SCREGMAN SAYS...

THIS IS MY GAME... SUCKING THE MARROW FROM THE BONES OF LIFE... ONE BONE AT A TIME...

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

THE EYES HAVE IT...

------------------------------------------------------


[This blog was inspired by TofU's "Look Into My Eye" Blog. It started off as a comment to his blog, but it just got longer and longer and longer and...]

I haven't had my eyes checked in years...

Believe it or not, I do wear glasses, but oh so rarely...

I'm near-sighted (things that are near are clearer, but things far away are blurry).

I know my left eye is weaker than my right eye.

(Hmmmmm.... I am reminded of one of my creative writing instructors. In the sentence before this paragraph, I ended by saying: "...than my right eye". How many of you feel it was redundant for me to say that? Wouldn't it read just as well if I said: "I know my left eye is weaker." I mean, I wouldn't say: "My left eye is weaker than my right ear... or my left foot... right? This was one of my instructor's pet peeves in creative writing. He felt it was redundant in the grand scheme of things. Kinda like saying "She blinked her eyes" or "She looked at him with her eyes". My instructor would then state that there was no need to tell the reader that the eyes were being used, as it should already be understood. "What else is she going to blink with?" he would ask. "Her ears? She blinked with her ears? She looked at him with her armpit?" "She blinked" or "She looked at him" was his preference. Just a passing recollection...)

Does anybody know if this is actually true? I'd heard (many years ago) that if you need glasses, your eyes will get worse quicker if you wear your glasses constantly, as opposed to not wearing them often. Seems to make sense, that your eyes would become "dependent" on the glasses. That's why I've always refrained from using my glasses on a regular basis. However, if my eyes weren't going to be perfect, I guess I'm lucky I am near-sighted. I can see how one might have little choice if everything near is blurry (far-sighted). There's not much of a choice if you need reading glasses, etc. I should make a clarification. Technically, I do need glasses. I just don't wear them. I don't even know where they are at the moment. (I'm sure if I set my mind to it and did a "search & destroy" thru my home, I'd eventually find them.) The truth is, though, I really only need them if I'm driving in an unfamiliar area. When I need to read street names and signs. Otherwise, I get along fine without them.


Another bit of trivia. According to my brother, it's not possible just to "pop" your eye out. It's too "snug". The bone that houses the eye would have to be broken. Can anyone verify that? Anybody out there who is studying the human body?

Another thing that comes to mind. I recently finished listening to an audio book recording of "The Invisible Man". I really liked the story. However, I recall a friend "bursting" the concept of an invisible man. Perhaps invisibility is possible. I mean, wind is invisible, right? We know it's there, we just can't see it. Well, years ago, a friend pointed out that an invisible man would technically be blind. "How so?" I asked. And, of course, he went on to explain. [Anyone who knows the mechanics of the eye should agree.] In a nutshell, light passes through the eye, an image is formed (upside-down) at the back of the eye, then the image is turned right side up by our brain. So, if there's no visible eyeball for light to pass into, an invisible man would be blind. Ah well... I suspended my disbelief and enjoyed the story nonetheless. And I highly recommend it to any sci-fi/fantasy fan out there.

Another thing that comes to mind. Are the eyes windows to our souls? If you're lying, will you really have the tendency to look towards the left (or is it the right?) because you're accessing the creative center of your brain? Do we romanticize too much on body parts? Take the heart. The heart is a pump, people. It is a pump. If you look at the real heart, do images of love and cupid and Valentine's Day and loved ones come to mind? And has anybody out there seen a heart that was covered in cholesterol? UGH!! A lot of people out there couldn't look at a real heart. They'd be too grossed out. And yet, it's been romanticized. How about romanticizing the brain or the belly button or the middle knuckle on a fist?

"I love you with all my brain..."

"She dumped me. She broke my belly button..."

"My middle knuckle is aching for you..." (Perhaps this would fit into "fisting".)

On surgery. [NOTE: My fears are completely "layman's" fears. I have done absolutely no research into eye surgery, the pros and cons, etc. This is just an off-the-cuff fear I have.] I would hope I never need any kind of surgery. Especially on my eyes. I know my brother has had the laser surgery on his eyes, and he said the improvement was incredible. That's great. This is my fear, however. With any surgery, there is always some risk. (Yeah, yeah... you could argue there's risk just getting into your car and going from point A to point B... LOOK OUT FOR THE DRUNK DRIVER!!) But these are my eyes we're talking about here. I hate the idea of going blind if the laser is off by the tiniest fraction of a micrometer. Like I said, I would hope my eyes would never need surgery. Otherwise, my quandry would be: Do I want to live in a blurry world that will just keep getting more blurry, or do I want to take that leap... that chance... and go through some corrective surgery? Hopefully, I'll never be faced with that question.

Contacts. Never had them. Never wanted them. Just can't imagine putting something against my eyeball.

I know my eyes aren't perfect. But they've worked for me for the past 36 years...

I'll let you know how my eyes are doing after my physical later this year...

11 Comments:

  • At 7:10 AM, January 26, 2006, Blogger Kilatzin said…

    Screggie. Your eyes are much stronger than you think. They can handle the wears and tears of regular contact use. I for one am indebted to the invention of the contact lens. Without them, life would be a Monet painting. (See Here.)

    Funny you should mention the Invisible Man's inablity to see. Just read a comic book that referred to that same issue. There was an "invisible woman" type who needed a special pair of goggles to compensate for her inability to see when invisible. She was defeated by guessing her location and knocking off her goggles. The comic book series is called "Planetary." It's a series that actually a comment on popular sci-fi conventions of the last 200 years . . . mentioning everything from Godzilla to Sherlock Holmes to Superman to the Fantastic Four. Read about it here.

     
  • At 7:23 AM, January 26, 2006, Blogger Kilatzin said…

    Just found this link to a online version of Planetary's first issue. I can spot doppelangers(sp?) of Tarzan and Doc Savage. See who else you can spot?

     
  • At 6:48 PM, January 26, 2006, Blogger mikshir said…

    evil eye pic, screg.
    here's mine

     
  • At 10:01 PM, January 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Holy shite! Are you f'ing kidding me? Someone felt the need to invent special googles to explain how an invisible woman could still be able to see.

    How about this...because she's fucking special. Because if she's fucking invisible, maybe she has other special powers. Because maybe, just maybe, being fucking invisible comes with other perks, like defying the laws of nature.

    What next? Explaing why a man who wears tights is able to fly without his jerry curl getting blown away? Explaining why Wonder Woman has an invisible jet but not an invisible car?

    PS. Ronin, you're welcome to join mine and lissa's waxing parties. We could clean up the center of your brows for you. Anything below the neckling costs money.

     
  • At 7:18 AM, January 27, 2006, Blogger Kilatzin said…

    i know lotus. i know. well, superman's hair is extra dense, so his hair wouldn't be messed up by winds. also wonder woman's needs a jet to fly around in. she doesn't need a car.

    DUHHH.

    why do i feel like napoleon dynamite here?

    but, just to turn it around, some people like to needlessly wax rhapsodic about the real world implications of imaginary conventions . . . others like to needlessly wax bodily areas they imagine should be desparately hairless .

     
  • At 8:35 AM, January 27, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh no you di'int! Never, ever, talk down about waxing :)

    There are real world implications of waxing my dear, sweet, naive fur monkey.

    1) Hair tends to encourage the process of sweating. Sweating that occurs in cracks and crevises tends to become smelly. Especially true for the cracky, crevisey pubic region. Ick. I'd like my pits and cracks to be as unsmelly as possible. This is not to say that someone with a chinchilla-like ass can't be unsmelly.

    2) Smooth skin feels better than hairy skin. Now, if pubic hair was smooth and silky like the hair on my head, I might encourage long flowing locks (smellyness be damned). However, most pubic hair, or at least mine, is coarse and craggly. I don't really want to stroke something that feels like the nasty, smelly, wiry terrier that i can pick up at the pound. Much less kiss it. Ick. It's like kissing a man, I prefer a smooth, freshly shaved face, not the face of a 40 year old anthropology grad student with full facial hair.

    3) I just like the way it looks. If you want a good view of the show, you gotta pull back the curtains. Hey, you men could use some grooming too. I hear that taking some of the hashed browns off the plate makes the breakfast sausage look bigger.

    Anyone out there with some experience wanna back me up?

     
  • At 9:09 AM, January 27, 2006, Blogger ScregMan said…

    TofU: Impressive... Most impressive

    Lotus: Your invitation for a waxing party is very tempting, but Ronin is actually going for the ole' uni-brow, like Bert (Burt?) on Sesame Street. Or maybe I'll just shave it all off and pencil in the perfect eyebrows. Or maybe the "Great-Maker" positioned every piece of hair on my body for a special reason and I just don't know what that reason is (yet).

    Clark: Points well taken RE: Superman's hair. Superman's density is MUCH greater than ours, thus his special powers (including his hair, I suppose). Which is why Jor-El, Superman's (Kal-El's) father sent his only son to us. Jor-El knew that Kal-El would need that extra advantage in order to survive. (I'm taking this info from the first Superman movie.) RE: Wonder Woman... er... just suspend disbelief for now...

    Lotus: RE: Waxing. Your argument is solid, especially the real-world, real-life implications. I suspect social beliefs of what is and what isn't attractive also play a minor role. There are other countries out there where hairy legs and hairy armpits and hairy privates are the norm...

    To each his/her own... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

    -OR-

    Whatever floats your boat... Damn what anybody else thinks...

     
  • At 12:11 PM, January 30, 2006, Blogger Kilatzin said…

    yeah, lotus. hair sucks, that's why i only hit on chicks and boys under 10, cuz hair sucks. hair sucks. i don't know. i really think that this is an aesthetic arugment, as opposed to a health one.

    i mean, i would prefer a hairy alyssa milano over a hairless rosie o'donnell. or even a hairless oprah. maybe i've been lucky and never been with anyone who's pubes felt like a brillo pad. i never had razor burns from visitng down there, ya know what i'm saying??? and how many times would you have to actually stroke the pubic region before your flesh tears?

     
  • At 7:08 AM, January 31, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Okay Ronin, you're going to have to not use the 'this is what my creator gave me and so I'll follow his wishes."

    If so, I'd hate to see, wait, no, scrath that, reverse it; I would LOVE to see your unmodified person, leaving it completely as he created you.

    I can picture it now, long flowing locks, wisping past your waist, thick beard and mustache, coming to the quintessential triangle at chest level. Ah, then you would more as the master, less as the samurai.

    Well Clark, if given only two options, hairy but otherwise beautiful chick, smooth but mufugly chick, I gotta go with hairy. Wait wait. Now that I think this through, I realize that maybe the ugly chick who cares about what she looks like and how it feels to her partner might actually be really into sex. She might take some interest in her body and might know a lot about her body. Looks fade, I'd want someone who takes an active role in her sexuality.

    This is not to say that women who don't groom aren't in touch with their sexuality, but given the two choices, I'd probably go with the woman who has obviously put some effort into her enjoyment, not the one who happened to be born beautiful.

    Now, as far as the friction concerns, any hair creates friction, it doesn't have to be super coarse. You work it right, rubbing hair is gonna hurt.

    Now, I fully agree that this mostly asthethic. That's why two of my three reasons were about how it looks and feels. But, let me say this (warning, grossness alert) menstrual flow doesn't look like blood in movies; i.e., it doesn't flow. It kinda...glops. There's uteran lining, mucous, chunks and clots of blood. It's definately easier to stay clean when there isn't the equivalent of a spider web there to catch the solids. And this goes for regular monthly discharge.

    The aesthetic reasons are more important for me however. I don't like rubbing my legs together when their hairy. It doesn't feel nice. A fresh pair of waxed legs shimmer in the sunlight. They're beautiful. A nice clean brow can help emphasize one's eyes, instead of hanging heavy over them, overshadowing them. Not being visually attacked by puffs of dark mats of when when a woman raises her arm while wearing a cute camisole is a good thing. Even worse, when armpit hairs creep out from a short sleeve shirt.

    So, now that it's abundantly clear what my preferences are, I still welcome anyone who would like to be smooth and silky to any of our waxing parties. Be forewarned however, Lissa will probably pick at your pimples and blackheads, a young D will probably be lying on your chest watching the whole waxing and picking process, matters of life, love, religion, happiness, loss, devastation, joy and family will be discussed.

     
  • At 1:36 PM, January 31, 2006, Blogger Kilatzin said…

    i'm shallow lotus. gotta go with the hairy but naturally beautiful chick here. i think the appropriate metaphor to use here would be "polishing a turd." see this is how i can tell a real hot girl . . . if she looks like she hasn't made herself up, maybe even a little sloppy, but hey she still looks damn good to me.

    ugly chicks will somehow revert back to that ugly look sometime during your acquaintance with her cuz it takes A LOT of work for her to look decent. let's use myself as an example. when i was dating wifey, i was DEFINITELY putting my best foot forward. showered, shaved, nicely tailored, you name it, i did it. however, the one day i thought i wasn't going to see her, i let myself go AND BOY did i look like a mess. we went to a restaurant and everybody looked at me like i was some homeless guy that wifey was taking pity on and buying a charity dinner for. i was very lucky that she didn't decide then and there to end the relationship.

    yes, i'm shallow. to me, if you look ugly, then you're really not enjoying life. which is why i'm such a huge mess. and given my visual state, i'm also rightly marked as a hypocrite.

    and strange enough, i know well of the menstrual glop you speak of. yeah, when that occurs it's best for everyone, if you just stay away and don't go sniffing around during that period.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, February 13, 2006, Blogger mikshir said…

    I read a posting on Ask Yahoo regarding the origin of shaved legs and I believe that the concensus was definitely one of fashion, i.e. aesthetics. Sleeveless tops became in style in the earlier 1900s prompted the shaven armpits. Exposed legging in the war-era (and I suspect the rise of nylon stockings) initiated the shaved legs.

    And later until now, with the advent of the bikini, sub-bikini, thong, and the de-puritanisation of television and mass media, we see copious application of the trend to the pubic regions. First it was trimming, then more trimming, then shaping and sculpting, and now just flat out bare to the skin shaving.

    What strikes me is that I remember first thinking that it seemed a bit odd and unnatural to apply scissors and razors to that area; but then it became preferable and the new standard. Meanwhile the old unshaven, untrimmed look instead now appears grotesque. Why is that? We didn't mind the fur before but now it's gross. And does this mean that "hair pie", "mowing the lawn" and related metaphors will fall into disuse as social pressure demands that all adopt the nubile look?

    As for the tactile sensation, yes the course type of hair prevelant down there is less pleasing to the touch, yet it does ease the friction so I can imagine that that was its evolutionary purpose. Skin does stick and rub on skin in a way that hair on hair does not. But the hair is messier and more annoying in the long run. I'm all for its removal.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home