Sunday, October 10, 2010

Childhood Dreams – First Fantasy Woman Dream (written 2005)

Fantasy/Women Dreams

In another early dream, when I was about five or six, I had a beautiful mannequin. She had long black curly hair and a perfect woman’s body. I was staring at her longingly when she suddenly raised her arms and started twirling around and dancing.

I was so excited that she had come to life for me and would be mine, but she kept twirling and dancing away from me and left the room and went outside and twirled down the road away from me forever. I cried and cried and went to my mom and told her my mannequin had left me.

Sexual Dreams Summer 2007

Summer 2007

Well, now I don’t think I’m so abnormal, at least not as much. I feel like I’ve learned a lot, and I think when women have sexual dreams about men, it’s how the men make them feel, making them feel desired and protected and loved. It’s not the men themselves, per se. It’s just how the women feel when they’re with the men.

My dreams have the same feelings, but they’re provided by women, or even more, by me for other women, but the feelings are the same. So I don’t think it’s physical sexual attraction that makes women like men and dream about them. It’s the idea of someone powerful protecting you and desiring you. That’s it. It’s very simple. It’s just that usually men are the protectors and desirers of women, so that is what women think of. But that’s because society needs it to be like this.

And maybe I haven’t had dreams about men because I don’t know what it’s like to be in a real relationship with a man (which, okay, is very abnormal, I admit) and for most women sex is connected with feeling, which is why they usually won’t have sex with someone they haven’t gone out with at least a few times, and why they look down on one-night stands.

I’m not sure what that says about me, but I do know that I didn’t feel the need to be desired by men, like most women, except to make me look better to others, for social concerns, to want people to look up to me, especially when I was much younger, but that in my heart I wanted to be the desiring one. If other women weren’t so hampered by society’s (necessary?) restrictions, they might also have sexual dreams about women like I do.

Sexual dreams are simply the desire to desire and be desired. Organically, I think the desire to be desired and to desire could be filled by anyone, male or female. I haven’t done any studies on it, but in this case, I know I really am right and if people would be honest with themselves, it would prove I’m right.

I was recently with a woman who, as she was on top of me, said that she only has sex with women who’ve had sex with a man, so she asked me if I had, and I said, yes, but I also said that I’d never cum with a man. Then she said, “Well, if I make that the rule, I’d never get to have sex with anyone!”
That made me feel so much better. I’m not that abnormal. All those articles about women having low sex drives or not orgasming are about straight women who are having sex with men, so if they are not being pleased by men, why should I think I’m so strange for not having been? For not dreaming about it or fantasizing about it?

That’s what needs to be found out – are these straight women who are not having sexual satisfaction with their male partners still fantasizing and dreaming about sex with men? If they are, then I'm still abnormal. But what if they’re not fantasizing and dreaming about men?  Maybe I’m not so abnormal if that’s the case.  I wonder.

Sexual Dreams 2007

2007

Several years ago one of my friends told me about a guy who thought he was gay his whole life, but then he had a sexual dream about a woman and now he’s married to a woman and living a normal life!  With kids! 

I’ve even known some lesbian-identified women, some old, some young, some who’ve had sex with men and some who haven’t, who have had sexual dreams about men, and still do.  One even said she usually dreams about men when she is feeling particularly sexual, but she’s never been with a man and is a total lesbian-queer!  And I’ve known many straight-identified girls who haven’t yet had sex with a man but still have had sexual dreams about men! 

I’m the only one I know who hasn’t had any sexual dreams about men, other than my Marilyn dream.  I’m also the only one I know who’s never come close to having an orgasm with a man, though I’m not sure how strange that makes me.  Given my bizarre sexual experience with men, whether I orgasmed or not was not the concern, so maybe if I was with a man in a normal situation I would orgasm. 

But maybe not.  I hear about faking orgasms, so even though I never pretended, I at least have the comfort of knowing I’m not the only girl who’s never had an orgasm with a man.  At least I don’t think so, or at least other girls don’t orgasm often. 

(But who am I kidding?  I don’t orgasm with other girls all the time either, though at least I have. The difference is that with girls, even when I don’t orgasm, I like kissing them and touching them, but I am completely passive with men, even when I let them kiss me and make out with me, I just go with the flow, I don’t add anything). 

Maybe I just need more normal experiences, as my experience in general is not normal. Most of my sexual experience with men was from my hostess dancing job, and although several of those men tried to have relationships with me, I've never had a real sexual relationship with a man where no exchange of money was involved. So maybe I just need more normal, non-transactional sexual experience with men. 

I have been with a lot of girls all for free, but only a few that could be called real relationships. I would love to have more girlfriends, of course, but I think for my own well-being I will need to have more men, and not just for money. But I can't even imagine what it's like to want to be with a man just for him, just to be with him and not get anything out of it.

I think if I orgasm with a man, my whole perspective will change.  I will think differently.  I will think of myself differently.  There is no way I could think of myself as lesbian if I orgasm with a man, that’s for sure.

 But how on earth could I ever orgasm with a man? Whether it’s vaginal or anal intercourse, I don’t feel anything with them, and even when they go down on me it’s not good. 

And most importantly, everything about a man is so ugly.  The male body is so ugly and disgusting, especially the male sex organ.  How can anyone be attracted to that?  I truly don’t think there is an object in existence that is uglier than the male sex organ.  If there is anything guaranteed to repel sexual desire, surely it is that.  So what is wrong with me if other women like it? And how will an orgasm ever happen for me with a man? 

And even if I did miraculously orgasm with a man, it’s such an abnormal way to try to be normal!  I’ve oscillated throughout my life between thinking I was very strange and completely abnormal in many ways, not just this (especially as a teenager) to thinking I’m just like all other girls, or other girls are just like me, to thinking I’m slightly different, but not too much so, to wondering if I really am, after all, quite anomalous. 

I guess I will always have to admit that, in addition to many things being wrong with me, this is all wrong with me, too, unfortunately.  Because it’s not normal!  People really have to understand normal!

Music – Metallica (2006)

Metallica


Haters can hate me because most of my favorite Metallica songs are those from the ‘90’s, and many people say that is when Metallica sold out.  Maybe.  As I wasn’t one of those legit Metallica fans of the ‘80’s (though a friend played me “One” and I loved it), I don’t have a right to say.  All I know is that I fell in love with them in the ‘90’s.  I loved how even though they rocked hard, they were melodic at the same time.  I think no one can dispute the perfection of both “Nothing Else Matters,” a superb song which has probably converted more people to Metallica in the ‘90’s than any other, and my favorite Metallica song from the ‘80’s – “Fade to Black.” 

(Speaking of “Fade to Black,” I had heard that in the ‘80’s some kids either committed suicide or wanted to because of that song or that parents blamed Metallica for instigating suicidal thoughts or actual suicides with that song.  I, however, think the song is beautiful and an eloquent portrait of what goes through your mind when you lose all hope.  Many of us have been suicidal at one time or another – when art can capture that darkness, creating something good out of despair, isn’t that a positive thing?  The members of Metallica didn’t kill themselves, so they shouldn’t be blamed for influencing suicide, as their actions don’t correspond with suicide.  But I think it is important that they gave voice to suicidal thoughts because anyone who has contemplated suicide can relate to it, and being able to relate to the idea that other people have felt as hopeless as you have is actually helpful.  So, if anything, Metallica should be praised for that song). 

But the ‘90’s really hit me with Metallica.  I love “Ain’t My Bitch,” “Bleeding Me,” “Mama Said,” “Low Man’s Lyric,” and the instant-classic complete with full orchestration -- “No Leaf Clover.”  The S&M concept was brilliant and so well-suited to their songs, and I love the S&M version of (another musical genius) Ennio Morricone’s “The Ecstasy of Gold.” 

As for my favorite member of Metallica, as much as I love the incredible songwriting of James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich, lifting Metallica high above other heavy metal and hard rock bands, my favorite member is Kirk Hammett.  Not only because his guitar-playing is astonishing, absolutely mind-blowing, but he is one of the most humble and truly decent rock stars.  In every interview I’ve read or seen with him, his down-to-earth attitude comes startling through. 

After Clinton’s impeachment, Rolling Stone interviewed several rock stars asking them their opinion of the situation, and Kirk Hammett said something along the lines of (and I don’t want to use quotes because I don’t remember exactly the words, just the message): He committed adultery, and that’s wrong, but he shouldn’t have been impeached for it.  How many rock stars would say that adultery is wrong?  I almost couldn’t believe it when I read that.  Even though I don’t completely agree with monogamy, I definitely don’t agree with cheating as I think people should be open (although I know I helped married men commit adultery with me when I was doing my hostess work). I absolutely love and admire people who believe in monogamy and practice it, and for a huge rock star to have that belief, I was overcome. 

Also, in the Metallica documentary “Some Kind of Monster,” Kirk seemed the most humble, and that’s saying quite a bit because I was quite impressed with the decency that all the members of Metallica seemed to have, including former members Jason Newsted and (very brief former member) Dave Mustaine.  They all seemed so human and likable.  But Kirk rose above everyone.  I noticed his wife’s face wasn’t even shown in the documentary, and I’m sure it’s because they’re trying to live as normal a life as possible without the spotlight.  Everytime I see any interview with Kirk I am bowled over by his presence.  What a nice, good, decent, humble, and incredibly talented man!

Music – Pink Floyd (2006)

Pink Floyd

            Pink Floyd is one of my favorite bands, and I love how they cultivated anonymity at first.  As I’ve matured, I’ve found I really don’t like when people try to get attention (I’ve been guilty of attention-seeking as well, for I am truly ashamed at my own desperate antics in the past), and I appreciate that Pink Floyd concentrated on their music.  Most people, unless they are big fans, know little of the personal lives of the members. 

            That being said, I am saddened at the rift between Roger Waters and the rest of Pink Floyd.  Egos are too huge.  I am also frustrated that so much attention seems to be given to Syd Barrett as opposed to David Gilmour.  Yes, I think Syd was essential to the formation of the band at the beginning, but David Gilmour was essential and even an improvement in terms of stability and especially in guitar playing.  People like to romanticize Syd because of his descent into madness, and he definitely did write some fantastic songs, like “Vegetable Man” and “Dark Globe,” and I really enjoy the entire “Piper at the Gates of Dawn” album, but some glorification goes too far.  I saw a music poll where Syd was voted one of the top guitar players of all time and David Gilmour was not even mentioned!  Enough!  That is ridiculous!  David Gilmour truly is one of the best guitarists ever.  Ever. 

            And David Gilmour is my favorite member of Pink Floyd, for, as is always my reason, he seems the most humble (Richard Wright also seems very humble, but in terms of the band’s two “leaders,” David seems to be the more humble).  Roger Waters, though I respect and admire his great songwriting talent, even genius (“Julia Dream,” “Shine On You Crazy Diamond” (with Part 6-9 being my favorite – I am truly transported when listening to this),  “The Nile Song” – and Nick Mason’s drumming is particularly excellent on that track -- “Wish You Were Here,” “The Happiest Days of our Lives,” “Run Like Hell”), does not seem to be as humble.  (I like Roger Waters, and I can understand his frustration at the band continuing on as Pink Floyd without him, but The Division Bell, with songs like “Marooned,” “Lost for Words,” “Keep Talking,” and the wonderful “Take It Back,” definitely sounds like Pink Floyd and is one of my favorite albums.

Also, I really like the early Pink Floyd, when all four members were contributing more equally, especially the song “A Saucerful of Secrets” (the live version on UmmaGumma is perfection, so awe-inspiring!) and Richard Wright wrote some very melodic songs, like the beautiful “Remember a Day” and “Summer ’68” – both of which I absolutely love.  “Summer ‘68” is purely amazing. Therefore, although I appreciate Roger Waters’ vast contribution to and vision guiding Pink Floyd, I cannot say that Pink Floyd would not have been Pink Floyd without him alone.  Early Pink Floyd needed Syd Barrett, but the definitive Pink Floyd sound needed both Roger Waters and David Gilmour.

David Gilmour is not only a genius at the guitar and extremely humble, but as an added bonus for all you ladies, he was also very good-looking as a young man.  I think he was far better-looking than the supposedly sexy rock gods of that era, like Robert Plant and Mick Jagger.  Far, far better-looking.  (Maybe this corresponds to “Beautiful Vs. Hot”). 

Even more, David Gilmour is one of the most giving people, knowing that his extreme wealth should be used to help others, and he truly does help others.  He may not get all the media attention that others get, but what he does strikes me as more genuine.

David Gilmour literally puts his money where his mouth is, but you have to look hard to find out about it.  He is not out trumpeting his good deeds.  He is just doing them.  I think it is easy for celebrities to preach to us and to world leaders about what we should be paying attention to, and raising money (from us) for these causes, or auctioning something of theirs or something they signed (which is actually a little conceited) to raise money, but again, we are the ones paying for it.  Not them.  I really only value a celebrity’s pitch for a cause if they also donate their own money to it.  David Gilmour does (and Angelina Jolie is an outstanding example of this as well). 


I love when celebrities recognize that their money, not just their name (for they see themselves as a brand, and of course it only helps them when they are associated with a good cause), should be used for good.  Money is tangible and can provide immediate results, an immediate deficit on the part of the giver, at any rate, if not immediate benefits for the recipient.  David Gilmour is a successful, talented, giving musician who helps others, and seems so down-to-earth, decent, and humble.  What’s not to love?

Music – The Who (written 2006)

The Who

I love The Who.  In the heated race to be my favorite band, they are a close second, next to Led Zeppelin.  Just as Led Zeppelin has such breadth in the styles of their songs, The Who’s repertoire ranges from sweetly melodic to hard rockers, excelling in all arenas.

Yet they are different from Led Zeppelin in that whereas every member of Led Zeppelin was indispensable and irreplaceable, and Led Zeppelin would not have sounded like Led Zeppelin without each and every member, that’s not true of The Who.  The truly indispensable member is Pete Townsend as the primary songwriter.

As with the Beatles, it is the songwriting that makes the Who The Who.  Yes, Moon’s drumming makes The Who The Who also, and, poor Kenny Jones, though a great drummer, could not drum like Keith Moon, but Pete’s songwriting is the true glue that made the Who stick.  Recall that “You Better You Bet,” written and recorded with Kenny Jones after Moon’s death, still is a good song and sounds like a Who song, even without Moon’s drumming.

Therefore, although Moon’s drumming helped make The Who sound like The Who, Pete’s songwriting is the core of the band, the unshakable center.  (However, I must give mention to Moon’s own songwriting – “Girl’s Eyes” is such a sweet song, and so unlike a song I would have expected from “Moon the Loon,” but it is one of my favorites).

In Led Zeppelin, the primary songwriting partnership of Page and Plant was not always brilliant until the pieces of the band brought their brilliance to it.  With The Who, the songs are brilliant on their own.  Regardless of who is singing or playing the songs, they are works of genius.  Pete Townsend is a true songwriting genius.  Absolutely.

Which brings me to my favorite member of the band.  Normally, as I’ve said, I tend to pick favorites who are the most humble and least seeking of attention (John Paul Jones of Zeppelin, Charlie Watts of the Rolling Stones, David Gilmour of Pink Floyd, Kirk Hammet of Metallica) or one who is seen as an underdog (Paul in The Beatles, though this is only so compared to the near-deification of John, for my initial favorite was George), but when it comes to the Who, my favorite is Pete.  I loved John Entwhistle in that he seemed quietest and least spotlight-oriented, and even Roger Daltrey, for although he’s the singer and therefore most likely “heartthrob” of the group, he still seems very decent and not wholly attention-seeking.  But Pete’s contribution to The Who is so all-encompassing that I cannot have any favorite other than him.

Musically and melodically, Pete is only surpassed by Paul McCartney, and lyrically only by John Lennon, but it is so close that all three of them might actually be on the same level.  While Led Zeppelin’s “light and shade” is well-appreciated, this contrast comes more from the execution of the singing and instrumentation than from the actual melodies of the songs themselves on paper, but with The Who, it is the actual songwriting.

Listen to the sheer breadth and depth of the songs that Pete wrote.  To go from “The Kids Are Alright,” a perfect pop melody, which also has dark undertones, to the breathtaking intense scope of “Baba O’Riley” (one of the most remarkable songs ever and that killer violin solo and powerful ending – wow!) is a stunning feat.  And the “See Me, Feel Me/Listening to You” part in “Tommy” is a real weeper.

Everytime I listen to The Who, I am amazed and humbled at Pete’s songwriting genius.  My absolute favorite songs are: “The Kids Are Alright,” “Relax,” “Rael I,” “Rael II,” “Melancholia,” “Jaguar,” “Glow Girl” (I love, love, love this song!), “Overture” from Tommy, “Sparks,” “Christmas,” “Go to the Mirror,” “Welcome,” “Baba O’Riley,” “Love Ain’t for Keeping,” “Behind Blue Eyes,” “Naked Eye,” “Cut My Hair,” “Dirty Jobs,” “Bell Boy,” “The Rock.”  Each one of these songs is sublime. I cannot imagine having such a brilliant, genius mind to create songs with such real characters and potent feelings and that are so wonderfully melodic at the same time.

Pete Townshend may not be the most humble (though to a degree he is humble, acknowledging that only Roger Daltrey could properly interpret his songs, and which challenges my assertion that Pete is the indispensable member of The Who).  But without Pete The Who would not have existed and so he is my favorite member of the band.  His songwriting, more than anyone’s instrument or voice, made The Who The Who.  He is a pure songwriting genius.

Music – Led Zeppelin (written 2006)


Led Zeppelin

My favorite music group is Led Zeppelin.  (As I previously noted, I consider the Beatles the best music group ever, and are most likely everyone’s favorite, so it is moot to list them as my favorite). 

Led Zeppelin differs from the Beatles in that their strong suit was not songwriting (and in fact many of their songs were re-workings of existing songs), but instead in arrangement and execution of the material (now of course the Beatles were expert in arranging and execution as well, but their strong suit was their original songwriting).  No other individual group members ever came together in such a perfect mixture as in Led Zeppelin, where each member was indispensable to the group, and each member was a genius at his own instrument. 

[Yes, the Beatles also had this characteristic, personality-wise and musically. I’ve heard many dismiss Ringo as not one of the greatest drummers, but I think he was essential musically to the Beatles.  His drumming on “A Day in the Life” alone shows how perfectly fitted he was for The Beatles.  Obviously John and Paul were indispensable, and the Beatles would not have been the Beatles with just one of them; both John and Paul were needed.  And George provided an important ballast to John and Paul, though he, as one person, did not provide as much weight, and his contributions were not quite as high of quality (though they were certainly of very high quality, and he was just one person, and John and Paul had the benefit of writing with and against each other. Even John and Paul’s later Beatles songs, which were essentially solo pieces, benefited from their songwriting competition, as neither of their truly solo work compares with their Beatles work). Plus George’s stellar guitar work and Indian-influenced music and spirituality were significant in rounding out the Beatles.

Each member of The Beatles was also essential to the Beatles as a personality (had any of them left the Beatles, the group would have had to break up, for each person was an indelible component of the Beatles as a pop culture phenomenon.  But I’ve already stated the Beatles are in a class of their own.  So besides The Beatles, I would say Led Zeppelin is the band where each member was absolutely indispensable]. 

Each member of Led Zeppelin was irreplaceable, and, as mentioned, genius at his instrument.  I used to think that Robert Plant’s voice, though certainly unique and easily identifiable, was the least crucial of all the instruments used in Led Zeppelin until I heard covers of Led Zeppelin’s songs.  It was then that I realized how necessary was Plant’s voice and that his voice is an astonishing instrument in itself.  I finally appreciated the travels his voice took in each song and at last understood how only he could sing those songs in a way that made them Led Zeppelin. 

I had always valued Bonham’s drumming, especially in the dazzling “Achilles’ Last Stand” (the drumming in Metallica’s “One” echoes the drumming here), and the commanding “When the Levee Breaks,” and of course I always loved Page’s guitar work, especially in the magnificent “The Rover” and yes, “Achilles’ Last Stand.” 

John Paul Jones I was always thunderstruck by, as he was not only a superb bass player but excelled on the organ as well, especially in “Your Time Is Gonna Come,” which is my all-time favorite Zeppelin song, and “Thank You,” which is exquisitely beautiful, certainly not because of Plant’s weak (though admittedly heart-felt) lyrics but largely due to the organ played by JPJ, and (and I will get more to JPJ in a moment). 

So I never quite appreciated Plant’s voice.  I do now, though, and I am ashamed to admit that I didn’t at first.  Plant’s voice is amazing!  “Communication Breakdown” especially is a tour de force of his voice and I am astounded every time I listen to it.  

Again, the genius of Led Zeppelin is the four members’ arrangement and playing of the material, not the songwriting.  No one else could play their songs and make them sound as incredible.  Whereas in the Beatles, because the songwriting is the genius and is what matters, their songs can travel to other singers and musicians and still sound great (as long as there are not too many liberties taken), though certainly not as wonderful as the original Beatles song.  Beatles songs are portable and translatable.  Led Zeppelin’s songs are not. 

Led Zeppelin songs on paper, lyrically and melodically, are actually quite ordinary, like a flat dialogue that only comes to life when truly gifted actors lift the material to a new and higher level.  Yes, in Zeppelin songs where the melody is strong, other people can sing and play their songs, as in “Tangerine,” the lovely instrumental “Bron-Y-Aur,” and especially the heart-wrenching (and one of my favorites) “That’s the Way,” but melody is not their constant companion, as it was for the Beatles.  Led Zeppelin’s gift is the four members themselves and their instruments.  In the more melodic songs, certainly the songwriting itself carries more weight, but in most of their songs, it is all four members and their contributions that elevate the songs, reaching a majestic level. 

Their arrangements of existing songs like “Babe I’m Gonna Leave You,” “Dazed and Confused,” and “When the Levee Breaks” are completely Led Zeppelinized.  No one else could make them sound the way they do. 

Most Led Zeppelin songs, especially their original compositions, are stunningly powerful as performed by Led Zeppelin.  Without Led Zeppelin, the songs are impotent.  No other group of four people could craft and carry out songs that are more than mere songs but true listening experiences -- “Achilles’ Last Stand,” “Carouselambra,” “How Many More Times,” “Battle of Evermore,” “Good Times, Bad Times,” “Trampled Underfoot,” “Misty Mountain Hop,” “What Is and What Should Never Be,” “Communication Breakdown,” “Over the Hills and Far Away” “The Rover,” “Nobody’s Fault But Mine,” “Immigrant Song,” “Hot Dog,” “Night Flight,” “Boogie with Stu,” “Sick Again,” and “Down By the Seaside” (such an amazing song, and the middle section reminds me of the middle section in the equally wonderful “Welcome” from the Who’s Tommy) -- like Led Zeppelin. 
           
Led Zeppelin is famous for their “light and shade,” their ability to be extremely heavy yet also beautifully tender and even, yes, melodic.  Led Zeppelin’s greatness is not the songwriting; it’s putting each facet together.  All four together created works of genius even with material that in basic bare-bones form would not be considered very close to genius.  A bare-bones Beatles song, just in its lyric sheet, is genius.  It is very hard to ruin a Beatles song, even with a mediocre singer. 

In contrast, Zeppelin songs really can’t be performed by anyone unless they have talent.  Though Page and Plant composed most of their original songs (and we know many of their songs were covers or arrangements of existing songs), the actual songs themselves, when you just look at the lyrics and melody, are not nearly as strong as those of Lennon/McCartney. 

But what each member of Led Zeppelin did in executing the songs, in performing them, is bring his own particular genius to the song.  Like the Beatles, the sum of the parts was infinitely greater than what each part could accomplish on his own, but even moreso with Led Zeppelin.  In Led Zeppelin the individual parts create a whole that is larger and more splendid than anything the individuals could have done on their own, and yet inconceivable without those four individual parts coming together. 

My favorite member of Led Zeppelin is John Paul Jones, for he definitely seems to be the most humble one in the band.  I read an interview with him where he stated that Page and Plant told him he should come out to the front of the stage more often, but he realized that the sound was better when he played in the background.  He did not care about getting the attention and adulation; all he cared about was providing the best performance for their audience.  I love that! 

I am dismayed that JPJ does not get more attention, and that Page and Plant didn’t include him in their tour, for he is truly a musical genius, an awe-inspiring multi-instrumentalist.  Also, I love that he is still married to his wife, who he was married to before he ever joined Led Zeppelin (and this speaks volumes about his wife for putting up with everything). 

I know there are all kinds of decadent stories involving Led Zeppelin in their hey-day, and JPJ was most likely involved in those (and the infamous “Royal Orleans” song immortalizes one such event, if in fact, true), but it doesn’t make him a bad or un-decent person, nor anyone who participates in such activity.  We don’t know what it’s like to be in those situations. 

But at any rate, JPJ just seems like such a decent, kind person, and very humble about his talents and abilities.  I really love him.  Of all the rock stars, John Paul Jones and David Gilmour and Kirk Hammet (and of course Sir Paul) are the ones I most admire for their decency and humility and unbelievable talent and are the ones that I would most like to meet.