I caught a little of the Dr. Phil show today. Not by choice, mind you.
What I saw was a segment where he was trying to embarass some guy who, from what I could tell, gives advice on how to bed women. Dr. Phil was bashing the man's marketing techniques, and the man pointed out that he's marketing to men who just want casual .
Again, I only saw a little of this, and I was mercifully distracted, so I may not be entirely accurate in the material I'm working with in this blog entry.
There was also a buffer man-on-the-street interview where some young male was talking about how he misrepresents himself ("I'm making a movie" or "I'm a photographer") to get women into bed.
Now, I know Dr. Phil's market is women - particularly women watching daytime television. But c'mon... I have to wonder if, at all during this particular edition, Dr. Phil ever pointed out that these guys wouldn't be getting anywhere if there weren't women willing to jump right into bed with such guys?
To put it bluntly - any woman who fornicates with some guy just because he claims to be someone of means pretty much asks to be lied to. I mean, how is gold-digging and tiness any less shameful than lying about your job?
Yes, these guys are not shining examples of character, but neither are the women who reward their tactics.
I've said it before - let the marriage-minded mix with the marriage-minded, and the "only hedonim" people mix with other people of the same ilk, and everything will be fine. Well, not really, but is better than when someone who just wants and someone who is looking for a marriage partner try to make things work. They are wasting each other's time, money, and emotions.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Researchers Think Hot Woman + Less Hot Guy Works Best
Most less-hot guys seem to like this combo, too.
Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer, reports on “Why Beautiful Women Marry Less Attractive Men”
Research? Like, oh, say, looking out a window???
That’s a little general. Some women want a man who can provide for her and their children. Some women want a man with money, power, or fame because they are materialistic, lazy, and hungry for attention. Some women want other things.
If you’re just looking for sex, it is never going to be better than the first three months. Not unless you marry someone who continues to be enthusiastic about making love late into the marriage, willing to practice, practice, practice and try new things.
If you want kids, you know your kids will have an easier time in life if they are good-looking (only really good looking people who have been good-looking their entire lives deny this), and they are more likely to be good-looking if your spouse is good-looking.
Hmmm, well, if we’re talking about whether someone is fat or not (eating, exercise), that’s another dimension. People want their partners to take care of themselves. Men literally can’t function sexually if they’re not turned on, and physical beauty is often a large part of that. If a woman is relying on her husband to provide for her, she has an interest in his health, because the healthier he is, the easier it will for him to provide.
Marriage should not be sibling rivalry. It should be two people looking out for each other and trying to bring joyful conditions to the life of the other.
It would be worth noting how they ended up together. If a man marries a less attractive woman because she “accidentally” got pregnant while they had a drunken encounter, or because she was sexually enthusiastic or talented or eager and that changed after she had her wedding cake, then the guy is likely to be unsupportive because of resentment.
Maybe. But most men know either explicitly or in the back of their minds that even ugly men can get really hot wives if they are rich, powerful, or famous.
Repeating the obvious.
I'll let the women in on a little "secret". Yes, men care about physical beauty. Yes, there is a wider range of that than media portrayals might lead one to believe. But men will quickly tire of even the most attractive woman if she is a shrew, a nag, irresponsible, unkind, or cold. Quality men who are looking for a relationship (not casual fornication) will prefer a plain looking woman over such "beauties" if she is kind; supportive; enthusiastic, playful, and eager when it comes to lovemaking; and has other good qualities. Such a woman will become more attractive to a good man than any centerfold.
Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer, reports on “Why Beautiful Women Marry Less Attractive Men”
New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.
Research? Like, oh, say, looking out a window???
The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband.
That’s a little general. Some women want a man who can provide for her and their children. Some women want a man with money, power, or fame because they are materialistic, lazy, and hungry for attention. Some women want other things.
Past research has shown that individuals with comparable stunning looks are attracted to each other and once they hook up they report greater relationship
satisfaction. These studies, however, are mainly based on new couples, showing that absolute beauty is important in the earliest stages of couple-hood, said lead researcher James McNulty of the University of Tennessee.
If you’re just looking for sex, it is never going to be better than the first three months. Not unless you marry someone who continues to be enthusiastic about making love late into the marriage, willing to practice, practice, practice and try new things.
But the role of physical attractiveness in well-established partnerships, such as marriage, is somewhat of a mystery.
The new study, published in the February issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, reveals looks continue to matter beyond that initial attraction, though in a different way.
If you want kids, you know your kids will have an easier time in life if they are good-looking (only really good looking people who have been good-looking their entire lives deny this), and they are more likely to be good-looking if your spouse is good-looking.
Researchers videotaped as each spouse discussed with their partner a personal problem for 10 minutes. The tapes were analyzed for whether partners were supportive of spouses' issues, which included goals to eat healthier, to land a new job and to exercise more often.
Hmmm, well, if we’re talking about whether someone is fat or not (eating, exercise), that’s another dimension. People want their partners to take care of themselves. Men literally can’t function sexually if they’re not turned on, and physical beauty is often a large part of that. If a woman is relying on her husband to provide for her, she has an interest in his health, because the healthier he is, the easier it will for him to provide.
"A negative husband would've said, 'This is your problem, you deal with it,'" McNulty said, "versus 'Hey, I'm here for you; what do you want me to do?; how can I help you?'"
Marriage should not be sibling rivalry. It should be two people looking out for each other and trying to bring joyful conditions to the life of the other.
Overall, wives and husbands behaved more positively when the woman was better looking. The finding "seems very reasonable," said Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at MIT's Program in Media Arts and Sciences and Sloan School of Management. "Men are very sensitive to women's attractiveness. Women seem to be sensitive to men's height and salary," said Ariely, who was not involved in the recent study.
In couples with more attractive husbands, both partners were less supportive of one another. McNulty suggests wives mirror, in some ways, the level of support they get from husbands.
It would be worth noting how they ended up together. If a man marries a less attractive woman because she “accidentally” got pregnant while they had a drunken encounter, or because she was sexually enthusiastic or talented or eager and that changed after she had her wedding cake, then the guy is likely to be unsupportive because of resentment.
"The husband who's less physically attractive than his wife is getting something more than maybe he can expect to get," McNulty told LiveScience. "He's getting something better than he's providing at that level. So he's going to work hard to maintain that relationship."
Maybe. But most men know either explicitly or in the back of their minds that even ugly men can get really hot wives if they are rich, powerful, or famous.
Physical attractiveness of husbands is not as important to women, the researchers suggest. Rather, wives are looking for supportive husbands, they say.
Repeating the obvious.
I'll let the women in on a little "secret". Yes, men care about physical beauty. Yes, there is a wider range of that than media portrayals might lead one to believe. But men will quickly tire of even the most attractive woman if she is a shrew, a nag, irresponsible, unkind, or cold. Quality men who are looking for a relationship (not casual fornication) will prefer a plain looking woman over such "beauties" if she is kind; supportive; enthusiastic, playful, and eager when it comes to lovemaking; and has other good qualities. Such a woman will become more attractive to a good man than any centerfold.
Dear Margo Advises a Man How to Deal With Mrs. Robinson
DESPERATE writes in to Dear Margo:
She may be a little too young to be mature enough for commitment.
Shacking up is a very bad idea.
Uh-oh. Being close to your parents can be a good thing. But will she be closer to her mom than you if you ever married – you know, assuming you’d be stupid enough to marry her even though she’d move in without being married? Married couples need to “leave” their parents and “cleave” to each other.
The better thing would have been to give her up for adoption, because 1) married adults could have given her a better homes; 2) she clearly regrets missing out on her younger years, as we’ll see, and; 3) she makes bad decisions, as we’ll see.
And she knows about that because??? You told her? Mistake. Her daughter told her? That is none of her business – your trust was betrayed. I know it is common for a lot of girls to do this with their girlfriends, sisters, and mothers, but it isn’t right.
Do you really want to be with a young woman whose mother does such things? Think about that carefully, because this woman was her main role model, raising her alone. And I know something about this, because I was once infatuated with a girl, who it turns out wanted to be “just friends”, but her mother took up an interest in me.
That's because you are lazy and "getting some" regularly. Maybe she isn’t right for you, but you can't see that because you're thinking with your penis.
She should be told what her mother did. What if it happens with the next guy, and the next guy?
Dear Margo responds:
Yeah, notice that Margo agreed to your qualifications. You should move on, and you should tell the girl why.
I am a 32-year-old man. After a string of older women, I have happily, though uncharacteristically, been dating a woman eight years my junior for about a year.
She may be a little too young to be mature enough for commitment.
I am deeply in love with her, and we have been seriously discussing moving in together.
Shacking up is a very bad idea.
She is unusually close to her mother and sings her praises every chance she gets.
Uh-oh. Being close to your parents can be a good thing. But will she be closer to her mom than you if you ever married – you know, assuming you’d be stupid enough to marry her even though she’d move in without being married? Married couples need to “leave” their parents and “cleave” to each other.
Her mother gave birth to her at 16 years of age and still managed to give her a pretty good future, even as a single mom.
The better thing would have been to give her up for adoption, because 1) married adults could have given her a better homes; 2) she clearly regrets missing out on her younger years, as we’ll see, and; 3) she makes bad decisions, as we’ll see.
Unfortunately, her mother has made some obvious passes at me. It started with affectionate behavior and light flirtation, which included playful allusions to my former lovers and how they were her age rather than her daughter's.
And she knows about that because??? You told her? Mistake. Her daughter told her? That is none of her business – your trust was betrayed. I know it is common for a lot of girls to do this with their girlfriends, sisters, and mothers, but it isn’t right.
Do you really want to be with a young woman whose mother does such things? Think about that carefully, because this woman was her main role model, raising her alone. And I know something about this, because I was once infatuated with a girl, who it turns out wanted to be “just friends”, but her mother took up an interest in me.
Part of me is thinking "bail out," but I don't want to lose my girl.
That's because you are lazy and "getting some" regularly. Maybe she isn’t right for you, but you can't see that because you're thinking with your penis.
I also want to avoid damaging her relationship with her mother if at all possible.Too bad her mother isn't as concerned.
She should be told what her mother did. What if it happens with the next guy, and the next guy?
Dear Margo responds:
Here's what you do to keep your girlfriend and not blow the whistle on her mother:
Yeah, notice that Margo agreed to your qualifications. You should move on, and you should tell the girl why.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Study: Men Create More Housework For Women
The fun just never stops.
How is it possible for both of those sentences to be true? Do they mean to tell us that what unmarried men can do in an hour every week, it takes married women seven hours to do? Is it possible that the husbands are interfering, thus causing an hour's worth of chores to expand to seven?
Why, how dare you make such an observation, you sexist pig!
Well, duh!
Some of the reduction on the part of the women may have to do with technology. Either that, or they're saying that what it takes women 9 hours to do, men can do in seven.
Wait. I thought you said in the second sentence that men were saving and hour of housework every week by getting married. If both are having to do more housework than when unmarried, there’s yet another argument for staying unmarried – one that works on either sex.
Which is just one of the many reasons some men have gone on a marriage strike.
Very interesting.
Hey, when are we going to see a study about how much more a married man must earn to cover living expenses – mortgage/rent, utilities, insurance, medical bills, clothing, furniture, entertainment, travel and transportation, food, birthday/anniversary/holiday and romantic gifts (including the ones bought for him), gifts for parties and showers he doesn’t want to attend, etc.?
I’m old-school. I’m happy to go out and earn to provide for my family so that my wife can take care of me, our children, and our home. I even help out around the house. But I should not be expected to divide chores evenly with my wife – those are her job. That is why she doesn’t earn income outside of the home.
*Update - radio talk show host Tom Leykis is covering this study this (5pm PST) hour. He chalks up the one hour/seven hour disparity to "six hours of her nagging you to do the chores". He also cites all of the things most women no longer have to do (car maintenance, for example) if they are married.
**Update #2 - Does the study take into account that married people tend to move into bigger homes, and thus there is more housework? It really is strange that single men, who the study says do a lot of housework, drop an hour when they marry and single women, who do less housework, add seven hours when they marry. Do they mean to imply that single women are slobs until they have someone living with them?
Having a husband creates an extra seven hours of housework each week for women, according to a new study. For men, tying the knot saves an hour of weekly chores.
How is it possible for both of those sentences to be true? Do they mean to tell us that what unmarried men can do in an hour every week, it takes married women seven hours to do? Is it possible that the husbands are interfering, thus causing an hour's worth of chores to expand to seven?
"It's a well-known pattern," said lead researcher Frank Stafford, an economist at University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. "Men tend to work more outside the home, while women take on more of the household labor."
Why, how dare you make such an observation, you sexist pig!
He points out individual differences among households exist. But in general, marriage means more housework for women and less for men. "And the situation gets worse for women when they have children," Stafford said.
Well, duh!
Overall, times are a' changing in the American home. In 1976, women busied
themselves with 26 weekly hours of sweeping-and-dusting work, compared with 17 hours in 2005. Men are pitching in more, more than doubling their housework
hours from six in 1976 to 13 in 2005.
Some of the reduction on the part of the women may have to do with technology. Either that, or they're saying that what it takes women 9 hours to do, men can do in seven.
Stafford analyzed time-diaries and questionnaires from a nationally representative sample of men and women over a 10-year period between 1996 and 2005. The federally-funded study showed that, compared with the single life, marriage meant more housework for both men and women.
Wait. I thought you said in the second sentence that men were saving and hour of housework every week by getting married. If both are having to do more housework than when unmarried, there’s yet another argument for staying unmarried – one that works on either sex.
"Marriage is no longer a man's path to less housework," Stafford said.
Which is just one of the many reasons some men have gone on a marriage strike.
Single guys worked the hardest around the house, trumping all age groups of married men.
Very interesting.
Hey, when are we going to see a study about how much more a married man must earn to cover living expenses – mortgage/rent, utilities, insurance, medical bills, clothing, furniture, entertainment, travel and transportation, food, birthday/anniversary/holiday and romantic gifts (including the ones bought for him), gifts for parties and showers he doesn’t want to attend, etc.?
I’m old-school. I’m happy to go out and earn to provide for my family so that my wife can take care of me, our children, and our home. I even help out around the house. But I should not be expected to divide chores evenly with my wife – those are her job. That is why she doesn’t earn income outside of the home.
*Update - radio talk show host Tom Leykis is covering this study this (5pm PST) hour. He chalks up the one hour/seven hour disparity to "six hours of her nagging you to do the chores". He also cites all of the things most women no longer have to do (car maintenance, for example) if they are married.
**Update #2 - Does the study take into account that married people tend to move into bigger homes, and thus there is more housework? It really is strange that single men, who the study says do a lot of housework, drop an hour when they marry and single women, who do less housework, add seven hours when they marry. Do they mean to imply that single women are slobs until they have someone living with them?
Thursday, March 27, 2008
When Other People Tell You What ‘You’ Want
Some of the most entertaining radio is when Tom Leykis does an hour on how he enjoys being unmarried and living alone - and women call up to argue with him, thereby proving his point for him: that he doesn’t want to live with anyone else, let alone an argumentative, presumptuous nag.
It is amusing to listen to people who know only what Leykis has revealed about himself on the air try to tell Leykis what he really wants – as if a carefully thought-out, successful, middle-aged man who has (by his own public statement) spent a lot of time in therapy and has been married four times, has had other women living with him, and has lived alone (so he's experienced many different lifestyles) needs a stranger to tell him what he “really” wants as far as a living arrangement. Most likely, these people are really communicating what they want, or what they have and think they should be happy with, but may not be.
I think he has a good idea by now what he wants. Now, I chose to get married. That’s what I wanted. I don’t presume to think that is what everyone wants.
When women call in to argue with Leykis to tell him he either doesn't really like living alone, or he shouldn't, they are reinforcing one of the main reasons WHY he - and other men - choose to live alone: peace, quiet, and autonomy.
It is amusing to listen to people who know only what Leykis has revealed about himself on the air try to tell Leykis what he really wants – as if a carefully thought-out, successful, middle-aged man who has (by his own public statement) spent a lot of time in therapy and has been married four times, has had other women living with him, and has lived alone (so he's experienced many different lifestyles) needs a stranger to tell him what he “really” wants as far as a living arrangement. Most likely, these people are really communicating what they want, or what they have and think they should be happy with, but may not be.
I think he has a good idea by now what he wants. Now, I chose to get married. That’s what I wanted. I don’t presume to think that is what everyone wants.
When women call in to argue with Leykis to tell him he either doesn't really like living alone, or he shouldn't, they are reinforcing one of the main reasons WHY he - and other men - choose to live alone: peace, quiet, and autonomy.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Tips at Starbucks
Recently, a California court ruled that Starbucks “baristas” in California were due money because they had to share tips with shift supervisors, who got a portion of the tips in the store tip jar.
I don’t get this.
Shift supervisors are the first level of management, true, but they are working right there on the front lines with the baristas. If I was a shift supervisor at a Starbucks in California, I would henceforth refuse to do anything but “manage”. Down a barista and the baristas who showed up are overwhelmed? Too bad! Why should a shift supervisor have to do work that baristas are tipped for, but be denied the tips?
Noelle Kooler of Beverly Hills wrote in to the Los Angeles Times, making my point:
But I have to wonder why courts are involved in this anyway. I mean really – if some baristas were not happy with the tip situation, why didn’t they just quit and work elsewhere? That’s what people should do when they don’t like a company’s policies or procedures. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to keep you there.
Now that I’ve got that out of the way, why are people tipping other people for doing their jobs? I tip for personalized service. Putting coffee into a cup is not personalized service. Carrying my bags a distance is. Waiting on me is. But don’t worry, you baristas – you won’t be making coffee for me and then not getting a tip from me - I don’t frequent Starbucks because it is incredibly overpriced and the whole thing is pretentious.
Hmmm, maybe I should put a tip jar on my desk at the office. Or maybe on my office door, right under my name.
I don’t get this.
Shift supervisors are the first level of management, true, but they are working right there on the front lines with the baristas. If I was a shift supervisor at a Starbucks in California, I would henceforth refuse to do anything but “manage”. Down a barista and the baristas who showed up are overwhelmed? Too bad! Why should a shift supervisor have to do work that baristas are tipped for, but be denied the tips?
Noelle Kooler of Beverly Hills wrote in to the Los Angeles Times, making my point:
As a former barista and shift supervisor at Starbucks, I am angered by the court's decision. Yes, I am a part of the class-action group that would receive additional tip money. However, the principles behind this lawsuit are outrageous. I've worked in three stores, and in every one, the shift supervisor does almost double the work of a barista. They help customers, make drinks, train new baristas and ensure that the store functions when the managers are away. They earn only a few dollars an hour more than a barista. When I worked at Starbucks, I was a struggling college student and needed those tips. To rule that baristas are more deserving is ludicrous -- tips should be shared evenly.
But I have to wonder why courts are involved in this anyway. I mean really – if some baristas were not happy with the tip situation, why didn’t they just quit and work elsewhere? That’s what people should do when they don’t like a company’s policies or procedures. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to keep you there.
Now that I’ve got that out of the way, why are people tipping other people for doing their jobs? I tip for personalized service. Putting coffee into a cup is not personalized service. Carrying my bags a distance is. Waiting on me is. But don’t worry, you baristas – you won’t be making coffee for me and then not getting a tip from me - I don’t frequent Starbucks because it is incredibly overpriced and the whole thing is pretentious.
Hmmm, maybe I should put a tip jar on my desk at the office. Or maybe on my office door, right under my name.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Dr. Laura, Governor Spitzer, and Media Distortions
The blogosphere continues to fill up with angry reactions to what Dr. Laura Schlessinger said on the Today Show, or more often, reactions to misinterpretations of what Dr. Laura said on the Today Show.
These anti-Dr. Laura reactions tend to fall into three categories:
1) How dare she blame Governor Spitzer’s wife for his use of prostitutes!
2) How dare she blame wives for their husbands cheating!
3) I hate Dr. Laura! I don’t really care what she said, I just like bashing her!
I need not deal with #3.
Regarding #1, as Dr. Laura has explained, and as I wrote before, her comments were NOT about Governor Spitzer. Anyone who continues to promote this lie is spreading bogus gossip.
Regarding #2 – this isn’t really true, either. Nowhere does she condone infidelity or excuse anyone for engaging in it. What Dr. Laura said (and has consistently taught) is that if a woman chooses a decent guy to marry, and she keeps him satisfied (emotionally and sexually), which is not complicated, then he will not stray. Now, there are bloggers out there who still are upset with her for that claim. They seem to deny that wives have any power to keep their husband from cheating. Well, that is true - if you married a bum. But not all men are bums. (Some women tend to take the position that all men are bums, but they can change one to being okay through highly limited access to their magic vagina.)
Some of these people seem to want to deny that women should have any responsibility for the condition of their marriage. Strange, really, especially when it comes from people who claim to be feminists and for women having power. They think women don’t have the power to choose a decent guy to marry, or to make a happy marriage – yet most of them want(ed) to get married anyway.
Some of these bloggers dismiss a husband’s need for sex. True, he doesn’t need sex in the same way that he needs food, water, and air, but one of the main reasons a normal, healthy man gets married is for sex. If he’s not getting enough from his wife, he has much less incentive to care all that much about his marriage, or staying faithful to his wife. He is much more responsive to temptation. Many of these same female bloggers had no problem fornicating with their man as often as he expressed any interest… before they got married. But once they have that man’s signature on the contract, they suddenly stop caring as much about keeping him interested or satisfied. They expect that the threat of alimony will be enough to keep him in line. This is one reason why more men are delaying marriage or refusing to marry at all.
Women and men are different. A woman has no idea what it is like to be a man, or how a husband needs sex. Some wives understand that much, and thus make an effort to tend to him, even if she’s not “feeling it”. Women who do this often do end up having fun and enjoying the moment – and with a happier, more attentive husband, and having to deal with more of those pesky orgasms. Other women simply dismiss that they should tend to their husband’s needs. They belittle him when they do this. It’s sad, really. And while it is breaking his vows for him to stray, wives are also breaking their vows (usually) when they fail to love, honor, and cherish, which includes making love when your spouse wants it.
These anti-Dr. Laura reactions tend to fall into three categories:
1) How dare she blame Governor Spitzer’s wife for his use of prostitutes!
2) How dare she blame wives for their husbands cheating!
3) I hate Dr. Laura! I don’t really care what she said, I just like bashing her!
I need not deal with #3.
Regarding #1, as Dr. Laura has explained, and as I wrote before, her comments were NOT about Governor Spitzer. Anyone who continues to promote this lie is spreading bogus gossip.
Regarding #2 – this isn’t really true, either. Nowhere does she condone infidelity or excuse anyone for engaging in it. What Dr. Laura said (and has consistently taught) is that if a woman chooses a decent guy to marry, and she keeps him satisfied (emotionally and sexually), which is not complicated, then he will not stray. Now, there are bloggers out there who still are upset with her for that claim. They seem to deny that wives have any power to keep their husband from cheating. Well, that is true - if you married a bum. But not all men are bums. (Some women tend to take the position that all men are bums, but they can change one to being okay through highly limited access to their magic vagina.)
Some of these people seem to want to deny that women should have any responsibility for the condition of their marriage. Strange, really, especially when it comes from people who claim to be feminists and for women having power. They think women don’t have the power to choose a decent guy to marry, or to make a happy marriage – yet most of them want(ed) to get married anyway.
Some of these bloggers dismiss a husband’s need for sex. True, he doesn’t need sex in the same way that he needs food, water, and air, but one of the main reasons a normal, healthy man gets married is for sex. If he’s not getting enough from his wife, he has much less incentive to care all that much about his marriage, or staying faithful to his wife. He is much more responsive to temptation. Many of these same female bloggers had no problem fornicating with their man as often as he expressed any interest… before they got married. But once they have that man’s signature on the contract, they suddenly stop caring as much about keeping him interested or satisfied. They expect that the threat of alimony will be enough to keep him in line. This is one reason why more men are delaying marriage or refusing to marry at all.
Women and men are different. A woman has no idea what it is like to be a man, or how a husband needs sex. Some wives understand that much, and thus make an effort to tend to him, even if she’s not “feeling it”. Women who do this often do end up having fun and enjoying the moment – and with a happier, more attentive husband, and having to deal with more of those pesky orgasms. Other women simply dismiss that they should tend to their husband’s needs. They belittle him when they do this. It’s sad, really. And while it is breaking his vows for him to stray, wives are also breaking their vows (usually) when they fail to love, honor, and cherish, which includes making love when your spouse wants it.
Monday, March 17, 2008
A Jerk Walks Into Dr. Laura’s Den
Today, Dr. Laura was talking with a guy who was angry because he and his wife had agreed (according to him, anyway) to wait until they'd been married five years before having children, and that she agreed to have an abortion if she got pregnant "too early".
She got pregnant "too early" and decided against abortion, and so this guy was taking it out by not being the father he should be to his kid.
Dr. Laura told him - like she tells women - to pretend to be happy for the sake of his child. She told him to stop thinking of himself as the center of the universe, and to love his wife and child, and he’ll feel like the center of their universe.
She also asked why a woman would stay with a man who wanted her to kill her baby, which is a really good point. That woman should have taken off before conceiving a baby with him.
Like me, Dr. Laura recognizes killing babies to be wrong. She did bring that up with the caller, but he thinks that somehow, the baby only becomes a baby when he or she makes it to the second trimester. Which brings up the question... what was growing inside his wife before that?
Anyway, it is possible that the woman agreed to his conditions, but any guy with a brain recognizes that women change their minds, especially after eating wedding cake and even more so when they have a baby growing inside them and their hormones are runnin’ wild. There is also a chance the woman got pregnant on purpose, knowing the law would hold this guy to his financial obligations, if not his emotional ones. But like Dr. Laura said, she should have left the guy before that could happen.
The guy has serious problems, and he needs to get over them. He’s made a baby with his wife and he needs to give that child his all. If he doesn't want another kid, he should undergo the snip-snip. But there’s a woman out there who married him and stayed with him, and kept having sex with him, and made a baby with him.
When I was a shy, introverted teen, I actually used to worry that I'd never have a serious girlfriend. I should have looked around and realized that even serial killers stuck on Death Row get chicks throwing themselves at them.
She got pregnant "too early" and decided against abortion, and so this guy was taking it out by not being the father he should be to his kid.
Dr. Laura told him - like she tells women - to pretend to be happy for the sake of his child. She told him to stop thinking of himself as the center of the universe, and to love his wife and child, and he’ll feel like the center of their universe.
She also asked why a woman would stay with a man who wanted her to kill her baby, which is a really good point. That woman should have taken off before conceiving a baby with him.
Like me, Dr. Laura recognizes killing babies to be wrong. She did bring that up with the caller, but he thinks that somehow, the baby only becomes a baby when he or she makes it to the second trimester. Which brings up the question... what was growing inside his wife before that?
Anyway, it is possible that the woman agreed to his conditions, but any guy with a brain recognizes that women change their minds, especially after eating wedding cake and even more so when they have a baby growing inside them and their hormones are runnin’ wild. There is also a chance the woman got pregnant on purpose, knowing the law would hold this guy to his financial obligations, if not his emotional ones. But like Dr. Laura said, she should have left the guy before that could happen.
The guy has serious problems, and he needs to get over them. He’s made a baby with his wife and he needs to give that child his all. If he doesn't want another kid, he should undergo the snip-snip. But there’s a woman out there who married him and stayed with him, and kept having sex with him, and made a baby with him.
When I was a shy, introverted teen, I actually used to worry that I'd never have a serious girlfriend. I should have looked around and realized that even serial killers stuck on Death Row get chicks throwing themselves at them.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The News Isn't Always Accurate
This story names the wrong David as having gotten booted from American Idol last night. What makes it even a bigger mistake is that the David they say got booted is the presumed frontrunner.
Not that any of this this really matters.
Not that any of this this really matters.
Dr. Laura and Disgraced Governor Spitzer
Have you ever interacted with the news media? Have you ever been an in-person eyewitness to/participant in an event that was later recounted in a newspaper article? If so, you’ve probably noticed that the news media doesn’t always get everything exactly right. Quotes get butchered. Some details get left out. Headlines are misleading.
Dr. Laura appeared on NBC’s the Today Show to promote her new book. They asked her for her opinion on why men cheat. She explained her position that if a woman chooses a good man to marry, and she treats him the way a man needs to be treated, then he’s not going to cheat. The Today Show, their cohorts and MSNBC, and others immediately turned this into “Dr. Laura Blames Governor Spitzer’s Wife For His Use of Whores”. But, THAT IS NOT WHAT SHE SAID. It just makes for good copy.
Immediately, the bloggers jumped on this – you know, the ones that hate Dr. Laura because she thinks women hold some responsibility for their own happiness, parents should actually raise their own children, sex is for marriage, and because she used to say, back in the 1990s, that homosexual acts were against the teachings of the Bible. How dare she!
In addition to going bonkers over her assertion that women should choose their husbands carefully and then treat him kindly, many of the bloggers and commenters brought out the same old, tired attacks about Dr. Laura’s past, things her adult son may or may not have put on MySpace, her relationship with her mother, that she told military spouses/families not to whine to their spouses who are serving in a war zone (misrepresented as “military families should never complain about anything to anyone), and the very, very tired old “Letter to Dr. Laura” regarding homosexuality and the Bible.
It looks like it is fun to knock down straw men, or to not deal with the issue at all but rather dismiss someone’s opinion by saying something nasty about them. Apparently, nobody who has ever made mistakes can ever point out that something is right or wrong or give any helpful advice, even if they've turned their lives around and have undergone a religious conversion and a whole philosophical conversion.
But getting back to the original issue… Nowhere does Dr. Laura excuse men for their decisions to commit adultery. However, she recognizes that if a wife isn't living by her marital vows (which are more than just "forsaking all others"), THEN a man is more likely not to live by his, either.
A lot of the whiners want to believe that women have no power in their relationships, or no ability to a choose a decent man. It is easier to bash Dr. Laura than admit that some wives may not be treating their husbands right, or may have chosen a man who was poor husband material. (A lot of women mistakenly think they can change the man, as if their vagina is magical.)
I do think cheating is wrong and should not be excused. But if the refrigerator is empty, a lot of men are going to hit the drive-thru. I really don't get the prostitute thing, myself - nowadays, it is so easy to find women who will gadly jump right into bed with you, especially if they think that you are rich and powerful, as Spitzer is.
Speaking of power, many of the hate-filled bloggers have complained that Dr. Laura places a lot of responsibility on women. When women call Dr. Laura, she tells them what THEY can do to make things better. She can't very well tell their husbands what they can do if they aren't on the phone with her. When a man calls, she tells him what HE can do. It isn't a matter of bashing either sex, but she does recognize that men and women are different (shocking!). You see, dealing with reality is much more effective than denying it, and then being bitter and angry when things don’t seem to be working out the way you want.
And lets not forget that there were *women* willing to have sex with a married man for money. Do they not have any responsibility for this?
Really, “men = bad, women = good” is getting really old, and so are the rantings of people who are spreading false witness against a radio show host/author. Spitzer did a horrible thing. But there are men who are in marriages where their wives have broken their vows to love, honor, and cherish, or what-have-you, yet all that seems to matter is if the husband has broken his vow to "forsake all others."
Don't want to put in the effort to find a good, husband-material (that involves a lot more than simply how much money he makes) man and treat him the way he needs to be treated? Then don't get married.
Dr. Laura appeared on NBC’s the Today Show to promote her new book. They asked her for her opinion on why men cheat. She explained her position that if a woman chooses a good man to marry, and she treats him the way a man needs to be treated, then he’s not going to cheat. The Today Show, their cohorts and MSNBC, and others immediately turned this into “Dr. Laura Blames Governor Spitzer’s Wife For His Use of Whores”. But, THAT IS NOT WHAT SHE SAID. It just makes for good copy.
Immediately, the bloggers jumped on this – you know, the ones that hate Dr. Laura because she thinks women hold some responsibility for their own happiness, parents should actually raise their own children, sex is for marriage, and because she used to say, back in the 1990s, that homosexual acts were against the teachings of the Bible. How dare she!
In addition to going bonkers over her assertion that women should choose their husbands carefully and then treat him kindly, many of the bloggers and commenters brought out the same old, tired attacks about Dr. Laura’s past, things her adult son may or may not have put on MySpace, her relationship with her mother, that she told military spouses/families not to whine to their spouses who are serving in a war zone (misrepresented as “military families should never complain about anything to anyone), and the very, very tired old “Letter to Dr. Laura” regarding homosexuality and the Bible.
It looks like it is fun to knock down straw men, or to not deal with the issue at all but rather dismiss someone’s opinion by saying something nasty about them. Apparently, nobody who has ever made mistakes can ever point out that something is right or wrong or give any helpful advice, even if they've turned their lives around and have undergone a religious conversion and a whole philosophical conversion.
But getting back to the original issue… Nowhere does Dr. Laura excuse men for their decisions to commit adultery. However, she recognizes that if a wife isn't living by her marital vows (which are more than just "forsaking all others"), THEN a man is more likely not to live by his, either.
A lot of the whiners want to believe that women have no power in their relationships, or no ability to a choose a decent man. It is easier to bash Dr. Laura than admit that some wives may not be treating their husbands right, or may have chosen a man who was poor husband material. (A lot of women mistakenly think they can change the man, as if their vagina is magical.)
I do think cheating is wrong and should not be excused. But if the refrigerator is empty, a lot of men are going to hit the drive-thru. I really don't get the prostitute thing, myself - nowadays, it is so easy to find women who will gadly jump right into bed with you, especially if they think that you are rich and powerful, as Spitzer is.
Speaking of power, many of the hate-filled bloggers have complained that Dr. Laura places a lot of responsibility on women. When women call Dr. Laura, she tells them what THEY can do to make things better. She can't very well tell their husbands what they can do if they aren't on the phone with her. When a man calls, she tells him what HE can do. It isn't a matter of bashing either sex, but she does recognize that men and women are different (shocking!). You see, dealing with reality is much more effective than denying it, and then being bitter and angry when things don’t seem to be working out the way you want.
And lets not forget that there were *women* willing to have sex with a married man for money. Do they not have any responsibility for this?
Really, “men = bad, women = good” is getting really old, and so are the rantings of people who are spreading false witness against a radio show host/author. Spitzer did a horrible thing. But there are men who are in marriages where their wives have broken their vows to love, honor, and cherish, or what-have-you, yet all that seems to matter is if the husband has broken his vow to "forsake all others."
Don't want to put in the effort to find a good, husband-material (that involves a lot more than simply how much money he makes) man and treat him the way he needs to be treated? Then don't get married.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Another Advertisement For Dating While Parenting
Carolyn Thompson of the Associated Press tells us about a case in which woman spent 13 years in prison after being convicted of strangling her 13 year-old daughter, and the forensic evidence apparently now shows the girl died of a cocaine overdose.
Great. So her daughter was either a druggie or was killed by being subjected to her mom’s extremely poor choice to date a murderous guy. Either way, she can now sue and get rich for being a horrible mother.
This kind of thing is much more likely to happen to your child if you are dating.
Sounds like a great guy.
And who and where is the father of those kids?!?
But even as the district attorney announced that the death of Crystallynn Girard was not a homicide and could not be prosecuted, her now 44-year-old mother, Lynn DeJac, insisted that a former boyfriend was responsible.
"It's not going to stay like this. My daughter was not a drug user ... My daughter was murdered. There's no question my daughter was murdered," she said, adding she has not yet considered whether to sue anyone over her conviction.
Great. So her daughter was either a druggie or was killed by being subjected to her mom’s extremely poor choice to date a murderous guy. Either way, she can now sue and get rich for being a horrible mother.
She was released from prison and her second-degree murder conviction overturned in November after newly analyzed DNA evidence placed DeJac's former boyfriend, Dennis Donahue, in the bedroom of her daughter around the time the girl died.
This kind of thing is much more likely to happen to your child if you are dating.
Donahue remains in custody awaiting trial in the strangulation of a woman in
1993 and has been described as a person of interest in a 1975 strangling. He
couldn't have been prosecuted in Crystallynn's case anyway because he had
immunity for testifying against DeJac in 1993.
Sounds like a great guy.
DeJac, meanwhile, said she was trying to put her life back together, including spending time with her teenage twin sons, who were born soon after she went to prison.
And who and where is the father of those kids?!?
When asked whether she felt at all responsible for Crystallynn's death she said: "I feel 100 percent guilty for leaving her home alone."
"Back then it was things you did, there were latchkey kids all over the place," she said. "I've paid in my own mind for doing that."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Some Real Men Play Video Games
Dr. Laura is right almost all of the time. I know some people hate her because she thinks dismembering babies and fornication are wrong. And I know some people hate her because she is very direct and blunt, which is almost required with commercial talk radio's time schedules. And I know some people can't believe she'll actually tell the women who call her when they are wrong or when they otherwise have the power to change something... apparently, they want her to blame men only, or to magically tell the man, who isn't on the phone, how he should change things.
None of those things about her show bother me.
One of the things that does bother me is her disdain for video games, saying that it isn't okay for grown married fathers to play them, and that playing them is immature. I haven't ever heard her cite the content of the games when she does this. What she's railing against is the technology. Strangely, she understand thats men need "guy time", but she refuses to understand that video games can be guy time, either in person or through a network.
She did this again on today's show.
The problem here is generational. When video games came home, Dr. Laura was already an adult, and like most new technology, young people adopted it first and had the most free time to enjoy it. So she associates it with children.
I fail to see why playing video games is any more immature than playing cards or board games, pitching horseshoes, watching television or a movie, or going to watch a bunch of gay men sing and dance (theatre). As long as a man is not neglecting his responsibilities, why shouldn't he be allowed to do what he wants with his free time, as long as it isn't "immoral, illegal, or fattening"? I wonder if Dr. Laura ever goes to casinos and plays the machines there? They are just video games that cost more money.
She really, really, needs to get over this one. And so does Kay S. Hymowitz. It is highly irritating, and I'm not even a gamer.
Update: Mrs. B. Roth was thinking the same thing.
None of those things about her show bother me.
One of the things that does bother me is her disdain for video games, saying that it isn't okay for grown married fathers to play them, and that playing them is immature. I haven't ever heard her cite the content of the games when she does this. What she's railing against is the technology. Strangely, she understand thats men need "guy time", but she refuses to understand that video games can be guy time, either in person or through a network.
She did this again on today's show.
The problem here is generational. When video games came home, Dr. Laura was already an adult, and like most new technology, young people adopted it first and had the most free time to enjoy it. So she associates it with children.
I fail to see why playing video games is any more immature than playing cards or board games, pitching horseshoes, watching television or a movie, or going to watch a bunch of gay men sing and dance (theatre). As long as a man is not neglecting his responsibilities, why shouldn't he be allowed to do what he wants with his free time, as long as it isn't "immoral, illegal, or fattening"? I wonder if Dr. Laura ever goes to casinos and plays the machines there? They are just video games that cost more money.
She really, really, needs to get over this one. And so does Kay S. Hymowitz. It is highly irritating, and I'm not even a gamer.
Update: Mrs. B. Roth was thinking the same thing.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Other Ways the Airlines Can Make Money
United Airlines is going to start charging $25 for a second checked bag, and other airlines are likely to follow.
With that in mind, and with apologies to David Letterman, here are the top ten other new charges airlines will try:
10. $20 Each Time an Attractive Flight Attendant Brushes up Against You.
9. $50 To Not Be Seated Next to a Fatty, Kid 4 Years Old or Under, or Someone With Treatment-Resistant Tuberculosis
8. $50 For Not Showing “Alive” as the In-Flight Movie
7. $75 For Not Showing “Gigli” or “Battlefield Earth” As the In-Flight Movie
6. $15 Access to Seatback Slot Machine5.
5. $30 For sharing germs for Immune System Testing
4. $20 Bladder Endurance Testing
3. $35 Thrill Ride Turbulence Simulation
2. $100 Disasterless Flight Surcharge
1. $300 To Get Their Swarthy Actor to Put Away His Koran and Stop Chanting “Allahu Ackbar”
With that in mind, and with apologies to David Letterman, here are the top ten other new charges airlines will try:
10. $20 Each Time an Attractive Flight Attendant Brushes up Against You.
9. $50 To Not Be Seated Next to a Fatty, Kid 4 Years Old or Under, or Someone With Treatment-Resistant Tuberculosis
8. $50 For Not Showing “Alive” as the In-Flight Movie
7. $75 For Not Showing “Gigli” or “Battlefield Earth” As the In-Flight Movie
6. $15 Access to Seatback Slot Machine5.
5. $30 For sharing germs for Immune System Testing
4. $20 Bladder Endurance Testing
3. $35 Thrill Ride Turbulence Simulation
2. $100 Disasterless Flight Surcharge
1. $300 To Get Their Swarthy Actor to Put Away His Koran and Stop Chanting “Allahu Ackbar”
Monday, January 28, 2008
Heal the Bag
Heal the Bay and their sycophants are blasting the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for not outright banning plastic shopping bags - yet, like that model of common sense, San Francisco. They want the Board to intrude more into the business world and micromanage stores even more than they do already. Although environmentalists once hailed plastic bags as a better choice to brown paper bags, they now act like they are a bigger problem than street gangs.
Why?
Because some of the bags end up as litter and most of them are not recycled. By this reasoning, the Board should ban condoms and environmental advocacy materials.
I don’t know about you, but I find plastic bags to be very useful. I use them to take cans and bottles to recycling centers. I’m sure Heal the Bay would not want to discourage me from doing that. They are good as trash can liners. They are good for picking up dog poop, which I know Heal the Bay doesn’t want to discourage, as they don’t want pet feces making its way to the ocean. Though I’m not sure who is stopping the whales from making their “contributions” to the ocean, and if Heal the Bay thinks that land animal waste wasn’t making its way to the ocean for most of the last several thousand years, I wonder how bright they really are. Finally, plastic bags are excellent for assisting during assaults and for when USC students need to discard infants and are either ignorant or indifferent to the Board’s promotion of “Safe Surrender” of infants. This is the same Board, by the way, that publicizes “deadbeat dads”, who would have been completely off the hook if their sex partner had taken advantage of Safe Surrender.
Okay, so I’m kidding about that last advantage of plastic bags. But I do find them very convenient and helpful. And I have never, ever let one get away from me to become litter. I recycle most of them, and put the others to good secondary and tertiary use. Why should I be punished because of some careless people? I can’t help but think this is part of the movement to adapt to conditions caused, in part, by an influx of poor, ignorant illegal aliens. Let’s face it – neighborhoods where they live and congregate tend to have more litter. But since the Board doesn’t control the border, the Board can only react, and the rest of us have to deal with it.
The suggestion by folks like Heal the Bay is “Take your own permanent bag to the store.”
Okay, so even if I get in the habit of keeping my own bags in the car in case I make an unplanned stop at the store, I need more bags for some visits than others. If I come across a deal and want to buy a higher volume of an item, I need to be prepared. And how welcoming are stores going to be of someone carrying a bunch of bags with them as they go shopping? Ever hear of shoplifting? But I know the socialists who populate many environmental advocacy groups don’t consider property rights as important as keeping a bag out of the ocean.
Speaking of the ocean and “healing” the bay – I swam a lot in the supposedly polluted bay growing up, and I’m fairly healthy. I kind of like a certain amount of “pollution” in the bay, because I don’t like having to deal with poisonous, stinging, biting, and predatory ocean animals, who are more likely to be there in the surf if the water is cleaner.
Thanks, Heal the Bay, for trying to make villains out of supermarkets and other stores, when you should be shaming the careless bag users who litter or don't recycle. Be sure to do that ad campaign in multiple languages. Don't punish everyone for the actions of some.
Why?
Because some of the bags end up as litter and most of them are not recycled. By this reasoning, the Board should ban condoms and environmental advocacy materials.
I don’t know about you, but I find plastic bags to be very useful. I use them to take cans and bottles to recycling centers. I’m sure Heal the Bay would not want to discourage me from doing that. They are good as trash can liners. They are good for picking up dog poop, which I know Heal the Bay doesn’t want to discourage, as they don’t want pet feces making its way to the ocean. Though I’m not sure who is stopping the whales from making their “contributions” to the ocean, and if Heal the Bay thinks that land animal waste wasn’t making its way to the ocean for most of the last several thousand years, I wonder how bright they really are. Finally, plastic bags are excellent for assisting during assaults and for when USC students need to discard infants and are either ignorant or indifferent to the Board’s promotion of “Safe Surrender” of infants. This is the same Board, by the way, that publicizes “deadbeat dads”, who would have been completely off the hook if their sex partner had taken advantage of Safe Surrender.
Okay, so I’m kidding about that last advantage of plastic bags. But I do find them very convenient and helpful. And I have never, ever let one get away from me to become litter. I recycle most of them, and put the others to good secondary and tertiary use. Why should I be punished because of some careless people? I can’t help but think this is part of the movement to adapt to conditions caused, in part, by an influx of poor, ignorant illegal aliens. Let’s face it – neighborhoods where they live and congregate tend to have more litter. But since the Board doesn’t control the border, the Board can only react, and the rest of us have to deal with it.
The suggestion by folks like Heal the Bay is “Take your own permanent bag to the store.”
Okay, so even if I get in the habit of keeping my own bags in the car in case I make an unplanned stop at the store, I need more bags for some visits than others. If I come across a deal and want to buy a higher volume of an item, I need to be prepared. And how welcoming are stores going to be of someone carrying a bunch of bags with them as they go shopping? Ever hear of shoplifting? But I know the socialists who populate many environmental advocacy groups don’t consider property rights as important as keeping a bag out of the ocean.
Speaking of the ocean and “healing” the bay – I swam a lot in the supposedly polluted bay growing up, and I’m fairly healthy. I kind of like a certain amount of “pollution” in the bay, because I don’t like having to deal with poisonous, stinging, biting, and predatory ocean animals, who are more likely to be there in the surf if the water is cleaner.
Thanks, Heal the Bay, for trying to make villains out of supermarkets and other stores, when you should be shaming the careless bag users who litter or don't recycle. Be sure to do that ad campaign in multiple languages. Don't punish everyone for the actions of some.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
There’s Nothing Wrong with Online Dating
People still bag on online dating and matchmaking as if it is somehow fundamentally different from other ways of finding companionship, as if there is no difference between what amounts to the old newspaper personals (like on Yahoo.com) or advanced matchmaing sites like eHarmony.com
There was a time when most of the people online were tech nerds and women “on the edge”. Frankly, most of the women online back then were not very attractive, to put it politely. Not that the men were studs, either, but the men had a marketable skill, something that makes them attractive to women looking for a serious partner. Men really don’t care all that much what a woman does for a living, unless he can cite it as evidence to other guys about how hot she is, or unless he wouldn’t want to be married to someone in that profession – like a stripper.
Anyway, I find the present-day dismissal by some of finding a partner online to be outdated.
Dating or finding a partner is a process that has a history of changing with technology. In the U.S., when most people lived in agriculture-dominated and rural areas, men would court women by going to the home in which they lived – usually their father or brother’s home – and spending time there, often with other family members of hers present. With the automobile and the population shift to dense urban areas, it was easy for couples to get away from their families and find entertainment in town, and to find a secluded place to be alone.
And if you don’t think that “the pill” changed dating, you are fooling yourself.
So, with the rise of user-controlled online communications, it is no surprise that such technology is also having an impact on how people find each other, especially now that most adults are online.
And really, why is this alternative dismissed by some? What are the other ways people find partners?
Let’s see… courting is out in most places, and very few people go the arranged marriage route.
There’s the workplace, but the risks of raising favoritism and sexual harassment issues are very real – especially for men, as most of the people who investigate alleged sexual harassment and discrimination are women, and if a dating situation goes badly, how good is it for everyone to have those people working in the same place?
Church, temple or synagogue can be a good place, especially since it is more likely you will be religiously compatible, but this carries the same risk of awkwardness as workplace dating.
Many people meet through a common activity or hobby. This can be a great way to meet someone. But it still carries a the risk of the awkwardness factor and splits within that enthusiast community, and people who are fundamentally incompatible can still enjoy the same activities.
There are people who like to set up two of their friends, which can also carry the awkwardness factor. Plus, when a woman sets her friend up with a guy, she is telling them both “I’m not attracted to him, but you may be.” With reminds me that men can't date their female "friends", because if they are "friends" in the first place it is because the woman is not attracted to him.
Some people are set up by family members. For a lot of people, this spells disaster. Some people “steal” their date from a family member, which of course is a recipe for an even bigger disaster. Hey, but at least they didn’t discover each other online!
Bars and clubs can be a great place to meet someone – as long as you are just looking for a casual good time. But there are guys who don’t like to waste their money buying booze for a woman and all of her friends, or have no interest in “dancing”. And really, why is this any better than finding someone online? You both like to party. So what?
Finally, some people meet on the street or in transit, like on a flight. Again, why is this better than finding someone online?
Finding someone online can carry the benefit of more readily determining that someone has common goals, values, interests, likes, and dislikes as you. Yes, people online can be lying about themselves. No, communicating online is not the same thing as face-to-face interaction. So what? People you meet the other ways lie about themselves, too, and in either case it is up to you to figure it out. E-mails and instant messages aren’t supposed to replace face-to-face interaction any more than a phone call or snail mail is.
Let me be clear here. I’m referring to finding someone online, not the mistake of thinking that you are “dating” someone if you’ve never met them face-to-face and don’t see them regularly face-to-face. Online communications are only a tool in finding someone and a help in staying in touch. Once you have found someone who might be right for what you need at that time, it is up to you to actually date them. If that is how it goes, there is nothing wrong with “online dating”.
There was a time when most of the people online were tech nerds and women “on the edge”. Frankly, most of the women online back then were not very attractive, to put it politely. Not that the men were studs, either, but the men had a marketable skill, something that makes them attractive to women looking for a serious partner. Men really don’t care all that much what a woman does for a living, unless he can cite it as evidence to other guys about how hot she is, or unless he wouldn’t want to be married to someone in that profession – like a stripper.
Anyway, I find the present-day dismissal by some of finding a partner online to be outdated.
Dating or finding a partner is a process that has a history of changing with technology. In the U.S., when most people lived in agriculture-dominated and rural areas, men would court women by going to the home in which they lived – usually their father or brother’s home – and spending time there, often with other family members of hers present. With the automobile and the population shift to dense urban areas, it was easy for couples to get away from their families and find entertainment in town, and to find a secluded place to be alone.
And if you don’t think that “the pill” changed dating, you are fooling yourself.
So, with the rise of user-controlled online communications, it is no surprise that such technology is also having an impact on how people find each other, especially now that most adults are online.
And really, why is this alternative dismissed by some? What are the other ways people find partners?
Let’s see… courting is out in most places, and very few people go the arranged marriage route.
There’s the workplace, but the risks of raising favoritism and sexual harassment issues are very real – especially for men, as most of the people who investigate alleged sexual harassment and discrimination are women, and if a dating situation goes badly, how good is it for everyone to have those people working in the same place?
Church, temple or synagogue can be a good place, especially since it is more likely you will be religiously compatible, but this carries the same risk of awkwardness as workplace dating.
Many people meet through a common activity or hobby. This can be a great way to meet someone. But it still carries a the risk of the awkwardness factor and splits within that enthusiast community, and people who are fundamentally incompatible can still enjoy the same activities.
There are people who like to set up two of their friends, which can also carry the awkwardness factor. Plus, when a woman sets her friend up with a guy, she is telling them both “I’m not attracted to him, but you may be.” With reminds me that men can't date their female "friends", because if they are "friends" in the first place it is because the woman is not attracted to him.
Some people are set up by family members. For a lot of people, this spells disaster. Some people “steal” their date from a family member, which of course is a recipe for an even bigger disaster. Hey, but at least they didn’t discover each other online!
Bars and clubs can be a great place to meet someone – as long as you are just looking for a casual good time. But there are guys who don’t like to waste their money buying booze for a woman and all of her friends, or have no interest in “dancing”. And really, why is this any better than finding someone online? You both like to party. So what?
Finally, some people meet on the street or in transit, like on a flight. Again, why is this better than finding someone online?
Finding someone online can carry the benefit of more readily determining that someone has common goals, values, interests, likes, and dislikes as you. Yes, people online can be lying about themselves. No, communicating online is not the same thing as face-to-face interaction. So what? People you meet the other ways lie about themselves, too, and in either case it is up to you to figure it out. E-mails and instant messages aren’t supposed to replace face-to-face interaction any more than a phone call or snail mail is.
Let me be clear here. I’m referring to finding someone online, not the mistake of thinking that you are “dating” someone if you’ve never met them face-to-face and don’t see them regularly face-to-face. Online communications are only a tool in finding someone and a help in staying in touch. Once you have found someone who might be right for what you need at that time, it is up to you to actually date them. If that is how it goes, there is nothing wrong with “online dating”.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Get With It on Technology, Dr. Laura
As I’ve written before, although Dr. Laura is usually right-on, she’s off on her contempt for certain technologies, such as interactive games, social networking sites, instant messaging, and blogs. Yeah, I know there is a lot of pure dung out there about her on blogs, but blogging should not be dismissed with a broad brush. She even has her own blog. Kind of. It’s really more just columns stacked on top of one another. Kind of like right here.
Anyway, there was a caller on today’s show who was complaining that her husband spent a lot of time on games, MySpace, and instant messaging with his friends, and without finding out exactly how much time or exactly what he was using the technologies for, Dr. Laura immediately dismissed him as a “15 year-old” and advised that the woman tell her husband that it was time to put away childish things.
I’m not going to rehash everything from my previous post. But just because the youth is quickest to adapt to new technologies, doesn’t mean using them should be equated with immaturity. I realize that Dr. Laura long ago “made it” and is very successful and got through much of life without these things, but many successful, mature adults with balanced lives find social networking and instant messaging to be a great way to keep in touch with family and friends, work jointly on projects, develop professional contacts, and share experiences with other people in the same situation (expecting mothers in the same month of pregnancy, for one example, or people losing extra weight, for another). In some industries, if you don’t have an online presence you simply don’t exist.
I also fail to see how playing games should be automatically any different than watching TV or reading a magazine, activities during with most people don’t interact with other people in the room.
Dr. Laura understands that men have a need for sex. That drive is there at 15. But she doesn’t accuse horny husbands of being 15. Likewise, some men enjoy playing games. Me? I gave them up when I was a teen, but I know others my age who still play them.
So while some things, like moral rights and wrongs, don’t change and Dr. Laura should stick to her guns, other things, like technology, move on, and change should be embraced, as long as it isn’t illegal, immoral, or fattening.
As for the caller – if that’s the way her man was before they married, she should have discussed what her expectations would be in the marriage BEFORE she ordered the wedding cake. There are very few things about a man that should or will automatically change because he went through a wedding ceremony. I'm sure there are things she does that he doesn't understand.
Anyway, there was a caller on today’s show who was complaining that her husband spent a lot of time on games, MySpace, and instant messaging with his friends, and without finding out exactly how much time or exactly what he was using the technologies for, Dr. Laura immediately dismissed him as a “15 year-old” and advised that the woman tell her husband that it was time to put away childish things.
I’m not going to rehash everything from my previous post. But just because the youth is quickest to adapt to new technologies, doesn’t mean using them should be equated with immaturity. I realize that Dr. Laura long ago “made it” and is very successful and got through much of life without these things, but many successful, mature adults with balanced lives find social networking and instant messaging to be a great way to keep in touch with family and friends, work jointly on projects, develop professional contacts, and share experiences with other people in the same situation (expecting mothers in the same month of pregnancy, for one example, or people losing extra weight, for another). In some industries, if you don’t have an online presence you simply don’t exist.
I also fail to see how playing games should be automatically any different than watching TV or reading a magazine, activities during with most people don’t interact with other people in the room.
Dr. Laura understands that men have a need for sex. That drive is there at 15. But she doesn’t accuse horny husbands of being 15. Likewise, some men enjoy playing games. Me? I gave them up when I was a teen, but I know others my age who still play them.
So while some things, like moral rights and wrongs, don’t change and Dr. Laura should stick to her guns, other things, like technology, move on, and change should be embraced, as long as it isn’t illegal, immoral, or fattening.
As for the caller – if that’s the way her man was before they married, she should have discussed what her expectations would be in the marriage BEFORE she ordered the wedding cake. There are very few things about a man that should or will automatically change because he went through a wedding ceremony. I'm sure there are things she does that he doesn't understand.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
EHarmony.com Attacked Again By Competitor
A dating website is trying to get traction by bashing EHarmony.com again. EHarmony.com is highly visible, has many more millions of subscribers, and often gets results, so it is understandable that this other service tries to make a name for itself using EHarmony.com’s name.
This new round of marketing will attempt to portray EHarmony.com as out-of-touch with American values. Why? Well, EHarmony.com won’t match people up who have serious depression or other serious relationship-damaging emotional/mental problems that its extensive personality profile detects. It won’t match up people who have demonstrated a repeated inability to stay married. It also won’t match up someone who is currently married, or people who are too young for serious, committed relationships.
Shocking, I know. Who doesn’t want to be matched with an unstable, depressed person who is legally married to someone else and has three divorces already?
The real topper is that EHarmony.com is based on years of intending-to-marry and marital counseling, so it is based on the dynamics between men and women, and thus does not have the experience to offer same-sex matching. Ooh, this one gets some people all worked up. They insist there is no difference. Which makes me wonder – if there is no difference, then why don’t these people try being matched with someone of the opposite sex? Answer: because there is a difference. Otherwise, everyone would be neutrally bisexual.
But this complaint about EHarmony.com is already tired, so the new one to is bash EHarmony.com by attacking founder Dr. Neil Clark Warren’s determinations that note the correlation between fornication, shacking up, and higher divorce rates. Yes, you see – Eharmony.com is “out touch with American values” because Dr. Warren has noticed that being a slut or a cad makes it less likely you will stay married. Never mind that EHarmony.com doesn’t keep a record of your sex life, or drop your account if you fornicate.
If you read what Dr. Warren wrote around the time of EHarmony.com’s launch, he makes it clear that he intended to use the service to lower the divorce rate by matching and guiding to open communication/first date only those people who are fundamentally compatible with each other and likely to get married and stay happily married. So it is “out of touch” with the “value” of the high divorce rate. Maybe that’s a good thing. It is “out of touch” with the American value where people in a relationship act like squabbling siblings competing for an edge over each other, trying to make it work with someone who is simply not compatible with them or able to have a healthy relationship. And yes, Dr. Warren is “out of touch” with Hollywood’s “value” of shameless casual fornication and shacking up.
But EHarmony.com does not bar fornicators. So who is really intolerant? Perhaps it is the service that makes fun of those who value purity and saving sex for marriage? What are their values anyway? The more fornication the better? Broken-hearts are good; out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and STDs are a-okay? Inflicting an untreated depressed person on someone looking for love? Spending time, money, emotions, and energy on someone with whom you are incompatible is fine, as long as they get you hot?
If you want to go with the rejects… be their guest! Go to that other site owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp. Go find people who are still married, people who have been divorced too many times, people who can’t answer a series of questions without appearing depressed or unstable...and good luck to you.
If you are just looking for a hookup, then there are easier places to go.
But if you want serious matchmaking with marriage in mind, I’d recommend a subscriber service that figures out who you are and puts you through a guided communication process; a service with a large number of subscribers – one like EHarmony.com. It’s not perfect, but it can be very useful.
This new round of marketing will attempt to portray EHarmony.com as out-of-touch with American values. Why? Well, EHarmony.com won’t match people up who have serious depression or other serious relationship-damaging emotional/mental problems that its extensive personality profile detects. It won’t match up people who have demonstrated a repeated inability to stay married. It also won’t match up someone who is currently married, or people who are too young for serious, committed relationships.
Shocking, I know. Who doesn’t want to be matched with an unstable, depressed person who is legally married to someone else and has three divorces already?
The real topper is that EHarmony.com is based on years of intending-to-marry and marital counseling, so it is based on the dynamics between men and women, and thus does not have the experience to offer same-sex matching. Ooh, this one gets some people all worked up. They insist there is no difference. Which makes me wonder – if there is no difference, then why don’t these people try being matched with someone of the opposite sex? Answer: because there is a difference. Otherwise, everyone would be neutrally bisexual.
But this complaint about EHarmony.com is already tired, so the new one to is bash EHarmony.com by attacking founder Dr. Neil Clark Warren’s determinations that note the correlation between fornication, shacking up, and higher divorce rates. Yes, you see – Eharmony.com is “out touch with American values” because Dr. Warren has noticed that being a slut or a cad makes it less likely you will stay married. Never mind that EHarmony.com doesn’t keep a record of your sex life, or drop your account if you fornicate.
If you read what Dr. Warren wrote around the time of EHarmony.com’s launch, he makes it clear that he intended to use the service to lower the divorce rate by matching and guiding to open communication/first date only those people who are fundamentally compatible with each other and likely to get married and stay happily married. So it is “out of touch” with the “value” of the high divorce rate. Maybe that’s a good thing. It is “out of touch” with the American value where people in a relationship act like squabbling siblings competing for an edge over each other, trying to make it work with someone who is simply not compatible with them or able to have a healthy relationship. And yes, Dr. Warren is “out of touch” with Hollywood’s “value” of shameless casual fornication and shacking up.
But EHarmony.com does not bar fornicators. So who is really intolerant? Perhaps it is the service that makes fun of those who value purity and saving sex for marriage? What are their values anyway? The more fornication the better? Broken-hearts are good; out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and STDs are a-okay? Inflicting an untreated depressed person on someone looking for love? Spending time, money, emotions, and energy on someone with whom you are incompatible is fine, as long as they get you hot?
If you want to go with the rejects… be their guest! Go to that other site owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp. Go find people who are still married, people who have been divorced too many times, people who can’t answer a series of questions without appearing depressed or unstable...and good luck to you.
If you are just looking for a hookup, then there are easier places to go.
But if you want serious matchmaking with marriage in mind, I’d recommend a subscriber service that figures out who you are and puts you through a guided communication process; a service with a large number of subscribers – one like EHarmony.com. It’s not perfect, but it can be very useful.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
When Tom Leykis Has Guests
It’s been a couple of months. Time to write about Tom Leykis again.
It must be difficult to spend 20 hours a week doing monologues (even with long… pointless… pauses), taking phone calls, and plugging away at live commercials. It takes a lot of concentration and talent to keep high ratings in the desired demographics doing that week in and week out, year-round.
So I can understand how tempting it is for Tom Leykis to have in-studio guests (made easier, I would think, since his move to the Paramount lot in Hollywood, where some CBS and Viacom stuff is put together). Did I mention that he is on the Paramount lot? Yes, he’s on the Paramount lot. But someone in the powers-that-be don’t want him mentioning that. So I did. I'm the one who is mentioning here that Tom Leykis' show is now based on the Paramount Pictures lot. But I digress.
Anyway, I can understand how tempting it is for Tom to have in-studio guests or to gab away with someone on the crew in order to fill time with less effort. In the case of the guests – they are there plugging something. Just about any talk show appearance – radio or television – is to plug something, after all. So I understand why they want to be there. But why does Tom want them there?
The problem is, I almost never find these guest appearances (or chat with the crew member) interesting - they are extremely boring, usually - and it is such a break from the usual format of the show. I’d wager I’m not the only person who immediately turns away for the hour when I realize that the hour is going to be about plugging a comedy club appearance by a comedian, usually one nobody outside of comedy circles knows. There’s a lot of interesting talk radio during that time, so it makes it easier for me – one less station to switch to in the rotation of switching back and forth so as to not be subjected to ten minute breaks.
Perhaps Tom is returning favors when he has these guests on, or maybe it really is just Tom being lazy for that hour. Whatever the case, it is booooooooring. Being boring in talk radio is, of course, much worse than being disagreeable.
So please, Tom. Cut back on the guests and crew chit-chat. Heck, take even more vacation time if you need it. Repeats of your normal format is almost always more entertaining than an obscure comedian plugging his appearance in a place I'll never go.
It must be difficult to spend 20 hours a week doing monologues (even with long… pointless… pauses), taking phone calls, and plugging away at live commercials. It takes a lot of concentration and talent to keep high ratings in the desired demographics doing that week in and week out, year-round.
So I can understand how tempting it is for Tom Leykis to have in-studio guests (made easier, I would think, since his move to the Paramount lot in Hollywood, where some CBS and Viacom stuff is put together). Did I mention that he is on the Paramount lot? Yes, he’s on the Paramount lot. But someone in the powers-that-be don’t want him mentioning that. So I did. I'm the one who is mentioning here that Tom Leykis' show is now based on the Paramount Pictures lot. But I digress.
Anyway, I can understand how tempting it is for Tom to have in-studio guests or to gab away with someone on the crew in order to fill time with less effort. In the case of the guests – they are there plugging something. Just about any talk show appearance – radio or television – is to plug something, after all. So I understand why they want to be there. But why does Tom want them there?
The problem is, I almost never find these guest appearances (or chat with the crew member) interesting - they are extremely boring, usually - and it is such a break from the usual format of the show. I’d wager I’m not the only person who immediately turns away for the hour when I realize that the hour is going to be about plugging a comedy club appearance by a comedian, usually one nobody outside of comedy circles knows. There’s a lot of interesting talk radio during that time, so it makes it easier for me – one less station to switch to in the rotation of switching back and forth so as to not be subjected to ten minute breaks.
Perhaps Tom is returning favors when he has these guests on, or maybe it really is just Tom being lazy for that hour. Whatever the case, it is booooooooring. Being boring in talk radio is, of course, much worse than being disagreeable.
So please, Tom. Cut back on the guests and crew chit-chat. Heck, take even more vacation time if you need it. Repeats of your normal format is almost always more entertaining than an obscure comedian plugging his appearance in a place I'll never go.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Marilyn Manson and Tim Burton and Their Women
Ben Wener of the Orange County Register catches up with music personality Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner), and something in the article sticks out to me.
Getting married is often, in these cases, someone’s desperate attempt to save the relationship by “taking it to the next level”. Women think it validates the relationship as “successful”. Men think it will get the woman to stop nagging (and she will stop nagging to get married, but she won’t stop nagging). But they’ve already been pretending to be at that level. There was probably nothing “positive” that he got from being married that he wasn’t getting from her before. And so he marries her, and she rewards him by nagging him. Who wants to live like that?
You can’t make him change. Asking him to change, demanding that he change, threats, nagging, whining, bitching, holding out – that will only drive whatever it is you don’t like about him underground. For example – if you want him to stop smoking weed, he may appear to stop. But he will still do it – just not around you, and he will lie to cover it up. Don't marry him if you don't like him or if you can’t live with everything about him for the rest of your life. Do not rely on assumptions, hopes, wishes, projections, etc. Deal with the reality of who he is NOW.
If you have agreed to be faithful to each other in marriage, only then should you expect that from him - but if he has a history of not showing self-control in that area, you’re probably going to be disappointed. Oh, and his biology doesn’t change by signing a marriage certificate. He will still find other women attractive and want to look at them. He will still want sex from you.
Finally - Just as getting marriage will not change him, do not expect that having his baby will change him. If you get pregnant to try to make him a better man or get him to do what you want, you’ll be a fool.
Look, I'm no fan of Manson. He strikes me as a geek who realized that the only way he was going to make something out of himself was by being “contrarian” and going for shock value, like those kids who go all punk or goth or whatever because they couldn't come close to making the cheerleading squad or being in the popular crowd, or whatever. There's always another generation of kids around the corner looking to piss off their parents, and he’s smart enough to figure out how to make money off of that. He is not original - he's derivative of folks like Alice Cooper, only Alice Cooper was pioneering and has been an enduring original talent.
Maybe he got picked on by churchgoing kids. Who knows? Churches are full of jerks because people are jerks, especially as teens. But it isn’t like Manson has it all together. I heard him once talking about how mustaches were a sign that a man is gay. This from a guy who also talked about performing manual sex on one of his male bandmates.
While we’re on the subject of relationships, let’s check in on Tim Burton’s situation.
Notice the article refers to this woman as “Tim Burton’s ex-gilfriend”, not Tim Burton as “the former beau of…”. These women insist on having a man more rich and/or famous than themselves, and when it doesn’t last, they try to take some of his wealth with them.
What have we learned?
1. Don’t shack up.
2. Don’t expect a man to change simply because he got married.
During that time, Manson…settled deeply into a relationship with burlesque queen Dita Von Teese, who, arriving after Manson's time with actress Rose McGowan, appeared to be his twisted soulmate.I’m not going to defend Manson’s lifestyle or personal actions. That’s not why I picked this story. But the first clue that all was not right was how long they were together before getting married. When people get married after several or more years of being a couple (especially if that includes living together as well as sex), I give the marriage a slim chance of lasting. Unless - one or both members of the couple were still full-time students and they waited to be finished with that phase of life before getting married.
After six years together, they married – and almost immediately, Manson says, Von Teese expected him to change. His vampiric hours, his drug use and absinthe consumption, perhaps most vitally his philosophy of self-preservation through fiercely independent thinking and creative transformation – she'd have preferred he put all that away and be a more normal husband.
And for a brief time Manson slowly felt himself conforming. "I started to feel bad about being me," he told me in his gravelly but gentle voice during a phone chat a few weeks ago. "I started to feel like I had to turn me off somehow, to prove that I fit into this convention I know now didn't suit me properly."
Getting married is often, in these cases, someone’s desperate attempt to save the relationship by “taking it to the next level”. Women think it validates the relationship as “successful”. Men think it will get the woman to stop nagging (and she will stop nagging to get married, but she won’t stop nagging). But they’ve already been pretending to be at that level. There was probably nothing “positive” that he got from being married that he wasn’t getting from her before. And so he marries her, and she rewards him by nagging him. Who wants to live like that?
“I don't necessarily think I couldn't be married again. I think that I assumed - and it was me projecting my idea of romance onto Dita - that she believed in things the same way I did. I think we got to a point where she was feeling like, 'Well, I assumed you would eventually grow out of this.' And I'm saying, 'But this is me.' My marriage started to transform into something that was too concerned with the rest of the world, with how it would get portrayed in Vogue magazine - and that sort of thing was exactly what I had fought hard to stand against. But I got lost between love and belief in myself. I didn't know who I was supposed to be anymore."Women: I can't stress this enough. When you marry a man, you are accepting him AS-IS. You are accepting that he has his own likes and dislikes, his faults, his job, his hobbies, his habits, his philosophy, his bank account, his family, his friends, his history, his possessions, and everything else that has made him who he is. DO NOT EXPECT HIM TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. Expect him to get older - that will definitely happen - but not necessarily more mature.
"I'm absolutely not looking for someone who agrees with me about everything," Manson quickly adds, "or someone who wants to please me by believing what I believe.”
You can’t make him change. Asking him to change, demanding that he change, threats, nagging, whining, bitching, holding out – that will only drive whatever it is you don’t like about him underground. For example – if you want him to stop smoking weed, he may appear to stop. But he will still do it – just not around you, and he will lie to cover it up. Don't marry him if you don't like him or if you can’t live with everything about him for the rest of your life. Do not rely on assumptions, hopes, wishes, projections, etc. Deal with the reality of who he is NOW.
If you have agreed to be faithful to each other in marriage, only then should you expect that from him - but if he has a history of not showing self-control in that area, you’re probably going to be disappointed. Oh, and his biology doesn’t change by signing a marriage certificate. He will still find other women attractive and want to look at them. He will still want sex from you.
Finally - Just as getting marriage will not change him, do not expect that having his baby will change him. If you get pregnant to try to make him a better man or get him to do what you want, you’ll be a fool.
“But I need the same dark romantic yearning. I had been watching all these movies, like 'True Romance' and 'Harold and Maude' and 'The Hunger' and 'Bonnie and Clyde,' and I started wondering where that sort of feeling had gone. I thought that was where I was at in my life, and I couldn't understand why I didn't feel that same fearlessness."Uh, yeah, well getting some strange, especially young strange, will do that. But those feelings are likely to fade all over again as that strange becomes familiar and older.
He regained it, however, via two life-altering vehicles: Evan Rachel Wood, the pretty, preternatural actress from "Thirteen" and the coming "Across the Universe," who at 19 is half Manson's age; and the rejuvenating new album "Eat Me, Drink Me," very likely the most crucial work of Manson's career.
Look, I'm no fan of Manson. He strikes me as a geek who realized that the only way he was going to make something out of himself was by being “contrarian” and going for shock value, like those kids who go all punk or goth or whatever because they couldn't come close to making the cheerleading squad or being in the popular crowd, or whatever. There's always another generation of kids around the corner looking to piss off their parents, and he’s smart enough to figure out how to make money off of that. He is not original - he's derivative of folks like Alice Cooper, only Alice Cooper was pioneering and has been an enduring original talent.
Maybe he got picked on by churchgoing kids. Who knows? Churches are full of jerks because people are jerks, especially as teens. But it isn’t like Manson has it all together. I heard him once talking about how mustaches were a sign that a man is gay. This from a guy who also talked about performing manual sex on one of his male bandmates.
While we’re on the subject of relationships, let’s check in on Tim Burton’s situation.
Tim Burton's ex-girlfriend was ordered Wednesday to revise her lawsuit against the movie director after a judge ruled it didn't sufficiently support claims that Burton had backed out of a promise to financially support her.Why would a “promise” be legally binding in this kind of case and this case only? People promise each other all kinds of things all of the time, and yet a broken promise almost never results in a court case, except when it comes to women who’ve been dumped. So much for independence and equality.
Notice the article refers to this woman as “Tim Burton’s ex-gilfriend”, not Tim Burton as “the former beau of…”. These women insist on having a man more rich and/or famous than themselves, and when it doesn’t last, they try to take some of his wealth with them.
Lisa Marie, an actress who appeared in several of Burton's films, sued last December, alleging Burton used fraud to cheat her out of assets he promised to share with her during their nearly 10-year, live-in relationship.You weren’t married. Get over it. Marriage is how you get guaranteed support from a man, not shacking up.
Burton said he and Marie would "combine their efforts and earnings and would share equally any and all" accumulated property, her lawsuit claimed.If he really did that, then he is a fool.
Court papers filed by Burton's attorneys countered that the director gave Marie $5 million to sign the contract, which released him from any further claims to his assets. He contended that if she wanted to rescind the deal she was obligated to return the money.Five million dollars for what? He could have hired prostitutes and other professionals (chefs, interior decorators) to do whatever it was she did for him for a lot less.
What have we learned?
1. Don’t shack up.
2. Don’t expect a man to change simply because he got married.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Dr. Laura Blames Technology When Users at Fault
I like Dr. Laura. I understand why she does her show the way she does. I find it entertaining radio. I listen. Also, I agree with almost everything she says. I particularly like to hear calls from people who clearly have no idea who they are calling, and they get shocked that she doesn’t give them some touchy-feely New Age answer-du-jour, but rather a cold dose of reality.
I know, I know. Some people hate her because she doesn’t spend half an hour coddling the feelings of each caller.
Or they hate her because she thinks of marriage as holy matrimony and thinks that sex is best saved for marriage. Or they hate her because she thinks they ought not to slaughter their own babies. Or they hate her because she encourages parents to raise their own children. Or they hate her because she encourages husbands and wives to tend to each others’ needs. Or they hate her because she thinks we should kill terrorists before they kill us. Radical positions, I know. I don’t have a problem with any of these.
Every once in a while, though, I think she is completely wrong about something.
Today, I heard Dr. Laura bash/summarily dismiss MySpace.com as being “juvenile”.
Now, I understand that she’s had at least one really bad experience with MySpace. Her deployed paratrooper son’s MySpace page (or at least a page that claimed to be his) gained negative attention when it displayed offensive material. I don’t know what the ultimate conclusion was – whether or not he put the material there or someone else did. Let’s assume for the sake of this argument that someone else put it there against his will.
So what?
We’ve had harmful impersonators, frauds, and identity thieves around for a lot longer than MySpace.
MySpace isn’t the problem. MySpace is nothing more than a convenient collection of online features - many of which previously existed and were typical - in one place. MySpace is a web space host, an e-mail host, a photo album host, a search engine, etc. combined. Dr. Laura has her own website that takes e-mail. It isn’t at MySpace, but most people can’t hire a professional to design and run their own website. MySpace does it for them. Hence, the popularity.
I see “the Internet” get blamed for a lot of problems when it is really nothing more than a street corner, a post office, a library, a TV, and a store. Freaks, criminals, immature people, and liars hang out in those places, too. Saying that they "met on the Internet" is like saying "they met on the street corner". Do you stop using the streets?
Predators existed before chat rooms. While online communications have given them the ability to communicate with the children of strangers and show them inappropriate material from the comfort of their own homes, things like MySpace are hardly the problem. The problem is the evil predator.
There are ways to avoid having your child preyed upon online. Keep communication devices, such as networked computers, in common areas of the home. Don’t let them be home alone. Make sure they have enough sense not to go somewhere without an adult to meet someone they’ve never met. In the event they are home alone, make sure they have enough sense not to allow someone to come over. Don’t let them hang out unsupervised in the homes of kids who don’t have enough sense in these areas. You can protect yourself from those who prey on adults by using some common sense. Always meet someone new in a safe public place until you know enough about them to be in private with them.
Sure, people can put up a false front online, but they can do that in person, too. You think meeting someone (even regularly) in a bar, a club, a restaurant, a class, or even a church really reveals the totality of who they are as a person? No way. You learn who they are by spending time with them in different situations, communicating, meeting their friends and family, etc.
It’s okay for adults to meet each other online. What’s not okay is letting yourself believe that chatting, e-mailing, sharing pictures/audio/video is the equivalent of a face-to-face relationship. It’s not. Meet online, and if there appears to be potential, move along to actually spending time together. Otherwise, you are pen pals and nothing more.
Then there are the reports that try to shock us by telling us how many “sex offenders” are on MySpace (or in a given neighborhood). There are many who have cell phones and postage stamps, too. Run for the hills!
Seriously, though, yes, it is good thing to know who the rapists, flashers, and child molesters are so we can avoid them, and to keep them from contacting children. But the term “sex offender” includes much, much more than that. Homosexuals were legally sex offenders not long ago. It’s illegal in some places to have sex toys. I’m not really concerned that streetwalkers or their customers will be contacting my children via MySpace. Having (consensual) sex with a 17-year-old, no matter what your age, can get you labeled as a sex offender in some places, even though the public schools will hand them a condom and teach them how to use it. I’m not condoning fornicating with underage persons or with anyone, for that matter. Just making the point that there is a difference between someone who rapes seven-year-olds and an 18-year-old guy who fornicates with the 17-year-old.
Getting back to Dr Laura – the call that prompted her comments was from a young woman who was upset about comments her boyfriend made before he was her boyfriend on another woman’s online picture, calling her beautiful. Dr. Laura said that her boyfriend was being juvenile. Really? Having told other women in the past that they look beautiful or that they look good in a picture is juvenile? I don’t think Dr. Laura was thinking clearly at that point - I think her emotions were clouding her thinking.
She did say something during the call that was more to the heart of the matter – the youth (and not-so-youth) culture these days that promotes immodesty and promiscuous “hooking up” and glorifies partying and posting evidence of your partying online. That’s a cultural problem, not a problem with MySpace.
Dr. Laura’s line of reasoning could be used to scrap the Internet entirely, phones, and even cars. After all, while the pill was an accelerant of the sexual revolution, the automobile was the real start of the fornication culture we’re now in.
Don’t blame the technology. Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s the people. And although it is true that online communications have now allowed freaky perverts to network around the world, it also allows those who seek to protect and nurture children and uplift culture to network as well.
Like I wrote at the start of this post - I like Dr. Laura. That's why I hate to see her lessen her credibility with a growing number of people who now use sites like MySpace the way people were using ISP-provided websites ten years ago. She needs to promote the cautious and positive use of technology, not the broadbrush dismissal of it.
I know, I know. Some people hate her because she doesn’t spend half an hour coddling the feelings of each caller.
Or they hate her because she thinks of marriage as holy matrimony and thinks that sex is best saved for marriage. Or they hate her because she thinks they ought not to slaughter their own babies. Or they hate her because she encourages parents to raise their own children. Or they hate her because she encourages husbands and wives to tend to each others’ needs. Or they hate her because she thinks we should kill terrorists before they kill us. Radical positions, I know. I don’t have a problem with any of these.
Every once in a while, though, I think she is completely wrong about something.
Today, I heard Dr. Laura bash/summarily dismiss MySpace.com as being “juvenile”.
Now, I understand that she’s had at least one really bad experience with MySpace. Her deployed paratrooper son’s MySpace page (or at least a page that claimed to be his) gained negative attention when it displayed offensive material. I don’t know what the ultimate conclusion was – whether or not he put the material there or someone else did. Let’s assume for the sake of this argument that someone else put it there against his will.
So what?
We’ve had harmful impersonators, frauds, and identity thieves around for a lot longer than MySpace.
MySpace isn’t the problem. MySpace is nothing more than a convenient collection of online features - many of which previously existed and were typical - in one place. MySpace is a web space host, an e-mail host, a photo album host, a search engine, etc. combined. Dr. Laura has her own website that takes e-mail. It isn’t at MySpace, but most people can’t hire a professional to design and run their own website. MySpace does it for them. Hence, the popularity.
I see “the Internet” get blamed for a lot of problems when it is really nothing more than a street corner, a post office, a library, a TV, and a store. Freaks, criminals, immature people, and liars hang out in those places, too. Saying that they "met on the Internet" is like saying "they met on the street corner". Do you stop using the streets?
Predators existed before chat rooms. While online communications have given them the ability to communicate with the children of strangers and show them inappropriate material from the comfort of their own homes, things like MySpace are hardly the problem. The problem is the evil predator.
There are ways to avoid having your child preyed upon online. Keep communication devices, such as networked computers, in common areas of the home. Don’t let them be home alone. Make sure they have enough sense not to go somewhere without an adult to meet someone they’ve never met. In the event they are home alone, make sure they have enough sense not to allow someone to come over. Don’t let them hang out unsupervised in the homes of kids who don’t have enough sense in these areas. You can protect yourself from those who prey on adults by using some common sense. Always meet someone new in a safe public place until you know enough about them to be in private with them.
Sure, people can put up a false front online, but they can do that in person, too. You think meeting someone (even regularly) in a bar, a club, a restaurant, a class, or even a church really reveals the totality of who they are as a person? No way. You learn who they are by spending time with them in different situations, communicating, meeting their friends and family, etc.
It’s okay for adults to meet each other online. What’s not okay is letting yourself believe that chatting, e-mailing, sharing pictures/audio/video is the equivalent of a face-to-face relationship. It’s not. Meet online, and if there appears to be potential, move along to actually spending time together. Otherwise, you are pen pals and nothing more.
Then there are the reports that try to shock us by telling us how many “sex offenders” are on MySpace (or in a given neighborhood). There are many who have cell phones and postage stamps, too. Run for the hills!
Seriously, though, yes, it is good thing to know who the rapists, flashers, and child molesters are so we can avoid them, and to keep them from contacting children. But the term “sex offender” includes much, much more than that. Homosexuals were legally sex offenders not long ago. It’s illegal in some places to have sex toys. I’m not really concerned that streetwalkers or their customers will be contacting my children via MySpace. Having (consensual) sex with a 17-year-old, no matter what your age, can get you labeled as a sex offender in some places, even though the public schools will hand them a condom and teach them how to use it. I’m not condoning fornicating with underage persons or with anyone, for that matter. Just making the point that there is a difference between someone who rapes seven-year-olds and an 18-year-old guy who fornicates with the 17-year-old.
Getting back to Dr Laura – the call that prompted her comments was from a young woman who was upset about comments her boyfriend made before he was her boyfriend on another woman’s online picture, calling her beautiful. Dr. Laura said that her boyfriend was being juvenile. Really? Having told other women in the past that they look beautiful or that they look good in a picture is juvenile? I don’t think Dr. Laura was thinking clearly at that point - I think her emotions were clouding her thinking.
She did say something during the call that was more to the heart of the matter – the youth (and not-so-youth) culture these days that promotes immodesty and promiscuous “hooking up” and glorifies partying and posting evidence of your partying online. That’s a cultural problem, not a problem with MySpace.
Dr. Laura’s line of reasoning could be used to scrap the Internet entirely, phones, and even cars. After all, while the pill was an accelerant of the sexual revolution, the automobile was the real start of the fornication culture we’re now in.
Don’t blame the technology. Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s the people. And although it is true that online communications have now allowed freaky perverts to network around the world, it also allows those who seek to protect and nurture children and uplift culture to network as well.
Like I wrote at the start of this post - I like Dr. Laura. That's why I hate to see her lessen her credibility with a growing number of people who now use sites like MySpace the way people were using ISP-provided websites ten years ago. She needs to promote the cautious and positive use of technology, not the broadbrush dismissal of it.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Mo'Nique Takes F'At Women to Fr'Ance
Janice Rhoshalle Littlejohn of the Associated Press brings a story given this headline:
Women who move more and eat less attract men who can afford to take them to Paris.
I have yet to meet anyone who has lost weight, aside from those who lose too much weight because of a disease, who has said “I wish I was still fat!” I felt better when I was thinner. I do not say my extra weight is okay. I want to be thing again. I do not hate myself, but I recognize that I need to develop and keep better eating habits. I recognize that my problem is compulsively eating more food than I need.
The fact is, it is more acceptable for a man to be fat than a woman. It isn’t any healthier, but women are more willing to tolerate it because women are attracted more to other qualities in men than physical beauty. Yes, most women like a hardbody, too, but things like security (money) trump that. Men, however, are visual creatures and if they aren’t turned on by their woman, then there is going to be dysfunction in the relationship. A man can’t simply reach for a tube of lubricant to help things along.
The women in this article would rather not go through the effort of losing weight and staying thin. So, they want to get as many other women falling into their way of living and thinking as possible, because that will take away that advantage in the competition for men, jobs, etc.
Are fat women treated differently? They sure area. Poor men are treated differently from other men, too. That’s life. Can a fat woman be attractive? Yes, just like a poor man can be attractive. All other things being equal, though, most men prefer the lady who isn't obese, just like all other things being equal, most women prefer the man who earns more.
Mo'Nique takes `F.A.T.' women to FranceUhm, this is America. You’re not allowed to put apostrophes in your name if you want to be taken seriously. If you are Irish or Italian or whatever, your surname may have retained one from the old country. But enough with these made-up names with numbers and punctuation and lower case letters where capitals should be.
Looking like a plus-sized black Barbie in a green polka-dot sundress, her hair in a playful flip, the 39-year-old actress-comedian is quickly engulfed by her "fat girls." She embraces them, trying not to muss her makeup with her own tears.There’s a reason why they have a separate competition.
"I always think I'm going to do fine when I get to this point, but I know your tears," she tells them, each a finalist in the third year of her big-girl beauty competition, "Mo'Nique's F.A.T. Chance" — as in "Fabulous And Thick."
Of them, five were chosen to strut their stuff in glamorous gowns on a runway at the Le Grand Hotel in Paris in a weeklong adventure airing 8 p.m. Saturday.
Women who move more and eat less attract men who can afford to take them to Paris.
"We wanted to go beyond the beauty pageant," Mo'Nique says, kicking off her high-heeled sandals during a taping break. "We also wanted to create runway fashion shows, to give fat girls the option of saying, `Yeah, we've got this, too!' It's about taking the show to the next level."You’ve got it, alright. Most straight men don’t want to see it.
He adds that the show encourages women to exercise and eat healthy. "It's a very positive message, and I think the reason it's gotten a big audience is that it does speak to all of us."It’s gotten a big audience, alright.
And on television, there's a "huge distinction between Mo'Nique's show, which is celebrating fat beauty, and other shows on television which promote weight loss and reinforce prejudice," says "FAT!SO?" author Marilyn Wann, San Francisco-based board member of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance.Great. You can hold mixers for your female members with groups of men who are poor and unmotivated to change that, and demand that people simply accept that they are poor.
I have yet to meet anyone who has lost weight, aside from those who lose too much weight because of a disease, who has said “I wish I was still fat!” I felt better when I was thinner. I do not say my extra weight is okay. I want to be thing again. I do not hate myself, but I recognize that I need to develop and keep better eating habits. I recognize that my problem is compulsively eating more food than I need.
The fact is, it is more acceptable for a man to be fat than a woman. It isn’t any healthier, but women are more willing to tolerate it because women are attracted more to other qualities in men than physical beauty. Yes, most women like a hardbody, too, but things like security (money) trump that. Men, however, are visual creatures and if they aren’t turned on by their woman, then there is going to be dysfunction in the relationship. A man can’t simply reach for a tube of lubricant to help things along.
The women in this article would rather not go through the effort of losing weight and staying thin. So, they want to get as many other women falling into their way of living and thinking as possible, because that will take away that advantage in the competition for men, jobs, etc.
Are fat women treated differently? They sure area. Poor men are treated differently from other men, too. That’s life. Can a fat woman be attractive? Yes, just like a poor man can be attractive. All other things being equal, though, most men prefer the lady who isn't obese, just like all other things being equal, most women prefer the man who earns more.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
A Bad Hour of Leykis
I listen to a lot of talk radio. One of the hosts I listen to often is Tom Leykis. As he tells you at the start of each hour, he’s not a right-winger. I gather from listening to him that he leans mostly towards libertarianism. But I digress, because his show isn’t about party politics. I listen enough that I can probably be categorized as a “fan”, though I’m certainly not a “student” (fans will know what this means). If there are any fans reading this, I think Tom usually does an outstanding job as a radio talk show host and is very entertaining. He makes a lot of good points. His lines of reasoning are usually very logical. I do, however, disagree with him on some important things, because we have some very different starting points in our outlook on life.
Tom is apparently on yet another vacation this week. It seems that some radio hosts get a lot of vacation. Yesterday, I heard a repeated hour on his show in which Tom solicited calls from married persons who had homosexual feelings that their spouse didn’t know about.
One exchange with a caller stood out in my mind. Tom must not have had many callers on the topic, because he kept this woman in the air for a long time, haranguing her for her decisions, in between his characteristic long...
pointless...
pauses...
that someone turning the dial could easily mistake for dead air. Later that same hour, Tom got punked by a Phil Hendrie listener who called in as Doug Danger. Tom kept him on the air for a long time, too. So, my guess is that there weren’t a lot of people calling in to say they were closeted even to their spouse.
But back to the exchange with this woman. She called in claiming to be a 25-year-old Mormon who was married (of course) with two kids. She said her husband was a great husband and father. She claimed that she finds some women hot in a lustful way.
Since Tom is an individualist narcissist atheist, and nothing is more important in life than his orgasms, he insisted that she "must" be "honest" with herself and to truly be intimate with her husband, she had to tell him and, by implication, break up the family and leave it. Yes, every once in a while on the Leykis show you get marriage and relationship advice from a man who has been divorced four times and swears off marriage and encourages people to live alone and only do what they really want to do. Yeah, he knows how to get along with others on a deep level.
His advice to men who are looking for cheap, casual sex? Practical and effective. His advice here? Not so much.
This woman chose to get married. She made vows her and her husband and their families consider sacred. She chose to make two children with her husband. She has certain obligations to keep. Yet Leykis encouraged her to break her vows, break up her family, go against her religious beliefs and church, and hurt her husband and children, because she has lustful thoughts about women.
The assertion that she HAS to act on her feelings is absurd.
First of all, sexual encounters involve another consenting adult, and who is to say the women she is attracted to would reciprocate and act on it with her? People deal with their feelings without acting on them all of the time. There are married people who, at one time or another, feel like leaving their spouses. Later on, they are glad that they didn’t. There are recovering alcoholics who do not act on their feelings of wanting a drink. There are plenty of straight men who want to make passes at every somewhat attractive woman they see, but they don’t because they save sex for marriage or don’t want to get fired from their jobs. Some people are attracted to slightly underage teens… do they have to act on those feelings? There are people who feel like sleeping in all day every day instead of going to work, or punching out talk show hosts, or robbing a bank, or spending money they don’t have, or always eating more food than they need. There are people who decide to go kosher who still feel like eating bacon.
It sounded like she was doing a good job of dealing with her feelings, but Tom insisted that having the thoughts in the first place meant she HAD to act.
I disagree.
She was restricting herself to sex with her husband when she felt more like interacting with women. There are people who want sex to don’t have sex at all, or for long stretches of time. I have yet to see a headline that says “Woman Dies From Lack of Sex.”
As far as urging her to tell her husband – why? How would that help anything? All it would do is bring trouble. There are things you should not tell your spouse. Most of them are completely irrelevant to you relationship. I mean, do you describe every bowel movement you have to your spouse? Do you describe every sexual encounter you ever had with someone else before you met your spouse? Why not, if you really want to be open and honest with them?
The woman kept citing her deeply held Mormon faith as the basis for her decisions. Tom’s response? “You don’t have to be a Mormon.” While true, it is an answer from Tom’s dismissive attitude towards religion in general. It was said by Tom as if she woke up one day and said, "Hmmm, I could go to McDonald's today - or - I could join the LDS church." Some people have carefully and thoughtfully explored and pondered their choices in religion, and have committed to an organized one. I know that is hard for some people - like Leykis - to fathom. Not all religious people are mindless zombies who stick with a religion because they were born to parents who practiced it. She would lose a lot of she left the LDS church - probably including family and friends.
Don’t think I support the LDS church. The church is pseudo-Christian, false, and a cult from both a theological and sociological perspective. But because it is a very large cult, leaving it is very, very difficult. And I know that marriage is everything in the LDS church.
While this woman should have never have gotten married if she was primarily attracted to women and cared more about that than having children, what’s done is done. She apparently functions well with her husband, and she is giving her children both a mother and a father. She made decisions and vows, and should stick to them, and not let some radio entertainer who esteems casual sex over relationships and marriage sway her to do something she and many other people will regret.
Tom is apparently on yet another vacation this week. It seems that some radio hosts get a lot of vacation. Yesterday, I heard a repeated hour on his show in which Tom solicited calls from married persons who had homosexual feelings that their spouse didn’t know about.
One exchange with a caller stood out in my mind. Tom must not have had many callers on the topic, because he kept this woman in the air for a long time, haranguing her for her decisions, in between his characteristic long...
pointless...
pauses...
that someone turning the dial could easily mistake for dead air. Later that same hour, Tom got punked by a Phil Hendrie listener who called in as Doug Danger. Tom kept him on the air for a long time, too. So, my guess is that there weren’t a lot of people calling in to say they were closeted even to their spouse.
But back to the exchange with this woman. She called in claiming to be a 25-year-old Mormon who was married (of course) with two kids. She said her husband was a great husband and father. She claimed that she finds some women hot in a lustful way.
Since Tom is an individualist narcissist atheist, and nothing is more important in life than his orgasms, he insisted that she "must" be "honest" with herself and to truly be intimate with her husband, she had to tell him and, by implication, break up the family and leave it. Yes, every once in a while on the Leykis show you get marriage and relationship advice from a man who has been divorced four times and swears off marriage and encourages people to live alone and only do what they really want to do. Yeah, he knows how to get along with others on a deep level.
His advice to men who are looking for cheap, casual sex? Practical and effective. His advice here? Not so much.
This woman chose to get married. She made vows her and her husband and their families consider sacred. She chose to make two children with her husband. She has certain obligations to keep. Yet Leykis encouraged her to break her vows, break up her family, go against her religious beliefs and church, and hurt her husband and children, because she has lustful thoughts about women.
The assertion that she HAS to act on her feelings is absurd.
First of all, sexual encounters involve another consenting adult, and who is to say the women she is attracted to would reciprocate and act on it with her? People deal with their feelings without acting on them all of the time. There are married people who, at one time or another, feel like leaving their spouses. Later on, they are glad that they didn’t. There are recovering alcoholics who do not act on their feelings of wanting a drink. There are plenty of straight men who want to make passes at every somewhat attractive woman they see, but they don’t because they save sex for marriage or don’t want to get fired from their jobs. Some people are attracted to slightly underage teens… do they have to act on those feelings? There are people who feel like sleeping in all day every day instead of going to work, or punching out talk show hosts, or robbing a bank, or spending money they don’t have, or always eating more food than they need. There are people who decide to go kosher who still feel like eating bacon.
It sounded like she was doing a good job of dealing with her feelings, but Tom insisted that having the thoughts in the first place meant she HAD to act.
I disagree.
She was restricting herself to sex with her husband when she felt more like interacting with women. There are people who want sex to don’t have sex at all, or for long stretches of time. I have yet to see a headline that says “Woman Dies From Lack of Sex.”
As far as urging her to tell her husband – why? How would that help anything? All it would do is bring trouble. There are things you should not tell your spouse. Most of them are completely irrelevant to you relationship. I mean, do you describe every bowel movement you have to your spouse? Do you describe every sexual encounter you ever had with someone else before you met your spouse? Why not, if you really want to be open and honest with them?
The woman kept citing her deeply held Mormon faith as the basis for her decisions. Tom’s response? “You don’t have to be a Mormon.” While true, it is an answer from Tom’s dismissive attitude towards religion in general. It was said by Tom as if she woke up one day and said, "Hmmm, I could go to McDonald's today - or - I could join the LDS church." Some people have carefully and thoughtfully explored and pondered their choices in religion, and have committed to an organized one. I know that is hard for some people - like Leykis - to fathom. Not all religious people are mindless zombies who stick with a religion because they were born to parents who practiced it. She would lose a lot of she left the LDS church - probably including family and friends.
Don’t think I support the LDS church. The church is pseudo-Christian, false, and a cult from both a theological and sociological perspective. But because it is a very large cult, leaving it is very, very difficult. And I know that marriage is everything in the LDS church.
While this woman should have never have gotten married if she was primarily attracted to women and cared more about that than having children, what’s done is done. She apparently functions well with her husband, and she is giving her children both a mother and a father. She made decisions and vows, and should stick to them, and not let some radio entertainer who esteems casual sex over relationships and marriage sway her to do something she and many other people will regret.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Baca Has a Good Idea, But Wackos Want to Pamper Criminals
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca wants to deal with jail overcrowding by having some of less risky prisoners placed on home detention.
But get this - some activists are worried that the prisoners on home detention won't have tax-funded health care and housing!
From Patrick McGreevy's Los Angeles Times piece:
Seriously, we need a truly rehabilitative system for people who can be reformed, and restorative justice wherever possible. Quite often, a criminal's crimes are against specific people, not faceless "society". They should have to work for their victims to pay off their debt to them as much as possible.
But get this - some activists are worried that the prisoners on home detention won't have tax-funded health care and housing!
From Patrick McGreevy's Los Angeles Times piece:
Some opponents of the legislation winding its way through the Legislature are not fighting it on the law-and-order grounds raised in the Hilton case.You mean like us law-abiding folks?
Instead, they say the county has already made it difficult for inmates to get medical care and psychiatric services in the jails, and the new program will make it even harder.
"This bill may allow jails to place individuals who need critical medical or psychiatric care in home detention without identified services or funding to pay for these services," said Margaret Jakobson-Johnson of Protection and Advocacy Inc., a nonprofit group providing legal help and advocacy for the disabled.
[snip]
However, poor inmates may be left on their own entirely if put on home detention, Jakobson-Johnson said.
In addition, she is concerned that some of those on home detention will lack stable housing. "Release on home detention without housing, or a clear plan to find housing quickly, may do more harm to an individual," she said.Convicted inmates serving sentences should be performing work - preferably on behalf of their victims.
The proposed legislation would allow those assigned to home detention to receive vocational and housing assistance and to leave home for psychological and medical care, said state Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), a coauthor of the bill. He said the county does not give up its obligation to provide inmates with healthcare just because they are assigned to home detention.
He disputed Jakobson-Johnson's criticism that home detainees would be less likely to get the care they need than those behind bars.
"That argument doesn't make sense," Runner said. "What's happening now is these people are being released after a few days and sent home, or are not serving any time in jail. In those circumstances, they are not getting any care anyway."
Los Angeles County is under a court order to end overcrowding, so some inmates are released after serving only 25% of their time, a practice that will probably be modified if Baca wins the new powers.Hmmmmm, now why would Los Angeles County have jail overcrowding? Oh. That's right. How many illegal aliens are in there?
The bill would save counties money. It costs L.A. County an average of $10 a day for a prisoner on home detention, compared with $70 daily to keep the inmate in jail, Bilowit said.The main drawback I could see to this is that for some people, home confinement is hardly punishment. Some people who aren't criminals voluntarily confine themselves to their homes. In the spirit of those concerned about the health care and housing for inmates placed on home confinement, we should make sure the home has all of the modern appliances, conveniences, and utilities, too. Why shouldn't my taxes to go make sure some criminal can watch HD cable television at home?
Seriously, we need a truly rehabilitative system for people who can be reformed, and restorative justice wherever possible. Quite often, a criminal's crimes are against specific people, not faceless "society". They should have to work for their victims to pay off their debt to them as much as possible.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Not Every Couple Should Stay Together and Get Married
Yet another example of people not right for each other making stupid mistakes:
Sounds romantic.
Can you say annulment?
A Scottish bride attacked her new husband with her stiletto shoe, striking the groom in the head in an upstairs hotel room while their wedding reception went on below, a prosecutor said Tuesday.
Teresa Brown, 33, told police she and her husband had "been accusing each other of different things," prosecutor Alan Townsend said. Brown said she hit him on the head after their April wedding because he grabbed her, Townsend added.
Sounds romantic.
The distraught groom, Mark Allerton, 40, staggered to the front desk, clutching a bloody towel to his head, Townsend said.
"He indicated that his wife had struck him over the head with a stiletto heel," the prosecutor said.
Police found Brown sitting on the hotel room bed, surrounded by broken glass. She spent the rest of her wedding weekend in a cell.
Can you say annulment?
Brown's lawyer Stuart Beveridge said the newlyweds began throwing things at each other after an argument in their room turned physical. He said Brown was on antidepressants at the time and had been drinking.RED FLAG.
"She and her husband are still together although this incident has not helped," he said, adding she is receiving counseling.
Sheriff James Tierney dropped the assault charge against Brown by issuing a warning and fining her $505 for damaging the hotel room. He also ordered her to pay the hotel $1,150 in compensation.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Let’s Use Graffiti Vandals For Target Practice
Enough is enough. We as a society have tried and tried to control the graffiti problem. In the greater Los Angeles area, it is an ongoing and seemingly increasing problem. The illegal alien problem and the illegitimacy problem are no doubt helping to make it worse.
So many steps have been taken – locking up paint and markers, graffiti hotlines, painting over graffiti within and few business days. Still, it is there. Vandals defacing and destroying property just to mark their territories like dogs. Only, dogs are more admirable.
Graffiti lowers property values, creates a hostile environment, is ecologically harmful, destroys property, costs a lot of fight, clean up, and prosecute, and assists with gang activity.
The time has come to fight graffiti by allowing the police and the average citizen to shoot graffiti vandals if they witness them doing the deed. How quickly would it cut down on graffiti if a homeowner group could hire someone to drive around in a Humvee overnight, armed and ready to shoot any graffiti vandals? Or if the cops could slow down just enough to point a rifle out the cruiser window and shoot up some punk and radio for an ambulance as they keep driving down the street? Sure, some graffiti vandals would arm themselves to fight back, but I think most would quickly realize that putting their unreadable scribble on a brick wall isn’t worth the likelihood (not low probability… likelihood) of getting shot.
Sure, there would be the risk of people dumping their murder victims by a wall and planting a spray can in their hand as a way to cover up their crime, but I think the investigations into those attempted cover-ups would be worth it.
So many steps have been taken – locking up paint and markers, graffiti hotlines, painting over graffiti within and few business days. Still, it is there. Vandals defacing and destroying property just to mark their territories like dogs. Only, dogs are more admirable.
Graffiti lowers property values, creates a hostile environment, is ecologically harmful, destroys property, costs a lot of fight, clean up, and prosecute, and assists with gang activity.
The time has come to fight graffiti by allowing the police and the average citizen to shoot graffiti vandals if they witness them doing the deed. How quickly would it cut down on graffiti if a homeowner group could hire someone to drive around in a Humvee overnight, armed and ready to shoot any graffiti vandals? Or if the cops could slow down just enough to point a rifle out the cruiser window and shoot up some punk and radio for an ambulance as they keep driving down the street? Sure, some graffiti vandals would arm themselves to fight back, but I think most would quickly realize that putting their unreadable scribble on a brick wall isn’t worth the likelihood (not low probability… likelihood) of getting shot.
Sure, there would be the risk of people dumping their murder victims by a wall and planting a spray can in their hand as a way to cover up their crime, but I think the investigations into those attempted cover-ups would be worth it.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Stop Whining About EHarmony.com
A clinical psychologist spends decades counseling both-sex couples and learning why relationships fail and why they last, and what makes happy marriages happy. He figures out how to determine if a man and woman are compatible with each other in ways that will likely result in a happy, lasting relationship. He wants to increase marital happiness, reduce the divorce rate, and thereby help individuals, their children, their extended families, and thereby society as a whole.
He sees a business opportunity, and he takes what he has learned and modern day technology and launches EHarmony.com. Good for him, right?
It is a voluntary service that people have to log on to and pay to use. Nobody is obligated to use it, and there are many alternative online and offline services.
Yet this hasn’t stopped people from complaining and suing. The complaints and lawsuits are usually about what eHarmony.com isn’t, which is funny because it doesn’t claim to be those things in the first place.
It is a site dedicated to matching people based on their likelihood of entering into and maintaining happy, lasting marriages. It isn’t a “dating” site.
To determine if people are ready for such a relationship and with whom they’d be compatible, eHarmony has people fill answer an extensive list of questions to form and deliver a personality profile. The length and depth of the questioning is set up to smoke out people aren’t really serious or patient enough, may not know themselves well enough, may be misrepresenting themselves (intentionally or not), aren’t mature enough, or have some other emotional condition or character trait that renders them unlikely to be a good marriage partner. EHarmony does not take money from those people, because the people running the service do not think they will be able to successfully help those people find a lasting relationship. Such applicants are told that the site would be unlikely to find them partner. EHarmony also “rejects” people who are currently married, are “too young”, or have been divorced enough times to make another divorce likely.
There are people who are paranoid enough to believe that eHarmony “rejected” them because of their beliefs about religion or their weight, but there are at least thousands of eHarmony.com customers who can demonstrate that not to be true.
I find it curious when people balk at the results of the personality profile, get angry when eHarmony won’t take their money, or complain that they are consistently matched with losers. All of these things are a result of what someone has indicated about themselves. They only have themselves to blame.
Perhaps the most bitter attack against eHarmony.com is that it currently will only match people with someone from the other sex. A lawsuit was filed in California by a woman who was seeking to be matched with a woman. It is true that there are many, many services that already do this. However, none of them are based on the research and experience of Dr. Neil Clark Warren. Apparently, activists such as the one who filed this lawsuit really admire Dr. Warren’s matching abilities, which is interesting considering they usually are quick to bash his convictions as an evangelical Christian and his earlier ties to Focus on the Family. It seems these activists want it both ways – they want to benefit from Warren’s research while condemning the principles behind it.
Thanks to the Federal civil rights laws, businesses do not have the freedom to refuse to exchange goods/services/money with another party simply based on factors like race. You could have started the business with your own personal savings, built it from the ground up, etc., but you don’t have the freedom to choose to only serve certain races and exclude others. (And yes, this supposedly means that if you are “white” and a “black” business refuses to serve you because you are white, you can sue them.) In California, “sexual orientation” is one of those categories where it is illegal to discriminate. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he or she is a homosexual.
That is the law. I’d argue that everyone should have the freedom to hire, fire, and do business or not with whomever they want for whatever reason. If a woman only wants to work with women, she should be allowed to hire only women. If she only wants women as customers, she should be allowed to make that restriction. If she doesn’t want my money because I’m male, then she loses out when I take my money elsewhere. But, we must deal with the laws as they are, not as we want them to be.
I’d argue that eHarmony is not refusing service to anyone based on their sexual orientation. Any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, can take the personality profile and be matched with men – provided she isn’t excluded for the things I mentioned above, like being divorced too many times. If you’re a woman and you don’t want to be matched with a man, then eHarmony is not for you. I wouldn’t go to the Olive Garden and demand that they serve me Mexican food, or sell me footballs. You may not want to be matched with a man, but why is that eHarmony.com's responsibility? It is a voluntary subscription for a non-essential service.
Dr. Warren has pointed out that his decades of research has been with both-sex couples, and so he doesn’t have the experience to match up men with men and women with women. The critics have balked at this, howling and shrieking at his assertion that there could be any difference in the dynamic within the sexes and the dynamic between the sexes. I find this puzzling, because almost none of these critics are bisexual, so clearly they know there is a difference. Men and women are different, and that makes the dynamic between them different than it is between two men and two women. If this wasn’t true, then gay people could easily choose to be straight.
The lesbian can’t have it both ways. Either men and women are different and she is attracted to women and not to men, or there is no difference and therefore she should be attracted to both, and thereby eHarmony matching her with a man should not be a problem for her. But there is a difference, and eHarmony.com’s matching criteria is based on the dynamic between a man and a woman, and thus wouldn’t work it matching a man with a man or a woman with a woman.
Some people assert that the only difference is in body parts, but this doesn’t past muster, either. Is a lesbian really a lesbian only because she prefers vaginas to penises? Such an assertion is ridiculously simplistic, especially considering the use of phallic toys by some lesbians.
Rather than cursing the darkness, why not light a candle? Counselors and psychologists who specialize in counseling same-sex couples should build up, collect, and analyze research about such couples who have happily lasted, and figure out what has made their relationship work. Then, they can take that research, and start their own service. Maybe eHarmony.com would be willing to license its technologies to such a business or launch the service itself. Or is the lawsuit really just about trying to tear down a business because they’re selling chicken when you’re in the mood for tuna?
EHarmony.com has been successful enough that other matchmaking and dating sites compare and contrast themselves to eHarmony. Match.com’s Chemistry.com has gone so far as to appeal to the “rejects” from eHarmony. Great. Go to Chemistry.com if want someone who is already married, or has been divorced a few times already, or is too young or immature to get married, or has some other challenge to having a happy marriage with you. Sounds appealing, doesn’t it?
Finally, there are the people who simply don’t like the eHarmony.com ads with their happy couples and Dr. Warren. I don’t know - maybe they are lonely and bitter, or maybe they’d rather see a teen pitchman with a bunch of piercings, tats, and a rap sheet. People are entitled to their own tastes. The problem comes when they assert that everyone else has to cater to them and think like them and have the same exact experiences as them.
EHarmony.com is for people who want to find someone to marry - and in almost all of the world, that means someone of the opposite sex. There’s no guarantee you are ready for marriage, or that there’s someone out there who meets your needs/standards. Get over it. EHarmony.com has worked for a lot of people. If it doesn’t work for you, move on and stop wasting your time and energy with whining and consipiracy theories.
Oh, and if that lawsuit against eHarmony.com is succesful, they I'll sue any OB/GYN who refuses to examine my testicles.
He sees a business opportunity, and he takes what he has learned and modern day technology and launches EHarmony.com. Good for him, right?
It is a voluntary service that people have to log on to and pay to use. Nobody is obligated to use it, and there are many alternative online and offline services.
Yet this hasn’t stopped people from complaining and suing. The complaints and lawsuits are usually about what eHarmony.com isn’t, which is funny because it doesn’t claim to be those things in the first place.
It is a site dedicated to matching people based on their likelihood of entering into and maintaining happy, lasting marriages. It isn’t a “dating” site.
To determine if people are ready for such a relationship and with whom they’d be compatible, eHarmony has people fill answer an extensive list of questions to form and deliver a personality profile. The length and depth of the questioning is set up to smoke out people aren’t really serious or patient enough, may not know themselves well enough, may be misrepresenting themselves (intentionally or not), aren’t mature enough, or have some other emotional condition or character trait that renders them unlikely to be a good marriage partner. EHarmony does not take money from those people, because the people running the service do not think they will be able to successfully help those people find a lasting relationship. Such applicants are told that the site would be unlikely to find them partner. EHarmony also “rejects” people who are currently married, are “too young”, or have been divorced enough times to make another divorce likely.
There are people who are paranoid enough to believe that eHarmony “rejected” them because of their beliefs about religion or their weight, but there are at least thousands of eHarmony.com customers who can demonstrate that not to be true.
I find it curious when people balk at the results of the personality profile, get angry when eHarmony won’t take their money, or complain that they are consistently matched with losers. All of these things are a result of what someone has indicated about themselves. They only have themselves to blame.
Perhaps the most bitter attack against eHarmony.com is that it currently will only match people with someone from the other sex. A lawsuit was filed in California by a woman who was seeking to be matched with a woman. It is true that there are many, many services that already do this. However, none of them are based on the research and experience of Dr. Neil Clark Warren. Apparently, activists such as the one who filed this lawsuit really admire Dr. Warren’s matching abilities, which is interesting considering they usually are quick to bash his convictions as an evangelical Christian and his earlier ties to Focus on the Family. It seems these activists want it both ways – they want to benefit from Warren’s research while condemning the principles behind it.
Thanks to the Federal civil rights laws, businesses do not have the freedom to refuse to exchange goods/services/money with another party simply based on factors like race. You could have started the business with your own personal savings, built it from the ground up, etc., but you don’t have the freedom to choose to only serve certain races and exclude others. (And yes, this supposedly means that if you are “white” and a “black” business refuses to serve you because you are white, you can sue them.) In California, “sexual orientation” is one of those categories where it is illegal to discriminate. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he or she is a homosexual.
That is the law. I’d argue that everyone should have the freedom to hire, fire, and do business or not with whomever they want for whatever reason. If a woman only wants to work with women, she should be allowed to hire only women. If she only wants women as customers, she should be allowed to make that restriction. If she doesn’t want my money because I’m male, then she loses out when I take my money elsewhere. But, we must deal with the laws as they are, not as we want them to be.
I’d argue that eHarmony is not refusing service to anyone based on their sexual orientation. Any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, can take the personality profile and be matched with men – provided she isn’t excluded for the things I mentioned above, like being divorced too many times. If you’re a woman and you don’t want to be matched with a man, then eHarmony is not for you. I wouldn’t go to the Olive Garden and demand that they serve me Mexican food, or sell me footballs. You may not want to be matched with a man, but why is that eHarmony.com's responsibility? It is a voluntary subscription for a non-essential service.
Dr. Warren has pointed out that his decades of research has been with both-sex couples, and so he doesn’t have the experience to match up men with men and women with women. The critics have balked at this, howling and shrieking at his assertion that there could be any difference in the dynamic within the sexes and the dynamic between the sexes. I find this puzzling, because almost none of these critics are bisexual, so clearly they know there is a difference. Men and women are different, and that makes the dynamic between them different than it is between two men and two women. If this wasn’t true, then gay people could easily choose to be straight.
The lesbian can’t have it both ways. Either men and women are different and she is attracted to women and not to men, or there is no difference and therefore she should be attracted to both, and thereby eHarmony matching her with a man should not be a problem for her. But there is a difference, and eHarmony.com’s matching criteria is based on the dynamic between a man and a woman, and thus wouldn’t work it matching a man with a man or a woman with a woman.
Some people assert that the only difference is in body parts, but this doesn’t past muster, either. Is a lesbian really a lesbian only because she prefers vaginas to penises? Such an assertion is ridiculously simplistic, especially considering the use of phallic toys by some lesbians.
Rather than cursing the darkness, why not light a candle? Counselors and psychologists who specialize in counseling same-sex couples should build up, collect, and analyze research about such couples who have happily lasted, and figure out what has made their relationship work. Then, they can take that research, and start their own service. Maybe eHarmony.com would be willing to license its technologies to such a business or launch the service itself. Or is the lawsuit really just about trying to tear down a business because they’re selling chicken when you’re in the mood for tuna?
EHarmony.com has been successful enough that other matchmaking and dating sites compare and contrast themselves to eHarmony. Match.com’s Chemistry.com has gone so far as to appeal to the “rejects” from eHarmony. Great. Go to Chemistry.com if want someone who is already married, or has been divorced a few times already, or is too young or immature to get married, or has some other challenge to having a happy marriage with you. Sounds appealing, doesn’t it?
Finally, there are the people who simply don’t like the eHarmony.com ads with their happy couples and Dr. Warren. I don’t know - maybe they are lonely and bitter, or maybe they’d rather see a teen pitchman with a bunch of piercings, tats, and a rap sheet. People are entitled to their own tastes. The problem comes when they assert that everyone else has to cater to them and think like them and have the same exact experiences as them.
EHarmony.com is for people who want to find someone to marry - and in almost all of the world, that means someone of the opposite sex. There’s no guarantee you are ready for marriage, or that there’s someone out there who meets your needs/standards. Get over it. EHarmony.com has worked for a lot of people. If it doesn’t work for you, move on and stop wasting your time and energy with whining and consipiracy theories.
Oh, and if that lawsuit against eHarmony.com is succesful, they I'll sue any OB/GYN who refuses to examine my testicles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)