logo Sign In

Random Thoughts — Page 335

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

darth_ender said:

 One could argue that anyone who murders is mentally ill.

But while I avoid overly violent movies, let's look at the difference in interpretation for a minute.  Has society seen in increase in violence due to watching The Godfather or Saving Private Ryan?  I would argue that perhaps not due to these movies, but due to some, there has been some increase, as such violence is seen as "cool".  Nevertheless, overall most people understand that such is not acceptable.

On the other hand, let's look at promiscuity, at sexual abuse.  Though society has indeed come to a greater understanding of women's rights, it appears that sexual violence is in fact on the rise.  Sexual frivolity, infidelity, teen pregnancy, abortions, and the like are certainly much more prevalent than before.  To what can we attribute this rise?  Largely the media portrayal and acceptance of such behavior.

Now I know I am coming from a conservative viewpoint.  I have been married for eight years and have had one sexual partner in all my life, starting with my wedding night and not a moment before.  I am proud of such a lifestyle, but I understand that not everyone cares about such virtues.  Instead, there seems to be a need to "educate" me on BDSM (as if I have a history of engaging in topics I know nothing about).  But let me review why I made my first post, and we shall skip all the differing of more enlightened individuals.

First, 50 Shades of Gray is an erotic novel.  To me, this is pornography.  I oppose the flaunting of sex.  It is called intimacy for a reason.  It is to be shared between the partners and none else.  I made love to my wife last night.  Did I record and upload it for you all to see?  No.  I am keeping it personal.

Second, the novel promotes sex out of marriage.  Obviously I oppose this for reasons already stated.

Third, it treats sex as a form of selfish pleasure rather than selfless giving and sharing.  What did I do with my wife last night?  I didn't screw her, I didn't tap that, I didn't use any other disrespectful term.  I made love, because I feel that when we engaged in sexual contact, it was about loving giving rather than lustful taking.

Fourth, that novel shows BDSM, even if I did find that as a selfless form of sex (I don't), as abuse.  Many who have read it (and I'm going by their opinion, as I have not) feel it shows an abusive, controlling, manipulative relationship, not a giving relationship between equal partners.  So even if you argue that BDSM is a wonderful thing where the submissive is really in control (yeah, I'm sure that's how it always is), this book does not portray it that way.

And fifth, in spite of all this book has going against it, in spite of how trashy and poorly written it is, in spite of the negative psychology correlated with those who are fans of the book, it is a huge bestseller, with a movie made after it, shown just in time for Valentine's Day so that we can celebrate the day of love watching lustful, selfish indulgence and encourage more teens to get pregnant and glorify the worship of such self-serving behavior rather than the outward devotion that true love really is.

And people are buying their Fandango tickets in advance.

I don't care who the primary audience is.  It's a stupid book, it's a filthy movie, and it shows the dysfunction of our society.

I'm off work tonight.  I hope to make love to my wife again.

 Cobb, I don't care about you "prowling" my thread.  I've been attacked elsewhere, including politics, where I know you have at least trodden before.  But perhaps you have missed such things.  No matter.  Look at my above quote.  Perhaps I can sound holier than thou, but reread the quote, particularly the underlined part.  I am sharing my personal views and why I find the book, not you, so offensive.  I don't understand why you, hairy_hen, and everyone else so passionate about personal liberty (which I too value, but only along with personal responsibility) is so up in arms about.  The book is offensive to me.  I shared it as a random thought.  You don't find it offensive and feel that near pornographic films and books should be accessible to teens.  I disagree.  It's my random thought.  I'm sorry that you think it is so horrible of me to use my personal liberties to express my personal views in a random thoughts thread.

 I rarely enter the politics thread as it never fails to give me a headache. Engaging in discussion there usually goes nowhere. 

Notice that your holier than thou attitude comes through in that very quote you underlined: "but I understand if not everyone cares about such virtues." The fact that you think we are people who just "don't care" about virtues is a little condescending. We simply do not find waiting until marriage for sex a virtue. That does not make us virtueless people.

I don't care about how you feel about the book, I noted myself that it is by all means a work of utter garbage. I don't find it offensive and you do, and that's fine. That's not what I find offensive. It's just your attitude. Though perhaps your point is that it is your personal right to find my beliefs immoral? If so, fair enough. But it is unfortunate.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

But he did!

 So he's a liar AND a pervert.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

darth_ender said:

 One could argue that anyone who murders is mentally ill.

But while I avoid overly violent movies, let's look at the difference in interpretation for a minute.  Has society seen in increase in violence due to watching The Godfather or Saving Private Ryan?  I would argue that perhaps not due to these movies, but due to some, there has been some increase, as such violence is seen as "cool".  Nevertheless, overall most people understand that such is not acceptable.

On the other hand, let's look at promiscuity, at sexual abuse.  Though society has indeed come to a greater understanding of women's rights, it appears that sexual violence is in fact on the rise.  Sexual frivolity, infidelity, teen pregnancy, abortions, and the like are certainly much more prevalent than before.  To what can we attribute this rise?  Largely the media portrayal and acceptance of such behavior.

Now I know I am coming from a conservative viewpoint.  I have been married for eight years and have had one sexual partner in all my life, starting with my wedding night and not a moment before.  I am proud of such a lifestyle, but I understand that not everyone cares about such virtues.  Instead, there seems to be a need to "educate" me on BDSM (as if I have a history of engaging in topics I know nothing about).  But let me review why I made my first post, and we shall skip all the differing of more enlightened individuals.

First, 50 Shades of Gray is an erotic novel.  To me, this is pornography.  I oppose the flaunting of sex.  It is called intimacy for a reason.  It is to be shared between the partners and none else.  I made love to my wife last night.  Did I record and upload it for you all to see?  No.  I am keeping it personal.

Second, the novel promotes sex out of marriage.  Obviously I oppose this for reasons already stated.

Third, it treats sex as a form of selfish pleasure rather than selfless giving and sharing.  What did I do with my wife last night?  I didn't screw her, I didn't tap that, I didn't use any other disrespectful term.  I made love, because I feel that when we engaged in sexual contact, it was about loving giving rather than lustful taking.

Fourth, that novel shows BDSM, even if I did find that as a selfless form of sex (I don't), as abuse.  Many who have read it (and I'm going by their opinion, as I have not) feel it shows an abusive, controlling, manipulative relationship, not a giving relationship between equal partners.  So even if you argue that BDSM is a wonderful thing where the submissive is really in control (yeah, I'm sure that's how it always is), this book does not portray it that way.

And fifth, in spite of all this book has going against it, in spite of how trashy and poorly written it is, in spite of the negative psychology correlated with those who are fans of the book, it is a huge bestseller, with a movie made after it, shown just in time for Valentine's Day so that we can celebrate the day of love watching lustful, selfish indulgence and encourage more teens to get pregnant and glorify the worship of such self-serving behavior rather than the outward devotion that true love really is.

And people are buying their Fandango tickets in advance.

I don't care who the primary audience is.  It's a stupid book, it's a filthy movie, and it shows the dysfunction of our society.

I'm off work tonight.  I hope to make love to my wife again.

 Cobb, I don't care about you "prowling" my thread.  I've been attacked elsewhere, including politics, where I know you have at least trodden before.  But perhaps you have missed such things.  No matter.  Look at my above quote.  Perhaps I can sound holier than thou, but reread the quote, particularly the underlined part.  I am sharing my personal views and why I find the book, not you, so offensive.  I don't understand why you, hairy_hen, and everyone else so passionate about personal liberty (which I too value, but only along with personal responsibility) is so up in arms about.  The book is offensive to me.  I shared it as a random thought.  You don't find it offensive and feel that near pornographic films and books should be accessible to teens.  I disagree.  It's my random thought.  I'm sorry that you think it is so horrible of me to use my personal liberties to express my personal views in a random thoughts thread.

 I rarely enter the politics thread as it never fails to give me a headache. Engaging in discussion there usually goes nowhere. 

Notice that your holier than thou attitude comes through in that very quote you underlined: "but I understand if not everyone cares about such virtues." The fact that you think we are people who just "don't care" about virtues is a little condescending. We simply do not find waiting until marriage for sex a virtue. That does not make us virtueless people.

I never said that those like you are virtueless people.  I am a well liked person, pretty popular in my social circles, where most think more like you.  This would not be the case were that what I were saying or secretly believing.  Perhaps my phrasing could be construed that way, and for that I apologize.  But reread it yet again.  You will see that what I am intending is that not everyone considers a virtue what I consider a virtue.  That does not make them without virtue.  Clearly that was my intent.  In other words, not everyone shares my morals.  I don't mean that others do not have morals themselves.

I don't care about how you feel about the book, I noted myself that it is by all means a work of utter garbage. I don't find it offensive and you do, and that's fine. That's not what I find offensive. It's just your attitude. Though perhaps your point is that it is your personal right to find my beliefs immoral? If so, fair enough. But it is unfortunate.

 I never made that point or anything remotely close to it.  So feel free to get offended at what I didn't say, but if you do, that is unfortunate.

While I do find your moral standards different (and admittedly, lower than mine, as I'm sure you find my tolerance for different forms of sexual expression a lower moral than yours, and so you should be able to see that I truly mean no offense by saying so), I am not calling you immoral.  Many people are extremely good, moral people who have different standards on different topics.  I personally feel like our society loves to actually flaunt sex at every turn.  Most of us will not die virgins.  Nearly everyone has sex at some point in their life.  It's part of being human.  But I don't feel we need to have it broadcast on screen, or accept such broadcasts so readily.  That is all my point ever was.  Too bad hairy_hen needs to give Jesus the bird over it.

BTW, there's a chance to defend my beliefs, should you feel so inspired.

Author
Time

Right now I'm giggling rather severely at Ender's complete inability to recognize satire when it's staring him in the face.

If he actually thought I was serious about flipping off Jesus . . . well, I'd deny that I'd done it, but "Don't Explain the Joke" comes into effect in such cases.

Author
Time

Possessed said:

TV's Frink said:

But he did!

 So he's a liar AND a pervert.

 No, he just uses different terminology.

Personally, I prefer "bumping uglies."

Author
Time

TheBoost said:

What boggles my mind is how something so dull and awful become so popular. Is our bar for 'lurid titillation' so low?

 According to an article about the movie (trailer)

So who is the audience for this rom-dumb? Mostly women over 50, and housewives home with the kids. And that 20% of men who must be even less sexually satisfied than the bored housewives and women over 50.

“Fifty Shades” author E. L. James knows her audience since she herself is a 51-year-old lady from England who looks like she would enjoy a nice beating from “Poor, f-ed up, kinky, philanthropic Christian.” Or any sex actually.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

@hairy_hen, of course I get it. I know you think you're being witty. Your problem is that you think wit makes for a worthwhile argument. Considering you've hardly interacted with me, I think you shouldn't be so hasty to belittle. You think I'm so stupid as to believe you would do such things? Of course it was satire. On the other hand, you did select those items in an effort to offend, not because you really planned to do them, but because you chose to make light of my views on the topic as a whole.

And you're still a moron.

Author
Time

. . . and you're still explaining the joke.

I'd explain why I think mockery is sufficient to defeat your argument, but that would defeat the purpose.

Author
Time

If the topic is "is it possible to change society's views through film" then the answer seemingly must be a straightforward yes, least an entire advertising industry be shown to be fruitless.

Given such a reality, is it then possible to potentially damage society through the showing of such films as might be currently considered counter to society's normative values?

Such an assumption must necessarily be secondary to inquiring after what form such damage might take. 

How might society be harmed by such films?

How might one achieve a paradigm shift in the viewing audience after repeated showings? 

Perhaps it might be related to mankind's seeming interest in novelty. For what might be more interesting than the exploration of something potentially new and, perhaps even, heretofore, forbidden?

How might the maintaining of the special be possible if not kept apart from the mundane? For in projecting the special to the extent that it might become mundane what then might replace the special? Is such not at the root of the radicalization of the special to the degree that it must depart ever further from a normative path?

Is not the first slasher film one views necessary more thrilling than the 10th? Is one not commonly left seeking that which might yet be nearer the edge after becoming accustomed to more of the same? Given that desensitization is always possible, whether in the viewing of murder or pornography, if one truly wishes the same thrill from either does one not necessarily require a level of restraint so as to not overly dull the senses?

If such a thing might be branded as virtue or morality, so be it...for once the thrill is gone does it not require an investment in abstinence in order for it to be slowly rekindled?

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

darth_ender said:

Oh, and since you are passionate in defending both everyone's sexual rights as you are my religious rights, I really appreciate all those times you came to my defense when my beliefs were indeed mocked in this very forum with equal vigor.

Oh yeah.  You never did.

Because the two are not equal. Religion is some nonsense that human has created, while sex is essential part of the nature.

Don't get offended by this. As a scientist I still consider a possibility that the science is wrong and your religion is right. But the probability of that is extremely low.

真実

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

darth_ender said:

 ...

 Cobb, I don't care about you "prowling" my thread.  I've been attacked elsewhere, including politics, where I know you have at least trodden before.  But perhaps you have missed such things.  No matter.  Look at my above quote.  Perhaps I can sound holier than thou, but reread the quote, particularly the underlined part.  I am sharing my personal views and why I find the book, not you, so offensive.  I don't understand why you, hairy_hen, and everyone else so passionate about personal liberty (which I too value, but only along with personal responsibility) is so up in arms about.  The book is offensive to me.  I shared it as a random thought.  You don't find it offensive and feel that near pornographic films and books should be accessible to teens.  I disagree.  It's my random thought.  I'm sorry that you think it is so horrible of me to use my personal liberties to express my personal views in a random thoughts thread.

 I rarely enter the politics thread as it never fails to give me a headache. Engaging in discussion there usually goes nowhere. 

Notice that your holier than thou attitude comes through in that very quote you underlined: "but I understand if not everyone cares about such virtues." The fact that you think we are people who just "don't care" about virtues is a little condescending. We simply do not find waiting until marriage for sex a virtue. That does not make us virtueless people.

I never said that those like you are virtueless people.  I am a well liked person, pretty popular in my social circles, where most think more like you.  This would not be the case were that what I were saying or secretly believing.  Perhaps my phrasing could be construed that way, and for that I apologize.  But reread it yet again.  You will see that what I am intending is that not everyone considers a virtue what I consider a virtue.  That does not make them without virtue.  Clearly that was my intent.  In other words, not everyone shares my morals.  I don't mean that others do not have morals themselves.

I don't care about how you feel about the book, I noted myself that it is by all means a work of utter garbage. I don't find it offensive and you do, and that's fine. That's not what I find offensive. It's just your attitude. Though perhaps your point is that it is your personal right to find my beliefs immoral? If so, fair enough. But it is unfortunate.

 I never made that point or anything remotely close to it.  So feel free to get offended at what I didn't say, but if you do, that is unfortunate.

While I do find your moral standards different (and admittedly, lower than mine, as I'm sure you find my tolerance for different forms of sexual expression a lower moral than yours, and so you should be able to see that I truly mean no offense by saying so), I am not calling you immoral.  Many people are extremely good, moral people who have different standards on different topics.  I personally feel like our society loves to actually flaunt sex at every turn.  Most of us will not die virgins.  Nearly everyone has sex at some point in their life.  It's part of being human.  But I don't feel we need to have it broadcast on screen, or accept such broadcasts so readily.  That is all my point ever was.  Too bad hairy_hen needs to give Jesus the bird over it.

BTW, there's a chance to defend my beliefs, should you feel so inspired.

 If that was truly your intent then fair enough, I apologize, but it certainly didn't come across that way. Blame it on phrasing I suppose but it really did sound like you were insulting the morals of people like me. 

I'm not a fan of arguing as I think it mostly just leads to resentment on both sides and I don't want to cause that so if you don't mind I'll chalk this all up to misunderstanding on both parts and we can drop it.

By the way, though I respect your beliefs, don't expect me to defend you every chance I get, I never said I would do that. Not sure why you keep with that point. Remember the only reason I brought up your religion was as a comparison, in defending myself. You're plenty capable of defending yourself, you don't need me to pop in every time that your beliefs are threatened, and don't think that I will. I don't and won't expect you to defend me when my beliefs are threatened.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TheBoost said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

While we're all discussing sex and the exploration/denial thereof, I'd just like to say that I'd probably be more comfortable with my sexuality and my sexual desires would probably be more normal had my parents not instilled in me the notion that sex -- outside of marriage, in positions other than the missionary position, for reasons other than procreation -- was wrong and sinful.

 I don't think I ever had a conversation with any parent that was even vaguely about sex. 

So I have to ask... did your parents EXPLAIN different sexual positions to you? Was there a diagram of them, with all of them under big red X's except missionary? 

Their moralizing was more implicit than explicit -- comments on sex in TV and movies, in their religious discussions with one another, etc. Nevertheless, sex -- or any kind of sexual desire or stimulation -- outside marriage was branded a big no-no.

Author
Time

That's it, we should all have sex with each other right now.  Let's get it out of the way and be done with it.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

darth_ender said:

 ...

 Cobb, I don't care about you "prowling" my thread.  I've been attacked elsewhere, including politics, where I know you have at least trodden before.  But perhaps you have missed such things.  No matter.  Look at my above quote.  Perhaps I can sound holier than thou, but reread the quote, particularly the underlined part.  I am sharing my personal views and why I find the book, not you, so offensive.  I don't understand why you, hairy_hen, and everyone else so passionate about personal liberty (which I too value, but only along with personal responsibility) is so up in arms about.  The book is offensive to me.  I shared it as a random thought.  You don't find it offensive and feel that near pornographic films and books should be accessible to teens.  I disagree.  It's my random thought.  I'm sorry that you think it is so horrible of me to use my personal liberties to express my personal views in a random thoughts thread.

 I rarely enter the politics thread as it never fails to give me a headache. Engaging in discussion there usually goes nowhere. 

Notice that your holier than thou attitude comes through in that very quote you underlined: "but I understand if not everyone cares about such virtues." The fact that you think we are people who just "don't care" about virtues is a little condescending. We simply do not find waiting until marriage for sex a virtue. That does not make us virtueless people.

I never said that those like you are virtueless people.  I am a well liked person, pretty popular in my social circles, where most think more like you.  This would not be the case were that what I were saying or secretly believing.  Perhaps my phrasing could be construed that way, and for that I apologize.  But reread it yet again.  You will see that what I am intending is that not everyone considers a virtue what I consider a virtue.  That does not make them without virtue.  Clearly that was my intent.  In other words, not everyone shares my morals.  I don't mean that others do not have morals themselves.

I don't care about how you feel about the book, I noted myself that it is by all means a work of utter garbage. I don't find it offensive and you do, and that's fine. That's not what I find offensive. It's just your attitude. Though perhaps your point is that it is your personal right to find my beliefs immoral? If so, fair enough. But it is unfortunate.

 I never made that point or anything remotely close to it.  So feel free to get offended at what I didn't say, but if you do, that is unfortunate.

While I do find your moral standards different (and admittedly, lower than mine, as I'm sure you find my tolerance for different forms of sexual expression a lower moral than yours, and so you should be able to see that I truly mean no offense by saying so), I am not calling you immoral.  Many people are extremely good, moral people who have different standards on different topics.  I personally feel like our society loves to actually flaunt sex at every turn.  Most of us will not die virgins.  Nearly everyone has sex at some point in their life.  It's part of being human.  But I don't feel we need to have it broadcast on screen, or accept such broadcasts so readily.  That is all my point ever was.  Too bad hairy_hen needs to give Jesus the bird over it.

BTW, there's a chance to defend my beliefs, should you feel so inspired.

 If that was truly your intent then fair enough, I apologize, but it certainly didn't come across that way. Blame it on phrasing I suppose but it really did sound like you were insulting the morals of people like me. 

I'm not a fan of arguing as I think it mostly just leads to resentment on both sides and I don't want to cause that so if you don't mind I'll chalk this all up to misunderstanding on both parts and we can drop it.

By the way, though I respect your beliefs, don't expect me to defend you every chance I get, I never said I would do that. Not sure why you keep with that point. Remember the only reason I brought up your religion was as a comparison, in defending myself. You're plenty capable of defending yourself, you don't need me to pop in every time that your beliefs are threatened, and don't think that I will. I don't and won't expect you to defend me when my beliefs are threatened.

 I agree, I'd rather drop it.  I generally have gotten along with you and don't want hard feelings between us.  Again, if you look especially at my first comment, I was talking about the book, and how I don't like how our society is so preoccupied with sex.  It's my right to feel that way, and I definitely don't think anything said there should have been taken as arrogant.  In my lengtheir comment, I can see what was interpreted as rude, but I assure you I was simply trying to show why I feel what I feel.  But in the words of the great Boss Nass:

"THBLBLBLBLBLBLBLBLBLBLBLBLBLBL!"

Wait, not that quote.  Here:

"Weesa...being friends."

Author
Time

hairy_hen said:

. . . and you're still explaining the joke.

I'd explain why I think mockery is sufficient to defeat your argument, but that would defeat the purpose.

 Or maybe you are just tuned into the wrong station completely.

I have always liked DominicCobb.  So far, as this is our second interaction, I have not liked what you've had to say either time. Clearly you have misunderstood me from the beginning, and are determined to try to make yourself look smug.

darth_ender: I don't really like pie.

hairy_hen: Well, pi R squared!  So there!  Ha! Hahahaha!

darth_ender: I'm afraid you don't get it.

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Oh, and since you are passionate in defending both everyone's sexual rights as you are my religious rights, I really appreciate all those times you came to my defense when my beliefs were indeed mocked in this very forum with equal vigor.

Oh yeah.  You never did.

Because the two are not equal. Religion is some nonsense that human has created, while sex is essential part of the nature.

Don't get offended by this. As a scientist I still consider a possibility that the science is wrong and your religion is right. But the probability of that is extremely low.

 I don't really need him to defend it, as he pointed out.  I was just trying to make an inference of hypocrisy.  I have defended myself quite extensively here.

That said, you are not the first to say so here.  It's all the rage not to believe in God.  But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

And I understand that sexuality is also an essential part of nature.  I just believe in treating that part with more respect than I feel it gets these days.

Author
Time

If you don't like pie, chances are you just haven't tasted the right pie yet. ;-P

Author
Time

Oh, by the way everyone, did I mention that I believe that sex is sacred and should be treated as such?  And trashy literature and film are a means of disrespecting that.

Actually, I think I did.  Yeah, that's right, it was my frickin' point from the beginning.

I don't think I'm better than others.  I think I just have a right to that opinion.  You don't have to agree.  That's the beauty of a free society.

I'm done with this topic now.

Author
Time

Since that is the case, I will try not to rekindle it.

I will say, however, that it is astonishing how hypocritical people can be without even realizing it. I won't point fingers, since we're all guilty of it at one time or another (heck, I was even hypocritical once).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I'd just like to say that though I don't have a problem with pre-marital sex, I do agree with ender that there's too much preoccupation with sex in movies, TV, and music in general these days. If it adds to the story/content, then okay, I'm fine with it. If it's just there to titillate, though, then I don't see any need for it.

Now, with that out of the way, we can let this discussion die for good once and for all. ;-)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Oh, and since you are passionate in defending both everyone's sexual rights as you are my religious rights, I really appreciate all those times you came to my defense when my beliefs were indeed mocked in this very forum with equal vigor.

Oh yeah.  You never did.

Because the two are not equal. Religion is some nonsense that human has created, while sex is essential part of the nature.

Don't get offended by this. As a scientist I still consider a possibility that the science is wrong and your religion is right. But the probability of that is extremely low.

 Welcome to my ignore list. I have lost all interest in anything you have to say.

The odds are almost as low as the universe being created from nothing or life evolving by random chance.  Yes I keep up to date on the latest theories and studies, after all it is best to know what tune the devil is playing, but all of them at best side step the issue of the creation of the universe from nothing.

Still I know there is no winning this debate with a person like you because you see me and all others like me as backwards cave men who should be mocked and I have no desire to have this debate so I will just state what I believe, ignore you, and let everyone move on with their day.

Okay then before this whole debate blew up I was looking for some decent third party DVR software to use with my computer's TV tuner card, does anyone know where I can find some?

I would be very grateful for any help you could give me.