A Lot Of Words About Love

'More reasons pop media screws us up', responded a friend to the blog post, I Didn't Love My Wife When We Got Married.

Being partial to 'pop media', I was curious to see what the bashing was all about. The post was a love story of sorts, where the writer/husband ends up, to date, still in his marriage, presumably happily ever after?, despite his huge disappointment of the process. And though his marriage remains intact, he blames 'pop media' for deluding him and the masses, and warning that the thrill of the ride is not all that it's cracked up to be.

It was a lot of words about love (comments, included)...

He accuses Disney for infiltrating us with lies even in spite of beating the odds, having realized what it takes to maintain a marriage— something only half (or less) of those married ever figure out. He feels betrayed and laments, almost making us hope his wife hasn't read the post, considering the amount of effort it took for him to make their union work. Did he deserve better?

'How many people are in pain simply because they’ve been lied to. Those people deserve better. We all deserve better.

From Disney movies to my favorite shows like “The Office” to practically every pop song released, love is constantly sold as an emotion we have before we’re married... It’s time that we changed the conversation about love. It’s time that we redefine it. Because until we do, adultery will continue to be common. Loveless marriages. Divorce. Living Disney movies in our minds, and tragedies in our lives.'

There are probably a lot of reasons to hate on Disney but that would be another post on another blog. But what's wrong with painting a better picture for our kids that love and life can be beautiful and that happily ever after is a possibility? Because, as they grow up, they learn all-too-fast the ugly truths that happily ever after doesn't always happen. In fact, it doesn't happen for likely the majority. Even some of the most popular Disney princesses are prime examples, including Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, and Selena Gomez.

As for songs, our pop artists have no problem edu-taining us with the notion that love hurts and it 'ain't easy'.

The issue isn't pop media. It's that the writer is stuck in the nursery rhyme: 'First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in the baby carriage...' He's confusing love with marriage.

Love is an emotion, a feeling, a sentiment, whatever you want to call it. Marriage is not. The two are not one in the same. Marriage is an institution, a practice, a formality that people utilize to symbolize their union. Ideally that union is built upon and bound by love but that is not a necessity, nor is love or marriage— two distinct entities— an ever-lasting commitment. Nor do you have to marry if you love.

Redefining love seems futile. Perhaps educating our kids on how to build and maintain HealthyButJuicy relationships, instead, might be something more worth talking about. Likewise, so might conversations about media literacy and distinguishing between idealism vs. reality. Beyond relationships, this could also include how our kids can realistically build/reach their life goals and aspirations, sans fru-fru idealism that might hazardously be floating around their thought-space.

In the end, it's not about decreasing divorce rates, though that would be nice. It's about raising HealthyButJuicy individuals. After all, in this day and age, we all know Dating Is The Worst.

This is just one opinion but what do YOU think?

Share your thoughts in the Comments below, we'd love to hear! :>

Happy Healthy Juicy Love and Build the Life You Do.

Office hazard that is the office..

This post couldn't have come at a better time, and yes, I know, it's about time.

Today kicked off the Take Back Your Lunch movement, conceived by [the folks at] The Energy Project [TEP] and which will actively run throughout the summer every Wednesday in NYC's Madison Square Park and public parks nationwide. The idea is based on the fact that too many of us don't take the time to actually take a break from work during lunch— whether it be due to time constraints and/or workload— and, as a result, actually counters our efforts to be efficient.

TEP states:

'Human beings aren’t meant to operate like computers, at high speeds, continuously, running multiple programs at the same time. Rather we’re meant to pulse — alternating between spending and intermittently renewing our four key sources of energy'— physical (sustainability), emotional (security), mental (self-expression) and spiritual (significance).

So, it is their mission to help organizations maximize their energy, or, as they say in physics, their 'capacity to do work', and thus be more productive [not to mention profitable].

As of recent, I've been heavily plagued by this exact issue. It's been quite some time since I've participated in the traditional practice of eight-hour desk and, admittedly, I'm still trying to both get used to it and find its workaround.

I almost couldn't agree more with TEP. I proclaim, sans research [gasp!], that we are not meant to sit for so long. One, two, maybe three hours absolute max, at a time, about the length of a movie. I'm telling you, the entertainment industry's got it..

One way to think about it is, is in terms of the blame that's placed on weight gain as we age. People always attest to a slowing metabolism but I can only partially agree. Logic, or mine anyway: We're more active when we're younger, hence, burn more and have more lean muscle mass, which increases metabolism. Vice versa is also true: we're less active when we're older and, hence, we just don't burn as much, making it seem like age itself is what causes a slowing metabolism, when, in fact, we're just idly weaker. That's what is known as a confounding factor, in case you were wondering.

As such, I think office life should somehow re-emulate high school. That is, 45-50 minute bouts of work; mandatory five-minute walks between; and at least one, though ideally two, periods of physical activity; all included. I'm actually ok with eating lunch while working, I mean, you're sitting anyway and it would also help compensate for the 'ideally two' activity sessions. Perhaps weekly luncheons with the co-workers, though, would be nice— as we all know the school cafeteria was a great opportunity to strengthen social bonds.. kidding, about the latter, not the former.

Additionally, I think offices should become more 'floor-friendly'— this, in part, goes even further back by re-emulating elementary school.

In elementary school there were desks but there was also 'The Rug' and plenty of other places where they made you sit on the floor. Getting up and down from the floor and sitting on it helps maintain some form of body awareness, agility, and even flexibility. The idea comes from doing yoga and work on the mat, as well as observing the difficulties heavier-set folks have when it comes to dealing with the floor, whether it be sitting on it or reaching for something etc. Sitting down and getting up in a chair, on the other hand, is pretty easy, too easy, and limits use of your body; sitting itself, in a chair, also limits movement and isolates weight to just one area— sucking the juicy out of your juicy. That's not to oust the desk completely but just expand and maximally utilize resources. or something.

An additional bonus $uggestion is the invention and implementation of the stationary cycling desk— with practice, pedaling doesn't take any extra thought, and over time, it'll leave you feeling, and actually, juicily fit.

So that's my schpeel and what I've come up with so far to improve occupational hazard that is the office. Have better ideas? Click Comments.


Happy Healthy Juicy at the Office!