In the papers today I read an interesting theory that television has become our spiritual cage of entertainment. No longer do we define what goes onto television, but it defines us. Do I think this view holds any merit?

I can definately say that television, and its associated media, film, has well and truly created the ideal of love which I have in my head. If it doesn't feel like the 'magic' Tom Hanks described in Sleepless in Seattle, then does that mean there is something better out there that I am missing out on? If my partner does not feel passionate enough to jump into a taxi and save me from boarding a plane, does that mean he doesn't love me enough? My romantic standards have been set by 20 years of visual stimulation, and it is too hard to ignore. Hell, I once used the 'thunderstorms' cliche in a break up speech with a boyfriend (in the fact that he didn't make me feel any). I find myself questioning whether art is imitating life or the other way round. Would Julia Roberts and Richard Gere really be able to hack in it the real world, or would their cinderella style relationship eventually crack on the basis that he is commitment fearing educated man, and she an ex hooker who likes to party? I have no doubt in my mind that wonderful relationships can exist, my parents are still married after 26 years and seem very content, but is it everyone's god given right to get one? Can we learn to live with second best, which seem to suit us fine until Meg Ryan gets another haircut and another movie role?

Perhaps all love stories should be followed by a movie where somebody gets tragically hurt when their husband leaves them for somebody else, to reflect reality a little more. But is that what I really want when I go to the movies? I suppose not. I want a secret formula where I can learn how to have Selma Hayek's body and Cameron Diaz's success.

An age old question I know - What's in a name? Has anyone looked at the modern day spin on this? What's in an internet name?

In past times, and especially if you were Scottish and going to the Kilt-makers, your name was very important. It denoted who you were in society and your ranking. Take the world of Jane Austen - the eldest daughter was called Miss (surname) and the younger daughters by their first names, to denote who was eldest, which was of greater importance in the days of inheritance and dowries. Today we are not hindered by the names our parents gave us. In the new e-society we can be whoever we want to, and be called by whatever name we think suits us best, or to the person who we aspire to be. There are the biggirls, shyboys, and musiclovers who seek out others who appreciate these qualities. There are the Batmans, Gandalfs and She-Ra's, who take the name of their favourite idol or character to reflect their interests. But all are creating a new personality for themselves, which is a good and bad thing about the web. It is great that nerds can be as popular as the goodlooking, that everyone is accepted for their opinions without sex, race or age being a factor. But it is also a disadvantage. How many young girls on the net are actually 40 year old Manga fans? How many of us who can flirt successfully online would crumble in the face of any real attention? If the reason that we have friends is to connect to them on a personal and spiritual level, how can we do this when the person we know is not really that person at all? In the face of the net today, it is hard to be honest. It is hard to admit to your faults, and show who you really are (there goes that whole rejection issue again). However I know that if you don't you are somehow cheating yourself and the people you meet.

What about my net handle you ask? Well what you see if what you get i.e. Tamsyn, my real name.. I want to learn to love my life, such as it is, and not try to be someone else.

I know that I haven't been updating this for a while, but due to popular demand (ok 2 people!) it's back! And today's topic is: safety nets.

We all have them, even more than we might first think. The ones that have been apparent to me recently are present in our love lives, and in our emotional actions. Say we like a person, how far do we express ourselves before the safety net that prevents hurt rolls out? This is our developed response to stop the pain of rejection and the undervaluing of our self esteem. We hint, suggest, and hide our words in the middle of others, hoping for a sign that we can move onto the next level of vocal involvement without looking like a fool. All the time people I know are seeking advice because they are scared of going without the safety net, fearful of taking to the tight rope naked and open to a fall. We say to them that they should be strong and that honesty is always the best policy, but can we apply that same logic to ourselves? I know that I have trouble. How much agonising could be saved if we all came out and said the things we really wanted to? But how would that compare to the rejection? I once went to a workshop which was all about learning to love the answer 'no'. To embrace it, so that it no longer ruled you. Good in practice, lousy in theory. I think it is because any negative answer we receive we equate with a lack of positive feelings about us, and in the end don't we all just want to be loved?

Until we can deal with the harshness of denial, we can never be free of our safety nets - they keep us in a constant state of questioning, but they also leave us with a sense of confidence and hope.

Too many times hath she come undone,
A griefen birth of misery's son.
Tongues try to heal, yet something hurts -
A hidden darkness in all their words.
If soon a shining star she'll see,
Then maybe happiness she'll be.
Until that joyous day arrives,
She shall have tears within he eyes.