The difference between Freakdom and Normalicy
Created | Updated Mar 22, 2002
Where do you draw the line between weirdom and normailty? How do we define who is normal and who is not?
For example, all maner o flimps, lumps, lanky lobes, not to mention lisps, are generally considered within the norm, wheras a lopsided lesbian with a hairlip and a townhouse in Lidcome would be considered a deadset freak!
But lets look at the grey area between the curious and the conventional. For instance, take the accepted behaviour of your average household pet ... A prime example would be more cute little kitty cat, Shadow, whos dextrous skills never cease to amaze ... yet never even draw a raised eyebrow from even my most upperclass guests. Whereas if 'I' were to squat on my arse and commence to lick my genetalia on the rug, I would no doubt be labelled a feak, albeit a rather envied one ... :)
But indeed the most bizarre of behaviour goes without the bat of an eyelid in this stranger than fictional family of man ...Look at our worship of sporting heroes. We adore that person who can hurl themselves over a stick just that little bit higher than everyone else, or who can ride their bicycle in continuous circles just a little bit faster than their fellow man.
The ideal of masculinity is the chap who has gained the most lumpy bits through constantly picking up heavy things and putting them down again for several hours a day. These ppl are the cultural yardsticks of our society, role models for our youth, yet some families still hide their freakish relatives from the public gaze.
Take for example the great traditional Australian cricketing family, the four Chappell brothers: Ian, Greg, Trevor and Sistine ... Yes, the little known Sistine Chappell who bore a remarkable ressemblance to reneisance cathedral. Needles to say Sistine showed no talent for cricket and has been hidden under the scaffolding most of his life.
In summary we are only as normal and weird as we perceive others to think we are. If you can make sense of that..your weirder than I thought!
For example, all maner o flimps, lumps, lanky lobes, not to mention lisps, are generally considered within the norm, wheras a lopsided lesbian with a hairlip and a townhouse in Lidcome would be considered a deadset freak!
But lets look at the grey area between the curious and the conventional. For instance, take the accepted behaviour of your average household pet ... A prime example would be more cute little kitty cat, Shadow, whos dextrous skills never cease to amaze ... yet never even draw a raised eyebrow from even my most upperclass guests. Whereas if 'I' were to squat on my arse and commence to lick my genetalia on the rug, I would no doubt be labelled a feak, albeit a rather envied one ... :)
But indeed the most bizarre of behaviour goes without the bat of an eyelid in this stranger than fictional family of man ...Look at our worship of sporting heroes. We adore that person who can hurl themselves over a stick just that little bit higher than everyone else, or who can ride their bicycle in continuous circles just a little bit faster than their fellow man.
The ideal of masculinity is the chap who has gained the most lumpy bits through constantly picking up heavy things and putting them down again for several hours a day. These ppl are the cultural yardsticks of our society, role models for our youth, yet some families still hide their freakish relatives from the public gaze.
Take for example the great traditional Australian cricketing family, the four Chappell brothers: Ian, Greg, Trevor and Sistine ... Yes, the little known Sistine Chappell who bore a remarkable ressemblance to reneisance cathedral. Needles to say Sistine showed no talent for cricket and has been hidden under the scaffolding most of his life.
In summary we are only as normal and weird as we perceive others to think we are. If you can make sense of that..your weirder than I thought!
