Can someone please explain to me men and their obsession with threesomes? Honestly, I fail to see the appeal in them whatsoever. You are only one man, and only have one penis, so it seems that two women would mathematically be one too many.
Having a threesome would be like trying to play tetherball with three players. There are really only two possible outcomes. Either you play one on one, while someone waits their turn. Or you play one on two, and the doubles team has to jockey with each other to get a chance to whack the ball a little. Do we really need to revisit the playground cat fights that we intentionally left in middle-school?
Now I usually try not to form an opinion on something unless I have had first hand experience, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument. It would appear that the only appeal of the threesome is bragging rights for the male, because as I stated earlier, you only have one penis and I have honestly never heard a “positive” threesome experience told from a woman’s point of view. If bragging rights are really the only motivator, then can’t you just go back to revving your engine at stop lights, talking smack to men half your size, and crushing cans of Miller High Life on your forehead?
Highly unlikely…I know. But if I can save just one man from this vicious fascination, then the world will be a better place.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Hi, my name is...
In my experience, people who have to define themselves usually do a piss poor job at it. Let me give you an example.
The “Original” Matt D. First of all, the word original implies being the first at something, and I highly doubt you were the first halfwit graced with such a unique name. Second, if you have to explicitly state that you are original, you clearly have not done a very good job at standing out from the crowd. If someone says “Hey, you know Matt D?” and the response is something like “Matt D who?”, adding the additional description “you know, the Original Matt D” not only is a contradiction in terms, but makes you and whomever speaks it incur a 50 IQ point penalty. No arguing, you have now made yourself and your acquaintances drop a few levels in the intellectual food chain.
And to be fair, the same applies for females. Like Miss J “The sweetest girl”. If you have to start your own campaign and spam me with propaganda about how you are so damn sweet, you obviously are trying to hedge some equally negative impressions of you that might be floating around. Stop trying to be the Associated Press and let people gather the facts, and make their own assessment of what kind of person you are. Anyone (at least anyone who matters) will do so anyways, and you are only shooting yourself in the foot with such shameless self promotion.
A douche bag by any other name is still a douche bag, so stop misrepresenting yourself and actually act like a person worth of remembering.
The “Original” Matt D. First of all, the word original implies being the first at something, and I highly doubt you were the first halfwit graced with such a unique name. Second, if you have to explicitly state that you are original, you clearly have not done a very good job at standing out from the crowd. If someone says “Hey, you know Matt D?” and the response is something like “Matt D who?”, adding the additional description “you know, the Original Matt D” not only is a contradiction in terms, but makes you and whomever speaks it incur a 50 IQ point penalty. No arguing, you have now made yourself and your acquaintances drop a few levels in the intellectual food chain.
And to be fair, the same applies for females. Like Miss J “The sweetest girl”. If you have to start your own campaign and spam me with propaganda about how you are so damn sweet, you obviously are trying to hedge some equally negative impressions of you that might be floating around. Stop trying to be the Associated Press and let people gather the facts, and make their own assessment of what kind of person you are. Anyone (at least anyone who matters) will do so anyways, and you are only shooting yourself in the foot with such shameless self promotion.
A douche bag by any other name is still a douche bag, so stop misrepresenting yourself and actually act like a person worth of remembering.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Can't Spend Money Fast Enough
So, the holidays kinda snuck up on me this year, and I came to the conclusion that the only way I was going to successfully Christmas shop, was to do some research online before attempting the mall. So one lovely Tuesday morning, I took a break from bean counting and stumbled across this little gem:
I had to include the screen shot because I have really never seen anything like it. On one hand I was furious. The online store has met its capacity? I’m sorry, but is there some sort of fire hazard? Are women and children in danger of being trampled while customers fight for the last Tickle Me Elmo? I didn’t even intend to use the purchase functionalities of the site, I just wanted to look around! I thought the whole purpose of the online store was to eliminate the lines and crowds, and now I have to wait in a virtual line because the online store is too crowded? Blasphemy.
On the other hand, I can’t help but notice what a glaring example this is of our nation’s love affair with “excess”. It’s not like Macy’s is some small local boutique running their website on Windows 95. I’m relatively confident that this Federated giant operates their virtual marketplace from a sophisticated software platform, specifically designed to handle such high traffic. In fact, they probably invested millions to establish this direct feed from Joe Homebody’s wallet to their bottom line…via the World Wide Web, of course. If Macy’s can’t anticipate such excessive spending, then by golly no one can. The 2007 Holiday Shopper (HS2007) wants to be able to browse and spend with reckless abandon. HS2007 needs to be able to order a holiday gift for every one of their Outlook contacts from their Blackberry, while sitting at home watching reruns of the Hills. Is this because HS2007 is a generous and giving person? Because they get caught up in the Christmas spirit? No. It’s just a Hallmark excuse to enable our nation’s addiction to spending money.
So am I opposed to celebrating the holidays by giving gifts to those you like and love? No. I’m probably just whining because it’s December 19th and I haven’t bought a single gift. This rant really should have been about my own procrastination, but I find it much more entertaining to take on large socioeconomic issues instead of focusing on little ol’ me : )
Happy Spending!
I had to include the screen shot because I have really never seen anything like it. On one hand I was furious. The online store has met its capacity? I’m sorry, but is there some sort of fire hazard? Are women and children in danger of being trampled while customers fight for the last Tickle Me Elmo? I didn’t even intend to use the purchase functionalities of the site, I just wanted to look around! I thought the whole purpose of the online store was to eliminate the lines and crowds, and now I have to wait in a virtual line because the online store is too crowded? Blasphemy. On the other hand, I can’t help but notice what a glaring example this is of our nation’s love affair with “excess”. It’s not like Macy’s is some small local boutique running their website on Windows 95. I’m relatively confident that this Federated giant operates their virtual marketplace from a sophisticated software platform, specifically designed to handle such high traffic. In fact, they probably invested millions to establish this direct feed from Joe Homebody’s wallet to their bottom line…via the World Wide Web, of course. If Macy’s can’t anticipate such excessive spending, then by golly no one can. The 2007 Holiday Shopper (HS2007) wants to be able to browse and spend with reckless abandon. HS2007 needs to be able to order a holiday gift for every one of their Outlook contacts from their Blackberry, while sitting at home watching reruns of the Hills. Is this because HS2007 is a generous and giving person? Because they get caught up in the Christmas spirit? No. It’s just a Hallmark excuse to enable our nation’s addiction to spending money.
So am I opposed to celebrating the holidays by giving gifts to those you like and love? No. I’m probably just whining because it’s December 19th and I haven’t bought a single gift. This rant really should have been about my own procrastination, but I find it much more entertaining to take on large socioeconomic issues instead of focusing on little ol’ me : )
Happy Spending!
Monday, November 12, 2007
Relationship Barometer
Relationships are so complex that they can be hard to navigate, hard to understand, hard to define. Men and women both spend a great deal of time trying to decipher the status of their relationship (or if they are even in a relationship for that matter). This is usually attempted by analyzing, over analyzing, and then reading too deeply into words spoken or actions made by the other person. Which is completely unreasonable to think that a single word or action can give that much insight into something so complex...or is it?
Oral Sex. That's the answer. It is the ultimate relationship barometer, and can give brilliant insight. What role you play (giver/receiver) and the frequency with which you are in that role paints a pretty clear picture of the nature of the relationship. Let me give some examples.
Couple Number 1:
The Scenario: Pointdexter begs Brittany to allow him to give her oral on a daily basis. She allows it occasionally, but is kinda indifferent and not all that enthused, and would never dream of returning the favor.
The Diagnosis: This guy is the definition of "pussy whipped"...literally. He would do anything for this girl even if it means compromising his own self respect. The girl either has a non-existent sex drive, or just isn't that into the guy.
Couple Number 2:
The Scenario: Both Jack and Jill both give and receiving oral, sometimes even simultaneously. Not that this happens every time, but for the most part, there is a healthy balance of give and take.
The Diagnosis: This is indicative of a relationship of two people who like and respect each other.
Couple Number 3:
The Scenario: Gertrude receives oral on occasion, but not nearly as often as Don. And on a pretty regular basis Don receives oral, not as foreplay, but just because he feels he's deserving.
The Diagnosis: She worships the ground he walks on. Nuff said.
So, you get my point. Oral sex practices tell a lot about a relationship. Sex alone doesn't work, because it is mutually beneficial. By its very nature, oral sex is relatively selfless, making it the perfect gauge for our interpersonal evaluation. Now some girls may say "I hate receiving oral". They are liars and not to be trusted. Just as some guys may claim they enjoy giving oral, this may be true, but they don't enjoy it nearly as much as a good old knob polish. So there are no loopholes, no qualifiers or escape clauses, this is a sure fire method of evaluating the dynamics of a questionable relationship. At least that's how I see it :)
Oral Sex. That's the answer. It is the ultimate relationship barometer, and can give brilliant insight. What role you play (giver/receiver) and the frequency with which you are in that role paints a pretty clear picture of the nature of the relationship. Let me give some examples.
Couple Number 1:
The Scenario: Pointdexter begs Brittany to allow him to give her oral on a daily basis. She allows it occasionally, but is kinda indifferent and not all that enthused, and would never dream of returning the favor.
The Diagnosis: This guy is the definition of "pussy whipped"...literally. He would do anything for this girl even if it means compromising his own self respect. The girl either has a non-existent sex drive, or just isn't that into the guy.
Couple Number 2:
The Scenario: Both Jack and Jill both give and receiving oral, sometimes even simultaneously. Not that this happens every time, but for the most part, there is a healthy balance of give and take.
The Diagnosis: This is indicative of a relationship of two people who like and respect each other.
Couple Number 3:
The Scenario: Gertrude receives oral on occasion, but not nearly as often as Don. And on a pretty regular basis Don receives oral, not as foreplay, but just because he feels he's deserving.
The Diagnosis: She worships the ground he walks on. Nuff said.
So, you get my point. Oral sex practices tell a lot about a relationship. Sex alone doesn't work, because it is mutually beneficial. By its very nature, oral sex is relatively selfless, making it the perfect gauge for our interpersonal evaluation. Now some girls may say "I hate receiving oral". They are liars and not to be trusted. Just as some guys may claim they enjoy giving oral, this may be true, but they don't enjoy it nearly as much as a good old knob polish. So there are no loopholes, no qualifiers or escape clauses, this is a sure fire method of evaluating the dynamics of a questionable relationship. At least that's how I see it :)
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Meaning of Life
Tada! I found it. I guess using the term “meaning” is taking a few Godly liberties, but until told otherwise, I'm gonna go on with my bad self. So what is it, you ask? It’s…the chase, and here’s why. People spend their entire life consumed by “the chase”.
As a child, it’s at the playground.
As a teen, it’s social acceptance.
As a young professional, it’s success (and maybe a little ass on the side).
As a “domestic” adult, it’s the American Dream.
And as an elder, it’s their legacy.
Though the object of the chase can vary greatly from person to person and change multiple times in our time here, we all spend our entire lives in pursuit of something. And on the off chance we attain the object of our pursuit, we chase something else. It’s hard to come to this conclusion from a forward looking perspective. I kinda had to deduce my way in to this one. I figure that something is defined by what is consists of. And if your life consists of you chasing things, then is that not defining your life? So defining and meaning are not exact synonyms, but not everything can be taken literally…especially not me.
As a child, it’s at the playground.
As a teen, it’s social acceptance.
As a young professional, it’s success (and maybe a little ass on the side).
As a “domestic” adult, it’s the American Dream.
And as an elder, it’s their legacy.
Though the object of the chase can vary greatly from person to person and change multiple times in our time here, we all spend our entire lives in pursuit of something. And on the off chance we attain the object of our pursuit, we chase something else. It’s hard to come to this conclusion from a forward looking perspective. I kinda had to deduce my way in to this one. I figure that something is defined by what is consists of. And if your life consists of you chasing things, then is that not defining your life? So defining and meaning are not exact synonyms, but not everything can be taken literally…especially not me.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Perfect Defined
Perfect is an oxymoron.
The concept of perfection is relative and varies greatly in the eye of the beholder. What one person considers "perfect" could very well be someone else's trainwreck. By achieving one person's definition of perfect, you simultaneously exclude yourself from someone else's definition of perfect. So by achieving perfection, you are not perfect. Sweet.
I guess the moral of this story is don't try and be perfect or you will end up defining a few other Anglo words...spontaneous combustion.
The concept of perfection is relative and varies greatly in the eye of the beholder. What one person considers "perfect" could very well be someone else's trainwreck. By achieving one person's definition of perfect, you simultaneously exclude yourself from someone else's definition of perfect. So by achieving perfection, you are not perfect. Sweet.
I guess the moral of this story is don't try and be perfect or you will end up defining a few other Anglo words...spontaneous combustion.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Nice Guys Finish Last?
Not really, they aren't even in the race. An insightful friend of mine made the satirical observation that the women in this town don't want a nice guy, they want the douche bag that is going to treat them badly. In turn, the nice guys that surround them are either overlooked, or banished to the friend zone. All very sad, but very true statements. However, there is a missing piece of information, a link that explains why this social phenomenon exists. Most rational people would have a hard time understanding why quality girls would jump through hoops of fire to try and be with the scum of Scottsdale. The answer is simple. It's for the very reason people go to the circus to watch people jump through literal hoops of fire. It's a remarkable feat, daring, scaring, and very few people can pull it off without getting hurt. The few that do, have made a profession out of it and are adored by the general public (or at least a few 100 circus patrons).
What Scottsdale girl (or any girl for that matter) doesn't want to be adored by her community? Taming the "bad boy Scottsdale douche bag" is as coveted and elusive as the Quest for the Holy Grail, and validated by both men and women alike. The women are green with envy, and the men respect the mystic creature that can pussy whip the player. Needless to say, it is quite a challenge and few are successful, but by the laws of social economics, there is high demand for that which is hard to attain.
Unfortunately for the nice guy, he's already been caught, groomed, caged, and placed on display in the Nice Guy Zoo for public humiliation. Taming one of these docile creatures is pointless, as it is easy to accomplish, and therefore (back to the social economics) in little demand. It would be like expecting an Olympic Medal for my 9:53:26 mile time. The problem is that deep down, women really do want the nice guy, so then when they finally catch themselves a little douche bag, and he remains a true to form, they're less than thrilled. And thus, the bitching and moaning ensues about their asshole boyfriend that they tried so hard to get. I usually try and give some sort of words of wisdom or potential courses of action, but I got nothin’. It really is quite a problem, but I don't really foresee a resolution. I think the only reason this hasn't threatened the institute of procreation is because both men and women eventually give up and settle for whomever they happen to be with at that moment. I used to think the "settle point" was somewhere around 30, but with modern medicine and plastic surgery, it has jumped another 5 years and continues to climb.
So there is no moral to this one. No advice or lesson, just rounding out the rant of a fellow blogger.
What Scottsdale girl (or any girl for that matter) doesn't want to be adored by her community? Taming the "bad boy Scottsdale douche bag" is as coveted and elusive as the Quest for the Holy Grail, and validated by both men and women alike. The women are green with envy, and the men respect the mystic creature that can pussy whip the player. Needless to say, it is quite a challenge and few are successful, but by the laws of social economics, there is high demand for that which is hard to attain.
Unfortunately for the nice guy, he's already been caught, groomed, caged, and placed on display in the Nice Guy Zoo for public humiliation. Taming one of these docile creatures is pointless, as it is easy to accomplish, and therefore (back to the social economics) in little demand. It would be like expecting an Olympic Medal for my 9:53:26 mile time. The problem is that deep down, women really do want the nice guy, so then when they finally catch themselves a little douche bag, and he remains a true to form, they're less than thrilled. And thus, the bitching and moaning ensues about their asshole boyfriend that they tried so hard to get. I usually try and give some sort of words of wisdom or potential courses of action, but I got nothin’. It really is quite a problem, but I don't really foresee a resolution. I think the only reason this hasn't threatened the institute of procreation is because both men and women eventually give up and settle for whomever they happen to be with at that moment. I used to think the "settle point" was somewhere around 30, but with modern medicine and plastic surgery, it has jumped another 5 years and continues to climb.
So there is no moral to this one. No advice or lesson, just rounding out the rant of a fellow blogger.
Friday, October 5, 2007
The Golden Rule
Ok, I'll get off the uppers, this one's even a little sappy for me. Bottom Line...Don't be a Douche Bag, k? thx. Now who wants some McNuggets?
It's all fun and games till you go and make things exclusive.
Exclusivity is the kiss of death in a relationship, at least when sex is involved. If you really care for the other person and enjoy spending time with them, then keep things in the "talking", "seeing each other", "hanging out" categories at all costs. And it's not as easy as it sounds, without fail, your partner will try and convince you otherwise. But hold strong, it's what's best for both of you.
In reality, whether or not either party is seeing other people is completely irrelevant. It's the social stigma that has been imposed by centuries of so called "monogamous" households being advertised as the ideal way of life that sparks problems. See, we've all been brainwashed to think that exclusivity equals marriage. Ok, maybe not all of us, but definitely the females, and a handful of you boys too. Unfortunately, marriage comes with significantly more responsibilities than keeping your pants on. All of a sudden there are these radical expectations of people who had no intention of making such commitments. Time expectations, communication expectations, tone of voice expectations, you get my point. Most people aren't willing or able to meet such demands, if they were, they would be married. It becomes a full-time job to try and maintain this "exclusivity" that you forget to enjoy the very person that inspired you to elevate your relationship. Don't elevate. Stay down here on solid ground with the rest of us who have made this realization. Naturally one or both of you will fall short, and, GAME OVER. It's an admirable gesture, but you're just not ready for it. Hell, it's remarkable that some of the people attempting such complex social interactions can even tie their shoe (and sometimes can't even do that so they wear Vans slip-ons). This type of interpersonal gymnastics should really be left to professionals.
So if you meet someone who truly amazes you, keep it casual. If they feel the same way, then they'll have no desire to see anyone else. You don't need the confines of exclusivity to know that the other person cares for you...in fact, you don't want it.
Can we shut the door on this yet?
Grocery List:
- Paper Towels
- Diet Coke
- Vodka
- Closure...
Ah, if only it were that simple. I had always been under the assumption that closure (eventually) always followed a break up. That the two kinda went hand in hand, like cause and effect, logic and reason, peanut butter and jelly… I come to find out this is not the case and far less tasty. I have been taking advantage of asking a question, and actually getting an answer. I have a thirst for knowledge and I’m not shy about it. Yes, I was that little girl who asked why to the point of frustration, but how are you ever supposed to learn anything if you don't ask, analyze, observe, etc.? Which brings me back to my current dilemma. What do you do when you ask, but get no response. None. Nothing. I made a simple inquiry in an effort to learn from my mistakes, and get nothing in return. I'm not looking for a detailed explanation, just an answer. Any answer. Good, bad, doesn't really have to be an answer at all. Just an acknowledgment of the fact that there is a pending request for information out there in the universe that is unsatisfied. Really, the universe is unbalanced right now and I fear for us all. But that is beside the point. When did it become acceptable to cutoff all forms of communication without any notice or reason for that matter? Other than death, I see no valid excuse. I thought it was in the unwritten rules of relationships that if two people enter into an agreement to not "do business" with anyone else, that to void that contract there needs to be some form of notification to the other party. Nothing fancy, a simple "go fuck yourself" will suffice. Granted, not my first choice, but better than nothing at all. Perhaps my analytical thinking skills have become my Achilles Heal, but I can't seem to let something go unless I have the ever so elusive "closure". I enjoy wading in the swaps of uncertainty about as much getting punched in the throat, and naturally avoid it at all costs. Unfortunately, I’m also blessed with an aptitude for creativity, so while the right side of my brain is trying to figure out why I still haven't gotten a response, the left side is conjuring up outlandish possibilities. It's really quite amazing (and a little scary) what the human brain can come up with when left to its own devices. Anyway, my point is, whether you're the wronged or the wrong doer, have enough common decency to let the other person know that you would no longer like to continue social communication so you can both use your brains (and bodies…a girls got needs) to more productive efforts. And no, silence is not an acceptable form of rejection, I need mine hand delivered, so the universe will be back in balance, and so I can get closure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
