« Briscoe, retiring?! No! | Main | My taste buds love me, my digestive system does not. »
April 14, 2004
I am beginning to think I spend too much time thinking.
Walking is one activity conducive to creative thinking. I walk a lot. As a result I end up thinking a lot. Today as I walked from my office on 39th and 7th to All a Dollar on 33rd and 13th I had two amusing thoughts out of the many that meandered through my mind.
The Anthropology of Shoes was my first fun thought. You can tell a lot about a person by their shoes. Forensic scientists will tell you that no two shoe marks will likely be the same. I mean, it's evidence that a person can be convicted of a crime with. But there is more to the anthropology and criminology of shoes. You can get clues from a person based (no pun intended here) solely on their shoe habits.
First, look at what pair of shoes a person favors. For instance, I favor my Sketchers. Sneakers, tennis shoes, call them what you will. I believe sneakers reveal that a person is laid back, possibly active, they enjoy being casual. I favor my Sketchers because they are simply the most comfortable shoe I've ever bought for my tar-treading toes. Flip-flops reveal the same casual side, but toss in a sense of fun. Are high heals or dress shoes your favorite? You might be a go-getter, ambitious, maybe flirty.
Second, how many pairs does a person own and how do they keep them organized? I own 7 pairs of shoes. Sketchers, one pair of Joe Boxer flip-flops, casual sandals, dressy-healed sandals, dress shoes, dress boots and snow boots. I keep things fairly simple and they stay happily in a shoe organizer hanging on the back of my bathroon door. Shera on the other hand has only God knows how many pairs of shoes that she keeps happily organized in their original boxes in the closet or under her bed until she intends to wear them. Most of the time she is wearing sandals. Shera is one of the most casual, laid-back people I know. I haven't exactly placed how I could fit that into an "anthropological" study of shoes just yet.
My second amusing thought.....The relationships between love, law, economics and marriage. Marriage is completely separate from love. Marriage is a legal, economic arrangement. In every sense marriage has nothing to do with how much people love each other. That's why marriage is such a screwed up institution. Back in the good old days (alright, I know those days weren't necessarily all that good just go with me here) many marriages were economic/political arrangements. Polygamy and Polyandry were (and still are practiced in many areas of the world) to protect family land rights, political advantages, etc. Today we automatically assume that if two people love each other they should get married. I'm not so sure. Marriage is, first, a right that everyone should have equal access to, regardless of preference. Second, people have to realize that being in love has nothing to do with the economic/legal side of being married. It does nothing but protect your rights to make financial, medical and philosophical decisions for your spouse (at least in my humble thinking). If I really wanted to I could probably go find myself a husband right now. No love involved. Marriage is also, for many, a religious rite. That's where the love comes in and makes the concept of marriage so complicated. Even back in the good old days marriages in the church (meaning Catholic Church) were intended entirely for those economic and political reasons.
If two people love each other, by all means, get married...but know that marriage is more than just emotional.
I really have no idea where all of this came from. It just appeared in my brain as I was walking.
I guess exercise isn't really as good as the experts say. I exercised more than my body.
Posted by Sarah at April 14, 2004 01:11 PM