'So, you're like fake married?'

... said Lorna, when I told her about how my name came about. 'Yes, and I even have a ring to prove it,' I responded.

Luckily. The travel agent phoned on Saturday to tell me that they'd managed get some people moved around to book us into the hotel that we wanted for our skiing trip to Canada ... under the pretext that we would be on our honeymoon!

So, are there a number of options, of which we'll select the one that seems as though it's got the highest potential fun rating:

• We get married, so that it's true. I rather like the idea of getting married for the completely random reason that the travel agent said we were.
• Robin and I make up an outlandish, but coherent, story to tell, and act it out a bit like Borat (we know we're acting, they don't; we camcorder as much of it as possible)
• We plan nothing, and have fun with the incoherencies of our stories, as we lie about the wedding that we're expected to have had.
• Your suggestion of a fun idea!

I'm looking forward to this trip already, and I've still to pay for it!

Disgust and fascination

One of my friends wrote to me with the following comment yesterday:

"There is a media led requirement to pretend that sex is dirty and disgusting while there is a media led fascination with the subject."
Need I say more ... ?

Scottish X-files

We discovered this curious object at the top of a hill in the mist the other day. No entry :-(

Esoteric and mysterious, me? Nah, never!!

I want insurance against hassle!

Good God! I've just been through intensive questioning the woman from the bank about shredding my documents. She was just supposed to activate my card, but apparently wanted to sell me insurance against identity theft. When I told her that I didn't want her giving me the third degree about what I do with my mail, the line went dead!

When will they phone up and offer me insurance against people hassling me by telephone in the future????????

I don't Love Hotels!

Mac just reminded me in an email about Japan's Love Hotels (apparently an 'experience' if you want to make the most of the local culture - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_hotel) an economically efficient option in case Robin accompanies me to Tokyo in March! Héhé!

But this morning, the last thing I love is hotels. Quite frankly.

Robin thought it would be a nice idea to spend yesterday evening in Edinburgh, since he's now working there more often. And a nice idea it was. In fact, the meal at Petit Paris on Grassmarket was delicious, and generally very pleasant. As usual, we felt it necessary to make ourselves known to the staff and spent half an hour chatting to the owner, who spoke so fast that I was getting all tied up trying to make my own mouth move at the same rate ... the Swiss are so much more leisurely about this whole speaking lark, and it seems I've adopted the same tendency!

The hotel was also a nice idea. The reality was something somewhat less comfortable. When I pay to stay overnight somewhere, and I get a bed, I expect to sleep, or at least to have the opportunity to do so. And not to have hotel staff waking me up every hour all through the night by stomping past my room and shouting to one another as they set up for breakfast, vacuum the bar, etc. in the room opposite. I won't even start on the quality of British hotel beds compared with those elsewhere in Europe and North America (and presumably elsewhere).

Could we get a refund? Oh, well, you'll have to speak to the manage for that. 10 minutes later, the phone number finally appeared.

My eyes want to glue themselves shut again and yet there are another 7 hours until I get to go home!

Al Marseillaise!

Héhé, on vient de télécharger la Marseillaise en arabe!!!!

http://www.bide-et-musique.com/song/8618.html

The dating confusion ...

One of my students is looking at Sex and Relationships Education. Most of the articles on 'romantic' relationships during 'adolescence' are based on studies carried out in the US. As such, we're having to engage with a whole new vocabulary, including the two words in scare quotes above, and also 'dating' and 'group dating'.

The following forum discusses the meaning of 'dating' in the American context, compared with the situation in the UK and Canada: http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/28643

Although some of the contributors argue that the discussion is essentially due to different language usage, I think there is more to it than that. It appears that the notion of 'dating' in the US context refers to a concept that is very much cultural in that it differs between the US and the UK (with, as I understand it, the situation in Canada and Australia being more similar to that in the UK).

Dating seems to describe relationships that have a couple of defining characteristics:
1) Low commitment and care-giving responsibilities
2) No absolute expectation of relationship exclusivity

In terms of commitment, in the UK we might use the expression "I was seeing him/her" to indicate a (relatively new?) relationship with little mutual commitment. This particular difference is perhaps primarily semantic: in the US the word 'dating' is used; in the UK, we say 'seeing'.

However, it is apparently relatively common in the US to 'date' a number of people for a period of up to around 6 months. According to the age and expectations of those involved, these relationships may have a physical aspect including kissing, sexual intercourse, etc. It seems as though it is expected that beyond this time, one of these relationships will become 'exclusive'. This might occur via conversations concerning 'exclusivity' of the 'chosen' relationship, or may simply be assumed (potentially leading to misunderstandings!)

As such, the major difference I can see between the situation in the US and the UK therefore revolves around the notion that in the UK, monogamy is always assumed (unless otherwise negotiated) as soon as any form of physical sexuality takes place, or perhaps even before; in the US this is not the case, and according to the context, initial non-monogamy may almost be expected.

The very fact that the Americans who have contributed to this forum use the words 'monogamy' and 'exclusivity' quite liberally indicate a difference with the UK where any mention of 'monogamy' either refers to a comparison with polygamy, or other practices such as swinging that are usually considered 'weird'. I don't think these words wouldn even really be used in the UK in the context of 'having an affair' because they seem incongruent with the secrecy surrounding affairs.

Gros filous

Robin ate 18 (eighteen) Petits Filous yesterday. £2.99 reduced to 49p :-)

Why I'm still thesising ...

I spoke to one of my colleagues about my thesis corrections yesterday, and how difficult I'm finding it to re-engage with the material. What I realised during that conversation was that not only was my viva really disappointing, it's part of the reason that I'm finding the corrections so hard, psychologically. Immediately after my viva, I was disappointed because neither of the examiners seemed to have engaged with the real issues in my thesis. Whilst the questions that they asked concerning methodology were valuable and important, they were the only questions that they asked. I wasn't asked about the detail of the thesis, the results I obtained or the theory concerning working memory, or implicit and explicit learning. I suspect these were the strong points in my thesis so not part of what the examiners were concerned about. As such, they did not need to hear me defend them to determine whether I would pass or not. However, their lack of questioning on these aspects was disappointing because I felt that they had failed to engage with the main content of my thesis, either to agree or disagree. This left me with the impression that the examiners had been unable to distinguish the literature review from my new theoretical perspectives, which may have been the case or may simply have reflected their lack of engagement. Even over lunch in Stravaigin afterwards, the examiner failed to ask about my work, and was more inclined to discuss mutual friends with Norman while I sat by in silence. However, more destructively in terms of my corrections, this apparent (or real?) lack of engagement carried with it the impression that the ideas themselves - central as they had been to the last three years of my life - were of little value: if even the examiners weren't interested, who else would or could be? And now I'm not either. I'm gradually realising that I'm going to need support to regain any sense of confidence in this aspect of my work and to re-engage with it effectively.

I'm also realising how subtle the influence of the examiner can be, and how careful I'm going to have to be to avoid misunderstandings when I play that role, or when I select examiners ...

Enlightenism - a blessing or a curse?

Steve sent me a link to the following article: http://www.sundayherald.com/58809

Muriel Gray echoes many of the concerns that I have recently discussed with friends. In particular, she highlights the issue that whilst I am expected to respect the faith of my fellow humans, they are under no social obligation to respect my atheism as a valid philosophy of life. Nonetheless, it is not religion that I find offensive, but the lack of respect that religious followers sometimes demonstrate for my beliefs. And I doubt that my atheism offends them unless it is associated with disrespect for their faith and customs.

Nonetheless, atheism does often appear as puzzling to those of faith. Occasionally, it generates fascination and excitement at the prospect of understanding my 'atheist spirituality'. Sometimes I am subjected to intensive questioning to discover what is 'missing' in my life. At others, my atheism is considered almost synonymous with decadent immorality and I am irredemiably condemned.

No doubt this simplistic misunderstanding of atheism is our fault. We've failed to communicate our belief system appropriately to others. And Muriel Gray is right to address this point by describing it.

But is enlightenism a good idea? Do we need Enlightenism with a capital 'E', a social movement, a collectivity? I tend to shy away from labels as I never feel that I can fully identify with them. But do we - morally responsible atheists who believe in questioning and challenging all forms of knowledge, including social dogma - need to create a collective 'us' so that our beliefs can be explained and represented?

If so, it's a sad world that we live in: a world where to beat the lobbyists, you have to join them, albeit in a different rank.

On the other hand, maybe such a strategy would create additional divisions between atheists and those of faith and as such prove counter-productive. Or perhaps it is simply unachievable: those who question everything are programmed to notice the differences even amongst those in their own group, and are likely to feel uncomfortable with so-called but imperfect representation.

Perhaps compromise depends on the person spearheading the movement. Does such a leader exist? Someone who believes deeply in and is passionate about our values, who can present them in a positive light without reacting defensively or condemning others. Someone who can communicate effectively that identifying the word 'atheism' with notions of immorality or lack of belief in anything can be considered offensive to some, but without allowing their own language to carry the negative undertones of 'superstition' and 'mythology' that are so offensive to others ...