It’s About Making Babies!

I have pondered on just what various politicians mean when they say ‘family values’, other than the obvious ‘vote for me!’. I think I came up with one of my ‘family values’ today.

Instead of pondering 3rd date or sooner or later for first intimacy, how about: No intimacy until your family approves of the prospect.

Family would either be:

•  Both parents
• One parent and three trusted friends
• or five trusted friends

Approve would be an honest evaluation of the prospect, finding them suitable, willing, and appropriate as both

• Mate prospect
• Co-parent prospect

A mate prospect should be all the Biblical virtues: Honest, Disciplined, Kind, and Loyal.  A co-parent should share goals for child rearing, interest and aptitude for nurturing others, good communication skills, ability to seek and accept advice when needed. Anyone that passes the test of showing a responsible demeanor to family and friends, and is interested, should also be caring enough to be satisfying to their chosen one.  My own feeling is that it would be better if two of the trusted friends were (happily) married women.  Can’t get to much of the ‘Mama-type experience’ for making reasonable dating choices.

The other half of the ‘family values on dating’ rule, is that you have to make the prospect known to your family and friends.  If you don’t have family, the first step is to make enough friends to help evaluate your prospect. I suspect that anyone without five (5) trusted friends is less likely to be ready to pick a great life-mate, and practice making friends will come in handy when trying to adjust to a new person in your life, or even in your bed.  Taking the time to give the trusted friends / family a chance to meet what could be the love of your life, before becoming intimate, emphasizes to both you and your date that the choice of intimacy requires character to be in line first, before the lust in the loins (as Elaine Boosler puts it). 

Powered by Qumana

OK, on the Dilbert Blog, Scott announced a new rating scheme for movies.  The Downer Rating.  This rating would help Scott avoid movies that aren’t happy movies.  Scott also wants to avoid movies that don’t have happy endings or Mel Gibson or Steven Spielberg.

Who is to produce this downer rating — the studio, reviewers, popcorn sales reports from theatres, ratio of bathroom visits per 100 ticket sales for each theatre? I also like happy movies, but I tend to the novelty and  obscure stories.

‘Ballad of Little Jo’ was probably 60% downer — the ‘long arduous journey’ tale, and the ‘happy’ part is the secret didn’t come out until Little Jo died. A drama in the finest sense of the word, in my opinion.

‘Nuns on the Run’ would likely rate 15% down, with a happy ending (?) I think, the heroes (crooks!) get away, while leaving half the loot to the church for drug rehab. And to redeem the drunk, gambling nun Sister Mary. Robbie Coltrane and Eric Idle (from Monty Python), Janet Sussman.

‘Love Actually’ with Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, many others might be 12% downer, with a mostly happy ending — nearly everyone gets more than they deserve. I consider this one of my ‘Christmas’ movies, with ‘Die Hard’, ‘Long Kiss Goodnight’, and ‘While You Were Sleeping’.

‘Mulan’ should likely get a 25% downer, with a happy ending. Pretty happy flick, not much on character development but likable characters.

‘Dave’ with Kevin Kline and Sigourney Weaver, about a 12% downer with happy ending, was more fun for me than the more introspective ‘The American President’ (22% downer, mostly happy ending). Dave was more fanciful, the bad guys were bad, the good guys succeed. The ending isn’t completely happy, but mostly.

‘Under Siege’ is likely not on our ‘go immediately’ list, as you probably lump Steven Segal and Kevin Costner with Mel Gibson in the ‘avoid’ category. But the music is kinda catchy in Under Siege, the ship looked like a US Navy ship, maybe a bit nostalgic. And of course the cute lady flashes once.

‘My Chauffeur’ is dated — girl hires into limo company as driver. Cute, though, the bad guy turns into a great catch for the intrepid girl. Maybe 8% downer rating.

I think I would prefer a ’see it again’ rating. For instance, I saw ‘Sound of Music’ 12 times in the theatre. But then I was bored, and saw ‘Working Girl’ 11 times. I have some favored movies that I enjoy seeing again and again, others that were great (or not) but I won’t be seeing them again if I can help it.  I have watched ‘Down Periscope’ 6 times this year, ‘Mumford’ at least 8 times, and ‘Under Siege’ 4 times.  ‘Love Actually’ 7 times at least. Not that these are serious and rewarding in the literature sense, but because they tell a story in a way that is fun to hear again.  Cowboy poets know what this means, any parent that reads to their kid knows there are ‘favorite’ stories that are requested time and again, and preachers don’t seem to understand this at all, come sermon time.

And besides.  ‘Downer’ is from C.J. Cherryh’s ‘Downbelow Station’ and ‘Merchanter’s Luck’, ‘Cyteen’ and other linked stories, for the natives of the planet named by human explorers as ‘Down Below’.  The Hisa, as the downers name themselves, will be the only Downers for me.

Powered by Qumana