Yes or No Please

Other people's uncertainty is a frustrating truth that impedes my decision
making process. There are ominous questions that I want to ask potential
friends or potential paramours. Frustratingly, I tend to receive a
certitude of maybes and prolonged silences. What if life's questions were
answered by a simple a Yes or No? What if there was a criterion or a
checklist to fulfill in terms of friendship, romance, and familial
expectations? Can we implement a three-strikes policy for a range of life
situations? In an era of online dating that requires criterion, it may be
simpler to appoint a three-strikes policy or a list-criterion policy.
Suppose your candidate fulfills all required tiers, they can be your mate or
friend. The word potential is no longer in the equation because they have
fulfilled the criterion successfully. The word successfully is tacky because
there will always be uncertainties even in this process of checking or leaving
blank. There will always be exceptions made as well. But the problem with
exceptions to a cynic is that: exceptions will always exist in every exchange.
Unless you police exceptions. It goes as follows: no more than three exceptions
can be made this month. However, exceptions by definition, indicate breaking
any and all confines or drafted requisites. Clearly exceptions bypass the
criterion by the virtue of being an exception. Exceptions are allowed to break
the rule because of overarching reasons, overstepping reason and mostly
motivated by emotions and surefire passion. Perhaps a sexual intercourse
checklist will be fragile because horny people will always bypass checkpoints
when the sex organ takes the podium. Sex becomes a refutation of all
boundaries. This is illustrated by the yearning for sex even when there is an
absence of condoms. The sex organ speaks while the brain takes a backseat.

Take for example, there is an implemented checklist for friendships to
occur: Person A requires mandatory fulfillment of these requirements-- Over 5
feet tall; White or Asian; Prefers Summer to Winter, etc. Suppose these
constituted the criterion; how stupid would it be? Yet how easy would this be?
It would be easy because it coerces Person B to make a choice upon whether they
like summer or winter. But we run into issues with basic identification
information such as race or height. Certainly, Person B cannot change his
current height or his race. He can self-determine his ethnicity but he cannot
alter anything else that is inscribed on his Driver's License. Clearly, this
speaks to preference which is exactly what Person A is publicizing; he is
publicizing his preferences for a friend. His public preferences may indicate
that heis a racist, but that is another story. In order to be Person A's friend,
you must fulfill those things. If you do not, you cannot be Person A's friend.
He can allow for exceptions, but will exceptions dominate? If they do, they
defeat the very purpose of having a criterion or a checklist.

There can be a checklist for sexual intercourse: Partner B must have had no
more than 2 sexual partners in the past; he/she must be good at Doggy Style;
he/she must have no less than a 3.0 GPA. These requirements are ridiculous
because they not only penetrate into a person's sexual history (not that
speaking about it is wrong) but it also goes too far as to infringe on other
parts of a person's history such as the GPA. But the GPA is a random excuse for
sexual encounters. If there are no rules governing this intercourse criterion,
persons can draft whatever checklist they want. They can take advantage of
anyone and anything because of their criterion checklist. Guidelines must be in
place; criterion must be placed under a checks and balances watch. In a way,
these checklists must be under surveillance so that they remain active and
enforced. This may be a moral question because it solely depends on the person
whether he/she is responsible for enforcing the draft. But safety first in
cases of sexual intercourse. However, "safety" may well be compromised
when exceptions are made. Keep in mind, exceptions will be made. If exceptions
are made at an alarming rate, again, the need for this system will be erased.

Think of the law: it serves as something transcendent to human realm from a
practical view. All of us are mandated to follow the law. Free will allows for
persons to either follow or break the law. The law is enforced. Think about the
criterion if it is not enforced. If it is not enforced, persons would not
choose to adopt it. This cannot be a half-population situation; the entire
population either adopts this method or does not. Only with consensus can
something be codified and turned into law.

Perhaps there is not only to be criterion for friendship or sexual
intercourse, but there should be public badges that individuals wear which make
public his or her successes and flaws in his or her past. Similar to the ideas
in Super Sad Love Stories by Gary Shteyngart, individuals will be able to view
other person's information and decide whether they are worthy of friendship or
romantic relationship. But is this honesty or sincerity? And does honesty
mandate sincerity vice versa? Are honesty and sincerity virtues? If they are
then they should technically be valued. But if these are despised, then why
make anything public at all. We should remain in a situation of mystery and
clandestine presence. We should remain in anonymity because hiding something is
better than exposing everything. In nudity there is disclosure which triggers
shame and further insecurity. A better question would be: Why do we want to
know so much? Maybe we don't want to know someone's waist size or if they had
recent illnesses. Perhaps we are not interested in these disclosures. Should we
embrace both successes and failures? If we embrace "undesirable"
traits, how can we monitor our preferences? What can we do to censor what we
dislike when what we dislike is staring us in the face?