, commitment, and fidelity, then a relationship is not for you. If you’re only after fun or benefits, a relationship is not for you. If you want one because everyone else has one, it’s not for you. If you aren’t prepared to take it seriously, then it’s not for you. And it’s as simple as that.

          *The phrase “friendzone that sucker” is not intended to be taken seriously. I could write a completely different article on why the friendzone does not exist, but I mainly threw it in here as a joke. 

[danielle-routh]

"I am so (blank) in comparison to…"

Well, comparatively, I'm fat, ugly, childish, annoying, aloof, ditzy, klutzy, and awkward.

Also comparatively, I'm thin, beautiful, mature, friendly, intelligent, and graceful. 

Don't compare. Just be, and be content. 

"All I know how to be is myself."