Black Female Athletes

As far as black female athletes go, how many can you name?

I mean asides from Venus Williams and Serena Williams. That is it. I could only name two.

When I asked a Haitian Canadian woman she listed Flo Jo, the runner - aka Florence Griffith Joyner - who died in 1998. She was able to name 3 (she also listed Venus and Serena).

And that is the thing.

When it comes to female athletes - and especially black female athletes, their names are often left out of our pop culture memories.

I mean there are a lot of black female athletes out there. Including athletes in disciplines not commonly done by African-Americans. Like gymnasts like American gymnast Gabrielle Douglas.

Or Mabel Fairbanks, an African American figure skater. Same goes with Debi Thomas, Surya Bonaly, and Tiffani Tucker.

And doubtless many others deserving of praise, but for whatever reason not recognized by mainstream media - which largely focuses on athletes that are white and male. I am not saying the media is racist or sexist, but they're definitely profit driven and have a very narrow view of what is profitable.

Truth be told I think all sports broadcasting is profitable. The people in charge just haven't realized that it doesn't matter whether we watch male hockey or female hockey, Canadians will watch anything with hockey in it.

Same goes with football. Americans would watch anything with football in it - including women's football.

The same could likely be said for Italians and soccer - because they're crazy about soccer in Italy.

So if you have difficulty naming female athletes, whose fault is that? The athletes? Or the broadcasters who don't think it will be profitable to sell a product people are willing to buy?

If we televised women's hockey, women's archery, women's boxing - I would watch those matches! And I can tell you right now I would not be alone in my thirst to watch women's sporting events.

Superbowl Commercials at Work

ENTERTAINMENT - Seriously, don't actually watch these at work. You could be fired for the "gratuitous skin" that is typical of Superbowl commercials. Amusing though they are, its not recommended.

















All commercials aside, nothing beats the amount of skin shown in Benny Benassi's music video "Satisfaction".

Arnold being lifted by Andre the Giant and Wilt Chamberlain

Arnold being lifted by Andre the Giant and Wilt Chamberlain

I just like this photo. It is awesome on so many levels.

Kick Mickey in the balls

To any women out there who want to learn some basic self defense here is a hot tip.

Kick Mickey in the balls.

If a little girl can do it then so can you. I call that a crime deterrent.

Have a nice day!

Saying Sorry at Work

SEX - When it comes to saying sorry most men don't do it unless they actually think they've done something wrong.

And now we have scientific proof of what goes on inside a man's brain.

Researchers at the University of Waterloo have finally determined why your husband or boyfriend won’t apologize. It’s because men don’t think they've done anything wrong, whereas women think everything that everyone else does is untrustworthy or sketchy at best.

In the study by Waterloo psychologists Karina Schumann and Michael Ross they asked 66 people (33 women & 33 men) to keep track of how many times they apologized or said sorry for anything over a 12-day period.

What they discovered was that men and women both apologize about 80% of the time. And we're talking general apologies, like you bumped into them, stepped on their foot, etc... not necessarily the big traumatic apologies like "I'm sorry I got you pregnant five years ago!" or "I'm sorry I dropped the baby down the stairs and we had to take it to the hospital for surgery."

So men and women apologize equally as often... but the difference lies in the fact that women feel they apologized more often and felt that they caused more offence.

Men in contrast, even though they apologize just as often, felt they had caused less offence and that it wasn't that serious.

It should also be noted that both sexes apologized as graciously and just as effusively if they believed an apology was actually owed.

So there. The myth that men don't apologize has been busted. Men DO apologize just as often as women, but the difference is their perception about the seriousness of what they apologizing for.

Now we might chalk some of this down to the fragile male ego and why they don't think some things are that serious.

ie. Lets say a man and a woman are in the heat of the moment and he doesn't put on a condom until halfway through the sexual activity. The man later ejaculates into the safety of the condom, but in the morning the woman gets upset that they had unprotected sex. At the time she didn't fuss about it so he thought she wasn't that concerned about it. Turns out she was, so he apologizes, explaining that he didn't know it was such a big deal to her.

Now obviously a woman is going to take pregnancy a lot more seriously. Even the threat of it can send a woman into a panic (unless she wants kids).

In contrast the male response is "no harm done" and "what's the big deal?"

Perception is a tricky thing.

The Schumann & Ross study found that the "I'm Sorry" discrepancy was “heightened” when it comes to romantic partnerships. Women perceived many more offences from their boyfriend/husband, than their husband/boyfriend perceived from them. We might be able to draw the conclusion that women are more picky, but there's no proof of that. All we know is that women perceive the things men do as wrong and are more insistent that those perceived wrongs should be apologized for.

ie. When I was 18 I went out with a girl (Kristin Greniaus) and she cut the date short early on because apparently I didn't compliment her on her dress and her hair enough. Please note that I did compliment her, but apparently it wasn't enough of a compliment... Go figure. She had apparently put a lot of effort into her hair and the dress and even though I did compliment her she believed the compliment wasn't particularly special. (Personal Note: I sent Kristin a message on Facebook informing her of this blog post. I hope she doesn't mind me using her as an example. I've told this story to hundreds of people because it epitomizes the whole ridiculousness of relationships.)

The researchers give us the following advice:

“(T)hese discrepant perceptions might have unfortunate consequences for mixed-gender interactions.”

Which basically is code for men to apologize even when they don't think they've done anything wrong.

As fragile as male egos go, if you really want to maintain the cohesiveness of the relationship, its worth it to assuage the female's perception of a wrong by giving the apology even if you don't think its worth an apology.

HOWEVER!

Sometimes (and many men will attest to this fact) sometimes women demand an apology and don't tell men what they've done wrong... this apologize-or-else ultimatum is combined quite subtly (and is very childish) with the refusal to tell the man what they have done wrong.

"If you don't know what you've done wrong then maybe we should just break up."

Its one part silent treatment and one part ultimatum. (As proven in previous blog posts we've already determined that the silent treatment is a childish methodology which ultimately damages relationships and causes unnecessary stress. See Being Wishy Washy at Work.)

“Apologies go a long way in promoting forgiveness and relationship well-being,” says Schumann. “So if people think a partner isn’t apologizing for selfish reasons or they don’t want to admit they’re wrong, it really does make the initial offence worse.”

In other words the perceived wrong isn't the real issue here... its the perception that the male won't apologize, even if its a minor thing not worthy of an apology.

ie. The male forgets to take out the garbage + The male won’t apologize for forgetting = The male committed murder and must be punished.

So in other words males should just apologize all the time?

“Ummmm. Ahhhhh,” says Schumann. “Don’t put words in my mouth . . . If they find that their female partner is upset with them, they should inquire as to why, instead of brushing it off as the woman being overly emotional. They should also accept that their partner has a different experience of the event.”

So yeah... the basic concept is that you should listen carefully, apologize and hopefully the female will later realize it wasn't the male's fault in the first place.

So why does this happen?

It’s very scientific but here is the Coles notes version:

Women are emotional empaths and crave communication.

Men are hungry, sleepy or distracted and sometimes not in the mood for a big conversation.

Hopefully that wee bit of insight will help people in their relationships.

THE RULES at Work

SEX - The following is a list of relationship rules (which you may have seen on t-shirts in the late 1990s). The list is humourous and not meant to be taken seriously, but if you have a funny bone its worth a laugh. I should note there are different versions of The Rules floating around, but this is the version I've chosen to show here.

THE RULES

1. The female always makes the rules.

2. The rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification.

3. No male can possibly know all the rules.

4. If the female suspects the male knows all the rules, she must immediately change some or all of the rules.

5. The female is never wrong.

6. If the female is wrong, it is because of a flagrant misunderstanding which was a direct result of something the male did or said wrong.

7. If Rule 6 applies, the male must apologize immediately for causing the misunderstanding.

8. The female can change her mind at any given point in time.

9. The male must never change his mind without express written consent from the female.

10. The female has every right to be angry or upset at any time.

11. The male must remain calm at all times, unless the female wants him to be angry or upset.

12. The female must under no circumstances let the male know whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset.

13. Women have a better sense of direction than men. Accept it.

14. Shopping IS a spectator sport, and you are the lucky spectator. Accept this harsh reality, as will we when the roles reverse, say, at the local sporting goods store.

15. We already know what you are thinking. Sometimes we just need clarification.

16. Shorts and black socks with sandals is NOT sexy.

17. Towels dry faster when they are hung up on the towel rod, not crumpled on the floor.

18. Cut us some slack when we ask you questions about how sports, cars, etc. Consider it your civic duty to help us learn.

19. Finally, don't show us where the oil goes, or the washer fluid, or even how to fix a car. YOU DO IT. This is one of the many reasons we are with you.

20. When in doubt ask the woman. But don't expect a straight answer.

:)

Editor's Note: A man could dedicate his entire life to trying to understand women and never come close to fully understanding how they think (especially when hormones are involved)... in theory we would better success if we met a woman who is seeking to understand men and then we would need an honest and truthful debate about what's going in our brains.

Sometimes trying to get people onto the same mental wavelength is like two teams digging a tunnel under a river. In theory they'd meet in the middle, but only if they properly communicated which direction and angle they were digging both sides of the tunnel.

Its not a perfect system, but communication makes a big difference.

Beer Goggles at Work

ENTERTAINMENT/SEX - According to Professor Lewis Halsey and two colleagues from Roehampton University they've discovered that "Beer Goggles" doesn't just impair one's judgement, but also effects our sense of beauty.

The trio interviewed a long list of students visiting a local pub near the university and did a series of tests by showing them photos of people to see if they could tell the images had been altered to make them less symmetrical.

Symmetry is considered to be an important aspect of what makes a person beautiful. After dividing the people into two groups (drunk vs non-drunk) using a breathalyzer they determined that drunk people are unable to differentiate assymetry.



Thus "Beer Goggles" really does make people around you look more attractive, at least as far as your brain is concerned.

Tracking the results the researchers also discovered women are more prone to losing their sense of assymetry. Not because they get drunk easier, oh no, its because men pay more attention to appearance... or more precisely, men leer at women and are checking out their breasts/etc in detail.

In which case leering may actually be an evolutionary skill designed to pick out women which are more symmetrical and healthy looking. Whoddathunkit?

Breadwinning & Cheating at Work

SEX - According to new research was recently presented at the American Sociological Association...

Spouses that are financially dependent on their spouse are more likely to cheat, and this is the same regardless of whether they are male or female.

This flies in face of the belief (now proven false) that if someone is financially dependent they will be more faithful. This is actually the opposite. Feeling dependent on someone causes depression and people naturally end up looking for someone else to be their new soulmate, someone with whom they are on a more equal footing.

According to the report people often need an ego boost and an extramarital affair (a big secret) often feels like an ego boost (at least in the beginning). The report doesn't go into detail about what happens after the affair is over, whether the cheater ever confesses and what repercussions occur.

The report, titled "The Effect of Relative Income Disparity on Infidelity for Men and Women", is by Christin Munsch a sociology Ph.D. student at Cornell University and tracks 18 to 28 year old married or common-law couples who were together for more than a year. The report also takes into account and compensates for issues of age, education level, income, religious attendance and relationship satisfaction.

Apparently men are especially vulnerable to infidelity because they traditionally fit the role of breadwinner and when the wife or girlfriend makes more than they do it sparks feelings of inadequacy.

Measurement wise men who are 100% dependent on the women's income are 5 times more likely to cheat.

However this is another factor this report ignores... its called more free time = more time available to cheat. A wife who works 9 to 5 means the husband has plenty of time to cheat in the morning and afternoon.

The reverse is also true however... men who make significantly more than their female counterparts are also more likely to cheat.

The only time men aren't likely to cheat is when their partners make roughly the same or 75% of their incomes.



However this doesn't mean women should be discouraged from pursuing higher paying jobs and careers. If anything this discourages both men and women from chasing after the higher paying jobs because they are both more likely to cheat (and likewise their spouses are more likely to cheat) when there is a huge gap in their salaries.

The good news is that cheaters' wandering eyes stop wandering so much as they age. They might still be looking, but they're not acting on their sexual impulses as much as they did when they were younger.

On a personal note I believe a couple, any couple, should be obsessed with each other. They wouldn't even think of cheating because they are so utterly obsessed and in love with the other person.

Furthermore, it has to be mutual. You can't have one person obsessed with the other, doting on them, bestoying affection and romantic gestures all the time, because then the other person who isn't obsessed and in love feels like they're being smothered and begins to find all the attention annoying.

Its much better to be obsessed and lovey-dovey with each other, because at least then you're only annoying other people who have to endure the public displays of affection and not the ones you care about.

"If you marry a man who cheats on his wife, you'll be married to a man who cheats on his wife." - Ann Landers.

Disciplining Your Kids at Work

HEALTH - I've put this under "health" because frankly good discipline is a mental health issue, plus knowing how to properly discipline your children without hurting them is certainly a health matter too.

There is essentially 5 levels of how to discipline your children. Some of them are more controversial than others, and the bottom two are basically illegal.

1. Minimalist / Anti-Discipline

Some parents don't like to discipline their children. They basically let their children run wild and only attempt to discipline them when they do something really bad. The problem with these parents is they've adopted a pacifist approach to discipline, so their methodology is things like "no dessert", "go stand in the corner", "no TV", "no computer", "no phone or cellphone", etc. Another problem these parents face however is children who cry, whine and act up until they get what they want. Such parents have a strong tendency to flip flop and renege on their punishment... sometimes even REWARDING bad behaviour by later offering to buy the kid a new toy just to get them to stop crying.

2. Pro-Discipline

These parents are no nonsense when it comes to discipline. They punish their kids, ground them, take things/privileges away and they refuse to back down on the issue. Their results may vary depending on the parent and the methodology, but at least they're not being wishy-washing and then rewarding the kid for bad behaviour.

3. Pro-Spanking & Ear Tugging

Spanking or ear tugging your child is perfectly legal. The exact wording of local laws may vary (and this may not be allowed in certain European countries), but in North America all parents have the right to spank or tug the ears of their children when they misbehave. Brazil and several South American countries have also outlawed spanking. Spanking and ear-tugging causes no damage, only light bruising which fades very quickly. The biggest aspect of this form of punishment is that its more about humiliation and embarrassment. The child will be embarrassed by the spanking and will think twice before doing activities that might induce another embarrassment.

4. Legal Grey Zone

This could be anything really. "Cruel and unusual punishment" could for example be forcing the kid to apologize to all the neighbours they had wronged and atoning for their misdeeds. But it could also be forms of physical punishment / work which we normally don't think of... ie. Having to chop wood for the woodstove for 3 hours before being allowed to eat; 200+ pushups; etc... some of these get into areas which most people would consider to be abuse and parental neglect. Twisting a child's arm for example on purpose would be crossing the line.

5. Out Right Illegal

Beating up the child, starving them, forced isolation, serious physical harm and then covering up the injuries with stories of falling down the stairs, etc. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure out these are going overboard.

Conclusions: Now evidently options #2 and #3 are the best ones and parents might even use the "cruel and unusual punishment" part of #4 if the situation warrants an unusual punishment. ie. You probably won't spank your teenager, but you might confiscate their cellphone and cut off their internet for the whole summer when they're caught gambling online... combined with forcing them to help out at a homeless shelter until they realize the road gambling can sometimes lead to.

The end goal is not to enact revenge on your child, but to encourage them through positive and negative reinforcement that certain types of behaviour will not be tolerated especially as they get older. As parents we have a responsibility to discipline our children so they don't grow up and turn into psychos because of parental neglect. Children can get into all sorts of trouble if allowed to run amok, raising children who eventually as adults run amok is a sure sign that the parents failed in their duty to properly discipline their kids.

DISCLAIMER TO YUPPIES: You may think you're doing your child a favour by not disciplining them or "sparing the rod and spoiling the child", but in reality you are doing them and the rest of society a disservice by raising someone who will ultimately be spoiled rotten.

Ouch that hurts

SEX - Oh the pain, oh the pain!

Helen Gurley Brown at Work

FASHION/FEMINISM - Helen Gurley Brown became the editor of Cosmopolitan magazine in 1965 and quickly changed the magazine into one that was just for women (from 1886 to 1864 it had been a more family oriented magazine).

But that is not all she did. As a sexually liberated single woman Helen Gurley Brown also brought to the magazine her own manifesto of what she thought women should behave like. In a word, golddiggers.

In her best-selling book "Sex and the Single Girl" and 8 other books that followed Helen Gurley Brown perpetuated her belief that women could have it all, namely "love, sex, and money" by simply playing the role of a woman who attracts and snares men, and then controls them using sex in an effort to gain money and power.

And when you're done with them, men are disposable and easily replaced.

This obviously comes from a woman who wasn't worried about losing her good looks.

It should be noted that many notable feminists of the time, including Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer, did not support Gurley Brown's manifesto of controlling men through sex. Gurley Brown's concepts which focused on fashion, beauty, fame and using men for sex/money were arguably a step backwards in the women's liberation movement because it promoted the idea that women should behave like tramps and sluts, but only if they're getting a lot of money.

Helen Gurley Brown continued on as editor-in-chief until 1997. She is still alive currently.

But during her 32 years in control of one of the most influential women's magazines in the United States Helen Gurley Brown managed to sway quite a few young women (the Cosmo Girl / Sex and the City generation) to her cause.

While she did claim love was a factor in her philosophy (she married movie producer David Brown in 1959) they never had any children, instead enjoying the wealthy life with no kids to worry about... but lets just test Google and see how many hits for the word love comes up on cosmopolitan.com... 11,400

12,800 hits for the word "sex".

11,800 hits for the word "guy".

2,980 hits for the word "boyfriend".

681 hits for the word "husband".

So apparently husbands aren't high on the list of priorities. Guys are okay, but guys are disposable. And love is slightly less popular than sex. (The actual "love articles" are really more about "making love" than actual romantic love.

3,420 hits for the word "romance".

Heck, lets have some more fun with this...

6,860 hits for the word "hair".

6,570 hits for the word "fashion".

3,860 hits for the words "kama sutra".

501 hits for the word "cheating" (the top articles that came up were "How to Tell if a Guy Is Cheating", "Stop Him From Cheating" and "Is Cheating Always Wrong?").

478 hits for the words "paris hilton".

413 hits for the word "marriage".

So apparently Paris Hilton is moderately less important than husbands, and approx. 15% more popular than marriage. Yeah, I think we get the picture here.

Cosmopolitan... the magazine for slutty golddiggers who don't like marriage but are just marginally better than prostitutes because they pick and choose which rich guys they want to seduce. Its completely unrealistic too (men with good looks and wealth are hard to come by and if you do they are either a: already taken or b: likely to cheat). And women wonder why men get upset about such women and call them b*tches or worse.

You see men are sensitive creatures. We may not like to admit it, but we're very self-conscious about it. We want to be loved like any other human being... but when someone is used and abused by someone they thought (or hoped) might love them, the shock and pain of such betrayal is to be expected.

Yes, the modern Cosmo magazine has helped women feel more sexually liberated, we will give Helen Gurley Brown some of the credit for that. But at what cost? This concept of hunting rich men and then using them for their money is just plain ethically wrong.

If you want money go out and earn it like a regular person. Feminists didn't fight for equality so women could sponge off rich men. They wanted to stand on their own two feet. Gurley Brown's philosophy is a throw back to Parisian courtesans, which some people may romanticize, but in reality were closer to upper-class prostitutes.

Where is the love in using someone like that? Love in such a scenario becomes a tool, a weakness which the woman can exploit and use to her advantage.

If a man did such a thing women would be up in arms and asking for his head on a platter, but women who do it are being praised by Cosmopolitan... despite the fact that these scenarios usually end badly.

Remember Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton? Her affair with the president was more about his power than anything else. She wanted POWER over him and it blew up in her face (pun intended).

That is the Cosmo Girl in action. Such actions will always come back to haunt people.

Skinny Dipping and Nudity at Work

ENTERTAINMENT/HEALTH - I must say everytime I do a post with the words "at Work" at the end I have to wonder what people are thinking... Obviously I am not talking about skinny dipping and nudity at work work... I am amazed everyone reading the blog has managed to figure this out on their own. You'd think there'd be one dumbass out there who doesn't make the connection.

Anywho, back to the main dish: Skinny Dipping.

For people who love to swim, skinny dipping is often the ultimate experience of freedom in the water... as long as its not infested with piranhas or crocodiles. Whether you consider swimming a form of exercise or a competitive sport, skinny dipping itself is really more of a recreational activity.

Last week Vancouver tried to set a Guinness World Record by having the largest group of people skinny dipping together... they failed, but the participants enjoyed it.

If you decide to go skinny dipping, either alone or with a friend, there is some general rules of thumb you should follow:

#1. The 200 Meter Rule

If you have neighbours or people that might notice try to stay at a distance of 200 meters or more. They won't be able to see anything of importance at that distance unless they're using binoculars (in which case I don't think they mind).

#2. Avoid Mosquitoes

Skinny dipping during the height of mosquitoe season is very unwise. The best time of the year is August when most of the mosquitoes are gone.

#3. The Boat, Canoe or Dock Solution

One solution for people who are shy is to swim on the far side of a dock, boat or canoe so the neighbours can't see you. Other solutions are to wait for dusk, swim really early in the morning, behind a rock outcropping, etc.

#4. Know the Laws

The Canadian Criminal Code forbids being “so clad as to offend against public decency.” As long as you take steps not to offend people or are around consenting people, then its no big deal.

Meanwhile toplessness is completely legal in Canada, for both men and women. So if you can't find the courage to swim nude, you can always go topless instead.

See Also
The Top Topless Beaches

The Old Spice Guy at Work

FASHION - What woman (or man for that matter) doesn't like the Old Spice Guy in the following ads?











The last one is part of an Old Spice campaign on YouTube (there's hundreds of these small videos in response to twitter and Facebook comments) in an effort to create buzz. Frankly its working. Smart advertising = Good advertising.

Playboy and Profits at Work

SEX - Playboy Magazine, a hallmark of men's magazines since 1953 isn't just about busty young women with typical dimensions of 36-24-36, Patrick Nagel artwork or cartoons... its also about politically and socially motivated articles, thought provoking ones. When Hugh Hefner started the magazine in the 1950s he wanted to change the world, but he needed to lure men in so they would (hopefully) read the articles in addition to gazing wistfully at the photos within.

In 1971 Playboy went public, becoming a publicly trading company on the stock market. At the height of the magazine's popularity in 1972 they sold 7.2 million copies of one issue.

As Hugh Hefner got older (he is now 84) his control over the company dwindled and the editorial articles started to change their direction. In recent years this has begun to bother him and he now wants control of his company back.

Announced this week is a $123 million USD offer to buy back all A and B class shares at $5.50 each, a premium of 30% more than they're actually worth right now and values Playboy at $185 million USD total. (Hefner currently owns only 33% of the company.)

In recent years Playboy's profits have been down anyway, largely due to internet competition. After all why go through the embarrassment of buying a magazine and then telling people "I read it for the articles!" when you could get the same photographs and thought-provoking articles on the internet?

Thus Playboy Enterprises Inc. has been slashing jobs in recent years and combining units. Profits are so low the company has lost more than $200 million in the last 2 years and had to reduce the guaranteed number of copies they would sell (the rate base to advertisers) to 1.5 million from its previous 2.6 million.

From 1989 to 2009 it was Christie Hefner (daughter of the founder) who had been serving as the CEO. Last year she was replaced by Scott Flanders who wanted to turn the company more into a brand management company (selling the logos of Playboy Bunny and other icons to movies and other entertainment venues). While that would certainly help boost Playboy's popularity and their profit numbers, it is doubtful it would be enough.

During the first 3 months of 2010 sales dropped 48% and revenue dropped 30%. Scott Flanders was downsizing the company and the slashing of jobs meant cuts to the editorials too.

So will Playboy (which includes cable TV channels) be sold back to Hugh Hefner who will hopefully pump new life into the aging icon? Possibly. At this point the company is a sinking ship.

My advice to Hugh Hefner: Buy it back, bring back the thought-provoking articles that made Playboy "The New Yorker" of men's magazines, and make the website "free" and subsidized by advertising instead of the current rate of $7.95/month if you sign up for a year. As websites go Playboy.com has become incredibly underrated... you can read all the articles, movies reviews, celebrity interviews, etc for free... but there's no archive of old articles and they're competing with other internet companies on the basis of porn, but still trying to promote themselves as a general men's magazine with lots of articles.

My point is the website would be more popular and more profitable if it was completely free and supported by advertising instead (and frankly Hugh Hefner is rich enough already). If Hefner claims complete ownership the company will cease to be about the profits. He can go back to his roots, luring in men and hopefully getting them to read something that will provoke their brains.

I also think part of Playboy's problem is that the women shown within are so ridiculously unattainable that most men now dismiss the magazine because they know its unrealistic. The women in Playboy are so... sterile and perfect they're just not real any more. The Playboy ideal of beauty has become so unattainable that its become a turn off.

See Also
Playboy at Work

Common Lies at Work

SEX & RELATIONSHIPS - Ever been told a lie so often that you know its a lie?

Examples:

"My grandmother died."

"My dog ate my homework."

"My best friend broke up with her boyfriend so I have to console her."

When you (or someone else) uses one of the above lies so they can get out of something (ie. their homework) what they do is dilute the statement. After all, your grandmothers can only die twice... if you keep using that lie eventually people are going to catch you. Especially these days when people can check Facebook and find out pretty quickly if you were lying.

"Um, but you told me your grandmothers were both dead already..."

The "best friend who broke up with her boyfriend" lie is actually one that has been promoted by women's magazines (Cosmo, Teen, etc) as an excuse for women to get out of a date they've decided to cancel.

That particular lie has been promoted so much now that a lot of women are using it... and a lot of men are realizing they've just been lied to when they've heard it for the fourth or fifth time.

Other common lies:

"I have to wash my hair." or "I have to wash my car." (Possibly the lamest excuses ever.)

"I am really busy and don't have time to date right now." (So whats wrong with a raincheck?)

"I am seeing someone right now."

"I've decided to go back with my ex."

Etc. Pick up a women's magazine with headings like "Top Ten Ways to Cancel a Date" and you will find a whole list of lies that they're telling women to use. (Apparently they think men can't take the truth and that its better to just to lie to men.)

People who were actually sincere about wanting to see you again would be asking for a raincheck. So if you're the person cancelling but actually wanting to see them again, ask for a raincheck because it will show you are sincere.

If you're not then TELL THEM THE TRUTH. "I am just not that into you." or "I don't think you're my type." or "I didn't feel any physical/mental connection."

WE CAN TAKE THE TRUTH. Its far more upsetting to know we're being lied to.

Dick Riding Obama

ENTERTAINMENT - I can't help but be addicted to the following video from the Boondocks Season 3 - Episode 1: "It's a Black President, Huey Freeman". Its just too funny.



If you haven't seen Boondocks yet, what is wrong with you? Boondocks, Metalocalypse and other 'manly' shows on Adult Swim feature social satire and a healthy dose of bouncy bosoms and gratuitous violence.

Riley's No Homo Rant



Tom Drops the Soap



What is interesting about the show's display of homophobia is that its done with an open embrace of gay culture and some (egad, I hate this term but I have to use it) tongue-in-cheek humour.

Hey Baby and Rohan at Work

ENTERTAINMENT - "Hey Baby" is a violent video game in which women gamers play a woman walking home from work and is being hit on by men all the time... but in response to unsolicited catcalls and come-on-lines she runs around with machine gun killing people.

The problem with the game Hey Baby is that while it is commentary on the social situation many women face (and probably cathartic for some women who play it), I don't think the violence in the game and the killing of men actually interests most women.

True, the game is essentially a play on the violence in video games like Grand Theft Auto (wherein killing men, women and children is relatively common, as is looting their bodies afterwards) and contextually its an attempt by its video game designer to create a feminist statement... but its a rather poorly conceived statement and comes off as being "male-hating" and not very feminist.



To some extent the game is geared to attract media attention and controversy, but the game controls and response time is jerky at best. Its definitely a work in progress. (I admit trying to make a video game that appeals to feminists is a difficult task. This attempt is a bit crude and amateurish.)

In contrast "Rohan" is an entirely different game going in an opposite direction... its a bikini clad MMORPG where pretty young women go around killing monsters wearing only slightly more than Paris Hilton wears on a good day.



The similarity however is that both games have hot women killing things, but the difference is that men are more likely to be playing Rohan because apparently they'd rather watch computer-generated women than go out and meet the real thing.

Which might be good for real women, because it means less catcalls and pick-up-lines, but in reality I'd say its just another example of mass media distorting stereotypes of what women are vs. what men want them to be (which in this case appears to be scantily clad Playboy Bunnies).

Being Neighbourly at Work

CANADA - Being neighbourly isn't just something you do when you're at home. Hopefully you do it all the time, but this isn't true for everyone.

I'd argue being neighbourly is good for business relationships...

And not being neighbourly, ie. behaving like a prick or a c#nt, is likely to be very bad for business.

Piss off the locals and you're likely to get a brick thrown through your store front window.

And frankly I think that goes for whether you are male or female. Piss off the locals and they have every right to call you a prick or a c#nt.

Lets take for example the building management of 565 Sherbourne which has decided to chop off bicycles belonging to locals, because apparently they only want residents parking their bicycles in front of the local Shoppers Drug Mart. (Chopping off bikes and stealing them isn't very neighbourly.)

When asked about this policy by concerned cyclists the business manager (who deserves to be called a c#nt) decided to become antagonistic and she declared that she's going to remove the bike racks entirely (and violate a city by-law which requires them to have 60 bicycle parking spots near the Shoppers Drug Mart).

The lesson learned here is that people, even if they don't live there, should always be neighbourly. If there's a need for something (ie. more bicycle racks) it makes sense that they should just add more (especially when its required by the city by-law) to accomodate both residents and locals who happen to be visiting the Shoppers Drug Mart.

Getting into a feud with locals is just plain bad for business, regardless of your sex.

See Also
Neighbourly and Politeness in Toronto
Parking, Parking and Biycle Parking

Putting the Man back in Romance

ROMANCE - When was the last time time you bought your girlfriend or wife flowers? Or chocolates? Or jewelry?

Was it romantic? Or did it feel more like you're buying their affection?

Myself and many others would argue that "gifting" is the lowest form of romance. Unless you put actual thought into the gift, like a book or item that is truly MEANINGFUL, well then you're really just paying for the stereotypical gifts that men are expected to give women.

Now I am not suggesting you go out and buy Wilma a new bowling ball (like Fred Flintstone did in one episode, which was later pastiched by The Simpsons with a very similar plot). Or a set of golf clubs. Or some other supposedly masculine gift which could either backfire badly or be misconstrued as something else.

During the 1950s and 1960s washing machines, dryers and dishwashers were big gift items for husbands to give their wives. Part of it was the times, the explosion in family earnings and incomes so that they could afford such items (a TV set, a new '57 Chevy, a bomb shelter, etc) and another part of it may have been the need for greater efficiency... to say nothing of keeping up with the Jones family down the street.

Some people will argue both for and against the "grand gestures" method of romance. Hiring a string quartet and playing outside their apartment window, that sort of thing. Making a fool out of yourself may work for some women, but others believe its an act of desperation and... creepy. Thus grand gestures are considered risky and usually the result of a really big mistake.

According to romance surveys most men and women remember the little things. Holding hands, cuddling on the subway, falling asleep together on the couch while watching a movie, kissing in the rain, huddling under umbrellas... these things are more spontaneous and just happen naturally. The trick however is to recognize the opportunities when they arise to be romantic instead of just ignoring them... and at the same time remembering to not RUIN THE MOMENT.

Now what does this have to do with being manly...?

HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN

#1. Learn how to pull out a chair for a woman.

#2. Open doors for women, the elderly and children. Pretty much everyone.

#3. Learn how to help a woman into her coat.

#4. Practice good hygiene.

#5. Avoid swearing so much.

#6. Dress neatly, not slovenly. You can still wear your ripped jeans and your t-shirt that shows off your pecs, but try to wash them regularly. Leave the beer-hat at home. Avoid slouching or scratching your crotch.

#7. Be courteous and helpful, both to her and others. ie. Offer your seat to the pregnant woman on the subway or an elderly person.

#8. Avoid ogling other women. Its considered rude, both to the oglee and the woman you're with.

#9. Use restraint. If you must fart or belch try to do so discreetly and/or say excuse me. Avoid over drinking, smoking, shouting at people or behaving like a buffoon.

#10. Don't act like a braggart. Converse. Ask her opinion on items of interest. Try to avoid the history lesson, political lesson, etc. unless its something they actually show an interest in. DO NOT PREACH RELIGION. Avoid controversial topics until you know them better.

#11. Behave a bit like a bodyguard, but without being obvious about it. Remember the world is a more dangerous place for women and they're not all confident about walking home at night. Don't be pushy about it however.

#12. Stand up for her and support her rights. No need to get into fights, just voice your opinion that she must maintain her rights.

#13. Show your affection. Hand holding, hugs, kisses on cheeks, nose, forehead, hands, etc.

#14. Avoid talking down to her, treating her like an idiot. You may be older than her or have more education, but that is no excuse for behaving like a prick.

#15. Walk on the outside of the sidewalk (so she doesn't get splashed by cars/etc).

Portable Toilets at Work

TECHNOLOGY - When was the last time you used a portable toilet? If you're lucky, the answer is never.

It should be noted there has been a lot of advancement in portable toilets... True, the basic plastic "porta potties" still exist, but there has been significant improvement in both the cleanliness and the technology used by companies that do portable toilets rentals.

#1. Running Water, Hot and Cold.

#2. Electricity, a Fan, Air Conditioning & Lights.

#3. A toilet that actually flushes (as opposed to the kind where is loud plop and possibly a splash upwards).

#4. More roomy.

#5. A folding table for changing baby diapers.

#6. Trash receptacles.

If you're familiar with the old plastic El Cheapo portable toilets you will know such things are luxuries.

After all, lets say you're having an outdoor wedding with a giant wedding tent. You don't really want your guests (or the bride!) having to use an El Cheapo plastic portable toilet. The same idea goes with any other kind of big event where the number of available toilets becomes an issue.

Men (and I know this for a fact) are not so worried about toilets as women are. If necessary a man will piss in the bushes when he needs to 'drain the snake'. For women however this is hardly acceptable.

And anyone with a sense of decency would likely refrain from doing so as well, unless absolutely DESPERATE to release their bowels.

If you're over 50 or part of the Baby Boomer generation you might remember having to use a traditional "Out House"... you know, a tiny room made of wood outside of the main house, built above a large hole in the ground. Drafty in the winter to say the least.

In the 21st century indoor plumbing is something we now take for granted, but there was a time approx. 50 years ago when Out Houses were still pretty popular. (Both of my parents can attest to this, having both been raised on farms which had Out Houses during the 1950s and 1960s.)

These days we have a lot more options with indoor toilets too. Heated seats for example. Auto-Flushing. Low Flow Toilets (bad idea in my opinion). "Smart Toilets" that can measure your body-fat ratio or measures the amount of sugar in your urine. A lid that automatically lifts when it senses a person is near. Musical toilets with 6 different soundtracks, including the sound of rushing water, birds chirping or Japanese harp music.

Blame the Japanese. They won't be happy until they've invented a Robotic Toilet which can get up and walk.

Luxury toilets (marble, leather, other exotic materials) is big business. Especially in Asia where many people still use "squat toilets" (which having tried them, are just plain disgusting). The squat toilets are relics now as the booming Asian economy leaps forward...

How about a scented toilet which releases a soothing smell whenever it is sat upon? I'd buy that. I know other people who would buy it too.

So obviously there is a lot of room to grow in terms of the technology available.

Toronto recently unveiled its new public 'pay' toilets... self cleaning and contain a whole list of amenities. They cost a mere 25 cents to use and the city plans to eventually have 20 such high-tech public toilets spread around the city in places which need them.

For your 25 cents you get:

1. 20 minutes, which is counted down with 3 audible warnings and a blinking light.
2. Wheelchair accessible and climate control.
3. A shower (this varies depending on the model).
4. Hot and cold water.
5. A nice clean toilet.

When the person exits, the unit seals itself and begins a cleaning cycle. A security system calls the authorities if people fail to exit after their 20 minutes is up.

The units are regularly maintained and service people check them 3 times / day.

Seattle, which has similar public toilets ran into problems because the free-of-charge units were being used by prostitutes and drug addicts, causing them to pull the plug on the program.

That isn't expected to happen here in Toronto... although couples using it for impromptu booty calls is certainly a possibility.

Now here's a funny thing... What kind of person decides "Hey, I'm going to design luxury toilets for a living!"...?

Most people would prefer a nice clean deskjob, one with a computer right? In terms of website design and web development Toronto has hundreds (if not thousands) of people designing websites, doing SEO work, online advertising, building databases, etc.

But I can bet there's less than a dozen Torontonians in the business of designing toilets. Or any other kind of bathroom utility item, like sinks, showers or bathtubs. We can guess why so few people are attracted to the field of designing toilets. Its just not as fun or as exciting as designing cars, motorcycles or even something simpler like a website.

Because for all your hard work its a thing people will sit their posterior on and do a #1 or a #2. Or both. Maybe they've had a case of diarrhea and it will be something even worse.

I could talk about the issue of potty training children, but I think that is all we have time for today. I shall leave that for another day. Toodles!

Sarah Jessica Parker's Ugliness at Work

ENTERTAINMENT - What is ugly? What do we consider ugly? Is there a line that is crossed that becomes ugliness?

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but you could argue so is ugliness.

So what then is Sarah Jessica Parker, one of the four stars of Sex and the City?

Is she ugly or beautiful?

Some people argue that she is hot. Others say she is ugly. Some even go so far as to say Sarah Jessica Parker looks like a horse. (And there is definitely some similarities.)

Obviously she's not "drop dead gorgeous". Perhaps on the skinny side of average would be more accurate. The wart (or whatever that thing is) on her chin isn't helping either. She could easily play the Wicked Witch of the West with ease.

I must admit she seems to have a two-face problem... sometimes she looks good, other times pretty disgusting. Its a bit like the Seinfeld episode with the woman who keeps going back and forth between beautiful and ugly depending on the lighting conditions.



There's also the episode of The Office where they argue whether Hillary Swank is hot or not. Evidently Hillary Swank also suffers from two-facedness.

I think in this case its a matter of makeup. Sarah Jessica Parker has become very reliant on makeup to make her look presentable. Not necessarily beautiful, because her face is so long and angular that you'd really have to like that look in the first place to appreciate her face.

Or do you?

Many of us have no doubt seen the Dove commercial by now which demonstrates the combined effects of hair/makeup, lighting and photoshop:



So in the case of Sarah Jessica Parker it is clear that makeup is her friend, but it really can do only so much for her. If anything she would be better off putting on an extra 20 lbs so her cheeks don't look so gaunt.

She does have a rather long face so in that respect she is undoubtably horse like.

But what if you like horses? They're a handsome beast. Majestic... it just doesn't work on the face of a woman that well. The long face, the droopy nose, that gauntness of her cheeks, that wart on her chin.

She's also super skinny and short. See Stuck Up Little Bitches at Work. You'll pardon me if I prefer a woman who has more meat, muscle and a healthy dose of body fat.

But for fans of Sex and the City however perhaps it is because she's imperfect that some fans like her so much. Her character is spunky, thoughtful and well acted. Nobody can say Sarah Jessica Parker can't act. She's an excellent actress.

But she's not beautiful. She's average. Just like the majority of us. And while our perceptions of beauty are continually distorted in the 21st century (no thanks to photoshop, Hollywood and the beauty industry) she's also more real.

Its the same reason why the beauty industry no longer hires models for their commercials as much as they used to... the focus these days is on hiring funny actresses based on their popularity. Its a two-prong effect: #1. Actresses look realistic and they're easier to work with on a commercial set because they have acting experience. So even though they're acting its perceived as being more real because its not an airbrushed supermodel. #2. The product benefits from the actress's popularity.

Take "Angela" from the popular TV show The Office: She isn't particularly attractive. She's just a skinny blonde known more for her hair and sour disposition... and yet here she is in Clairol Nice 'n Easy commercials.



Then there's the heroin chic look... skinny and gaunt Carre Otis used to look or any number of other so-called supermodels which the fashion industry claims is beautiful, but in reality they're 10 lbs away from being a skeletal corpse.

Call me a traditionalist but I'd prefer the Marilyn Monroe or Pam Grier look.

Veggie Burgers at Work - Yuck!

HEALTH - I tried to eat a veggie burger yesterday but only managed to finish 75% of it... let me explain why.

I can't eat mushy foods. Foods like squash, scalloped potatoes, really runny mashed potatoes, anything with consistency of baby food... For whatever reason it provokes my gag reflex and makes me want to vomit.

I think it has something to do with bad memories of mushy foods and vomiting. Even vomit itself is mushy.

Thus my attempt yesterday, in order to please my vegetarian dinner partner, was nothing short of daring. Around the 72% mark my gag reflex was going nuts and the mushed up ingredients in the veggie burger patty was simply too much. I had to stop before I puked in front of 25 vegetarians, all presumably enjoying their restaurant meal.

I picked the Deluxe Veggie Burger off the menu because it was really the only thing that looked vaguely familiar.

I had tried to order a Caesar salad, but their version of Caesar salad came with a whole bunch of extra veggies on it that I didn't like. I tried speaking to the waitress about ordering a normal basic Caesar salad (you know, the kind with croutons on it) but she informed me they don't have croutons... WTF! How can you have a Caesar salad without croutons???

Nothing else on the menu looked edible to me. Even the Soup of the Day looked like a spicy mixture of veggies and vomit. (The soup was "Spicy Tomato w/Chipotle & Spinach".)

The name of the restaurant in question was Fresh. Presumably the ingredients were all fresh, but the menu left much to be desired. You can see their menu in PDF format and what it is essentially is a trial in vegetarian extravaganza, like they're trying really hard to impress you by tossing all sorts of weird combinations at you... so many vegetables mixed together that there is bound to be more the one vegetable in the mix the average person won't like.

Lets take that Spicy Tomato w/Chipotle & Spinach Soup of the Day for example... I hate spinach, I am disgusted by Chipotle and I can only tolerate tomato.

Even the protein shakes were enough to make my stomach queasy. The Swoosh Shake contains: peanut butter, dark cocoa, maple syrup, banana, soymilk, cinnamon + protein powder. Peanut butter in a milk shake? Mixed with banana and cinnamon? WTF.

Might as well be sticking ketchup on my ice cream because that is how disgusting it sounds. Or chocolate on my pizza. Or some other combo that just doesn't work.

I was raised in a farming community north of Kitchener. Almost everything is home grown or homemade or both. My parents regularly visit and bring me homemade jam, pies, potatoes they grew themselves, maple syrup from our neighbours' and even meat from the butcher shop several miles down the road. Nothing is grown in a "factory farm" and the community has a large and growing number of Mennonites (they breed like rabbits).

That said I am used to what I would call normal vegetables, fruits and grains. Corn, peas, beets, carrots, lettuce, peppers, oatmeal, apples, pears, etc.

The moment you start adding non-normal vegetables to the mix the combination of flavours mushed together is such that I do two things: 1. I worry if I can even swallow such a mushy combination. 2. The thought of the flavour combination boggles my brain.

ie. Avocado Smoothie: Avocado, banana, spinach, pure coconut water.

Spinach and banana and avocado? What stoned vegan pothead thought up that mixture? (That is not a joke, there have been a number of recent newspaper articles about chefs who smoke pot either at work or after work. "Everybody smokes dope after work," says Anthony Bourdain, an author and chef who made his name chronicling drugs in professional kitchens. "People you would never imagine.")

Seriously, I don't know how else to describe it. Vegan chefs must be high on something to be making such weird combinations. They've lost touch reality and their taste buds have gone so haywire that they're coming up with new ways to make normal people puke.

(Oh and by the way, I did a test on Yahoo! Answers. I am not the only one who gets nauseated by mushy foods. My mother for example can't chew gum because she doesn't like the texture. My uncle Duncan can't eat peanut butter because of the texture and the stickiness of it. Its apparently a quite normal gag reflex. I also posted the question to the TV show Dr Oz and am waiting for a response.)

Oh and there's one more thing I wanted to comment on... years ago vegetarians were pretty basic... but then along came vegans and they upped the ante by refusing milk, dairy or anything else made from animal. (And yet count the number of times their clothes contains wool, silk or leather.)

And then came the people who insist upon organic pesticide free food. (To be considered organic a farmer's field has to be pesticide free for 8 years and can't be downwind from any other farm which uses pesticides. Suffice to say it is very difficult for farmers to switch to becoming organic because they have to go through 8 years where their crop won't sell for as much, and farmers are already struggling to pay their bills.)

The problem with organic food however is that it relies more heavily on genetically modified plants. So now many veggie eaters insist that they won't buy food which is GMOD, but frankly good luck proving which is which.

The point I am getting at is this is a hugely slippery slope. First the vegetarianism, then veganism, then organic foods, then anti-GMOD. What is next? Food that is grown using green technology and no fossil fuels used to transport it?

I think that is coming. Seriously, the way the green movement is going I wouldn't be surprised if the super-vegans out there don't start insisting their food be hand planted and grown, no tractors or combines, it has to be grown in a local greenhouse using solar and wind power in a pest free environment.

And then once the food is grown it has to be transported by bicycle to the Uber-Vegan Store which runs on solar power. No dog sleds allowed because that would count as animal cruelty. No sailboats either because you might hurt some fish on the way.

Now I admit that sounds ridiculous, but I am willing to bet there are people out there who would start insisting on these things once they realized it was an option.

At some point practicality needs to kick in.

Ten years ago I met a girl in university who described herself as a practical vegetarian... she will eat meat, but only so it doesn't go to waste. She and other practical vegetarians believe it is more important that food is not wasted or thrown out. She doesn't worry whether her ice cream or salad dressing has some non-organic product in it. Her food doesn't have to be quote unquote organic and I presume she didn't worry whether it was genetically modified or not.

As an omnivore I am all about practicality and taste. I don't like wasting money on food that I won't enjoy. To me that is highly unethical to buy food, taste it and then throw it away because I didn't like it. Hence why I managed to eat 75% of the above mentioned veggie burger. I tried to stomach it as best as I could because it was $9. (It didn't even come with fries!!!)

In retrospect I should have gone down the street and paid $3.50 for a Polish sausage on a bun. And enjoyed every last bit of it, not letting a single bite go to waste.

I think I can safely say I will never become a vegetarian. Not just because I love meat and I am on a high protein diet to compliment my weightlifting regimen, but also because the vomit-inducing, holier-than-thou, impractical veggie eating lifestyle just isn't for me.

Its just too nauseating.