“We are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to others, that in the end, we become disguised to ourselves.” — Francois de la Roche Foucald

I have enjoyed a number of adventures over the years. Some have ended well, others have left their toll on me in some mental or physical form. I have seen, first hand, the damage that can be caused by the betrayal of trust, the loss of love, the dashing of hopes, and the torment of feeling lost while trying to make the best choice for oneself. I have also seen the joys of camaraderie, the security and comfort of close friendship, and the incomprehensible strength that two people in love can have in the face of everything that gets thrown their way.

Yet I am lost at the moment, unable to see anything beyond an encroaching darkness as far as I can see. Sometimes I simply wish someone was around to reassure me that this perpetual numbness cannot last, and at the same time I am afraid to let anyone else close enough to be that reassurance due to the scars of the past.

It sounds silly, even when written. How easy it can be to provide support for others, to provide the shoulder they need, to recognize the benefits of having that social network of trusted people, and yet to so easily close oneself off from the same, needed support simply because there is an ingrained fear of being betrayed once again.

I know these things, and yet I maintain my walls. The same walls that allow me not to see the sun coming over the horizon, but to see just the storm as it approaches.

I know that I have created a cage for myself as a result, and that nothing will change until someone is able to help open the door. The problem lies therein, however, that at the moment I either do not know that someone, or both that someone and I simply have not realized their potential to help.

“It has been said that time heals all wounds. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue, and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” — Rose Kennedy

Unlimited Data

I have the unlimited data plan that was introduced with the original iPhone, which I subsequently upgraded to the unlimited 3G plan when I purchased the iPhone 3Gs. I refuse to change to the new tiered plans (200 MB for $15 or 2 GB for $25), not because I routinely use more than 2 GB of data but because I want the unlimited, no-worries approach to data usage. If the new plans allowed the same functionality as minutes, where unused data could be “rolled over” from month to month, then I might consider it. However, I doubt we’ll ever see such a consumer-friendly option implemented.

It’s pretty obvious the new data plans are not truly aimed at making data more affordable/accessible to the general public, regardless of what AT&T wants us to believe. It is absolutely aimed at maximizing profit while trying to curtail data usage on the 3G network in order to try to help lessen the strain on AT&T’s infrastructure. If the prices were different ($10 and $20 respectively), then I might be persuaded that there was at least a sincere effort at trying to be more consumer-friendly with the new data plans.

However, there is one other kicker that disproves any possible good intentions that AT&T might have with regards to data traffic: tethering.

Tethering

There is an option, built into practically all smart phones these days, to enable tethering. It is something that is a feature of the phone. The data traffic is still covered by the chosen plan, so why is there a monthly fee associated with using my allotted data “time” through tethering instead of on the device itself? With AT&T the cost is astronomical. The fee to tether is not a one-time “activation” fee, which I could possibly be persuaded to accept, nor is it a reasonable monthly fee that is added as a “feature” (after all, there is no difference between having tethering activated or not activated on the phone other than the “flip of a switch” on AT&T’s end). It is, quite simply, nothing more than the exploitation of the consumer in order to allow the consumer to use a feature that is already a feature of their chosen device.

I’ll clarify this once more: If I have, say, a 2 GB Data Plan, then I have already paid for the use of 2 GB of data in one month. Why is there an additional fee or restriction on how I use my allotted 2 GB of data if I choose to use the phone as a modem while out and about in an area where I don’t have wifi but I have my laptop? Instead, if I want to use my 2 GB of data, I have to use my iPhone’s built-in capabilities. Wait a moment, tethering IS a built-in capability, and I still have to pay an extra $20 per month to use the feature!

Rant

Quite frankly, this is all bullshit. If you want tethering you have to use the 2GB data plan, you can’t keep your unlimited plan. Fuck that. There is a reason I have the unlimited data plan, and it is because my data usage varies a lot month to month (I’ve broken the 2 GB limit a few times, which would mean I’d end up paying an additional $10 per 1 GB overage each month, which equates to the exact same price I pay for unlimited… tell me, why the hell would I shoot myself in the foot if my average for data usage is $30 a month anyway?).

All of this is old news, certainly. However, I’m annoyed due to being in an area with pretty crappy internet service (and guess what, that’s AT&T too, but that’s another rant) and tethering would be a welcome solution. However, I’m not paying $45+ a month for the ability to tether my laptop to my iPhone and lose my unlimited data plan.

At this point, I HIGHLY encourage the activities of the jailbreak community, and applaud them for their efforts. After all, for the price of one month of tethering with AT&T I could get an application that allows me to create a WiFi hot spot, or directly tether, on my iPhone. It’s looking more and more tempting every day…

It seems as though it is a perfect description.

Defeated. Demoralized. Discouraged. Crushed. Broken.

I am certainly not happy, but I do not believe I am unhappy either. Perhaps discontented, yet content at the same time. It truly is a paradoxical feeling, and I believe it to stem mostly from simply wanting to no longer feel quite as lonely as I do on occasion. It’s almost as though I have lost the ability to feel anything more than the numbed contentment I seem to be encased in as of late.

I know it is merely temporary. Merely a phase that I simply have been unable to escape recently. Yet I still fear it not to be temporary.

I blame holidays, and especially boredom. Just having a few friends to go to a park with, or enjoy a drink, or even just someone to curl up on a couch with and watch a movie truly makes such a huge difference, and yet even that seems to escape me.

Broken. It definitely fits. My ability to truly feel anything beyond contentment is, at the moment, broken.

What, then, makes me feel as though things will change?

Hope. Faith. Courage. Confidence.

This is not the first time I have felt this way, though it is the first time, at least in quite a while, that I know the reason is truly loneliness. I don’t seem to have much luck meeting people, or at least that seems to be the current (and somewhat long-running) situation as of late.

I know, however, that eventually that will change. It’s all a matter of time.Ok, and maybe luck. A guy can hope though, right?

This is, quite simply, the beginning of a change for me. Friends are people who try to talk to each other, who try to be there for each other, and who at least try to maintain some sort of contact. I’m going to be blunt: if I haven’t heard from you lately, or if after reading this you still don’t send a message and try to rebuild some sort of friendship, then I couldn’t care less. You see, it is time for me to work on rebuilding friendships with those who actually want to do so, and I’m not going to waste my time with people that either 1) are nothing more than acquaintances or 2) aren’t concerned enough to actually try to have a real conversation with me at least every so often. Does it mean I may end up being “friends-less” on some social networking site? Quite possibly. However, if I judged myself by the number of virtual “friends” I have then I would be a pretty shallow and unintelligent person.

So, here are the basics: I’m posting this today, June 17th. There are a handful of people that I speak to fairly often and that fit my definition of friendship. Those people automatically get a pass (If you think you are one of those people chances are you are correct. After all, it means we’re on the same page about whether or not we are friends). In one month (on July 18th) I’ll remove anyone and everyone that is not either a part of the aforementioned circle of friends, has not attempted to work toward rebuilding some sort of relationship, or that I simply could not care less about (yes, there are a few of you that I really just have no interest in what you say or do, and I’m not going to pretend to be concerned).

Obviously I’ve been bad about keeping in touch as well, and over this next month I’m going to work to rectify that based on who responds and who doesn’t. Maybe this is me being lazy and saying “hey, you have to make the first move,” but honestly I’d rather build those friendships with people that are willing to do so instead of someone who is going to wait on me to send a message first. If you want to and you’re willing, after reading this, to send me a message and establish (or re-establish) a relationship then I thank you, because that means that even with my flaws you can look further and see me, not just a person you once knew or thought you knew.

Now, here is my rambling letter to everyone, to interpret as you please and choose to do with as you please.

Dear <insert applicable name here>,

I don’t care one way or another about you. You choose not to make contact, not to speak, not even to send a quick message saying “Hey, how is it going?” every once in a while. I don’t blame you, I haven’t exactly been good at doing that either. However, the time has come to make some changes. I want to surround myself with people who are actually concerned about me, and who choose to be a part of my life and want me as a part of theirs. Quite simply, this means you aren’t invited to the party.

“It’s not you, it’s me” doesn’t really fit here. It is you, completely. I may not have helped the situation but let’s face it, you could have just sent a message saying “How’s it going?” and I would have eventually responded. Well, unless you were sending message after message, in which case you’re far too impatient for a response for me to concern myself with your petty, unintelligent conversation about the weather, a random “ice-breaker” type of greeting, or that gossip from twenty years ago that wasn’t interesting then.

Of course, I can be perceived as an ass at times. I admit it. That’s part of why I’m writing this letter. I’m apologizing (really it’s there, just don’t strain yourself looking for it) for those times when I was unapproachable for some reason, and am offering to rectify that mistake. All you have to do is send me a sincere message and continue the conversation (patiently), or at least show sincere interest in me.

So, to make it simple: I don’t care if you are “technically” family, a long-time acquaintance, or a new friend. Everyone is subject to the statements I’ve outlined above. Either you’re interested in me and want to rebuild our friendship, or you’re not. Either way, you have one month to let me know. After that, well, let’s just say “friends” counts and contacts lists will be a lot thinner and more manageable, so that I can actually focus on those people who do want to be a part of my life and want me to be a part of theirs.

 

- Jesse

I’m spontaneous in general, enjoying varied activities that seem to fall across the gamut of personality types (i.e. athlete, geek/nerd, and even the modern concept of socialite). From SCUBA diving to enjoying the adventure a random road trip brings, from writing to semi-serious photography, from philosophical discussion to examining topics in psychology and sociology, and from mindless entertainment to challenging video games, I find myself best described as an enigma.

Family is certainly important to me, though my definition of family does not generally fall within the scope of the “traditional” definition accepted today. My family includes those few close friends whom I would do anything for, and excludes those “blood-relatives” who seem only to consider themselves family when describing how we know each other.

And then there is the dualism of personality traits that seem so contradictory they could not exist in the same person: such as the confidence in my abilities and with who I am yet at the same time the lack of confidence in starting a conversation with someone I feel attracted to; or the passionate feelings about a number of topics yet the calm, quiet demeanor I typically possess. Again, the best description seems to be “enigma.”

What I have learned, however, is that I would not trade any experience I have had thus far, for without them I would never have become the person I am today. Further, the little things in life mean so much more than we typically give them credit for. In the end, the journey truly is the meaning of what it means to live, not the destination.

A significant amount of research has shown that women are, generally, more adept at not only making and maintaining close relationships, but also in attempting to ensure their friends’ needs are met than are men. To an extent this may be due to the ease with which women generally speak of emotions and thoughts with others as compared to the seeming taboo on such conversations among men. In light of such thoughts the above statement could be a primarily male concept, nonetheless it is something I have noticed.

In general we also fail to evaluate what we want or need out of any relationships except for those to whom we choose to pursue an intimate relationship with. Consider this an open letter, an intimate glimpse into my mind and thoughts on the subject, and in some ways a challenge to everyone to consider what they are to those around them:

I generally do not write purely personal letters, and yet I feel compelled to do so whilst in the midst of examining my life thus far. I miss, dearly, the closeness of good friends with whom I felt anything could be shared. I miss the companionship of a loved one. Above all, though, I miss the support of knowing that there was someone there whom I could lean on for support without having to utter a word. The knowledge that there were those around me who would do anything and everything possible for me if only I would ask, just as I would for them.

I feel increasingly alienated from those around me. Whether an actual alienation or the mere realization that I long for a partner to share my life with and to provide that type of support that other friends simply cannot provide is difficult to discern, just as difficulty lies in determining whether this is born exclusively from my thoughts, actions, and emotions or influenced by others around me. Regardless, there is certainly something missing from my life even in the midst of so many positive changes, and I realize it to be a type of friendship, a type of relationship, that I do not currently possess.

In essence, I understand that while I value my friendships I also recognize that something is missing that cannot be obtained without either further developing an existing relationship or forming a new one. It is in this area that I seem to be either incapable at the moment, or merely incompetent in general.

This is, certainly, not an appeal to anyone to look differently upon me. It is, instead, an appeal to everyone to think of your friends, your acquaintances, your family, and, if applicable, your significant other, and to remember not to take them for granted. To look at them and recognize all of the things they do for you, and to understand and appreciate their sincerity and love. Without them, after all, life would not be much of a pleasant experience.

On the other side, look at those whom you call friends yet have no reason to. Are you simply associated with them for no reason other than convenience? Are you potentially misleading them, whether intentionally or not, into believing you are there for their support when you would rather not be burdened by their thoughts? I challenge you to be open and honest, and in doing so resolve to either truly become a friend to them or sever ties instead of hiding behind a facade.

Obviously such a challenge could not be issued without taking my own advice, and therefore I intend to do exactly that. I opened this letter with statements surrounding what I miss, and what I long for. I would be remiss in not acknowledging what I am grateful for as well, and in all honesty that can be summed up in seemingly few words: concern for me, laughter, and simply enjoying the company of those whom I am proud to consider friends. While you all may not provide me with quite the type of relationship I realize is missing in my life at the moment, I am sincerely grateful, and happy, to have those relationships we do have.

I may still take you for granted on occasion, and you may still do the same to me. I hope, though, that each of us will keep in mind just how much all of our relationships truly mean to each other.

- Jesse

Let’s be clear, if a person cannot accept their significant other’s friends, regardless of gender, then that person has some other, fundamental reason for their lack of acceptance. Jealousy, fear, past experiences, lack of trust… the list is almost overwhelming when considering all possibilities. However, one fact remains that cannot be disputed: friendship (in all of its various forms) is important to each of us, and is not something that should be discouraged based upon gender.

Examining the Most Common Fallacies

• “I trust him/her but I don’t trust his/her friends.”
  This is, unfortunately, one of the most common answers heard when asked why someone does or does not approve of their significant other having friends of the opposite gender. The issue here is, at its core, trust. There is not a caveat when speaking of trust. Either there is trust or there is not, period. Implying otherwise is a common misconception that serves no purpose other than providing a way to blame someone other than a significant other for a person’s lack of trust.
• “I’ve been burned before and simply do not want to be in a similar position again.”
  While this is certainly a similar issue, the problem is more akin to fear than actually a lack of trust. Blaming a person for someone else’s mistakes is easy, and something everyone will do at some point in their life (I’m willing to bet on that one). The fact remains, though, that holding one person accountable for another’s mistakes is simply unfair, and can cause more problems than anticipated.
• “I should be everything he/she needs, not some other guy/girl.”
  This one is complete and utter ridiculousness. No person can ever be everything for another. It simply is not possible. Attempting to do so not only creates an unmeetable expectation of another person and places undue stress upon them if they fail to meet such expectations, but also belittles the importance of forming bonds with other people to grow and develop as humans. We are social creatures and, as a result, have social needs as well as individual needs. Depriving someone of either should be, and is in many cases, a criminal offense. Why, then, do so many seem to want to close their significant other into an isolated relationship that deprives them of learning, of growing as people, and of being exposed to the wonders and joys of all types of relationships?

Certainly this could be extended into a number of other topics, but the purpose of this post is simply to remind people of the basic premise of why friendships should not be looked through the biased lens of gender. Think about it next time the discussion arises or someone makes a comment that resembles those above. If you feel as though one of the statements applies to you, take a step back and figure out why. Communication with your significant other is far more important than bickering over friendship simply because of a person’s gender.

Continuing that line of thought, sanctions against behavior, even those supposedly based on moral principles, are not universally viewed as good or bad either. The perfect, controversial legal examples are: gambling, polygamy, and prostitution. On the other hand, some interesting social sanctions are: racial or ethnic bias in specific areas, bias toward sexual orientation, and the constructed regulations regarding the “legal” age of marriage (note that this one is, technically, also a legal example, but plays into social sanctions as well).

While the concept of morality and values as socially constructed sanctions to promote certain types of behavior is certainly nothing new (after all, Nietzsche suggested such ideas in the 1800s), we still continue to hold onto the idea that morality is an inherent trait and base legal sanctions upon perceptions of morality.

Because this can be construed any number of ways, I want to make something perfectly clear: I am fascinated with behavioral studies, specifically sociology and psychology, and a topic like this is quite interesting to examine and discuss. This article is a thought experiment designed to generate discussion. Further, I am going to intentionally discuss controversial issues, and so if you are easily offended I suggest not reading after this point.

Seriously, if you’re still reading at this point you cannot say I did not warn you.

We’ll start with something a little less controversial in case someone did not heed my warning and scanned the next paragraph anyway: gambling.

Gambling has had an interesting history in the United States, bouncing between being prohibited behavior and legalized behavior. Sanctions on gambling typically revolve around the perception that gambling is an immoral activity serving only to corrupt those who partake and to attract criminal activity. As with any other activity, there will always be people on one extreme or the other (ii.e. compulsive gamblers who are addicted to the behavior and those who proclaim gambling as a sin and rely on the fear of religious persecution to keep others in check). The vast majority of people, however, are not going to fall into those extreme categories.

Gambling, however, is a rather tame example of socially constructed sanctions that claim to be based on moral principles. Prostitution takes the concept a leap forward, and really begins to open the door to controversial discussion.

The idea of providing sexual favors for a price is not a novel concept. According to historical texts, prostitution has existed since the beginning of written history at least, and potentially even existed prior. Much like gambling, it has seen acceptance (even being looked upon favorably as a profession at times) and prohibition. Also like gambling, prostitution is not universally banned around the world, not to mention the disparity of being legal and illegal within the boundaries of the same societal regions (i.e. countries).

These are simply two examples helping illustrate two points before we delve into the meat of the discussion:

1. Morality is not universal (in other words, the concept of good and evil is defined within the constraints of one’s environment/society and varies from one person/community/region/culture/etc. to another).
2. Sanctions against behavior that claim to be based on moral principles cannot, by their very nature, truly be based upon morality. Instead these sanctions are based on other concepts (be it religious in nature, as the sanctions against prostitution began, or simply as a result of the majority of those in a law-making capacity choosing to place sanctions against certain behaviors).

Alright, now that we have the understanding of why these concepts are so interesting somewhat established, let’s look at some very controversial questions that arise out of such realizations:

1. Mental disorders are characterized by a number of factors, and some are only diagnosed by the failure of an individual to conform to the norms and values of the society in which they reside. Keeping the idea that morals and values are often socially constructed, are such individuals truly ill or do they simply share the same beliefs as another culture?
2. Taking the above question a step further: the average age of consent for participating in sexual activities in the United States ranges from 16 years of age to 18 years of age. The average age where a couple can legally marry in the United States (with parental consent) ranges from 14 years of age to 16 years of age (most states recognize the age of 18 as the legal age to marry without parental consent). What are the origins of specifically choosing an age wherein such activities are legalized? In other words, we know these ages were socially constructed, but how were the specific ages chosen?
3. Continuing along the lines of arbitrarily choosing ages upon which to base legal concepts, what makes the age of 18 symbolic of the transition into adulthood? What makes the age of 21 a suddenly acceptable age at which to consume alcohol?

Personal THoughts

Generally speaking, laws tend to be established for one of two reasons: to protect the rights given to each citizen for being a citizen of their country or to provide recourse against those individuals who bring disorder or cause disruptive behavior within society.

There is a generally accepted principle that one sacrifices a certain amount of individuality in order to be a part of society (i.e., certain rights of the individual must be forfeit in order to preserve the society as a whole). The question this raises, though, is whether or not such a restriction is fair given that an individual (normally) has no choice about living within a society (there is certainly no choice at birth, but often an individual is constrained by other factors that also do not allow relocation to a society wherein their beliefs and values are more aligned).

Ok, so I didn’t get as controversial as I thought about getting after all. There are just some things that even I can’t take the devil’s advocate stance on for the sake of discussion.

So, what do you think?

Throughout the course of our lifetimes we are told we are individuals, unique snowflakes, special… the list goes on with a range of similar comparisons. Certainly we have a number of minor differentiations among ourselves that do contribute to no two people being completely identical, but to base the aforementioned ideologies on something so miniscule is no different than to say that no two coffee beans are identical due to the slightest of variations in texture, color, flavor, or even the simple fact they did not grow in the exact same location at the exact same time. In short, proclaiming that individualism is valued and embraced in a Society where nonconformity to social norms is met with civil or criminal sanctions and, further teaching that we are all unique individuals while still expecting said conformity, is hypocritical at best and potentially harmful at worst.

So, who… or what… are we?

First and foremost, we have to acknowledge that there is not a clear-cut, simple answer to such a question. After all, if there were we would have discovered it long ago. The main point that I want to address is simple: we are not the unique, special, “there is not anyone else like me” individuals that our Society makes us think we are. Try wearing something in public that the majority of people disagree with and you’ll experience firsthand what I mean. Even better, try speaking up for an individuals’ right to choose how to live their own life regarding a “controversial” issue such as abortion, polygamy, religious expression that does not fall in line with the majority, or even something as simple as who to call family and who to simply call a friend. Take it a step further and ask a random person what they think of sexual activity outside of marriage, or between consenting friends who have no “stronger relationship” among them.

Every act of expression that a person partakes in that does not conform to the social standard, every act that could be considered an act of individualism, is met with negativity or disdain by most. Dare to suggest that we actually look at the needs of other people, such as true health care reform or removing a tyrant from power, or something as logical as scrapping the defunct tax system currently in place and implementing a change that would not only increase income for the existence of the government but also decrease expenses (i.e., the use of a flat sales tax on all products instead of the convoluted income tax system). But I digress…

The simple fact is that we are raised in a manner that attempts to keep us in line with social norms while preaching that we should embrace individual uniqueness, and yet when that individualism goes just far enough out of sync with the majority we reel the offender back in line.

This leaves us with a burning question that few consider: who are we? We are a product of what socialization has made us. We are beings capable of rational thought and irrational feelings taught to keep both in line with established traditions for the sake of maintaining order, and that maintenance of order is bred out of fear that allowing any practice that questions tradition is the work of some supernatural being commonly referred to as the devil in Christianity.

Instead of squandering our ability to think, our ability to learn, and our ability to have unique experiences, we should embrace those things that allow us to be unique. There are only a couple of simple rules every action should take into consideration:

• Will this harm anyone or infringe on another persons’ right to live their life as they see fit?
• Does this require some form of governance to ensure that the above rule is maintained?

Let’s use an example, and one that is controversial to those who count themselves among conservatives. Should prostitution be legalized? Consider the argument, as expressed below:

• Will this harm anyone or infringe on another persons’ right to live their life as they see fit?

  One fear is, naturally, the spread of sexually transmitted disease. This is an issue easily addressed through regulation, specifically the requirement of necessary medical checkups on a weekly basis. Another fear is the thought of someone being forced into prostitution, and though it is a valid concern it is also easily addressed through education. As long as people understand their right to choose, and they understand that if someone attempts to force them into such a lifestyle they have recourse, then the problem is addressed before it actually becomes a problem. Further defining the legality of prostitution as being a choice only available to adults of legal age and providing criminal penalties for those attempting to break the law would also be appropriate.

• Does this require some form of governance to ensure that the above rule is maintained?

  Obviously, in this case, the answer is yes, as outlined above.

Given those thoughts, what makes the act of choosing to make a profit for having sexual relations with another consenting adult a crime? Further, why is such a choice frowned upon when it is not something that forced upon any other person? The key point is, of course, the freedom of a person to choose how to live their own life, which is something we work hard at, as a Society, to put an end to on a daily basis.

So we return to our question once more, in an effort to provide a full definition: who, or what, are we?

We are a group of living, thinking, emotional beings that strive, in every conceivable manner, to claim we are individuals that have the right to live freely in a Society where doing so works diligently to provide the facade of such freedom existing. This means, in layman’s terms, we are nothing more than livestock capable of rational thought. Or perhaps an even better analogy, is that we are nothing more than sheep able to think for themselves but only act in accordance with what the other sheep say we can or cannot do.

We are hypocrites.

family
noun ( pl. -lies)

1. [treated as sing. or pl. ] a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household.
• a group of people related to one another by blood or marriage : friends and family can provide support.
• a person or people related to one and so to be treated with a special loyalty or intimacy : I could not turn him away, for he was family.
2. all the descendants of a common ancestor : the house has been owned by the same family for 300 years.

Note: The above definition is slightly modified by removing the other uses of family that do not pertain to kinship or relationships, and is taken from the Mac OSX dictionary.

We define family in a number of ways, and even subdivide the family into the “family of origin,” the “family of procreation,” the nuclear family, the extended family, the traditional family… and the list goes on. By applying a label to any type of relationship, however, we automatically introduce an innate bias that alters our perception of the question. Consider the following two questions and how the answers would differ:

• How do your relationships with your family affect you?
• How do your closest relationships affect you?

Chances are the answers to the two questions would prove to be very similar, yet the second question allows the mind greater flexibility in answering due to the lack of restricting one’s thoughts to be what the socially defined context of a family is supposed to represent. When taking into account what a family is supposed to do, however, the second question would, more often than not, yield more accurate results.

Consider the nature of “close relationships” for a moment. Is there any relationship that would not meet the characteristics of a familial relationship that would fit within the scope of a close relationship aside from ties by blood or marriage? Undoubtedly the answer is no. Why, then, do we fail to evaluate those close to us as family simply because of the lack of a traceable kinship?

Consider your perceived family as well. Are there relationships here that are not close? Of those are the people in question only considered family because of traceable ties of kinship? Chances are the answers to both are a resounding “yes.”

The logical conclusion is, quite simply, that the definition of “family” is antiquated at best, and illogical at worst. As a society we would all be better off asking ourselves how those closest to us affect our lives than to pigeonhole ourselves into subdividing friends and family simply due to kinship rules, especially when some friends should be considered family and some family should be considered nothing more than acquaintances at best.